l»E5;*9S. 1.901 ,0 1910, Of = .^,0 * PEESENTED BY ^be 3ncorporateb (Touncil of Xaw IReporting for lEuglanb anb Males TO THEIR SUBSCEIBERS IN 1911. Cornell University Library The original of tinis book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924017989215 THE LAW REPORTS. DIGEST OF CASES, 1901-1910. I T-HE INCORPORATED COUNCIL OF LAW REPORTING ENGLAND AND WALES. M^mbtts of tilt CDmnuU. Chairman — Sib F, A. Bosanqubt, K.C. Vice-Chairman — Eobbrt F. Norton, Esq., K.C. EX-OFFIGIO MEMBERS. SiE EuFus D. Isaacs, M.P Attorney-General. Sir J. A. Simon, M.P Solicitor-General. H. J. Johnson, Esq., President of the Law Society. ELECTED MEMBERS. P. Ogden Lawrence, Esq., K.C. A. E. Ejrby, Esq. Sir F. a. Bosanqtjet, K.C. H. F. Dickens, Esq., K.C. J. M. Astbury, Esq., K.C. C. C. Scott, Esq., K.C. J. C. Lewis Coward, Esq., K.C. H. E. Duke, Esq., K.C, M.P. W. English Harrison, Esq., K.C, of the Middle Temple. Egbert F. Norton, Esq., K.C, of Lincoln's Inn. Lincoln's Inn. Inner Temple. 1 Middle Temple. [ Gray's Inn. Appointed by the Council of Law Eeporting on the nomination of the General Council of the Bar. '„S W. Mblmoth Walters, Esq. (Firm — '^ Messrs. Walters &Co.). J. W. BuDD, Esq. (Firm — Messrs. Budd, Johnson & Jecks). . The Law Society. Secretary — P. Noblb Fawcbtt, Esq., 10, Old Square, Lincoln's Inn, London, W.C This Digest, with the Consolidated Digest, 1865 — 1890, and the Decennial Digest, 1891 — 1900, fonns a complete Digest of the Law Reports from their com- mencement to the end of 1910. THE LAW REPORTS. Undek the Sdpbbintendence and Control op the 3l«corp»r«f«a OtounriX of ^nJtt R^jroriing for (f itjlBttit mis WaUa. TEN YEARS' DIGEST, 1901 TO 1910, OF ALL THE CASES EBPOETED EST THE LAW EEPOETS and in the WEEKLY NOTES EEOM THE COMMENCEMENT OF 1901, TO THE END OF 1910. TOGETHER WITH BBFBRBNGES TO THE MORE IMPORTANT STATUTES, EULES, AND OEDEES, AND PAELIAMENTAEY PAPEES AFFECTING THE PROFESSION PASSED OB ISSUED DURING- THE SAME PERIOD. COMPILED BY MEEYON WHITE-WINTON, M.A., OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD, AND OF THE INNER TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW. LONDON: ^xtrtttb iat tiji €anncti ai %aba Heporting, By BRADBUEY, AGNEW, & CO. Limited, of 10, BOUVEEIE STEEET, E.G., By the council at 10, OLD SQUAEB, LINCOLN'S INN, W.C. 1911. A ^ BBADEUBY, AGNEW, & CO. iD./PBIKi' LONDON AND TONBBIDeE. ( vii ) THE LAW EEPOKTS. DiaEST OF CASES, 1901-1910. CONTENTS. PAGE NAMES OF EDITORS AND EEPOETEES .... ix NAMES OF JUDGES, ATTOENETS - GENEEAL, AND \ SOLICITOES-GENEEAL j "" TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST xv TABLE OF CASES AFFIEMBD, EEVEESED, FOLLOWED, ] OYEEEDLED, OE JUDICIALLY COMMENTED ON OE [ cccxxiii SUPEESEDED BY STATUTE OE OEDEE, 1901—1910 . ) LIST OF STATUTES ENACTED DUEING THE YEARS 1901 ) , .. -1910 1 ^'"^^" TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY OONSIDEEED, 1901— i 1910 .1 '"^^^ TABLE OF EULES AND OEDEES OF COUET JUDICIALLY ) OONSIDEEED, 1901—1910 • 1 LIST OF ABBEEVIATIONS dlxxix DIGEST OF CASES EEPOETED IN THE LAW EEPOETS ^ Column 1 OE WEEKTjY notes, 1901—1910 -J °^^^ ( ii ) NAMES OF EDITOES AND REPOKTEES, 1891-1910. 1891—1894. EDlTOBS. CHANCEEY DIVISION . . . . G. AV. Hemming, Queen's Counsel. HOUSE OP LORDS, QUEEN'S BENCH ) . ^„„ ^ „ n •, ,r AND PEOBATE DIVISIONS . . 1 ^''™"'' ^- ^™^'^' ^arnster-at-Law. 1895-^1910. EDITOE. Et. Hon. Sir Febdeeick Pollock, Bart., Barrister-ai-Law. ASSISTANT EDITOR. Aethue p. Stone, Barrister-at-Lmv. ASSISTANT EDITOR OP "WEEKLY NOTES." Mbeyon White-Winton, Barrister-at-Law, REPORTERS. HOUSE OF LORDS.— ENGLISH AND \ IRISH APPEALS AND PEERAGE | J. M. Moorsom, King's Counsel. CASES HOUSE OF LORDS.— SCOTTISH AND \ DIVORCE APPEALS AND SCOTTISH Gerald J. Wheblbb, Bmrister-at-Laiv. PEERAGE CASES . . . . ) PRIVY COUNCIL APPEALS (including \ APPEALS FROM ECCLESIASTICAL | Hbebeet Cowell, Barrister-at-Law. COURTS) ; H. Cadman Jones, Martin Ware, Edmund Lumley, E. S. BoscoB, Alex. Mortimer, W. WoRSLBY Knox, , !,„„ ■„,„„„ „, t „.„ „ ., ,, ' Y Barristers-at-ha/w, T. Lambert Meaes, G. I. Foster Cooke, W. Lloyd Cabell, W. Cowell Davibs, H. B. Hemming, W. J. Brooks, COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF EDITORS AND EEPOETEES. CHANCEEY DIVISION <3UEEN'S AND KING'S BENCH DIVI- SION, CROWN CASES EESERVED, APPEALS FROM COUNTY COURTS IN BANKRUPTCY CASES, AND RAILWAY AND CANAL CO:\IJIIS- SION CASES BANKRUPTCY CASES . ■ Barristers-at-Laiv. PROBATE AND DIVORCE ADMIRALTY AND ECCLESIASTICAL CASES ' T. F. MoESB, 1 W. WoEsiiBY Knox, G. 1. PosTBB Cooke, W. Lloyd Cabell, George Mueeay, H. L. Feasee, D. PiTCAIEN, C. C. M. Dale, W. Oowell Davibs, A. C. Eddis, Feank Evans, G. A. Steeetbn, H. B. Hemming, G. E. Alston, H. C. EOPEE, J. R. Brooke, R. Morrison, W. IviMEY Cook, George Macan, ( John Rose, William Applbton, W. J. Beooks, P. B. HUTCHINS, H. D. Ware, J. P. Clerk, A. P. P. Keep, F. 0. Robinson, J. E. Aldous, W. H. Geiffith, [ W. P. Barey, H. L. Eraser, Barrister-at-Laiu. W. Lbycestee, ^ H. D. Waee, H. D. Geazebrook, E. S. EoscoB, T. Lambert Meaes, C. F. Jemmett, - Barristers-at-Law. Barristcrs-at-Law. Barristers-at-Law. ( ^i ) NAMES OF JUDGES, ATTOENEYS-GENEEAL AND SOLICITOES-GENEEAL, 1891—1910. The Eight Hon. The Earl op Salsbuuy The Eight Hon. Lord Heeschell The Right Hon. Lord Lorbburn, G.C.M.G. The Eight Hon. The Eight Hon. The Eight Hon. The Eight Hon. The Eight Hon. The Eight Hon. The Eight Hon. The Eight Hon. The Eight Hon. The Eight Hon. The Eight Hon. The Eight Hon. The Eight Hon. Lord Lord Lord Lord Lord Lord Lord Lord Lord Lord Lord Lord Lord Watson . Macnaghtbn, G.C.M.G. Morris . Hannen BOWEN . KitLOWEN eussell op Davey . eobertson LlNDLBY . Atkinson Collins . Shaw . EoBSON, G.C.M.G.. Lord ChoMcellors. - Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. The Eight Hon. The Lord Chancellor (President) The Eight Hon. The Lord Chief Justice op England The Eight Hon. The Master op the Eolls The Eight Hon. The President of the Probate DrvoECE, and Admiralty Division . . . Every person who has held the office of Lord Chancellor The Eight Hon. Lord Esher . . . • . The Eight Hon. Sib Nathaniel Lindlby The Eight Hon. Lord Alverstonb, G.C.M.G. . The Eight Hon. Sir Archibald Levin Smith The Eight Hon. Sir Eiohard Henn Collins The Eight Hon. Sir Herbert Hardy Cozbns-Hardy The Eight Hon. Sir Nathaniel Lindley . The Eight Hon. Sir Charles Synge Christopher Bowbn The Eight Hon. Sir Edward Fry ...... The Eight Hon. Sir Edward Ebbnezbr Kay The Eight Hon. Sir Archibald Lbvin Smith , The Eight Hon. Sir Horace Davey The Eight Hon. Sir John Eigby .... The Eight Hon. Sir Joseph William Chitty The Eight Hon. Sir Eiohard Henn Collins . The Eight Hon. Sir Eoland Vadghan Williams The Eight Hon. Sir Egbert Eomer, G.C.B. . The Eight Hon. Sir Jambs Stirling . The Eight Hon. Sir Jambs Charles Mathew The Eight Hon. Sir Herbert Hardy Cozbns-Hardy The Eight Hon. Sir John Fletcher Moulton- The Eight Hon. Sir George Faewell . The Eight Hon. Sir Henry Burton Buckley The Eight Hon. Sir William Eann Kennedy Ex-Officio Judges of the Coii/rt of Appeal. Masters of the Bolls. Lords Justices of the Court of Appeal. NAMES OF JUDGES. The Eight Hon. The Lord Chancellor (President) The Hon. Sm Edward Ebenezer Kay . The Hon. Sir Joseph William Chitty . The Hon. Sir Ford North .... The Hon. Sir James Stirling .... The Eight Hon. Sir Arthur Kbkewich The Hon. Sir Eobert Eomer .... The Hon. Sir Edmund Widdrington Byrne The Hon. Sir Herbert Hardy Cozbns-Hardy The Hon. Sir George Farwbll . The Hon. Sir Henry Burton Buckley . The Hon. Sir Matthew Ingle Joyce . The Hon. Sir Charles Swinfbn Eady . The Hon. Sir Thomas Eolls Warrington . The Hon. Sir Ealph Neville .... The Hon. Sir Egbert John Parker The Hon. Sir Harry Trelawney Eve The Hon. Sir Eoland Vaughan Williams . The Hon. Sir Egbert Samuel Wright . The Eight Hon. John Duke, Lord Coleridge, Chief Justice of England (President) The Eight Hon. Lord Edssell of Killowen, Chief Justice of England (President) . The Eight Hon. Lord Alvebstone, G.C.M.G., Chief Justice of England (President) The Hon. George Dbnman .... The Hon. Sir Charles Edward Pollock . The Hon. Sir .John Walter Huddleston The Hon. Sir Hbnry Hawkins The Hon. Sir James Eitzjambs Stephen The Hon. Sib Jambs Charles Mathbw The Hon. Sir Lewis William Cavh The Hon. Sir John Charles Day The Hon. Sir Archibald Levin Smith . The Hon. Sir Alfred Wills The Hon, Sir William Grantham . The Hon. Sir Arthur Charles . The Hon. Sir Eoland Vaughan Williams The Hon. Sir John Compton Lawrance The Hon. Sir Egbert Samuel Wright . The Hon. Sir Eichard Hbnn Collins . The Hon. Sir Gainsford Bruce The Hon. Sir William Eann Kennedy The Hon. Sib Edward Eidley The Hon. Sir John Charles Bigham . The Hon. Sir Charles John Darling The Hon. Sir Arthur Moseley Channbll . The Hon. Sir Walter George Frank Phillimore, The Hon. Sir Thomas Townsend Bucknill The Hon. Sir Joseph Walton The Hon. Sir Arthur Eichard Jelf The Hon. Sir Eeginaw) More Bray The Hon. Sir Alfred Tristram Lawrence The Hon. Sir Hbnry Sutton The Hon. Sir William Pickfoed The Eight Hon. Lord Coleridge . The Hon. Sir John Andrew Hamilton . The Hon. Sir Thomas Edward Scrutton . The Hon. Sir John Eldon Bankes . The Hon. Sir Horace Edmund Avory The Hon. Sir Tbomas Gardner Horridge The Hon. Sir Charles Montague Lush Judges of the Chancery Divi- sion of ike High Court of Justice. Attached to Chancery Division for Company Cases. Lord 1 Lord Lord Bart, Judges of the Queen's and King's Be^ich Division of the High Court of Justice. NAMES OF JUDGES. The Eight Hon. Sir Jambs Hannen (President) . . The Eight Hon. Sir Charles Parker Butt (President! The Bight Hon. Sir Francis Henry Jeunb fPresidentj The Eight Hon. Sir John Gorbll Barnes (President! The Eight Hon. Sir John Chaelbs Bioham (President) The Eight Hon. Sib Samuel Thomas Evans (President) The Hon. Sir Henry Bargrave Dbanb The Eight Hon. Lord Penzance Sir Arthur Charles . Sir Lewis Tonna Dibdin Sir Eichaed Eyeeard Webster Sir Charles Eussell Sir John Eigby Sir Egbert Threshie Eeid Sir Eobbet Bannatyne Finlay Sir John Lawson Walton Sir William Snowdon Eobson Sir Eufus Daniel Isaacs Sir Edward Clarke Sir John Eigby Sir Eobert Threshie Eeid . Sir Frank Lockwood Sir Egbert Bannatyne Finlay Sir Edward Henry Carson Sir William Snowdon Eobson Sir Samuel Thomas Evans Sir Eufus Daniel Isaacs Sir John Allsbbrook Simon . Judges of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice. Judges of the Court of Arches. \- Attorneys-General. - Solicitors-Oeneral. ( 2CV ) TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Columa of Digest. ■\ Director of Public Prose- A., In re. . A. r. A. .. A. B. and C. D. cutions Abbott : — Bristol United Breweries, Ld. v. j Abbott V. Holloway . . Abbott : — ^Wortbington Co. i". . . . . j "A. B. C./' Trade Mark. See In re Albert j Baker & Co.'s Application. In re Aerated ' Bread Oo.'s Application . . ) Abdool Oarrim Peermamode : — Ibrahim Esmael ■;;. " Aberdonian," Tbe Abrahams, In re. Abrahams v. Abrahams Abrahams, In re. Abrahams v. Bendon Abrahams : — Board of Trade (Solicitor of) Abrahams ; — Eex v.. . Abrahams : — Zimbler v. Abrahams & Co. i;. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre ) Abrahams (S.) & Sons, In re. . . . . . \ Abram Coal Co. v. Southern . . . . . . j Abram Lyle & Sons v. Owners of S " Schwan." The " Schwan " "Acanthus," The- .... Accident (General), Fire and Life Assurance ) Corporation v. Robertson or Hunter . .■ •! Accident Insurance Co. : — Mardorf v. 'il 3.S. I Accident (Lancashire and Yorkshire) Insur ance Co., In re Etherington and . . . . ) Accles, Ld., In re. Hodgson v. Accles, Ld. Accrington Corporation Steam Tramways Co., ) • Inre . . . . . . . . . . . . ] Acetylene Illuminating Co. v. United Alkali ) Co. . . . ; i Ackroyd & Best, Ld. : — tinman v. . . Aotien-Gesellschaft Apollinaris Brunnen Vormals. GeqrgKreuzberg's Application, Inre . . C. A. [1904] "W.N. 151 ; [1904] ) 2 Ch. 328 . . . . . . [1901] P. 284 H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 225, ) 274 I [1907] W. N. 239 ; [1908] 1 ) Ch.279 .. ..I [1904] W. N. 124 [1909] W. N. 238 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 588 [1908] 2 Ch. 86 '.] P. C. [1908] A. C. 526 [1910] P.- 225 , [1908] "W. N. 116 ; [1908] 2 ) Ch. 69 j [1910] W. N. 237 [1904] W. N. 159 ; [1904] 2 ) K B. 859 . . . . } C. A. [1903] 1 K B. 577 . . C. A. [1905] 1 K B. 46 [1902] "W. N. 37' ; [1902] 1 Ch. ) 695 j H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 124; ) [1903] A. C. 306 . . . . I H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 175;) [1909] A. ,C. 450 . . . . j [1901] W. N. 251 ; [1902] P. 17 H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 153 ; ) [1909]^A. C. 404 . . ..] [1903] W, N. 42 ; [1903] 1 j K. B. 584 j C. A. [1909] W. N. 35 ; [1909] ) IK. B. 691 ] [1902] W. N. 164 [1909] 2 Ch. 40 [1^02] W. N. 25; [1902] 1 Ch, 494 C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 613 [1907] W-.-N. 125 dh.. 1 1554 937 818 499 1463 1736 2692 1693 2505 38 1230 2519 1349 1865 440 1611 2450 2481 1246 1248 1248 446 580 1881 466 2684 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Actien-Gesellschaft fiir Motor und Motorf ahr- | zeugtau, vorm. Cudell & Co. : — Dunlop V Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. . . . . . . ' Acton District Council v. London TJnited ) Tramways . . . . . . . . . . ) Acwortli v. Stone. J« re Power. 7n ?-e Stone ! Adair v. Old Bushmills Distillery Co. "Adams, In re. Verrier v. Haskins . . Adams v. Crane. In re Crane . . . . ! Adams :— Keen v. Gardner, Lockett & Hin- j ton V. Doe. Buck v. Smith . . . . ) Adams : — Lowe v. . . . . . . . . '. Adams v. Marylebone Borough Council Adams v. Shaddock . . . . . . . . j Adams' Trustees' and Frost's Contract, In re j Adamson ; — Johnson i;. ira re Pieldwick .. j Addis V. Gramophone Co. Addison v. Pilcher. In re Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (Parliamentary Pxmd Trusts .. Addison v. Shepherd . . . . . . . . j Addressograph Ld., In re. ■ Backhouse v. ) Addressograph, Ld. . . . . , . . . j Adelaide Licensing Justices : — Keam v. \ Eieken v. Torke Peninsula Justices . . j Adelaide Licensing Justices : — McGrath v. . . Adie, In re. Ex parte Eushf orth Adjustable Cover and Boiler Block Co. : — ) Poulton V. . . . . . . . . . . j Adlam : — Staincliffe v. In re Paddon Admiral Pishing Co. v. Eobinson . . . . j Admiralty (Lords Commissioners of the) : — \ Home V. . . . . . . . . . . j Aerated Bread Co.'s Application, In re. In re \ Albert Baker & Co.'s Application . . . . j Aerators, Ld. v. ToUitt . . . . . . j Aflalo ti. Lawrence &Bullen, Ld. .. ..\J Africa (Bank of) Ld. v. Cohen African Association, Ld., and Allen, In re. . African Farms, Ld., In re African Gold Eeoovery Co. v. Hay . . Volume and Page. 0. A. [1902] W. N. 8 ; [1902] 1 E. B. 342 [1908] W. N. 216 K. B. 68 [1909] 1 [1901] 2 [1901] W. N. 158 Ch. 659 [1908] W. N. 24 [1906] W. N. 220 [1908] W. N. 18; [1908] 1 Ch. 379 [1906] 2 K B. 171 . . [1901] W. N. 178 ; [1901] 2 Oh. 59S [1906] 2 K. P. 767"; C. A. [1907] W. N. 187; [1907] 2 E. B. 822 C. A. [1905] W. N. 152 ; [1905] 2 E. B. 859 [1907] W. N. 103 ; [1907] I Ch. 695 0. A. [1908] W. N. 212 ; [1909] ) 1 Ch. 1 . . ■ . . . . ] H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 488 . . [1910] W. N. 210 ; [1910] 2 ) Oh. 547 j [1908] W. N. 102 ; [1908] 2 ) E. B. 118 j [1909] W. N. 260 P. C. [1908] A. C. 454 P. G. [1908] A. C. 487 [1901] W. N. 98 0. A. [1908] W. N. 167; [1908] 2 Ch. 430 [1909] W. N. 162 C. A. [1910] W. N. 49 ; [19101 ) 1 E. B. 540 ] 0. A. [1910] W. N. 242 [1908] 2 Ch. 86 [1902] W. N. 115 ; [1902] 2 Ch. ) 319 .. .. I [1901] W. N. 168 ; [1902] 1 \ Ch. 264 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 2; [1903] ICh. 318; H. L. V (E.)[1903]W.N. 191;[1904l( A. C. 17 .. .. . ) [1909] W. N. 50 ; 0. A. [1909] ) W. N. 136 ; [1909] 2 Ch. [ 129 .. . . j [1910] W. N. 18 ; [1910] i ) E. B. 396 . . [1906] W. N. 69 ; [1906] i ) Ch. 610 . . . . P. -0. [1904] A. C. 438 !) CJolumn of Digest 1994 2710 2990 470 2751 1284 2664 1394 1512 1613 2824 1203 1663 1974 906 434 138 135 236 1885 2381 1619 1595 2692 502 685 638 1660 605 2721 TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page, Column of Digest. ■I African Tug Oo. :— Towers v. Agincourt Steamship Oo. v. Eastern Exten- sion, Australasia and China Telegraph Oo. Ahmed, In re. Ex parte Official Eeceiver . . iVinslie : — Harman v. . . Ainsworth, In re. Ex, parte The Law Society Ainsworth v. Wilding . . Airdrie (Magistrates of) ■u. County Council of the Oounty of Lanark . . Airey v. Smith . . Aitchison : — ^Walton v. In re Slaughter . . Aitken, Spence & Co. v. Fernando . . Ajum Groolam Hossen & Co. v. Union Marine * Lisurance Co. Hajee Cassim Joosub v. ] Ajum Goolam Hossen & Oo. . . . ] Akrokerri (Atlantic) Mines, Ld. v. Economic i Bank . . . . . . . . . . . i Aktiebolaget B. A. F. Hjorth & Co.'s Trade j Mark " Primus," In re ... . . . . J Aktiebolaget Eobertsfors and La Societ6 ) Anonyme des Papeteries de L'Aa, Inre . . ] Alabama Portland Cement Co., In re Albert v. Ehrmann Brothers, Ld. In re \ Ehrmann Brothers, Ld. . . . . . . ) Albert v. Ehrmann Brothers, Ld. In re | Brhmann Brothers, Ld. . . . . . . ) Aldam's Settled Estate, In re. Aldam's ] Settlement, Inre . . . . . . . . J Aldersey, In re. Gibson v. Hall Alderson v. PaUiser . . . . . . . . { Aliiei, Ex parte - .. Aldrioh V. British Griffin Chilled L-on and ) Steel Co I Aldridge : — Scrivener v. In re Pizzi . . j Alex. Pirie & Sons, Ld. v. Kintore (Earl of) j Alexander, Iri re. Bathurst v. Greenwood . . j Alexander U.Anderson Alexander v. Burley. In re Burley . . j Alexander : — Pardy's Mozambique Syndicate ) Ld. V. . . . . . . . . . , . ] Alexander : — Eobbins v. In re Samson Alexander v. Steinhardt, Walker & Oo. -Thompson v. In re Thomp Jennings v ■\ Alexander . ^ , son's Settlement Trusts Alexander's Settlement Alexander Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Ey. Co. v. Tafi Vale Ey. Oo. . . Alfred Melson & Co., Inre j Algoma Qentral Ey- .Co. v, Eex . . .^ D.D. 0. A. [1904] W. N. 54 ; [1904] 1 1 Oi 558 . . . . . . ] 0. A. [1907] W. N. 110 [1907] 2 K. B. 305 . . [1901] W. N. 106 [1903] 2 KB. 241 ; 0. A. [1904] ) W. N. 67 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 698 j [1905] 2 K B. 103 . . [1905] W. N. 11 ; [1905] 1 Oh. ) 435 i H. L. (Sc.) [ig'l'o] W."n. 92; [1910] A. 0. 286 . . [1907] W. N. 96; [1907] 2 K. B. 273 .. .. [1907] W. N. 197 P. 0. [1903] A. 0. 200 n P. 0. [1901] A. C. 362 [1904] W. N. 125 ; [1904] 2 ] K. B. 465 ( [1910] W. N. 123; [1910] 2 Oh. 64 j [1910] 2 K. B. 727 . . [1909] W. N. 157 . . [1904] W. N. 48 [1906] W. N. 129 ; 0. A. [1906] ) W. N. 169 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 697 j [1901] W. N. 229 ; 0. A. [1902] ) W.N. 92; [1902] 2 Oh. 46.. j [1905] 2 Ch. 181 [1901] W. N. 138; [1901] 2 K. B 833 P. 0. [1902] A. 0. 81 . . 0. A. [1904] W. ^ N. 177 ; ) [1904] 2 K B. 850 . . . . j .[1906] W. N. 202; [1907]' 1 Ch. 67 H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W.N. 156; [1906] A. 0. 478 [1910]W. N. 36; 0. A. [1910] W.N. 94 .. .. H. L. (Sc.)[1910].W. N. 266 [1909] W. N. 253; [1910] 1 Ch. 215 . . [1902] W. N. 229: . Ch. 191 ... 0. A. [1906] W. [1906] 2 Oh. 584 [1903] 2 K. B. 208 [1904] W. N. 205 ; Ch. 229 [1910] 2 Ch. 225 [1903] 1 j N. 190"; I [1905] i I 0. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 356 . [1906] W. N. 91 ; [1906] Oh. 841 P. 0. [1903] A. 0. 478 466 2659 228 1388 2611 1728 2630 1491 24 344 2566 147 2692 97 591 442 443 2370 2027 763 1296 730 2642 1086 2978 2982 2956 947 26 110 2734 2414 2100 660 320 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case, ■f Volume and Pago. Alhambra Oo. : — Crosby v. Alhambra Palace Co. : — Phillips v. Alianza Oo. v. Bell Alianza Insurance Co. of Santander : — Mari- time Insurance Co. v. Ail having Interest : — Paignton (Vicar of) v. Allan, In re. Dow v. Cassaigne Allan : — Scottish Provident Institution v. . . Allan :— Scottish Widows' Fund and Life ) Assurance Co. v. . . . . . . . ■ ) Allan : — Standard Life Assurance Co, v. . . j Allan Line Steamship Co. :— S.S. " Albano" | V ) Allardes : — Mackenzie v. . . . . . . j Allcot :— Cole v. In re Friend's Settlement j Allen (African Association, Ld., and). In re. . Allen, In re. Hargreaves v. Taylor . . . . j Allen : — Mansell v. In re Du Bochet . . j Allen : — Sivewright v. .... Allen and DriscoU's Contract, In re . . Allen's Trusts, Inre . . Allhusen : — Taylor v. . . Alliance Insurance Co. : — Harrison v. AlKance Insurance Co. : — Eobinson Gold J Mining Co. v.. . . . . . . . . . j Allison, Johnson & Foster, Ld., In re. Ex\ parte Birkenshaw Allott :— Wells v Allsopp (Samuel) & Sons, Ld. , In re Allworthy and Walker v. Clayton . "Alma," The Alman v. Oppert Alms Com Charity, In re. Charity Commr V. Bode Alpha Co., In re. Ward v. Alpha Co. Alsop's Patent, In re . . Alston, In re. Alston v. Houston . . Alton Urban Council v. Spicer Altrincham Urban Council : — Bozson v. ■1 ■{ Columu of Digest. [1907] W. N. 8 ; [1907] 1 Oh. 295 [1901] ik. B.'59 [1904] 2 K. B. 666 ; 0. A. ) [1905] W. N. 3 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 184; H. X. (B.) } [1905] W. N. 168;^ [1906] A. C. 18 I [190Y] W. N. 190; [1907] 2\ K. B. 660 J [1905] P. Ill 0. A. [1903] W. N. 2; [1903]) 1 Oh. 276 ) (1901) a. of Sess. (So.) [1902] W.N. 182; H.L.(Sc.)[1903] W. N. 86; [1903] A. C. 129 a. of Sess. (Sc.) [1901] W. N. \ 185 j (1901) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1902] \ W. N. 176 I P. C. [1907] A. 0. 193 H. L. (Sc.) [1905] W. N. 67;) [1905] A. 0. 285 . . . . ) [1905] W. N. 159 ; [1906] 1 ) Oh. 47 ) [1910] W. N. 18 ; [1910] 1 ) K. B. 396 j [1905] W. N. 127 ; [1905] 2 ) Ch. 400 ) [1901] W. N. 119 ; [1901] 2 ) Ch. 441 . . . . ) [1906] W.N. 92 ; [1906] 2 KB. 81 [1904] W. N. 39 ; [1904] 1 Ch. ' 493 ; 0. A. [1904] W. N. 134 ; [1904] 2 Oh. 226 . . [1909] W. N 181 [1905] 1 Ch. 529 C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 184 . . [1901]2K.B.919; 0. A. [1902] , W. N. 140 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 489; H.L.(E.) [1904] W.N. 144 ; [1904] A. 0. 359 [1904] 2 K. B. 327 . . C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 842 . . 0. A. [1903] W. N. 132 [1907] 2 K. B. 685 [1903] P. 55 C. A. [1901] W. N. 135; [1901] ) 2 K. B. 576 ) [1901] 2 Oh. 750 [1902] W. N. 230; [1903] 1) Oh. 203 j 0. A. [1906] W. N. 4 ; [1900] 1 1 Ch. 85 I [1901] 2 Oh. 584 [1904] 1 K. B. 678 . . 0. A. [1903] W. N. 39 ; [1903] ) 1KB. 647 .] 1612 1858 2246 1280 999 2966 2243 2227 2243 322 2326 2419 1660 352 2930 2565 2951 1951 1259 1264 697 1716 506 1897 2527 897 375 435 1884 2411 2167 75 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Alward (J. & G.), Ld. :— Edgill v Altuninhim. (British) Co. : — Mephan-Fer- ) gueon Lock-Bar Pipe Co. v. . . . . ] Amalgamated Society of Dyers : — Buike v. Amalgamated Society of Eailway Servants, \ In re (ParUamentary Fund Trust). Addi- J son V. Pilcher . . . . . . . . j Amalgamated Society of Eailway Servants : — J Osborne v. . . . . . . . . . j Amalgamated Society of Eailway Servants : — \ Taff Vale Ey. Co. ■!; j Amalgamated Syndicates, Ld., In re Ambler, In re. Woodbead v. Ambler Ambler v. Gordon Amedroz v. Bowles. In re Bowles. . . American (Anglo-) Telegraph Co. : — Eeid- Newfoundland Co. t;. American Steel and Wire Co. v. Glover & Co Amherst (Lord) : — Fountaine v. In r Fountaine, In re Dowler . . Amsterdamsch Trustees Kantoor : — Duder Amyot V. Dwarris Anchor (Blue) Line, Ld. : — Skailes v. Andersen v. Marten Anderson, In re. Pegler v. Gillatt Anderson :— Alexander o. Anderson v. Berkley . . . . ■ Anderson : — Carr v. . . Anderson v. Collinson . . Anderson v. Francis . . Anderson (M'CuUoch's Trustees) : — MaccuL loch V... Anderson v. Midland Ey. Co. Anderson v. Eayner . . Anderson : — Trustees of Mary Clarke Home v. Anderson v. Wandsworth Borough Council. . Anderton : — Wright v.. . Andrew v. Bridgman . . Andrew v. Failsworth Industrial Society Ld ^:i [1902] 2 K. B. 239 . . H. L. (So.) [1910] W. N. 67 . . [1906] 2 K. B. 583 '. . [1910] W. N. 210 ; [1910] 2 ) Ch. 547 j [1908] W.N. 188; C. A. [1908] ) W. N. 251 ; [1909] 1 Ch. I 163; H.L.(E.) [1910] W.N. f 3; [1910] A. C.87 .. .. ) H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 157; j [1901] A. C. 426 . . . . j [1901] W. N. 105; [1901] 2 Ch. ) 181 j C. A. [1905] W.N. 63; [1905]) 1 Ch. 697 j [1905] 1 K B. 417 . . [1902] 2 Ch. 650 P. C. [1910] A. C. 560 [1902] W. N. 17 C. A. [1909] W. N. 153; [1909] 2 Ch. 382 . . [1902] W. N. 95 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 132 ] P. 0. [1904] A. C. 268 C. A. [1910] W. N. 267 [1907] W. N. 129; [1907] 2 K. B. 248; C. A. [1908] W. N. 7; [1908] 1 K. B. 601 ; H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 164; [1908] A. C. 334 [1905] 2 Ch. 70 H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. ) 266 I [1902] W. N. 81 ; [1902] 1 Ch. ) 936 ] [1902] W. N. 201 ; [1903] 1 Oh. 90 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 77 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 279 . . [1901] W. N. 87; [1901] 2) K. B. 107 j [1906] W. N. 160 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1903] W.N. 196; . [1904] A. C. 55 . . [1902] 1 Oh. 369 0. A. [1903] W. N. 52 ; [1903] ) 1 K. B. 689 j [1904] 2 K. B. 645 . . [1908] W. N. 118 ; [1908] 2 ) Ch. 81 j [1908] W. N. 258 ; [1909] 1 \ K. B. 209 j [1907] 2 K B. 494 ; 0. A. 1 [1908] W. N. 4 ; [1908] 1 \ K B. 596 ) 0. A. [1904] W. N. 86 ; [1904] ) 2 K. B. 32 j 2564 2319 2701 1974 2701 2704 698 1067 1463 1902 1813 1876 2742 1994 1297 1657 1279 1031 2982 2944 1074 1030 1456 2728 2136 2564 2229 282 1241 1355 1623 h-i sx TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Andrew v. Grove Andrew Knowles & Sons, Ld. : — Lysons v. Stuart v. Nixon & Bmoe . . Andrew Weir & Co. : — Ardan Steamship Co. r. Andrew Weir & Co. :— Moel Tryran Ship Go. V. . . ' . , . . ■ . . . . . . ) Andrew Weir & Co. :— Steamship Calcutta ) Co. r , j Andrew's Trust, Jn re. Carter v. Andrew. . { Andrews, //( re. Andrews v. Andrews , . j Andrews v. Andrews and Mears . . . . ■ 3s de 1 ■:1 Andrews r. Brown & Gregory, Ld. In re Brown & Gregory, Ld. Andrews : — Houghton v. Andrews :— Leng (Sir W. C.) & Co. v. Andrews : — Lord Elcho v. Andrews v. Mitchell . . Andrews v. Eamsay & Co. Andrews v. Waite Angel ;■. Merchants' Marine Insurance Co. . . "Angele" (S.S.) Master and Owners of:— Master and Owners of S.S. "Baku Standard " v. . . .inglesey (Marquis of), In re. Countess de Galve V. Gardner Anglesey (Marc[uis of), /;( re. Willmot Gardner Anglo-Algerian Steamship Co. />. Houlder Line, Ld . . , , j Anglo-American Oil Co. r. Manning Anglo-American Telegraph Co. : — Eeid- \ Newfoundland Co. v. Anglo-Argentine Tramways C'. v. Aplin V. Stone . . " Apollinaris " Trade Mark, In re ApoUinaris Co. v. Nord Deutsche Lisiu'ance Co Apperly : — ^Minister &,Go. v. . . Appleby, In re. Walker v. Lever. Walker V. Nisbet Appleton, French & Scratton, Ld., In re Appleyard o. New London and Suburban Omnibus Co. In re same Co. " Aras," The . . Arathoon v. Dawson. In re Dawson A Volume and Page. Arohambault v. Archambault Archer : — Edyvean v. In re Brooke Archer : — Hills v. Archer's Case. In re London and Northern Bank . . Architects (Society of) c. Kendrick . . Ardan Steamship Co. v. Andrew Weir & Co. Arding : — Poulger v. . . Argentine (Anglo-) Tramways Co. : — Att.- Gen. V. Argentine, El . . Argus Printing Co. : — Hathaway v. . . ■f Argus Printing Co. : — Stoddart v. " Aristocrat," The Arlidge v. Islington Corporation Armitage v. Att. -Gen. Gillig v. Gillig Armitage v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Ry. Co. Armitage v. Parsons . . Armitage : — Topham v. In re Tattersall . , Armstrong : — Bevir v. In re Illingworth . . Armstrong: — James Bay Ey. Co. ■y. Armstrong : — Merchants' Pire OfSce, Ld. v. Army and Navy Auxiliary Co-operative ) Supply, Ld. : — Westminster Corporation v. ] Avnij and Navy Co-operative Society, Ld. : — \ Clarke v. . . . . . . . . . . ) "Aine,"The Arnold : — Monk v Arnold & Butler v. Bottomley ^'^j [1907] W. N. 196; [1907] 2) Oh. 424 ) [1908] W. N. 153; [1908]) 2 Oh. 228 j [1910] W. N. 187 P. 0. [1902] A. 0. 422 0. A. [1901] 2 K B. 589 . . [1905] W. N. 78; [1905] 2) Oh. 188 ) 1904] W.N. 34 ; [1 904] 1 Ch. 543 1907] 2 Oh. 178 1903] W. N. 208 ; [1904] 1 \ K. B. 252 I [1902] 1 K. B. 643 . . 0. A. [1903] W. N. 45 ; [1903] ) 1 Oh. 565 I [1905] W. N. 87 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 749 .. [1908] 1 Oh. 621 [1907] P. 28 ■ [1906] W. N. 108 ; [1906] 2 ) Ch. 211 I P. 0. [1902] A. 0. 575 P. 0. [1903] A. C. 379 [1904] W. N. 113 [1901] W. N. 236; 0. A. [1901] \ W. N. 247 j [1910] W. N. 113 H. L. (Sc.)[1905] W.N. 134; ) [1905] A. 0. 501 . . . . ( [1901] 2KB. 151; 0. A. [1902] W. N. 55 ; [1902] 1 K B. 700 j [1909] W. N. 53 ; [1909] 1 ) K. B. 677 I [1909] P. 236 0. A. [1901] 1 K B. 96 Column of Digest. [1901 W. N. 125; [1901] K B. 470 0. A. [1908] P. 9 [1909] 2 K. B. 127 . . [1906] P. 135 0. A. [1902] W. N. 118 ; [1902] ) 2 K. B. 178 1 C. A. [1908] W. N. 127; [1908] | 2 K B. 410 ' [1906] W. N. 148; [1906] 2 Ch. 399 i [1909] W. N. 149 ; [1909] 2 Ch. ) 297 ) P. 0. [1909] A. C. 624 0. A. [1901] W. N. 163 [1902] 2 K. B. 125 . . 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 155 [1904] W. N. 41 ; [1904] P. 154 [1902] 1 K. B. 761 . . 0. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 151 2759 403 650 1793 251 2867 2894 2683 1269 707 2960 690 439 2493 2344 315 2658 1854 ■ 594 2698 2474 1371 2257 2628 I 1606, i 2528 1125 2506 1520 931 1652 1304 2757 1934 315 163 2152 2292 2449 760 872 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Arnot i<. United African Lands, Ld. Arthur : — I-Jenderson i: Artisans' Land and Mortgage Corporation, In Te . . Artley :— Willatts v. In re Willatts Ariimogam : — Ponammar. ii'.i'/ioj'/ePonamma Arumogan : — Ponnamma u. . . Asoherberg : — Stockdale v Ascherson v. Tredegar Dry Dock and Wharf ) Co j Ash V. Nicholl Ashborne Eecreation Ground Co. :— Att.- ) Q-en. !<• . . . . . . . . . . J Ashby & Son, Ld. : — Eeynolds /■ ) Ashby's Cobham Brewery C'o. In re The ) Crown, Cobham . . . . . . .1 Ashby's Staines Brewery Co. h, re The j Hand and Spear, Woking . . . . .1 Ashoroft V. Ash croft and Ptoberts . . , , S Ashforth, In re. Sibley c. Ashforth. . Ashley Gardens Properties, Ld. : — Young v. \ Ashmore, Ex parte, fn re Drnmmond . . j Ashton V. Emanuel Ashton /'. Lancashire and Yorkshire Ey. Co. Ashton : — Walter •■. . . . . . . . _ j "Ashton," The.. . Ashton, Eldridge & Co. -Nicicoll & Knight 1 Ashton Gas Co. : — Att.-Gen. v. . . . . ■ Ashton Vale Iron Co. v. Bristol Corporation \ Ashworth, Ex parte. In re Holmes . . Ashworth '/.'.English Card Clothing Co. (No. 1) I (No. 2) { Asiatic Petroleum Co. and the Taku Tug and ) Lighterage Co. : — China Navigation Co. c. ] Askliam : — Broad r. " Assaye," The . . Asser : — Landauer v. . . Assets Co. V. Mere Eoihi Assets Co. : — Watt v. Bain Assets Co. Volume and Page. C. A. [1901] W. N. 28 ; [1901] ) 1 Ch. ,518 ] C. A. [1906] W. N. 207; [1907] ) 1 K. B. 10 j [1904] 1 Ch. 796 [1905] W. N. IG ; [1905] 1 Ch. ) 378 ; C. A. [1905] 2 Ch. 135 j P. C. [1902] A. C. 561 P. C. [1905] A. C. 383 [1903] W. N. 84 ; [1903] 1 1 K. B. 873 ; C. A. [1904] ( W. N. 30 ; [1904] 1 K. B. f 447 J [1909] W. N. 168; [1909] 2 Ch. 401 ) [1905] 1 K. B. 139 . . [1902] W. N. 208 ; [1903] 1 Ch. ) 101 I C. A. [1902] W. N. 218 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 87 ; H. L. (E.)[1904] W. N. 166; [1904] A. C. 466 [1906] 2 K. B. 754 . . [1906) 2 K. B. 754 . . C.A. [1902] W.N. 192; [1902] P. 270 [1905] W.N. 52; [1905] 1 Ch. ; 535 .... C.A. [1903]W. N. 93;[1903i: 2 Ch. 112 . . [1909] W. N. 171 ; [1909] 2 ] K B. 622 . . [1902] W. N. 231 . . [1904] 2 IC B. 313 [1902] W.N. 66; [1902] 2 Ch. 282 . . [1905] P. 21 . . C.A. [1901]W. N. 97; [1901] 2 K B. 126 . C.A. [1904] W.N. 133; [1904 2Ch.621;H. L.(E.)[1905] W. N. 164 ; [1906] A. C. 10 C.A. [1901] W. N. S; [1901] 1 Ch. 591 . . ^ [1908] 2 K. B. 812 [1904] W. N. 49 ; [1904] 1 Ch 702 .. [1904] W.N. 49; [1904] 1 Ch. 704 .. .... P. C. [1910] A. C. 204 [1909] W. N. 236 [1905] P. 289 , [19051 2 K. B. 184 . P. C. [1905] A. C. 176 H. L. (So.) [1905] W. N. 98 ; [1905] A. 0. 317 .. Column of Digest. 486 1366 481 2935 .345 345 1381 2042 1849 2638 1089 1431 1431 1194 2962 1356 220 2014 212,3 1775 2481 663 2241 1401 175 722 722 379 1855 2503 1276 1807 585 TABLE OF CASKS IN THE DIGEST. ssili Name of Case. Volume and Page, Column of Digest. Assheton Smifcli v. Owen Assicurazioni General! de Trieste v. Empress Assurance Corporation, Ld. Associated Newspapers : — ^Lever Bro tiers v. j Associated Omnibus Co. : — Smith v... Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900), Ld. :— South Eastern Ey. Co. v. . . Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900), Ld. :— Tolhurst v. Tolhurst v. Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900), Ld., and Imperial Portland Cement Association (Industrial Insurance), Ld., In re Association (Otago Farmers' Co-operative) of New Zealand v. Thompson "Assunta,"The Assurance. See aho under Insurance. Assurance (Life and Health) Association, Ld., ) Inre . . . . . . . . . . . . i Assurance (Edinburgh Life) Co. v. Lord ) Advocate . . . . . . . . . . ) Assurance (Employers' Liability) Corpora- ) tion, Ld. : — Board of Trade v. . . . . | Assurance (General Accident, Fire and Life) ) Coiporation v. Robertson or Hunter . . j Assurance (Indemnity Mutual Marine Co. : — ) Eepublic of Bolivia v. . . . . . . | Assurance (Pearl Life) Co. v. Johnson. The same v. Greenhalgh . . Assurance (Phoenix) Co. : — King v. . . ... Assurance (Popular Life) Co., In re. . Assurance (Refuge) Co. v. Kettlewell Assurance (Eoyal Exchange) Corporation, l In re . . . . . . . . • • I Assurance (United Provident) Co., Ld., Inre . . Aston Tube Works, Ld. v. Dumbell . . " Astrakhan," The Astral Shipping Co., Ld. : — Owners of Cargo of Steamship " Tongariro "v. Asylum (Glamorgan County) v. Cardiff Guardians Atherley : — Eex u. . . . . . . ' . . Atherton : — Lee v. . . .... Atkin Brothers, Ex parte'. In re William Watson & Co. . . . . Atkins' Trusts, In re. Smith v. Atkins . . j Atkinson, In re. Barber's Company v. Grose- ) Smith ..] A 1 ; 0. A. ) ; H. L. I N. 149 ; ( C. A. [1906] W. N. 12 ; [190H] , 1 Ch. 179 ;H.L.(E.) [1907] W. N. 72 ; [1907] A. C.124 j [1907] 2 K. B. 814 . . C. A. [1907] W. N. 167 ; [1907] 2 KB. 626.. [1907] W. N. 74; [1907] 1 KB. 916.. C. A. [1909] W.N. 217; [1910] 1 Ch. 12 . . • . . [1901] 2 K B. 81 [1902] 2 K B. 660 (E.) [1903] W. N. [1903] A. C. 414 [1910] W. N. 245 [1910] 2 K B. 145 . . [1902] W. N. 97 ; [1902] P. 150 [1910] W. N. 45 ; [1910] 1 Ch. \ 458 j H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 257 ; ) [1910] A. C. 143 . . ■ . . j [1909] W. N. 263; [1910], 1\ K B. 401; C. A." [1910] ( W. N. 161 ; [1910] 2 K B. ( 649 , , . . ; H. L. (So.) [1909] W.N. 153;) [1909] A. C. 404 .."'.] 0. A. [1909] W. N. 34 ; [1909] 1 K B. 785 . . . .... . . j [1909] 2K B. 288 C. A. [1910] W. N. 186; [1910] 2K B. 666 .,' [1909] 1 Ch. 80 H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N: 64'; \ [1909] A. C. 243 .. ' ..j [1910] W.N. 211 .. ...-, [1910] W. N. 199; [1910] 2) Ch. 477 ] [1904] 1 K B. 535 . . [1910] P. 172 J H. L. (E.) [1910] W.N. 274.. [1910] W. N. 179 ; [1910] 2 K B. 547 ; C. A. [1010] W. N. 258 C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 251 . . P. C. [1904] A. C. 805 C. A. [1904] W. N. 163 ; [190^] \ 2 K. B. 753 .■ ( [1908] W. N. 228 ; [1909] 1 ) Ch. 471 . . ... I C. A. [1904] W. N. 163; [1904] \ 2Ch. 160 .. .-. ■-^ri■ 1147 1272 2960 1675 2099 654 606 1278 2544 1258 2233 226 1246 1272 1260 1594 1256 1264 1261 • 407 K 752 ,:2517 2483 ,1651 ' "827' 984 ,,. Ifl3u' 1196 2?45 ), TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Kame of Case. Atkinson, In re. Proctor v. Atkinson Atkinson v. Britton Atkinson v. Button . . Atkinson : — Castle Spinning Co. v. . . Atkinson : — Davies v. In re Davies Atkinson : — General Billposting Co. v. Atkinson v. Immh Atlantic Transport Co. : — -Eowson v. . . Attenborough & Son : — Oppenheimer v. Att.-G-en. and Spalding Eural District Council V. Grarner Att.-Gen. v. Anglo-Argentine Tramways Co. j Att.-Gen. v. Antrobus. . Att.-Gen. : — Armitage v. Gillig v. Gillig Att.-Gen. V. Ashbome Recreation Ground ) Co j Att.-Gen. V. Ashton Gas Co. Att.-Gen. V. Belgrave Hospital . . . . j Att.-Gen. v. Birmingham, Tame, and Eea ) District Drainage Board . . . . , . j Att.-Gen. u. Bournemouth Corporation . . { Att.-Gen. : — Braith-nraite v. . . Att.-Gen. -o. British Museum (Trustees of). . j Att.-Gen. V. Bruce Att.-Gen. V. Church Army. In re Church ) Army . . . . . . . . . . ,} Att.-Gen. v. Churchill's Veterinary Sana- j torium, Ld. , and James Churchill . . . . j Att.-Gen. u. Clark Att.-Gen. v. Cole & Son Att.-Gen. V. Copeland . . . . . . , . j Att.-Gen. v. Crewe (Earl of). In re Sandbach ) and Almshouse Foundation . . . . j Att.-Gen. v. De Winton Att.-Gen. V. Dyson Att.-Gen. v. Eastbourne Corporation Att.-Gen. v. Edalji Att.-Gen. : — Esam v. In re Wilkinson 1 Volume and Page. [1908] W. N. 18 ; 0. A. 1908] ) W.N. 12,9; [1908] 2 Ch. 307 j [1909' [1909; 1 k B. 336 W. N. 102 W. N. 74 1905] W. N. 14 [1905] ) [1909] W. N. 212 . . .'. C. A. [1908] W. N. 36 ; 1908] 1 Ch. 537 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 3 ; [1909] A. C. 118 C. A. [1903] 1 K B. 861 [1902] W. N. 220 ; [1903] 1 KB. 114; C.AJIOOS] W.N. 150 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 666 . . [1907] 1 K. B. 510 ; C. A. [1907] W. N. 237 ; [1908] 1 K B. 221 [1907] 2 K. B. 480 . . [1909] W. N. 53 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 677 [1905] W. N. 78; [1905] 2 Ch. 188 [1906] P. 135 [1902] W. N. 208; [1903] 1 Ch. 101 C. A. [1904] W. N. 133 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 621 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 164 ; [1906] A. C. 10 [1909] W. N. 211; [1910] 1 Ch. 73 [1908] 2 Ch. 551 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 235 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 48 [] 902] W. N. 126 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 142 ; [1902] 2Ch. 714 [1909] W. N. 48; [1909] 1 Ch. 510 [1903] W. N. 1 25 ; [1 903] 2 Ch. 598 . . 0. A. [1901] 1 K B. 391 [1905] W. N. 127 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 73 .. [1910] W. N. 195; [1910] 2 Ch. 401 "1909' '1901' 1901' 2 K B. 7 1 Ch. 205 2 K B. 101 C. A. [1902] 1 E. B. 690. [1901] 2 Ch. 317 [1906] W. N. 87 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 106 .. 0. A. [1910] W. N. 276 [1901] 2 K B. 773 ; C. A. [1901] W. N. 234; [1902] 1 K. B. 403; H. L. (E. [1904] W. N. 36; [19041 A. C. 166 . . [1907] W.N. 174 [1902] 1 Ch, 841 Column of Digsst, 36 1883 73 1629 1036 1662 1614 2446 1065 20 2257 2867 931 2638 2241 361 2631 2717 1118 840 2253 1339 2830 2205 1830 1155 1841 693 2010 2266 366 365 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST, Name of Case. Volume and Pago. Column of Digest. Att.-Gen. v. Ester Linoleum Oo. Att.-Gen. /'. Eyres Att.-Gen. v. Felixstowe Gas Light Co. Att.-Gen. :^-Eowler v. In re University of London Medical Sciences Institute Fund. . Att.-Gen. v. Erimley and Farnborough ) District Water Oo. . . . . . . . . ) Att.-Gen. v. Gamer Att.-Gen. v. Gibb ; Att.-Gen. v. Glossop . . . . . . - . I Att.-Gen. v. Grand Junction Canal Co. . . j Att.-Gen. : — Great Nortbern, Piccadilly, and ) Brompton " '" Att.-Gen. v. Att.-Gen. :- Att.-Gen. v. Att.-Gen. :- Att.-Gen. v. Ey. Co. V. Great Northern Ey. Co. -Hardy v. In re Mann. . Hawkins. -HaywMd v. In re Waring Holden . . ■^I Att-Gen. v. Jeflerys. In re Gluokman Att.-Gen. Att.-Gen. ■1 Jewish Colonization Association . Johnson . . Att.-Gen. v. Johnson Att.-Gen. : — Laurie ■ Patronage Trust In re Church ■•{ Att.-Gen. v. Leicester Corporation . . Att.-Gen. v. Lethbridge Att.-Gen. : — LiUey v. In re Pyne . . Att.-Gen. v. Liverpool Corporation . . Att.-Gen, v. Londesborough (Earl of) Att.-Gen.: — London and India Docks Co. v. Att.-Gen. :— London County Council v. Att.-Gen. v. Lucas. In re Manser [1901] W. N. 173; [1901] 2 Ch. 647 1909] 1 K. B. 723 . . 1907] 2 K. B. 984 . . ■1908.] W. N. 182 ; C. A. i;i909 ( W. N. 57 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 1 ( C. A. [1908] W. N. 87 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 727 .. .. .,. 1 1907] 2 K B. 480 . . 1909] 2 Oh. 265 1906] 1 K B. 284 ; C. A.[1906] ) W. N. 219; [1907] 1 K. B. 163 I [1909] W. N. 167 ; [1909] ) 2 Oh. 505 j H. L. (E.) [1909] A. 0. 1 .. 0. A. [1909] 1 Oh. 775 [1902] W. N. 231 ; [1903] 1 ) K. B. 232 ) [1901] 1 K. B. 285 . . [1906] W. N. 214; [1907] 1 Oh 166 [1903] 1 E. B. 832 . . [1907] W. N. 8 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 171 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 46 [1908] 1 Oh. 552 ; H. L. (E. [1908] W. N. 171 ; [1908 A.. 0.411 C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 123 .. [1907] 2 K. B. 885 . . [1902] 1 K. B. 416; C. A.) [1903] W. N. 66 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 6.17 . . . . . • . . ) [1903] W. N. 198; [1904] 1) Ch. 41 ; 0. A. [1904] W. N. 162 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 643 . . ) [1910] W. N. 169 ; [1910] 2 ) Oh. 359 . . . . I C. A. [1905] W. N. 98; [1905] ) 2 K B. 323 ; H. L. (E.) I [1906] W. N. 218; [1907] f A. C. 19 ) [1903] 1 Oh. 83 ' '.'. '.'. [1902] 1 K. B. 411 . . [1904] 1 K. B. 749; C. A. [1904] W. N. 188; 0. A. [1905] 1 K B. 98 . . H. L. (E.) [1909] A. 0. 7 . . H. L. (E,) [1901] A. 0. 26 . . 0. A. [1901] 1 Oh. 781;,H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 30; [1902] A. 0. 165 . . [1904] 2 K B. 635 ; C. A. ■) [1905] W. N. 103 ; [1905 2 K. B. 375 ; H. L. (E.) > [1907] W. N. 73 ; [1907] A. 0. 131 j [1904] W. N. 182 ; [1905] 1 ) Ch. 68 j 2863 2271 2259 368 2856 20, 1210 2637 2220 329 2259 2026 363 2216 373 2218 1055 2211 2272 2224 350 1017 2217 352 2263 2210 2257 2243 701 2238 351 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST, Name of Case. Att.-Gen. V. McLaughlin. In re Pardee . . Att.-Gen. v. Manclieater Corporation . . j Att.-Gen. 1). Mathieson :i Att.-Gen. i". Mersey Ey. Co. .. Att.-Gen. v. Metcalf and Greig Att.-Gen. v. Metropolitan Electric Supply Co, Att.-Gen. r. Midland Ey. Co. Att.-Gen. : — Mitoiiell c. In re Mirrlees' Charity Att. - Gen. r. Montagu (Lord) Att.-Gen. v. Murray •. . . . . . . . { Att.-Gen. V. National Hospital for the Eelief ) and Cure of the Paralyzed and Epileptic . . j Att.-Gen. : — New IMmdad Lake Asphalt ) Co. r j Att.-Gen. <-. North Eastern Ey. Co • Att.-Gen. V. Northumherland (Duke of) Att.-Gen. v. Nottingham Corporation Att.-Gen. r. Odell Att.-Gen. v. Oxford Canal Navigation Att.-Gen. : — Paddington Corporation v. Att.-Gen. : — Panes v. In re Bond . . Att.-Gen. V. Pontypridd Urban Council Att.-Gen. V. Pontypridd Waterworks Co. Att.-Gen. V. Eegent's Canal and Dock Co. Att.-Gen. 1'. Eichmond, Gordon and Lennox (Duke of) (No. 1) Volume and Page. [1906] W. N. 86; [19061 2 Ch. 184 [1906] W. N. 39; [1906] 1 Ch. 643 C. A. [190Y] 2 Ch. 383 . . [1906] W. N. 62 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 811 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 220; [1907] W. N. 5, 15; [1907] 1 Ch. 81 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 173 ; [1907] A. C. 415 [1907] W. N. 36; [1907] 2 Ch. 23 ; C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 327 [1904] W. N. 190; [1905] 1' Ch. 24 ; C. A. [1905] W. N. 61 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 757 C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 220; H.L. (E.)[1902] W. N. 40; [1902] A. C. 171 . . [1909] W. N. 227 ; [1910] 1 : Ch. 163 [1902] 1 K. B. 429 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 29 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 483; H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 110; [1904] A. C. 316 [1903] 2 K B. 64; C. A. , [1904] W. N. 6; [1904] 1 \ K. B. 165 ) [1904] W. N. 135 ; [1904] 2 \ Ch. 252 j P. C. [1904] A. C. 415 [1905] W. N. 183; [1906] 1 1 Ch. 310 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. \ 158; [1906] 2 Ch. 675 .. ) [1903] 2 K. B. 71 ; C. A. [1904] ) W. N. 77 ; [1904] 1 K. B. f 762; H. L. (E.) [1905] W.N. ( 118; [1905] A. C. 406 .. ) [1904] W. N. 55 ; [1904] 1 Ch. ) 673 I [1905] W. N. 81 ; C. A. [1906] i W. N. 84 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 47 ) [1902] W. N. 119 ; C. A. ) [1903] W. N. 39 . . . ) H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 156 ; ) [1906] A. C. 1 [1901] 1 Ch. 15 [1905] W. N. 146 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 441; C. A. [1906] W. N. 117; [1906] 2 Ch. 257 [1908] W.N. 11; [1908] ICh. 388 [1903] 2 K. B. 86; C. A. " [1904] W. N. 3; [1904] 1 K. B. 263 . [1907] 2 KB. 923 ;C. A. [1908] \ W.N. 165; [1908] 2 K. B. 729 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] W.tN. 1 185; [1909] A. C. 466 \.) Column of Digest, 350 1564 358 2123 1506 1014 2265 368 2220 2218 365 2726 2100 1831 1345 1157 283 838 1019 2854 2258 2206 TABLE OF CASES' IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Att.-Gren. V. Eioliinoiid, Gordon and Lennox (Duke of) (No. 2) Att.-Gen. : — Roberts >: lu re Johnson ■■\ A Att.-Gen. v. Robinson . . Att.-Gen. : — Sackville-West i\ (Lord Sack- ville and others cited) Att.-Gen. V. Sandover . . Att.-Gen. v. Selborne (Earl of) Att.-Gen, V. Scott Att.-Gen. v. Scott Att.-Gen. V. Shadwell . . Att.- Gen. : — Simpson v. Att.-Gen. v. Smith (George C), Ld. . . Att.-Gen. v. Staffordshire Coiinty Council . . Att.-Gen. u. Sutclifie . . Att.-Gen. -y. Till : Att.-Gen. 0. Wade ; . Att.-Gen. v. Walthamstow Urban Council. . Att.-Gen. V. West Gloucestershire Water Co. Att.-Gen. v. West Ham Corporation Att.-Gen. u. Wilson Att.-Gen. v. Wimbledon House Estate Co. , . Att.-Gen. : — Winans v. . . ' '. . Att.-Gen. v. Winans (No. 2) Att.-Gen. V. Yorkshire County Council | (West Biding of). Ex parte Grenside . . ( Att.-Gen. V. Yorkshire (Woollen District) j Electric Tramways, Ld. . . j Att.-Gen. and Birkenhead Corporation r. ) Mersey Ey. Co. . . . . . . . . j Att.-Gen. and the Board of Education, Ex 1 •parte. West Biding of Yorkshire County I Council V. Bex . . . . . . . . ' Att.-Gen. for British Columbia v. Ostrum . . Att.-Gen. for British Columbia v. Att.-Gen. ) for Canada . . . . . . . . . . | Att.-Gen. for British Columbia v. Canadian Pacific Ey. Co. . . . . . . . . Att.-Gen. for- British Columbia (Watts and) ) V. Watts _ . . ) Att.-Gen. for Canada : — Att.-Gen. for British | Columbia v. . : Att.-Gen. for Canada : — Att, -Gen, .for Mani- toba V. . . Volume aud Pago. [1907] 2 K. B. 940 . . [1903] W. N. 53 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 821 [1901] 2 Ji. E. 67—92; [1901] W, N. 192 [1909] W. N. 220 ; [1910] P. 143 °f:j [1904" C. A. C. A. C. A. [1909 1 K. B. 689 1902] 1 K. B. 388 1904] 1 K. B. 404 1905] 2 K. B. 160 W. N. 229 ; [1910] 1 ) Ch.''92 ) C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 671 ; H. L. ) (E.) [1904] W. N. 166 ; [1904] A. C. 476 . . ..) [1909] 2 Oh. 324 [1905] W. N. 5 ; [1905] 1 Ch. ) 336 j [1907] W. N. 191 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 997 j C. A. [1909] W. N. 47 ; [1909] \ 1 K. B. 694 ; H. L. (B.) ( W. N. 249; H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 60 . . .. J [1910] 1 K. B. 703 . . [1910] W. N. 35 ; 1 Ch. 347 . . [1909] W. N. 60 ; [1909] 1 Ch. ) 636 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 141 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 338 ..) [1910] 2 Ch. 660 C. A. [1901] W.N. 6.. [1904] W. N, 112; [1904] 2) Ch. 34 ] H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 287 . . C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 1022;! H. L. (E.)[1909] W. N. 249 ; [1910] A. C. 27 . . ..) H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 3 ; ] [1907] A. 0. 29 . . . . I [1907] W. N. 191 ; [1907] 2 , K. B. 991 J H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 173 ; ] [1907] A. C. 415 . . . . I [1906] W. N. 192; 0. A. ^ [1906] W. N. 182 ; [1906] 2 i K B. 676 ; [1907] A. C. I 29 P. 0. [1904] A.' b. 144 ' P. C. [1906] A. C. 552 P. C. [1906] A. C. 204 P. 0. [1908] A. C. 573 P. C. [1906] A. C. 562 P. C. [1904] A. 0. 799 Column of Digest. 2213 633 2205 1420 679 2270 1159 1160 374 2861 881 1486 56 2245 2273 239 2857 692 841 2634 965 2210 2310 2201 2123 2310 303 305 298 299 305 324 5CX71U TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Att.-G-en. for Canada r. Cain. The same v. Gilhula .... Atfc.-Gen. for Canada : — Grand Trunk Ey. Co. of Canada v. Att.-Gen. for Canada (Dominion of) : — Atfc.- Gen. for the Province of New Brunswick v. Att.-Gen. for Canada (Dominion of) :— Att.- Gen. for the Province of Prince Edward Island V. Att.-Gen. for Canada (Dominion of) and Cumberland Ey. and Coal Co. : — St. John Pilot CommiBsioners v. Att.-Gen. for Cape of Good Hope, Ex parte Eex V. Louw . . Att.-Gen. for Cape of Good Hope v. Smit Att.-Gen. for Cape of Good Hope v. Van Eeenan Att.-Gen. for Ireland v. Yandeleur . . Att.-Gen. for Manitoba v. Manitoba Licence Holders' Association Att.-Gen. for Manitoba v. Att.-Gen. for Canada Att.-Gen. for Natal : — De Jager v. Att.-Gen. for Natal :— Tilonko v. •) '! Att.-Gen. for Natal : — Tshingumuzi t\ Att.-Gen. for New Brunswick (Province of) V. Att.-Gen. for the Dominion of Canada . . Att.-Gen. for New South Wales v. Collector of Customs for New South Wales . . Att.-Gen. for New South Wales v. Curator of Intestate Estates . . Att.-Gen. for New South Wales v. Dickson Att.-Gen. for Ontario w. Att.-Gen. for Quebec Att.-Gen. for Ontario : — ^Att.-Gen. for ) Quebec v. . . . . . . . . . . j Att.-Gen. for Ontario v. Hamilton Street ) Ey. Co ) Att.-Gen. for Ontario : — Woodruff v. Att.-Gen. for Prince Edward Island (Pro- vince of) V. Att.-Gen. for the Dominion of Canada . . . . ■ . . . ■ . Att. - Gen. for Quebec : — Att. - Gen. for | Ontario v. . . . . . . . . . . j Att.-Gen. for Quebec v. Att.-Gen. for Ontario Att.-Gen. for Quebec :— Cabot v Att.-Gen. for Queensland v. Brisbane City ) Council . . . . . . . . . . j Att.-Gen. for Victoria : — Bullivant v. . . j Att.-Gen. for Victoria : — Colonial Sugar ) Eefining Co. v. . . . . . . . . I Att.-Gen. for Victoria v. Melbourne Corpora- I tion . . . . . . . . . . . . j Attree, In re. Ex parte Ward Attwood V. Attwood . . Attwood : — Midland Counties District Bank, JA. u Audley :— Eex v ik,| Volume and Page. P. C. [1906] A. C. 542 P. 0. [1907] A. C. 6.3 . . P. C. [1905] A. C. 37 . . P. C. [1905] A. C. 37 . . P. C. [1910] A. C. 308 P. C. [1904] A. C. 412 P. C. [1904] A. C. 114 P. C. [1904] A. C. 114 H. L. (Ir.) [1907] W. N. 178 / [1907] A. 0. 369 . . P. C. [1902] A. C. 73.. P. C. [1904] A. C. 799 P. C. [1907] A. C. 326 P. C." [1907] A. C. 93 . . P. C. [1907] A. C. 461 P. C. [1908] A. C. 24S P. C. [1900] A. C. 37.. P. C. [1909] A. C. 345 P. C. [1907] A. C. 519 P. C. [1904] A. C. 273 P. C. [1903] A. C. 39 . . P. C. [1910] A. C. 627 P. C. [1903] A. C. 524 P. 0. [1908] A. C. 608 P. 0. [1905] A. C. 37.. P. C. [1903] A. C. 39.. P. C. [1910] A. C. 627 P. C. [1907] A. C. 511 .; P. C. [1909] A. C. 582 H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 96 ; [1901] A. 0. 196 . . P. C. [1901] A. C. 545 P. C. [1907] A. C. 469 1907] 2 K. B. 868 . 1903] P. 7 . . 1905] W. N. 6 ; [1905] 1 Ch. \ 3'57 .... I C. C. E. [1907] W. N. 9 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 383 . . . . j Column of Digest. 290 318 300 300 323 3.33 333 .333 1100 309 324 1777 1777 1777 1778 300 138 1793 1791 291 291 324 320 300 291 291 302 2092 897 2831 2S31 205 958 554 818 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Audsley :— Dick v. Dick v. Copland Auerbacli : — Crozier, Stephens & Co ■ " August Korffi," The . . "Augusta," The " Auguste Lezembre," The . . Austin V. Newham -I Co. '■. Straok < Austin Friars Steam Shippinj Austral Freezing Works, Ld. : — Municipal ) Council of Sydjiey v. . . . . . . j Australasia (Colonial Bank of), Ld. .•. Mar- i shall j Australasia, Ld. (Trust and Agency Co. of), ) In re. . . . . , . . . . . . j Australian Estates and Mortgage Co., In re j AustraUan Gold Recovery Co. v. Lake View ) Consols , . , . . . . . j Austrian Lloyd Steamship Co. v. Gresham ) Life ^Issurance Society, Ld. . . . . j Automatic Machines (Haydon & Urry's) Patents, Ld., In re. Graafe r. Automatic Machines (Haydon & Urry's Patents), Ld. Automatic Picture Gallery, Ld. : — Woolfe v. Automatic Self-Cleansing Filter Syndicate Co. V. Cuniijghame . . Avalon (Lady Hood" of) v. Mackinnon Awdry v. Cayley. In re Cayley . . . . | Aykroyd : — Stead v. . . Aylesbury Daiiy Co. : — Frost v Aylesford Licensing Justices : — Morgan i'. . . Aylett : — East Ham Urban District Council v. Aylward v. Matthews Aylwin v. Aylwin Ayres v. Ayres . . Ayyes v. Buckeridge. Wheale v. Ehymney ) Iron Co. Jones v. Ehymney Iron Co. . . j Aytoun, In re . . Aytoun, In re.- E.r, parte The Official Solicitor Azam Sakarlal Chhotamlal : — ■ Hemchand ) Devohand «... . . . . . . . . j B. B. v. B. Back : — Cairney v. Back V. Dick, Kerr & Co. I Backhouse v. Addressograph, Ld. In re ] Addressograph, Ld. . . . . . . . . J Volume and Fage. H. L. (So.) [1908] W. N. 136; \ [1908] A. C. 347 . . :.] 0. A. [1908] W. N. 68; [1908" ' 2 K. B. 161 . . 1903] P. 166 . . 1909] W. N. 239 1902] P. 123 . . 1906] 2 K. B. 167 . . 1905] 2 K. B. 315; C. A [1906] W. N. 158 ; [1906' 2 K. B. 499 . . P. C. [1905] A. C. 161 P. C. [1906] A. C. 552 [1908] W. N. 229 [1910]W. N. 44; [1910] ICh 414 P. C. [1901] A. C. 142 C. A. [1903] W. N. 7 ; [1903 1 K. B. 249 [1902], W. N. 236 [1902] W. N. 137 ; C. A. 1902 W. N. 222 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 18 [1906] W. N. 46 ; C. A. [190 W.N. 65; [1906] 2 Ch. 34 [1909] W. N. 38; [1909] Ch. 476 [1904] W. N. 182; [1904] Ch;781 .. ■ .-. Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 227 ■C. A. [1905] IK. B. 608 [1906] 1 K. B. 437 . . [1905] 2 K. B. 22 0. A. [1905] i K. 13. 343 [1902] P. 203 . . [1901] W. N. 204 0. A. [1901] W. N. 222 [1902] 1 K. B. 57 . . [1901] W. N. 165 [1904] W. N. 56 •P. C. [1906] A. C. 212 [1901] P. 39 [1906] 2 K. B. 746 . . C. A. [1905] W. N. 80 ; [1905] ^ 2 K. B. 148 ; H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 105 ; [1906] A. -0. 325 • . . ■ • . . Swinfen Bady J. [1909] W. N. 260 Column of Digest. 377 1997 2559 2552 2558 1349 83,2563 1801 135 488 544 1891 99 434 459 1883 1946 2989 241 2292 1441 2636 1589 2057 121 1613 1546 , 232 1217 939 427 1614 434 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Bacon, In re. Toovey v. Turner •• I Badar Bee v. Habib Merioan Noordin Baddeley : — Gray v. In re Selina Seabrook Badger :— Corbett v Badger, /n re. Mansell v. Viscount Cobbam Badham : — Cooper-Dean r. . . Badiscbe Anilin und Soda Pabrik i'. Hickson \ ■ V. Isler Baerselman : — Kemp v. Bagel V. Miller . . Bagg V. Colquboun Bagley, In re . . Bagley & Wrigbt and Wbittaker & Sons : — Wrigley v. Bagnall v. Levinstein, Ld. Bagot V. Cbapman Bagot Pneumatic Tyre Co. t'. Clipper Pneu- matic Tyre Co. Bagsbaw : — Bi-ooks t. . . Bailey, In re. Bailey v. Bailey Bailey v. Barsby Bailey : — Cbeebire v. . . Bailey v. G. H. Ken worthy, Ld. Bailey v. Lowman Bailey v. Plant . . Bailey v. Thurston & Co Bailey & Co. v. Clark, Son & Morland BaiUeau v. Victorian Society of Notaries (Melbourne Notaries) Baillie : — Saunders Davies v. . . Baillie Hamilton : — Brisco c. . . Baily v. British Equitable Assurance Co. Bain v. Assets Co. Watt v. Assets Co. " Bainbridge '' (Owners of S.S.) :— Devitt i Bainbridge v. Postmaster-General Baines v. Chadwick. In re Fearnsides Baines ; — Eex v. Baines : — Wandsworth Corporation v. Volume and Page. 1) [1907] W. N. 44; [1907] Ch. 475 ) P. C. [1909] A. 0. 615 1910] W. N. 244 1901] 2 K. B. 278 . . 1905] W. N. 37 ; [1905] 1 ) Ch. 568 j [1908] W. N. 100 C. A. [1905] W. N. 135; [1905] \ 2 Ch. 495 ; H. L. (E.) [1906] \ W. N. 134 ; [1906] A. C. ( 419 J [1906] W. N. 45; [1906] 1 ~) Ch. 605 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 163; [1906] 2 Ch. 443 .. ) C. A. [1906] W. N. [1906] 2 K. B. 604 [1903] 2 K. B. 212 . . [1904] 1 K. B. 554 . . C. A. [1910] W. N. 224 C. A. [1901] W.N. 64; [1901] 1 K. B. 780; H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 84; [1902] A. C. 299 C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 531 [1907] W. N. 138 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 222 [1901] 1 Ch. 196 ; 0. A. [1901] W. N. 241 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 146 152 ■ ) [1905] [1908] ^^1 [1904] 2 K. B [1909] W. N. 110 [1909] 2 K. B. 610 C. A. [1905] W. N. 2 1 K. B. 237 . . C. A. [1908] W. N. 5 1 K. B. 441 . . [1910] 2 K. B. 39 C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 31 [1902] 2 K. B. 397; C. A. [1902] W. N. 213 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 137 . . C. A. [1902] W. N. 47 ; [1902] I Ch. 649 [1904] P. 180 0. A. [1907] W. N. 237 [1902] P. 234 . . C. A. [1904] W. N. 30 ; [1904] ^ 1 Ch. 374; H.L. (E.)[19061 W.N. 2; [1906]A. C. 35,. H. L. (So.) [1905] W. N. 98 ; ) [1905] A. 0. 317 . . C. A. ,[1909] 2 K B. 802 C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 178 [1902] W. N. 226 ; [1903] i ) Ch. 250 . . . . [1908] W. N. 238; [1909] 1 K. B. 258 . [1906] W. N. K. B. 470 -'i 22 ; [1906] 1 j Column of Digest. 2955 2629 1943 1505 1479 2002 1880 1879 655 1858 1317 158 1615 1660 867 417 46 717 2843 262 1580 1588 1617 1684 232 1819 84 2069 495 585 1624 2659 2991 812 1528 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. •I Bake v. Frencli Bake v. Frencli (Ko. 2) Baker, In re. Baker !'. Baker Baker, In re. Ex parte Lupton Baker: — Forster v. Bowles v. Baker, and In re Forster and Baker Baker v. Baker and Dwyer Baker : — ^Brooks v. Baker v. Courage & Co. Baker v. Faber . . Baker v. Jewell . . Bake,r : — ^Lewis v. Baker : — ^Lewis v. Baker : — McNair v. Baker : — Nereaka Tamaki v. . . Baker v. Snell . . Baker : — Soutt of England Dailies, Ld. v. Baker : — Symons v. Baker v. Wicks Baker : — ^Williams v. . . Baker, and Jn re Forster and Baker : Bowles V. Baker and Selmon's Contract, In re Baker (Albert) & Co.'s Application, In re. Aerated Bread Co.'s Application . . Baker, Lees & Co., In the matter of Baker, Sutton & Co., Ex parte. In Burnand Baker's Settlement Trusts, In re. Hunt v. Baker . . " Baku Standard " (S.S.), Master and Owner of V. Master and Owner of S.S. " Angele " Balaghit Gold Mining Co., In re Balby-with-Hexthorpe Urban District Council : — Millard v. Balcombe v. Balcombe . . Baldwin, In the Goods of Baldwin v. Peecott. In re Jacobs Balfour V. Grace. In re Grace Balfour v. Wylie Ball V. Ellis. In re Green BaU, In the Goods of .. Balls, In re. Trewby v. Balls [1907] W. N. 39, 63 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 428 [1907] W. N. 144 ; [1907] 2 Oh. 215 [1903] W. N. 210; [1904] 1 Ch. 167 0. A. [1901] W. N. 150 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 628 [1910] W. N. 24 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 110, 119; [1910] 2 K. B. 636 [1908] P. 257 [1905] W. N. 161 ; [1906] 1 K B. 11 [1910] 1 K. B. 56 0. A. [1908] W. N. 9 C. A. [1910] W. N. 180 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 673 [1904] W. N. 190; [1905] 1 Ch.46; 0. A. [1906] W. N. 151; [1906] 2 K. B. 599 [1905 [1904 P. 0. [1908 K. 2K. B. 576 1 K. B. 208 . . 1901] A. C. 561 ■ W. N. 122 ; [1908] 2 'B. 352; C. A. [1908] [1908] 2 K. B W. N. 187 825 .. 1906] 2 Oh. 631 1905] 2 K B. 723 . . 1904] W. N. 74; [1904] K. B. 743 . . [1910] W. N. 280 [1910] W. N. 24; 0. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 636 [1907] W. N. 22; [1907] Ch. 238 [1908] 2 Oh. 86 0. A. [1902] W. N. 229 [1903] 1 K. B. 189 C. A. [1904] W. N. 77 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 68 [1908] W. N. 161 P. 0. [1901] A. 0. 549 0. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 665 C. A. [1904] W. N. 180 [1905] 1 K. B. 60 . . 1908 1903 1908 1902' Ch. 733 P. 176 P. 61 . . 2 Ch. 691 W. N. 34; [1902] 2 1904' 1904' 1902" 1909' 791 W. N. 72 W. N. 78, 105 . . W. N. 226, 228 W. N. 86 ; 1909] 1 Oh. 1737 2581 2921 175 112, 1045 932 1851 1472 82 1633 1379 1379 1827 1809 964 1354 2523 2142 1568 112, 1045 2788 2692 2595 164 636 2554 549 2642 946 2053 •713 2041 1963 29 1346 2897 xxxii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Ballard :—Millett i; Balm, Hill & Oo. :— Clark v Balmain New Perry Co. :— Eobinson v. Balmoral Steamship Co. v. Marten . . Bamfield o. Goole and Sheffield Transport Oo. " Banana " (Owners of S.S.) v. McDonald . . Banbury Union : — Great Central Ey. Co. v. Banister v. Thompson . . Bank. See under the well-known name of each Bank. Bank (Chartered) of India, Australia, and China v. British India Steam Navigation Co . . Bank (National) of India, Ld. :— Kepitigalia Eubber Estates, Ld. v. Bank of Africa, Ld. v. Cohen . . Bank of England : — Bynoe v. Bank of England i'. Cutler Bank of England : — Moi'ton <:. Bank of England (National and Pro- vincial) : — Perry v. . . Bank of England :— Oldham Corporation i: Bank of England : — Oliver i'. Starkey, Leveson & Cooke, Third Parties. Bank of England : — Starkey v. Bank of Hamilton : — Imperial Bank of Canada v. Bank of New South Wales y.Goulburn Valley Butter Co. Proprietary Bank of Scotland : — Logan v. . . Bank of Scotland (No. 2) : — Logan (•. Bank of Syria, In re. Owen and Ashworth's Claim. Wentworth's Claim Bank of Toronto v. St. Lawrence Fire Insur- ance Co. Bank (National Provincial) of England: — Peri^ V. Bank (Premier Industrial), Ld. v. Carlton Manufacturing Co. and Crabtree, Ld. Bank (Provincial Union) :— Gadd v. Bank (World Industrial), Ld., Jn- re 156 ; H.L. 156; [C. A. [1904] W. N, [1904] 2 K. B. 593 . . [1908] 1 K. B. 667 . . P. C. [1910] A. C. 295 C. A. [1901] 2 KB. 896: (E.) [1902] W. N. [1902] A. 0. 511 .. C. A. [1910] W. N. 136 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 94 ) [C. A. 1908] W. N. 192, 195, ) 219 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 926 . . j [1906] 1 K. B. 597 ; C. A. •. [1907] W. N. 35 ; [1907] 1 ( K. B. 717 ; H. L. (E.) [1908] ( W.N. 250; [1909] A. C. 78 7 [1908] W.N. 189; [1908] P. 362 P. C. [1909] A. C. 369 [1909] 2 K. B. 1010 . . [1909] W. N. 50 ; C. A. [1909] ) W. N. 136 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 129 ) C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 467 [1907] W. N. 80; [1907] 1 K. B. 889; C. A. [1908] W.N. 98; [1908] 2 KB. 208 [1904] W. N. 49; [1904] 1 Ch. 664 . . . [1909] W. N. 261 ; C. A. [1910] W.N. 20; [1910] 1 Ch. 464 C. A. [1904] W. N. 173 [1904] 2 Ch. 716 . . [1901] W.N. 45; [1901] 1 Ch, 662; C. A. [1902] W. N, 41 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 610 ; H. L. (E.) [1903] W.N. 52; [1903] A. C. 114 . . P. C. [1903] A. C. 49.. P. C. [1902] A. C. 543 C. A. [1904] W. N. 139 ; [1904] \ K. B. 495 . . C. A. [1906] 1 K B. 141 . C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 115 P. C. [1903] A. C. 59 0. A. [1910] W. N. 20 [1909] 1 K. B. 106 . . 0. A. [1909] W. N. 126 [190912KB. 353; H.L.(B., [1910] W. N. 1^7; [1910] A, C. 422 [1909] W. N. 148 748 418 136 1266 341 1616 2153 1002 2629 144 638 808 1219 1925 2044 2312 2031 293 2830 2000 2006 462 299 2044 481 1716 606 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. zzzlii Name of Case. Volume and Page. Golunm of Digest. -Laing (Sir James) ) Bankes, In re. Eeynolds v. Ellis Bankea v. Jarvis Bankruptcy Notice, In re a. . . Banks, In re. Banks v. Busbridge Banks : — Power v. Bannatyne v. Maclver (D. & 0.) Bannister & Co. : — Oarrington v. Bannister (Claimant). Murgatroyd v. Wright Bannister : — Finch v. . . Barber's Co. v. Grose-Smith. In re Atkinson | Barclay : — Sheffield Corporation v Barclay & Co. v. Earle's Shipbuilding and ) Engineering Co. In re Earle's Shipbuild- ing and Engineering Co ) Barclay & Co. v. Poole Barclay, Curie & Co. : & Sons, Ld. V. Barclay, Curie & Co. : — M'Cue v. . . Barclay, Cuile & Co. : — Osborne v. . . Baring Brothers & Co. :— Vann Laun & Co. Barker v. Barker Barker : — Eormby v. . . Barker v. HUngworth Barker : — Jones v. Barker's Trusts, In re Barking Town Urban District Council :- Eiver Eoden Co. <; Barkworth v. Barkworth Barlow : — Duxbury v.... Barlow v. Noblett. Goulder v. Eook. Bent ) V. Ormerod. Lee v. Bent . . Barlow's Contract, In re Barnard v. Barton Barnard Castle Urban Council v. Wilson Bame v. Erskine. In re Boucherett Barnes v. Brown Barnes : — Monti v. Barnes v. Nunnery Colliery Co., Ld. D.D [1902] W. N. 129; [1902] 2 Ch. 333 [1903] 1 K. B. 549 . . C. A. [1907] W. N. 4 ; [1907] ) 1 K. B. 478 . . . . . . ) [1905] 1 Ch. 547 [1901] W. N. 137; [1901] 2) Ch. 487 ) C. A. [1906] 1 K B. 103 . . C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 20 [1907] W. N. 120 ; [1907] 2 ) E. B. 333 I [1908] 1 K. B. 485 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 75 ; [1908] 2 K B. 441 0. A. [1904] W. N. 120; [1904] 2 Ch. 160 [1902] W. N. 203; [1903] 1 K B. 1 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 151 ; [1903] 2 K B. 580 ; H.L.(B.) [1905] W.N. 118; [1905] A. 0. 392 . . [1901] W. N. 78 [1907] W. N. 152 ; [1907] 2 ) Ch. 284 i H.L.(Sc.) [1907] W.N. 243; [1908] A. C. 35 . . . . I (1902) Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1903] 1 W. N. 170 j H. L. (So.) [1901] A. C. 269 C. Aj;i903] W.N. 128; [1903] ) 2 K B. 277 j [1905] W. N. 70 0. A. [1903] W. N. 133; [1903] ) 2 Ch. 539 I [1908] W. N. 116 ; [1908] 2 1 Ch. 20 I 1909] 1 Ch. 321 1904] W. N. 13 1902] W. N. 86 ; C. A. [1902] ) W. N. 103 j [1906] W. N. 171 0. A. [1901] W. N. 80 ; [1901] ) 2 E. B. 23 I [1901] W. N. 108 ; [1901] 2 \ E. B. 290 i [1902] W. N. 232 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 382 j [1906] 1 E. B. 357 . . [1901]W.N. l73;[1901]2Ch. 813; C. A. [1902] W. N. 146; [1902] 2 Ch. 746 .. [1907] W. N. 230 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 180 [1908; E. B. 38 C. A. C.A. W. N. 205 ; [1909] 1 1901] 1 E. B. 205 1910] W. N. 248 .'I 2402 2764 185 2919 699 2031 1641 767 1338 2345 473 614 2530 2294 1608 1681 1288 943 776 1762 1747 1552 1402 2982 721 40 2386 1448 2852 2733 883 1090 1677 XXXIT TABLE OF CABES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. '■{ Barnes :— Reynolds v Barnet (East) Valley Urban Council v. Stal- Barnet Rural District Council :— Hertford- shire County Council v. Bamett, In re. Dawes v. Ixer Barnett : — Patohing v Bamett v. Poplar Corporation Barnett's Trusts, In re Barnsley Corporation : — Jary v. Barque Quilpu6, Ld. v. Brown . . '' Barr, Moering & Co. v. London and North ) Western Ry. Co J Barraclough v. Cooper . . . . . . j Baxraolough : — Rex v. ( Barraclough :— Sykes v. Barranca, In re. Barranca v. Ellis Barratt v. Kearns Barrett v. Beales. In re Baale's Settlement Barrett v. Kemp Brothers | Barrett v. Watts Barrie : — Caledonian Ry. Co. v. . . .1 Barron : — Wills v. . . . . . . | Barrow :— Dickinson v. Barrow Hsematite Steel Co., In re . . Barrow Haematite Steel Co. :— Bond v. Barrow v. Paringa Mines (1909), Ld. Barrow : — Summers v. In re Walker Barrow-in-Furness Corporation and Rawlin- son's Contract, In re Barry v. Barry . . Barry v. Smart. In re Barry's Trusts Barry Ry. Co. :— Great Western Ry. Co. u. Barry Urban Council :— Milward v Barry's Trusts, In re. Barry v. Smart . . ■ Barsby : — Bailey v. Barteil v. Gray (W.) & Co. '.'. \\ \\ Bartholomew :— Rex v. . . 1 Barthplomew v. M^r^zies, In re Weston . . I Volume and Page. Column of Digest. ::j [1909] 2 Oh. 361 [1909] W. N. 189 ; 0. A. [1909] W. N. 208; [1909] 2 Ch. 555 C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 48 [1908] W. N. 28 ; [1908] 1 Ch. \ 402 ] 1907] 2 Oh. 154, n 1901] 2 K B. 319 ,. 1902]W. N. 64; [1902] 1 Ch. 847 [1907] W. N. 184 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 600 0. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 264 [1906] 2 KB. 113 .. H. L. (E.) Feb. 20, 1905, [1908] 2 Ch. 121, n. C. C. R. [1905] W. N. 166 [l'906l 1 K B. 201.. [1904] 2 K. B. 675 . . [1910] 2 Ch. 419 0. A. [1905] 1 K B. 504 . . [1905] 1 Ch, 256 0. Ajt 1904] W. N. 16 ; [1904] ) [1909] W. N. 237 '. '. H. L. (So.) [1903] W. N. 60;) [1903] A. C. 126 . . . . I H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 100 ; [1902] A. 0. 271 . . . . I [1904] 2 Ch. 339 0. A. [1901] W. N. 208 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 746 . . [1902] W. N. 17 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 353 [1909] W. N. 195; [1909] 2 Ch. 658 . . [1901] 1 Ch. 259 [1903] W. N. 8 ; [1903] 1 Ch. ) 339 I C. A. [1901] W.'n. 10 i [1901] 1 P. 87 [1906] W. N. 68 ; [1906] 1 Oh. ) -"" C. A.[1906] W. N. 153 ; \ 768 [1906] 2 Oh. 358- C. A. [1909] W. N. 176 ; [1909] ) 2 K. B. 670 . . . . j [1904] W. N. 168 ; [1904] 2 ) Ch. 481 . . . ^ [1906] W. N. 68 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 768; 0. A. [1906] W.N. 153; [1906] 2 Oh. 358 . . [1909] 2 K. B. 610 . . [0. A. [1902] 1 K B. 225 0. 0. B. [1908] W. N. 30 ; ) [1908] IK. B. 664.. . 1 [1902] W. N. 36 ; [1902] 1 Oh. ) 680 1211 2430 1162 1939 2710 2710 257 2434 2460 2106 2927 871 1703 2957 877 1934 1656 1855 71 2603 2813 541 468 637 2732 1054 917 2240 2101 2303 2240 262 1638 1162 968 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. XXXV Name of Case. Volume and Pago, Column of Digest. Bartlett v. Higgins Baxtlett V. Tutton & Sons Barton, In re. Tomlins v. Latimer Barton : — Barnard v. . . Barton v. Lempriere . . Barton : — Starkey v. . . Barton and Great Southern and Western Ey, Co. of Ireland : — Beg. v. . . Basden, Sx parte. In re Drucker (No. 1) , (No. 2), Baskerville v. Baskerville. In re Basker viUe Bass : — Sapwell v. Bass, BatcUff & Gretton, Ld. (No. 2) (Regis. tered Trade Marks of), In re Basset : — Damper v. . . Bassil : — Wilson v. Bastable, In re. Ex parte The Trustee Bastable v. Little Bastable v. Metcalfe . . Bastable's Trustee in Bankruptcy : — Pearce v. Bastings v. Callaghan . . Batohelor : — Wilson v. In re Wilson Bateman v. Bateman . . Bateman v. Hunt Bater v. Bater . . Bates, In re. Hodgson v. Bates Batey v. Keswick Bath V. Bath Bath :— Philpot v Bath V. Standard Land Co. Bath Electric Tramways, Ld. : — Longman v Bath (E«corder of) : — Eex v. . . Bath Eural Council, Ex parte. Eex Judge James and Midland Ey. Co. Bathgate v. Caledonian Ey. Co. Bathurst v. Greenwood. In re Alexander Batten PooU v. Kennedy Battersby : — Salts v Battersea Borough Council:— DrisooU v. Battle- Wrightson v. Thomas. In re Wright- son 0. Aj:i901] W. N. 84 ; [1901] \ 2 K B. 230 j C. a: [1902] 1 K. B. 72 C. A. [1909] W. N. 176; [1909] ) 2 K. B. 841 . . [1906] 1 K. B. 357 . P. C. [1910] A. C. 330 [1909] 1 Ch. 284 H. L. (L) W. N. 90 ; [1902] \ A. 0. 268 j [1902] W. N. 103 ; [1902] 2 ) KB. 55; C. A. [1902] W.N 133 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 237 [1902] W. N. 114 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 210 . . [1910] W. N. 176; [1910] Ch. 329 [1910] 2 K. B. 486 0. A. [1902] W. N. 153 ; [1902] ) 2 Oh. 579 . . [1901] W. N. 119; [1901] Ch. 350 [1903] P. 239 O.A. [1901] W.N. 122; [1901] 2 K. B. 518 . . [1906] W. N. 196 ; [1907] E. B. 59 [1906] 2 K. B. 288 . . [1901] W. N. 70; [1901] 2 Ch 122 P. C. [1905] A.' C. 351 [1907] 1 Ch. 450 ; C. A [1907] ) W. N. 206 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 572 j [1901] P. 136 0. A. [1904] 2 K B. 530 C. A. [1906] P. 209 ; [1907] ) P 333 1 [1906] W. N. 191, 206;' [1907] ) 1 Ch. 22 . . . . . . i [1901] W. N. 167 [1901] W.N. 11; [1901] iCh. 460 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 91 C. A. [1905] W. N. 114 [1910] W. N. 206 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 408 C. A. [1905] W. N. 55 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 646 [1904] 2 K. B. 570 . . [1908] 1 K. B. 958 . . [1901] Ot. of Sess. (So.) [1903] ) W. N. 161 i [1910] W. N. 36; C. A. [1910] W. N. 94 j [1907] 1 Ch. 256 [1910] W. N. 116; [1910] K. B. 155 . . [1903] 1 K. B. 881 . O.A. [1904] W.N. 116; [1904]) 2 Ch, 95 j "1 740 1612 237 1448 1792 1380 78 163 177 2761 856 2690 2870 2056 176 1911 2713 2613 1810 2905 955 113 1288 2937 513 159, 1983 2335 2033 556 1450 1164 1627 2978 673 1392 1535 2960 02 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Baudains v. Eioliardson Baiunann : — BeddingtoB v. . . Baxendale v. North Lambeth Liberal and Eadical Club, Ld. Bay (James) Ey. Co. v. Armstrong - . Bay (Moss) Iron and Steel Co. : — McLean v. Baxter, In the Goods of Baxter : — Board of Trade v. The " Scarsdale ' ' Baxter : — New South Wales Taxation Com- missioners V. Webb v. Crouch and Flint Baxter (Grimehaw) & Elliott, Ld. v Parker . . Baxter's Leather Co. v. Eoyal MaU Steam Packet Co. Bay of Islands Slate Sj^ndicate, Ld. : — Eeid Newfoundland Co. v. Bayer & Co. : — Squire v. Bayley-Worthington and Cohen's Contract, In re. . Bayley-Worthington and Cohen's Contract, In re . . Baylis, In re Bayne : — Blake v. Baynes : — Douglas v. . . Beachey, In re. Heaton v. Beachey Beadle : — Dowson v. In re Dowson Beadle v. " S. Nicholas " Beal : — Morris v. Beale v. Kyte . . Beales' Settlement, In re. Barrett v. Beales Beard, In re. Eeversionary and General Securities Co. r. Hall. In re Beard. Beard V.Hall Beard's Trusts, In re. Butlin v. Harris Beardsley v. Giddings . . " Beam," The Beattie c. Hulse. In re Sir Edward Hulse Bart Beattie (E. & P.), Ld., In re . . Beatty: — McConnell v. Beauchamp, In re. L',e parte Beauchamp Beauclerk ; — Paquin, Ld. v. . . Beaudry : — Eoss v. Beaumont, In re. Beaumont v. Ewbank Beaumont, In re. Woods i-. Beaumont -.'I P. 0. [1906] A. 0. 169 H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 212 ; ) [19031 A. C. 13 . . . . ( [1902] W. N. 138 ; [1902] 2 Oh. 427 P. C. [1909] A. C. 624 C. A. [1909] W. N. 137; [1909] 2 K. B. 521 ; H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 102 [1903] P. 12 H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 195 ; ) [1907] A. C. 373 . . . . j P. C. [1908] A. 0.214.. [1910] W. N. 133; [1910] K. B. 161 . . [1908] 1 K. B. 796 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 105; [1908] 2 K. B. 626 H.L.(Sc,) [1910] W.N. 185. [1901] 2 K. B. 299 . . 0. A. [1907] W. N. 205 ; [1908] 1 Oh. 26 ; H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 35; [1908]A. C. 97.. [1909] W. N. 68 ; [1909] 1 ) Oh. 648 j [1907] W. N. 102 ; [1907] 2 ) ■ Oh. 54 ] P. C. [1908] A. 0. 371 P. 0. [1908] A. C. 477 C. A. [1903] W. N. 205; [1904]lCh. 67 [1909] W. N. 245 0. A. [1909] W. N. 227 [1904] W. N. 158; [1904] 2 K. B. 585 . . [1907] W.N. 56; [1907] 1 Oh. 564 . . [1904] W. N. 206 ; [1905] i Ch. 256 [1908] W. N. 18; Ch. 383 [1908] 1 [1904] W.N. 18; [1904] 1 Ch. ) 270 .. [1904] 1 K. B. 847 . 0. A. [1906] P. 48 . [1905] W. N. 17 ; [1905] 1 Ch. ] 406 .. [1901] W. N. 152 P. C. [1908] A. 0.82,. 0. A. [1904] W. N. 45 ; [19041 ) 1 K. B. 572 . . ^ H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 64 ; ) [1906] A. C. 148 , . P. C. [1905] A. 0. 570 [1902] W. N. 50; [1902] 1 Oh. ) 889 [1910] W. N. 18 1299 1951 2865 315 1598 2951 2567 139 2406 2453 665 1690 2410 2790 2590 134 2720 1763 2895 1683 1071 2804 1934 2911 2925 46 1148 1089 444 306 184 1184 303 968 2963 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Beaumont v. Kaye Beaumont v. Senior and Bull . . Becher : — United Mining and Finance Cor- ] poration, Ld. v. . . . . . . . . J Beckenham Urban Council : — Bloor v. Beckett v. Beckett Beckett V. Grimthorpe (Lord). In re Lord . Grimthorpe . . Beckett : — Helyar v. In re Helyar . . . . Beckhuson & Gibbs v. Hamblet • Beckley v. Scott & Co. . . . . . . . . Beddington c. Beddington. Baumann. Beddington In re Moses . . Bede Steamship Co. r. Biver Wear Commis- sioners . . Bedell V. Prince & Baugh. In re Prince & Baugh, Ld. . . Bedford v. Hughes. In re Smilter . . Bedford (Duke of) v. ElHs Bedingfield : — Buckland v. In re CottreU . Beecham, Ex parte. In re Petition for Judicial Separation . . Beeoh^m v. Lastingham and Eosedale Light Ey. Co Beeley : — May v. Beeley c. Sidebottom. In re Sidebottom Beeley v. Waterhouse. In re Sidebottom Beer, In re. Ex parte Beer . . Beer v. Bell Beer : — Eex v. . . Beesby : — Eex v. Beesley, Ex parte. Eex v. Eowlands Begg : — HUl v Behrens v. Eichards . . Beimsteiri : — Brooks v. Belcher :— McDonald c Beldam's Patent, In re Belford, Smith & Co. :— Giles v. Belgrave Hospital : — Att.-Gen. v. . . Belham, In re. Eichardes v. Yates . . Belhaven and Stenton (Lord): — Earl of Home V. C. A. [1904] W.N. 20; [1904] 1 K B. 292 [1903] 1 K. B. 282 . . [1910] 2 K. B. 296 . . [1908] 2 K B. eTl . . [1901] P. 85 [1908] W. N. 57; [1908] 1 Ch. 666; C. A. [1908] W.N. 201; [1908] 2 Ch. 675 [1901] W. N. 249 ; [1902] 1 ) Ch. 391 j C. A. [1901] W. N. 84; [1901]) 2 K. B. 73 j C. A. (Ir.) [1903] W. N. \ 173 t C. A. [1901] W. N. 241 ; N [1902] 2 Ch. 100 ; H. L. ( (E.) [1902] W. N. 212 ; ( [1903] A. C. 13 . . . . ; C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 310 . . [1902] W. N. 96 ; [1902] W. N. ) 120 j [1902] W. N. 236 ; [1903] 1 1 Ch. 198 j H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 1 . . [1910] W. N. 21 ; [1910] 1 ) Ch. 402 j [1901] P. 65 [1907] W. N. 101 [1910] 2 K. B. 722 . . C. A. [1901] W. N. 76 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 1 [1902] W. N. 132; [1902] 2 Ch. 389 I 0. A. [1903] W. N. 56 ; [1903] | 1 K. B. 628 j 1906] W. N. 114 1903] 2 K. B. 693 . . 1909] W. N. 52; [1909] K. B. 849 . . [1910] 2 K. B. 930 . . C. A. [1908] W. N. 151 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 802 . . [1905] 2 Ch. 614 [1908] W. N. 238; [1909] 1 K. B. 98 P. C. [1904] A. C. 429 [1910] W. N. 225 C. A. [1903] W. N. 80 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 843 [1909] W. N. 211; [1910] 1 Oh. 73 C. A. [1901] W. N. 80 ; [1901] 2 Oh t2 H. L. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 1 04 [1903] A. 0. 327 . , 1]) 1197 739 2611 2645 946 2406 2362 2624 1688 1951 1149 433 2929 1977 61 941 2111 1328 370 370 156 1193 695 834 1485 1657 2724 141 316 1884 1608 361 1055 2331 xxxnii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Belilios : — Hardoon /'. . . Bell : — Alianza Co. i\ . . Bell : — Beer v Bell :— Ooerz & Co. o Bell V. Graham. Marshall (•. Graham Bell : — Gray v. In re Nixon . . Bell V. Gribble. Hudson <:■ Gribble . . Bell V. Marsh Bell V. National Provincial Bank of England, Ld . . ; Bell (E.) & Co. : — Commrs. of Trade and ] Customs V. . . . . . . . . . . J Bell Telephone Co. of Canada: — Toronto Cor- ( poration v. . . . . . . . . . . ] Bellamy : — Woodbridge & Sons v. . . "Bellanoch," The. Owners of S.S. Canning ' V. Owners of y.S. " Bellanooh " . . . . ] I Bellerby v. Heyworth . . . . . . . . • I Bellerby v. Rowland & Marwood's Steamship ' Co ] Belleville : — May v. Belli V. Lane. In re Lane Belmore (Countess of) v. Kent County Council Belson : — Eosenbaum f. Bender i>. Owners of S.S. "Zent" . . . . ■ Bendon v. Abrahams. In re Abrahams Benett, In re. Ward v. Benett . . . . ■ Benjamin, /m re. Neville (,■. Benjamin Benjamin : — Davis v. . . . . . . . . Benjamin : — Martin v. . . . . . . . . '• Bennet, In re. Bennet r. Bennet . . . . Bennett, /« re. 2?xj3arfeThe Official Eeceiver Bennett : — Clinton v. . . . . .. . . . Bennett : — Holland t Bennett : — Payne v. In the Estate of Good- ' rich Volume and Page. P. C. [1901] A. C. 118 [1904] 2 K B. 666 ; C. A. \ [190.5] W.N. 3; [U05] 1 K. B. 184 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] ( W.N. 168; [1906] A. 0. 18 j [1906] W. N. 114 [1904] W. N. 10; [1904] 2 K B. 136 . . [1907] W. N. 94; [1907] 2 K. B. 112 . . [1904] W. N. 72 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 638 C. A. [1903] W. N. 37 ; [1903] ) 1 K. B. 517 j [C. A. 1903] W. N. 30; [1903] 1 Ch. 528 . . [1903] 2 K. B. 249 ; C. A [1904] W. N. 3 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 149 . . P. C. [1902] A. C. 563 P. C. [1905] A. C. 52.. [1910] W. N. 269 0. A. [1907] P. 170 ; H. L. (E [1907] W. N. 166; [1907] A. C. 269 C. A. [1909] W. N. 126 [1909] 2 Ch. 23 ; H. L. (E. [1910] W. N. 102; [1910] A. C. 377 [1901] "w. N. lil ; [1901] 2 Ch 265 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 93 [1902] 2 Ch. 14 . . 1905] 2 Ch. 605 1908] 2 Ch. 581 1901] W. N. 65; [1901] 1 Ch 873 . . [1901] AV. N. 124 .. 0. A. [1909] W. N. S2 ; [19091 2 K. B. 41 . . [1910] W. N. 237. 0. A. [1905] W.N. 173; C. A [1906] 1 Ch. 216 . . [1902] W.N. 26; [1902] 1 Ch 723 .. [1906] W. N. 160; [19061 Ch. 491 . . ^ [1906]^ W. N. 203; [1907] : K. B. 64 . . [1903] W.N. 94; [1903] 2 Ch 136 .. .... 221; [1907] 1 220; [1908] 1 [1906] W. N. K B. 149 . . [1907] W. N. K. B. 109 0. A. [1902] W. N 1 K. B. 867 . . [1904] P. 138 . . 76 ; [1902] Column of Digest, 412 2246 1193 2239 2301 1052 2248 1029 2236 1811 325 2580 2497 882 566 2869 1937 1171 123 1616 1230 2767 2983 683 1129 2891 233 754 1998 1032 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Bennett v. Stone Bennett v. White Bennett Brothers : — East v. . . Bennetts & Co. v. Brown Benning v. Ilford Gas Oo. Benoist, Inre . . Benson v. Lancashire and Yorkshire By. Oo. Benson : — Bex v. Benstead : — Stowe v. . . Bensted : — Tstradyfodwg and Pontypridd Main Sewerage Board v. . . Bent V. Ormerod. Lee v. Bent. Barlow v. Noblett. Ooulder v. Book . . Bent's Brewery Oo. v. Dykes . . Bentley : — Savage v. . . Bentley : — ^Wagstaffe v. Bentley Bros. v. Metcalfe & Oo. Benttey's Yorkshire Breweries, Ld., In re . " Berengere," Proceeds. of the Berger:^. Jenkinson. In re Spark's Lease. Berkeley : — ^Anderson v. Berkeley : — G-ustard -u. In re Kelly's Settle ment Trusts . . Berkhamsted Grammar School, In re Bennondsey Bioscope Co., Ld. : — London County OouncU v. . . Bennondsey Corporation : — Surrey Com mercial Dock Oo. v. . . Bennondsey Guardians : — Pitch v. . . -Storey v. Bermondsey Town Clerk " Bernard," The Bernard & Oo. v. Haddington Magistrates Berry, In re. Berry v. Berry Berry v. Gaukroger Berry v. Halifax Commercial Banking ) Co. ' Berwick & Co. : — Price v. Best, In re. Jarvis v. Birmingham Corpora- tion Best : — Eaton v. Best : — Fobs v. . . Volume and Page. ; Liaucsj j. un. ouw 0] W. N. 97; [1910] 2 , B. 1; o.A.rmo]w.N. 7 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 643 . . [1901] "W. N. 225; [1902] 1 Oh, 226 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 22 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 509 [1910] W. N. 97; [1910] 2 167 1910] W. N."260 1908] 1 K. B. 490 . . 1907] W. N. 106 ; [1907] 2 ) E. B. 290 ) [1909] "W. N. 182 ; [1909] 2 \ K. B. 784 . . . . . . I 0. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 242 . . 0. 0. E. [1908] W. N. 122 ; \ [190812 K.B. 270.. .. ) [1909] W. N. 119; [1909] "i K. B. 415 [1906] 1 K B. 294; 0. A. [1906] W. N. 219; [1907] 1 K. B. 490 ; H. L. (B.) [1907] W. N. 149 ; [1907] A. C. 264 [1901] W. N. 108 ; [1901] 2 \ K. B. 290 [1909] W. N. 51 [1904] W. N. 89 0. A. [1901] W. N. 212; [1902] IK. B. 124.. 0. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 548 . . ' '1909] 2 Ch. 609 1905] W. N. 18 1905] W. N. 42 ; [1905] 1 Ch. ' 456 [1902] W. N. 81 ; [1902] 1 Oh. 936 [1909] W. N. 203 ; [1910] 1 Oh. 78 [1908] 2 Ch. 25 [1910] W. N. 279 [1904] 1 K. B. 474 . . [1904] W. N. 159; [1904] 2 K. B. 709; 0. A. [1905] W. N. 15 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 524 0. A. [1910] W. N.4; [1910]) 1 K. B. 203 ) 0. A. [1905] W. N. 73 H. L. (So.) [1901] W. N. 246 [1903] W.N. 125 0. A. [1903] W. N. 88 ; [1903] ) 2 Oh. 116 j [1901J 1 Ch. 188 [1905] 1 Ch. 632 [1904] W. N. 152 ', [1904] 2 ) Ch. 354 ) [1909] 1 K. B. 632 . . [19061 W. N. 114; [1906] 2) K. B. 105 . . ■ ..-■.. Coliima of Digest. 2801 2341 483 2467 1979 163 1583 818 1123 2248 40 1438 2170 727 264 1377 2543 1353 2944 2396 2307 382 1508 1560 1852 2542 2317 1228 2215 147 1752 376 970 1322 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. '■{ { -] Best : — Eex v. . . Best : - Thuman v. Best : — Whitehorn v. In re Whitehorn Best, In the Goods of Bethell :— Savill Bros., Ld. v. Bethune : — Hole v. In re James Bettell's Contract {In re Evans and) , . Betton's Charity, In re Betts, In re. Doughty v. Walker . . Betts, In re. Ex parte Official Eeceiver Betts : — Higgins v, Betts : — Ealby v. In re Stephens Betts V. Stevens Betta (Andrew), Brown and Brown Bros. Co. :— Hastie (John) & Co. i; ) Betts (Frederick), Ld. v. Piokfords, Ld. . . | Betts & Co., Ld. v. Macnaghten Betty : — Smith v. Bevan : — Burton v. Bevan v. Crawshay Bros. (Oyfartha), Ld. Bevan v. Webb Bevan v. Webb Beverley, In re. Watson v. Watson Bevir v. Armstrong. In re Illingworth Bewick, In re. Eyle v. Eyle . . Bexhill Corporation : — Carey v. Beyfus v. Lawley Beynon, In the goods of Biokerstaff : — Eeid v. . . Biokmore v. Dimmer . . Bioknell v. Bicknell Biddell Brothers v. E. Clemens Horst Co. Biddle v. Hart . . Bigg : — Moore v. In re Moore Biggar v. Eock Life Assurance Co. . . Biggai : — Eobson v. Biggart : — ShiUito v Bigge, In re. Granville v. Moore . . Biggenden : — St. Mary, Islington Union v. Bilby V. Bilby Volume and Page. Column of Digest C. C. A. [1909] 1 K B. 692 '1907] W. N. 170 . . 1906] 2 Ch. 121 1901] P. 333 . . 0. A. [1902] 2 Oh. 523 [1909] W. N. 236; [1910] Ch. 137 [1910] 2 Oh. 438 [1907] W. N. 252; [1908] Ch. 205 [1907] W. N. 101 ; [1907] Ch. 149 [1901] 2 K. B. 39 [1905] W. N. 104; [1905] 2 Ch. 210 [1904] 1 Ch. 322 [1909] W. N. 200; [1910] K B. 1 H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 72 . . [1906] W. N. 51; [1906] 2 Ch. 87 . . . . . . [1910] 1 Oh. 430 0. A. [1903] 2 K B. 317 [1908] W. N. 140; [1908] 2 Ch. 240 . . . . . . C. A. [1901] W. N. 213; [1902] 1 K. B. 25 . . [1901] W. N. 61 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 724 ; 0. A. [1901] W. N. 85 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 59 [1905] W. N. 58; [1905] 1 Ch. 620 .. .. [1901] 1 Ch. 681 [1909] W. N. 149; [1909] 2 Ch. 297 [1910] W. N. 261 [1904] 1 K. B. 142 H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 149 ; [1903] A. 0. 411 [1901] P. 141 . . C. A. [1909] W. N. 132 ; [1909] C. A. [1902]' W. isT. 223; [1903] 1 Oh. 158 0. A. [1908] W. N. 97 [1910] W. K. 238 C. A. [1907] W. N. 34 ; [19071 1 K. B. 649 . [1906] W. N. 53; [1906] i Ch. 789 ' L J [19021 1 K. B. 516 " [1907] IK. B. 690; C. A. [1907] W. N. 244 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 672 . [1903] 1 K B. 683 [1907] W. N. 94 Ch. 714 [1910] 1 K. B. 105 [1902] P. 8 . ■! ;i [1907] 1) 807 1371 2972 2052 672 1945 2999 359 213 1461 12 1771 1879 1510 482 89 404 1621 1856 2766 1048 1934 2963 2639 1933 2060 2795 1352 948 2288 1647 2394 1249 72 2529 63 1920 921 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. xli Name of Case. Volume and Fage, Column of Digest. Bilham, In re. Buchanan u. Hill . . Bilham : — Boyd, Ld. v. Bill (E.) & Son :— Gates v Billerioay Eural Council : — Lawford v. Billington : — J. H. BiUington, Ld. v. Billington (J. H.), Ld. v. Billington Billposting (General) Co. v. Atkinson Billposting (Provincial) Co. v. Low Moor Lron Co. . . . . . . . . Billposting (Provincial) Co. and Edison : Nussey v. Bingham Eural Council : — Whyler v. Bingley Urban Council : — Ferrand v. Binley : — Mattinson v. Bioscope (Bermondsey) Co., Ld. ; — London County Council v. . . Birch, In re. Hunt v. Thorn Birch V. Birch . . Birch V. Birch . . Birch & Co. : — Edmondson v. Birch & Co. and Horner : — Edmondson v. Bird, In re. In re Evans. Dodd v. Evans . Bird V. Godfrey. In re Chant Bird : — King v. . . Bird V. Lee. In re Eogerson . . . . . . j Birkbeck Freehold Land Society : — Hornsey ) Corporation v. . . . . . . . . ] Birkenhead Corporation r. Fletcher . . Birkenhead Union Assessment Committee : — Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Birkenshaw, Ex parte. In re Allison, John- son & Foster, Ld. Birkin, In re. Birkin v. Birkin Birkin v. Smith , . Birmingham (City of) Tramways Co., Ld. v. Law Birmingham (City of) Tramways Co. : — Neale v. Birmingham Corporation : — Jarvis v. In re Best . . Birmingham County Court Judge : — Eex v. Birmmgham Excelsior Money Society v. Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . j Birmingham Small Arms Oo.'s Application, j Inre . . . . . . . . . . . ] Birmingham Small Arms Co. : — Newton v.. . \ [1901] W. N. 81 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 169 [1908] W. N, 206 ; [1909] ' 1 K. B. 14 , C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 38 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 112 . . [1907] W. N. 95 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 106 [1907] W. N. 95 ; [1907] 2 ' K B. 106 H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 3 ; [1909] A. C. 118 . C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 344 C. A. [1909] W. N. 93 ; [1909] ) 1 Ch. 734 j C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 45 [1903] 2 K. B. 445 . . [1908] 2 K. B. 534 . . [1910] W. N. 279 [1909] W. N. 85 ; [1909] 1 ) Ch. 787 [1902] P. 62; C. A. [1902]) W. N. 72 ; [1902] P. 130 .. j 0. A. [1908] W. N. 81 0. A. [1905] W. N. 119; [1905] 2 KB. 523 .. C. A. [1907] W. N. 18 ; [1907] 1 "IT" T> Q7I [1901] W. N. 53'; [196i] 1 Ch. 916 [1905] W. N. 94 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 225 [1909] ik. B. 837 " '.'. [1901] W. N. 56 ; [1901] 1 Ch. ) 715 ( [1906] W. N. 59 ; [1906] 1 ) K. B. 521 j [1906] 1 K B. 605 ; C. A. [1907] 1 W. N. 6 ; [1907] 1 K. B. ^ 205 ) H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 90 ; [1901] A. C. 175 . [1904] 2 K. B. 327 . . [1901] W. N. 33 C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 112 [1910] 2 K B. 965 . . [1910] W. N. 175; [1910] 2^ Oh. 464 j [1904] W. N. 152 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 354 [1902] 2 E. B. 283 0. A. [1903] W. N. 196; [1904] 1 K. B. 35 . . [1907] W. N. 168 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 396 [1906] W. N. 146; [1906] , Oh. 378 j ":! 2984 904 1146 694 730 730 1662 905 277 1153 1163 262 382 2920 2187 953 894 876 2346 1468 1742 376 2638 2859 2154 697 1982 1432 2712 553 376 759 1199 2686 402 xlii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Birmingliam, Tame, and Eaa District Drainage Board : — Att.-Gen. v. . . Birmingliain Union : — Tewkesbury Union v. "Birnam," The " Bimam Wood," The Birstall Candle Oo. v. Daniels ; Saunders, Claimant Birtley : — Blythe v Biscombe & Sons : — Sobwepps, Ld. v. Bisgood V. Henderson's Transvaal Estates Ld Bisgood V. Nile Valley Co Bisbop V. Bishop Bishop : — Gresham Life Assurance Society v, Bishop : — G-resham Life Assurance Society v, Bisbop : — Howes v Bishop Auckland Industrial Co-operative Society, Ld. v. Butterknowle Colliery Co- Bishop (Costello and) : — Bex v. Bishop of London v. Whiteley. In re Whuteley Bispham with Norbreck Urban Council: Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Co. Bias, In re. Bias v. Bias Bist V. London and South Western Ey. Co. Black and White Publishing Co. : — Fisher v. Black (Butler or) v. Fife Coal Co. ' . . Black & Co. : — Curtis r. Blackburn v. Liverpool, Brazil, and Eiver Plate Steam Navigation Oo. Blackburn v. Parbola, Ld. In re Parbola Ld Blackburn Corporation v. Sanderson Blackburn Guardians : — Local Government Board of Ireland v. . . Blackbume : — Cobb v. In re Brydone'i Settlement Blackbume v. Hope-Edwardes Blaokett v. Blackett and Frail Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Co. v Bispham with Norbreck Urban Council . Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Co. : — Dixon V. Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Co. Thornton Urban Council . . Blackpool CoKporation v. Johnson . . Volume and Page. [1908] 2 Ch. 651 ; 0. A. [1909] ) W. N. 235 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 48 | [1904] 2 K B. 395 . . [1907JW. N. 40 C. A. [1906] W. N. 206 ; [1906] ) P-1 i [1908] 2 K B. 254 . . [1909] W. N. 252; 0. A, [1910] W. N. 12; [1910] 1 Ch. 228 . . C. A. [1904] W. N. 208 [1908] W. N. 69; 0. A [1908] W. N. 96 ; [1908] ] Ch. 743 [1906] W. N. 43; [1906] Oh. 747 [1901] P. 325 O.A.[1901]1K.B. 153;H.L (E.) [1902] W. N. 106 [1902] A. C. 287 0. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 171 . 0. A. [1909] 2 K B. 390 . [1904] W. N. 32 ; 0. A. [1904] W. N. 15r;[1904[2Ch.419 H. L. (E.)[1906].W. N.95 [1906] A. 0. 305 . . 0. C. A. [1909] W. N. 210: [1910] 1 K. B. 28 . . [1910] W.N. 63; [1910] 1 Oh, 600 [1910] 1 K B. 592 . . C. A. [1903] W. N. 61 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 40 H. L. (E.) [1907] A. 0. 209 C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 174 H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 194 C. A. [1909] W. N. 134 [1909] 2 K B. 529 . . [1902] 1 K. B. 290 . . [1909] W. N. (185), 179 [1909] 2 Oh. 437 . . 0. A. [1902] W.N. 63; [19021 1 K B. 794 . . . . [1909] IK. B. 454 ,. 0. A. [1903] W. N. 81 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 84 -^ [1901] 1 Ch. 419 [1902] W. N. 70 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 91 ; [1902] P. 170 [1910] 1 K. B. 592 [1909] 1 K. B. 860 . . 0. A. [1907] W. N. 26 ; [1907] 1KB 568 ;H.L.(E.) [1909] W.N. 91; [1909] A. 0.264.. [1902] 1 K. B. 646 . . Colnnm of Digest. 2631 1926 2550 2444 757 1115 732 536 631 952 2239 729 1194 1210 833 375 2144 1392 1627 469 2326 1643 2451 1736 2641 1924 2408 2182 920 2144 2145 2132 2640 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. xliii Name of Case, -I Blackpool Motor Car Co., In re. Hamilton v. Blackpool Motor Oar Co. . . Blackwell & Co., Third Parties. Maxwell v. British. Thomson Houston Co. Blades : — Great Western Ey. Co. v. . . Blaenclydach Colliery Co. : — Eaves v. Blagrave's Settled Estates, In re Blaiberg v. Keeves Blain : — Canadian Pacific Ey. Co. v. . . Blair v. Clark ; Gray don, Garnishee . . Blair v. Duncan Blair & Girling, In re . . Blair v. Maidstone Palace of Varieties, Ld. In re Maidstone Palace of Varieties, Ld. . . Blair : — Paringa Mines, Ld. v. Blair : — Wingfield v. In re Eoss Blake v. Bayne . . Blake : — Hawley v. In re Houghton Blake v. Midland Ey. Co Blake : — Eex v.. . Blakeley v. Muller & Co. Blakeway : — Kirkhouse v. Blakiston : — Cooper v. Blarney v. Blamey Bland v. Buchanan Bland's Settlement, In re. Bland v. Perkins "Blanche," The "Blanche " (Owners of S.S.) : — Jackson (Sir ) John), Ld. V. The Hopper No. 66 . . ) Bleines : — Cox v. Blencowe : — Metcalf v. /n re Metoalf .. j Blehcowe v. Northamptonshire County ) Council . . . . . . . . . . j Blew, In re. Blew v. Gunner Blindell :— Talbot v ! Blockhouse (Gowrie and) Collieries, Ld. : — ] Burchell v. . . . . . . . . . . j Blood V. Blood . . Bloomsbury Vestry : — Burton v. Bloor V. Beckenham Urban Council . Blqre v. Giulini . . Volume and Page. ■I [1901] 1 Ch. 77 [1904] 2 K B. 342 . . [1901] W. N. 160 ; [1901] 2 Ch 624 0. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 73 0. A. [1903] W. N. 45 ; [1903] 1 Oh. 560 . . [1906] W. N. 99; [1906] Oh. 175 P. 0. [1904] A. 0. 453 [1908]" W. N. 132; [1908] 2 K. B. 548 H. L. (So.) [1901] W. N. 247 [1902] A. C. 37 C. A. [1906] W. N. 106 [1906] 2 E. B. 131 . . [1909] W. N. 156; [1909] 2 Ch. 283 [1906] 2 Ch, 193 [1907] W. N. 55 ; [1907] 1 ) Oh. 482 ) P. 0. [1908] A. 0. 371 [1904] W. N. 54 ; [1904] 1 Ch. ] 622 [1904] 1 K. B. 503 0. 0. A. [1910] W. N. 123 [1903] 2 K. B. 760, n. [1901] W. N. 250; [1902] K. B. 306 . . [1907] 1 K. B. 336; 0. A [1907] W. N. 173; [1907' 2 K. B. 688; H. L. (E.' [1909] W. N. 3; [1909' A. 0. 104 " [1902] W. N. 138 [1901] 2 K. B. 75 [1904] W. N. 189; [1905] Ch. 4 [1908] P. 259 H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 61 [1908] A. 0. 126 . . [1902] 1 K. B. 670 . . [1903] W. N. 89 ; [1903 2 Oh 424 [1907] W. N. 49 ; [1907] 1 Oh 504 [1906] W. N. 47; [1906] Ch. 624 [1908] W. N. 84; [1908] KB. 114 .. P. C. [1910] A. C. 614 [1902] P. 78 ; 0. A. [1902] ] W. N. 100 ; [1902] P. "190 1901] 1 K. B. 650 1908] 2 K B. 671 . . 1903] W. N. 14; [1903] 1 K B. 356 :'i Column of DigeBt, 611 737 1704 1632 2347 2820 314 78 2998 2598 2168 469 23 134 1050 1586 791 662 1846 2236 49 696 2403 2565 2524 261 61 2313 2961 1370 316 963 2159 2646 1363 xliv TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Caeo. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Blovelt V. Sawyer j Bloxam V. Clutterbuck. In re Clutterbuck's ] Settlement . . . . . . . . . . j Blow : — Hand v. j Blue & Deschamps v. Eed Mountain Ey. Co. Blue Anchor Line, Ld. :—Skailes I). Blue Star Line : — MoFadden v. Bluhm, In re . . Blundell, In re j Blundell, In re. BlundeU v. Blundell Blundell v. Bex Blunt's Trusts, In re. Wigan v. Olinck Blyth Theatre Co. : — Sanderson v. . . Blythe v. Birtley Boaler v. Power . . Board of Education v. Eeubell. In the Estate ) of Bryan . . . . . . . . . . j Board of Education ; — Eex v. Board of Trade, Ex parte. In re Morgan . . j Board of Trade, Ex parte. In re Pilling . . j Board of Trade v. Baxter. The " Scarsdale " | Board of Trade v. Employers' Liability ( Assurance Corporation, Ld. . . . . j Board of Trade v. Guarantee Society Board of Trade :^Keslake v.. . Board of Trader. Sailing Ship " Glenpark," Ld. Board of Trade (Solicitor of) v. Abrahams. Eex n. Abrahams . . . . . . . . j Boardman v. Scott & Whitworth . . . . { Boatman : — -Oppenheimer v. In re Oppen- \ heimer . . . . . . . . . . . . | Boddington v. Clayton Engineering and Electrical Construction Co. ' . . Bode : — Charity Commrs. v. In re Alms Corn Charity . . . . . . . . . . J Bodega Co., In re . . . . . , . I Boden, In re. Boden i'. Boden " Bodlewell," The Boehm v. Goodall Boger V. Boger . . Bognor Water Co. : — Erederick v. ■■ ( C. A. [1904] W. N. 4 ; [1904] ) 1 K. B. 271 j [1905] 1 Ch. 200 C. A. [1901] W.N. 140 ; [1901] ) 2 Ch. 721 I P. C. [1909] A. 0. 361 C. A. [1910] W. N. 267 [1905] 1 K. B. 697 . . [1901] 1 E. B. 764 . . C.A. [1901] W.N. 103; [1901] ) 2 Ch. 221 I [1906] W. N. 113; [1906] 2) Ch. 222 j [1905] 1 E. B. 516 . . [1904] W. N. 174 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 767 C.A. [1903] W.N. 145 ; [1903] ) 2 K. B. 533 j [1909] W. N. 252; C. A.) [1910] W. N. 12 ; [1910] ICh. 228 .. .. ..) C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 229 . . [1905] P. 88 [1909] 2 E. B. 1045 ; C. A. \ [1910] W. N. 110; [1910] ! 2 E. B. 165 . . . ) [1903] W. N. 183 ; [19041 1 ) E. B. 68 . . . j C. A. [1903] W. N. 76 ; [1903] 1 2 E. B. 50 . . H. L. (E.)[1907] W. N. 195;) [1907] A. C. 373 . 1 [1909] W. N. 263 ; [1910] 1 E.B, ) 401 ; 0. A, [1910] W. N. 161 ; [1910] 2 E. B. 649 . 1910] 1 E. B. 408, n. 1903] 2 E. B. 453 :i903] 2E.B. 324; C.A. [1904] / W.N. 72; [1904] 1 E. B. 682 [1904] W. N. 159 ; [1904] 2 E. B. 859 . C. A [1902 N. 222 ; 1901] W. ^ 1 E. B. 43 . , [1907] W.N. 54; [1907] 1 Ch. 399 . . .... . . j [1904] W. N. 28 [1901] 2 Ch. 75(1 [1904] W. N. 7 ; [1904] 1 Ch. \ 276 . . C. A. [1906] W [1907] 1 Ch. 132 N. 211 I 1907] P. 286 1910] W. N. 259 1908] P. 300 . .1908] W. N. 215; [1909] 'l Ch. 149 .. -' 1589 2405 1755 317 1659 2454 1062 1201 2974 879 2925 719 1115 ISO 2075 2310 750 160 2567 226 226 2570 2565 2519 1584 87 420 375 455 63 24S(! 1867 948 2851 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. xlv Name of Case, I Volume and Tage. Column of Digest. Boles and British. Land Oo.'s Contract, In re '■ Bolitho & Co. V. Gidley . . . . , . Bolivia (Eepublio of) v. Indemnity Mutual ', Marine Assurance Co. BoUand v. Young Bolton, .Baj^arfe. /n re Taylor Bolton : — Grough v. Eowe v. Gough Bolton : — Pearce v. Bolton : — Seymour v. In re Latham. Bolton Estates, In re. Eussell v. Meyrick , Bolton Estates Act, 1863, In re Bombay-Burmah Trading Corporation, Ld. ;» Dorabji Cursetji Shrofi Bomore Bead (No. 9), In re . . Bond, In re. Panes v. Att.-Gen. Bond V. Barrow Haematite Steel Co. . . Bond : — Rex v. . . Bond (British Equitable) and Mortgage ) Corporation, Ld., In re Bonnard v. Dott Bonnell v. Preston Bonnia v. Neame Bonsall : — Gray v. Bonzoline Manufacturing Co., Ex parte. In re John Eoberts & Co. Boorer, In re. Boorer v. Boorer Booth, In re. Booth v. Eobinson Booth : — Burgess v. . . Booth V. New Afrikander Gold Mining Co. . Booth : — Sprague v. . . Booth V. Walkden Spinning and Manu- facturing Co. . . Bootle Cold Storage and Ice Co., In re Beetle Guardians v. Whitehaven Guardians Boots:— Charing Qross, Euston, and Hamp- stead Ey. Co. v. Boots Cash Chemists (Southern), Ld. : — Harris v. Borax Co., In re. Foster v. Borax Co. Borland's Trustee v. Steel Bros. & Co. Borovsky & Wienbaum, In re. Ex parte Salaman Borrowman's Patent, Inre . . [1901] W. N. 243 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 244 H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 34; [1905] A. C. 98 0. A. [1909] W. N. 34; [1909] ' 1 K. B. Y85 C. A. [1904] 2 K B. 824 [1908] W. N. 229 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 103 H. L. (L) [1908] W. N. 249; [1909] A. C. 64 1902] 2K. B. Ill .. 1901] W. N. 248 1902] W. N. 214; C. A. [1903] W. N. 124 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 461 [1904] 2 Oh. 289 P. 0. [1905] A. C. 213 [1906] W. N. 16 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 359 * [1901] 1 Ch. 15 ' .'.' '.'. [1902] W. N. 17 ; [1902] 1 Oh. 353 0. C. e'.'[1906] W. N. 138; [1906] 2 K. B. 389 . [1910] W. N. 53 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 574 [1905] W. N. 84 ; 0. A. [1906] W. N. 66 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 740 0. A. [1908] W. N. 155 [1910] W. N. 94; [1910] 1 Ch. 732 C. A. [1904] W. N. 63 ; [1904] 1 KB. 601 0. A. [1904] W. N. 98; [1904] 2 K. B. 299 1908] W. N. 189 . . 1906] 2 Oh. 321 '1908] W. N. 83 Oh. 880 ; 0. „. ^ _, , W. N. 201 ; [1908] 2 Ch. ( 648 ; 0. A. [1902] W. N. 212 ; [1903] ) 1 Ch. 295 j P. C. [1909] A. 0. 576 [1909] W. N. 112; [1909] 2) K B. 368 j [1901] W. N. 54 [1903] W. N. 100 ; [1903] 2 ) Oh. 142 t 0. A. [1909] W. N. 161 ; [1909] ) 2 K. B. 640 ( [1904] W. N. 141 ; [1904] 2 ) Ch. 376 j C. A. [1901] 1 Oh. 326 [1901] 1 Ch. 279 [1902] W. N. 109 ; [1902] 2 KB. 312 [1902] "W. N. 56 [1908] IN A. [1908] ( 2768 1200 1272 349 195 1294 753 69 2617 2225 1217 573 838 468 783 502 1722 1996 1864 1370 172 3003 1012 670 535 296 572 499 1498 1586 1378 492 569 177 1893 xlvi TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Borthwick v. Elderslie Steamship Co. (No. 2) Borwiok v. Southwark Corporation , . . . Bosolioek Proprietary Co. v. Fuke . . Bostock & Co. V. Nicholson & Sons, Ld. Boston V. Boston Boston Fruit Co. v. British and Foreign ' Marine Insurance Co. . . . . . . j Boswell, In re. Merritt v. Boswell . . . . Boswell, Merritt and Boswell, In re. See Boswell, In re. Merritt v. Boswell. Bos worth and Gravesend Corporation, In re Bott V. Chester. In re Park . , Bottomley, Ex parte Bottomley : — Arnold & Butler v. Bottomley v. Brougham Bouoas V. Cooke "Boucau,"The Boucherett, In re. Bame v. Irskine Boulton V. Houlder Brothers & Co. . . Bourne, In re, Bourne v. Bourne . . Bourne, In re. Davey v. Bourne . . Bourne & Tant v. Salmon & Grluokstein, Ld. Bourne v. Marylehone Corporation . . Boiu-ne : — Minty v. In re Davidson Bourne v. Swan & Edgar, Ld. In re Bourne's ) Trade Marks . . . . . . , . . . Botu'ne's Trade Marks, In re.. Bourne v. Swan & Edgar, Ld. . . Bournemouth Corporation: — Att.-Gen. v... Bournemouth Corporation : — Stourolifie ) Estates Co. v. . . . . . . . 1 Boustead v. Cooper. Li re Van Straubenzee j In re Eochdale ) i. Volume and Pago. Boutflower : — Hudson v. Notaries Bow V. Hart Bow Common (St. Paul) (Vicar and Church- ) wardens) v. Inhabitants of the Same . , j C. A. [1904] 1 E. B. 319; H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 34 ; [1905] A. C. 93 . . 0. A. [1905] W. N. 118 ; [1905] 2K. B. 516 1 [1908] W. N. 224; [1909] 1 ) K. B. '78 j [1906] 1 Ch. 148 [1904] 1 K. B. T25 . . 0. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 124 . . C. A. [1905] W. N. 25 ; [1905] \ 1 K B. eS"? ; H. L. (E.) / [1906] W. N. 110 ; [1906] ( A. C. 336 ; [1906] W. N. 22 ; [1906] 2 Ch. ) 359 ; C. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 331 j [1905] 1 K B. 403 ; C. A. [1905] W. N. 102; [1905] 2 K B. 426 . . [1910] 2 Ch. 322 [1909] 2 K. B. 14 0. A. [1908] 2 B;. B. 151 [1908] W. N. 32 ; [1908] K. B. 584 . . C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 227 [1909] P. 163 . . [1907] W. N. 230; [1908] Ch. 180 C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 784 [1905] W. N. 169 ; [1906] 1 \ Ch. 113; C. A. [1906] / W. N. 136; [1906] 2 Ch. ( 427 ; [1906] W. N. 68 ; 0. A. [1906] ) W. N. 78 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 697 j C. A. [1907] W.N. 93; [1907]) 1 Ch. 616 . . [1908] W.N. 52; C. A. [1909] W. N. 14 . . . . C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 567 [1902] W. N. 14 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 211 .. .. [1902] W. N. 214 ; ri9031 1 Ch. 211 [1902] W. N. 126; 0. A. [1902] W.N. 142; [1902] 2Ch. 714 C. A. [1910] W. N. 120 [1910] 2 Oh. 12 . . j [1901] W. N. 181 ; [1901] Column of Digest. 2 Ch. 779 Eccl. Ct. [1910] W. N. 228 [1904] 2 K. B. 693 ; C. A. [1905] W. N. 25 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 592 [1909] P. 245 2448 1305 2148 461 2285 1110 1273 1475 281 2910 830 872 870 689 2532 2733 898 1859 118 1387 -;694 372 2680 2680 2717 2790 2404 1817 761 999 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. xlvil Name of Gaae. Volume imd Page, Column of Bigest. Bow, MoLaohlan & Co. v. Ship " Oamosun " \ and Union Steamship Company of British [ Ooltimbia, Ld. . . . . . . . . j Bowden v. Griffiths. In re Nightingale Bowden v. Toxall Bowden's (B. M.) Patents Syndicate, Ld. v. Herbert Smith & Co Bowen v. Defries & Co. Bowerman, In re. Porter v. Bowerman Bowes, In re. Strathmore v. Vane . . Bowlby, In re. Bowlby v. Bowlby . . Bowles, In re. Amedroz v, Bowles Bowles, In re. Page v. Page Bowles V. Baker and In re Forster and Baker. Forster v. Baker Bowman v. Lax Bowman, Ld. : — TUley v Bowring-Hanbury : — Comiskey v. . . Bowring & Co. : — Eosenqvist v. Boxer, In re. Morris v. Woore Boyoe v. Edbrooke Boyoe v. Paddington Borough Council Boyd : — ^British Asbestos Co. v. Boyd, Ld. v. Bilham . . Boyer v. Maclean. In re Wells Boyes : — ^Lloyd v. In re Edwards . . Boyle : — Paringa Mines, Ld. v. Boyle V. Smith . . Boyle (or Walsh) v. Wilson . . 'Boynton (A.), Ld., In re. Hoffman u. Boynton, Ld. . . Bozson V. Altrincham Urban CouncO. Bozzelli's Settlement, In re. Husey-Hunt v. BozzeUi Bracken's Settlement, In re . . Bradbury, Agnew & Co. : — Thomas v. Bradfield v. Cheltenham Guardians , . ') P. C. [1909] A. 0. 697 [1909] W. N. 17; [1909] Oh. 385 0. A. [1901] 1 Oh. 1 . . [1904] W. N. 106; [1904] 2 Oh. 86 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 133; [1904] 2 Oh. 122. [1903] W.N. 194; [1904] 1 Oh. 37 [1908] W. Jsl. 137 ; [1908] 2 Oh. 340 [1907] W. N. 198 . . 0. A.- [1904] W. N. 171 ; [1904] ) 2 Oh. 685 j [1902] 2 Oh. 650 [1905] W. N. 21 ; [1905] 1 Oh. 371 [1910] W. N. 24 ; 0. A. [1910] W. N. 110, 119; [1910] 2 K. B. 636 , Chancery Court of York [1910] ) P. 300 j [1910] 1 K. B. 745 . . H. L. (B.).[190o] W.N. 24;) [1905] A. C. 84 . . . . I 0. A. [1908] W. N. 88; [1908] | 2 K. B. 108 I [1910] W. N. 132 ; [1910] I 2 Oh. 69 .. .. .. j [1903] W. N. 63 ; [1903] 1 Oh. 1 836 ( [1902] W. N. 201; [1903] 1 Ch. 109; 0. A. [1903] W. N. 143 ; [1903] 2 Oh. 556 ; H. L. rE.) [1905] W. N. 156; [1906] A. C. 1 [1903] W. N. 112; [1903] 2 ) Ch. 439 I [19081 W. N. 206; [1909] 1 1 [1903] W. N. 68 ; [1903] 1 Oh. ) 848 i [1910] W. N. 60 ; [1910] 1 ) Oh. 541 j [1906] 2 Ch. 193 [1906] 1 K B. 432 .. H. L. (So.) [1906] W. N. 218; ) [1907] A. C. 45 . . . . ] [1910] W. N. 43; [1910] 1 Ch. ' 519 0. A. [1903] w'.'N. 39; [1903] 1 K. B. 547 [1902] W. N. 51 ; [1902] 1 Oh. 751 [1902] W. N. 233; [1903] 1 Oh. 265 0. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 627 . . [1906] W. N. 137 ; [1906] 2 ) . Ch. 371 j 322 2904 77 1885 446 • 26 1981 9 1902 2420 1045 984 214 2956 1636 2997 2372 283 462 904 1225 2397 469 1447 1426 525 75 638 2357 872 1918 xlviii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Colnmn of Digest Bradford and District Eailway Servants' Ooal Supply Society : — Dixon v... Bradford : — Eex v. Bradford Corporation v. Ferrand Bradford Corporation : — Jeremiah Ambler & | Sons, Ld. V. . . . . . . . . . . j Bradford Patent Truck and Trolley Co. : — 1 Slingsby v. .. .. .. .. . . j Bradlpy : — Carritt v Bradley : — Osborne v.. . Bradshav, In re. Bradsbaw v. Bradshaw . . Bradsbaw v. Widdrington and Oust. Wid- rington and Oust v. Bradshaw Bragge : — iTolinson v. . . Brailey v. Ebodesia Consolidated, Ld Brailsford : — Bex v. . . Braime's Tadcaster Breweries, Ld. : — Dawson v. Braisby : — Hodgson v. In re Jacques Braitbwaite v. Att.-Q-en. Braithwaite v. Foreign Hardwood Co. Bramley, In tbe Goods of Brammall : — Obaplin & Co. v. Branckelow Steamship Co. v. Lamport & Holt . . Brandt : — Browne v. Brandt's, (W. Eubber Co. M.) Sons & Co. V. Dunlop Brandy DistUlers' Co., In re . . Brandy v. Owners of Steamship " Eaphael ' Brass v. London County Council Brassington, In the Goods of . . Braulik, Ex parte. In re Bremer's Patent. Jn re Hoguer's Patent. Ex parte Braulik Bray : — Shepheard v. . . Brayshaw v. Ninnis. In re Warriner Brazier v. Glasspool Bread (Aerated) Co.'s Application, In re. re Albert Baker & Co.'s Application Breadalbane (Marquis of) v. Stewart Bremer's Patent, In re. Ex parte Braulik. i In re Hogner's Patent. Ex parte Braulik j Brennan : — Eoberts v. . . Brett V. Brett In ■■] ;■! C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 444 . . [1908] W. N. 14; [1908] 1) E. B. 365 ] [1902] 2 Oh. 655 0. A. [1902] W. N. 147;) [1902] 2 Cb. 585 t [1905] W. N. 122 ; C. A. [1906] j W. N. 51 I C. A. [1901] 2 K B. 550 ; H. L. \ (E.) [1903] W. N. 92 ; [1903] [ A. C. 253 j [1903] W. N. 96 ; [1903] 2 Ob. ' 446 [1902] W. N. 15 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 436 ; 0. A. [1906] W. N. 86 [1901] W N. 148; 0. A. [1902] W. N. 107; [1902] 2 Cb. 430 [1901] 1 Oh. 28 [1910] W. N. 123; [1910] 2 Cb. 95 [1905] 2 E. B. 730 . . [1907] W. N. 160 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 359 C. A. [1902] W. N. 228; [1903] 1 Cb. 267 . . [1909] W. N. 48 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 510 C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 543 [1902] P. 106 0. A. [1908] 1 K B. 233 . . [1907] 1 K. B. 787, n. [1902] 1 K. B. 696 . . 0. A. [1904] 1 K B. 387 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 134 ; [1905] A. 0. 454 0. A. [1901] W. N. 37 0. A. [1910] W. N. 266 [1904] W. N. 102 ; [1904] K. B. 336 . . [1902] P. 1 . . [1909] 2 Cb. 217 [1906] W. N. 131 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 235; 0. A. [1907] "W.N. 206 ; [1907] 2 Cb. 571 [1903] W. N. 118 ; [1903] 2 Ch.367 .. ) [1901] W. N. 237 ; 0. A. i [1902] W. N. i62 . . . . j [1908] 2 Cb. 86 H. L. (Sc.) [1904] W. N. 60 ; ) [1904] A. 0. 217 . . . . j [1909] 2 Cb. 217 [1902] P. 143 . . [1906] w. N. 78 . . ; ; 1379 1157 2855 700 683 1758 273 83, 1948 1472 2416 530, 616 647 264 2857 1118 2289 3005 1190 2466 1241 109 604 1644 1070 2068 1891 518 1380 2710 2692 2324 1891 939 727 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. iliX Name of Case. Brettell v. Holland. In re Holland . . . . Brettingham, In re. Melhado v. Woodoook Brewer v. Ehymney Iron Oo. . . Breweriea (Bentley's Yorkshire), Ld.,imre Breweries (Bristol United), Ld. See Bristol United Breweries v. Abbot. Breweries (North-Bastern), Ld. : — Wooler v. Breweries (Biondda Valley) Co. v. Ponty- 1 pridd Union Assessment Committee . . ) Brewery (Hardy's Crown) and St. Philip's j Tavern, Manchester, In re. . . . . . j Brewery (Lion) Oo. :— Smith v. Brewster, In re. Butler v. Southam Brioe v. Carroll, hi re CaiToU Brice v. Edward Lloyd, Ld Brick (Stourbridge Glazed) and Fire Clay Co., Ld. : — Simmonds v. . . Bridge : — Smithies v. . . Biidgman : — Andrew v. Bridgwater :^Eex v. . . Bridgwater's Settlement, In re. Partridge ' V. Ward .... Brigg V. Thornton Briggs : — Gh:undy v. Briggs : — B,ex v. Briggs (James) & Son, In re Briggs & Co., Zii re. JEx parte "Wnght Bright, Ex parte. In re Bright Bright, In re. Ex parte Wingfield & Blew . . Bright : — ^Eex v. Bright (Charles) & Co. v. Sellar Bright (Charles) & Co. :— Sellar v Bright's Trustee v. SeUar Brinckman v. Matley . . Brindley, In re. Ex parte Taylor, Sons & Co. Brindley : — Greenhalgh «. Brinklow v. Singleton. In re Dunn Brinklow v. Singleton. In n Dunn , . D.D. Volume and Page. [1907] W. N. 120; [1907] 2 Ch. 88 [1904] W. N. 168 [1910J 1 Ch. 766 [1909] 2 Oh. 609 [1909] W. N. 254 ; [1910] 1 ) K. B. 247 I 0. A. [1909] W. N. 29 ; [1909] ) 1 K. B. 652 . . . . . . ) [1910]W. N. 76; C. A. [1910] W. N. 103 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 257 [1909] W. N. 54 ; [1909] 1 \ K B. 711; C. A. [1909] W. N. 177 ; [1909] 2KB. 912 1 [1908] W. N. 189; [1908] 2) Ch. 365 j [1902] W. N. 109 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 175 O.A. [1909] W. N. 187; [1909] 2 K. B. 804 [1910] 2 K B. 269 . . [1902] 2 K. B. 13 [1907 2 K B. 494; C. A. [1908] W. N. 4; [1908] 1 K. B. 596 0. 0. E. [1905] IK.B. 131 .. [1910] W. N. 188 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 342 0. A. [1904] 1 Oh. 386 [1910] W. N. 17; 1 Oh. 444 C. 0. A. [1908] W. N. 244 ; [1909] 1 K B. 381 . . 0. A. [1903] W, N. 105; [1903t 2 K. B. 156 [1906] W. N. 131 ; [1906] 2 ) K B. 209 j C. A. [1903] W. N. 17 [1903] W. N. 40 ; [1903] 1 K B. 735 : 0. 0. A. [1910] W. N. 86 . . 0. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 6 [0. A. [1904] "W. N. 128; [1904] 2 K. B. 446 [1904] W. N. 33 ; [1904] 1 Ch. \ 369 I C. A. [1904] W. N. 150 ; ) [1904] 2 Ch. 313 . . . . ) [1906] W. N. 3 ; [1906] 1 \ [1901] W. N. 125; [1901] 2) Oh. 324 j [1902] W. N. 76 [1904] W. N. 39 ; [1904] 1 Oh. ) 648 .. Column of Digestv 1868 1983 1705 264 1451 2161 1433 2097 2744 1584 1594 44 1365 809 867 1375 561 787 1622 1857 212 167 800 1990 348 714 2335 201 2787 704 2165 i TABLE OF CASES IN i THE DIGEST. Name of Case, Volume and Page. Brintons, Ld. :— Turvey v. Higsins v. Camp- bell & Harrison, Ld. . . . . Brisbane City Council:— Att.- Gen, for) Queensland !■. . . . i Briscoe, In re. Eoyds v. Briscoe Brisco v. Baillie Hamilton "Bristol City," Tlie .. '.'. ':'. Bristol Corporation :— Ashton Valeli-on Co> v. ( Bristol Corporation :— Carpenter v. ( Bristol Gas Co. and , the Bristol Tramways ( and Carriage Cd., In re i Bristol (Marquees ofj v. Inland Eevenue ) Oommrs. . . , . j Biistol tramwaysj &c.j Carriage Co. u. Fiat) Motors, Ld j Bhstol Tramways Co; :— West v ^ Bristol Union : —Wantage Union ;■ | Bristol United Breweries, Ld. v. Abbot . . { Bristol School Board, i'.^ parte. In re Eeen Bristol, &c,. Trade and Provident Society:— ] Goziiey !'. . . . . _ j Bristol Tramways and Carriage Co. (In re Bristol Gas Co. and) " Britannia," The Britannia Permanent Benefit Building ) Society :— Hughes !'. ] Btitauuio Merthyr Coal Co, :— David v. . . ' British Aluminium Co. :— Mephan-Fergusou ) Lock-Bar Pipe Co. ii. British and American Shoe Co. :— H. E. ) Kandall, Ld. v. I British Asbestos Co. c. Boyd . . t British Automobile Commercial Syndicate,- 1 Ld. : — Pye v. . . British Building Stone Co., Iii. re . j British Cash and Parcel Conveyors, Ld. v \ Lamson Store Service Co i British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co. •— ( Boston Fruit Co. t;. , . ' < British Columbia, Ld. (The Ship " Camosun" } and the Union Steamship Oompanv of^ •— i Bow, McLaohlan & Co. v '^ J '■ i British Columbia (Watts and Att-Geu. fori ) '■■ n\ atts . , . . ' '. C. A. [19041 W. N. 5 ; [1904] 1 \ E.B. 328; H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 72 ; [1905] A. C. ( 230 , . . ; P. C. [1909] A. C. 582 [1910] W. N". 261 [1902] P. 234 [1901] W. N. 232 ; [1902] P. 10 C. A, [1901] W. N. 8 ; [1901] ) 1 Ch. 591 j C. A. [1907] W. X. 11H ; ) [1907] 2 KB. 617.. ..J [1909] 2 K. B. 297 ; C. A. ) [1909] W. N. 223 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 114 ) [1901] 2 K B. 336 . . C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 831 C. A. [1908] W. N. 95 ; [1908] ( 2 K B. 14 ) [1906] W. N. 204 ; [1907] 1 ) K. B. 68 I [1907] W. X. 239 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 279 .. . .. [1902] W. N. 38 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 555 .. . .. C. A, [1909] W. X. 58 : [1909] 1 K. B. 901 . . [1909] 2 K. B. 297; 0. A. [1909] W. N. 223; [1910] 1KB. 114 [1905] P. 98 . . [1906] W. N. 17s ; [1906] 2 Ch. 607 C. A. [1909] 2 K B. 146; H.L.(E.) [1909] W.N. 257; H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 74.. H. L. (Sc.)[1910] W.N. 67.. [1902] 2 Ch. 354 112 [1903] W. N. 112; [1903] 2 Ch. 439 [1906] W.^ N. 35 ; [1906] 1 ' [1908] V' N. 174; [1908] 2 Ch. 450 . C. A. [1908] W. X. 73;' [1908] IK B. 1006.. C. A. [1905] W. X. 25 ; [1905] ^ 1 K B. 637 ; H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 110; [1906]! A. C. 336 .. .. .^ P. C. [1909] A. 0. 597 P. C. [1908] A, C. 573 Column of Digest. 1604 2092 2987 2059 2536 1401 622 2708 2260 2287 2712 1923 499 192 2705 2708 2491 1730 1676 2319 600 452 657 694 1661 1273 322 299 TABLE OF GASES IN THE -DIGEST. Niims of. Case. Volumti aud l^age. Column of Digest. British Electric Street Tramways, In re British Electric Traction Oo. v. Inland ) Revenue Oommra. . . . . . . . . j British Equitable Assurance Oo. :— Bailey v. British Equitable Bond and Mortgage ) Corporation, Ld., In re . . . . j British Griffin Chilled Iron and Steel Co. :— ) Aldrich v. . . , . . . . . . j British Homes Assurance Corporation, Ld. v. ) Paterson . . . . . . . . j British India Steam Navigation Oo. : — t Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and > China v. , . . . . . ) British Motor Syndicate,' Ld. v. Taylor & ) Sons . . . . . . . . j British Museum (Trustees of) :— 7 Att. -Gen, c. British Mutoscope and BiographCo. o. Homer } British North Borneo Co. ; — Hubback v. . . j British (North) Ey. Co. v. BudhiU Coal and } Sandstone Co. British Oil and Cake Mills, Ld. i'. Inland \ Eevenue Commrs. . . British Oil and Cake Mills, Ld. ; — Mordaunt Brothers v. . . British Power Traction and Lighting Co., Iii re. Halifax Joint Stock Banking Co. v. > British Power Traction and Lighting Co. ) British Power, Traction and Lighting Co., \ In re. Halifax Joint Stock Banking Co. v. I British Power, Traction and Lighting Co., ( (No. 2) ... J Bntish Power Traction and Lighting Co., Ld., Lire. Halifax Joint Stock Banking f Co., Ld. V. British Power Traction and | Lighting Co., Ld J British South Africa Co. u. De Beers Con- ) solidated Mines, Ld j British Thomson Houston Co. :— Maxwell v. ) Blaokyell & Co., Third Parties . . . . | British "Vacuum Cleaner Go. v. New Vacuum ) Cleaner Co, . . ■ . . . . : . . . | British Widows' Assurance Co., In re . . \ Briton Ferry Burial Board : — Williams v. . . Britten & Qilson : — Green v. . . Britton : — Atkinson v Brixton Prison (Governor of) :- ;^arte Calberia Brixton Prison (Governor of) :- parte Perciyal Brixton Prison (Governor of) :- parte Savarkar Brixton .Prison (Governor of) :- parte Van Der Auwera Eex y. Ex' •Bex V. ix / Eex V. Ex] -Eex V. [1903] 1 Oh. 725 C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 441 , . C. A. [1904] W. N. 30 ; [1904] , lCh.374;H.L. (E.)[1906] ( W. N. 2 ; [1906] A. 0. ( 35 ) [1910] W. N. 53 ; [1910] 1 | Oh. 5'74 J C. A. [1904] W. N. 177 ; ) [1904] 2K. B. 850.. .. j [1902] W. N. 133 ; [1902] 2 | Oh. 404 j P. C. [1909] A. C. 369 C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 122 . . { [1903] AV. N. 125 ; [1903] 2 ( Ch. 698 j [1901] W. N. 24 ; [1901] 1 Ch. ) 671 ( C. A. [1904] W. N. 105 ; | [1904] 2 K. B. 473 . . , . t H. L. (So.) [1909] W. N. 223 ; } [1910] A. 0. 116 . . . . ) 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 689 [1910] 2 K. B. 502 . . [1906] W. N. 33 ; [1906] 1 Ch. ) 497 [1907] W. N. 49; [1907] 1 Ch. 528 [1910] W. N. 194; [1910] 2) Ch. 470 j [1910] 1 Ch. 354 ; 0. A, [1910] ) 2 Oh. 502 j [1904] 2 K. B. 842 [1907] W. N. 144 ; [1907] 2 ) Ch. 312 ' C. A. [1905] W. N. 90 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 40 [1905] 2 K. B. 565 C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 350 . . [1909] W.M. 102 [1907] 2 K. B. 861 [1907] 1 K. B. 696 . . 0. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 1056 . . [1907] W. N. 88 ; [1907] 2 ) K. B. 167 i 592 2269 495 082 730 1862 2629 1876 840 912 726 2122 2264 2294 519 521 410, 629 632 737 503 1265 282 1654 1883 1063 1064 1143 1062 i 2 lii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Broad, In re. Smith v. Draeger . . . . ■ Broad v. Askham Broadbent, Ex parte. Eex v. Yorkshire ) (West Biding) Justices . . . . . . j Broadbent v. Shepherd Broadwood's Settlement, In re. Broadwood / c. Broad wood . . . . . . . . . . j Brock (H. N.) & Co., In re | Brock : — Samuel Johnson & Sons, Ld. r. . . Brockett, In re. Dawes v. Miller . . . . Brooklebank v. Thompson Bi'ockman, In re . . . . . . . . Broderick v. London County Council . . ! Brodhurst : — Powell v. . . . . Brodie : — Goddard v. In re Ohisholui Bromley v. Smith . . . . . . Bromley Corporation v. Cheshire Bromley Corporation : — Davis r. Bromley Eural Council /•. Croydon Corpora- j tiou . . . . . . . . . . I Brompton (Great Northern, Piccadilly, and) ) By. Co. i: Att.-Gen ) Brond v. Broomhall . . . . . . . . ) Brook V. Meltham Brook Brothers, Ld. Council Urban Council. . Meltham Urban Brook !'. Whitton. In re "Winn Brook (H. N.)& Co., I/i )-c Brooke, J» re. Edyvean v. Archer - . Brooker, Dore & Co. : — Morriston linplate ) Co. V . . j Brookes v. Cohen, fn re Cohen Brookes v. Hansen . . . . Brooks r. Bagshaw Brooks !■. Baker . . . . j Brooks [■. Beirnsteiu . . . . . . . . j Brooks : — Kershaw v. . . Brooks !'. Mason . . , . . . j Brooks : — Metropolitan Water Board r. . . j Brooks V. Mucklestou Volume and Page. [1901] W. N. 90; [1901] 2 Ch. ) 86 ) [1909] W. N. 236 [1910]2K. B. 192 [1901] 2 K. B. 274 [1907] W. N. 212; [1908] 1 ) Ch. 115 j C. A. [1909] W. N. 233; [1910] j 1 Ch. 130 ) [1907] W. N. 189 ; [1907] 2 '( Ch. 533 ) [1907] W. N. 237 ; [1908] 1 ( Ch. 185 ) [1903] 2 Ch. 344 [1909] W. N. 17; [1909] 1\ Ch. 354 ; C. A. [1909] ( W. N. 127 ; [1909] 2 Ch. ( 170 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 187; [1908] ) 2 K. B. 807 I [1901] W. N. 106 ; [1901] 2 ) Ch. 16(1 i [1902] W. N. 24 ; [1902] 1 Ch. ) 457 i [1909] 2 K. B. 235 . . . . I [1908] 1 K. B. 680 . . t C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 170 [1907] 2 K. B. 39 ; C. A. ) [1907] W. N. 244 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 353. . H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 1 69; [1906] [1906] W. N. 69; [1906] 1 K. B. 571 . . . ( [1908] W. N. 121 ; [1908] 2 ' K. B. 341; C. A. [1908]) W. N. 180 ; [1908] 2 K. B. ' 780 ;H.L.(E.) [1909] W.N. | 123 ; [1909] A. C. 438 . ' [1910] 1 Ch. 278 C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 130 P. C. [1903] A. C. 379 [1908] W. N. 16; [1908] 1) KB. 403 .. [1910] W. N. 216 [1906] W. N. 87 ; [1906] 2 Ch. ) 129 ,, [1904] 2 K. B. 798 [1905] W. N. 161 ; [1906] 1 ) K. B. 11 . . ) [1908] W. N. 238 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 98 .. ) [1909] 2 K B. 265 . C. C. R. [1902] W. N. 193 ; [1902] 2 K.B. 743.. [1910] 2 K B. 134 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 208 . . I [1909] W. N. 188 ; [1909] 2 Ch..519 . j Column of Digest. 1936 1865 2301 1826 2377 2694 1474 2978 2863 2583 1605 1745 704 1670 2423 1495 1165 2259 2529 2427 2906 2694 2658 767 1942 517 46 1851 141 1504 821 2849 1728 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. liii Name o^ Case, Volums »nci Page. Column of Digest. Brooks (J. B.) & Co. I). Lyoett's Saddle and Motor Accessory Co. Brooks, Jenkins & Co. v. Torquay Corpora- tion . . . . ... Broome : — Shepheard v. ' Minister / ■• ( Broomhall : — Brond v... Brothers of the Christian Schools v. of Education for Ontario Brotherton, In the Goods of . . Brotherton's Estate, In re. Brotherton \ V. Brotherton. In re Markham's Settle- ' ment . . Brougham :— Bottomley v. Brown, In re. Ingall r. Brown Brown : — Barnes i'. Brown : — Barqiie Quilpue, Ld. r. Brown : — Bennetts & Co. v. . . Brown :— Citizens' Life Assurance Co. Brown : — Cole v. Brown : — Dean v. Brown v. Dimbleby . . Brown : — Everall v. . . Brown V. Peeney Brown i'. Haig , . Brown r. Hey wood. In re Dunster . Brown v. Houston Brown v. Leggett Brown v. Perkins. In re Perkins Brown v. Skirrow Brown : — Victorian Ry. Commrs. r. Ex parte Victorian Ey. Commrs. Brown : — Warren v. . . .. . . Brown :— Weir r. Brown & Gregory, Ld., In re. Shepheard < . Brown & Gregory, Ld. Andrews v. Brown [ & Gregory, Ld. . . . . j Browne, In re. Ex parte Martingell . . { Browne v. Brandt ■• ( Browne v. Browne, In re Browne's Policy j [1904] W. N. 40 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 312 [1902] 1 K, B, 601 . . H. L. (E.) [1904] W, N. Ill ; [1904]^ A. C, 342 . . [1906] W. N. 69; [1906] 1 K. B. 571 P. C. [1907] A. C. 69.. [1901] P. 1,39 [1907] W. N. 230 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 56 [1908] W. N. 32 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 584 [1903] W. N. 209 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 120 [1908] W. N. 205 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 38 C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 264 [1908] 1 E. B. 490 P. C. [1904] A. C. 423 [1907] W. N. 113 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 301 C. A. [1909] W. N, 146 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 573; H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N". 102; [1910] A. C. 373 . . C. A. [1903] W. N. 182 ; [1904] ') 1 K. B. 28 j [1905] W. N. 96 ; [1905] 2 ^ K B. 196; C. A. [1906] ( W. N. 177 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 884 J C. A. [1906] W. N. 66 ; [1906] ) 1 K. B. 563 ) [1905] W. X 120 ; [1905] 2 ) Ch 379 1 [1908] W. N. '223; [1909] 1 j Ch. 103 ) C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 855 [1906] 1 K. B. 330 [1907] W. N". 219 ; [1907] 2 ) Ch. 596 ( [1902] P. 3 P. C. [1906] A. C. 381 C. A. [1901] W. N. 214 ; ( [1902] 1 K. B. 15 , . . . I H. L. (Sc) [1908] W, N, 40 ; ( [1908] A, C, 162 , . . . ) [1904] W, N. 55 ; [1904] 1 Ch, \ 627 ; C. A, [1904] W. N. 173 ; [19041 2 Ch. 448 . . ) [1904] W. N. 69; [1904] 2) K, B, 133 [1902] 1 K. B, 696 , . [1902] W, N, 225 ; [1903] 1 / Ch. 188 ] 1885 1497 516 2529 320 2069 2358 870 1576 883 2460 2467 1796 1920 764 1200 751 1979 731 2900 723 1906 2344 2917 139 1460 362 448 1123 1241 1191 liT TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Caso. Browne : — Chapman r. Bro\7ne v. Flower Browne v. Furtado Browne : — Powell r. . . Browne's Policy, //i re. Browne v. Browne Bruce, In re. Halsey r. Bruce Bruce, In re. Lawford r. Bruce Volume and rage. Column of Digest. -Att.-Gen. r, -MacColl V. In re Walker Bruce : Bruce: Bruce Smith : — G-lenie v. . . . . . . Bruhn v. Eex . . Bruner r. Moore . . . . . . j Brunet : — United Shoe Machinery Co. of '( Canada r. Brunner, Mond & Co. r Ld Brunning, Iii re. Gammon v. Dale Bruster : — Nitedals Taendstikfabrik v. . . Brutton & Burney, Ld., I/> re. hi re Burney's ) New Cross Brewery, Ld, The Salt Union, ( ■1 Bruyere : — Pepin v. . . "Bruxellesville," The Bryan, In the Estate of Bryan, In the Estate of. Board of Educa- tion V. Eeubell Bryant; — Cable r. Bryden : — Sadgrove i' Brydges v. Brydges & Wood . . Brydges & Wood : — Brydges <■. Brydone's Settlement, In re. Cobb v. Blnck- burne . . Bryndu and Port Talbot Collieries, Ld. , /« re Bryson r. Gamage, Ld. Buchan (Earl of) i'. liord Advocate . . Buchanan : — Bland r. . Buchanan r. Hill. In re Bilham Buchheister & Co. : — Foong Tai & Co. r. . Buck : — Pontj'pool Guardians r. Buck ?'. Smith. Keen r. Adams. Gardner, J Lockett & Plinton r. Doe C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 785 [1910] W. N. 261 C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 72.3 [1907] W. N. 152 ; C. A. ( [1907] W. N. 228 . . . . ) [1902] W. N. 225 ; [1903] 1 i Ch. 188 I [1905] W. X. 120 ; [1905] 2 / Ch. 372 ) [1908] W. N. 99; [1908] 1 Ch. 850 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 209; [1908] 2 Ch. 682 [1901] 2 K. B. 391 . . [1908] W. N. 47 ; [1908] 1 ) Ch. 560 ) [1907] 2 K. B. 507 ; C. A. ( [1908] 1 K. B. 263 . . . . ) P. C. [1909] A. C. 317 [1904] W. N. 23 ; [1904] 1 Ch. ) 305 ' . . j P. C. [1909] A. C. 330 [1906] 2 Iv. B. 822 . . [1908] W. N. 243 ; [1909] 1 ( Ch. 276 j [1906] W. N. 1 73 ; [1906] 2 ( Ch. 671 C. A. [1901] W. N. 37 ; [1901] ) 1 Ch. 637 ) C. A. [1901] W. N. 20s ; [1902] ( 1 Ch. 24 ) [1908] P. 312 [1907] P. 125 [1905] P. 88 [1907] W. N. 238 ; [1908] 1 ) Ch. 259 i [1907] W. N. 23 ; [1907] 1 Ch. \ 318 j C. A. [1909] W. N, 93 ; [1909] ( P. 187 . . . . ) C. A. [1909] W. N. 93 ; [1909] ( P. 187 I C. A. [1903] W. X. M ; [19011] ) 2Ch.84 j [1904] W. X. 136 [1907] W. X. 164 ; [1907] 2 ( K. B. 630 • ( H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W. N. 241 ; ( [1909] A. C. 16(i , . .1 [1901] 2 K. B, 7."» [1901] W.X. HI: [1901] 2 Ch, , 169 \ V. C, [1908] A. C. 4,JS [1906] W. N. 19.); [1906] 2 | K. B. 896 ) [1906] 2 K B. 171 2756 1377 2230 1749 1191 2369 37 22.53 1949 246 262S 660 309 1709 64 2038 565 041 2506 2071 2075 1456 486 919 919 240S liO;! 1908 2271 (i9(i 2984 380 1922 2664 1 TABLE OF CASKS IN THE DIGEST. Name of Civse. Buckeridge : — Ajres v. Wheale v. Ehymney 1 Iron Co. Jones v. Ehymney Iron Co. . . ) Buckett : — Eose v. Buokland v. Bedingfield. In re Cottrell Buoknall : — Watts v. . . Dunn 1) Buckton, In re. Buckton v. Buckton Buoknall Brothers : — Dunn v. Donald Currie & Co. Buckwell & Berkeley, In re Budd-Scott V. Daniell . . Budgett V. Improved Patent Forced Draught Purnace Syndicate, Ld. Budhill Coal and Sandstone Co. : — North British Ey. Co. v. Buenos Ayres and Pacific Ry. Co., Ex parte, In re Clark Buenos Ajrres Grand National Tramway! Co. : — Hinds v. . . . . . . . . ) Buist (Chapman and) : — Chapman v. Bulawayo Market and Offices Co., In re Bulavayo Municipality v. Bulawayo Water' works Co. ... . Bulawayo Waterworks Co. : — Bulawayo Municipality v. Bull : — Eex v. . . Bull, Third party. Sydney Municipal ) Council V. Cook , . . . . . j BuUard, King & Co. :— Pearoe v. Bullivant v. Att.-Gen. for Victoria . . Bullock V. London General Omnibus Co. Bulmer : — Dean v. Bulteel V. Lawdeshayne. Settled Estates III re Hunt'i Bumpus, In re. Ex parte ^Tiite Bunole : — Steven v. Burbidge, In re Burchell v. Gowrie and Blockhouse Gcdlieries. Ld Burden v. Eigler Burdett : — Eolt v. In re Sir John Eolt Burdon v. Burden Burdon v. Oregson & Co. ' . . Burgess v. Booth Volume and Page, C. A, [1901] W. N. 222 ; ] [1902] 1 K. B. 57 . . C. A. [1901] W. N. 118 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 449 j [1910] W. N. 21 ; [1910] 1 ) Ch. 402 . . . . . . ( [1902] W. N. 163 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 628 ; 0. A. [1903] W, N. 57 ; [1903] 1 Oh, 766 C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 814 [1907] W. N. 180 ; [1907] 2 \ Ch. 406 I [1902] W.N. 137 ; C. A. [1902] \ W. N. 152 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 596 ) [1902] W. N. 130; [1902] 2) K. B. 351 ) [1901] W. N. 23 H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 223 ; \ [1910] A. 0. 116 . . j [1901] W. N. 12 ; [1901] 1 j K B. 655 i [1906] W. N. 187 ; [1906] 2 ) Oh. 654 j [1910] P. 271 [1907] W. N. 197 ; [1907] 2 ) Oh. 458 j P. 0. [1908] A. 0, 241 P. 0. [1908] A. C. 241 P. 0. [1903] A. C. 158 [1908] W. N. 205 ; [1909] 1 } K. B. 7 ) [1908] W. N. 48 ; [1908] 1 ( Ch. 780 j H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 96 [1901] A. 0. 196 . . 0. A. [1906] W. N. 224; [1907] 1 K. B. 264 . . [1905] P. 1 [1905] W. N. 141 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 418; 0. A. [1906] W.N 105; [1906] 2 Ch. 11 [1908] W. N. 90; [1908] 2 K. B. 330 . . [1902] W. N. 44 0. A. [1902] W. N. 41 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 426 . . P. 0. [1910] A. C. 614 [1910] W. N. 279 [1908] W. N. 76 [1901] P. 52 . . 0. A. [1906] 2 K. R 275 [1908] W.N. 83; [1908] 1 Ch 880; C. A. [1908] W. N, 201 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 648 Column of Digest. 1613 230 61 51i 2445 2976 2588 1387 525 2122 203 419 920 452 331 331 2832 2637 214 897 1969 2057 2365 176 97 1649 316 1695 .1940 954 1648 670 Ivi TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Xaiiie of Case, Burgis V. Oonstantine Burgos V. Nascimento. McEeand, Claimant Burke, In re. Burke v. Burke Burke v. Amalgamated Society of Dyers Burke : — Lancashire and Yorksliire Eever- sionary Interest Co. v. In re Palmer Burke : — Leggett v. . . Burkinshaw : — Plumpton r Burland v. Earle Burland v. Earle Burley, In re :— Alexander v. Burley Burn and Berridge, In re Burn (Eayne &):— Nisbet v. Burnand, In re. ExparieBaiier, Svitton & Co Burnand, In re. Ex parte Wilson Burnand : — Hambro c. Bumand v. Waits. 7» re Seton Smith Burnby, Ex parte Burne :— Towry Law v. In re EUenborough BurnelFs Vienna Bakery Co. :— Eobinson v. Burnett : — Davies v. . . Burney's New Cross Brewery, Ld, In re Brutton & Burney, Ld. Burnham :— Eoussell r. " Burns," The Burns : — Edwards v. In re Eve Burns :— Whiteley v BuiT V. Smith . . Burr V. Theatre Eoyal, Drury Lane, Ld. Burroughs, Wellcome & Co.'s Trade Marks, In re . . Burrows r. Lang Bun-ows r. Matabele Gold Eeefs and Estates Co. Burton, In re. Danby v. Burton . . ' ' Burton i<. Bevan Burton v. Bloomsbury Vestry . . : . . Burton v. Hudson . . . . . . ',' Burton v. Nicholson . . . . . . ■ Bui-ton and Blinkhorn, In re. . Jn re. / •■ ) ( Volume and Page. C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 484 [1908] W. N. 237 [1908] W. N. 131; [1908] Ch. 248 [1906] 2 K. B. 583 . . [1907] W. N. 73 ; [1907] 1 Ch 486 [1902] Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 163 . . C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 572 P. C. [1902] A. C. 83.. P. C. [1905] A. C. 590 [1909] W. N. 253; [1910] Ch. 215 [1908] W. N. 175 C. A. [1910] W. N. 194; [1910] 2 K. B. 689 C. A. [1904] W. N. 77 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 68 . . [1904] W. N. 73; C. A. [1904] W.N. 77; [1904] 2 K. B. 68 [1903] 2 K. B. 399; C. A. [1904] W. N. 77 ; [1904] 2 K B. 10 . . [1902] W. N. 68; [1902] 1 Ch. 717 . . [1901] W. N. 132 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 458 .. .. [1903] W. N. 18; [1903] 1 Ch. 697 . . [1904] 2 K B. 624 [1902] W. N. 57; [1902] 'i E:. B. 666 . . C. A. [1901] W. X. 37 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 637 . . [1908] W. N. 228; [1909] 1 Ch. 127 . . 0. A. [1907] P. 137 . . [1909] W. N. 86 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 796 .. [1908] W. N. 42; [i90S]"i K. B. 705 . . . C. A. [1909] W.N. 115; [1909] 2 K. B. 306 . C. A. [1907] W. N. 48 ; [19071 1 K. B. 544 C. A. [1904] W.N. 87; [1904] 1 Ch. 736 . ' L J [1901] W. N. 115 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 502 C.A. [1901] W.N. 68; [1901] 2 Oh. 23 . , ^ [1901] W. N. 202 [1908] W. N. 140 Ch. 240 [1901] 1 K B. 650 [1909] 2 K ~B. 564 [1909] W. N. 19; [1909] 1 K B. 397 . . [1903] 2 K. B. 300 [1908] 2 ') Column of Digest. 2770 248 2756 2701 2737 1698 1555 295 305 2956 2595 1592 164 164 2030 3004 1447 2420 425 1448 565 405 2476 2930 2255 870 1690 2688 2858 563 2764 404 2159 1324 1771 2610 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Ivii Name of CaRe. Burton & Co. : — Compania Naviera Vasoon- '( zada V. . . . . . . . , . . . . j Burtwell : — Page v. . . Bury V. Famatina Development Corporation, Ld. Busbridge : — Banks r. In re Banks Bush )'. Hawes . , Bush !'. Summers. In re Newland . . Bushell 1'. Hammond . . Bushmills (Old) Distillery Co. : — Adair v. See Old Bushmills Distillery Co. :— Adair c. Bussell : — Harding v. . . Butchart c. Butchart & Hill . . Butchers' Co. v. Eutland. In re Meeoh's Will i "Buteshire," The ' Butler or Black r. Fife Coal Co Butler V. Eice . . . . . . . . . . j Butler i'. Southam. In re Brewster. . . . j Butler and ' Grove : — Stourbridge Urban \ Coimcil v. . . . . , . . . j Butlin V. Harris. //; re Beard's Trusts . . j Butt : — Harrington v. . . Butt :— "Viliite )• | Butter (United) Companies of France, Ld. : — \ Thomas v. . . . . . . , , j Butterknowle Colliery Co. : — Bishop Auok- ) land Industrial Co-operative Society, Ld. v. 1 Butterley Co. r. New Hucknall Colliery Co. Butterworth v. West Eidiug of Yorkshire Elvers Board. . re ) Button, In re. Ex parte Haviside Button, In re. Exparte Voss Button : — Atkinson v. . . ■i BwUfa and MerthjT Dare Steam Collieries (1891) and Pontypridd Waterworks Co., In re . . Byford v. Eussell ; Morris, Claimant Bynoe v. Bank of England . . Byrne v. Eeid Volume anrt Page. [1906] 1 K. B. 237 C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 758 C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 7o4 H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N 157 ; [1910] A. 0. 439 [1905] 1 Ch. 547 0. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 216 [1904] W. N. 181 C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 563 C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 83 H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 50 [1901] A. C. 266 . . [1910] 1 Ch. 426 [1909] P. 170 H.L.(Sc.) [1910] W.N. 194. [1910] W. N. 143; [1910] Ch. 277 [1908] W. N. 139 ; [1908] Ch. 365 [1908] W. N. 210; [1909] Ch. 87 [1904] W. N. 18 ; [1904] 1 Oh 270 [1905] P. 3, n [1908] W. N. 208; C. A, [1909] 1 K B. 50 . . [1909] 2 Ch. 484 [1904] W. N. 32 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 151;[1904]2Ch.419 H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 95 [1906] A. C. 305 . . [1908] W. N. 161; [1908] 2 Ch. 475; C. A. [1908] W. N. 221 ; C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 37 (Erratum) 226; *" H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 102 ; [1910] A. C. 381 H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 45 . . [1907] W. N. 24; [1907] 1^. K. B. 397 ; C. A. [1907] / W. N. 85 ; [1907] 2 K. B. I 180 ; C. A. [1905] W. N. 24 ; [1905] ) 1 C. B. 602 j [1909] W. N. 74 [1901] 2 K. B. 789 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 102; [1902] 2 K. B. 135 ; H. L. (B.) [1903] W. N. 149; [1903] A. C. 426 [1907 C. A. 0. A. 2 K. B. 522 . . 1902] 1 K. B. 467 ^1902] 2 Ch. 735 Column of Digest. 2456 1596 477 2919 1591 2765 1441 1274 952 367 2556 2326 1744 2907 2639 2925 2057 2746 616 1210 1707 2278 204 216 73 1711 2436 808 1864 lyiii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Kame of Casp. c. Cab (Provincial Motor) Co. v. Dunning Cab (Waterloo Taxi-) Co, :— Doggett r. Cable V, Bryant , . Cable : — Eex r. . . Cable Eoad (No. 12), Hoylake, Cheshire, III re . . Cabot V. Att.-Gen. of Quebec . . Cacket v. Keswick Cadbury, Jones & Co. : — Du Pasquier v. Caddick v. Highton " Cadeby," The Cadeby (Denaby and) Main Collieries, Ld. : — Denaby Overseers /■. Cadogan and Hans Place Estate (No. 2), Ld., In re. Graham v. Cadogan and Hans Place Estate (No. 2) Ceementium (Parent) Co., In re Cain : — Att.-Gen. for Canada v. The Same V. Gilhula Cain V. Frederick Leyland & Co. (1900), Ld. Caine : — Palace Shipping Co. v. CaiiTi Line of Steamships, Ld. v. Trinity House Corporation . . Cairney v. Back " Cairo," The. Watson and Parker v. Gregory Cake (British Oil and) Mills, Ld. : — Mordaunt Brothers v. . . Calberla, Ex parte. Hex v. Brixton Prison (Governor of) Calcutta Steamship Co., Ld. i: Andrew Wpir & Co Calderwood : — Murnin v. Caledon Shipbuilding and Engineering Co. :— Crossan v, Caledonian Coal Co. v. Seaham Colliery Co Caledonian Landing, Shipping and Salvage Co. : — East London Harbour Board i'. Caledonian Ey. Co. i'. Barrie . , Caledonian Ey. Co. :— Bathgate v. . . Caledonian Ey. Co. v. Davidson Caledonian Ey. Co. v. Glasgow (City of) Cor poration Volume and Page. [1909] 2 K B. 599 . . C. A. [1 910] W. N. 137 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 336 [1907] W. N. Ch. 259 238; [1908] I ) [1906] W. N. 82 ; [1906] 1 ) K. B. 719 J [1904] W. N. 8 P. C. [1907] A. C. 511 [1901] W. N. 159 ; C. A. ) [1902] W. N. 118 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 456 ) C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 104 [1901] 2 Ch. 476, n [1909] P. 257 H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 82 ; ) [1909] A. C. 247 . , . ) [1906]W. N. 112 [1908] W. N. 257 P. C. [1906] A. C. 542 C. A. [1908] W. X. 5 ; [1908] / 1 K. B. 441 . . ... . . I 0. A. [1907] 1 K B. 670 H.L. (E.) [1907] W.N. 195,- [1907] A. 0. 386 . . [1907] W. N. 58; [1907] 1 K. B. 604; C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 528 . . [1906] 2 K. B. 746 . . [1908] W. N. 230 [1910] 2 K. B. 502 . . [1907] 2 K. B, 861 . . [1910] 1 K B. 759 (1899) Ct. of Sess. (Se.) [1902] W. N. 185 H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. X. 104 P. C. [1901] A. 0. 554 P. C. [1908] A. C. 271 H. L. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 60 [1903] A. 0. 126 . . [1901] Ct. of SesR. (Sc.) [19031 W. N. 161 . . H.L. (Sc.)[1902] W. N. 156 [1903] A. C. 22 H. L. (Sc.)|[1907] W. N. 6r [1907]A. C. 160 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. lis Name of Case. Caledonian Ey. Co. v. Glasgow (City of) Cor- ) poration (No. 2) . . . , j Caledonian Ey. Co. : — Grewar v. . . . . j Caledonian Ey. Co. v. Kirkcaldy and District ) Ey. Co I Calgary and Edmonton Land Co., In re Calgary and Edmonton Ey. Co. v. Eex Calgary and Medicine Hat Land Co., In re. Pigeon ?■. The Co. Calico Printers' Association, Ld. : — Shirt v. California Eig Syrup Co., In re Callaghan : — Bastings v. Callander : — Smith v. . . . . . . . . { Callender : — Mears v. . . . . . . . . j Callingham and Thompson : — Leney & Son, ) Ld. r j Calthorpe : — Nash v. . . . . . . '. Calrerley's Settled Estates, In re . . . . j Camberwell Corporation r. Dixon . . Came : — Consolidated Car Heating Co. v. . . Cameron v. Wiggins . . Cameron v. Young . . . . . . } CammeU, Laird & Co. : — Steel v. "Camosun" (The Ship) and Union Steam- j ship Company of British Columbia, Ld. : — ' Bow, McLaohlan & Co. r. . . Camp : — Charrington & Co. i;. f ' Campania," The Campbell, In re . . Campbell v. Eife Coal Co. Campbell v. London Pressed Hinge Co. re London Pressed Hinge Co. Volume anrl Page. Campbell & Harrison, Ld. : — Higgins Turvey %<, Brintons, Ld. ■i 4 Campbell & Harrison, Ld. : — Osmond r. Campbell Davys v. Lloj'd . . . . . . Campbell, Ld. : — Owens )'. Canada (Att.-Gen. for Dominion of J and ^ Cumberland Ey. and Coal Co. : — St. John / Pilot Commissioners v. . . . . ) Canada (Dominion of) v. Province of ) Ontario . . . . . . . . . . ) Canada Grand Trunk Ey. Co. :— Miller j H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W. N. 219; 1 [1909] A. C. 138 . . . . j (1902) Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1903] ) W. N. 167 ) H. L. (Sc.) [1901] W. N. 102 [1906] 1 Ch. 141 P. C. [1904] A. C. 165 C. A. [1908] W. N. 213 ; \ [1908] 2 Ch. 652 . . C. A. [1909] W.N. 84; [1909] 2 K. B. 51 [1909] W. N. 109 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 99 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 233 ; tl910] 1 Ch. 130 . . P. C. [1905] A. C. 351 H. L. (Sc.) [1901] W. N. 102 ; ) [1901] A. C. 297 . . . . j [1901] W. N. 114 ; [1901] 2 ( Ch. 388 1 C. A. [1907] W. N. 224; [1908] ) 1 K. B. 79 t C. A. [1905] W. N. 100 ; C. A. ( [1905] 2 Ch. 237 . . ) [1903] W. N. 192; [1904] 1 ) Ch. 150 j [1910] 1 2. B. 424 , . P. 0. [1903] A. C. 509 [1901] 1 K B. 1 H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W. N. 61 ; | [1908] A. C. 176 . . . . f C. A. [1905] W. N. 84 ; [1905] I 2 K. B. 232 j P. C. [1909] A. C. 597 [1901] W. N. 244 ; [1902] 1 \ Ch. 386 ) C. A. [1901] P. 289 . . C. A. [1901] W. N. 228 ; \ ■ [1902] 1 K. B. 113 . . . . j [1902] Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] \ W. N. 171 ) [1905] 1 Ch. 576 C. A. [1904] W. N. 5 ; [1904] \ -1 K. B. 328; H. L. (E.) [1905] W, N.. 72 ; [1905] A. C. 230 . . .. ) C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 852 C. A. [1901] W. N. 150 ; [1901] ) 2 Ch. 518 j C. A. [1904] 2K. B. 60 .. P. C. [1910] A. C. 208 P. C. [1910] A. 0.637 . P. C. [1906] A. C. 187 Column of Bif^esl. 2317 1608 2109 544 318 429 1650 2694 1810 1350 1351 2170 513 2351 1534 311 2678 1373 1604 322 2171 2492 2206 1610 622 1604 1599 260 1645 323 307 310 Ix TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. N'ame of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Trunk Ry. Go. of) v. ] ■Kensington Land ] Canada (Grand Robertson Canada Industrial Co, Co. V. . . . . " Canada" (Owner of K.S.) : — Eiohelieu and ^ Ontai'io Navigation Co. v. Owners of S.S. "Cape Breton" .. .. .. ..; Canada (United Shoe Machinery Co. of) v. \ Brunet . . . . . . . . j Canadian Agricultural, Coal and Colonization ^ Corporation : — Mortgage Insviiance Cor- poration V. . . . . . . . . ) Canaiiiaii—Eacific Ey. Co. : — Att.-Gen. for ) British Columbia v. . . . . . . . . J Canadian Pacific Ey. Co. v. Blain . . . . Canadian Pacific Ey. Co. : — City of Toronto \ Corporation v. . . . . . . . . J Canafian Pacific Ey. Co. v. Eoy Canadian Pacific Ey. Co. i-. Toronto Corpora- ] tion . . . . . . . . . . . . J Canadian Produce Corporation, Ld. : — Kn- ] anoe and Issue, Ld. v. . . . . j -Att.-Gen. II. . j Canal (Grand Junction) Co. :- Trusts, In re. Mayers Canney's Strover "Canning," Owners of S.S. 'v. Owners' of S.S. "B&Uanoch." The " Bella- nooh " . . . . . . . . . ' Cannings, Ld. , and Middlesex County Coun- i cU, In re . . . . . . ] Cannock Chase Colliery Co. ; — Anslow v. . . - Cannon Brewery Co. Co. i; -Gas Light and Coke Canterbury (Archbishop of) : — Eex v. Canterbury (Archbishop of) : — Eex v. Cantin : — City of Montreal v.. . Cantlay : — Weatheritt v. Canton Insurance OfHoe, Ld. : — Williams & Co. 1) "Cape Breton" (Owners of S.S.) : — Eichelieu and Ontario Navigation Co. v. Cape of Good Hope Government : — Vilander Concessions Syndioa,te i'. . . Cape Town Board of Executors : — Stephen Cape Town Tramways Cos.- : — Eastern and South African Telegraph Co. v. Capell 1'. Winter Capital and Counties Bank, Ld. : — Gordon i'. Gordon v. London City and Midland Bank ■ Ld P. C. [1909] A. C. 325 P. C. [1903] A. C. 21.:j P. C. [1907] A. C. 112 P. C. [1909] A. C. 330 [1901] W.N. 135; [1901] 2 Ch. 377 P. C. [1906] A. C. 204 P. C. [1904] A. C. 453 P. C. [1908] A. C. 54 . . P. C. [1902] A. C. 220 P. C. [1905] A. C. 33 . . [1904] W. N. 175; [1905] ( 1 Ch. 37 . . j [1909] W. N. 167 ; [1909] 2 ( Ch. 505 I [1910] W. N. 45 H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 269 . . C. A. [1907] 1 K B. 51 C. A. [1909] W. N. 4 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 352; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 115; [1909] A. 0. 435 . . C. A. [1903] W. N. 36 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 593; H. L. (E.' [1904] W. N. 110; [1904 A C 331 [1902] 'aV. N.'o2; [1902] 2, K. B. 503 . . 1 [1903] 1 K. B. 289 P. C. [1906] A. C. 241 [1901] 2 K. B. 285 H. L. (E.) [1901] W. X. 157 ; i [1901] A. C. 462 ... ., ) P. C. [1907]A, C. 112 P. C. [1907] A. C. ISG P. C. [1909] A. C. 347 P. C. [1902] A. C. 381 [1907] W. N. 154 ; [1907] 2 ) Ch. 876 C. A, [1901] W. N. 247 ; [1902] , 1 K. B. 242 ; H. L. (E.) ( [1903] W. N. 92 ; [1903] ( A. C. 240 ; 318 312 321 309 420 298 314 298 313 308 511 t)29 2900 2497 2117 1589 1133 1565 2602 323 105 1269 321 330 3o6 331 1749 146 TABLE OP CASES IN THE DICtEST. Ixi Name of Caae. Capital and Counties Bank, Ld. t: Ehodes . . Car (Crichton and Law) and General Insur- ance Corporation, Ld. , In re Caratal (Xew) Mines, Ld., In re "Cardiff," The Cardiff Corporation : — Eogers v. Cardiff Ry. Co. v. Taff Vale By. Co. Cardiff Union : — Glamorgan Asylum v. County ' °l Cardiff Workmen's Cottage Co., In re Cardigan (Lady) v. Curzon Howe Cardy, Hx parte. Eex v. Southampton Licensing Justices . . Carey r. Bexhill Corporation . . Caridad Copper Mining Co. v. Swallow Oarisbrook (S.S.) Co. v. London and Provincial Marine and General Lisuiance Co. Carl Brothers, Ld. v. Wehster Carlish v. Salt . . " CarUsle," The Carlisle Corporation : — Carlisle Etiral Council V. Carlisle Eural Council v. Carlisle Corporation Carlton : — Turner v. . . Carlton Manufacturing Co., Ld. and Crah- tree, Ld. : — Premier Lidustrial Bank, Ld. u. Carmack v. Eex . . Carmiohael v. Evans . . Carmichael v. Greenock Harboiu- Trustees . . Carnarvon County Council ; — Morris v. Came : — Marks v. . . . . . . ; Camley :— Wilson v. . . . . ; Carpalla United China Clay Co. -.^Great \ Western Ey. Co. (^. . . . . • ■ , Carpalla United China Clay Co. (No. 2) :— ; weat Western Ey. Co. v. . . Carpenter v. Bristol Corporation Carpenter : — Courage & Co. v. Volume and Page. [1902]W. N. 94;C. A. [1903]-) W. N. 45 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 631 ) [1910] 2 K. B. 738 . . [1902] W. N. 120 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 498 [1909] P. 183 0. A. [1905] W. N. 148 ; [1905J ) 2 K. B. 832 I [1906] W. N. 105 ; [1905] 2 \ Ch. 289 I [1910] W. N. 172; [1910]) 2 K. B. 547 ; C. A. [1910] W.N. 258 •. ) [1906] W. N. 183 ; [1906] 2 ) Ch. 627 ( [1901] W. N. 147 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 479 [1906] W. N. 18; [1906] 1 K. B. 446 ) C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 142 . . 0. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 44 [1901] 2 K. B. 861 ; C. A. / [1902] 2 K B. 681 . . . . j [1904] W. N. 56; [1904] 1 Ch. .685 ) [1906] W. N. 10 ; [1906] 1 Ch. ) 335 j [1906] P. 301 C. A. [1909] W. N. 22 ; [1909] ) 1 K. B. 471 ) C. A. [1909] W. N. 22 ; [1909] 1 1 K. B. 471 j [1909] 1 K. B. 932 [1909] 1 K. B. 106 P. C. [1904] A. C. 127 [1904] W. N. 28 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 486 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 47 H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 58; [1910] A. C. 274 . . . . j [1909] W. N. 263 ; [1910] 1 < K. B. 159 ; C. A. [1910] ( W. N. 94; [1910] 1 K. B. 840 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 134 ; [1909] ) 2 K. B. 616 . . • . . . . ) C. A. [1908] W. N. 36 ; [1908] \ 1 K. B. 729 j [1908] W. N. 178 ; C. A. '•. [1908] W. N. 234 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 218 ; H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 3 ; [1910] A. 0. 83 ) [1909] 2 Oh. 471 C. A. [1907] W. N. 178; [1907] 2 K. B. 617 . . [1910] W. N. 8 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 262 j Golumi of Digest. 1699 96 699 2498 1615 2125 1551 443 1080 1450 2639 465 1265 1137 2811 2539 1168 1168 2241 481 310 1861 2327 2309 1651 1573 2118 718 622 1360 Izii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case, Carpenters and Joiners (Amalgamated ) Society of) :— Kussell v j Carr v. Anderson . . . . . , . . ' Carr f. Commercial Union Insui'ance Co., / Ld. In re McOlure's Trusts . . ) Carr f. Praois Times & Co, Carr : — Sea Insurance Co. .', . . Carr :— Wale.s v. Carriage (Bristol Gas Co, and Bristol Tram- ways and) Co,, In re. . Carriage (Bristol Ti-amways, &c,) Co, v. Fiat Motors, Ld, . . Carrington n. Bannister & Co. Cariington & Son, Ld, ; — Elliman, Sons & Co. (■ Carringtons, Ld. c. Smith Carritt v. Bradley CaiToU, /)) re. Brice !', Carroll Carroll r. Graham Carroll c, Harrison Carroll : — Kirkwood /' . . Carr's Trusts, In re. Carr v. Carr . . Carruthers v. Newen. In re Newen Carshalton Park Estate, Ld., l)i re. Graham r. The Co. Turnell v. The Co. . . Carson Eoherts : — Eex r. Carter, E:( j)urte. In re Hamilton Young & \ C° I Carter v. Andrew. In re Andrew's Trusts . . Carter v. Carter. Carter : — Kings's Proctor v. Carter : — Hopkinson v. In re Hailstone . . Carter : — Lamonby !■. In re Castlehow Carter : — Eex r. Carter v. Eoberts . . . . . . Volume and Fage. (No. 2) Carter : — Wirrall Eui-al Council v. . . Carter :— Wright v .| Carter & Ellis, In re. K.r. parte Savill ) Brothers j C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 506 . . [1902] W. N. 201 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 90 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 77 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 279 [1906] W. X. 200 H. L. (E.)[1902] A. I' 170 .. C, A. [1901] 1 K. B. 7 [1902] ^X. N. 43 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 860 [1909] 2 K. B. 297 ; C. A, [1909] W. N. 223 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 114 C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 831 ('.A. [1901] IK. B. 20 [1901] W. N. 112; [1901] Ch. 275 [1906] 1 E, B. 79 C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 560; H. L. (E.) [1903] W. y. 92; [1903] A. C. 253 [1902] TV, N, 109 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 175 C. A. [1904] W. N. 199 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 478 [1910] W. N. 104 C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 531 C. A. [1904] W. N. 82 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 792 [1903] W. N. 52 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 812 [1908] W. N. 107 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 62 [1907] AV. X. 114; [1907] 2 K. B. 878 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 9 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 407 [1905] W. N. 95 ; [1905] 2 E. B. 381; C. A. [1905] W. X. 145 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 772 [1905] W. N. 86; [1905] 2 Ch. 48 [1909] W. N. 239; [1910] P. 4; C. A, [1910] W. N 50; [191 0]P. 151 .. C. A. [1909] TV. X, 58; [1909] P. 118 [1903] TV. X. 4 ; [1903] 1 Ch 352 [1907] 1 K. B. 298 [1903] TT". X. 95 ; [1903] 2 Ch 312 [1903]TV. X. Ill [1903] 1 K. B. 646 C. A. [1902] W. N. 198 ; C. A [1903] 1 Oh. 27 0. A. C1903] TV. N. 46 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 735 51/ Column of Digest. 2705 1074 2382 19 71 ii-.y.i 2708 2287 1641 2190 1720 1758 2744 2764 1854 247 1552 2579 521 1481 92i 2068 2936 1430 il24 124 21543 2605 236 TABLE Of CASES- IN TflE DIGEST. Ixiii Name of Case. Volume aud Page. Cartwright v. Oaf twrigkt Cartwright : — Haydon i'. Cartwriglit v. Skrewsbury Towu Olerk -V*' Gary & Lott'B Contract, /)i ?'e .. 1 : ■ .. Gary -Elwes' Contract, /« J'e .. .. J ., Cash (J. & J.), Ld. i: Cash Cassaigne : — Do-w !•. In re Allan . . Cassella & Co. (Leopold), Gesellsohaft Mit beschrankter Haftung, In re Cassels v. Hudson. In re Hudson . . Casswell v. Cheshire Lines Oommittee Castaneda (Don Jose Eamos Yzquierdo y) v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co _ .. Castaneda (Don Jose Eamos Yzquierdo y) : — Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co. r Castiglioue : — Sims v. . . Castle Spinning Co. v. Atkinson Castlehow, In re. Lamonby v. Gaiter Caswell & Bowden, Ld. : — Great "Western Ey. Co. i; Gates : — Shaw v. Caterham Urban Council and Godstone Kural Council, In re. Caterham Urban Council V. Godstone Eural Council . . Cathoart, In re . . Catholic (Irish) Church Property Insurance Co., In re Catt V. Wood Cattell, In re. Cattell v. Cattell Catterson v. Clark Cattle (Espuela Land and) Co., In re Cattley v. "West. In re Linsley Catton : — Cookson'i. . . Gaunt : — Hampstead Corporation v.. . Oauston, In the Estate of Cavalier v. Pope Oavanagh : — George "Whiteohuroh, Ld. v. . . Cave ; — Fitzroy i'. [1903] "W. N. 120 ; [1903] 2 ; Oh. 306 ' 0. A. [1902] "W. N. 163 [1909] W. N. 77; [1909]] 2 K B. 169 i [1901] "W. N. 129; [1901] ,2 ' Ch. 463 i [1906] "W. N. 97; [1906] 2 Ch. ; 143 ' [1901]"W. N. 46; 0. A. [1902]! "W.N. 32 I 0. A. [1903] W. N. 2 ; [1903] \ 1 Ch. 276 G. A. [1910] "W. N. 129 ; [1910] ! 2 Oh. 240 [1908] "W.. N. 50; [1908] 1 ' Ch, 655 [1907] "W. N. 140 ; [1907] 2 ' K. B. 499 H. L. (Sc.) [1902] "W. N. 152 ; [1902] A. C. 524 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1904] "W. N. 192 ; [1905] A. C. 6 [1905] "W.N. 112 0. A. [1905] "W. N. 14 ; [1905] ' 1 K B. 336 [1903] "W. N. 4 ; [1903] 1 Ch. ' 352 [1904] 2 K. B. 508 . . [1909] "W. N. 7 ; [1909] 1 Ch. ' 389 C. A. [1903] W. N. 48 ; [1903] ' 1 K. B. 554 ;H.L.(E.) [1904] "W. N. 96; [1904] A. G. I'l G. A. [1902] "W. X. 89 [1909] W. N. 69 C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 458 ; ' H. L. (E.) [1910] A. 0. 404 [1907] W.N. 57; [1907] 1 Ch. ' 567 [1905] W. N. 173 [1909] "W. N. 142; [1909]' W.N. 157 [1904] W. N. 140 ; [1904] 2 ' Oh. 785 [1910] W. N. 52 ; [1910] 1 Ch. ' 410 [1903] 2 K. B. 1 [1906] P. 124 C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 757 ; H. L.(E.) [1906] W. N. 140 ; [1906] A. 0. 428 . . H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 117.. C. A. [1905] W. N. 103 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 364 Column of Digest. 2411 74 1848 1343, 2798 1402 2696 2966 2693 2934 2117 1978 661 1373 1629 2936 2105 2757 1487 1554 1251 1117 13 1984 580 2731 716 1536 2075 1397 554 - 109 Ixiv TABLE OF OASES IN TSE OlGEST. Kame of Case. Cave : — McNair v. In re Lake Cavendish, Ex parte. Cavendish v. Strutt Cayley, In re. Awdrey v. Oayley , . . . j Oayley v. De Wend. In re T. Peii-aon's ) Settlement " Cayo Bonito," The "CayoBonito," The j Cement (Alabama Portland) Co., In re Cement (Associated Portland) Manufacturers (1909), Ld. :— South Eastern Ey. Co. v. . . Central (Great) Ey. Co. v. Banbury Union. SheflB.eld Union t;. Great Central Ey. Co. . . Central (Great) Ey. Co. : — Jones v. . . Central London Eailway Bill (1901), In re. . Central Ontario Ey. v. Trusts and Guarantee ) Co I Central (Unemployed) Body for London :— '( Porton i: . . . . . . ) Century (20th) Equitable Friendly Society, j In re . . . . . . . . . . . . j Cesar Leuba : — Ullmann & Co. v. Chaco (Paraguay) Land Co., In re The Chadwick : — Baines a. In re Fearnsides . . { Chadwick v. Grange. In re Grange . . ' Chadwiok v. Pearl Life Insurance Co. Chadwick : — Vickerstaff v. In re Viokerstaff | Chaiue : — Slade v. . . . . . . j Chalinder and Herlington, /)( re . . . . " Challenge " and " Due d'Aumale," The . . | Challinor v. Sykes. In re Dyson . . . . Challis ('. London and South Western "Rj. ) Co I Challoner v. Eobinson . . . , . ' Chamberlain, Ex parte. Eex i'. Marsham . . j Chamberlain : — Hopkinson v. , . . . j Chambers v. Goldthorpe. Eestell )'. Nye . . Chambers: — Tower Justices v. ., .. " Champion, In re. Ex parte Society of Pro- \ vincial Notaries Public of England and [ Wales ) Chan Kit San v. Ho Fung Hang Volume and Page. [1902] W. N. 19.4 ; [1903] 1 ) K. B. 24 . . ( [1902] W. N. 230; [1903] 1 ) K B. 151 j [1904] 1 Oh. 524 [1904] W. N. 182 ; [1904] 2 / Ch. 781 j [1903] W. N. 100 [1902] P. 216 ; C. A. [1903] / W. N. 133; [1903] P. 203.. ( [1904] W. N. 125; [1904] / P. 310 . . . . I [1909] W. N. 157 . . C. A. [1909] W. N. 217 ; [1910] ) 1 Ch. 12 . . . . . . j H. L. (B.)[1909]A. C. 78 .. H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 4 [1901] W. N. 177 . . P. C. [1905] A. C. 576 C. A. [1908] W. N. 242 ; [1909] / 1 E. B. 173 . . . . . ( [1910] W. N. 236 P. C. [1908] A. C. 443 [1901] W. N. 124 [1902] W. N. 226 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 250 [1907] W. N. 23; [1907] 1 Ch. 313; C. A. [1907] W. N. 125; [1907] 2 Ch. 20 [1905] 2 K. B. 507 [1906] W. N. 67; [1906] 1 Ch. 762 . 0. A. [1908] W.N. 36; [19081 1 Ch. 522 ' L J [1906] W. X. 2(19; [1907] i Ch. 58 . . ^ [1904] P. 41 ; C. A. [1905] P. 198 .. -' [1910] W. N. 81; [1910] 1 Ch. 750 C. A. [1905] W. N. 80 ; [19051 2 K B. 154 . [1907] W.X. 199; C. A. [1907] W. X. 217; [1908] 1 Ch. 49 ., [1907] W. X. 163; [1907] '2 K B. 638 [1908] W. X. 108; [1908] 'l Ch. 853 C. A. [1901] W. X. 51 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 624 . . ^ C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 903 [1906] W. N". 36 ; [1906] P. 86 P. C. [1902] A. C. 257 Column of Digest. 42 1752 729 2989 3417 2534 2555 591 2099 2153 898 1844 319 1654 1115 1175 550 2991 1761 2235 34 2761 2603 2514 2959 1627 906 1768 2790 274 1435 1820 1175 TABLE ,0F CASES IN THE DIGEST. Lxv Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Dig6.st. Chance & Hunt, Ld. v. London and North Western Ey. Co. Chandler v. Webster . . Chandler's Wiltshire Brewery Co. and London County Council, In re Chandra Dharma : — Eex v. . . Chang Hang Kiu v. Piggott. In re Lai Hing | Firm Channel Coaling Co. v. Eoss . . Chant, lu re. Bird v. Godfrey Chantrell, In re. SutlefEe ■;;. Von Liverhofi Chaplin & Co. v. Brammall Cbaplin (W. H.) & Co. v. Westminster Cor- poration Chapman, Ex parte. In re Pilling . . Chapman, In re. Perkins v. Chapman Chapman, In the Goods of Chapman : — Bagot v. . . Chapman v. Browne Chapman v. Chapman and Buist Chapman : — Evans v. . . Chapman : — Gothard v. In re Small wood . Chapman v. Miohaelson Chapman v. Perkins. See Chapman, In re. Chapman : — Quicke v. . . Chapman : — Eex v. Chapman : — Eowland v. Chapman v. Smethiirst Chapman v. Smith '. . Ohappelle v. Eex Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Ey Co. V. Boots . . Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Ey. Co. : — Lewis & Solome v. . . Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Ey, Co. : — Eoberts v. Charity Oommrs. v. Bode. In re Alms Corn Charity , . . Charles Bright & Co. v. Sellar Charles Bright & Co. : — Sellar v. Charles Duval & Co. v. Gans . . Charlesworth, In re. Eobinson v. Cleveland Charlesworth : — Dixon v. In re Dixon ^■1 Charlesworth : — ^Hermann v. . . Charlesworth : — ^Watson v. [1909] I K. B. 650 . . C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 493 [1903] 1 K B. 569 . . C. 0. B. [1905] 2 K. B. 335 P. C. [1909] A. 0. 312 [1907] 1 K. B. 145 . . [1905] W. N. 94 ; [1905] 2 Ch 225 [1907] W. N. 213 C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 233 [1901] W. N. 131 ; [1901] Ch. 329 [1906] W. N. 99 C. A. [1904] W. N. 52 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 431; H.L. (B.)[1905] W. N. 43 ; [1905] A. C. 106 [1903] P. 192 [1907] W. N. 138; [1907] 2 Oh 222 C. A.'[1902] idh. 78o' '.'. [1910] P. 271 [1902] W. N. 78 [1910] 1 Ch. 272 [1908] W. N. 177; [1908] 2 Ch. 612; C. A. [1908] W.N. 241 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 238 [1902] W. N. 163 ; C. A. [1903] \ W. N. 47 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 659 j C. 0. A. [1910] W. N. l3l .. [1901] W. N. 153 [1908] W. N. 224 ; [1909] 1 ) K. B. 73 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 65 ; [1909] 1 E. B. 927 ) [1907] 2 Ch. 97 P. 0. [1904] A. 0. 127 C. A. [1909] W. N. 161 ; [1909] ) 2 K. B. 640 j [1906] 1 Ch. 508 [1903] W. N. 13 [1901] 2 Ch. 750 0. A. [1904] 1 K B. 6 C. A. [1904] W. N. 128 ; [1904] \ 2 K. B. 446 j 0. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 685 [1910] W. N. 18 [1903] W. N. 122; [1903] 2 Ch. 458 [1904] W. N. 195; [1905] 1 K:.B.24; C.A. [1905] W.N, 61 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 123 C.A. [1904] W. N. 202 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 74 ; H. L. (B.) [1905] W.N. 168; [1906] A. 0. 14 2131 664 1181 806 1175 767 1468 27 1190 1163 169 2924 2067 867 2756 920 496 2416 1723 1457 813 2810 509 1378 310 1586 1511 2126 375 1990 348 1997 354 2883 1574 1707 Ixvi TABLE OF GASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Oharlesworth, Pilling & Co. : — Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs v. . . "Charlotte," The Charlton v. Charlton Charrington & Co. v. Camp . . Oharrington, Sells, Dale & Co. w. London and North Western Ey. Co Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and China v. British India Steam Navigation Co ,. Chase (Cannock) Colliery Co. : — Anslo-w v. . . Chatterton, Jlai parte. Be Yan Laun Chattle : — Veazey v. . . Chavarri : — Lopez v. . . Ohawter v. Marvin. In re Marvin . . Chaytor, In're. Chaytor v. Horn . . Chaytor : — Wynne-Finch v. . " Cheapside," The Cheek v. Cheek . . Cheese v. Keen . . Chelmsford Land Co., In re . Chelsea Waterworks Co. v, Water Board . . Metropolitan Bradfield v. Cheltenham Guardians : Cheney v. Tallowin Chenoweth, In re. Ward v. Dwelley Chepstow Electric Light and Power Co. Chepstow Q-as and Coke Consumers" Co. Chepstow Gas and Coke Consumers' Co. : — Chepstow Electric Light and Power Co, Cherryman : — Leicester & Co. < . Ohesebrough's Trade Mark " Vaseline,'' In re Chesham's (Lord) Settlement, In re. Yis- oouut Valentia v. Lady Chesham . . Cheshire v. Bailej' . . , . ... Cheshire : — Bromley Corporation v. . . Cheshire, Licensing Justices of : — Rex Ex parte Kay's Atlas Brewery, Ld. Cheshire Lines Committee : — Casswell v. Chesney v. Newsholme. Newsholme Chesney (No. 2) Chesshire's Settled Estates, /)/ re Volume and Page. Column of Digest. P. C. [1901] A. C. 373 C. A. [1908] P. 206 . . [1906] W. N. 179; [1906] Ch. 523 [1901] W. N. 244; [1902] Ch. 386 [1905] 2 K. B. 437 . . P. 0. [1909] A. C. 369 C. A. [1909] W. N. 4 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 352; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 115; [1909] A. C. 435 [1906] W. N. 228; [1907] 1 K. B. 155 : C. A. [1907] W. N. 73 ; [1907] 2 K. B 23 C. A. [1902] 1 k. B. 494 '. [1901] W. N. 115 . . [1905] W. N. 142 ; [1905] 2 Ch 490 [1904] W. N. 195; [1905] 1 Ch. 233 C. A. [1903] W. N. 139 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 475 C. A. [1904] W. N. 150 ; [1904] P. 339 [1910] w. N. 87 ; ; [1H07] W. N. 257 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 245 [1904] W. N. 106 C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 77 [1906] W. N. 137 ; [19061 2 Ch. 371 [1904] 2 K. B. 763 . [1902] W. N. 133; [19021 Ch. 488 . . . . [1905] 1 K. B. 198 . . [1905] 1 K. B. 198 . . [19071 W. N. 95 ; [1907] K. B. 101 . . . C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 1 . . 0. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 329 C. A. [1905] W. N. -l; [1905] 1 K. B. 237 . . . . -' [1908] 1 K. B. 680 . . [1906] W. N. 18; [1906] K. B. 362 . . [1907] W. N. 140 ; [1907] KB. 499 .. ,. [1908] P. 301 . . [1908] W. N. 76 3046 2486 1301 2171 2107 2629 1589 229 1635 1998 1056 2934 79 2543 1967 2577 640 2860 1918 1923 1135 1018 1018 1897 2679 1151 1580 2423 1424 2177 1007 2369 TABLE OP' CASES IN THE DIGEST. Ixvii Name of Case. Oliessum & Sons v. Gordon . . Chester : — Bott v. In re Park Chester v. Henson. In re Hanson Chester v. Keirl. In re Mayo Chester (Dean and Chapter of) v. Smelting Corporation, Ld. V. Chester (Queen's School), In re Chesterfield (Earl of) v. Ponntaine Chesterfield Gas and Water Board, In re Lucas and Chesterfield (Lord) i-. Harris . . Chesterfield (Lucas and) Gas and Water Board, In re . . Chesterfield fiural Council v. Newton Chester-le-Street Co-operative Society : — Weardale and Cousett Water Co. v. Chetti (Venugopal) v. Chetti (Venugopal) Chetwynd's Settlement, In re. Scarisbrick V. Nevinson Chew : — Leyton Urban Council v. Chic, Ld., In re Chic, Ld. : — Eobinson Printing Co. v. Chichester Corporation v. Foster Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police : — Gordon v. Child V. Edwards Childe, Ex yarte. In re Walker Child's Settlement, In re " Chiltonford," The , . China (Carpalla United) Clay Co. : — Great Western Ey. Co. v. . . China (Carpalla United) Clay Co. (No. 2) : Great Western Ky. Co. v. . . China Navigation Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum Co. and the Taka Tug and Lightei-age Co _ . . China Navigation Co. v. Commissioners for ' executing the Office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom. China Naviga- tion Co. V. Leatham . . . . . . . . ^ Chinese (Eusso-) Bank v. Li Yan Sam Ching V. Surrey County Council . . . . . Ching Wo Hong, The : — Equitable Eire and ] Accident Office, Ld. -u. . . . . , . ; Ohinn : — Heath v. Chippendall v. William Laidley & Co. Volume and Page. 0. A. [1901] W.N. 36; [1901] 1 K. B. 694 . . [1910] 2 Ch. 322 [1908] W. N. 138 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 356 [1901] W.N. 15; [1901] 1 Ch 404 [1901] W. N. 179 [1902] W. N. 5 [1910] W. N. 53 ; [1910] 1 Ch 796 [1908] 1 Ch. 243, n. . . [1908] 1 K B. o71 .. [1907] W. N. 253; [1908] 1 Ch. 230 ; 0. A. [1908] W. N 159 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 397 C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 16 C. A. [1904] 1 K B, 62 [1904]" W. N. 102 ; [1904] K. B. ^40 . . [1909] P. 67 [1902] W. N. 43 ; [1902] 1 Ch 692 [1907] 2 K. B. 283 . . [1905] W. N. 110; [1905] Ch. 345 [1905] 2 Ch. 123 [1906] 1 K B. 167 . . C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 1080 [1909] W. N. 172; [1909] K. B. 753 [1909] W. N. 104 [1907] W. N. 151 ; [1907] 2 i Ch. 348 [1901] W. N. 48 C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 218 H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 3 [1910] A. C. 83 [1909] 2 Ch. 471 P. C. [1910] A. C. 204 P. C. [1908] A. C. 251 P. C. [1910] A. C. 174 [1909] W. N. 163; [1909] 2 K. B. 762; C. A. [1910] W. N. 74; [1910] 1 K. B 736 P. 0. [1907] A. C. 96 . . [1908] W. N. 120 P. C. [1909] A. C. 199 Column of Digest. 1302 2910 2896 2931 1828 117 373 1086 2849 1085 2849 1165 2844 1575 2747 2634 610 523 1159 242 1365 198 2390 2560 2118 718 379 380 1174 2308 379 1734 1790 e2 IxTiii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case, Chislioliii, In re. Goddard v. Brodie Ohisholm's Settlement, In re. In re Hemp- hill's Settlement. Hemphill v. Hemphill Chislehurst Common Conservators v. Newton Chislett V. Macbeth & Co. Ohitson : — Bex v. " Ohittagong " (S.S.), Owners of: — Owners ■I irs I of S.S. "Kostroma" r. Ohorley Corporation i-. Nightingale . . . . ! Chorlton Union : — Orniskirk Union v. . . \ Chown : — Stevens v. Stevens v. Clark . . ! Chr. Salvesen & Co. v. Bederi Aktiebolaget ) Nordsjernan . , . . . . . . . . j Christ Church, Ealing, Inre . . Christohurch Guardians : — Imperial and Grand Hotels Co. v. . . Christy v. Tipper . . . . . . ■ Church V. Tanored. In re Selby Church Army, In re, and In re Premises at ) Edgware Eoad . . . . . . . . j Church Patronage Trust, In re. Laurie u. \ Att.-Gen. .. .. .. j Church Stretton Mineral Water Co., hi re. \ McLaughlin v. The Company . . . . ) Church's Trustee v. Hibbard . . . . . . j Churchill and Sim : — Compania Naviera Vasconzada v. Churchill, In re. Hiscook v. Lodder Churchill's Veterinary Sanatorium, Ld. and James Churchill : — Att.-Gen. v. . . Ohui'chward v. Churchward . . " Circe," The Citizens' Life Assurance Co. v. Brown City of Birmingham Tramways Co., Ld. v. Law . . City of Birmingham Tramways Co. : — Neale v. City of London Assessment Committee : — Bex V. . . City of Victoria Corporation : — Esquimalt Waterworks Co. v. . . . . , , ) City and South London By. Co. and St. Mary i Woolnoth and St. Mary Woolchurch Haw ' (Eeotor, &c., of), In re . . . , . . j Volume and Page. [1902]W. N. 24; [1902] 1 Ch. ) 457 j [1901] 2 Ch. 82 [1901] 1 Ch. 389, n [1909] W. N. 40; [1909] 2.^ K. B.36; C. A. [1909] W.N. / 186; [1909] 2 K. B. 811; H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 33 ; » [1910] A. C. 220 . . C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 192 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 945 . . P. C. [1901] A. C. 597 [1906]W.N. 174, 176 ; [1906] 2 E:.B.612;C.A. [1907]W.N. 167 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 637 . . [1902] W. N. 193; [1903] 1 KB. 19; C. A. [1903] W.N. 138 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 498 . . [1901] AV. N. 54 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 894 H. L. (Sc.) [1905] W. N. 76 ; [1905] A. C. 302 . . [1906; P. 289 [1905] 1 K. B. 89 ; C. A. [1905] ) W. N. 92 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 239 j [1904] W. N. 33 ; [1904] 1 Ch. , 696 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 188 ; C. A. [1905] 1 Ch. 1 . . ) [1903] 1 Ch. 715 [1905] W. N. 127 ; C. A. } [1906] W. N. 73 . . . . ) [1903] W. N. 198 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 41 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 162 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 643 [1904] W. N. 48 [1902] W. N. 160; C. A. [1902] / W. N. 192 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 784 ) [1906] 1 K. B. 237 . . [1909] W. N. 178 ; [1909] 2 ) Ch, 431 , . . ) [1910] W. N. 195 ; [1910] 2 1 Ch.401 [1910] P. 195 . . [1906] P. 1 P. C. [1904] A. C. 423 [1910] 2 K B. 965 . . [1910] W. N. 175 Ch. 464 [1910] C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 764 . . [1907] A. C. 499 C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 728; H. L. (B.) [1905] W. N. 1 ; [1905] A. 0. 1 Column of Digest. 704 1945 395 1643 808 2496 1154 1926 1572 2041 987 2149 2686 1954 1339 350 2002 126 2455 2933 2830 960 2483 1796 2712 553 2150 327 1400 TABLE OF GASES IN THE DIGEST. Ixix Name of Case. City GrlasB Bottle Co. : — -Thioinpson v. . . . "City of Berlin," The " City of Lincoln " (Master and Owners of ) S.S.) V. Smith _. .. i City of London Assessments Committee : — j Kex V. . . . . . . . . . . j City of London Common Council : — Wag- ) staff V. . . . . . . . . . . j City of London Electric Lighting Co. v. \ London Corporation . . . . . . . | City of Montreal v. Cantin City of Montreal v. Montreal Street Ey. ) Co j City of Montreal: — Montreal Street Ey. Co. v. City of Toronto Corporation v. Canadian \ Pacific B,y. Co. Civil Service Co-operative Society, Ld. General Steam Navigation Co. Civil Service Supply Association, Ld. Lewin v. Lewin v. End Clabbon, In re . . Clack V. Clack , . " Clan Gumming," The Clapperton : — Train v. . . Clare v. Dobson Clare : — Dunham v. ':] A Clare v. Joseph . . Olarina (Lord) : — Mainwaring v. Clark, In re Clark, In re Clark, In re. Ex jyarte Buenos Ayres and i Pacific Ey. Co. . . . . . . . . j Clark, In re. Clark v. Clark Clark, In re. McEecknie v, Clark ■ . . . . j Clark : — Att.-Gen. v. . . Clark V. Balm, Hill & Co Clark :^Blair v. Graydon, Garnishee . . j Clark :— Catterson v. . . Clark V. Clark & Saldji Clark : — Johnson v. . . Clark :— Kodak, Ld. v. Clark V. Lloyds Bank Limited Clark V. London General Omnibus Co. ^■1 Volume and Page. [1901] 2 K B. 483 : C. A. , [1901] W. N. 228 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 233 ) C. A. [1908] P. 110 , . P. C. [1904] A. C. 250 C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 764 . . [1908] W. N. 202 C. A. [1901] W. N. 43; [1901] , 1 Oh. 602;H,L. (B.)ri903] W. N. 149 ; [1903] A. 0. 434 ) P. C. [1906] A. C. :i41 P. C. [1903] A. 0. 482 P. C. [1906] A. C. 100 P. C. [1908] A. 0. 54.. C. A. [1903] W. N. 182 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 756 . . C. A. [1905] W. N. 35 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 669 ; H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 299 . . [1904] W. N. 157; [1904] 2 Ch. 465 [1906] W. N. 40; [1906] 1 K. B. 483 0. A. [1907] P. 311 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W. N. 135 ; [1908] A. 0. 342 . . [1910] W. N. 227 C. A. [1902] W. N. 123 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 292 [1906] 2 K. B. 592 ; 0. A [1907] W. N. 116 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 369 . . , . 1910] W. N. 14 1905] W. N. 180 . . 1906] W. N. 52; [1906] 1 Ch. 615 . . . . [1901] W. N. 12 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 655 . . [1910] W. N. 234 [1904] W. N. 10 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 294 ) A..-. ,71 ' [1909" [1908 [1908 2K. B. IK. B. W. N. K. B. 648 667 132: [1908] 2 1905] W. N. 173 . . 1906] P. 331 1907] W. N. 253 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 303 [1902] 2 K. B. 450; 0. A. [1903] W. N. 37 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 505 [1910] W. N. 187 C. A. [1906] W. N. 153 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 648 . . Column of Digest. 1624 2501 1778 2150 1016 1524 323 323 317 298 663 2144 1919 766 2507 2748 1362 1596 2581 702 951 1407 203 2169 27 2205 418 78 1984 926 1195 2240 1830 1668 Ixx TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Clark, Son & Morland :— Bailey & Co. v. . . Clark : — Stevens v. Stevens r. Ohown Clarke, In re. Clarke v. Clarke Clarke v. Army and Navy Co-operative Society, Ld. . . Clarke v. Dawson. In re Dawson . . Clarke (W. G.) & Son :— Fitzgerald v. Clarke (George), Ltd. :— Handford r. Clarke v. Mathews Clarke v. West Ham Corporation . . Clarke's Settlement, In re Clarkson v. Eobinson. Tn re Eobinson Clauston & Co. v. Corry Claverley (Vicar, &c.) v. Claverlej^ (Parisk- ioners, &c.). Claverley (Ohuroliwardens) r. Claverley (Vicar, &c.). Gatacre and Legh )'. Claverley (Vicar, &c.) Clay (Carpalla United China) Co. ; — Great Western Ey. Co. i'. . . Clay (Carpalla United China) Co. (No. 2) ;— Great Western Ey. Co. v. . . Clay (Stourbridge Glazed Brick and Fire) Co., Ld. : — Simmonds v. Clayton, In re . . Clayton : — AUworthy and Walker v. Clayton c. Jones' Sewing Machine Co. Clayton : — Peat v. Clayton i . Peirse Clayton (Clover) & Co., Ld. ,■. Hughes Clayton Engineering and Electric Construc- tion Co., /;* re. Boddington r. The Co. Cleaver, In the Estate of Clemens (E.) Horst Co. :— Biddell Brothers Clements, In re. E.r parte Clements Clements : — Jared r. . . Clergue c. Murray Clerkenwell (General Commrs. of Taxes for) : — Eex V. Clerkenwell Vestry i-. Edmondson & Son Clevedon (St. John the Evangelist, Vicar and Churchwardens of) v. All Having Interest Cleveland : — Eobinson u. In re Charles- worth . . Cleveland's (Duke of) Settled Estates, In re Clews : — Shuttleworth v. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. C. A. [1902] W. X. 47 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 649 [1901] W. N. 54; [1901] 1 Ch. 894 [1901] W. N. 99 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 110 C. A. [1903] 1 K, B. 155 [1906] W. N. 20 C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 796 C. A. [1906] W. N. 225 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 181 [1903] W. X. 158 C. A. [1909] W. N. 194 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 858 [1902] W. X. 110; [1902] 2 Ch. 327 [1910] W. N. 226; [1910] 2 Ch. 571 P. C. [1906] A. C. 122 [1909] P. 195 C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 218; H. L. (E.)[1909] W. X. 3; [1910] A. C. 83 [1909] 2 Ch. 471 [1910] 2 K. B. 269 . , [1905] AV. X. 27, oO [1907] 2 K. B. 685 . . C. A. [1908] W. X. 253 [1906] W. X. 40 ; [1906] Ch. 659 [1904] 1 K B. 424 H. L. (E.) [1910] W. X. 7; [1910] A. C. 242 . . [1904] W. X. 28 [1906] W. N. 136 ; [1905] P. 319 [1910] W. X. 23S [1901] 1 K. B. 260 [1902] W. X. 115; [1902] 2 Ch. 399 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 25 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 428 P. C. [1903] A. C. 521 C. A. [1901] 2K. B.S79 [1901] 1 K. B. 264 ; C. A. [1902] W. X. 8; [1902] 1 KB. 336 [1909] P. 6 [1910] AV. N. 18 [1902] W. N. 110; [1902] ' Ch. 350 . . [1909] W. N. 254 ; [1910] 1 Oh. ) 176 j 2843 1572 2952 2292 2165 1662 75 1818 2717 2347 1721 1803 1006 2118 71S 1594 25S4 1897 1681 561 1086 1603 420 2065 2288 152 2808 314 2246 1532 354 2365 2797 991 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Ixxi Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. ee ) Olibborn v. O'Brien. In re Friend's Free School . . Clifford, In re. Scott v. OHfford Olifiord :— North. British and Mercantile In- :! surance Co. v. Clifford t;. Timms. Hill t-. CHfford. Clifford V. Phillips Clift :— Strutt « Clifton V. Darnley. In re Damley (Earl of) j Clifton :—Woodall V Clifton's Patent, In re. . Clinch : — Wigan v. In re Blunt's Trusts CHnton, In re. Clinton v. Clinton . . Clinton v. Bennett Chnton : — Price v. CUiLton (Pelham) v. Newcastle (Duke of) Clinton's Claim. In re National Motor Mail Coach Co. Clippens Oil Co. : — Edinburgh and District Water Trastees v. . . Ohppens Oil Co. v. Edinburgh and District ) Water Trustees . . . . . . . . j Clippens Oil Co. i). Edinburgh and District ) Water Trustees Clipper Pneumatic Tyre Co. : — ^Bagot PneU' matic Tyre Co. v. . . Clissold V. Cratchley . . Clissold : — Perry v. Clough, Ex parte. In re Eeis. Clough v, Samuel Oloutte V. Storey Clover, Clayton & Co. : — ^Hughes v. ■■( Clowes : — Columbus Co. v. . . " Clutha Boat 147," The Clutterbuck, In re. Eellowes v. Eellowes . . Clutterbuck's Settlement, In re. Bloxam V. Clutterbuck . . . . . . • • , Clyde Shipping Co. : — Jardine, Matheson & ) Co. V ) [1903 [1907 W. N. 20 W. N. 220; [1908] [1909] W. N. 189 ; [1909] 2 ) Ch. 675 I [1901] W. N. 217 ; [1902] 1 \ Oh. 87 ) [1903] W. N. 77 [1907] W. N. 39; [1907] 1 Ch. 420; 0. A. [1907] W. N. 149; [1907] 2 Oh 236 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 243 ; [19U8] A. 0. 12 [1908] A. 0. 15 [1910] W. N. 212 [1906] W. N. 215; [1907]) 1 Oh. 159 . . [1904] W. N. 205; C. A [1905] W. N. 99 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 257 [1904] 2 Ch. 357 [1904] W. N. 174; [1904] Ch. 767 K. B. 109 [1906] W. N. 159; [1906] Ch. 487 H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 36 [1903] A. 0. Ill [1908] W. N. 130; C. A [1908] W. N. 172; [1908] 2 Oh. 615 H. L. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 157 H. L. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 204 [1904] A. 0. 64 H. L. (Sc.) [1907] W. N. 142 ; [1907] A. 0. 291 . . [1901] 1 Oh. 196 ; C. A. [1901] W.N. 241; [1902] 1 Ch. 146 [1910] 1 K. B. 374; 0. A. [1910] W. N. 103 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 244 P. 0. ri907] A. 0. 73.. [1904JW.N.22; [1904]1K.B 461; 0. A. [1904] W.N. 116 [1904] 2 K. B. 769 ; H. L (E.) [1905] W. N. 130; [1905] A. 0. 442 . . [1910] W. N. 163 ; 0. A. [1910] \ W. N. 250 . . . . . j 0. A. [1909] W. N. 187 ; [1909] 2K.B.798;H.L.(E.)[1910] W. N. 73 ; [1910] A. 0. 242 [1903] 1 K. B. 244 . . [1909] P. 36 [1901] 2 Ch. 285 [1905] 1 Ch. 200 [1910] W. N. 64 ; [1910] 1 ) K. B. 627 ] 360 2376 772 881 2201 2958 774 1886 2925 1311 754 724 2975 418 92 2855 854 417 2437 1794 182 1941 1603 100 2490 10 2405 2469 Ixxii TABLE OF CASES IX THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. ClydebankEngineermg andSMpbuilding Co.: '; — Don Jose Tzquierdo y Castaneda v. .1 Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co. t V. Don Jose Eamos Tzquierdo y Castaneda j Coal (Att.-Gen. for Dominion of Canada and) Cumberland Ey. and) Co. :— St. John PUot j P. C. [1910] A. C. 208 Commissioners r. . . , . . . . . ' H. L. (Sc.) [1902] W.N. 152; / [1902] A. C. 524 . - ) H. L. (Sc.) [1904] W. X. 192; / [1905] A. C. 6 . . . . j Coal (Britannic Merthyr) Co. : — David r. . . Coal (BudhiU.) and Sandstone Co. : — North '/ British Ry. Co. i' ) Coal (Dominion) Co. r. Dominion Iron and ) Steel Co. and National Trust Co i Coal (Fife) Co. :— Butler or Black v. Coal (Glasgow) Co. : — George v. Coal (Howley Park) and Cannel Co London and North Western Ey. Co. r. Coal (Kent) Concessions, Ld. r. Duguid Coalfield. See Dover Coalfield Extension, Ld Coasters, Ld., /k re Coatbridge Magistrates v. Lanark County Council Coates V. Moore . . Coats V. Herefordshire County Council Cobb V. Blackburne. In re Brydone's Settle ment Cobb & Co. : — Sadler r. Cobbett V. Wood Cobbold, Ex parte. Eex v. Groom Cobbold, In re. Cobbold r. Lawton Cobham (Lord) ; — Corbett Oobham (Viscount) : — Mansell < . Cochrane v. Morrison or Cochrane Cochrane (J. P.) & Co. : — Eoger r. " Cockatrice," The Cockerton : — Eeg. r. . . Cocks : — Oberrheinisohe Metallwerke B. H. V. Ill re Corbett , G. M. Codd i'. Delap . . Coed Talon Colliery Co. : — Hughes v. Cohen, Ex parte. In re Mitchell Cohen, In re Cohen, In re. Brookes v. Cohen Cohen : — Bank of Africa, Ld. ;•. C. A. [1909] 2 K B. 146; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 257 ; [1910] A. C. 74 H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 223 ; [1910]A. C. 116 .. P. C. [1909] A. C. 293 H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 194 H. L. (Sc.) [1909] A. C. 123.. [1910] W. N. 168 C. A. [1910] I K. B. 904; H.L.(E.) [1910] W.N. 161; [1910] A. C. 452 . . [1910] W. N. 235 H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 92 ; [1910] A. C. 286 . . C. A. [1903] W. N. 105 ; [1903] 2 E. B. 140 [1909] W. N. 129 ; C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 579 C. A. [1903] W. N. 81 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 84 [1910] W. N. 29 [1908] 1 K. B. 590 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 128 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 420 . . [1901] 2 K. B. 157 C. A. [1903] W. N. 88 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 299 . . [1903] W. N. 89 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 326 . . [1905] W. N. 37 ; [1905] I Ch. 568 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 81 H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. X. 106 ; [1909] A. C. 285 [1908] P. 182 . . [1901] 1 K. B. 322 ; C. A [1901] I K. B. 726 . . [1906] W. N. 127 [1906] W.N. 57 W. N. 78 C. A. [1909] W.N. 77 1 K. B. 957 , [1910] W. N. 24 C. A. [1905] W. N. 13S ; [1905] 2 K. B. 704 , . [1910] W. N. 216 [1909] W. N. 50 ; C, A. [1909] W. N. 136 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 129 C. A. [1906] [1909] . ( Column of Digest. 1978 661 323 1676 2122 296 2326 1637 2123 891 557 2630 249 1156 240S 1725 25S2 1424 3000 2SS4 1479 955 1S7S 2490 2309 2018 895 1625 198 231 1942 638 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Ixxiii Hame of Gase. Oolien V. Bayley-Worthington . . . . • Cohen & Cohen, In re . . Cohen's (Bayley-Worthington and) Con- tract, In re . . Cohen's Executors and the London County ' Council, hi re Cohn :— Oettinger v. . . . . . . . . Coke (Gas Light and) Co. : — Davies v. Coldrick v. Partridge, Jones & Co. . . . . ■ Cole V. Allcot. In re Priend's Settlement . . Cole !'. Brown . . Cole & Son: — Att.-Qen. v. Coleman v. Coleman . . Coleman : — Spence r. . . Coleman's Depositories, Ld., and Life and Health Assurance Association, In re Coles and M. B. Foster & Sons, Ld. : — Foster v. Coles y. Coles Coles : — Smith v. Coles V. Eavenshear, In re Coley, hi re. Gibson r. Gibson Coley, In re. HoUinshead v. Coley CoUectoT of Customs for New South Wales Att.-Gen. for New South Wales v. Collier (Screw) Co. v. Webster or Kerr Collieries (Denaby and Oadeby Main), Ld. : — Denaby Overseers v. Collieries (Gowrie and Blockhouse), Ld. :- Burchell v. . . Collieries (Lewis Merthyr Consolidated, Ld. — Keates v. . . Collieries (New Monokton), Ld. : — Keeling v. OolHeries (South Kirkby, &c.), Ld. : — ^Tates I'. Collieries (United), Ld. v. Simpson (or Hendry) OoUieries (Vagliano Anthracite), Ld., In re CoUiery (Blaenclydach) Co. : — Eaves v. Colliery (Oannock Chase) Co. : — Anslow v. . . Colliery (Coed Talon) Co. : — Hughes v. Volume and Page. H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 35 ; [1908] A. C. 97 [1905] W. N. 8 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 345; C. A. [1905] W. N. 90 ; [19051 2 Ch. 13Y . . [1909] W. N. 68; [1909] 1 Ch. 648 [1901] W. N. 23Y; [1902] 1 Ch. 187 [1908] W. N. 24; [1908] 1 K. B. 582 [1909] 1 Ch. 248 ; 0. A. [1909] W. N. 77 ; [1909] 1 Oh. 708 0. A. [1909] W. N. 15 ; [1909] \ 1 K. B. 530; H. L. (E. [1909] W. N. 257 ; [1910] A. C. 77 . . ' [1905] W. N. 159; [1906] Oh. 47 [1907 K. B. 301 [1901" [1905" O.A. [ 2K. W. N. 113; [1907] 1 Ch. 205 . . W. N. 160 . .; 1901] W.N. 97; [1901] B. 199 . . 0. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 798 [1906] W. N. 107 [1901] W. N. 29 ; [1901] 1 Ch 711 0. A. [1906] W. N. 152 ; [1905 2 K. B. 827 0. A. [1906] 198; [1907] : K. B. 1 [1901] 1 Oh. 40 U. A. [1903] W. N. 86 ; [1903] 2 Oh. 102 P. 0. [1909] A. C. 345 H. L, (So.) [1910] A. C. 165 , H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 82 [1909] 1 A. C. 247 . . P. 0. [1910] A. 0. 614 [1910] 1 K. B. 386; C. A [1910] W. N. 130; [1910] 2 K. B. 445 . . 0. A. [1910] W. N. 249 0. A. [1910] W. N. 174; [1910] 2 K. B. 538 H. L. (So.) [1909] W. N. 146 [1909] A. C. 383 . . [1910] W. N. 187 . . 0. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 73 0. A. [1909] W. N. 4 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 352 ; H. L. (E. [1909] W. N. 115 ; [1909] A. C. 435 . . O.A. [1909] W.N. 77; [1909] 1 K. B. 957 . . Column of Digest. 2410 2602 2799 1057 ,2264 410 1676 2419 1920 1830 51 120 1247 471 2401 1587 83 2420 3007 138 2487 2160 316 1664 1601 1625 1596 650 1632 1689 1626 Ixxiv TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Colliery (Houghton Main 'Co., Ld.) : — Eyre v. Colliery (New Hucknall) Co. : — Butterley Co. Colliery (Norton Hill) Co. : — Gane v. . . j Colliery (Nunnery) Co., Ld. : — Bai-nes v. . . Colliery (Orrell) Co. :— Sohofield v. Orrell ( Colliery Co. v. Schofield . . . . . . | Colliery (SoothiU Wood) Co. :— Ehodes v. . . Colliery (Tamworth) Co., Ld. :— Hall v. Colliery (West Stanley), Owners of : — Hodg- ) ' son V. . . . . . . . . . . ) Colliery (Whitehaven) Co. : — MuUholland v. Colliery (Tstradowen) Co. v. Griifiths CoUingham v. Sloper. La Compania de Los \ Ferrocarilles de Zaragoza Al Mediterraneo (. V. CoUingham. Saragossa and Mediter- ( rauean Ey. Co. v. Collingham. . . . . J Collins, Ex parte. In re Keen & Keen Collins V. Hornsey TJrhan Council . . Collins : — Sanderson v. Collins and Perkins : — Dominion Natural ) Gas Co. V. . . . . . . . . . . j Collinson : — Anderson v. . . . . . . CoUinson : — Eoyal College Surgeons v. . . Collis : — Fletcher v. CoUison V. Warren of Yeterinary ' Colls : — Home and Colonia. Stores, Ld. v. CoUyer-Bristow & Co., In re . . Oolman and Watson, In re .. Colmore v. Mathews . . Colonial Bank : — Jamaica Ey. Co. v. ■■\ -\ •■( Colonial Bank of Australasia, Ld. v. Marshall Colonial Fisheries Co. : — East London Har- bour Board v. . . Colonial Sugar Eefining Co. v. Att.-Gen. for Victoria Colonial Sugar Eefining Co. v. Irving Colquhoun : — Bagg v. . . Colquhoun ?>. Society of Contributors to the 'i Widows' Fund of Faculty of Procurators, [ Glasgow . . . . . . . . . . ) Colton :— McEacharn v. Columbia, Ld. (The Ship " Oamosun" and the Union Steamship Company of British) : — Bow, MoLaohlan & Co. v. . . Volume and Page. C. A. [1910] W. N. 51 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 695 C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 37 H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N 102 ; [1910] A. C. 381 C. A. [1909] W. N. 140 [1909] 2 K. B. 539 . . C. A. [1910] W. N. 248 0. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 178 ; H. L (E.) [1909] W.N. 116; [1909] A. C. 433 C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 191 C.A. [1910] W.N. 268 H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 67 [1910] A. C. 229 . . C. A. [1910] W. N. 120 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 278 C. A. [1909] W. N. 134 [1909] 2K. B. 533.. C.A. [1901] W.N. 50; [1901] I 1 Ch. 769 ; H. L. (B.) [1904] W. N. 66 ; [1904] A. C. 159 ) [1902] 1 K. B. 555 . . [1901] 2K. B. 180 .. C. A. [19U4] 1 K. B. 628 . . P. C. [1909] A. C. 640 [1901] W. N. 87 ; [1901] 2 ) K. B. 107 ) [1908] W. N. 102 ; [1908] 2 / K. B. 248 I C.A. [1905] 2 Ch. 24.. [1901] W. N. 55; C. A. [1901] ) W.N. 65; [1901] 1 Ch. 812 I C. A. [1902] W. N. 3 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 302 ; H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 96 ; [1904] A. C. 179 C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 839 C. A. [1907] W. N. 223 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 47 . . [1903] W. N. 158 [1905]W.N.5H; C.A. [1906] W. N. 62; [1905] 1 Ch. 677 P. C. [1906] A. C. 659 P. C. [1908] A. 0. 271 P. C. [1901] A. C. 543 P. C. [1905] A. 0. 369 ; P. C [1906] A. C. 360 , . [1904] 1 K. B. 554 H. L. (So.) [1908] W. N. ■ [1908] A. 0. 182 . . P. C. [1902] A. C. 104 P. 0. [1909] A. C. 597 Column of Digest. 1649 1707 1583 1677 1598 1672 1597 1603 1670 1604 624 192 2638 1675 303 1030 2829 2741 1238 1460 2602 78 1818 1992 135 332 2831 2091 1317 1281 137 322 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DiaEST. Ixxv Name of Cabe. Columbian Fireproofing Co., /rare .. Columbus Co. o. Clowes Colwell V. St. Panoras Borough Council Colwill :— Shorto p I I r Colwyn Bay District Council : — Horton v. . . Combe, (Watney) Eeid & Co. : — Lord Llangattock v. . . . . . . . . Combined Incandescent Mantles Syndicate, Ld. : — Sherwell v. . . . . . . . . j " Comet " (Lightship) v. Owners of the \ Hopper Barge " H. No. 1 " , . . . ) Oomiskey v. Bowring-Hanbury Comiskey v. Hanbury. In re Hanbury Commeroial Union Insurance Co., Ld. : — ) Carr v. In re Module's Trusts . . . . ] Commissioner of Police v. Donovan . . Commissioner of Police r. Eoberts . . Commissioner of Public Works : — Houlder \ Brothers & Co. v. Commissioner of Public [ Works r. Houlder Brothers & Co. . . ) Commissioner of Public Works (Cape Colony) ) V. Logan . . . . . . . . . . j Commissioner of Taxes : — Lovell & Christ- mas, Ld. 1. . , Commissioner of Taxes for New Zealand v. Eastern Extension, Australasia and China Telegraph Co. Commissioners (Lords) of the Admiralty : — Horn V. Commissioners for executing the Office of \ Lord High Admiral of the United King- [ dom : — China Navigation Co. v. . . . . \ Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income ] Tax : — Eex v. Ex parte University College of North Wales , . . . . . . . ) Commissioners of Inland Eevenue. See Inland Eevenue Commissioners. Commissioners of Port Erin : — Laugh ton v. Commissioners of Stamps : — Jackson v. Commissioners of Stamp Duties v. Stephen Commissioners of Taxation u. Antill Commissioners of Taxation v. Trustees of St. Mark's Grlebe. . Commissioner of Taxes: — Scottish Provident Institution v. . . Commissioners of Trade and Customs v. Bell (E.) & Co Commonwealth Portland Cement Co. v. Weber, Lohmann & Co. . . . . . . j " Commonwealth," The Oompagnie Industrielle des Petroles' Appli- ) cation, In re. In re Price's Patent Candle [ Co.'s Trade Mark Volume and Page. [1910] W. N. 95 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 758; 0. A. [1910] W. N. 142 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 120 [1903] 1 K. B. 244 . . [1904] W. N. 40 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 707 [1909] W. N. 218 [1906J W. N. :ilO; [1907] 1 K. B. 14; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 8 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 327 0. A. [1910] IK. B.236;H.L. 1 (E.) [1910] W. N. 103; \ [1910] A. C. 394 .. .. ) [1907] W. N. 110 ; 0. A. [1907] W.N. 211, 216 .. H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 274 H. L. (B.) [1906] W. N. 24 ; ) [1905] A. C. 84 ..] [1909] W. N. 157 [1906] W. N. 200 [1903] 1 K. B. 896 . . [1904] 1 K. B. 369 . . P. 0. [1908] A. 0. 276 P. C. [1903] A. O. 355 P. 0. [1908] A. 0. 46 . . P. C. [1906] A. 0. 526 C. A. [1910] W. N. 242 P. C. [1908] A. C. 251 ri908] W. N. 92 ; C. A. [1909] ) ^ -W. N. 67 1 P. C. [1910] A. C. 565 P. 0. [1903] A. 0. 350 P. C. [1904] A. 0. 137 P. C. [1902] A. 0. 422 P. 0. [1902] A. 0. 416 P. C. [1901] A. 0. 340 P. C. [1902] A. 0. 563 P. 0. [1905] A. C. 66 . . C. A.' [1907] P. 216 . . [1907] W. N. 176 ; [1907] ) 2 Ch. 435 ] Column of Digest. 424 100 1832 559 620 1428 77 2514 2956 336 2382 1322 1446 335 332 1812 1812 1595 380 2232 1296 1811 1798 1793 1795 2239 1811 1798 2510 2688 Ixxvi TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case, Compagnie (La) Hydraulique de St. Francois V. Oontiiieutal Heat and Light Co. Compania Anonima de Seguros " Aurora ": De Hart v. . . Compania Naviera Vasconzada v. Churoliill and Sim. The Same v. Burton & Co, Compania Sansinena de Carnes Congeladas V. Ho alder Bros. & Co. Companies Liquidation, Inspector-General in. Spence v. Coleman Company of Proprietors of the Kent Water works : — Lamplough v. Concaris v. Duncan & Co. Concentration (Ore) Co. (1905), Ld. Minerals Separation, Ld. v. Connah's Quay Oversee : — Eex v. Connelly : — Ankerson v. Connor : — Mabe v. Connor : — Eex v. ConoUy v. Quick. In re Delany ConoUy, In re. Conolly v. Conolly Consett Iron Co., In re Consett Iron Co. : — Coulthard v. Consett Urban Council v. Crawford Consolidated Oar Heating Co. v. Came Consolidated Kent Collieries Corporation, Ld. : — Currie v. . . . . . . Consolidated Kent Collieries Corporation, Ld. : — Maynard v. . . Consolidated Mines (De Beers), Ld. : — British South AJrica Co. r. . . Consolidated South Eand Mines Deep, Ld. i In re . . . . . . . . . . . . ) Consolidated Tea and Lands Co. r. Oliver's ) Wharf I Constables of the Island of Sark ; — Q-odfray v. Constantine : — Burgis v. Oonstantinidi v. Constantinidi ■i Volume and Page. ■( Constantinidi v. Constantinidi Continental Heat and Light Co. : — La \ Compagnie Hydraulique de St. Pran9ois > V. . . . . . . . . . . . . ) Conway v. Wade ... Conway, Jones & Co. : — Dredge v. . . Cook : — Evans v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Accident Insurance Co., Third Parties . . 153; P. C. [1909] A. C. 194 [190311K.B. 109;C.A.[1903] i W. N. 142 ; [1903] 2 K. B. [ 503 J [1906] 1 K. B. 237 . . [1910] W.N. 150; 0. A. [1910] ) 2 K. B. 354 j C. A. [1901] W.N. 97; [1901]) 2 K. B. 199 j C. A. [1903] W. N. 61 ; [1903] i 1 Oh. 575; H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 2 ; [1904] A. 0. 27 . . ) [1909] W. N. 51 0. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 744 [1901] 2 K. B. 174 . . [1906] W.N. 173; [1906] 2 Ch. ) 544 ; C. A. t[1907] W. N. 100 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 678 . . ) [1909] W. N. 20; [1909] 1 K. B. 615 C. C. E. [1908] 2 K. B. 26 . . [1902] W. N. 149 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 642 [1909] W. N. 259; [1910] 1 Oh. 219 [1901] 1 Oh. 236 0. A. [1905] W. N. [1905] 2 K. B. 869 . . [1903] 2 K. B. 183 . . P. 0. [1903] A. C. 509 0. A. [1906] 1 K B. 134 . . 0. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 121 [1910] 1 Oh. 354 ; 0. A. [1910] \ 2 Oh. 602 I [1909] W. N. 35 ; [1909] 1 Ch. ) 491; 0. A. [1909] W. N. 66 ) [1910] W. N. 97 ; [1910] 2 ) K. B. 395 ) P. 0. [1902] A. 0. 534 0. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 484 C. A. [1904] W. N. 122 ; [1904] ] P. 306 [1903] P. 246 ; 0. A. 1905] \ W.N. 119; [1905] P. 253 j P. 0. [1909] A. 0. 194 0. A. [1908] 2 K B. 844 ; ) H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 185 ; [1909] A. C. 506 . . ) 0. A. [1901] W. N. 68 ; [1901] 1 2 K. B. 42 j C. A. [1904] W. N. 193 ; j [1905] 1 K B. 53 . . . . j Column of Digest. 302 1266 2456 1976 120 2860 2676 1883 284 1455 687 805 371 2956 498 1601 1492 311 607 567 632 609 •2876 1142 2770 959 961 302 2702, 2706 1634 1687 Table of cases in the digest. Ixxvii Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Cook V. Frederick. In re Nash Oook V. Hobbs . . Cook : — London Coimty Council v. . . Cook )'. Mitcham Common Conservators Cook V. Eicketson Cook : — Skene v. Cook : — Sydney Municipal Council v. Bull, ) Third party . . . . j Cook V. Trevener Cook, In the Goods of . . . ^ . . . -, Cooke : — ^Boucas v. Cooke V. Gibson. In re Crawford's Settlement Cooke : — ^Lloyds Bank, Limited v. . . . , Cooke w. Midland Great Western Eailway of \ Ireland , . . . . . . . . . 1 Cooke : — Preston (Official Seoeiver as Trustee ) o¥)v j Cooke V. Vogeler (Charles A.) Co } Cooke : — Wakefield Corporation v. . . Cooke : Wrightsou v. In re Wrightson Cookson V. Catton Coomber, In re. Coomber v. Coomber Coombs V. Coombs Coombs : — Manchester Brewery Co. v. Cooper : — Barraolough v. Cooper V. Blakiston ■■( •^1 Cooper : — Boustead v. In re Van Straubenzee Cooper V. Hawkins Cooper V. Kendall Cooper : — ^Lockwood v. Cooper V. Morgan Cooper: — Scarborough (Mayor, &c. oi), v. Cooper V. Skinner. In re Skinner . . Cooper & Co. : — M'Govern v Cooper & Crane v. Wright Cooper, Cooper & Johnson, Ld., In re Cooper-Dean v. Badham [1909] W. N. 162; [1909] 2 ,Ch. 450; C. A. [1909] W.N 209 ; [1909] W. N. 226 [1910] 1 Ch. 1 1910] W. N. 219 1906] 1 K. B. 278 . . 1901] 1 Ch. 387 P. C. [1901] A. 0.588 [1901] 2 K. B. 7 ; 0. A. [1902] W.N. 60; [1902] 1 K. B. 682 [1908] W. N. 205 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 7 [1910] W. N. 211 [1902] P. 114 . . C. A. [1903] 2 K B. 227 [1906] 1 Ch. 11 C. A. [1907] W. N. 67 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 794 H. L. (Ir.) [1909] W. N. 56 [1909] A. C. 229 . . [1906] W. N. 166; [1906] 2 Ch. 661 H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 2 [1901] A. C. 102 . . [1902] 1 K B. 188; C. A. [1903] W. N. 28 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 417 ; H. L. (B.) [1904] W. N. 3 ; [1904] A. C. 31 . . [1908] W. N. 82; [1908] 1 Ch. 789 [1910] W. N. 52 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 410 1910] W. N. 278 1903] W. N. 180 1901] 2 Ch. 608 H. L. (E.), Feb. 20, 1905 [1908] 2 Ch. 121, n. [1907] 1 K B. 336; C. A [1907] W. N. 173; [1907] 2 K B. 688 ; H. L. (B.) [1909] W. N. 3 ; [1909] A. 0. 104 [1901] W. N. 181 ; [1901] 2 Oh. 779 [1904] 2 K. B. 164 . , C. A. [1909] W. N. 23 ; [1909] 1 K B. 405 [1903] W. N. 136; [1903] 2 K. B. 428 [1908] W. N. 256; [1909] 1 Ch. 261 [1909] W. N. 228 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 68 [1904] W.N. 8; [1904] 1 Ch. 289 (1901) Ot. of Sess. (So.) [1903] W. N. 160 H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 106 ; [1902] A. 0. 302 . . [1902] W. N. 199 [1908] W. N. 100 1951 2200 2231 395 1795 1470 2637 1122 2914 689 2418 2079 2114 233 153 2635 37 716 1077 1359 2927 2236 2404 1158 1478 11.32 2807 695 2731 1628 1653 549 2002 Ixxviii TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Co-operative (Otago Farmers') : Association of New Zealand v. Thompson . . « . . Coote : — Sweeney v. . . Cope, 111 re. Cross v. Cross , . . . .' . Cope V. Orossingham . . Cope V. Sharps . . Copeland : — Att.-G-en. v. Copestake v. Hoper Copland : — Dick v. Dick v. Audsley Copper Mines (Huinao), Ld., In re. Mathe- son & Co. V. the Company . . Copsey V. Copsey Corhett, In re. Corbett v. Lord Cobham Corbett v. Badger Corbett v. Pearce Corbett v. South Eastern and Chatham Eail way Companies' Managing Committee " Cordelia," The " Cordilleras," The Cording & Co. v. Westminster Corporation . Corea v. Peiris . . ' ' Corinthian," The .... Cornbrook Brewery Co. v. Law Debenture Corporation, Ld. Cornfoot v. Eoyal Exchange Assurance Cor poration Corns V. Harrison. Cornwall Justices : In re Lambert Eex V. Cornwallis-West and Munro's Contract, In re Corporation (Boui'nemouth) : — Stouroliffe Estates Co. v. Corporation (Camberwell) v. Dixon . . Corporation (London) v. Great Western and Metropolitan Eailways Corporation (West Ham) : — Att.-Gen. v. Corporation of the VUlage of Grand Mere : — Hanson v. Corry : — Clauston & Co. v. Oorsellis, In re. Freeborn r. Napper Corsellis v. London County Council . . Volume and Page. Column of Digest. [1910] 2 K B. 145 . . H. L. (Ir.) [1907] W. K". 92 ; [190*7] A. C. 221 . . C. A. [1908] W. N. 128; [1908] 2 Ch. 1 [1908] W. N. 184 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 624; C. A. [1909] W. N. 125; [1909] 2 Ch 148 [1910] W. N. 10; [1910] K. B. 168 . , [1901] 2 K. B. 101; C. A, [1902] 1 K. B. 690 . . [1907] W. N. 43 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 366; 0. A. [1908] W. N, 129 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 10 H. L. (So.) [1908] W. N. 136 [1908] A. C. 347 . . [1910] W. N. 218 . . [1905] P. 94 [1903] W. N. 89 ; [1903] 2 Ch 326 [1901] 2 K. B. 278 . . [1904] 2 K. B. 422 . . [1905] W. N. 93 ; [1905] 2 Ch 280; C. A. [1906] W. N 106; [1906] 2 Ch. 12 [1909] P. 27 [1904] P. 90 [1906] W. K. 31 ; [1906] 1 Ch 464 P. C. [1909] A. C. 549 C. A. [1909] P. 260 . . [1903] 2 Ch. 627: C. A. [1904] W. N. 6 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 103 [1903] 2 K. B. 363; C. A. [1903] W. N. 191; [1904] 1 K. B. 40 . . [1908] W. N. Ill; [1908] Ch. 117 [1903] W. X. 106 ; [1903] K. B. 178 . . [1903] W. N. 73 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 150 C. A. [1910] W.N. 120; [1910] 2 Ch. 12 [1910] 1 K. B. 424 . . [1910] W. N. 146 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 314 [1910] 2 Ch. 560 P. C. [1904] A. C. 789 P. C. [1906] A. 0. 122 [1906] W. N. 98 ; [1906] 2 Ch, 316 .. [1907] W.N. 79; [1907] 1 Ch 704 ; O.A. [1907] W.N. 227 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 13 ) ) \ 1278 648 2982 2700 2724 1155 1151, 1567 526 918 2884 1505 1647 2109 2464 2524 2645 344 2504 438 1278 2926 2140 2384 2790 1634 1395 692 297 1803 2932 1540 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Ixxix Name of Case. Volume and Page. Columu of Digest. Corset (Royal Worcester) Oo.'s Application to \ Register a Trade Mark . . . . . . J Corsi : — Piokford v. Cory, In tlie Goods of . . Cory : — Dovey v. . . . . . . . . j Cory: — Lewis i). Cory (WiUiam) & Son, Ld. :— Ellis v. . . | Cory (William) & Son, Ld. v. Harrison Cory & Sons, Ld. v. France, Penwiok & Co., \ Ld j Cosgrove : — Scarborougli v. . , Costa Eioa Ey. Co. v. Forwood . . . . j Oostello and Bishop : — Eex v. . . . , j Coster : — Headland v. . . . . . . I Coster : — Hedland'y. See Coster;: — Headlandi;. Cotgrave, In re. Mynors v. Cotgrave . . j Oottrell, In re. Buckland v. Bedingfield . . j CoTicliHian : — Warner v. Coulden, In re. Coulden v. Coulden Coull's Settled Estates, In re . . . . . . j -I Coulson : — Scott v. Coultkard v. Oonsett Iron Co. . . . . j Counties (United) Bank, Ld. : — General Land ) Drainage and Improvement Co. u. . . j County Council, liee under th.e name of the County Council. County (Glamorgan) Asylum v. Cardiff Guardians County of Durham Electrical Power Distri- bution Co. V. Inland Eevenue Commis- sioners . . County of London. See under London. County of London Electric Supply Co. : — Corporation of London v. . . County of Middlesex Light EaUways Order, 1903, In re County Theatres and Hotels, Ld. o. Knowles Courage & Co. : — Baker v. Courage & Co. v. Carpenter . . Court : — Eex v. . . Court of Chancery Act, 1841, and Pike, In re Coujiney : — Pease v. . . .... Couturier, In re. Coutourier v. Shea [1909] 1 Ch. 459 [1901] 2 K B. 212 . . [1903] P. 62 H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. lYO [1901] A. C. 477 . . 0. A. [1906] W. N. 95 C. A. [1901] W. N. 214 ; [1902] ) 1 K. B. 38 ] H. L. (E.) [1906] A. 0. 274 C. A. [1910] W. N. 215 0. A. [1905] 2 K B. 805 C. A. [1901] W.N. 44; [1901]! 1 Ch. 746 j 0. C. A. [1909] W. N. 210; ) [1910] 1 K B. 28 ] C. A. [1905] W. N. 2 ; [1905] \ 1 K. B. 219; H. L. (B.) [1906] W. N. 76; [1906] A. 0.286 ; [1903] W. N. 163 ; [1903] 2 Oh, 705 [1910] W. N. 21 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 402 0. A. [1910] W. N. 266 [1908] 1 Ch. 320 [1905] W. N. 7b ; [1905] 1 Oh. ) 712 j [19031 1 Ch. 453 ; 0. A. [1903] ) W. N. 88 ; [1903] 2 Oh. 249 j C. A. [1905] W. N. 153 ; [1905] ) 2 K. B. 869 ) [1910] W. N. 187 [1910] W. N. 172; [1910] 2) K B. 547 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 258 ) [1909] W. N. 54; [1909] 1 KB. • 737; 0. A. [1909] W. N. 153 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 604 . . [1910] 2 Ch. 208 [1908] W. N. 167 C. A. [1902] W. N. 22 ; [1902] ) 1 K. B. 480 j [1910] 1 K B. 56 [1910] W.N. 8; [1910] 1 Ch, 262 C. 0. E. [1905] -2 K. B. 335 [1902] W. N. 42 [1904] W. N. 148; [1904] 2 Ch. 503 [1907] W. N. 69 ; [1907] 1 Ch, 470 2690 1896 2076 458 73 1656 2191 1678 1781 457 833 2142 2921 61 1621 2893 2393 1262 498, 1601 1209 1551 2266 1015 1412 98 1472 1360 806 1971 2374 2942 Ixxx TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Coventry : — Jones & Co. v. . . Coventry Ordnance "Works, Ld. : — Tickers, ) Sons & Maxim, Ld. r. . . . . ) Coventry (Wilson &), Ld. I'.Tlioresen'sLiDie Covington v. MetropoKtan District Ey. Co. . . Cowes Harbour Commissioners: — TJlmann v. Cowes Urban Council c. Southampton, Isle j of Wigbt, and South, of England Eoyal , Mail Steam Packet Co. . . ) Cowley, III re . . Cowley (Earl) c. Countess Cowley . . Volume aod Page. ■f Cowling c. Topping Cowper 1'. Laidler Cox V. Bleines . . Cox i'. Cox and Wards . . Cox V. English, Scottish, Bank, Ld. and Australian Cox 1'. Harper . . Cox V. Hutchinson Cox v. Merriman Cox : — ^Eex v. Ex parte West Cox : — Eigby & Co. c. . . Cox (No. 2) :— Eigby & Co. v. Cox : — Townsend v. Cox Moore v. Peruvian Corporation, Ld. Cox Sinclair : — Wilson v. In re Home Ooxwell's Trusts, In re. Kinloch-Cooke r. the Public Trustee . . Cozens, In re. Miles v. Wilson Crabtree, Ld. (Carlton Manufacturing Co., Ld., and) : — Premier Industrial Bank, Ld. V Crace, In re. Balfour r. Crace " Craftsman," The Craig, Ex pa rte. In re Dobson Craig ('. Dowding Craig :— Stevenson v. Stevenson v. Gold- straw . . " Craigellachie," The " Craighall," The Craigie : — Gordon i'. In re Garrard Crane, In re. Adams c Crane Crane & Sons v. Ormerod Craske v. Wigan 1909] 2 K. B. 1029 1908] W. ^'. 12 1910 1903 1909 2KB. 405 1 K. B. 231 2 K. B. 1 [1906] [1903] 1905] 2 K. B. 2S7 . . 1901] 1 Ch. 38 H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 165 [1901] A. C. 450 1906] W. X. IT: K. B. 466 1903] W. X. 112 Ch. 337 1902] 1 K. B. 670 . . 1906] P. 267 . . P. C. [1905] A. C. 168 1909] W. X. 244: C. A [1910] W. X. 34 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 480 1910] W.X. 36; C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 513 . . 1905] 1 K. B. 139 1905] 2 K. B. 478 . . '. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 358 1904] W. N. 101 ; [1904] 2 E. B. 208 . . P. C. [19U7] A. C. 514 "190S] W. X. 62; [1908] Ch. 604 1904] W. X. 185 Ch. 76 1909] W. 1 Ch. 63 1902] W. Ch. 138 X. 227 X. 203; [1905] ; ' [1910] [1903] 1909] 1 K B. 106 . . 1902] W. X. 34 ; [1902] 1 Ch "733 1906] P. 153 . 1903] W. X. 155 1907] W. X. 206; C. 4 [1908] W. X. 22 . . [1906] 2 K B. 298 . . [1909] P. 1 C. A. [1910] W. X. 109 [1910Tp. 207 [1907] W. N. 21 ; [1907] I Ch 382 [1908] W. N. 18 ; [1908] 1 Ch 379 [1903] 2 K B. 37 C. A. [1909] W. X. 136 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 635 . . Column of Digest. 120 1964 2467 1407 841 1075 Vl-i-2 1204 1258, V.ilo 1459 261 946 2092 1367 1220 1849 1436 1680 1683 325 426 2763 2222 2905 4vSl 2041 2564 215 1895 2300 2511 2495 1284 757 15S3 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Ixxxi Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Craster v. Thomas Oratohley: — Clissold v. A Craven's Mortgage, In re. Davies v. Craven Crawford : — Oonsett Urban Council v. Crawford's Settlement, In re. Cooke v. Gibson ( ( In re Huxtable . :! Crawfurd : — Huxtable v. Orawsliaw : — Mitchell v. Crawshay Brothers (Oyf artha) , Ld. : — Bevau v. j Orawshay Brothers, Oyfartha,Ld.: — &ough v. Credit Assurance and Guarantee Corporation, Ld., In re Credit Reform Association and Credit Index, Ld. :— White & Co. i; Crediton (Bishop of) v. Exeter (Bishop of) Creed, In re. Thomas v. Hudson . . Cremins v. Guest, Keen & Nettlefolds, Ld, Crewe (Eaxl of) : — Att.-Gen. v. Crewe (Eai-1 of) : — Rex v. Ex parte Sekgome Crewe Justices : — Wilson v. . . Cribb V. Kynoch, Ld. . . Cribb V. Kynoch, Ld. (No. 2) Ciichton's Oil Co., /« re Crick : — Harnett v. Crick V. NichoUs Crickitt v. Criokitt Crichton and Law Car and General Insur- ance Corporation, Ld., In re Crigglestone Coal Co., In re Crigglestone Coal Co., In re. Stewart v. The ) Company . . , . . . . . j Crippen : — Rex v. Cripps : — Fowler v. . . . . . . . . Cripps :— Waugh v. In re Waugh . . . . j Critchell v. London and South- Western Ry. ) Co ..] Croadsdell and Cammell, Laird & Co., Inre. . Crocker v. Plymouth Corporation . . . . ! Crompton (A. A.) & Co.'s Trade Mark, In re Orompton : — Shaw v. . . D.D. 1903 1905^ 1901' [1909] W. N. 143 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 348 [1910] 1 K. B. 374; C. A. [1910] W. N. 103 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 244 [1907] W. N. 187; [1907] 2 Ch. 448 2 K. B. 183 1 Ch. 11 W. N. 230; [1902] 1 Ch.'214; 0. A. [1902] W. N. 193 ; [1902] 2 Oh. 793 [1903] 1 K. B. 701 . . 0. A. [1901] W. N. 213 ; C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 25 . . 0. A. [1908] W. N. 5 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 441 [1902] W. N. 104 ; [1902] 2 Oh. 178; 0. A. [1902] W. N. 168 ; [1902] 2 Oh. 601 C. A. [1905] W. N. 50 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 653 [1905] W. N. 131 ; [1905] 2 Oh. 455 [1905] W. N. 94 0. A. [1908] W. N. 6 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 469 . . [1901] 2 Ch. 317 0. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 576 [1905] 1 K. B. 491 [1907] 2 K. B. 648 . . 0. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 551 [1901] W. N. 113 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 184 ; 0. A. [1902] W. N. [1902] 2 Ch. 86 P. 0. [1905 0. A. 1908] A. 0. 470 W. N. 32 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 501 1902] W. N. 94 ; [1902] ) P. 177 j [1910] 2 K. B. 738 . . [1906] W. N. 120 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 126 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 327 [1906] W. N. 20; [1906] 1 Oh. 623 0. C. A. [1910] W. N. 243 [1905] W. N. 161; [1906] 1 K. B. Ifi [1903] W. N. 32, 36 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 744 . . 0. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 860 C.A. [1906] W.N. 170; [1906] 2 K. B. 669 [1906] W. N. 58; [1906] 1 K. B. 494 [1902] W. N. 57 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 758 [1910] 2 K. B. 370 . . 30 2437 2246 1492 2418 353 820 1621 1588 541 894 8 2992 1594 1841 1144 1439 1670 1672 681 1790 2870 2067 96 603 431 794 1696 2916 2009 1967 2310 2678 1478 / Ixxxii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Cronmire, Ex parte. In re Croumire Oroome : — Greene v. . . Orosbie-Hill v. Sayer Crosby v. Alhambra Co. ■-I Crosfield (Josepli) & Sods' Application, In re Crosfield (Josepli) & Sons, Ld. v. Manchester ' Ship Oanal Co. . . . . . . . . \ Cross V. Cross. In re Cope . . . . ) Crossan v. Caledon Shipbuilding and Engi- ] neering Co. . . . . , . . . . . j Crossingham : — Cope i:. Crosskill : — Morgan Brewery Co. v. . . Crossley : — Eex v. . . . . . . . . { Crossley Brothers, Ld. v. Lee . . Orosthwaite Fire Bar Syndicate v. Senior . . Crouan v. Stanier Crouch and Flint :— Webb v. New South \ Wales Taxation Commissioners v. [ Baxter . . . . . . | Crowe : — Westgate v. . . . . . . . . j " Crown," The, Cobham, In re. Ashby's | Cobham Brewery Co. . . . . , . J Crown Brewery (Hardy's) and St. Philip's Tavern, Manchester, In re . . Ci'own Grain Co. v. Day Crowther u. West Riding Window Cleaning Co. Croxon, In re. Croxon v. Ferrers . . ^. . . Croydon Corporation : — Bromley Eural Council V. . . . . . . . . . Volume and Page. Croydon Corporation Council Croydon Rural Croydon Guardians : — Eastbourne Guardians ] Croydon Rural Council: — Croydon Corpora- tion V. . . Crozier, Stephens & Co. v. Auerbach . . Crum-Brown :^Weir v. Crump V. Lewis . . Crunden and Meux's Contract, In re "Crusader," The C. A. [1901] W. N. 20; [1901] ) 1 K. B. 480 j C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 277 [1908] 1 Ch. 866 [1907] W. N. 8 ; [1907] 1 Ch. ) 295 ] [1909] W. N. 147 ; C. A. [1909] ) W. N. 233 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 118 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 130 . . ) C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 123 ; H. L. " (E.) [1905] W. N. 126; [1905] A. C. 421 C. A. [1908] W. N. 128 ; [1908] ) 2 Ch. 1 j H. L. (So.) [1906] W. N. 104 [1908] W. X. 184 ; [1908] 2 ) Ch. 624 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 126 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 148 ..) [1902] 1 Ch. 898 C. C. A. [1909] W. X. 18 ; ) [1909] 1 K. B. 411 . . . . ( 1908] 1 K. B. 86 "1909] 1 Ch. 801 1904] 1 K B. 87 P. C. [1908] A. 0. 214 [1907] W. X. 208 ; [1908] 1 ) K. B. 24 ( [1906] 2 K B. 754 . . [1910) W.N. 76; C. A. [1910] j W. N. 103 ; [1910] 2 K B. ' 257 I P. C. [1908] A. C. 504 C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 232 [1904] W. N. 17 ; [1904] 1 Ch. / 252 [1907] 2 K. B. 39; C. A. ^ [1907] W. N. 244 ; C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 353 . . i [1907] W. N. 246 ; [1908] 1 ) Ch. -222; C. A. [1908] W.N. 150; [1908] 2 Ch. 321 .. \ [1910]2K:. B. 16 [1907] W. N. 246; [1908] 1^ Ch. :j22; C. A. [1908] W.N. ' 150 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 321 C. A. [1908] W. N. 68 ; [1908] ) 2 K. B. 161 . . H. I,. (So.) [1908] W. N. 40; [1908] A. 0. 162 . , [1908] W. N. 51 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 868 . . [1909] W. N. 60; [1909] 1 Ch. 690 [1907] P. 15 ; C. A. [1907] P. 196 Coliunn of Digest. 205 2016 1746 1512 2694 5071, 663 2982 1630 2700 508 795 910 1882 1277 139 752 1431 1433 314 1636 2947 1165 2156 1917 2156 1997 362 1494 2749 2548 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Ixxxiii Name of Case. OrutcMey : — Elliott v... Crutcliley v. Wells. In re Pearce . . Crym.es, Eemp-Welch and : — Kemp-Welcli v. Crystal Palace Football Club : — Walker v. . . Crystal Palace (Peckham, East Dulwich and) Tramways Bill, In re Cubitt & Co. : — Knight v. Cuenod v. Leslie CuSe, In re. Eooks f. Cufle . . Cumberland : — Garton v. In re North Cumberland Ey. and Coal Co. (Att.-G-en. for') Dominion of Canada and) : — St. John Pilot \ Commissioners v. . . . . . . . . J ( Cumming (Gordon) v. Hoiildsworth , . Cunard Steamship Co., In re . . Cunard Steamship Co. v. Hopwood . . Cunard Steamship Co. v. Marten OundiS V. Pitzsimmons Cuninghame : — Automatic Self - Cleansing ) Pilter Syndicate Co. v. Cunningham v. Tomey Homma Curator of Intestate Estates : — Att.-Gen. for New South Wales v. Curator of Intestates Estates : — Williams v. . Curl Brothers, Ld. v. Webster Curlier : — De Nicols v. In re De Niools " Ourran," The Ourrie v. Consolidated Kent Collieries Cor poration, Ld. . . Carrie's Settlement, In re. In re Eooper, Eooper v. Williams . . Curtice v. London, City and Midland Bank . Curtis !'. Black & Co. . . Curtis I'. Old Monkland Conservative Associa tion Curzon Howe : — Cardigan (Lady) v. . . Cutbush : — Spencer v. In re Mayhew Cuthbert v. Eobarts, Lubbock & Co. Volume and Page. [1903] 2 K. B. 476; 0. A. [1904] ) 1 K. B. 565; H.L.(E.) [1905] W. N. 164 ; [1906] A. C. 7 ) [1909] W. N. 94; [1909] 1 Ch. 819 C. A. [1910] W. N. 121 [1910] P. 233 C. A. [1909] W. N. 226 ; [1910] 1. K. B. 87 [1909] W. N. 180; (Erratum 185); [1909] 2 Oh. 540 0. A. [1910] W. N. Ill [1910] 2 Oh. 1 0. A. [1901] W.N. 213; C.A [1902] 1 K. B. 31 . . C. A. [1909] W. N. 65 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 880 . . [1908] W. N. 167 ; [1908] 2 Oh. 500 [1909] W. N. 68; [1909] Ch. 625 P. C. [1910] A. 0. 208 H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 185 [1910] A. 0. 537 . . [1908] W. N. 160 . . [1908] W. N. 182; [1908] Ch. 664 [1902] 2 K. B. 624; C. A , [1903] W. N. 142 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 611 ) [1910] W. N. 270 , . [1906] W. N. 46 ; 0. A. [1906] ) W. N. 65 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 34 j P. C. [1903] A. C. 151 P. 0. [1907] A. 0. 619 P. 0. [1909] A. C. 353 [1904] W. N. 56 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 685 [1906] W. N. 192 C. A. [1910] P. 184 . . 0. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 134 [1910]W.N. 16; [1910] 1 Ch. 329 [1907] W. n! ' 146 ; ' C. A. [1908] W. N. 3; [1908] 1 K. B. 293 0. A. [1909] W. N. 134 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 529 H. L. (So.) [1906] W. N. 3 ; [1906] A. 0. 86 [1901] W. N. 147; [1901] 2 Ch. 479 [1901] W. N. 55 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 677 [1909] W. N. 11 ; C. A. [1909] W.N. 125; [1909] 2 Ch. 226 Column Digest. 664 36 720 1620 2716 1590 1190 2939 2372 323 2332, 2806 500 439 1277 2182 459 290 1793 1799 1137 734 2505 607 2970 145 1643 2252, 1080 1937 148 /2 Ixxxiv TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Colnmn of Digest. Cuthbert : — Young v. . . Cutler : — Bank of England v. . . Cycle Trade Publishing Co. : — Joynt v. Cycle (Eotax Motor and) Co : — Jackson i-'. . . j Cyclemakers' Co-operative Supply Co. v. Sims Cyclists' Touring Club, In re. . Cyclists' Touring Club i'. Hopkinson " Cyclostyle,'' The. See In re Grestetner's ) Trade Mark I D. D. V. D. D. V. D. and a. Da Costa : — South British Kre and Marine Insurance Co. of New Zealand ? Daily Record (Glasgow), Ld. : — Watson & Sons !'. Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co. McLavighlin . . Dakhyl v. Labouchere . . Dalby : — Hooton r. Dale V. Dale. In re Taylor . . Dale : — Gammon v. In re Bruuning Dale : — Hulbert v. Dallas, In re . . " Dallington," The Dallmeyer, In re Dambe : — Poll c. Damper v. Basset Dampfsohiftsrhederei Actiengesellschaft i'. S.S. " Parisian " Danby v. Burton. In re Burton Daniell : — Butt-Scott v. Daniels : — Birstall Candle Co. v. Saunders, Claimant Dansk Eekylriffel Syndikat Aktieselskab r. Snell Danubian Sugar Factories v. Inland Bevenue Commissioners Da Prato v. Partick (Provost, &c., of) Darby's Estate, In re. Eendall v. Darby . . [1906] 1 Oh. 451 [1907] W. N. 80; [1907] 1 K. B. 889 ; C. A. [1908] ' W. N. 98 ; [1908] 2 K B. 208 C. A. [1904] W. N. 92 ; [1904] ) 2 K. B. 592 j C. A. [1910] W. N. 205 ; I [1910] 2 K. B. 937.. [1903] 1 K B. 477 . . [1907] 1 Ch. 269 [1909] W. N. 260; [1910] 1 Oh. 179 C. A. [1908] 1 Oh. 513 [1903] P. 144 . , [1906] 1 Iv. B. 456 0. A. [1907] W. N. 61 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 853 . . P. C. [1904] A. 0. 776 H. L. (E.) [1908] 2 K. B 325, n C. A. [1907] W. N. 87 ; [1907] 2 K B. 18 . . [1909] W. N. 59 [1908] "W. N. 243 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 276 . . 0. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 670 C. A. [1904] W.N. 37; [1904] 2 Oh. 385 . . [1903] W. N. 42 ; [1903] P, C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 105, n. [1901] W. N. 132 ; [19011 2 K B. 579 . . [1901] W. N. 119 ; [19011 2 Ch. 350 .. .. ._ P. C. [1907] A. C. 193 [1901] W. N. 202 [1902] W. N. 130 ; [1910] KB. 351 .. .. . [1908] 2 E. B. 254 ., [1908] W. N. 69 ; [1908] Ch. 127 . . C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 245 . H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 67 [1907] A. 0. 153 . . [1907] 2 Ch. 465 2305 1219 873 2291 596 491 504 2687 944 1275 1995 1381 875 2963 64 2865 1751 2534 196 2664 2S70 322 2764 1387 757 1894 2265 2330 1731 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. IXXXT Name of Case, Darling v. Eaeburn Darlington v. Eoscoe & Sons . , . . , . Darlow /'. Shuttleworth Darngavil Coal Co. : — Stewart c. . . . . '■ Darnley (Earl of), In re. Clifton v. Darnley - Darracq. See West Yorkshire Darraoq Agency, Ld. Dartford Brewery Co. v. Oounty of London ] Quarter Sessions Moseley Dartford Brewery Co. v Dauncej'- v. HoUoway . Dauney : — Smitli v. Davenport v. Marshall Davej' V. Bourne. In re Bourne Davej' i'. Hinde . . Davey v. Hinde . . David V. Britannic Merthyr Coal Co. David V. Eees David & Vaux : — Glaabrook v. David Moseley & Sons, Ld. : — Dunlop Pneu- matic Tyre Co. v. . . David Payne & Co., In re. Young v. David Payne, Ld. Davidson, In re. Minty v. Bourne . , Davidson : — Caledonian Ey. Co. u. . . Davidson : — Eex v. Davidsson v. Hill Davies, Ex parte. Eex v. Gla,niorgan Justices Davies, In re. Davies v. Atkinson . . Davies v. Burnett Davies v. Craven. In re Craven's Mortgage Davies v. Edwards. In re Eichards . . Davies v. Gas Light and Coke Co. Davies v. Harrison. In re Lewis . . Davies v. Harrison Davies : — Jones v. Volume and Page. [1906] W. N. 81 ; [1906] 1 \ K. B, 572 ; C. A. [1907] W. N. 61'; [1907] 1 K. B. 846 '. ) C. A. [1907] W. N. 4 ; [1907] ) 1 K. B. 219 I [1902] 1 K. B. 721 . . (1902) Ot. of Sess. (So.) [1903] ) W. N. 162 I [1906] W. N. 215 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 159 [1906] W. N. 101 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 695 C. A. [1906] W. N. 38 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 462 0. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 441 . . [1904] 2 K B. 186 . . [1901] W. N. 210; [1902] 1 Ch. 82 [1906] W. N. 68 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 78 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 697 [1901] P. 95 [1903] P. 221 C. A. [1909] 2 K B. 146 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 257; [1910] A. C. 74 C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 435 [1905] W. N. 42 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 615 [1904] W.N. 11; [1904] 1 Ch. 164; C. A. [1901] W. N. 60 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 612 . . 0. A. [1904] W. N. 128 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 608 C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 567 H. L. (So.) [1902] W.N. 156; [1903] A. 0. 22 C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 52 [1901] W. N. 137 ; [1901] E. B. 606 . . [1910] 1 K. B. 851 . . [1909] W. N. 212 [1902] W. N. 57 ; [1902] 1 ) K. B. 666 . . [1907] W. N. 187; [1907] Ch. 448 [1910] W. N. 131 ; [1910] Ch. 74 [1908] W. N. 255 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 248 ; 0. A. [1909] W. N. 77; [1909] 1 Ch. 708 [1907] W. N. 138 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 296 [1909] W. N. 87 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 104 [1901] 1 K. B. 118 . . Column of Digest. 2457 1599 76 1641 2958 1443 741 879 2229 2403 118 993 995 1676 732 2438 1876 411 372 1413 799 1780 1431 1036 1448 2245 2965 410 2364 1445 237 Ixxxvi TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Davies : — Hex v. Davies : — Eex v. Davies i: Seisdon Union Davies : — Thorpe v. . . Davies v. Town Properties Investment Cor poration, Ld. [and see Errata to the volume [1902] 2 Ch.] Davies : — Whitham v. In re Whitham Davies v. Witts. In re Hole Davies and Kent's Contract, and Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, In re . . Davis, Ex parte. Eex v. Dickinson Davis, Ex parte. In re Tryon Davis, In re. Davis v. Davia . . Davis, In re. Hannen v. Hillyer Davis, In the Estate of Davis V. Benjamin Davis V. Bromley Corporation Davis V. Hutchings Davis V. Hyman & Co. . Davis V. Petrie . . Davis V. Stoddart Davis V. Town Propert: poration, Ld. Davis -v. "Wallis . . ies Investment Cor Davis : — Weymouth v. . Davison v. Daviswa (Montgomerie inter vening Davy, III re. Hollingsworth v. Davy Davy V. Scarth , . Dawes v. Ixer. In re Barnett Dawes v. Miller. In re Brookett Dawes : — Piokthall v. In re Maitland Dawes v. Wilkinson . . " Dawlish," The Dawson, In re. Arathoon v. Dawson Dawson, In re. Dawson : — Clarke v. Dawson v. Braime's Tadcaster Breweries, Ld. ■) [1905] W. N. 761 ; [1906] 1 \ K. B. 32 ) C. 0. A. [1909 1 K. B. 892 . . [1906] 1 K. B. 214; C. A. ' [1907] W. N. 19 ; [1907] 1 f KB. 630; H.L. (E.) [1908] i W. N. 135 ; [1908] A. C. 315 / [1908] 2 K. B. 750 [1902] W. N. 164; [1902] 2 ( Ch. 635 I [1901] W. N. 86 [1905] W. X. 109 ; [1905] 2 Ch. \ 384 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 65 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 673 . . [1910] W. N. 61 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 104; [1910] 2 Ch. 35 ) [1910] 1 K. B. 469 . . C. A. [1901] W. N. 176 [1902] W. N. 81 ; [1902] 2 Ch. ) 314 j [1902] W. N. 56 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 876 [1906] P. 330 [1906] W. N. 160 ; [1906] 2 ( Ch. 491 . . . , ) C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 170 [1907] W. N. 28; [1907] 1 Ch. / 356 .. . i C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 854 [1905] 2 K. B. 528 ; C. A. \ [1906] W. N. 177 ; [1906] 2 ' K. B. 786 . . j C. A. [1902] 2 K B. 21 [1902] W. N. 164 ; [1902] 2 Ch. ^ 635;C.A.[1903]W. N. 62; [1903] ICh. 797 .. ) [1908] W. N. 58 ; [1908] 2 ) KB. 134 .. [1908] W. N. 139 ; [1908] 2 ) Ch. 169 .. . .. j [1909] P. 308 C. A. [1907] W. N. 210 ; C. A. ) [1908] 1 Ch. 61 [1905] W. N. 165 ; [1906] 1 Ch. [1908] W'. N. 2,S ; [1908] 1 Ch. 402 ., [1907] W. N. 237 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 185 ' L J [1903] W. N. 143 ' [1906] W. N. 195 ; [1907] 1 ) K B. 278 . . -^ [1910] P. 339 ' [1906] W. N. 108; [1906] '2 Ch. 211 . ^ -' [1906] W. N. 20 [1907] W. N. 160; [1907] 2 Ch. 369 . . '^ 649 796 2155 1704 1384 2786 2221 2S21 820 649 2752 oTl 2065 683 1495 2740 1865 172 1127 1384 2147 1347 927 2890 1866 1939 2978 132 45 2540 2344 2165 264 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Ixxxvii Name of Case. Dawson u. Great Northern and City Ey. Co. Dawson : — Great Northern Ey. Co. v. Dawson : — Higgins i'. . . Dawson : — International Fibre Syndicate, Ld. Dawson v. Isle . . . . . . . . . . Dawson v. Smart . . . . . . Day, Ex parte. In re Mellison Day, In the Matter of a Complaint by Day : — Crown Grain Co. v. Day : — ^Noakes & Co. v. Daye : — Eex v. . . Dayrell, Tn re. Hastie v. Dayrell . . De Almeda, In re. Sourdis v, Keyser Dean v. Brown . . Dean v. Bulmer Deane : — Heath v. Deans : — Hodson v. Dea villa : — Eex v. De Beers Consohdated Mines, Ld. : — British South Africa Co. v. De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ld. v. Howe . Debenham v. Sawbridge Debtor, Ex parte The. In re 0. C. S. (a Debtor) Debtor (A), In re Debtor (A), In re Debtor (No. 478 of 1908), In re A Debtor (No. 484 of 1908), In re A Debtor (No. 1,103 of 1908), In re A Debtor (No. 31 of 1909), In re Gentry, a Debtor (No. 2 of 1910), In re . . Debtor (No. 7 of 1910), /n re. . Debtor (No. 692 of 1910), In re Debtor, In re A. Ex parte The Debtor Debtor, In re A. Ex parte The Debtor Debtor, In re A. Ex parte The Debtor Volume and Page. [1904] W. N.12 ; [1904] 1 K. B, 277 ;C. A. [1904] W.N. 210 [1905] 1 K. B. 260 . . C. A. [190a] W.N. 14; [1905" 1 K B. 331 H. L. (B.) [1901] W. N. 234 [1902] A. 0. 1 H. L. (So.) [1901] W. N. 97. [1906] W. N. 58 ; [1906] Ch. 633 H. L. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 138 [1903] A. C. 457 . . [1906] 2 K. B. 68 [1903] W. N. 10 P. C. [1908] A. C. 504 'I 0. A, [1908; 1910] 1 Ch. 270, n. W. N. 112; [1908] K. B. 333 [1904] 2 Oh. 496 [1901] W. N. 142 ; C. A [1902] W. N. 55 0. A. [1909] W. N. 146 ; [1909] \ 2 K. B. 573 ; H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 102 ; [1910] A. 0. 373 [1905] P. 1 [1905] W. N. 74; [1905] Oh. 86 [1903] W. N. 130 ; [1903] Ch. 647 0. 0. E. [1903] 1 K. B. 468 ' [1910] 1 Oh. 354; C. A. [1910] ) 2 Oh. 502 J 0. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 612;) H.L.(E.) [1906] W.N. 168; [1906] A. 0. 455 . . ) [1901] W. N. 86; [1901] 2 Ch. ) 98 j 0. A. [1904] W. N. 104 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 161 ( 0. A. [1901] W.N. Ill ; [1901] ) 2 K. B. 354 j 0. A. [1907] W. N. 4 . . 0. A. [1908] W.N. 166 ; [1908] ) 2 K. B. 684 j 0. A. [1908] W.N. 166; [1908] ) 2 K. B. 692 ( 0. A. [1910] W. N. 12 ; [1910] i 1 K. B. 313 i [1910] W.N. 29; 0. A. [1910] ^ W. N. 79; [1910] 1KB. 825 ) [1910] W. N. 70 0. A. [1910] W. N. 112 ; [1910] ) 2 K B. 69 ] C. A. [1910] W. N. 224 0. A. [1903] W. N. 48 ; [1903] ] 1 K. B. 705 j [1905] 1 IC. B. 374 . . C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 344 . . Column of Digest. 1399 1611 2942, 2969 655 244 956 174 689 314 1361 2647 2928 966 764 2057 395 1761 1131 632 2247 2784 186 200 187 190 185 167 197 1717 176 195 212 760 184 Ixxxviii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Debtor, In re A. Ex parte The Debtor, No. 2621 of 1902 Debtor, In re. Ex parte Peak Hill G-oldfield, Ld. , . 1 Debtor, In re A. Ex parte The Petitioning ( Creditor . , , . . . , , | Debtor, In re A. Ex parte Smith. . . . . Deely : — Edmonton Union e. In re Taylor Deeley v. Lloyds Bank DeepSeaPishery Co. 's Claim. /nrePenwick, ) Stobart & Co. j Deeping, Ex parte. In re Eiohards . . . . j De Palbe, In re. Ward v. Taylor . . . . | ^ ■ (No. 2) . . De Pries : — Masson, Tempb'er & Co. v. De Pries : — Masson, Templier & Co. v. De Pries Claimant Defries (J.) & Sons, Ld., In re. Eiohholz v. Defries (J.) & Sons, Ld. Defries (N.) & Co., In re. Bowen v. Defries (N.)&Co 1 De G-alve (Oountess) v. Gardner. In re \ Marquis of Anglesey . . . , . . j De Hart v. Compania Anonima de Seguros ( " Aurora" , . j Dehaynin, In re . . . . . . . . j Dehler : — Druitt v. In re Druitt . . . . j Deiohler : — Murphj' v. . . Deighton's Patent Plue and Tube Co. :- Leeds Porge Co. v. . . De Jager v. Att.-Gen. of Natal De Kadioh : — Jackson v. De La Bere v. Pearsons, Ld. . . Delany, In re. Conoley v. Quick . . Delap : — Codd v. De Larragoiti, In re . . De Lassalle v. Guildford Delves v. Gray . . DeMarmy: — Eex. tJ. .. Demerara Electric Co. i.. White De Moleyns' and Harris' Contract, In re Dempster v. Hunter & Sons . . :i C. A. [1903] W. N. 6 , . [1909] : [1909] 2 [1904] 1 C. A. [1909] W. N. 5 1 K. B. 430 . . [1907] W. N. 202; [1907] 2 K B. 896 . . C.A. [1902] W.N. 128; [1902] 2 K. B. 260 C. A. [1901] W. N. 21 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 480 [1910] 1 Ch. 648 [1902] W. N. 33 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 507 [1907] W. N. 79; [1907] 2 K. B. 33 C. A. [1901] W. N. 32 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 523 ; suh nam. Leigh v. Taylor, H. L. (E.) [1902] A.C. 157 .. ..^ .^ [1901] W. N. 87 C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 831 C. A. [1910] W. N. 51 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 535 [1909] W. N. 178; Ch. 423 [1903] W. N. 194 Ch. 37 [1903] 2 Ch. 727 [1903] 1 K B. 109; C. A.' [1903] AV. N. 142 ; [19031 2 K. B. 503 . . C. A. [1909] W. N. 251 ; [1910] ' 1 Ch. 223 C. A. [1903] W. N. 39 ; [19031 ' 1 Ch. 446 . . H. L. (L-.) [1909] W. N. 167 ; [1909] A. C. 446 . . [1903] W.N. 19; [lfl03] 1 Ch. 475 P. C. [1907] A. C. 326 [1904] W. N. 168 [1907] W. N. 31; [1907] 1 i;:.B.483; C.A. [1907] W.N. 244 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 280 [1902] W. N. 149; [19021 2 Ch. 642 . [1906] W. N. 57 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 78 . C. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 14 [1901] 2 K. B. 215 [1902] W. N. 142; [1902] 2 Ch. 606 C. C. B. [1907] W. N. 10; [1907] IK. B. 388 .. P. 0. [1907] A. C. 330 [1907] W. N. 207; [1908] 1 Ch. 110 . (1902) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 163 . . -' 185 221 170 187 1552 1729 553 227 1092 1090 1205 706 446 445 2166 1266 1234 2754 1940 708 1777 2796 656 371 895 1549 1366 2814 826 267 2389 1656 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Ixxxix Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Denaby and Cadeby Main Collieries, Ld. : — Denaby Overseers v. Denaby and Cadeby Main Collieries, Ld. v. Yorksbire Miners' Association Denaby Overseers v. Denaby and Cadeby Main Collieries, Ld. . . . . . . . . ) Dendy v. Evans Dene Steam Shipping Co. : — Webner v. De Nicols, In re. De Nicols v. Curlier Denison -Pender v. Evans. In re Wbitaker.. Denman & Co. v. Westminster Corporation. ) Cording & Co. v. Westminster Corporation j Denne : — Mercer v.- . . Dent : — Macmillan v. . . Denton : — Scott v. Denton : — Swanley Coal Co. v. Gillespie, Claimant Denton's Estate, In re. Licenses Insurance ] Corporation and Guarantee Fund, Ld. v. Denton De Pass v. Sonnenthal. In re Salaman De QuettevUle v. De Quetteville . . . . j Derby Corporation : — Harrington (Earl of) v. j Derby Corporation : — Pegg & Jones, Ld. v. j Derbyshire, In re. Webb v. Derbyshire . . Derbyshire Justices : — Eex v. Ex parte New ) Mills Urban Council ) Derenburg & Co., ^x^arie. JrareEo-we ..{ Dering : — Nottidge v. Eaban v. Dering . , De Eomana v. Eoberts De Eutzen : — Whiting v. In re Whiting's Settlement Deschamps v. Miller . . Desoours, Parry & Oo., In re . . De Silva : — Eabot v. . . . . . . . . D'Este's Settlement Trusts, In re. Poulter \ V. D'Este ; Development Co. of Central and West Africa, i In re . . . . . . . . . . . . \ Development (Famatina) Corporation, Ld. : — Bury V. H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 82; [1909] A. 0. 247 . . H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 384 . . H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 82 ; [1909] A. C. 247 . . [1909] 2 K. B. 894; C. A. [1909] W. N. 258; [1910] 1 K. B. 263 1905] 2 K. B. 92 1906] W. N. 192 1910] W. N. 236 1906] W. N. 31; [1906] 1 Ch. 464 [1904] W. N. 136; [1904] 2 Ch. 534;C.A.[1905] W. N. 140 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 638 [1905] W. N. 173 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 101 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 199 ; [1907] 1 Oh. 107 [1907] 1 K. B. 456 0. A. [1906] W. N. 176; [1906] 2 K. B. 873 , . [1903] W. N. 140; [1903] 2 Ch. 670 ; C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 178 [1907] W. N. 100; [1907] 2 Oh. 46 ; 0. A. [1907] W. N. 218 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 4 [1905] W. N. 86 ; 0. A. [1905] W. N. 130 [1904] W. N. 210; [1905] 1 Oh. 206 [1909] W. N. 158 ; [1909] 2 ' K B. 611 [1906] 1 Oh. 136 [1909] W. N. 26; [1909] 1 K. B. 449 [1904] W. N. 64 ; 0. A. [1904] W.N. 98; [1904] 2 KB. 483 [1909] 2 Oh. 647 ; 0. A. [1910] W. N. 41 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 297 [1906] P. 332 [1904] W. N. IIR ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 199; 0. A. [1905] 1 Ch. 96 [1908' [1909' P. 0. 1 Oh. 856 W. N. 50 1909] A. 0. 376 Devenish : — Pulsford v. Deverges v. Sandeman, Clark & Oo. ■■( [1903] 1 Ch. 898 [1902] W. N. 37 ; [1902] 1 Oh 547 0. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 754 ; H. L (E.) [1910] W. N. 157; [1910] A. 0. 439 , . [1903] W. N. 179; [1903] 2 Oh. 626 [1901] 1 Ch. 70 ; 0. A. [1902] W. N. 48 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 679 2150 2701 2160 1369 2473 734 705 2646 846 683 2141 263 2043 2906 2994 2277 1496 2946 1922 208 2415 986 1574 1313 603 344 639 649 477 596 1762 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Caae. De Vesoi (Evelyn, Viscountess) v. O'Oonnell Devitt V. " Bainbridge " (Owners of Steam- sliip) j Devonald v. Eosser & Sons " Devonian," The Devonport Corporation v. Tozer Dewar v. Groodnian Volume and Page. ■( Dewar & Webb : — Eederiaotieselskabet \ "Superior" v. . . . . . . . . j De Wend : — Cayley v. In re T. Peirson's , Settlement , . . . . , ; Dewhurst v. Mather . . . . . , . . ' De Winton :— Att.-aen. v ' De Winton :— Eicbarda v. Eiobards v. Evans < Dexine Patent Packing and Eubber Co., In re Dexter : — Hilder v. Dexter ;■. United Gold Coast Mining Pro parties, Ld. . . "Diabolo," In re Pbilippart's Trade Mark. Pbilippart v. William VVbiteley, Ld. " Diamond," The Dibden v. Skirrow Dibdin : — Eex v. Dick V. Copland. Dick v. Audsley . . Dick, Kerr & Co. :— Back v ■f J ■■( Dick, Kerr & Co. :— T. Tilling, Ld. ,.. Dickens : — Thorn v. . . Dickeson & Co. v. Mayes Dickin and Kelsall's Contract, In re Diokins v. Eanderson Dickinson : — Barrow v. Dickinson : — Harrogate Corporation v. Dickinson : — Jackson u. H. L. (I.) [1908] W. N. 135; ( [1908] A. C. 298 . . . . j C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 802 C. A. [1906] W. N. 152; [1906] 2 K. B. 728 . . [1901] W.N. 34; C. A. [1901] P. 221 [1902] W. N. 73 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 182 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 38 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 759 . . [1907] 1 K. B. 612; 0. A. [1907] W. N. 227; [1908] 1 K B. 94; H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 250; [1909] A. C. 72 [1909] 1 K B. 948 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 195; [1909] 2 K. B. 998 [1903] W. N. 100 C. A. [1908] W. N. 181 ; [1908] ) 2 K B. 754 j [1906] W. N. 87 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 106 j [1901] W. N. 146; [1901] 2^ Ch. 566 ; 0. A. [1902] W. N. 113; O.A. [1903] W. N. 37 ; ( [1903] 1 Ch. 507 . . j [1903] W. N. 82 H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 156; ) [1902] A. 0. 474 . . . j [1901] W. N. 152 ; C. A. [19011 W. N. 157 j [1908] 2 Ch. 274 [1906] P. 282 . . [1907] W. N. 30: [1907] 1) Ch. 437 ; C. A. [1907] W. N. 225 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 41 . i C. A. [1909] W. N. 258 ; [1910] ' P. 57 . . H. L. (So.) [1908] W. N. 136 ; [1908] A. C. 347 C. A. [1905] W.N. 80; [1905] 2K.B. 148; H.L.(E.) [1906] W. N. 105 ; [1906] A. 0. 325 [1905] W. N. 38; [1905] 1 K. B. 562 [1906] W. N. 54 [1910] W. N. 22; [1910] 1 K B. 452 . [1907] W. N. 257; [1908] 1 Ch. 213 . [1901] W. N. 30; [1901] i KB. 437 ,. [1904] 2 Oh. 339 . , 0. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 468 [1903] W. N. 74 ; [1903] 1 Oh 947 Column of Digest. 1294 1624 1062 2477 1483 1363 2470 2417 1593 693 394 546 559 562 2687 2521 1076 1002 377 1614 1162 2071 1446 2oS7 40 2813 271 2760 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Claimants. Wells Dickinson: — Eex «. Ex parte Htma Dickinson's Trusts, In re Dicksee, Ex parte. In re Pope . . . . j Dicksee v. Hoskins . . . . . . . . ■! Dickson : — Att.-Gen. for New South Wales v. Dierken v. Pliilpot Diestal v. Stevenson Digby V. Financial News, Ld. Dillon, /« re. Ex parte Oreake Dillon : — Farndale v. . . Dimbleby : — Brown v. Dimmer : — Bickmore v. Director of Public Prosecutions v. A. B. and CD j Discoverers Finance Corporation, Ld., In re Discoverers Finance Corporation, In re. Lindlar's Case District Loan Co Hughes District Surveyors' Association and Willis : London County Council v. . . Dittmar v. Owners of Sbip V. 593 Dive, In re. Dive v. Eoebuck Dixon, In re. Dixon v. Cbarleswortb Dixon, In re. Penfold v. Dixon Dixon V. Blackpool and Fleetwood Tram- road Co. Dixon V. Bradford and District Eailway Ser- vants' Coal Supply Society . . Dixon : — Oamberwell Corporation v. Dixon V. Dixon . . Dixon : — Eobinson Brothers v. Dixon : — Bouse v. Dixon V. Solicitor to the Treasury . Dixon V. Steel .-. Dobbie & Son : — O'Brien v. . . Dobell : — Laird v. Dobson, In re. Ex parte Craig Dobson : — Clare v. Dock (Tredegar Dry) and Wharf Co. : — ) Ascherson v. . . . . . . . . . . j Docks (London and India) Co. v. Att.-Gen. Docks (London and India) Co. v. McDougall \ & Bonthron, Ld. London and India Docks [ Co. V. Page, Son & East, Ld. . . . . j Volume and Page. Column of Digest. [1910] 1 K B, 469 . . [1902] W. N. 104 0. A. [1908] W. N. 105; [1908] 2 K. B. 169 , . [1901] W. N. 94; [1901] 2 K. B. 122 ; C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 660 . , P. C. [1904] A. C. 273 [1901] 2 K. B. 380 . . [1906] W. N. 138; [1906] K. B. 345 0. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 502 [1903] W. N. 49 [1907] W. N. 156; [1907] K. B. 513 C. A. [1903] W.N. 182; C.A [1904] 1 K. B. 28 . . C. A. [1902] W. N. 223 [1903] W. N. 1 Ch. 158 . H, L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 255 274 [1907] W. N. 213 ; [1908] 1 Ch 141 ; C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 334 [1909] W. N. 245 ; [1910] 1 Ch 207 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 42 [1910] 1 Ch. 312 , . 0. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 845 [1909] 2 K. B. 138 . . C. A. [1909] 1 E. B. 389 [1909] 1 Oh. 328 [1903] W. N. 122 ; [1903] 2 Ch, 458 [1901] W. N. 243 ; [1902] Ch. 248 [1909] 1 K. B. 860 [1904] 1 K. B. 444 . . [1910] 1 E. B. 424 . . [1903] W. N. 156; [1904] 1 Ch 161 [1903 [1904^ [1905' [1901' 2 E. B. 701 2 E. B. 628 P. 42 . . W. N. 178; [1901] 2 Ch.'602 .. . C.A. [1905] W.N. 15; [1905] 1 K. B. 346 . . [1906] W. N. 7 E. B. 131 . . [1903] W. N. 155 1910] W. N. 227 1909] W. N. 168 ; [1909] 2 Ch 401 .. .. H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 7 H. L. (E.) [1909] A. 0. 25 [1906] 1 ' ) 820 2734 222 1608 1791 766 655 874 168 1427 1200 1352 818 588 588 1289 1507 1626 2755 2883 2214 2145 1379 1534 1860 2226 1682 2070 2042 1636 42 215 1362 2042 2267 2520 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. ColQmn of Digest. Docks (London and India) Co. ■: Steam Tug and Lighterage Co. Dr. Tristram : — Eex v. Thames i Dod's Charity, In re . . Dodd V. Dodd Dodd V. Evans. In re Bird. In re Evans Dodds : — Eex v. Dodson, In re. Tates v. Morton Dodson (J.), In re. Grihson V. Dodson Dodson V. Downey In re A. L. P. Dodson. Dodsworth : — Smith i-. In re Smith Doe: — Gardner, Locket & Hinton v. Buck V. Smith. Keen v. Adams . . Doggett V. Waterloo Taxi-Cah Co Dominion Bank : — William Ewing & Co. i . Dominion Cartridge Co. : — McArthur v. Dominion Coal Co. v. Dominion L-on and ' Steel Co. and National Trust Co. . . Dominion Cotton Mills Co. v. General Engineering Co. of Ontario Dominion Iron and Steel Co. and National Trust Co. : — Dominion Coal Co. v. Dominion Natural Gas Co. v. Collins and Perkins Dominion of Canada v. Province of Ontario Don Jose Ramos Tzquierdo y Castaneda v. Clydebank Engineering Co. Don Jose Eamos Yzquierdo y Castaneda : — Clydebank Engineei'ing and Shipbuilding Co. V. . . Donald, //) ?'e. Moore v. Somerset . . Donald Currie & Co. : — Dunn o. Dunn Buck nail Brothers Donaldson v. Eutter. In re Eutter . . Donovan : — Commissioner of Police v. Dorabji Cursetji Shrofl : — Bombay-Burmah Trading Corporation Ld. v. . . Dorchester Corporation : — Tory f. Dorling & Son : — Lowe v. Dormer v. Ward Dothie V. MacAndrew & Co. . . Dott : — Bonnard v. Dott: — Victorian Daylesford Syndicate, Ld. v. Dougan v. Macpherson •■( 137; 1 H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 15 . . [1901] 2 E. B. 141 ; C. A. '( [1902] 1 K. B. 816 . . I [1905] W. N. 28 ; [1905] 1 Ch. ( 442 I [1906] P. 189 [1901] W. N. 53 ; [1901] 1 Ch. '( 916 J C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 40 [1908] 2 Ch. 638 [1907] W. N. 38 ; [1907] 1 Ch. / 284 . . . . . . I [1901] W. N. 167; [1901] 2 ( Ch. 620 ) [1906] W. N. 79 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 799 [1906] 2 K. B. 171 . . 0. A. [1910] W. N. [1910] 2K. B. 336.. P. C. [1904] A. C. 806 P. C. [1905] A. C. 72 P. C. [1909] A. C. 293 P. C. [1902] A. C. 570 P. C. [1909] A. C. 293 P. 0. [1909] A. C. 640 P. 0. [1910] A. 0. 637 H. L. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 152 [1902] A. C. 524 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1904] W. N [1905] A. C. 6 . . . , j [1909] W. N. 169 ; [1909] 2 Ch. / 410 j C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 614 [1907] W. N. 207 ; [1907] 2 ) Ch. 592 . . 1 [1903] 1 K. B. 895 . . P. C. [1905] A. C. 213 [1907] 1 K. B. 393 . [1905] W. N. Ill; [1905] 2 , K. B. 601 ; C. A. [1906] W.N. 177; [1906] 2 K B. 1 772 .... ) C. A. [1901] P. 20 0. A. [1908] W. N. 45 ; [19081 ) 1 K. B. 803 . . ' [1905] W.N. 84; C. A. [1906] W. N. 66 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 740 [1905] W. N. 141 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 624 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 90 H. L. (So.) [1902] W.N. 36; [1902] A. C. 197 192;) 2520 1007 351 955 2346 1442 1854 2218 1869 1429 2664 1651 314 316 296 311 296 303 307 1978 661 29S6 2445 1833 1322 1217 753 911 938 1639 1722 1722 2768 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. DougMy : — Hotham v. In re Hotham Doughty V. Lomagunda Eeefs, Ld. . . Doughby v. Walker. In re Betts Douglas, In re. Douglas v. Simpson Douglas V. Baynes Douglas V. Sander & Co. Douglas V. Smith Douglas-Menzies v. Umphelby Douglas and Powell's Oontracfc, In re Dover Coalfield Extension, Ld., In re Dover i: Prosser Dover (Mayor of) : — Eex v. . . Dover, Ld. v. Niirnbei-ger Celluloid Wareu Fabrik aebruder Wolfi Dovey v. Cory . . Dovey v. Morgan. In re Q-wawr-y-Gweithyr and Provident Society Dq-w v. Cassaigne. In re Allan Dowden & Pook, Ld. v. Pook Dowding : — Craig i'. . . Dowding's Settlement Trusts, In re. Gregory V. Dowding . . Dovrell & Co. :— Wilks * Dowgate Steamship Co. : — Thorman v. Dowlais Uas and Coke Co. : — Spaoey v. Dowler, In re. In re Fountaine. Fountaine V. Lord Amherst DoTivney : — Dodson v. . . Dowsett, In re. Dowsett v. Meakin Dowson, In re. Dowson v. Beadle . . Dowson and Jenkins's Contract, In re Draeger : — Smith v. In re Board . . Drainage (General Land) and Improvement Co. V. United Counties Bank, Ld. . . "Draupner," The Drax, In re. Savile v. Drax . . , . Volume and Page. [1901] W. N. 209 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 790; C.A. [1902] W. N. 148 ; [1"902] 2 Ch. 575 [1902] W. N. 143 ; [1902] 2 Ch.837; C.A. [1903] W.N. 57 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 673 [1907] W. N. 101 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 149 [1905] W. N. 7 ; [1905] -1 Ch 279 P. C. [1908] A. C. 477 P. C. [1902] A. C. 437 [1907] 1 K. B. 126 ; C. A. ' [1907] W. N. 150 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 568 P. C. [1908] A. C. 224 [1902] 2 Ch. 296 [1907] W. N. 119; [1907]- 2 Ch. 76; 0. A. [1907] W. N. 226; [1908] 1 Ch 65 [1903] W. N. 199 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 84 [1903] 1 K B. 668 . . C. A. [1910] W. N. 127 [1910] 2 Ch. 25 n. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 170 [1901] A. 0. 477 , . [1901] 2 K. B. 477 . . C. A. [1903] W. N. 2 ; [1903] ) 1 Ch. 276 0. A. [1903] W. N. 192 ; [1904] 1 E. B. 45 [1907] W. N. 206 ; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 22 [1904] W. N. 17 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 441 0. A. [1906] W. N. 84; [1905] 2 K. B. 225 i [1910] 1 K. B. 410 . . 0. A. [1905] W. N. 156; ) [1905] 2 K. B. 879 . . .. j 0. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 382 [1901] W. N. 167 ; [1901] 2 ) Ch. 620 j [1901] 1 Ch. 398 [1909] W. N. 245 C. A. [1904] W. N. 129 ; [1904] ) 2 Ch. 219 j [1901] W. N. 90;' [1901] 2 Ch. ) 86 ) [1910] W. N. 187 C.A.[1909]P. 219;H:.L.(E.)^ [1910] W. K 161; [1910] A. 0. 450 j 0. A. [1903] W. N. 66 ; [1903] ) 1 Oh. 781 I Column of Digest. 2365 497, 632 369 2720 776 1846 1802 2826 463 1849 692 886 458 1222 2966 2192 1895 2404 1616 2471 1618 2742 1869 2885 2895 2035 1936 1209 2459 1463 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Drax's Will, In re. Baroness Dunsany v. Sawbridge Drayton v. Loveridge : — Loveridge, In re . . Dredge !'. Conway, Jones & Co. . . Dresdner Bank, Garnishees. Martin v. Nadel ' Dresel v. Ellis . . Dreyfus : — Litchfield v. Driefontein Consolidated Gold Mines, Ld. Janson Drinkwater : — Eex v. (Wincott's Case) Drisooll V. Battersea Borough Council Driscoll : — Watts v. . . DiTicker, In re. Ex parte Basden (No. 1) . (No. 2) . Druitt, In re. Druitt v. Dehler " Drumlanrig," The Drummond, In re. Ex parte Ashmore Drury v. North Eastern Ey. Co. Dry (Tredegar) Dock and Wharf Co. .- Ascherson v. . . Dublin and South-Eastern Ey. Co. :- Pearson (S.) & Son, Ld. v. . . DubKn Corporation : — Pearson (S.) & Son, \ Ld. V. . . . . . . . . ] Dublin United Tramways Co. i'. Fitzgerald Du Bochet, In re. Mansell v. Allen . . j " Duo d'Aumale," The | r (No. 2) Volume and Page. Column of Digest. ^i "Duo d'Aumale " and " Challenge," The "Duchess " (Owner of Ship) : — Hewitt v. Duck V. Tower Galvanizing Co. Du Cros V. Lambourne Dudbridge Ironworks Co. : — Stephens !'. Duder v. Amsterdamsch Trustees Kantoor . . Dudley Corporation : — Dudley, Stourbridge and District Electric Traction Co. v. . . Dudley Corporation : — Foley's Charity I Trustees v. . . . . . . . . , , Dudley (Earl of) :— Halkett v Dudley, Stourbridge and District Electric Traction Co. v. Dudley Corporation DufEll t'. Dufflll [1906] W. N. 53 [1902] W. N. 165 ; [1902] 2 Ch. ) 859 ,. C. A. [1901] W. N. 68 ; [1901] , 2 K B. 42 ( C. A. [1906] W. N. Ill ; [1906] / 2 K B. 26 C. A. [1905] W. N. 41 ; [1905] ) 1 K. B. 574 [1906] W. N. 70; [1906] 1 K B. 584 ( C. A. [1901] W. N. 134 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 419; H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 157; [1902] A. C. 484 . . [1905] 2 K. B. 469 . . [1903] 1 K. B. 881 . . C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 294 [1902] W. N. 103 ; [1902] 2 K B. 55 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 133; [1902] 2 2. B. 237 .. [1902] W. N. 114 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 210 C. A. [1903] W. N. 39 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 446 C. A. [1910] P. 249 . . [1909] W. N. 171 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 622 [1901] 2 K B. 322 . . [1909] W. N. 168 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 401 H. L. (Ir.) [1909] A. C. 217.. H. L. (b.) [1907] A. C. 351.. H. L. (Ir.) [1903] A. 0. 99 . . [1901] W. N. 119 ; [1901] 2 ) Ch. 441 . . . . I C. A. [1902] W. N. 222 ; [1903] P. 18 [1904] P. 60 . . [1904] P. 41 ; C. A. [1905] ) P. 198 . , . C. A. [1910] W.N. 49; [19101 1 K. B. 772 . . . . ^ -' [1901] 1 E. B. 314 . . [1907] 2 K. B. 40 0. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 225 [1902] W. N. 95 ; [1902] 2 Ch. i 132 .. .... .. j [1906] W. N. 67 C. A. [1909] W.N. 250; [1910]) 1 K B. 317 . . [1907] W. N. 57; [1907] i Ch. 590 . .. j [1906] W. N. 67 P C. [1903] A. C. 491 . . 2949 1759 1634 1133 1186 1719 1250 1442 1535 1868 163 177 2754 2483 220 2124 2042 2126 653 2714 2930 2545 2561 2614 1641 460 1326 1673 1994 1032 1160 2787 1032 1778 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Duguid : — ^Kent Coal Concessions v. . . Dugmd : — Bex v. Dulaney v. Merry & Son Dulieu V. White & Sons Dulwich (Peokham, Bast), and Crystal Palace ) Tramways Bill, In re . . . . , , I Dumas : — Trevanion v. In re Masterson . . DumbeU : — Aston Tute Works, Ld. v. Dumphy v. Montreal Light, Heat and Power Co. .. Dun : — ^Maokintosh. v. . . Dunbar v. Dunbar Du.nbar v. Dunbar . . . . . . . . j Duncan: — Blair v. .. .. .. ., j Duncan & Co. : — Concaris v. . . Duncan (W. W.) & Co., In re Duncan Fox & Co. : — Sailing Ship | " Lyderhorn " Co. v. . . . . . . ) Duncombe : — Walker v. In re Walker Dundas : — London County Council v. Dundee Coal Co. v. Minister of Agriculture ) of the Colony of Natal . . . . . . ) Dundee (Magistrates) v. Mackison . . . . j Dunderland Iron Ore Co., In re . . . . j Dunbam v. Clare . . . . . . . . j Dunkley & Son, In re. Ex parte Waller . . j Dunleavey : — Eex v. . . . . . . . . j Dunlop & Co. : — Gibb v. . . j Dunlop : — Elias v. Dunlop Motor Co.: — Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre ) Co. I' I Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. : — Abrahams & ) Co. -y f Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Actien Gesell- schaft fiir Motor und Motorfabrzeugbau, vorm. Cudell & Co. . . Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Dunlop Motor . Co. ,. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. David Moseley & Sons, Ld. . . Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Griffiths (Jobn) Cycle Corporation, Ld. In re John Griffiths Cycle Corporation, Ld. Dunlop Eubber Co. : — Brandts (Wm.) Sons & Co. V. Volume and Page. 0. A. [1910] 1 K B. 904 ; ) H.L. (E.)[r910]W.N. 161; [1910] A. 0. 452 . . 0. 0. E. [1906] W. N. 100 [1901] 1 K. B. 536 . . [1901] 2 K B. 669 [1909] W. N. 180 ; (Erratum \ 185) ; [1909] 2 Oh. 540 ; ( 0. A. [1910] W. N. Ill; ( [1910] 2 Ch. 1 . . . . ; [1901] W. N. 172 ; 0. A. [1902] \ W. N. 192 i [1904] 1 K. B. 535 . . P. 0. [1907] A. 0. 454 19081 A. 0. 390 P. 90 . . W. N. 203 ; [1909] 2 Ob. P.O. [1909 [1909' 639 H. L. (So.) [1901] W. N. 247 [1902] A. C. 37 [1909] W. N. 51 [1905] 1 Ch. 307 C. A. [1909] W. N. 176 ; [1909] 2KB. 929.. [1901] 1 Oh. 879 [1903] W.N. 157; [1904] P. 1 P. 0. [1906] A. C. 511 H. L. (So.) [1910] W. N. 67 [1910] A. 0. 285 . . [1909] W. N. 23 ; [1909] 1 Ch 446 0. A. [1902] W. N. 123 ; [1902] ) 2KB 292 [1905] W. N. 132 ; [1905] K. B. 683 0. C. A. [1908] W. N. 245 0. 0. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 200 (1902) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 171 [1906] 1 K. B. 266 . H. L. (Sc.) [1907] W. N. 187 ; [1907] A. C. 430 . . C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 46 C. A. [1902] W. N. 8 ; [1902] ) 1 K. B. 342 I H. L. (Sc.) [1907] W. N. 187 ; ) [1907] A. 0. 430 . . . . j [1904] W.N. 11; [1904] 1 Ch. ' 164; 0. A. [1904] W. N. 60 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 612 . . C. A. [1902] W. N. 9 . . 0. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 387; H.L.(E.)[1905] W.N. 134; [1905] A. 0. 454 , , Column of Digest. 891 646 631 1785 2716 2981 762 310 135 937 1199 2998 2676 615 2472 2362 996 1777 2325 604 1596 209 796 1610 2225 2698 1865 1994 2698 1876 730 109 TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of OB.se. Volume and Page. Dunn, In re. Brinklow v. Singleton Dunn, In re. Brinklow v. Singleton Dunn, Li re. Ex parte Senior Official Ee- ceiver . , Dunn V. BucknaU Brothers. Dunn v. Donald ' Currie & Oo. . . Dunn V. Donald Ourrie & Co. Dunn v. BucknaU Brothers . . Dunn : — Murray v. . . . . . , | Dunn V. South Eastern and Chatham Ey. Co. { Dunning v. Grosvenor Dairies, Ld. , . Dunning : — Hounsell v. . . . . . , j Dunning v. Owen . . . . . . . . j Dunning : Provincial Motor Cab Co. v. Dunning v. Swetman . . . . . . , . j Dunning : — Wise v. . . " Dun ottar Castle, " The Dunraven's (Earl of) Settled Estates, In re . Dunsany (Baroness) v. Sawbridge. In re ) Drax'sWill Dunsany's Settlement, In re. Nott v. Dun- sany Dunsdon : — Kyle ;■. . . Dunsdon : — Southall DevelopmentSyndicate, Ld. t. Dunster, In re. Brown v. Heywood Du Pasquier v. Cadbury, Jones &Co. Dupont, Ld., In re. Dupont v. Dupont, Ld. Durant : — Keighley, Maxsted & Co. v. . . j DnThsLTi, Ex parte, /re re Smith .. j Durham County Council : — West Hartlepool j County Borough v. . . . . . . . . j Durham (County of) Electrical Power Dis- ( tribution Co. v. Inland Kevenue Com- ) missioners . . . . . . . . , . I Durham Joint Committee : — G-arbutt v. . . } Durham Rural Council : — Williamson v. Durran v. Durran Duval :— TurnbuU & Oo. -v Duval (Charles) & Oo. v. Gans Duxbury v. Barlow Dwarris : — Amyot v. . . [1902] W. N. 76 [1904] W. N. 39 ; [1904] 1 Oh. ] 648 . . . . . . I C. A. [1901] W. N. 223 ; C. A. ) [1902] 1 K. B. 107 . . . . j C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 614 0. A. [1902] 2 K B. 614 H. L. (Sc.) [1907] W. N. 123 ; ) [1907] A. 0. 283 .. ] [1903] W.N. 20 ; [1903] 1 K. B. ; 358 ( [1901] W. N. 218 [1902] W. N. 11 ; [1902] 1 Ch. ) 512 i [1907] W. N. 114; [1907] 2 ) K. B. 237 ) [1909] 2 K. B. 599 . . [1909] W. N. 44 ; [1909] 1 ) K B. 774 ( 1902 1902 1907 2 Oh. 1 K. B. 167 W. N. 70 W. N. 181 : 417 .. [1907] [1906] W. N. 53 0. A. [1906] W. N. 51 ; [1906] ) 1 Ch. 578 ] [1908] W. N. 102 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 293 j [1907] W. N. 16 [1908] W. N. 223 ; [19091 ) 1 Oh. 103 . . 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 104 [1906] W. N. 14 H. L. (E.)[1901] W. N. 110; ] [1901] A. 0. 240 . . 0. A. [1902] W.N. 196; 0. A. ) [1903] 1 K. B. 33 . [1905] 2 K. B. 340; C. A. \ [1906] W. N. 135 ; [1906] 2K. B. 186; H.L.(E.) [1907] W.N. 137; [1907] A. 0.246; [1909] W. N. 64 ; [1909] 1 K.B. ") 737 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 153; [1909] 2 KB. 604 ..) [1904]1K. B.522;C.A. [1904]\ W. N. 134 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 514; H.L.(E.) 1906; W.N. ( 76; [1906] A. C..291 ) [1906] W. N. 102 ; [1906] 2 ) K. B. 65 . . i 0. A. [1904] W. N. 184 P. 0. [1902] A. 0. 429 0. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 685 0. A. [1901] W.N. 80; [1901]) 2 K. B. 23 . . P. 0. [1904] A. 0. 268 Colmnn of Digest. 704 2165 190 2445 2445 2329 760 717 1477 1450 1767 242 1324 2549 2351 2949 2406 2872 2021 2900 719 2005 665 188 1487 2266 1913 2427 2922 1297 1997 721 1297 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. xovil Name of Case. Dwelley : — Ward v. In re Ohenoweth Dyer, Ex parte. In re Lake . . Dyer?'. London School Board. . Dyer v. London School Board Dyer v. Swift Cycle Co. Dykes :— Bent's Brewery Co. i'. Dykes v. Thomson Dyson, In re. Challinor v. Sykes . . Dyson : — ^Att.-Gen. ?■. . . Dyson v. Forster. Dyson v. Seed. V. Quinn. Dyson v. Morgan Dyson : — Eex v. Dyaon ) E. E. 1'. E B. A. B., Lire E. W. A., a Debtor, In re Eade : — ^Hammond v. In re Kenward Eade v. Nicholson. In re Nicholson ■■( -■{ ■•I Eady v. Elsdon Ealing Tenants, Ld. : — Wood v. Earl V. Lubbock Earle : — ^Burland v. Earle : — ^Burland v. Earle ; — Metcalfe v. In re Metcalfe Earle 's Shipbuilding and Engineering Co. In re. Barclay & Co. v. Earle's Shipbuild ing and Engineering Co. , . . East V. Bennett, Brothers, Ld. East Bamet Valley Urban CounoU v. Stallard East Eremantle Corporation v. Annois East Grinstead Gas and Water Co. :— Marriott v. . . East Ham Urban District Council v. Aylett East India Ey. Co. v. Secretary of State in Council of India East Indian Ey. Co. v. Kalidas Mukerjee . . East London Harbour Board v. Caledonian \ Landing, Shipping and Salvage Co. East r London Harbour Board v. Colonial I Fisheries Co. . , . . . . . . . . / East Stonehouse Urban District Council v. ) Wnioughby Brothers, Ld j Eastbourne Corporation : — Att.-Gen. v. . .1 D.D Volume and Page. [1902] W. N. 133 ; [1902] 2 Ch. ) 488 ( [1901]W.N. 26;0. A. [1901] W.N.43;[1901]1K.B.710| C. A. [1902] W. N. 162 ; [1902] ) 2 Oh. 768 ] [1903] W. N. 83 0. A. [1904] W. N. 86 ; [1904] ) 2 K. B. 36 j 1909] W. N. 51 1909] W. N. 104 1910] W. N. 81; [1910] 1 Ch. 760 0. A. [1910] W. N. 276 H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 250; [1909] A. C. 98 C. 0. A. [1908] W. N. 142 ; [1908] 2 KB. 454,. Column of Digest, -■) [1903] P. 88 0. A. [1902] 1 E. B. 457 . . C. A. [1901] W.N. 140; [1901] 2 K. B. 642 [1906] W. N. 16 [1909] W. N. 109 ; [1909] 2 Ch. Ill 0. A. [1901] W. N. 103 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 460 [1907] 2 K B. 390 . . C. A, [1905] 1 K B. 263 . . P.O. ■ — P. C, 1902] A. C. 83 _1905] A. C. 690 [1909JW. N. 15; [1909] 1 Oh. 424 [1901] W. N. 78 [1910] W. N. 260 [1909] W.N. 189; C.A. [WOO]) W. N. 208 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 555 ! p. C. [1902] A.' C. 213 [1908] W. N. 227 ; [1909] 1 ) Ch. 70 j [1905] 2 K. B. 22 0. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 413 . . P. C. [1901] A. 0. 396 P. 0. [1908] A. C. 271 [1902] 2 K. B. 318 . . [1901] 2 KB. 773 ; O.A. [1901] \ W.N. 234; [1902] 1KB. 403; H.L. (E.) [1904] W.N. ( 36; [1904] A. a 155 .. ; 1135 201 2311 711 1619 1438 1972 2959 2010 770 786 958 162 ]71 2389 736 2423 1782 2&3 305 2926 614 483 2430 140 2857 2636 2234 2124 332 1471 2265 3 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case, Eastbourne Gruardians v. Croydon Guardians Eastern and South African Telegrapli Co. v. Cape Town Tramways Cos. . . Eastern Extension, Australasia and China Telegraph Co. : — Agincourt Steamship Co. V. . . Eastern Extension Australasia and China Telegraph Co. : — Commissioner of Taxes [ for New Zealand o. . . . . . . . . ) Eastern (Great) By. Co. : — Hertfordshire ) County Council v. . . . . . . . , i Eastern (Great) By. Co. : — ^Lambert v. Eastern (Great) By. Co. v. Lord's Trustee Eastern (Great) By. Co. : — Moss v. . . Eastern (North) Breweries : — ^Wooler v. Eastern (South) and Chatham By. Co.'s. Managing Committee. Bex v. Southwark Assessment Committee Eastern (South) (Dublin and) By. Co. : — Pearson (S.) & Son, Ld. v. . . Eastern (South) By. Co. v. Associated Port- land Cement Manufacturers (1900), Ld. . . Eastern Investment Co., /?? re Eastgate, /n j-d. Ex parte 'Wsiri Eastick v. Smith. In re Smith Easton v. Isted . . Eastwood Brothers v. Honley Urban Council Eaton V. Best . . Eaton V. Hansell Eaton V. WatsBU Eaves v. Blaenclydaoh ColHery Co. . . Ebbern v. Fowler Volume and Page, Ebbw Tale Steel, L?on, and Coal Co. : — ) Simpson v. . . . . . . . . . . j Ebenezer Timmins & Sons, Ld., In re Eocles Corporation v. South Lancashire ) Tramwaj'S- Co. . . . . . . . . j Eccles Corporation: — Thompsons. .. .. | Ecclestone : — Stiles v. . . . . . , . . j Economic Bank : — Akrokerri (Atlantic) ) Miues, Ld. v. . . . . . . j Economic Life Assurance Society v. TJsborne Edalji : — Att.-Gen. v. . . Edbrooke :— Boyce v. . . . . . . . . j [1910] 2 K. B. 16 P. C. [1902] A. C. 381 C. A. [1907] W.N. 110; [190Y] j 2K. B. 305 .. .. .. j P. C. [1906] A. C. 626 [1909] 1 K. -B. 368; C. A. [1909] W. N. 124 ; [1909] 2 E. B. 403 C, A, [1909] W. N, 186 ; [1909] ] 2 K. B. 776 . . . . I H. L, (E,) [1909] W. N. 4; ( [1909] A. C. 109 . . . . i C. A. [1909] W. N. 82 ; [1909] j 2 K. B. 274 I [1910] 1 K B. 247 . . C. A. [1909] W. N. 4 ; [1909] i 1 K. B. 274 ) H. L. (Ir.)[1909]A. C. 217 .. C. A. [1909] W. N. 217 ; i [1910] 1 Ch, 12 . . . . j [1905] "W. N. 5 ; [1905] 1 Ch. ;) 352 [1905] W. N. 18; [1905] 1 K. B. 465 [1903] W. N, 207 ; [1904] 1 Ch, 139 [1902] W, N. 68 ; C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 405 ) C. A. [1901] W. N. 38 ; [1901] ) 1 Ch. 645 j 1909] 1 K. B. 632 . . 1904] W. N. 24 '1904] W. N. 24 C. A, [1909] 2 K. B. 73 [1908] W. N. 202 ; C. A. , [1909] W. N. 73 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 578 \ C. A. [1905] W. N. 20; [1905] ( 1 K. B. 453 [1901] W. N. 23S ; [1902] 1 | Ch. 238 ) [1910] W. N. 28 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 141 ; [1910] 2 Ch.263 [1904] 2 K.B. 1; C. A. [1904] ^ " " 1 K.B. 110 . . .; ". . ) W. N. 189 ; [1905] [1903]W.N. 26;[1903]1K.B 544 ) [1904] W. N. 125 ; [1904] 2 ) K. B. 465 j H. L. (Ir.) [1902] A. C. 147 . . [1907] W. X. 174 ■ [1903] W. N. 63 ; [1903] 1 Ch. ) 836 ., j 773 356 2372 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case, Eddison (Provincial Billposting Co. and) : — Nussey v. ■ . . Edelstein v. Sclmler & Co. Eden v. North-Eastem Ey. Co. Eden :— Wimbledon (Vicar and Clmrch- wardens of) v. In re St. Marks, "Wimbledon Eden's Executors v. North-Eastern Rj. Co. Volume and Page. Coliimn of Digest. (Edenbridge) Whitmores, Ld. v. Stanford . . Bdey : — SUkstone and Haigh. Moor Coal Co. ) ■V ) Edgcome (James), In re. Ex parte James ) Edgcome . . . . . . . . . . ] Edge|(W.)&Sons,Ld. i'.W.NioGoUs& Sons, Ld. Edgill V. J. cfe G. Alward, Ld. Edinburgh and District Tram'vrays Co. : — Mgoney v. Edinburgh and District Water Trustees v. Clippens Oil Co. Edinburgh and District Water Trustees : — Clippens Oil Co. v. . . Edinburgh and District Water Trustees: — Clippens Oil Co. v. . . Edinburgh and District Water Trustees v. Sommerville (WUliam) & Son Edinburgh Life Assurance Co. v. The Lord Advocate . . . . Edinburgh (Provost, &c. of) : — Eossi v. Edison-Bell Consolidated Phonograph Co. : — National Phonograph Co. v. Edminson : — ^Lawson v. Edmond : - -White v. In re White . . Edmondson v. Birch & Co. Edmondson v. Birch & Co. and Horner Edmondson and Son : — Clerkenwell Vestry v. Edmonton Guardians: — ^West Ham Guar- dians V. Edmonton Union v. Deely. In re Taylor . . Edmonton Union : — West Ham Union v. . . ■ Edmonton Union and Hornsey Overseers : — Great Northern Ey. Go. o. . . Edmunds v. Edmunds . . Edmundson v. Eender. . Education (Elementary) Acts, 1870 and 1873, In re . . Edward Lloyd, Ld. : — Brice v. Edward Nelson & Co. v. Faber & Co. Edwards, Ex parte. Eex v, Philbrick 'i! C. A. [1909] W. N. 93 ; [1909] ) 1 Ch. 734 i [1902] 2 K B. 144 H. L. (E.) [1907] W.N. 173; ) [1907] A. 0. 400 . . ..] [1908] P. 167 [1905] W. N. 170; [1906] 1, KB. 195; C.A.[1906]W.N. ) 325 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 402 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 173 ; [1907] A. C. 400 . . ■' [1909] W.N. 8; [1909] 1 Ch.427 [1901] W. N. 158 ; C. A. [1901] \ W.N. 170; [1901] 2 Ch. 652 C. A. [1902] W. N. 241 ; [1902] ) 2 Oh. 403 C. A. [1910] W. N. 250 [1902] 2 K. B. 239 (1901) Ot. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] ) W. N. 161 . . . . . . j H. L. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 157 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1903] W.N. 204; [1904] A. C. 64 H. L. (Sc.) [1907] W. N. 142 ; [1907] A. 0. 291 . . C. A. [1906] W. N. 162 H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 257 ; ) [1910] A. C. 143 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1904] W. N. 192 ; ) [1905] A. C. 21 . . i [1907] W. N. 6 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 8 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 335 , ( [1908] W. N. 204 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 952 [1901]W.N.39 ; [1901] 1 Ch.570 C. A. [1905] W.N. 119; [1905] 2 K. B. 523 0. A. [1907] W.N. 18; [1907] 1 K. B. 371 [1901] 1 KB. 264; 0. A. [1902] W. N. 8 ; [1902] 1 E. B. 336 H. L. (E.)[1907]W. N. 236.. 0. A. [1901] W. N. 21 ; [1901] ) 1 Ch. 480 . . . . ..] [1907] W. N. 235 ; H. L. (B.) [1908] A. C. 1 . . . . ] [1905] W. N. 115 [1904] P. 362 [190o]W.N.121; [1905] 2 Oh. 320 0. A. [1909] ICh. 56.. 0. A. [1909] W. N. 187 ; [1909] ) 2 K. B. 804 t [1903] 2 K. B. 367 [1906] 2 K. B. 108 277 1787 2119 2108 2632 737 164 1871 2564 1653 92 2855 854 2843 2233 2319 18 1449 1042 894 876 1532 1927 1552 1927 2129 949 2610 1406 1584 427 769 y2 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Edwards, In re. Jones v. Jones Edwards, In re. Lloyd v. Boyes Edwards r. Burns. In re Eve Edwards: — CMld ?'. Edwards: — Davies jj. J/j reEiohards Edwardes r. Edwardes. . Edwards v. Grove Edwards v. Guest, Keen & Nettlefolds, Ld, Neagle v. Nixon's Navigation Co Edwards : — Hawkins v. Edwards v. Hood-Barrs Edwards v. Mallam Edwards v. Pharmaceutical Society of Great ) Britain . , . . , . Edwards :— Salmon ■!•... Edwards %\ Smith. In re Unite Edwards : — Woodham Smith v. Edwards & Co. r. Pioai-d Edyvean v. Archer. In re Brooke Egbert v. Short Egham Rural Di-itriot Council v. Gordon . Egmont's (Earl of) Settled E t.ites, In re . Egmont's (Earl of) Settled Es ates. In ri Lefroy v. Egmont (Earl of) Egmont's (Earl of) Trusts, In re. Lefroy i Earl of Egmont Egyptian Delta Land and Investment Co In re . . Egyptian (S.S.), Owners of : — Grant v. Ehrmann Brothers: — Hunt,Roone, league & Co. 1- " . . Ehrmann Brothers, Ld., In re. Albert Ehrmann Brothers, Ld. Ehrmann Brothers, Ld., In re. Albert Ehrmann Brothers, Ld. Eichholz V. Defries (J.) & Sons, Ld. In re Defries (J.) & Sons, Ld. Eilbeck, In re. Ex parte th'=^ Trustees of the " Good Intent " Lodge No. 987 of the Grand United Order of OddPeUows Eke V. Hart-Dyke El Argentino Eloho (Lord) v. Andrews Elcock ;— Gossling v. In re Gossling Volume and Page. C. A. [1906] 1 Oh. 570 [1810] W. N. 60 ; [1910] 1 Ch. i 541 I [1909] W. N. 86; [1909] 1 Ch. 796 [1909] W. N. 172; [1909] 2 K. B. 753 [1910] W. N. 131 ; 11910] 2 Ch. 74 H. L. (B.) [1909] A. C. 275 . . [1906] W. N. 191 C. A. [1904] W.N. 16 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 339 [1901] W. N. 88; [1901] 2 E:. B. 169 [1904] W. N. 204; [1905] 1 Ch. 20 C. A. [1908] W. N. 67 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 1002 [1910] 2 K. B. 766 [1910] W. N. 68 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 552 [1906] W. N. 26 C. A. [1908] V. N, 181 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 899 . C. A. [1909] W. N. 191; [1909] 2 K B. 903 . . P. C. [1903] A. C. 379 [1907] W. N. 131; [1907] 2 Ch. 205 Column of Digest. 2 K. B. 120 W.N. 176 W. N. 80 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 88; [1908] i 1902 1908 1906 151 [1908] W. N Ch. 821 [1907] W. N. 16 C. A. [1910] P. 38 : H. L. (E.'i [1910] A. C. 400 [1910] 2 Ch. 198 [1904] W. N. 48 [1906]W.N. 129;C.A. [1906] / W. N. 169 ; [1906] 2 Oh. 697 ) [1909] W. N. 178; [1909] 2) Ch. 423 . . . . . . i [1909] W. N. 246 ; [1910] 1 ) K. B. 136 .. .. .,] C. A. [1910] W.N. 181; [1910] / 2 K. B. 677 . . [1909] P. 236 , . C. A. [1910] W.N. 79; [1910]) 1 Ch. 706 . . J [1902] W. N. 73 ; [1902] 1 Oh. 945 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 40 ; [1903] 1 Ch, 448 . . 2903 2397 2930 1365 2965 2919 1980 1686 1145 2766 765 1905 395 361 1046 2163 2658 2007 1164 2354 2350 2360 495 2497 2675 442 443 446 1113 1605 2528 975 3001 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Fagr. Column of Digest. Elder :— Vetch v Blderslie Steamship Co. : — Borthwick v. Elderslie Steamship Co. (No. 2) :— Borth- wick r. Electric and Ordnance Accessories Co. ; Neale v. Electric (County of London) Supply Co. ; Corporation of London v. . . Electrical (County of Durham) Power Dis- tribution Co. V. Inland Revenue Com- missioners Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1873, i III re . . . . . . . . . . . . I Elford, In re. Blford i: Elford . . . . { Elgood V. Kinderley. In re Jones. Elgood ) V. Jones . . . . . . . . . . I Elias V. Dunlop . . BUen : — Northampton Corporation c. EUenborough, In re. Towry Law i'. Burue EUiman i'. Sequah EUiman, Sons & Co. v. Carrington & Sons Ld Ellinger & Co. i'. Mutual Life Insurance Co of New York . . Elliot V. North Elliot V. Piloher . . . . Elliott, In re. Eaven v. Nicholson . . EUiott V. Crutchley . . Elliott V. Elliott Elliott V. Garrett Elliott V. Liggens Elliott :— Eex v. ElHott :— Eex v. Elliott V. Eussell EUiott (Grimshaw, Baxter &), Ld. v. Parker Ellis, Ex parte. Eex v. Kettle Ellis, Be. Hardcastle v. Ellis Ellis : — Ball v. In re Green . . Ellis : — Barrance v. In re Barrance EUis :-Bedford (Duke of) v. . . ElUs V. Cory (William) & Son, Ld. . Elhs : — Dresel v. Ellis i: Ellis ElHs V. Glover & Hobson, Ld. Ellis V. Joseph Ellis & Co. . . [1908] W. N. 137 C. A. [1904] 1 K B. 319; H. L. (B.) [1905] W. N. 34 ; [1905] A. C. 93 C. A. [1905] W. N. 118 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 516 t C. A. [1906] W. N. 169 ; ) [1906] 2 K. B. 558 . . . . j [1910] 2 Ch. 208 [1909] W. N. 54; [1909] 1\ K. B. 737 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 153 ; [1909] 2 K B. 604 ; [1908] W. N. 173 ; [1908] 2 Oh. 503; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 226 ; [1909] 1 Oh. 55 [1910] W. N. 96 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 481 . . [1901]W.N. 217; [1902] ICh 92 [1906] IK. B. 266 C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 299 [1903] W. N. 18 ; [1903] 1 Ch 697 [1903] W. N. 187 •[1901] W. N. 112; [1901] 2 Ch. 275 [1904] 1 K. B. 832; 0. A. ^ [1904] W. N. 184 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 31 1901] 1 Oh. 424 1901] 2 K. B. 817 1910] W. N. 106 1903] 2 K. B. 476; C.A. [1904] \ 1 K. B. 565 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 164; [1906] ( A. 0. 7 [1901] W. N. 203 C. A. [1902]^1 K. B. 870 . [1902] 2 KB. 84 C. 0. A. [1908] W. N. 141 [1908] 2 K. B. 452 . . 1909] W. N. 118 1902] 2 K. B. 748 . . 1910] 2 K. B. 161 . . 1905] 1 K. B. 212 . . 1906] W. N. 137 1904] W. N. 78, 105 . . 1910] 2 Ch. 419 H. L. (E.) [1901] A. 0. 1 C. A. [1901] W. N. 214 [1902] 1 K. B. 38 . . , . i 0. A. [1905] W. N*. 41 ; [1905] i 1 K. B. 574 [1905] W.N. 44 ; [1905] 1 Ch, 613 0. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 388 0. A. [1905] W. N. 10 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 324 'I 2402 2448 1305 1673, 1685 1015 2266 1406 2896 705 2225 2846 2420 642 2190 1263 1206 44 361 664 964 894 1654 797 802 2847 766 832 650 29 2967 1977 1666 1186 2072 1735 1626 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Ellis V. Kerr Ellis V. London Ooimty Council ElKs :— Eex v Ellis : — Eeynolds v. In re Bankes . . Ellis : — Yorksliu-e (Woollen District) Electric Tramways, Ld. o. Ellis & Collier, Ex parte. In re HaUman Ellis & Ellis, Lire Ellis's Settlement, In re. Ellis v. Ellis Elliston V. Eeaoher Elms V. Hedges . . "Elmville,"Tlie (No. 2) Elphick : — Moss i'. Elsdon : — Eady r Elsdon !'. Hampstead Corporation . . " Elswick Park," The Elswick Steamship Co. v. Montaldi . . Elvet Colliery Co. :— Forster v. Quin v. The '\ Same. Seed v. The Same. Morgan v. The ' Same . . . . . . . . . . ) Elvin V. Woodward & Co. Elwes V. Hopkins Ely (Bishop of) : — Sweet v. . . Emanuel: — Ashton c. .. Emanuel i'. Symon Emary v. Nolloth Embiricos v. Anglo-Austrian Bank . . " Emelie Galline," The Emerson : — Perring & Co. ?■. . . Emery, Ex parte. Eex v. Governor of H.M, Prison at Stafford . . Emery (George D.) & Co. v. Wells . . Bmil Heerman, In the Estate of " Emilie Millon," The Emmerson r. Maddison Emmett, In re. Jenkins c. Emmett Emmons: — Wolverhampton ("i>rij(irati(in v. Empii'e Electric Light and Power Co. : — \ Sudbury Corporation v. . . . . . . i Empire (Kitson) Lighting Co., In re. Higgs \ (•. The Company . . . , I [1910] W. N. 52 ; [1910] 1 Oh. 529 [1904] IK. B. 283 . . C. C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 746 . . [1902] W. N. 129; [1902] 2 Ch. 333 [1905] 1 K. B. 396 [1909] W. N. 137; [1909] 2 K. B. 430 [1908] W. N. 215 [1909] W. N. 59 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 618 [1908] 2 Ch. 374 ; C. A. [1908] ) W. N. 221, 226 ; [1908] 2 [ Ch. 665 ) 1906] W. N. 114 1904] W.N. 141; [1904] P. 319 1904] P. 422 1910] 1 K. B. 465 ; C. A. ) [1910] W. N. 94 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 846 I C.A. [1901] W.N. 103; [1901]') 2 K. B. 460 1 [1905] W. N. 149 ; [1905] 2 \ Ch. 633 j [1904] P. 76 [1907] W. N. 46; [1907] 1 K. B. 626 C. A. [1908] W. N. 26 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 629 ; H.L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 250 ; [1909] A. C. 98 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 838 [1906] 2 K. B. 1 [1902] W. N. 116; [1902] 2 Ch. 508 [1902] W. N. 231 [1907] 1 K. B. 235; C. A. [1907] W. N. 236; [1908] 1 K. B. 302 [1903] 2 K. B. 264 [1904] 2 K. B. 870; C. A. [1905] W. N. 30 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 677 .. .. . ) [1903 [1905 P. 106 W. N. 154; [1906] 1 K. B. 1 [1909] W. N. 95; [1909] 2 P. 0. [1906] A. C. 515 [1910] P. 357 0. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 817 P. C. [1906] A. C. 569 [1906] W. N. 201 C.A. [1901] W.N. 36; [1901] IK. B. 515 .. [1905] W.N 68; [1905] 2 Ch. 104 [1910] W. N. 154 775 1504 814 2402 2117 211 2606 2399 2794 751 2443 2.370 1860 736 1.533 ■J.j.-'is 2455 770 1636 1768 1003 2014 1097, 1862 820 245 909 828 207 25 1147 299 1466 1019 435 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, ) Ld. : — Board of Trade v. . . . . i Employers' (MonmouthsHre and South \ Wales) Mutual Indemnity Society, Ld., | In re ,. . . . . . . . ... j Empress Assurance Corporation, Ld. : — 1 Assicura2doni Generali de Trieste v. . . ) Empress Assurance Corporation, Ld. : — \ Nelson v. Faber, Third Party . . . . ) Empress Assurance Corporation : — United \ States Shipping Co. v. . . . . . . j Emsley v. Wilkins. In re Wilkins . . Volume and Page. End : — Lewiii v. Lewin v. Supply Association, Ld. Civil Service ' Enfield Churchwardens : — Eickettsi). .. j Engels V. Hubert Unchangeable Eyelet Co . . j English & Ayling, In re. Ex parte Murray ) & Co ) English and Colonial Produce Co., In re . . j English and Colonial Produce Co. : — Sutton v. j Bnghsh and Scottish Life Assurance Associa- ) tion :— Wigan v. . . . . j English Card Clothing Co. (No. 1) :— Ash- ) worth V. . . . . j English Card Clothing Co. (No. 2) :— Ash- ) worth V. . . . . . . j English Electro-Metallurgical Co. v. Glasdir j Copper Mines, Ld. . . . . . . . . J English Electro-Metalliirgical Co. v. Glasdir 1 Copper Mines, Ld. In re Glasdir Copper Mines, Ld. . . . . . . J English V. Metropolitan Water Board English, Scottish, and Australian Bank, Ld. : ] — Cox V. . . . . . . . . . . J English :— Spiers ti. Enoch and Zaretzky, Bock & Oo.'B.Arbitra- ] tion, In re . . . . . . . . . . | Bpsoin Urban Council : — ^Wing v. . . Equitable (20th Century) Friendly Society, ' Inre . . . . . , . . . . I Equitable Fire and Accident Office, Ld. v. The Ching Wo Hong Equity Fire Insurance Co. : — Thompson v. . . . . . . . . . . ,. ,. ; Ereaut : — Eoberts v. . . "Ereza,"The Erin (Commissioners of Port) v. Laugh- ton . . . . . . . . . . . . Ermen, In re. Tatham v. Ermen . . Column of Digest. [1909] W. N. 263; [1910] Iv K. B. 401 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 161 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 649 ; [1909] W. N. 6 .... [1907] 2 K. B. 814 . . C. A. [1905] W. N. 93 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 281 [1907] 1 K B. 259 ; C. A. ) [1907] W. N. 219; [1908] 1KB. 115 ) [1901] W. N. 202 0. A. [1905] W. N. 33 ; [1905] \ 1 K. B. 669 ; H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 95 ; [1906] A. C. 299 ; [1909] W. N. 43 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 544 [1902] W, N. 32; C. A. [1902] W. N. 48 [1903] W. N. 49 ; [1903] 1 ] K. B. 680 ] 0. A. [1906] W. N. 150 ; ) [1906] 2 Ch. 435 . . . . j [1902] W. N. 125 ; [1902] 2 ) Ch, 502 j [1908] W. N. 236; [1909] 1 ) Ch. 291 f [1904] W.N. 49; [1904] 1 Ch. ) 702 ) [1904] W. N. 49 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 704 [1904] W. N. 73 ; [1904] 1 Ch. ) 819 ) [1905] W. N. 57 ; C. A. [1905] ~j W. N. 172 ; C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 365 [1907] W. N. 50; [1907] 1) K B. 588 I P. 0. [1905] A. C. 168 [1907] P. 122 e. A. [1910] W. N. 3 ; [1910] ) 1 K. B. 327 j [1904] 1 K. B, 798 . . [1910] W. N. 236 P. C. [1907] A. C. 96 . . P. C. [1910] A. C. 692 P. C. [1905] A. C. 61 . . [1902] W. N. 234 P. C. [1910] A. C. 5G5 [1903] W. N. 78 ; [1903] 2 Ch. ) 156 ( 226 475 1272 2013 1267 127 2144 1361 1895 166 417 453 644 722 722 480 527 2859 2092 2056 99 1831 1115 379 304 1298 2470 1296 720 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Erskine : — Barne v. In re Boucherett Erskine, Oxenford & Co. : — Macoun v. Erskine, Oxenford & Co. v. Saclis . - Esam V. Att.-Gen. In re Wilkinson Escott V. Newport Corporation Esoritt V. Wand. In re Wand Esher Linoleum Co. ; — Att.-Gen. c. . . Espuela Land and Cattle Co., In re . . .-. ■ Esquimalt and Nauaimo Ey. Co. : — 1 McGregor v. . . . . ] Esquimalt Waterworks Co. t . City of Vic- i toria Corporation . . . . . . Essex and Suffolk Equitable Insurance \ Society, Ld., In re . . . . . . . . J Essex (Herts and) Waterworks Co., In re . . Essex Justices : — Bex v. . . . . . \ Estates (Australian) and Mortgage Co., In re Estates (KepitigaUa Rubber), Ld. i'. National Bank of India, Ld. Estates (StourcUfie) Co. v. Bournemoutb Coi-poration . . Ethel & MitcbeUs & Butlers' Contract, In re Etberingtou and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Accident Insurance Co., In re . . "Etna," The Ettridge : — Eex c. Euphrates and Tigris Steam Navigation Co., hire . . "Europa," The Euston (Charing Cross) and Hampstead Ey. Co. ''. Boots . . Evan Jones & Co. : — Powell & Thomas v. . Evans, In re Evans, In re. Dodd v. EvauB. In re Bird . Evans, In re. Evans v. Powell Evans and Bettell's Contract, In re . . Column of Evans: — Carmichael i'. Evans ('. Chapman Evans v. Cook. Lancashire and Torkshii'e Accident Insurance Co., Third Parties' . . Evans : — Dendy c Evans : — Denison-Peuder r. In re Whitaker [1907] W. N. 230 ; [1908] I / ch. 180 ) ; C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 493 . . ! 0. A. [1901] W. N. 141 ; [1901] / i 2 K. B. 504 H 1902] 1 Ch. 841 1904] 2 K B. 369 . . , 1907] W. N. 38 ; [1907] 1 Ch. ) 391 I I [1901] W. N. 173; [1901] 2 ( Ch. 647 t [1909] W. N. 142 ; [1909] 2 Ch. / \ 18' J P. C. [1907] A. (;. 462 . . I P. C. [1907] A. C. 499 [1909] W. N. 102 [1909] W. N. 4K [1901] W. N. 231 ; [1902] 1 ) K B. 180 . . ) [1910] W. N. 44 ; [1910] 1 Ch. ) 414 j [1909] 2 K. B. 1010 , . 0. A. [1910] W. N. 120 ; ) [1910] 2 Ch. 12 . . . . I [1901] W. N. 73 ; [1901] 1 Ch. / 945 i C. A. [1909] W. N. 33 ; [1909] ] 1 K. B. 591 j [1908] P. 269 . . C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 67 ; ] [1909] 2 K. B. 24 . . ) [1904] W.N, 23 ; [1904] 1 Ch. ) 360 ... . ) [1907] W. N. 254; [1908] P. 84 . . ^ , C. A. [1909] W. N. 161 ; [1909] ) 2 K. B. 640 . . . . C. A. [1905] 1 K B. U [1905] W. N. 11 ; [1905] 1 ) Ch. 290 I [1901] W.N. 53; [1901] 1 Ch. ) 916 .. [1909] W. N. 98; [1909] 1 Ch. 784 . . -' [1910] 2 Ch. 438 ■ ■ [1904] W. N. 28; [1904] 'l) Ch. 486 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 47 . . ^\ [1902] W. N. 78 C. A. [1904] W.N. 193; [1905] | 1 K. B. 53 . , I [1909] 2 K. B. 894;' C. a'. [1909] W. N. 258; [1910]' 1 K. B. 263 . \ [1910] W. N, 236 2733 2628 2627 366 2643 2906 2863 580 321 327 491 444 2138 544 144 2790 671 1248 2502 801 487 2457 1586 2036 2596 2346 2977 2999 1861 496 1687 1369 705 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Evans v. Evans . . Evans v. Evans . . Evans II. Evans . . Evans v. Levy . . Evans v. Liverpool Corporation Evans v. Nioholl Evans :— Eicliards t. Eicliards !■. DeWinton Evans c. Rival Granite Quarries, Ld. Evans v. Vickers, Sons & Maxim, Ld. Evans i'. Weatheritt Evans & Co. : — Eitzpatrick v. Eve, In re. Edwards v. Bums Everall i'. Brown Evered, In re. Molineux ?'. Evered . . Evered v. Leigh. In r^ Oliver's Settlement j Everidge : — Van Praagli v. . . Everson, In re. Exparte'Ehe Official Eeceiver Ewart : — Eryer v. Ewart, Third Party. Eeigate Eural Council ) ('. Sutton District Water Co. Ewbank : — Beaumont c. In re Beaumont. . Ewing (William) & Co. v. Dominion Bank , . Exchange (Eoyal) Assurance Corporation . Exchange Trust, Ld., In re. Larkworthy's ] ) Exeter (Bishop of) :— Creditou (Bishop of) v. Exeter Corporation : — Stanbury v. . . Eyre, In re Eyre v. Eyre Eyre v. Houghton Main ColHery Co. Eyres: — Att.-Gen. u. .. P. F. r.V Eaber : — Baker v. 1904" 1904' 1906° 1910' 462 [1906" [1909' P. 274 P. 378 P. 125 W. N. 22 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 1 K. B. 160 W. N. 25 ; [1909] 1 ) K. B. 778 ) [1901] W. N. 146; [1901] 2) Ch. 566; C. A. [1902] W.N. ( 113; C. A. [1903] W. N. 37 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 507 ..) C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 979 C. A. [1910] W.N. 41; [1910] ^ 1K.B.554;H.L.(E.)[1910] W. N. 161; [1910] A. C. 444] [1907] 2 K. B. 80 [1901] 1 K. B. 756; C. A.'' [1902] W. N. 31 ; [1902] 1 K B. 505 I [1909] W. N. 86 ; [1909] 1 : Oh. 796 [1905] W. N. 96; [1905] 2< K. B. 196 ; C. A. [1906] I W. N. 177 ; 0. A. [1906] 2 i K. B. 884 , 0. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 147 [1904] W. N. 194; [1905] 1 ' Ch. 191 [1902] W. N. 103 ; [1902] 2 " Oh. 266; 0. A. [1903] W. N. 25 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 434 [1904] 2 K. B. 619 . . 0. A. [1901]W. N. 2; [1901] 1 Ch. 499 ; H. L. (B.) [1902] W. N. 60 ; [1902] A. 0. 187 , 0. A. [1909] W. N. 28 [1902] W. N. 50 ; [1902] 1 Oh. , P. C. [1904] A. C. 806 [1910] W. N. 211 [1903] W. N. 33; [1903] Ch. 711 [1905] W. N. 131 ; [1905] 2 ) Ch. 455 ) 1905] 2 K. B. 838 . . 1907] 1 K B. 331 . . 1903] P. 131 . . C. A. [1910] W.N. 51; [1910]) 1 K. B. 695 j [1909] 1 K. B. 723 . . [1902] 1 Ch. 088 C. A. [1908] W. N. 9.. 958 958 948 1365 1177 1169 394 426 1669 43 1668 2930 751 1954 1935 2804 197 1390 1167 968 314 1261 562 866 900 2221 2062 1649 2271 1228 82 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. ii_ Faber, Third Party. Nelson v. Empress Assurance Corporation, Ld. Paber & Co. :— Edward Nelson & Co. v. Eailes v. Pailes . . Eailsworth Industrial Society, Ld. : — An- drew ('. Fairfax Peerage Fakenbam (Lynn and) Eailway (Extensions) Act, 1880, lure Falconer's Trusts, In re. Property and Estates Co. v. Frost . . Falkingham & Sons: — National Bank of Australasia /'. . _ Falkners Gold Mining Co. r. McKiimery . . Famatina Development Corporation, Ld. : — Bury ,'. Fane i'. Goodall. In re Goodall's Settlement Fansbawe, In re. Ex parte Le Marcbant . . Fansbawe (H. H.), In re Farmer r. Olyn-Jones. . Fax-mer r. Pitt . , . . . . , , Farmers' (Otago) Co-operative Association of ] New Zealand v. Tbompson . . . . , . j Farndale c. Dillon . . . . . . . . ' Farnbam Flint, Gravel and Sand Co. c. Farn- ] ham Union , . . . . . . . . . ; Farnbam Union : — Farnbam Flint, Gravel , and Sand Co. v. . . . . . . . . Farnbam's Settlement, In re. Law Union ' and Crown Insurance Co. u. Hartopp , . ; Farqubar c. Newbury Eural Council . . < Farquharson Bros. & Co. i'. Eang & Co. Farrell, E.r parte. Rex v. Tolhurst . . Farrow : — Hammond r. Faulder & Co.'s Trade Mark, In re . . Faulkner k. Rex Faulkner (W. & F.), Ld. :— Uildesbeimer Fawcett & Firth : — Robinson r. Fay V. Society of Notaries for State of Victoria Fear t\ Morgan. Fearis :— Hill r. Fearnsides, In re. Baines i\ Cliadwick 0. A. [1905] W. N. 93 ; [1905] 2 K B. 281 [1903] 2 K. B. 367 . . [1906] P. 326 C, A. [1904] W.N. 86; [1904] 2 K. B. 32 H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W. N. 226 [1909] W. N. 24 [1908] W. N. 28; [1908] 1 Cb. 410 P. C. [1902] A. C. 585 P. C. [1901] A. C. 581 C. A. [1909] 1 Cb. 754;' H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 157 ; [1910] A. C. 439 [1909] W. N. 16; [1909] 1 Cb. 440 [1904] W. N. 211 ; [1905] 1 ' K. B. 170 . . [1905] W. N. 64 [1903] 2 K. B. 6 [1902] W. N. 65 ; [1902] 1 Cb. 954 . . . . . . [1910] 2 K B. 145 . . [1907] W. N. 156 ; [1907] 2 ' K B. 513 . . • . . . . C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 272 . . C. A. [1901] 1 K B. 272 . . C.A. [1904] W.N. 138; [1904] 2Cb. 661 .. [1908] W. N. 183 ; [1908] 2 Cb. 586; C. A. [1908] W. N. 213; [1909] 1 Cb. 12 C.A. [1901] W.N. 167; [1901] 2KB. 697; H.L.(E.) [1902] W. N. 122; [1902] A. C. 325 . [1905] 2 K. B. 478 . [1904] ^Y. N. 108; [1904] 2 K. B. 332 [1901] W. N. 3 ; C. A. [1901] W. N. 235 ; [1902] 1 Ob. 126 [1905] 2 K B. 76 C.A, [1901] W.N. 171; [1901] 2 Oh. 562 . "-J [1901] 2 K. B. 326 [1909] P. 15 . . 0. A. [1906] W. N. 136; [1906] 2 Cb. 406 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 196 ; [1907] A. C. 425 . . [1905] W. N. 12 ; [1905] 1 Cb. 466 .. [1902] W, N. 226 ; [19031 'i Ob. 250 2013 427 930 1623 1899 1410 1946 2830 1798 2388 207 2599 2263 1731 1278 1427 2143 2143 2353 1153 2290 1436 2149 2685 824 691 764 1819 1462 1863 2991 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case, Volume and Page, Column of Digest. Feeney : — Brown r. . . Felixstowe Gas 'LigM Oo. : — Att.-Gen. v. . Fellowes v. Fellowes. In re Olutterbuck . Fenton v. Thorley (J.) & Co. . . Fenwick (France) & Co., Ld. :^Cory & Sons Ld. V. . . Fenwick, Stobart & Co., Tii re. Deep Sea ) Fishery Co.'s Claim . . Ferdinandus : — Karunaratne !■. Ferguson v. Green Ferguson c. Hunter. James Grieve i'. Hunter Fergusson's Will, In re Fernando : — Aitken, Spence & Co. v. Ferneley's Trusts, In re Ferniehougli v. Wilkinson. In re Howe Femiehough : — Wilkinson v. In re Howe Ferrand v. Bingley Urban Council . . Ferrand : — Bradford Corporation v.. . Ferrers : — Oroxon v. In re Croxon . . Ferrier v. Gouilay Brothers & Oo Ferris : — Tyler v. Fewster, la re. Herdman v. Fewster Fiat Motors, Ld. : — Bristol Tramways, &c. Carriage Co. v. Field : — Kinnaird (Lord) v Field : — Kinnaird (Lord) v Field V. Longden & Son Field V. Eeceiver of Metropolitan Police Fielding v. Turner Fieldings v. Pawson Fieldwick, In re. Johnson v. Adamson Fife Coal Co. u. Butler or Black Fife Coal Co. :— OampbeU v Fig Syrup (California) Co., In re . . FiUingham : — Girt v. . . FilKngham : — St. Albans (Bishop of) v. Finance and Issue, Ld. v, Canadian Produce Corporation, Ld. Finance (Discoverers) Corporation, Ld. (2) In re. Lindlar's Case Finance (United Mining and) Corporation Ld. V. Becher . . C. A. [1906] W. N. 66 ; [1906] ) 1 K. B. 562 ] [1907] 2 K B. 984 [1901] 2 Ch. 2S6 H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 149 [1903] A. C. 443 . . C. A. [1910] W. N. 215 [1902] W. N. 33 ; [1902] 1 Ch 507 P. 0. [1902] A. C. 405 C. A. [1901] 1 K B. 25 H. L. (So.) [1906] W. N. 117 [1902]W. N. 25; [1902] 1 Oh 483 P. 0. [1903] A. 0. 200 [1902] W. N. 27 ; [1902] 1 Ok 543 1908] W. N. 223 1910] W. N. 190 1903] 2 K B. 445 . . 1902] 2 Ch. 655 1904] W. N. 17 ; [1904] 1 Ch 252 (1902) Ct.' of Sess. (So.) [1903] W. N. 164 [1906] W.N. 8; [1906] 1 KB 94 [1901] W. N. 17 ; [1901] 1 Ch 447 0. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 831 [1905] W. N. 88 ; C. A. [1905] \ W. N. 108 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 306 . . ... . . ) 0. A. [1905] W. N. 126; [1905] ) 2Ch. 361 .. ... ..] 0. A. [1901] W. N. 224 ; [1902] ) IK. B. 47 ( 1907] 2 K. B. 853 . . "1903] 1 K. B. 867 . . 1907] W. N. 231 C. A. [1908] W. N. 212; ri908] ) 1 Ch. 1 . . , . ^ . . ) H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. ) 194 (1902) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 171 ) [1909] W. N. 109 ; [1909] 2 \ Ch. 99 ; 0. A. [1909] W. N. ! 233 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 130 . . ) [1901] P. 176 [1906] W. N. 48 ; [1906] P. ) 163 j [1904] W. N. 175 ; [1905] 1 ) Ch. 37 ( [1910] 1 Ch. 207 ; C. A. [1910] \ W. N. 42 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 312 | [1910] 2K. B. 296 ., 1979 2259 10 1684 1678 553 346 1634 2973 2961 344 1199 3006 67 1163 2855 2947 1617 2873 128 2287 1966 2013 1682 833 1131 1719 1203 2326 1610 2694 1004 982 511 688 2611 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Kame of Case. Financial (Kaslo-Slocan Mining and) Cor- poration, Ld., In re . . Financial News, Ld. : — Digby (■ Financial (Staflordsliire) Co. v. Valentine . . Finch. V. Bannister . . . . . . . . ' Finch V. Tranter . . . . Finch & Chew's Contract. In re . . . . Finchley Electric Light Co. t'. Finchley 1 Urban District Council . . . . . . i Finchley Urban District Council: — Finchley Electric Light Co. v. Findlay : — Foot ;■. Fine Cotton Spinners' and Doublers' Associa- tion, Ld., and John Cash & Sons, Ld. v. Harwood, Cash & Co. Finsbury Borough Council : — Wilson's Music and General Printing Co. v. Fire (Crosthwaite) Bar Syndicate v. Senior . . Fire (Equity) Insurance Co. : — Thompson /■. Fire (Stourbridge Glazed Brick and) Clay Co., Ld. : — Simmonds v, . . Fireproofing (Columbian) Co., In re. . Volume and Page. Inland Eevenue Com- Firth V. McPhail Firth & Sons, Ld. missiouers . . . . . . . . . . ) Fisher l\ Black and JVhite Publishing Co. . . Fisher v. Great Western Ry. Co. . . Fisher : — Great Western By. Co. i: . . Fisher : — Hanbury v. In re Hanbury. \ Comiskey r. Bowring-Hanbury . . . . / Fisher : — Eex c. Fisher : — Eex i'. . . . . . . . . Fisher and Le Fanu : —Lancaster Eural ) Council V. . . . . . . . . . . i Fishing (Admiral) Co. v. Eobiuson . . . . Fishing (General Steam) Co. : — Low or ) Jackson v. . . . . . . . . \ Fitch V. Bermondsey Guardians . . . . ' Fittall : — Kent v. Fittall (No. 2) :— Kent c Fittall (No. 3) :— Kent v FitzGeorge, /n re. ^rr ^lar^e Eobsou .. t Fitzgerald, In re. Surman >■. Fitzgerald . , [1910] W. N. 13 0. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 502 C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 233 [1908] 1 K B. 485 ; C. A. \ [1908] W. N. 75 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 441 [1905] 1 K. B. 427 [1903] W. N. 129; [1903] 2 Ch. 486 [1902] W. N. 66 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 866; C. A. [1903] W. N. 30 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 437 . . . . j [1902] W. N. 66 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 866; O.A. [1903] W.N. 30; [1903] 1 Ch. 437 . . [1908] W. N. 204; [1909] 1 K. B. 1 [1907] W. N. 127 ; [1907] 2 / Ch. 184 I [1908] 1 K. B. 563 . . [1909] 1 Ch. 801 P. C. [1910] A. C. 592 [1910] 2-K. B. 269 [1910] W. N. 95; [1910] 1 Ch 758;C.A. [1910]W.X. 142 [1910] 2 Oh. 120 . . [1905] 2 K. B. 300 . . [1904] 2 K. B. 205 [1901] ; [1904] C.A. [1900] W.N. 271 1 Ch. 174 . . [1910] 2 K. B. 252 . [1905] 1 Ch. 316 C. A. [1904] W. N. 27 1 Ch. 415 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 24 ; [1905] A. C. 84 P. ('. [1903] A. C. 158 C. 0. A. [1909] W. N. 252 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 149 . . C. A. [1907] W. N. 150 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 516 C.A. [1910] W.N. 49; [1910] 1 K. B. 540 . . H. L. (So.) [1909] W. N. 185 ; [1909] A. C. 523 [1904] W. N. 159 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 709 ; C. A. [1905] W. N. 15 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 524 C.A C.A. [1909 [1905 1906] 1 K. B. 60 '1908] 2 K. B. 933 1 Iv. B. 215 W. N. 17: [1905] [1903 K. B. 462 I W. N. 69 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 933 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 61 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 673 Ckjlunm of Digest. 611 874 1723 1338 1760 1936 2636 2636 42 rjOl 1529 188:J 304 1594 424 1493 2266 469 1403 28 1.3 2956 28;i2 813 1166 1619 1631 1550 1847 1847 1850 206 634 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case, Volume and Page. Column of Digest, Fitzgerald v. Clarke (W. G.) & Son, Fitzgerald : — Dublin United Tramways Co. v. Fitzgerald's Divorce Bill (Second Reading) , . Fitzhardinge (Lord) v. PurceU Fitzmaurice v. Hesketh Fitzpatrick v. Evans Fitzroy v. Cave . . . . . . . . Fitzroy v. Hunloke. In re Hunloke's Settled ) Estates . . . . ( Fitzroy Corporation : — Melbourne Tramway j and Omnibus Co. v.. . . . . . . . j Fitzsimmons : — Cundifi r. Fitzsimmons : — Mostyn (Lord) v. . . I Fladgate : — Hill v. In re Page . . . . j Fladgate !'. Vintners' Co. In re Gassiot . . Fleetwood (Blackpool and) Ti'amroad Co. v. \ Bispbam witb Norbreck Urban District [ Council Fleetwood (Blackpool and) Tramroad Co. :• Dixon V. Fleetwood (Blackpool and) Tramroad Co, : Thornton Urban Council v. Fleming : — Griffiths v. . . Fleming v. Locbgelly Iron and Coal Co. Fleming v. Loe . . Fleming : — Mackusick v. Fleming v. London County Council, politan Ey. Co. v. London County (Consolidated Appeals) Fletcher v. Birkenhead Corporation Fletcher v. Collis Fletcher ?>, Lancashire and Yorkshire Metro- \ Council > Ey,Co. j Fletcher v. London United Tramways, Ld, . Fletcher (Mark) & Sons, Ld, : — Verney v. . Fletcher and Dyson, In re Flew, In re. Ex parte Flew . . Flower :— Browne v, . . Flower v. Watts Flower & Sons, Ld, : — Harris v. ■■{ 0. A. [1908] 2 K, B. 796 H. L. (Ir.) [1903] A. C, 99 . . H. L. (Ir.) [1907] W.N. 60., [1908] W. N, 119 ; [1908] 2 ) Ch, 139 ) P. 0. [1904] A, C. 266 ... [1901] 1 K. B. 756 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 31 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 605 C. A. [1905] W. N. 103 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 364 1 [1902] W. N. 70 ; [1902] 1 Ch. ) 941 j P. C. [1901] A. C. 153 [1910] W. N. 270 [1902] 1 K. B. 512; C. A. \ [1903] W. N. 17 ; [1903] 1 ( K. B.349; H. L. (E.) [1904] ( V,\ N. 3 ; [1904] A. 0. 46 ) C. A. [1910] W. N. 50 ; [1910] ) 1 Ch. 489 j [1901] W. N. 23 [1910] 1 K. B. 592 . . [1909] 1 K. B. 860 H. L. (E) [1909] W. N. 191 ; ) [1909] A. 0. 264 . . j 0. A. [1909] W. N. 65 ; [1909] ) 1 K. B. 805 ) (1902) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] ) W. N. 165 I [1901] W. N. 178; [1901] 2\ Ch. 594 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. ( 142 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 359 ; ( H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 44 J H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 223 [•1906] 1 K. B. 605; C. A. [1907] W. N. 5; [1907] 1 KB, 205 C. A. [190o]2Ch, 24.. [1902] W. N. 67 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 901 C. A. [1902] W. N. 123; [1902] 2 K. B. 269 [1909] W. N. 25 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 444 [1903] W. N. 156; [1903] 2 Ch. 688 C. A. [1906] W. N. 3 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 278 [1910 [1910' [1904 W. N. 261 W. N. 146 K. B. 327 [1910] 2 W.N. 106; C. A. [1904]' W. N. 180 1652 2714 932 1101 984 1658 109 2367 2714 2182 1390 83 2909 2144 2146 2132 1257 1609 2789 1505 2859 2741 2120 1614 1068 2591 159 1377 255 2866 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST, Name of Case, Volume and Pnge, Column of Digest, Foley's Charity Trustees ?>. Dudley Corpora- ) tion tyi Folkestone Corporation : — Kent County Council V. FoUett : — Glassington v. In re Glassington Fooks V. Ouffe. In re Cuffe , . Foong Tai & Co. v. Buchheister & Co. Foot V. Findlay Football (Crystal Palace) Club, Ld. :— { Walker v. Forbes-Smitb v. Forbes-Smith. Ford, In re. Ford v. Ford Ford V. Newth. In re Gloucester Municipal Election Petition, 1900 (TuiHey Ward) . . Forder v. Great Western Ey. Co. Fordham : — PoUey v. . . Foreign Hardwood Co. : — Braithwaite v. . . Forest (Upper) and Western Steel and Tin- plate Co. V. Thomas . . Forfarshire County Council : — Inverarity v. " Forfarshire," The Formby v. Barker Formby Brothers v. Formby (E.) Formby (E.) : — Formby Brothers v. . . Forrest, In re. Forrest v, Forrest . . Forrest v. Merry & Ouninghame, Ld. Forster v. Baker. Bowles v. Baker and In re Forster and Baker . . Forster : — Dyson v. Dyeon v. Seed, Quinn, Morgan, &c. . . Forster v. Elvet Colliery Co. Dyson v. Forster Forster & Co. :— Spencer, Whatley & Under- bill ^ Fortesque : — McManus v. Forwood : — Costa Eica Ey. Co. v. Fobs v. Best Foster v. Borax Co. In re Borax Co. Foster : — Chichester Corporation v. . . Foster v. Coles and M. B. Poster & Sons, Ld, Foster v. Great Western Ey. Co. Foster : — Haynes v. Foster v. Metcalfe. In re Hall C. A. [1909] W. N. 250; [1910] 1 K. B. .317 C. A. [1905] W. N. 30; [1906] ( 1 K. B. 620 j [1906] W. N. 128 ; [1906] 2 ( Ch. 305 [1908] W. K 167; [1908] Ch. 500 P. C. [1908] A. C. 458 [1908] W. N. 204 ; [1909] 1 / K. B. 1 C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 87 [1901] W. N. 116 ; C. A. [1901] W. K. 129; [1901] P. 258 [1901] W. N. 218 ; [1902] 1 Ch 218; C.A. [1902] W.N. 162: [1902] 2 Ch. 605 62; 112; [1901] [1905] [1901] W. X. K. B. 683 [1905] W. N. K. B. 532 . . [1904] 2 K. B. ,345 C. A, [1905] 2 K. B. 543 C. A. [1909] 2 Iv. B. 631 H. L. (So.) [1906] W. X. 141 [1906] A. C. 354 [1908] P. 339 . C. A. [1903] W. X. 133; [1903] 2 Ch. 539 C. A. [1910] W. N. (67), 48 . C.A. [1910] W.N. (67), 48. [1910] W. N. 201 H. L, (Sc.) [1909] W. X, 160 [1909] A. C. 417 . . [1910] W.N. 24; C.A. [1910] W. N. 110, 119; [1910] 2 E. B. 636 . . H. L. (E.) [1908] W. X. 250 ; [1909] A. C. 98 C. A. [1908] W. X. 26 ; [19081 1 K. B. 629; H. L. (E.) [1908] W. X. 250 ; [1909] A. C. 98 [1905] W. X. 22; [1905] 1 K. B. 434 . . C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 1 C. A. [1901] W. X. 44 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 746 [1906] W. N. 114; [1906] 2 K. B. 105 , . C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 326 '1906] 1 K. B. 167 1906] W. N. 107 1904] 2 K. B. 306 :i901]W. N. 22; [1901] 1 Ch. 361 ., [1902] W.N. 208; C.A. [1903] W. N, 93 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 226 1160 1169 2958 2939 380 42 1620 944 2891 697 2104 2083 2289 1586 2316 2533 776 658 658 2371 1706 112, 1045 770 761 131 457 1322 492 1159 471 2105 1011 1052 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Caae. Volume ami Page. Column of Digest. Foster v. New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Co. Poster V. "Warblington Urban Council PothergUrs Estate, In re. Prioe-Fothergill V. Price Foukelmann :- -Jungheim, Hopkins & Co. v. Foulger v. Aiding Fountaine, In re. In re Dowler. Fountaine V. Lord Amherst Fountaine : — Chesterfield (Earl of) v. Fountains & Burnley, Ld. : — Senior v. Four Solicitors, In re. Ex parte Incorporated Law Society . . ... Foweraker: — Simultaneous Printing Syndi- cate V... Fowler, Ex parte. In re Wilkinson . . Fowler v. Att.-Gen. In re University of London Medical Sciences Institute Fund Fowler V. Cripps Fowler : — Ebhern v. . . Fowler: — Gruest, Keen & Nettlefolds, Ld. v. Fowler : — Eidout i'. Fox, In re. Wodehouse v. Fox . . . . j Fox : — Hirst and Capes v. . . . . . . j Foxon : — Simpson v. . . Fracis Times & Co. ; — Carr v. France, Fenwick & Co., Ld. : — Cory & Sons, Ld. V. . . . . . . France (United Butter Companies of), Ld. ; — Thomas v. Francis, Ex parte Francis, In re. Francis v. Francis . . . . j Francis : — Anderson v. Francis : — Millbank v. Francis Morton & Co. v. Woodward . . Frank James & Sons, In re . . Frank Warr & Co. v. London County Council Frankau & Co. :• — Milch v. "Frankfort," The " Frankland," The Franklin : — Horner v. . . Franklin : — ^Ward v. . . Franklin & Son : — Major Brothers v. Eraser, In re, Lowther v, Fraser . . [1901] 1 Ch. 208 C. A. [1906] W. N. 77 ; [1906] ) 1 K. B. 648 ] [1902] W. N. 215 ; [1903] 1 ) Ch. 149 j [1909] 2 K. B. 948 [1901] 2 K. B. 151 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 55; 0. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 700 . . C. A. [1909] W. N. 153 ; [1909] ') 2 Oh. 382 ) [1908] 1 Ch. 243, n C. A. [1907] W. N. 159 ; [1907] ] 2 K. B. 563 ] [1901] 1 K. B. 187 [1901] 1 K. B. 771 [1905] W. K 143; [1905] 2 K. B. 713 [1908] W. N. 182; C. A. [1909] ' W. N. 57 ; [1909] 2 Oh. 1 . . [1906] W. N. 161; [1906] 1 K. B. 16 [1908] W. N. 202 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 73 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 578 [1910] 1 K. B. 713 [1904] W. N. 39 ; [1904] 1 Ch, 658; C. A. [1904] W. N, 128 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 93 [1904] W. N. 27 ; [1904] 1 Ch 480 H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 171 . [1908] A. 0. 416 , . [1907] P. 54 H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 176 . C. A. [1910] W. N. 215 [1909] 2 Ch. 484 [1903] 1 K. B. 275 . . [1905] W.N. 93 ; [1905] 2 Ch, 295 [1906] W. N. 160 [1901] W. N. 91 0. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 276 [1903] W. N. 99 C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 713 [1909] W. N. 95 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 100 , . C. A. [1910] P. 50 . . [1901] P. 161 . . [1904] 2 K. B. 877; C. A [1905] W. N. 20; [1905] 1 K. B. 479 . . [1909; W. N. 200 [1908] 1 K. B. 712 [1903] W. N. 202 ; [1904] ] Ch. Ill; C. A. [1904] W.N 82 ;i[1904] 1 Ch. 726 467 1084 2883 92 1371 2742 1086 1600 2608 419 165 368 1696 2410 2251 2809 2890 2601 2073 19 1678 616 685 3001 1456 1972 1633 711 1398 1521 2494 2479 1068 2871 2681 2898 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Fraser v. Fraser ■I Fraser v. Fraser Fraser (D. & D. H.), Ld., Lire Frazer and Wyatt : — Oppenheimer v. Freake's Settlement, In re. Kinnard v. Freake Frederick v. Bognor Water Co. Frederick : — Oook v. In re Nash Frederick Betts, Ld. v. Pickford's, Ld. Frederick Leyland & Co. (1900), Ld. :— Gain v. Free Churcli of Scotland (General Assembly of) V. Overtoun (Lord) Freeborn v. Napper. In re Corsellis Freeman, In re. Hope i'. Freeman . . Freeman, In re. Shilton v. Freeman Freeman : — Slienstone & Co. v. Freeman : — Stuart v. . . Frencb, In tbe Estate of French : — Bake v. French (No. 2) :— Bake v French v. Howie French : — Eex v. French :— Williamson v. In re Mair French-Brewster's Settlements, In re. Walters v. French-Brewster Frere and Staveley Taylor & Co. and North Shore MUl Co., In re Freshfield : — Herbert (Baroness) Will Freshfield (No. 2):— Herbert In re Llanover's ( In Baroness Llanover Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons ' of England, Ireland and Wales : — Eead v. Friendly (20th Century Equitable) Society, In re . . Friends' Free School, In re. CKbborn v. O'Brien Friend's Settlement, Iv re, Cole v, Allcot ' Volume and Page. C. A. [1903] W. N. 197; [1904] 1 K B. 56 [1904] W. N. 89; [1904] 2 K B. 245; C. A. [1905] W. N. 10; [1905] 1 K. B. 368 . . [1903] W. N. 73 [1907] 1 K. B. 519 ; C. A. [1907] W.N. 85; [1907] 2 KB. 50 [1901] W. N. 210 ; [1902] 1 ( Oh. 97 j [1908] W. N. 215 ; [1909] 1 / Oh. 149 ) [1909] W. N. 162 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 450 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. | 209; [1909] W. N. 226 ; ( [1910] 1 Oh. 1 . . . . ; [1906] W. N. 51 ; [1906] 2 Ch. j 87 1 C. A. [1908] W. N. 5 ; [1908] i 1 K. B. 441 ( H. L. (Sc.) [1904] W. N. 162 ; ( [1904] A. C. 515 . . , . ( [1906] W. N. 98 ; [1906] 2 Ch. / 316 [1910] W.N. 6; 0. A. [1910] ) W. N. 93 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 681 ) C. A. [1908] W. N. 44 ; [1908] / 1 Oh. 720 ) [1910] -2 K. B. 84 0. A. [1903] 1 Iv. B. 47 [1910] P. 169 [1907] W. N. 39, 63 ; [1907] j 1 Ch. 428 ) [1907] W. N. 144 ; [1907] 2 ) Ch. 215 ) [1905] W. N. 116 ; [1905] 2 \ K. B. 580; 0. A. [1906] I W.N. 177; [1906] 2 K. B. i 674 ' [1902] 1 K. B. 637 . . [1909] W. N. 148 ; [1909] 2 / . Ch, 280 . . I [1904] W. N. 64 ; [1904] 1 Ch. i 713 ) C. A. [1905]W. N. 20; [1905] ( 1 K. B. 366 , . I [1902] W. N. 149 ; [1902] 2 Ch. ) 679 ; 0. A. [1903] W. N. 62 ; ' [1903] 2 Ch. 16 . \ [1903] W. N. Ill ; [1903] 2 ) Ch. 330 . . [1902] 2K.B. 88; C. A. [1902] 2K. B. 732,. ., .. [1910] W. N. 236 [1909] W. N. 189 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 675 [1905] W. X. 159 ; [1906] 1 Oh. 47 ., , .. Colnmn of ) 80 80 491 1066 2347 2851 1951 1510 1588 978 2932 2970 353 909 1264 2070 1737 2581 1189 1325 2922 1697 71 2391 13 17 1115 360 2419 TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. oxili Name of Oase. Friern Bamet Urban Oounoil : — ^Haedioke v. " Friessland," The Frieze-Green's Patent, Inre . . Frimley and Famborough District Water ) Co. :— Att.-Gen. v jt Frith, In re. Newton v. EoKe Frith V. Frith Frogley, In the Estate of Frogley v. Phillips Frost, In the Estate of Frost V. Aylesbury Dairy Go. Frost : — Property and Estates Co. v. In re Falconer's Trusts Frowd V. Frowd Fryer v. Ewart . . Fryer : — Pumfrey v. In re Heather Fuke : — Boschoek Proprietary Oo. v. Fulf ord T. Hardy .... Fulford : — Hayes (Rector, etc., of) v. Fulford V. Eeversionary Interest Society, Ld. In re Loom Fulham and Hampstead Property Oo. : — Godlonton v. . . Fulham Borough Council : — Heaver v. Fulham Borough Council : — SiUes v. Fulham Corporation : — Mason v. Fulham Guardians : — Rex v. . . Fulham Guardians : — Sharpington v. Volume and Page, -i Fulham. Guardians : — Woolwich Union v. Fulham Vestry v. Minter FuUbrook :— Tate D Fuller : — Westminster Corporation v. Fuller V. White Feather Reward, Ld. Fullers, Ld. v. Squire . . Fullerton's Will, In re. . FuUerton v. Provincial Bank of Ireland Fulton -I'. Norton Fulton : — Saxby v Pumeaux and Aird's Contract, In re "Furnesia" (Young, Master of S.S.) v. S.8. "Scotia" D.D, [1904] 2 K B. 807 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 189 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 110 [1904] W. N. 160; [1904]. P. 345 P. C. [1907] A. C. 460 0. A. [1908] W. N. 87 ; [1908] 1 Oh. 727 [1902] W. N. 10 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 342 P. C. [1906] A. C. 254 ' '.'. 1905] P. 137 1901] W. N. 243 ,1905] P. 140 C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 608 [1908] W. N. 28; [1908] 1 Oh. 410 [1904] P. 177 0. A. [1901] W. N. 2 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 499; H. L. (E.) [1902] W.N. 60; [1902] A. 0. 187 [1906] W. N. 113; [1906] 2 Ch. 230 [1906] ] Ch. 148 P. 0. [1909] A. C. 670 [1910] P. 18 [1910] 2 Ch. 230 [1905] 1 K. B. 431 . . [1904] 2 K. B. 383 . . 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 829 [1910] W. N. 38 ; [1910] 1 \ K. B. 631 j [1909] 2 K. B. 504 [1904] W. N. 146 ; [1904] 2 ) Ch. 449 j [1905] 2 K. B. 203; 0. A., [1906] W. N. 119; [1906]) 2 K.: B. 240; H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 137 ; [1907] A. 0. 255 ^ [1901] W. N. 25 ; [1901] 1 ) K B. 501 I C. A. [1908] 1 K B. 821 . . [1904] 1 K. B. 19 ; C. A. [1904] \ W.N. 156; [1904] 2 KB. 737 ( [1906] W. N. 74 ; [1906] 1 Ch. \ 823 f [1901] 2 K. B. 209 . . [1906] W. N. 96 ; [1906] 2 \ Oh. 138 I H. L. (Ir.) [1903] W.N. 128; 1 [1903] A. 0. 309 . . . . j P. 0. [1908] A. 0. 451 0. A. [1909] W. N. 83 ; [1909] ) 2 K. B. 208 ) [1906] W. N. 215 P. 0. [1903] A. C. 501 Column of Digest. 2427 2561 1873 2854 2745 2772 2929 1983 2063 2292 1946 928 1390 2885 461 327 996 2941 912 2425 1630 1512 1550 2085 1919 1534 684 1341 823 1071 2369 17.54 312 1124 2792 1814 h TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. ■I Furnees, In re. Fumess v. Stalkartt Purness : — Eisdon Iron and Locomotive Works V. Furness, Withy & Co. v. Pickering . . Furtado : — Browne v. . . G. Gr. E. B., a Debtor, In re G. J., In re. Ex parte Gr. J. . . Gabellini v. Woods. In re Woods Gabriel : — Williams v. . . Gadd : — Erkwood v. . . Gadd V. Provincial Union Bank Gadd V. Thompson Gaddes : — Kilgour v, . . Galashiels Magistrates : — Sohulze v. Galbraith v. Grimshaw . . , Galbraith v. Poynton . . Galinski:— Stiles v. Noakes r. Islington; Corporation (No. 2) . . Galliers v. Eycroft Volume and Page. Galloway v. Hope. In re Jump ■I Galloway (Earl of) v. Galloway (Countess of) Galwey Divorce Bill (Second Beading) Gamage, Ld. : — Bryson v. Gamage (A. W.), Ld. : —Werner Motors, \ Ld. V. . . Game, In re. Game v. Tennent Gammon v. Dale. In re Brunning Gancia & Co. : — Keith i'. Gane v. Norton Hill Colliery Co. Gans : — Charles Duval & Co. v. Garbutt V. Durham Joint Committee Garden : — Bivington v. [1901] W. N. 107; [1901] 2 Ch. 346 [1905] W. N. 12 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 304 ; C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 49 [1908] W. N. 152: [1908] 2 Ch. 224 C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 723 C. A. [1903] W. N. 124 ; [1903] ) 2 K. B. 340 . . . . j 0. A. [1905] W. N. 130 ; [1905] \ 2 K. B. 678 ) [1904] W. N. 17 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 4 [1906] 1 K. B. 155 . . H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 157 ; [1910] A. C. 422 . . C. A. [1909] W. N. 126 ; [1909] \ 2 K. B. 353; H. L. (E.) ( [1910] W. N. 157; [1910] ( A C 422 ) [1910] W. N. 262 '.. C.A. [1904] W.N. 36; [1904]) 1 K. B. 457 ) H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 67.. C. A. [1910] W. N. 4 ; [1910] •, 1 K. B. 339 ; H. L. (E.) ( [1910] W. N. 167 ; [1910] A. c. 508 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 258 . . [1904] 1 K B. 615 . . P. C. [1901] A. C. 130 [1902] W. N. 202; [1903] Ch. 129 H. L. (So.) [1903] W. N. 196 [1904] A. C. 50 H. L. (Ir.) [1907] W. N. 60 . [1907] W. N. 164; [1907] 2 K. B. 630 [1904] 1 Ch. 264 ; C. A. [1904] W.N. 174; [1904] 2 Ch. 580 [1907] W. N. 13; [1907] 1 Ch. 276 [1908] W. N. 243; [1909] 1 Ch. 276 C. A. [1904] W. N. 63 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 774 . . C.A. [1909] W.N. 140; [1909] 2 K. B. 539 . . 0. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 685 [M04] 1 K. B. 5:^2 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 134; [1904] 2K.B.514;H.L.(E.)[1906] W. N. 76 ; [1906] A. C. 291 [1901] W.N. 29; [1901] 1 Ch. 561 Column of Digest. 2885 472 2001 2230 189 190 2363 1385 1716 1716 1224 2869 2316 118 680 1520 2980 1966 2321 932 1908 887 1200 64 1028 1583 1997 1913 721 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Dlgeafc. Gardiner, In re. Gardiner v. Smith Gardiner : — Hacket v. In re Hacket Gardiner : — Jones v. . . Gardner : — De Galve (Oountess) v. Marquis of Anglesey In re Gardner v. Hodgson's Kingston Brewery Co. Garland : — Eex v. Gardner : — ^Wilmot v. In re Anglesey (Mar quis of) Gardner, Locket & Hinton, Ld. c. Doe Buck ('. Smith. Keen v. Adams Gare : — ^Pollard i". Garner, In re. Ex parte Pedley Gamer : — Att.-Gen. and Spalding Eural ) Council V. . . . . . . . . . . ) Garner v. Murray Garner v. Wingrove Gamer, id. : — Prested Miners Co., Ld. v. Garnett-Botfield v. Garnett-Botfield Garrard, Inre . . Garrard, In re. Gordon v. Craigie Garrett :— Elliott v Garrett : — Bex v. Garstang and Knott End Ry. Co. : Parkinson v. . . Garton v. Cumberland. In re North Garwood v. Paynter. In re Garwood's Trusts Garwood's Trusts, In re. Garwood Paynter Gas (Bristol) Co. and Bristol Tramways and i Carriage Co., In re . . Gas (Dominion Natural) Co. v. Collins and Perkins Gas (East Grinstead) and Water Co. : — Marriott v. . . . . Gas (Hamilton) Co. v. Hamilton Corporation Gas (Kent County) Light and Coke Co., In re > Gas Light and Coke Co. : — Cannon Brewery ' Co. y. . . . . , . . . . . . . \ Gas Light & Coke Co : — Davies v. [1901] W. N. 55 ; [1901] 1 Ch. ) 697 i [1907] W. N. 37 ; [1907] 1 Ch. \ OCR \ [1901] W. N. 237; [1902]'!) Ch. 191 j [1903] 2 Oh. 727 0. A. [1901] W. N. 69 ; [1901] 2 Oh. 198 ; H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 92 ; [1903] A. 0. 229 0. C.A. [1909] W. N. 252;) 0. 0. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 154 i 0. A. [1901] W. N. 171 ; j [1901] 2 Ch. 548 . . . . j [1906] 2 K. B. 171 . . [1901] W. N. 65 ; [1901] 1 Oh. ) 834 ( [1906] W. N. 122; [1906] 2) K. B. 213 ] [1907] 2 K. B. 480 . . . . | [1903] W. N. 194 ; [1904] 1 ) Ch. 57 ( [1905] W. N. 110 ; [1905] 2 ) Ch. 233 f [1910] W.N. 196- [1910i2K.B. ) 776; 0. A. [1910] W. N. 276 ) [1901] P. 335 [1905] W. N. 90 [1907] W. N. 21 ; [1907] 1 \ Oh. 382 ) 0. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 870 C. A. [1907] W. N. 43 ; [1907] ) 1 K. B. 881 I [1910] 1 K. B. 615 [1909] W. N. 68 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 625 [1903] 1 Oh. 236 [1902] W. N. 231 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 236 [1909] 2 K. B. 297 ; C. A. [1909] ) W. N. 223; [1910] 1 K. B. 114 ) P. 0. [1909] A. C. 640 [1909] 1 Ch. 70 P. 0. [1910] A. 0. 300 [1909] W. N. 128; [1909] Ch. 195 0. A. [1903] W. N. 56 ; [1903] \ 1 K. B. 593 ; H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 110; [1904] A. 0. 331 ; [1908] W. N. 255; [1909] 1> Ch. 248; C.A. [1909] W.N. 77 ; [1909] 1 Oh. 708 10 2207 2783 2166 2868 825 1285 2664 1458 168 20, 1210 1859 1469 2291 2058 200 377 894 1515 2116 2372 1857 1857 2708 303 2857 1806 234 1133 410 A2 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Gas (Lucas and Chesterfield) and Water Board, Inre . . Gas (South Suburban) Co. v. Metropolitan Water Board . . Gaselee, In re . . Gaskell, In re . . Gaskell : — Huutly (Marchioness of) v. Gaskell : — Huntly (Marchioness of) v. Gaskell and Walters' Contract, In re Gassiot, In re. Fladgate v. Vintners' Co. Gataore and Legh v. Claverley (Vicar, &c.) Gates V. E. Bill & Son Gattward v. Knee Gaukroger : — Berry v... Gauthier : — Ti'ust and Loan Company of Canada v. Gavin and Ld. V. . . Lloyds : — Kelly's Lloyds : — Kelly's Directories Directories Gavin and Ld. V. . . Gayuor : — United States of America Geake, JEx parte. In re Dillon Geake : — Pollard v. In re Hunt Gear (Marshall's Valve) Co. v. Manning, Wardle & Co Gebrilder Wolfl (Niirnberger Celluloid Waren Fabrik) : — Dover, Ld. v. . . Gedney, In re. Smith v. Grummitt . . Geen v. Herring Geipel's Patent, In re . . Geirionydd Kural Council v. Green . . Geisse v. Taylor and Hartland General Accident Assurance Corporation, Ld, In re . . General Accident Assurance Corporation i Noel .. _ General Accident, Fire, and Life Assui'ance Corporation, Ld. v. McGo-wan General Accident, Fire, and Life Assurance Corporation v. Robertson (or Hunter) General Assembly of Free Chui'ch of Soot- land V. Overtoun (Lord) General Billposting Co. v. Atkinson . . General Council of the Bar (England) i' Inland Revenue Oommissioners . . General Engineering Co. of Ontario : — Do- minion Cotton Mills Co. v. . . C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 16 [1909] W. N. 199; [1909] 2 Ch. 666 [1901] W. N. 66 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 923 C. A. [1904] W.N. 97;' [1904] ) 2 K. B. 478 I [1905] W.N. 140 ; C. A. [1905] ) W. N. 153, 157; [1905] 2 Ch. 656 - ) H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 2 [1906] A. C. 56 [1906] W. N. 27 ; [1906] 1 Ch, 440 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 85 [1906] 2 Ch. 1 [190i; [1909] P. 195 C. A. [1902 W. N. 23 38 1902] 2 K. B P. 99 1903]W.'n. 88; [1903] 2 Ch. 116" P. C. [1904] A. C. 94 [1901] W.N. 22 ; [1901] 1 Ch, 374; C. A. [1902] W. N. 41 [1902] 1 Ch. 631 . . [1901] W. N. 166; [1901] Ch. 763 P. C. [1905] A. C. 128 [1903] W. N. 49 C. A. [1901] W. N. 144 [1909] 1 Ch. 267 C. A. [1910] W.N. 127; [1910]) 2 Ch. 25 . . . . 1 [1908] W. N. 82 ; [1908] i ) Oh. 804 C. A. [1904] W.N. 202 ; [19051 1 K. B. 152 . . . . [1903] 2 Ch. 715 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 21 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 239 C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 845 [1905] 2 K. B. 658 . . [1904] 1 Ch. 147 [1902] 1 K. B. 377 H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W. N. 95 ; ) [1908] A. C. 207 H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 153 ; 1 [1909] A. C. 404 . . H. L. (So.) [1904] W.N. 162; [1904] A. C. 615 . j 0. A. [1908] W. N. 36 ; [1908] lCh.537; H. L. (B.) [19091 W.N. 3; [1909] A. C. 118.. [19071 W. N. 11 ; [1907] 1 KB. 462 .. P. C. [1902] A. C. 670 2849 1543 1406 173 965 1987 1074 2909 1006 1146 2076 2215 303 681 735 30? 168 2378 606 886 30 740 1874 1168 119 675 2030 2242 1246 978 1662 2265 311 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DtGEST. cxvli Name of Case. General Finance Company of Australasia, Ld. : — ^National Trustees Company of Australasia, Ld. v. . . " General Havelock," The . . . . . . General Industrials Development Syndicate, Ld., In re General Land Drainage and Improvement Co. V. United Counties Bank, Ld. . . . . j General (London) Omnibus Co. : — Wing v. General Officer Commanding Lines of Com- munication : — Marais (D. F.) v. General Steam Fishing Co. :• — Low or Jackson v. . . General Steam Navigation Co. : — Civil Ser vice Co-operative Society, Ld. v. . . General Steam Navigation Co. : — Owners of S.S. " GuildhaU " V. " The Guildhall " General Steam Navigation Co. : — Stevens v. Gent : — ^Kiddle v. In re Kiddle Gent and Eaaon's Contract, In re Gentel v. Eapps Gentry, In re. 31 of 1909) In re Gentry, a Dehtor (No, George v. Macdonald . . George v. Thomas George v. Thyer. In re Shephard . . George C. Smith, Ld. : — -Att.-Gen. v. George Clark & Co. : — ^Handford v. . . George Clarke, Ld. : — Handford v. . . George D. Emery Co. v. Wells George (J.) v. Glasgow Coal Co. George Eoutledge & Sons, Ld., In re. Hum, mel V. George Eoutledge & Sons, Ld. George Whitechurch, Ld. v. Cavanagh Gerard, In re. Gosselin v. Gerard . , Gerard v. Stafiord. In re Lord Stafford'] Settlement and Will "Gere," The " Germania," The Gerson : — Kaufman v.. . Gerson v. Simpson. EeitHnger, Third Party Gesellschaft Mit beschrankter Haftung, Leo- ) pold Cassella & Co., In re . . . . . . ) Gestetner, In re Trade Mark No. 37,760 of Getty V. Getty . . Gibb :— Att.-Gen. v. . . Gibb V. Dunlop & Co. . . Gibbens : — Sohweppes, Ld. v. Gibbons : — Schweppa, Ld.. v. . Volume and Page. P. C. [1905] A. C. 373 [1906] P. 32 . . [1907] W. N. 23 [1910] W. N. 187 C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 6-52 P. C. [1902] A. C. 109 H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 185 [1909] A. 0. 523 . . 0. A. [1903] W. N. 182 [1903] 2 K. B. 756 . . H. L. (B.) [1908] W. N. 104 [1908] A. 0. 159 . . 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 890 . [1905] W. N. 81 [1905] W.N. 36; [1905] 1 Oh, 386 [1901] W. N. 230 ; [1902] K. B. 160 . . [1910] W. N. 29 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 79 ; [1910] 1 K. B 826 (1901) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] ] W. N. 159 1910] 2 K. B. 951 .. 1904] 1 Ch. 456 1909] 2 Ch. 524 b. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 409 C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 181 P. C. [1906] A. C. 615 H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W.N. 219 [1909] A. C. 123 , . [1904] W. N. 157; [1904] Ch. 474 H. L. (E.) [1902] A. 0. 117 [1906] W. N. 21 [1904] W. N. 100; [1904] Ch. 72 19091 P. 287 1904" P. 131 1903" W. N. 102 K. B. 114; C. [1903] 2) , - A. [1904] W. N. 53 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 591 ) C. A. [1903] W. N. 116 ; [1903] ) 2 K. B. 197 i 0. A. [1910] W. N. 125 ; [1910] ) 2 Ch. 240 ) [1907] W. N. 182 ; [1907] 2 ) Ch. 478 ; 0. A. [1908] 1 Oh. 513 ) [1907] P. 334 [1909] 2 Ch. 265 (1902) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] \ W. N. 171 j [1906] W. N. 28 0. A. [1904] W. N. 208 Oolamn of Digest. 2835 2483 546 1209 1772 333 1631 663 2609 1640 2931 2827 2709 197 1651 1486 1574 88 1638 75 267 1637 447 564 2928 2361 2609 2661 632 517 2693 2687 918 2637 1610 73 732 Table op cases in the digest. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest G-ibbes V, Hale-Hinton. In re Hilton. In re Hinton. Gibbs v. Hale-Hinton . . Gibbon, In re. Moore v. Gibbon Gibbon V. Pease Gibbons : — Owen v. Gibbs, In re. Martin v. Harding . . Gibbs : — Plymouth Guardians v. Giblan v. National Amalgamated Labouiers' Union of Great Britain and Ireland Gibson : — Cooke v. In re Crawford's Settle ment . , Gibson v. Dodson. In re J. Dodson. 1 A. L. P. Dodson Gibson v. Gibson. In re Coley Gibson v. Hall. In re Aldersey Gibson V. "VVormald & Walker, Ld. . . Giddings : — Beardsley v. Giddy : — Smith v. Gidley :— Bolitho & Co. i; Giebler v. Manning Giilard : — Eobiuson v. . . Gilbert, In re. Gilbert v. Gilbert . . Gilbert v. Jones . . Gilbert v. Owners of Steam Trawler " Nizam" j Gilbey v. Push . . Gilbey : — Villar v. GUohrist, In re . . Giles V. Belford, Smith & Co. Gilhula : — Att.-Gen. for Canada Same v. Cain . . Gill V. Gill Gill : — Maddison v. In re Sharp Gill : — Thompson v. Gill : — Weiner v. Same v. Smith GUI V. Westlake Gill : — Wrigley v. The ■■{ [1909] W. N. 180; [1909] 2 Oh. 548 [1909] 1 Oh. 367 0. A. [1905] W. N. 56 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 810 0. A. [1902] W. N. 42 ; [1902] '( 1 Ch. 636 i [1907] W. N. 54 ; [1907] 1 ( Ch. 465 ) [190.3] 1 K. B. 177 . . [1903] W. N. 172 ; C. A. [1903] ) 2 K. B. 600 j [1905] 1 Ch. 11 [1907] W. N. 38 ; [1907] 1 Ch. ) 284 j [1901] 1 Ch. 40 [1906] 2 Ch. 181 0. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 40 [1904] 1 E. B. 847 [1904] W. N. 130 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 448 H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 34; [1905] A. 0. 98 . . i [1906] W. N. 81 ; [1906] 1 ) K. B. 709 j [1903] W.N. 69; [1903] 1 Ch. ) 865 j [1908] W. N. 63 [1905] W. N. 136; [1905] 2 K. B. 691 0. A. [1910] W. N. 180; [19101 2 K. B. 555 . [1906] W. N. 153; [1906] 1 Ch. n j [1905] W. N. 94 ; [1905] 2 Oh. 301 ; 0. A. [1906] W. N. 56 ; [1906] 1 Oh. 683; H.L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 72; [1907] A. C. 139 C. A. [1906] W. N. 199 ; 0. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 1 0. A. [1903] W. N. 80 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 843 P. C. [1906] A. 0. 542 [1909] P. 157 . . [1908] W. N. 10; [1908] 1) Oh. 372 ; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 146 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 190 . . ) 0. A. [1903] W. N. 67 ; [19031 ) 1 K. B. 760 [1905] 2 K. B. 172; C. A.I [1906] ^Y. N. 157 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 574 . . . . I P. 0. [1910] A. 0. 197 [1904] W. N. 200: [1905] \ I Oh. 241 ; 0. A. [1905] W. N. 148 ; [1906] 1 Oh. 165 ) 2937 32 100 1236 2964 238 2702 2418 2218 2420 2027 1680 46 1832 1200 1523 839 2891 1499 1646 2371 3002 1549 1608 290 2062 2904 2164 2293 1296 1756 TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Gillard : — Hancock & Co. v. . . Gillard & Co. :— King (F.) & Co. v. . . Gillespie : — Eex v. Gillespie (Claimant). Swanley Coal Co. v. Denton Gillespie v. Eiddell Gillett & Co. V. Lumsden Gillette Safety Eazor Co. u. Luna Safety ] Eazor Co. Gilliatt : — Pegler v. In re Anderson GUlig V. Gillig. Armitage v. Att.-Gen. GiUins, In re. Inglis v. Gillins Ginder ;— Metropolitan Electric Supply Co. v. Gingell, Son & Foskett, Ld. v. Stepney ) Borough Council . . . . . • ) Girt v: Fillingham Gist, In re Gist, In re. Gist v. Timbrell Giulini : — Blore v. "Gladys," The Glamorgan Coal Co. •;. South Wales Miners' [ Federation . . . . . . . • ■ . , Glamorgan Union . . County Asylum v. Cardiff ' Glamorgan Justices : — Eex v. Glamorgan Quarter Sessions t/.Wilson Glasbrook v. David & Vaux . . Glasdir Copper Mines, Ld., In re. English Electro-Metallurgical Co. v. Glasdir Copper Mines, Ld. Glasdir Copper Mines, Ld., In re. English Electro-Metallurgical Co. v. Glasdir Copper Mines, Ld Glasgow and South-Western Bail. Co. v. j Greenock Port and Harbour Trustees . . j Glasgow Coal Co. : — George (J.) ■" Glasgow (City of) Corporation : —Caledonian Ey. Co. V. Glasgow (City o^ Corporation (No. 2) :— Cale- donian Ey. Co. V. . . Glasgow Corporation v. Paterson & Son, Ld Glasgow Court Houses Commissioners v. ) Lanark County Council . . . . ■ ■ j [1906] W. N. 194; [1907] 1 KB. 47 C. A. [1905] W. N. 68; [1905] 2 Ch. 7 [1904] W. N. 12; [1904] 1 K. B. 174 C. A. [1906] W. N. 176 ; [1906] 17" "R 873 H. L.'(Sc.)[19b8] W.N. 219- [1909] A. C. 130 , . P. C. [1905] A. C. 601 [1910] W. N. 170; [1910] 2 Ch. 373 1905] 2 Ch. 70 1906] P. 136 1909] 1 Ch. 345 '1901] W.N. 93; [1901] 2 Ch. 799 [1906] 2' K. b'. 468;' 0. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 115 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] W.N. 72; [1909] A. C. 245 [1901] P. 176 0. A. [1904] W. N. 26; [1904] 1 Ch. 398 [1905] W. N. 160 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 58 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 135 ; [1906] 2 Oh. 280 . . [1903] W. N. 14; [1903] 1 K. B. 356 [1910] P. 13 [1903]1K.B.118; C. A. [1903] W. N. 152 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 545; H.L.(E) [1905] W.N. 72 ; [1905] A. C. 239 [1910] W. N. 172; [1910] 2 K. B. 647; C. A. [1910] W. N. 258 Column of Digest. 1910 1910' 1905' 1 K. B. 851 1 K. B. 725 W. N. 42; K. B. 615 [1906] ' i [1904] W. N. 73 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 819 [1906] W. N. 57 ; 0. A. [1905] W. N. 172 ; [1906] 1 Oh. 366 H. L. (So.) [1909] W. N. 152 H. L. (So.) [1908] W. N. 219 ; [1909] A. C. 123 . . H. L. (Sc) [1907] W. N. 67 ; ' [1907] A. 0. 160 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W. N. 219 ; [1909] A. C. 138 H. L. (So.) [1901] W. N. 162 H.X. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 236 1429 720 2158 253 2324 315 1879 1031 931 2908 1016 1671 1004 1546 2892 1363 2513 664 1551 1431 2242 2438 480 527 654 1637 2330 2317 91 2140 exs TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Glasgow Navigation Co. v. Iron Ore Co. Glasgow Parish Council : — Kilmalcolm Parish. CounoO. v. Glasgow Parish CounoLL : — Eutherglen Parish Council v. . . Glasgow (Society of Contributors to the Widows' Fund of the Faculty of Procu. rators in) : — J. G. v. . . Glass, Ex parte. In re Patrick Macfadyn . Glassington, In re. Glassington v. Pollett. Glasspool : — Brazier v... Glazed (Stourbridge) Brick and Fire Clay Co. ' Ld. : — Simmonds v. . . Gledhill : — SutcLiffe v. In re Greenwood . " Glengarifl," The Glenie v. Bruce Smith . . "Glenpark," Ld., The Sailing Ship: — Board of Trade v. . . Glenwood Lumber Co. v. Phillips Glossop : — Att.-Gen. v. Glossop V. Glossop Gloucester Municipal Election Petition, 1900 (Tuffley Ward), In re. Ford v. Newth . Gloucestershire (West) Water Co. : — ^Att. Gen. V. Glover & Co. : — American Steel and Wire Co. V. . . Glover & Hobson, Ld. ; — Elhs v. Glukman, In re. Att.-Gen. v. Jeflerys Glyn V. Howell. . Glyn : — Wright v. Glyn- Jones : — Farmer v. Goatley v. Jones (No. 1). Goatley (No. 2) Goatly V. Jones Goddard v. Brodie. In re Chisholm Goddard :' — Eobins v. . . ■I Jones ] A Godden v. Hythe Burial Board Godfray v. Constables of the Island of Sark . . Godfrey : — Bird v. In re Chant Volume and Page, H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 84 ; ) [1910] A. 0. 293 .. .-. ( H. L. (So.) [1906] W. N. 117;) [1906] A. C. 344 . . . . j H. L. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 106 ; 1 [1902] A. 0. 360 . . . . j H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W. N. 72 ; '( [1908] A. 0. 182 . . . . j [1908] W. N. 13 [1906] W. N. 128; [1906] 2) Ch. 305 i [1901] W. N. 237 ; C. A. [1902] 1 W. N. 162 j [1910] 2 K. B. 269 . . [1901] W. N. 60 ; [1901] 1 Ch. \ 887 ] [1905] P. 106 [1907] 2 K B. 507; C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 263 . . [1903] 2 K B. 324; C. A. [1904] W. N. 72 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 682 j P. C. [1904] A. C. 405 [1906] 1 K. B. 284; 0. A. [1906] W. N. 219 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 163 [1907] W. N. 169; [1907] 2 Oh. 370 [1901] W. N. 62; [1901] 1 K. B. 683 [1909] W.N. 60; [1909] 1 Ch. 636; 0. A. [1909] W. N. 141 ; [1909]- 2 Oh. 338 [1902] W. N. 17 0. A. [1908] 1 K, B. 388 [1907] W. N. 8 ; [1907] 1 Ch. \ 171; C. A. [1908] W. N. | 46 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 552 ; H. L. \ (E.)[1908]W.N.171;[1908] A. C.411 .. .. ) [1909] W. N. 37 ; [1909] 1 Ch. ) 666 0. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 745 . . [1903] 2 E. B. 6 [1909] W. N. 44 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 657 [1907] W'. N. 161 '.' [1902] W.N. 24; [1902] 1 Ch. 457 .. [1904] W.N. 123; [1904] 2 Ch.^ 261 ; C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. ! 294 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 278 [1906] W. N. 90 ; 0. A. [19061 W. N. 126; [1906] 2 Oh. 270 .. P. C. [1902] A. C. 534 [1905] W. N. 94 ; [1905] 2 Oh. 226 .. Column of Digest. 2463 1928 1925 1281 161 2958 2710 1594 2923 2500 246 2565 1814 2220 458 697 2857 1876 1735 1055 1710 1674 2263 1189 2594 704 275 285 1142 1468 fAfeLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Godfrey : — Scott & Horton v... Godlonton v. Eiilham and Hampstead Pro- perty Co. Godstone Eural Council : — Caterham Urban ^ Council V. Godstone Rural Council and Caterham Urban Council, In re . . Godwin V. Schweppes, Ld. Goerz & Co. v. Bell . . . . . . . . Gold Coast and Asbanti Explorers : — Smith v. Gold Coast Finance Syndicate, Ld., In re . . Goldberg v. Eex . . . . . . Goldberg : — Trimble v. Goldfield (Peak Hill), Ld., IHx parte. In re ] a Debtor . . . . . . . . . . J Goldfields (Rhodesia), Ld., In re. Partridge i V. Rhodesia Goldfields, Ld. . . . , . , Golding V. Smith . . . . . . . . Goldney : — Heaton v. . . . . . . . . Goldschmidt v. Oberrheinische Metallwerke Goldsmiths' Co. v. West Metropolitan Ry. Co. Goldsmiths' Co. v. Wyatt . . . , . . ■ Goldstein v. Hollingsworth . , Goldstraw v. Stevenson. Stevenson v. Craig Goldthorpe : — Chambers v. Restell v. Nye ■ Good, In re. Harington v. Watts . . . . " Good Intent " Lodge No. 98Y of the Grand \ United Order of Odd PeUows, Ex parte the Trustees of. In re Eilbeck . . . . j Goodall : — Boehm v. . . GoodaU's Settlement, In re. Fane v. Goodall ■ Goodhart v. Woodhead. In re Greenwood . . ■ Goodman : — Dewar ■;;... . . . . . . < Goodrich, In the Estate of. Payne v. Bennett Goodrich v. Great Grimsby (Town Clerk) . . Goodson V. Grierson . . . . . . . . { Goodway and London Association of Account- 'j ants, Ld. : — Society of Accountants and | Auditors v. . . . . . . . . . . ) Goodwin, JSx parte. In re Klein Goodwin v. Sale Goodwin v. Sheffield Corporation Volume and Page. [1901] 2 K. B. 726 . . [1905] 1 K. B. 431 . . 0. A. [1903] W. N. 48 ; [1903] ) 1 K. B. 554 ;H.L.(E.) [1904] W. N. 96 ; [1904] A. C. 171 j [1902] 1 Oh. 926 [1904] W. N. 70; [1904] 2} K. B. 136 . . . . ' . . ) [1903] 1 K B. 286; 0. A [1903] 1 K. B. 638 . . [1904] W. N. 73 [1904] W. N. 164 ; [1904] K. B. 866 . . P. 0. [1906] A. C. 494 C. A. [1909] W. N. 5 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 430 [1910] W. N. 7; [1910] 1 Oh 239 [1910] W. N.' 14; [1910] K B. 462 0. A. [1910] W.N. 92; [1910] 1 K B. 754 C. A. [1906] W.N. 24; [1906] 1 K. B. 373 . . 0. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 1 [1906] W. N. 122 ; [1905] 2 \ E. B. 686 ; 0. A. [1906] W. N. 219 ; [1907] 1 K. B. ( 95 / [1904] 2 11. B. 578 [1906] 2 K. B. 298 . . 0. A. [1901] W. N. 51 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 624 [1905] W.N. 82; [1905] 2 Ch 60 [1909] W. N. 246; [1910] 1 K. B. 136 [1910] W. N. 259 [1909] W. N. 16; [1909] Ch. 440 [1902] W. N. 82 ; [1902] 2 Oh, 198 ; 0. A. [1903] W. N. 12 [1903] 1 Oh. 749 . . [1907] 1 K. B. 612; 0. A [1907] W. N. 227 ; [1908] 1 KB. 94; H. L. (E.) [1908] W.N. 250; [1909] A. C. 72; [1904] P. 138 . . [1902] 1 K. B. 301 . . 0. A. 1908 W. N. 56 ; [1908] ) 1 K. B. 761 j [1907] W. N. 46 ; [1907] 1 1 Ch. 489 [1906] W. N. 148 [1907] W. N. 106; [1907] 2 K B. 278 . . [1902] 1 K. B. 629 .. Column ot Digest. 2625 912 1487 1458 2239 1109 411 2519 2721 221 422 752 895 2164 1408 1909 1070 2300 274 372 1113 1867 2388 2948 1363 1032 1851 1966 2697 202 2574 1912 TABLE OF CA6ES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case, Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Goold & Co. : — Thompson v. . . Goole and Sheffield Transport Co., Ld. : — Bamiield v. . . G-ophir Diamond Co. v. Wood Gordon, In re. In re Salmond Gordon : — Ambler v. . . Gordon v. Capital and Counties BanK, Ld. . Gordon : — Ohessum & Sons v. Gordon v. Chief Commissioner of Metropoli- tan Police Gordon v. Oraigie. In re Garrard . . Gordon : — Egham Eural District Council ) ^ j Gordon v. Gordon Gordon v. Gordon Gordon v. Gordon Gordon v. Gordon Gordon o. Gordon. In re Henry Gordon v. London, City and Midland Bank, Ld. Gordon v. Capital and Counties Bank Gordon Canning : — Taff Vale By. Co. v. Gordon-Cumming v. Houldsworth . . Gordon Hotels, Ld. : ■ poration v. AVestminster Cor- Gorrie : — Graves & Co. v. Gorringe o. Gorringe. In re Gorringe , . | Gorringe v. Mahlstedt. . . . . . . . j Gorton Local Board v. Prison Commissioners Gospel (Wood Green) Hall Charitj', In re. ) Ex parte Middlesex County Council . . ) Gosseliu, In re. Gosselin v. GosseKn GosseHn v. Gerard. In re Gerard , . Gossling, In re. Gossling v. Elcook Oossling V. Elcock. In re Gossling . . Gothard v. Chapman. In re Smallwood Gough V. Orawshay Brothers, Oyfartha, Ld Gough :— Eowe v. Gough v. Bolton H. L. (E.)[1910] W. N. 156; [1910] A. C. 409 , . C. A. [1910] W.N. 136; [1910]' 2 K. B. 94 [1902]W. N. 74; [1902] 1 Ch. 950 [1903 [1906° 0. A. 2 K B. 164 1 K B. 417 1901] W.N. 247; H.L. ) (E.) [1903] W. N. 92 ; [1903] A. 0. 240 ) C. A. [1901] W. N. 36 ; [1901] ) 1 K. B. 694 j C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 1080 . . [1907] W. N. 21; [1907] Ch. 382 [1902] 2 K. B. 120 . . [1903] P. 92 . . [1903] P 141 . . C. A. [1904] W. N. 46 ; [1904] \ P. 163 [1905] P. 96 [1906] W. N. 199; [1907] Ch. 30 C. A. [1901] W. N. 247 [1902] 1 K. B. 242 ; H. L, (E.) [1903] W.N. 92; [1903] A. C. 240 [1909] W. N. 108 ; [1909] : Oh. 48 H. L. (Sc.)[1910] W. N. 185 [1910] A. C. 637 . . [1906] 2 KB. 39; 0. A. [1907] W. N. 76 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 910; H.L.(E.) [1908] W.N. 67 ; [1908] A. 0. 142 P. C. [1903] A. C. 496 [1906] W. N. 6 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 319 ; C. A. [1906] W. N 152 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 341 H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 123 [1907] A. C. 225 , , [1904]2E. B. 165, n.. [1909] 1 Oh. 263 [1905] W. N. 170; [1906] 1) Oh. 120 . . [1906] W. N. 21 [1902] W. N. 73 ; [1902] 1 Oh. \ 945 ; 0. A. [1903] W. N. 40 ; ' [1903] 1 Ch. 448 C. A. [1903] W. N. 40 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 448 . . . . I [1910] 1 Oh. 272 0. A. [1908] W. N. 5 ; [1908] ( 1 K. B. 441 . . H.L. (I.) [1908] W. N. 249;) [1909] A. 0. 64 . . . . j 1593 341 2191 163 1463 146 1302 242 377 1164 952 1227 946 959 2345 146 2115 2332, 2805 1527 297 2904 2925 839 355 2964 2928 3001 3001 2416 1588 1294 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. cxxiii Name of Case. Volume and Page. Q-ough and Aspatria, Sillotli and District Joint Water Board, In re . . Q-Qulburu Valley Butter Company Proprie tary : — Bank of New South. Wales v. Gould : — Maokay v. In re Mackay . . ':] Goulder, In re. Goulder v. Goulder Goulder v. Rook. Bent v. Ormerod. Lee Bent. Barlow v. Noblett . . Gourlay Brothers & Co. : — Ferrier v. Governor and Company for Smelting down \ Lead with Pit and Seal Coal : — Lowes v. I In re Lead Company's Workman's Fund ( Society . . . . , . . . . . ) Governor of Brixton Prison : — Hex v. Ex parte Savarkar Governor of H. M. Prison at Stafford Eex V. Ex parte Emery Governors and Company of New River Hertfordshire County Council v. . . Gowrie and Blockhouse Collieries, Ld. Burchell «... Gozney v. Bristol, &o., Trade and Provident Society Graafe v. Automatic Machines (Haydon & Urry'a Patents), Ld. In re Automatic Machines (Haydon & Urry's Patents), Ld. Graham v. Oadogan and Hans Place Estate (No. 2), Ld. In re Cadogan and Hans Place Estate (No. 2), Ld Graham : — Carroll v. . . Graham v. Carshalton Park Estate Co. In re Carshalton Park Estate Co. Turnell v. Same Company Graham : — Howling v. Graham : — Law v. Graham : — Marshall v . Bell v. Graham Graham v. Public Works Commrs. . . Graham : — Richardson v. Graham : — Rickard v. . . Graham v. Wroughton , . Gramophone and Typewriter, Ld. v. Stanley Gramophone Co. : — Addis v. . . Gramophone Co., Ld. : — Monckton v. Gramophone Co.'s Application, In re Grand Hotel Company of Caledonia Springs, Ld. V. Wilson Grand Junction Canal Co. : — Att.-Gen. v. . . Grand Junction Waterworks Co. v. Rodo- canachi [1903] 1 K. B. 674; 0. A. [1904] W. N. 20 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 417 P. C. [1902] A. 0. 543 [1905] W. N. 159; [1906] 1 Ch. 25 [1905] W.N. 82; [1905] 2 Ch. 100 [1901] W. N. 108; [1901] 2 K. B. 290 (1902) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] ) W. N. 164 j [1904] W. N. 107 ; [1904] 2 ) Ch. 196 j C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 1056 . . [1909] W. N. 95 ; [1909] 2 ) K. B. 81 i [1904] W. N. 158 ; [1904] 2 ) Ch. 513 j P. C. [1910] A. 0. 614 C. A. [1909] W. N. 58 ; [1909] ) 1 K. B. 901 I [1902] W. N. 236 [1906] W. N. 112 C. A. [1904] W. N. 199 ; [1905] ) 1 Ch. 478 j [1908] W. N. 107 ; [1908] Oh. 62 1901 1901 1907 -^i [1901 C. A W. N. 81 2 K. B. 237 W. N. 94 ; [1907] 2 KB. 112 2 K B. 781 1908] 1 K. B. 39 ii [1910] W. N. 85; [1910] Ch. 722 [1901] W.N. 98; 0. A. [1901] W.N. 123; [1901] 2 Oh. 451 1 [1906] 2 K. B. 856; 0. A.) [1908] W. N. 88 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 89 j H. L. (E.) [1909] A. 0. 488 . , [1910] W.N. 277 [1910] 2 Ch. 423 P. C. [1904] A. C. 103 [1909] W. N. 167 ; [1909] 2 Oh. 605 [1904] 2 K. B. 230 . . Column of Digest. 2869 2830 1467 2883 40 1617 1114 1143 828 265 316 2705 434 2004 2764 621 342 1666 2301 842 1462 1008 2434 2240 1663 685 2695 326 329 2853 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DiaEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Oolumn of Digest Grand Mfere (Corporation of the Village of) : — Hanson v. . . Grand Trunk Ey. Co. of Canada v. Att.-Gen. of Canada Grand Trunk Ey. Co. of Canada v. Eobertson Grange, 7n re. Chadwicki). Grange Granite (Eival) Quarries, Ld. : — Evans v. . . Grant i'. Grant . . Grant v. Langston Grant v. Littledale. In re Thursby's Settle- ment Trusts . . Grant : — Eay v. In re Eattenberry . , Grant, Buloraig & Co., In re . . Grant v. Owners of S.S. " Egyptian " Grant Eiobards, In re. Ex parte Warwick Deeping Granville v. Moore. In re Bigge Grassi, /;; re. Stubberfield v. Orassi Graves & Co. v. Gorrie . . Graves & Co. : — ^Lomas v. Gravesend Corporation : — Thames Conser- vators V. Gray, In re Gray v. Baddeley. In re Selina Seabrook . . Gray v. Bell. In re Nixon . . Gray v. Bonsall Gray : — Delves v. Gray v. Gray. In re Mortimer Gray : — Matthews v. . , Gray v. Owen . . Gray, Claimant : — Jennings v. Mather Gray (W.) & Co. Bartell v Graydon (Att.-Gen. on the relation of) v. ) Walthamstow Urban Council . . . . | Graydon, Garnishee. Blair v. Clark . . . . { Great Britain (Pharmaceutical Society of) : ) ■ — Edwards v. . , . . . . . . ) Great Britain (Pharmaceutical Society of) v. j Mercer . . . . . . . . . ' J Great Central Ey. Co. v. Banbury Union . . < Great Central Ey. Co. ! — Jones v ■( P. C. [1904] A. 0. 789 P. C. [1907] A. 0. 65.. P. C. [1909] A. 0. 325 [1907] W. N. 23 ; [1907] 1 Ch 313 ; C. A. [1907] W. N, 125 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 20 0. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 979 H. L. (So.) [1905] A. C. 466 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1901] W. N, 185 [1910] W. N. 151 ; 0. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 181 [1906] W. N. 27 ; [1906] 1 Oh 667 [1905] W. N. 174; [1906] Ch. 124 H. L. (E.) [1910] A. 0. 400 [1907] W. N. 79 ; [1907] K. B. 33 [1907] W. N. 94; [1907] 1 Ch. 714 [1905] W. N. 56 ; [1905] 1 Oh 584 P. 0. [1903] A. C. 496 C. A. [1904] W. N. 145 ; [1904] 2 K B. 557 . . [1910] 1 K. B. 442 . . 1 Ch. 239 W. N. 244 W.N. 72; [1904] 1 Oh [1901' [1910' [1904° 638 0. A. [1904] W. N. 63 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 601 [1902] W. N. 142 ; [1902] 2 Oh 606 [1905] W. N. 47 ; [1905] W. N. 139 ; [1905] 2 Oh. 502 [1909] W. N. 88; [1909] 2 K B. 89 [1910] W. N. 46; [1910] K B. 622 . . 0. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 1 0. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 255 [1910] W. N. 35 [1908] W. N. 132; [19081 K. B. 548 .. .. [1910] 2 K. B. 766 . . [1910] 1 K. B. 74 [1906] 1 K B. 597; 0. A [1907] W. N. 35; [1907] 1 K. B. 717; H.L.(E.) [1908] W. N. 250 ; H. L. (E. [1909] A. 0. 78 . . H. L. (E.) [1910] A. 0. 4 . . 297 318 318 1761 425 2321 2228 1948 2974 2589 2497 227 63 2940 297 2624 2663 2590 1943 1052 1370 2814 848 1908 1395 22S 1638 232 78 1905 1907 2153 2078 TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Oase. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Great Central Ey. Oo. v. Shef&elA Union Great Eastern Ey. County Ooimcil v. Co. : — Hertfordshire Great Eastern Ey. Co. : — Lambert v. Great Eastern Ey. Council u. :l Co. : — London County ) Great Eastern Ey. Oo. : — Lord (Trustee in Bankruptcy ot) v. . . . . . . . . ' Great Eastern Ey. Co. : — Moss v. . . Great Eastern Ey. Co. : — Taylor v. . . Great Eastern Ey. Co. and Midland Ey. Co. — ^London and India Docks Oo. v.. . Great FingaU Consolidated : — Euben v. Great Eingall Consolidated, Ld. : — Euben & Ludenberg v.. . Great Grimsby (Town Clerk) : — Goodriob v. Great Northern and City Ey. Co.: — Dawson v. Great Northern and City Ey. Co. : — Long v, Great Northern & City Ey. Co. : — Milner'i Safe Co., Ld. v. Great Northern and City Ey. Co. : — Tillett v. Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Ey. Oo. u. Att.-Gen Great Northern Ey. Oo. : — Att-Gen. v. Great Northern Ey. Oo. v. Dawson . . Great Northern Ey. Co. v. Edmonton Union and Homsey Overseers Great Northern Ey. Co. v. Inland Eevenue Commissioners Great Northern Ey. Co. : — Sutton v. Great Northern Ey. Co. : — Thairlwall v. Great Northern Steam Shipping Co. ; Whelan v. Great Torrington Commons Conservators v. Moore-Stevens Great Western and Metropolitan Bail ways :^ London Corporation v. Great Western Dairies Co. : — Lloyd v. Great Western (Midland) Eailway of Ireland — Cooke V. Great Western Ey. Co., JEx parte. In re Great Western By. (New Eailways) Act, 1905 .. .. 0. A. [1908] W. N. ; (Erratum \ 60), 55 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 750 ; I H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. ( 250 ; [1909] A. C. 78 ..] [1909] 1 K. B. 368; 0. A. [1909] W. N. 124; [1909] 2 K. B. 403 0. A. [1909] W. N. 186; [1909] ) 2 K. B. 776 ] [1906] 2 K B. 312 . . [1907] W. N. 240; [1908] 1, K. B. 195; 0. A. [1908]) W. N. 74, 86 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 64;H.L. (E.) [1909] W.N. 4 ; [1909] A. C. 109 ..' 0. A. [1909] W. N. 82 ; [1909] \ 2 K B. 274 i [1901] 1 K. B. 774 . . C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 568 . . [1904] 1 K. B. 650; 0. A. \ [1904] W. N. 163 ; [1904] 2 KB. 712; H. L. (B.) [1906] ( W.N. 157; [1906] A. 0.439; H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 157 ; ) [1906] A. C. 439 . . . . ] [1902] 1 K. B. 301 . . [1904] W.N, 12; [1904] IK. B. 277 ; 0. A. [1904] W. N. 210; [1905] 1 K. B. 260 . . C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 813 0. A. [1906] W. N. 163; [1906] W. N. 213; [1907] 1 Oh. 208 [1902] 1 K. B: 874 . . H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 1 . . C. A. [1909] 1 Oh. 775 0. A. [1905] W. N. 14; [1905] \ 1 K. B. 331 ] [1905] W.N. 115 .. 0. A. [1901] W. N. 21 ; [1901] ) 1 K. B. 416 t 0. A. [1909] W. N. 177 ; [1909] ) 2 K. B. 791 j [1910] 2 K. B. 509 . . 0. A. [1909] W. N. 136 [1904] W. N. 11 ; [1904] 1 Oh. ) 347 j [1910] W. N. 145; [1910] 2) Ch. 314 j 0. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 727 H. L. (Ir.) [1909] W.N. 66; [1909] A. 0. 229 . . 0. A. [1909] W. N. 202 i6;| 2163 2116 2113 2113 248 1684 2292 2134 473 473 1851 1399 70 2867 1401 2259 2026 1611 2129 2261 1685 469 1646 2279 1395 1969 2114 1411 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Great Western Ey. Co., In re Eichard and; Great Western Ey. Co. c. Barry Ey. Co. Great Western Ey. Co. v. Blades Great Western Ey. Co. China Clay Co. Carpalla United , Great Western Ey. Co. v. Carpalla United China Clay Co. (No. 2) ) Great Western Ey. Co. v. Caswell & Bowden, ) Ld j Great Western Ey. Co. v. Fisher Great Western Ey. Co. : — Fisher v. . . Great Western Ey. Co. ; Forder v. . . Great Western Ey. Co. : — Foster v. . . Great Western Ey. Co. : — Johnston r. Great Western Ey. Co. v. London and County ) Banking Co. . . . , . . . . . . j Great Western Ey. Co. : — McDowall c. Great Western Ey. Co. v. Midland Ey. Co. Great Western Ey. Co. v. Phillips & Co. . . J Great Western Ey. Co. : — Eeed v. . . . . Great Western Ey. Co. : — Spillers & ( Bakers, Ld. i . Great Western Ey. Co. : — SutolifPe v. Great Western Ey. Co. v. Talbot . . Great Yarmouth Waterworks Co. : — Pidgeon V. Greaves v. Whitmarsh, Watson & Co. Greaves (C), In re. In re W. H. Greaves. Ex parte Of&cial Eeceiver . . Green, In re. Ball i'. Ellis . . Green v. Britten & Gilson Green : — Ferguson v. . . Green : — Geirionydd Eural Council c. Green v. Hackney Corporation Green v. Howell Green v. Isaacs . . Green : — Lewis v. Volume and Page. 0. A. [1904] W. N. 192 ; [1905] ) 1 K. B. 68 O.A. [1909] W.N. 176; [1909] | 2 K. B. 670 t [1901] W. N. 160 ; [1901] 2 Ch. ) 624 [1908] W. N. 178 ; C. A. { [1908] W. N. 2.34 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 218; [1909] 2 Ch. 471; > H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 3 ; [1910] A. C. 83 . . . , ; [1909] 2 Ch. 471 [1904] 2 K B. 508 [1905] 1 Ch. 316 [1910] 2 K B. 252 [1905] W. N. 112; [1905] 2 K. B 532 [1904] 2 K B. 306 . . C. A. [1904] W. N. 92 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 250 H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 156; [1901] A. C. 414 . . [1902] IK. B. 618; C. A. [190.3] W. N. 117; [1903] 2 K. B. 331 [1908] W. N. 146; [190s] 2 Ch. 455 ; C. A. [1908] W. X. 198; [190S]2Ch.644;H.L. (B.) [1909] W. N. 167 ; [1909] A. 0. 445 . . H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. (Erra- tum 40), 36 ; [1908] A. C. 101 H. L. (E.)[1908] W. N. 212; [1909] A. C. 31 C. A. [1909] W. N. 47 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 604 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 778; C. A. [1910] W.N. 250 C. A. [1910] W.N. 13; [1910] 1 K. B. 47" C. A. [1902] W 2 Ch. 759 [1901] W. N K B. 310 [1906] W. N K. B. 340 [1904] W. N. 124 K. B. 493 [1904] W. N. N. 157 ; [1902] 231; [1902] 1 132; [1906] 2 [1904] 2 C. A. C. A. C. A. [1910" S, 105. 1904] 1 K. B. 350 "1901] 1 K, B. 25 '1909] 2 K. B. 845 , W. N. 124 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 105 -' O.A.[1910] W. N. 74 1 Ch. 495 [1907] W. N. 10 . [1905] W. N> 121 ; [1906] 2 | Ch. 340 .. .\ \, j [1910] Column of Digest. 2121 2101 1704 2118 718 2105 2815 1403 2104 2105 2015 145 1787 2126 2136 1626 2103, 2127 2108 2098 2S50 1380 1857 29 1654 1634 1165 1539 1861 1521 1937 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Kanie of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Green : — Newport Union c. Newport Union ) V. Stead j Green : — Eickett v. Green v. Wanklyn Green & Co. :— Jones, Ld. v. . . Greene v. Groom e Greener v. Kain & Co., Ld. . . Greenhalgh v. Brindley Greenlialgh : — Pearl Life Assurance Co. u Greenhill : — Tringham v. In re Tringham's Trusts Greenock Harbour Trustees : — Cannichael v. Greenock Magistrates : — Greenock (Trustees of Port and Harbour oi) v. . . Greenock Port and Harbour Trustees : — Glasgow and South-Western Ey. Co. v. Greenock Steamship Co. v. Maritime Insur- ance Co. Greenock (Trustees of Port and Harbour of) V. Greenock Magistrates Greenshields, Cowie & Co. v. Stephens & Sons ■ Greenwell v. Porter . . . . . . . . ' Greenwood, In re. Goodhart v. Woodhead ■ Greenwood, In re. Sutoliffe v. Gledhill . . Greenwood: — Bathurst i;. In re Alexander Greenwood : — Smith v. Gregg V. Holland. In re Holland Gregory, Ex parte Gregory v. Dowding. In re Dowding's Settle ment Trusts . . Gregory : — Eobinson v. . Gregory : — Watson and Parker v. The " Cairo " Gregson & Co. : — Burdon v. . . Grenier : — Prfefontaine v. Grenside, Exparte. Att.-Gen. v. West Eiding ) of Yorkshire County Council . . . . j Gresham Life Assurance Society, Ld. : — Aus- ) trian Lloyd Steamship Co. v. Gresham Life Assurance Society v. Bishop . Gresham Life Assurance Society v. Bishop . [1906] 2 K. B. 147; C. A., [1907] W. N. 125 ; [1907] 1 2 K. B. 460 ; H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 220 ; [1909] A. C 35 [1909]' W. N.' 262 ■' [1910] ) 1 K. B. 253 ) [1906] 1 K. B. 394 . . C. A [1904] 2 K. B. 275 C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 277 C. A. [1906] W. N. 157 [1906] 2 K. B. 374 . . [1901] W. N. 125; [1901] Ch. 324 [1909] 2 K. B. 288 . . [1904] W. N. 153; [1904] 2 Ch. 487 H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 58 ; [1910] A. C. 274 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1905] W. N. 135 H. L. (So.) [1909] W. N. 152 [1903] 1 K. B. 367 ; 0. A. [1903] W.N. 150; [1903] 2 K.B. 657 H. L. (So.) [1905] W. N. 135 C. A. [1907] W.N. 224; 0. A [1908] 1 K. B. 51 ; H. L (E.) [1908] W. N. 192 [1908] A. C. 431 . . , : [1902] W. N. 19 ; [1902] 1 Ch 530 [1902] W. N. 82 ; [1902] 2 Ch 198 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 12 [1903] 1 Oh. 749 . . [1901] W. N. 60; [1901] 1 Oh 887 [1910] W. N. 36; C. A [1910] W. N. 94 [1907] 2 K B. 385 [1901] W. N. 72 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 145 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 90 [1902] 2 Ch. 360 . . P. 0. [1901] A. 0. 128 [1904] W. N. 17 ; [1904] 1 Ch 441 [1906] 1 E. B. 534 .. [1908] W. N. 230 0. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 275 P. 0. [1907] A. C. 101 H. L, (E.) [1907] W. N. 3 [1907] A. 0. 29 C. A. [1903] W. N. 7 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 249 . . 0. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 153 ; H. L. ) (E.) [1902] W.N. 106 ; [1902] A. 0. 287 . . * C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 171 2166 1390 1851 2461 2016 730 2787 1260 2413 2327 1328 664 1280 1328 2442 571 2948 2923 2978 2861 1112 1554 2404 694 2539 1648 292 2310 99 2239 729 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page, Greville v. Parker Grewar v. Caledonian Ey. Oo. Grey: — Payne v. In re Earl of Stamford 1 and Warrington Greymouth Point Elizabeth Ey. and Coal Co., ' In re. Tuill v. Greymouth Point Elizabeth ] Ey. and Coal Oo. Greys Court Estate, Iii re Oribble : — Bell v. Hudson i. Gribble Gribble : — Hudson v. BeU v. Gribble Grierson : — Goodson v. Grieve v. Hunter Grieve v. Tasker Griffin, In re. Griffin v. Griffin Griffin v. Houlder Line, Ld. . . Griffin : — Mansel v. Griffin : — Sadd v. Griffith, In re. Jones v. Owen Griffith V. Owen Griffiths : — Bowden v. In re Nightingale Griffiths V. Fleming Griffiths V. Vezey Griffiths : — Tstradowen Colliery Co. u. Griffiths (John) Cycle Corporation, Ld., In re. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Griffiths [ (John) Cycle Corporation, Ld. Griffiths (John) Cycle Corporation, Ld. :- Humber & Co. v. . . Griffiths' Policy, In re . . Grigg : — Mason v. Grimond (or Maclntyre) v. Grimond Grimsdiok v. Sweetman Grimshaw : — Galbraith v. I Grimshaw, Baxter & Elliott, Ld. v. Parker ' Grimthorpe (Lord), In re. Beckett ('. Lord Grimthorpe . . . . . . . . . . ' P. C. [1910] A. C. 335 (1902) Ot. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] ; W. N. 167 [1910] W. N. 114 ; [1910] 2 ' Oh. 83 ; [1910] W. N. 277 .. ; [1903] W. N. 187, 190 ; [1904] : 1 Oh. 32 ; [1901] W. N. 60 0. A. [1903] W. N. 37 ; [1903] : 1 K. B. 517 [1902] 2 K. B. 298; C. A. [1903] W. N. 37 ; [1903] 1 KB. 517 0. A. [1908] W.N. 55; [1908] ' 1 K. B. 761 [1906] W. N. 117 P. C. [1906] A. 0. 132 C. A. [1901] W. N. 240 ; [1902] 1 Oh. 135 . . C. A. [1904] W. N. 44 ; [1904] ' IK.B. 510;H.L.(E.)[1905] W.N. 72; [1905] A. 0. 220 [1907] W. N. 232; [1908] IN K. B. 160; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 73 (Erratum 78) ; ( [1908] 1 K. B. 947 . . . . j C. A. [1908] W. N. 151 ; [1908] \ 2 K. B. 510 j [1904] W. N. 88 ; [1904] 1 Oh. ) 807 j [1907] 1 Oh. 195 [1909] W. N. 17 ; [1909] 1 Ch. ) 385 i 0. A. [1909] W. N. 65 ; [1909] j 1 K B. 805 I [1906] W.N. 73; [1906] 1 Ch. ) 796 j 0. A. [1909] W. N. 134 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 533 j C. A. [1902] W.N. 9.. H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 110 [1903] W. N. 50 ; [1903] 1 Oh. 739 0. AJ1909] W. N. 127 ; [1909] ) 2 K. B. 341 ( H.L. (Sc.) [1905] W. N. 44; [1905] A. C. 124, 603 [1909] W. N. 182 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 740 . . . . . 0. A. [1910] W.N. 4; [1910] 1 K.B. 3o9;H.L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 167 ; [1910] A. 0. 508 [1910] W. N. 133; [1910] 2 K. B. 161 .. [1908] W.N. 57; [1908] 1 Oh. 666; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 201 ; [1908] 2 Oh. 675 CJolunm of Digest. 1808 1608 2223, 2953 463 2362 2248 2248 1966 2973 1813 1119 1639 105 2588 704 1740 2904 1257 2807 1604 730 660 1191 708 2999 1365 118 766 2406 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Grimwade : — Eex v. . . Grinstead (East) Gras and Water Co. See Bast Grinstead Qaa and Water Co. Grinstead (East) Gas and Water Co. : — Marriott v. Grivell V. Malpas Grocott : — Jenkins v. . . Groh V. Hesketh Groom : — Eex v. Ex parte Cobbold Groos, In the Estate of Grose-Smith :— Barbers' Company v. In re Atkinson Grosvenor Dairies, Ld. : — Dunning v. ^ _ "Qxosvenor" House Property Acquisition^ and Investment Building Society, In re Ground Eent Development Co. v. West Grove : — Andrew v. Grove : — ^Edwards v. . . Grove V. Portal . . " Grovehurst," The Grover & Grover, Ld. v. Mathews Gruban : — Kirohner & Co. v. . . Grmnmitt : — Smith v. In re Gedney Grundy v. Briggs Grunnell v. Welch Grunwaldt : — ^Lagos v.. . Guadagni : — Palmer v. Guano (Internationale) en Superphosphaat werken v. Eobert Macandrew & Co. Guarantee Society : — Board of Trade v. Gudgeon : — Hopkins v. Guedalla : — Montefiore v. Guedalla : — Montefiore v. Guedalla : — Montefiore v. GuedeUa, In re. Lee v. Guedella's Trustee Guest, Keen & Nettlefolds, Ld. : — Cremins v. Guest, Keen & Nettlefolds, Ld. :— Edwards V. Neagle v. Nixon's Navigation Co. Guest, Keen & Nettlefolds, Ld. v. Fowler Guildford : — De Lassalle v. . . " GmldhaU," The. Owners of S.S. " Guild hall " V. General Steam Navigation Co. [1905] 1 K. B. 50, n. [1909] 1 Ch. 70 1906] 2 K. B. 32 1904] 1 K. B. 374 1907] W. N. 113 ; [1907] K. B. 232 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 27 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 654 . [1901] 2 K. B. 157 . . [1904] P. 269 C. A. [1904] W. N. 120 [1904] 2 Ch. 160 . . [1901] W. N. 218 . . [1902] W. N. 115 [1902] W. N. 64 ; [1902] 1 Ch, 674 1902] 1 K B. 625 . . 1906] W. N. 191 1902]W. N. 33; [1902] 1 Ch 727 0. A. [1910] P. 316 . . [1910] 2 K. B. 401 . . [1909] W.N. 12; [1909] 1 Oh 413 [1908] W. N. 82; [1908] Ch. 804 [1910] W. N. 17; [1910] Ch. 444 [1905] 2 K. B. 650; 0. A [1906] W. N. 153; [1906] 2 K. B. 555 . . 0. A. [1909] W. N. 216 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 41 . . [1906] W. N. 165 ; [1906] 2 Oh. 494 [1909] 2 K. B. 360 1 K. B. 408, n. 1 K. B. 690 W. N. 8 ; [1901] 1 Oh 1910 1906' 1901° 435 C. A. [1903] W. N. 77 ; [1903] 2 Oh. 26 184; [1903] 2 115; [1905] [1903] W. N. Ch. 723 [1905] W. N. Ch. 331 C. A. [1908] W. N. 6 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 469 C. A. [1904] W. N. 16 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 339 . . [1910] 1 K. B. 713 [1901] 2 K. B. 215 0. A. [1908] P. 29 ; H. L. (B.) [1908] W. N. 104; [1908] A. 0. 159 1442 2857 1522 1849 1433 1424 2060 2345 717 279 1348 753 980 1357 2512 1251 30 561 911 2022 .1988 2469 226 251 176 1198 176, 2734 193 1594 1686 2251 1366 2509 bxxx TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. In re Kelly's Settle Guillemein or Hope Vera : — Hope Vera (I. 0.)v Gundry v. Sainsbm-y . . Gunner : — Blew v. In re Blew Gurnay's Marriage Settlement, In Sullivan v. Gurney " Gustafsberg," Tbe Gustard v. Berkeley. ment Trusts . . Gutbridge (N.), Ld. : — Wilfley Ore Concen trator Syndicate, Ld, Gutbrie : — Low v, Guthrie's Settled Estates, In re Gutta Peroba and India Rubber Co. of Toronto's Application, In re Guyton and Rosenberg's Contract, In re Gwendolen Freehold Land Society v. Wicks GwawT-y-Gweitbyr and Provident Societj', In re. Dovey v. Morgan . Gyles : — McCbeane v. . . (No. 2) H. H. B., /» re H.'s Settlement, In re. H. v. 'H. Habib Merican Noorden : — Badar Bee v. Haoket, In re. Hacket v. Gardiner. . Hackney Corporation : — Green v. Hackney Corporation v, Lee Conservancy Board . . Hackney Furnishing Co., Claimants. Jelks v. Hayward ' . . Hackney Guardians : — Kingston-upon-Hull Licorporation for tbe Poor v. Haddington (Magistrates of) : — Bernard & Co. i; Haddington (Provost, &c., of) : — Mont' gomerie & Co. v. Haddock's Case. Hoyle's Case. In re London and Northern Bank, Ld. Haddrill : — Ward v. . . Hadley, In re. Johnson c. Hadley . . Hadwell v. Eighton . . Hadwen and Ingham : — Eex v. • Haedicke v. Friern Barnet Urban Council . Volume and Page. H. L. (Sc.) [1907] W. N. 187 [1910] 1 E. B. 99; C. A. [1910] W.N. 58; [1910] IK.B. 645 [1906] W.N. 47; [1906] 1 Ch 624 [1907] W. N. 189; [1907] Cb. 496 [1905] P. 10 [1909] W. N. 203; [1910] Cb. 78 P. C. [1906] A. C. 548.. H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 81 [1909] A. 0. 278 . . [1902] 1 Cb. 942, n. . . 0. A. [1909] W.N. 100; [1909] 2 Cb. 10 [1901] W. N. 159; [1901] 2 Ch. 591 [1904] 2 K. B. 622 . . [1901] 2 K B. 477 . . C. A. [1902] 1 Cb. 287 [1902] W. N. 67 ; [1902] 1 Cb, 911 C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 94 [1909] 2 Ch. 260 P. C. [1909] A. C. 615 [1907] W. N. 37 ; [1907] 1 Ch. \ 385 I [1910] W. N. 124; [1910] 2 1 Ch. 105 j C. A. [1904] 2 K B. 641 . . [1905] 2 K. B. 460 . . [1910] W. N. 246 H. L. (Sc.) [1901] W. N. 246 H. L. (Sc.)[1908] W. N. 54;) [1908] A. 0. 170 . . . . ] [1902] W. N. 53 ; 0. A. [1902] 1 W. N. 84 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 73 ( [1904] 1 E. B. 399 . . 0. A. [1908] W. N. 220 ; [1909] ) 1 Ch. 20 . . j [1907] W. N. 130 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 345 .. . .. ^ C. C. E. [1902] W. N. 88; [1902] IK. B. 882.. [1904] 2 K. B. 807 ; C. A. [1904] W.N. 189; [1905] 1 K B. 110 . . . . . Column of Digest. 1190 2601 2961 2389 2509 2396 138 2332 2368 2681 3002 1221 1222 1996 1975 188 2840 2629 2207 1539 1537 757 1927 2317 2429 593 763 2215 2723 811 2427 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Haedioke and Lipski's Contract, In re Haes, Ex parte. Inre'K.Y.. . " Hagen," The Hagmaier v. Willesdeu Overseers Haig : — Brown v. Hailstone, In re. Hopkinson v. Carter Hajee Cassim Joosub i;. Ajum GoolamHossen ^ & Co. Ajiini Golam Hossen & Co. v. Union > Marine Insurance Co. . . . . . . j Haji Goolam Mahomed Azam : — Turner v. Halbot V. Lens . . Halbronn v. International Horse Agency and ) Exchange, Ld. . . . . . . . . j Hale : — Eex v. . . Hale-Hinton : — Gibbs v. In re Hilton . . j Hales, Ux parte. In re A Solicitor . . Hales V. Kerr . . Halifax Commercial Banking Co. : — Berry j;. HaHfax Joint Stock Banking Co. v. British \ Power Traction and Lighting Co. In re I British Power Traction and Lighting Co. ) Halifax Joint Stock Banking Co. v. British \ Power Traction and Lighting Co. (No. 2). I In re British Power Traction and Lighting ( Co. .. .. .. ; Halifax Joiat Stock Banking Co., Ld. v. \ British Power Traction and Lighting Co., ' Ld. In re British Power Traction and j Lighting Co., Ld . . . . J Halkett v. Dudley (Earl of) | Halkett : — Eex v. .. . . ... . . J Hall, In re. Ex parte Official Eeoeiver Hall, In re. Foster v. Metcalfe Hall : — Gibson v. In re Aldersley Hall V. Lees Hall : — Mercantile Steamship Co. v. Hall : — ^Newton, Chambers & Co. v. Hall : — Eeversionary and General Securities Co. V. In re Beard. Beard v. Hall. In re Beard . . Hall V. Tamworth Colliery Co., Ld. . . HaU and Lady Meux's Arbitration, In re . . HaU (W. J.) & Co., In re Hallard : — ^Lowery v. 'S&W.ei, Ex parte. Jn re Moss KaUman, In re. Ex parte Ellis & Collier . . Volume and Page. [1901] W. N. 177 ; [1901] 2 Oh. 666 C. A. [1901] W. N. 224 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 98 . . C. A. [1908] P. 189 [1904] 2 K. B. 316 [1905] W. N. 120; [1905] 2 Ch. 379 C. A. [1909] W. N. 68 ; [1909] P. 118 P. C. [1901] A. 0. 362 P. 0. [1904] A. C. 826 [1901] W. N. 6 ; [1901] 1 Ch, 344 . . [1903] 1 K. B. 270 C. A. [1905] 1 E. B. [1909] W. N. 180 ; Ch. 548 19071 2 K. B. 539 1908' 2 K. B. 601 1901' 1 Ch. 188 126 [1909] 2 [1906] "W. N. 33 ; [1906] 1 Ch 497 [1907] 'W. N. 49; [1907] 1 Ch. 528 [1910] 'W. N. Ch. 470 194; [1910] 2 n [1907] W. N. 67 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 590 [1909] W. N. 205 ; [1910] 1 ' K. B. 50 [1906] 'W. N. 229; C. A. [1907] ' "W. N. 53 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 875 [1902] W. N. 208 ; C. A. [1903] ' "W. N. 93 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 226 [1905 C. A. [1909 [1907 2Ch. 181 1904] 2 K. B. 602 2 K. B. 423 . . 2 K. B. 446 . . [1908] 'W. N. 18; [1908] i; Ch. 383 \ [1910] "W. N. 268 C. A. [1905] "W. N. 15 ; [1905] : 1 K. B. 588 [1909] W. N. 49 ; [1909] 1 \ Ch. 521 1906] 1 K. B. 358 . . 1906] 2 K. B. 307 . . 1909] 'W. N. 137 ; [1909] 2 : K. B. 430 Column of Digest. 2811 200 2560 1320 731 2068 2566 1218 2032 130 806 2937 2611 1039 147 519 521 410 2787 1329 223 1052 2027 1679 2518 1341 2914 1597 1350 581 581 207 211 i2 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Halsey v. Bruce. In re Bruce Hamblet : — Beokhusoii and Gibbs v. Hamblet : — Levett v. . . Hambro v. Burnand . . Hambrougb's Estate, In re. Hambrougb v. Hambrough . . Hamel v. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. Hamilton v. Blackpool Motor Car Co. In re Blackpool Motor Oar Co. Hamilton : — Hayward v. In re Jordan Hamilton : — Nisbet v. . . Hamilton : — Eex v. . . Hamilton v. Seal Hamilton Corporation : — Hamilton Gas Co. Ld. V. . . Hamilton Gas Co., Ld. v. Hamilton Corpora- tion Hamilton Street Ey. Co. : — Att.-Gen. for Ontario v. Hamilton Young & Co., In re. Ex parte Carter . . Hamlyn v. Jobn Houston & Co. Hammersmith Corporation : — Thompson v Hammond : — Bushell v. Hammond v. Eade. In re Kenvrard Hammond v. FarroTV . . Hammond Spencer's Settled Estates, In re Hampson v. Hampson . . Hampstead (Charing Cross, Euston, and) Ey. Co. V. Boots Hampstead Corporation v. Caunt Hampstead Corporation : — Elsdon v. Hampstead Corporation v. Midland Ey. Co Hamstead CoUiery Co. : — Taylor v. . . Hanbury, In re. Comiskej"" v. Hanbury Hanbury, In re. Hanbury v. Eisher. Comii key V. Bo-wring-Hanbury . . Hanbury v. Jenkins Hancock, Inre . . Hancock, In re. Hancock v. Pawson [1905] W. N. 120; [1905]) 2 Ch. 372 I C. A. [1901] W. N. 84; [1901] \ 2 K. B. 73 I C. A. [1901] W. N. 58 ; [1901] 1 2 K. B. 53 ( [1903] 2 E. B. 399; 0. A. [1904] W. N. 77 ; [1904] 2 K B. 10 [1909] 2 Oh. 620 [1908] W. N. 110; [1908] 2 K. B. 298 [1901] 1 Ch. 77 [1904] W. N. 7 ; [1904] 1 Ch. \ 260 j H. L. (Sc.) [1907] W. N. 67 ; ) [1907] A. 0. 158 . . . . I [1901] W. N. 78 ; [1901] 1 ( K. B. 740 ( 0. A. [1904] W. N. 87 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 262 j P. C. [1910] A. C. 300 P. 0. [1910] A. C. 300 P. 0. [1903] A. 0. 524 0. A. [1905]; W. N. 146;) [1905] 2 K. B. 772 . . . . ( C. A. [1902] W. N. 218 ; [1903] IK. B. 81 .. .. .. [1906 0. A.' [1906 [1904' 1 Ch. 299 1904] 2 K. B. W. N. 16 W. N. 108; K. B. 332 563 i;i904]'2; [1903]' i: [1902] W. N. 200; Ch. 75 [1908] P. 355 .. C. A. [1909] W. N. 161; [1909] 2 K. B. 640 . . [1903] 2 K. B. 1 [1905] W. N. 149; [1906] 2 Oh. 633 [1904] 2 K B. 802; 0. A. [1905] W. N. 31 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 538 . C. A. [1904] W.N. 76; [19041 1 K. B. 838 . . [1909] W. N. 157 0. A. [1904] W. N. 27 ; [1904] lCh.416;H. L. (E.)[1905] W. N. 24; [1905]A 0. 84 [1901] 2 Oh. 401 C. A. [1904] W.N. 37; [1904] 1 K. B. 585 . , [1904] W. N. 194 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 16 . . -^ 2369 2624 2625 2030 1232 2442 611 1977 2330 817 723 1806 1806 324 225 1865 1538 1441 171 2149 2394 921 1586 1536 1533 1635 1581 336 2956 1087 210 1011 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST, Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest, Hancock, In re. Watson v. Watson. Han cock V. Watson Hancock & Co. v. Gillard . . . . . . j Hancock & James : — ^London County ) Council V. . . . . . . . . . . j Hand v. Blow . . Hand and Spear, The, Woking. In re Ashley's Staines Brewery Co, Handford v. Clarke (George), Ld. Handford v. George Clark & Co. Handley v. London, Edinburgh and Glasgow Assurance Co. Handman and Wilcox's Contract, In re Hands : — Monokton v. In re Swain Handsworth Urban Council : — Turner v. . Hanlstaengl v. W, H, Smith & Sons Hankey : — Rex v. Hankinson v. Hayter. In re Wheeler Hannah v. Hunter Hannen v. HiUyer. In re Davis Hanrahan v. Leigh-on-Sea Urban Council , Hansell : — Eaton v. . . Hansen : — Brookes v. . . Hansler v. Harris. In re Harris . . ,. Hanson v. Corporation of the Village of Grand Mere . . Hanson v. Waller Harbottle v. Roberts (Peel, Claimant) Harburg India Rubber Comb Co. v. Martin Hardcastle v. Ellis. Re Ellis Harden Star, Lavis and Sinclair Co., In re. Morris v. The Company Harding v. Bussell Harding : — Martin v. In re Gibbs Hardoon v. Belilios Hardwick v. Lane Hardy v. Att.-Gen. In re Mann Hardy : — ^PuUord v Hardy's Crown Brewery, Ld. and St. Philip'i Tavern, Manchester, Inre . . "Hare," The 246; .. I [1907] ij [1907] 2) 0. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 482 ; H. L. ) (E.) [1901] W. N ^4fi • ( [1902] A. C. 14 [1906] W. N. 194 ; K. B. 47 [1907] W. N. 88; K. B. 45 C, A. [1901] W. N, 140; [1901] 2 Ch, 271 . . [1906] 2 K, B. 754 . . C, A, [1906] W, N. 225; [1907] 1 E. B. 181 . . C, A. [1907] 2 K, B, 409 [1901] W. N. 226; [1902] 1 K. B. 350 C. A. [1902] W. N. 36 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 599 C. A. [1905] W. N. 61 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 669 [1909] W. N. 7 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 381 [1906] W. N. 36 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 519 [1905] 2 k. B. 687 '.'. '.'. [1904] W. N. 100; [1904] 2 Ch. 66 H. L. (Sc.)[1904] A. C. 379.. [1902] W. N. 66 ; [1902] 1 Ch, 876 [1909] W, N. 9 ; [1909] 1 K B. 263; 0. A. [1909] W. N. 107 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 257 . . [1904] W. N. 24 [1906] W. N. 87; [1906] 2 Ch. 129 [1909] W. N. 181 P. C. [1904] A. C. 789 [1901] 1 E. B. 390 C. A. [1905] W. N. 31 ; [1906] ] 1 E. B. 672 ( C. A. [1902] W. N. 62 ; [1902] ) 1 E. B. 778 j [1906] W. N. 137 [1903] W. N. 64 C. A. [1905] 2 E. B. 83 [1907] W.N. 64; [1907] 1 Ch. 466 P. C. [1901] A. C. 118 [1904] W. N. 12; [1904] 1 E. B. 204 [1902] W. N. 231; [1903] 1 Ch. 232 P. C. [1909] A. C. 570 [1910] W. N. 76; C. A, [1910] W, N, 103; [1910] 2 E. B. 257 [1904] P. 331 2881 1429 1514 1756 1431 75 1638 749 2373 365 2644 690 1771 1202 1179 371 270 1819 517 1410 297 1668 1288 1140 650 435 1274 2964 412 1130 363 327 1433 2496 TABLE OV CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Hare and O'More's Contract, Inre . . Hargreaves, In re. Hargreaves v. Hargreaves j Hargreaves, In re. Hick v. Hargreaves Hargreaves :— Paul v. . . Hargreaves v. Taylor. In re AUen . . Hargroves, Ai-onson & Co. v. Hartopp Harington v. SendaU . . , . Harington v. Watts. In re Good Harman v. Ainslie "Harmonides," The t Harness : — Major v. In re Oddy Harnett v. Crick Harney : — Minister of Mines v. Harper : — Cox v. Harper v. Kileys, Ld. J?i re Eileys, Ld. Harper : — Wilson v. . . Harper, In the Estate of Harper & Co. v. Vigors Brothers Harriman v. Harriman Harrington, In re. Wilder v. Turner Harrington v. Butt Harrington (Earl of) v. Derby Corporation Harrington v. Eamage . . Harris, In re. Hansler v. Harris Harris, In re. Leaoroft v. Harris . . Harris, In re. Ex p^-rte London County Council Harris v. Boots, Cash Chemists (Southern), Ld. Harris : — Butlin v. In re Beard's Trusts Harris : — Chesterfield (Lord) v. Harris v. Flower & Sons, Ld. . . Harris v. Hickman Harris v. Irvine Burgh Corporation Harris v. Perry & Co. . . Harris : — Shepherd v. . . Harris : — Wejner v. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. [1901] I Ch. 93 [1902] W. N. 18; C. A. [1903] W. N. 24, 28 [1901] 2 Oh. 547, n [1908] W. N. 109 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 289 [1905] W. N. 127 ; [1906] 2 Ch. ' 400 [1905] W.N. 18; [1905] IK. B. 472 [1903] W. N. 50 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 921 [1905] W'. N. 82; [1905] 2 Ch. 60 [1903] 2 K. B. 241 ; C. A. [1904] ' W. N. 67; [1904] 1 K. B. 698 [1902] W. N. 216 ; [1903] P. 1 ' 0. A. [1906] W. N. 5 ; [1906] ' 1 Oh. 93 P. 0. P. 0. 1908 1901 A. 0. 470 A. 0. 347 [1909]- W. N. 244 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 34 ; [1910] 1 Oh. 480 [1903] W. N. 135; [1903] 2 Oh. 590 [1908] W. N. 141 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 370 [1909] P. 88 . . [1909] 2 K. B. 549 C. A. [1909] W. N. 46 ; [1909] P. 123 [1908] W. N. 203; Ch. 687 [1905] P. 3, n... [1904] W. N. 210 : Oh. 205 [1908] 2 [1905] 1 1907 1909' 1909' W. N. 137 W. N. 181 2 Ch. 206 [1901] 1 Ch. 931 [1904] W. N. 141 ; [1904] 2 ) Ch. 376 , . . . 1 [1904] W. N. 18 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 270 J [1907] W. N. 253 ; [1908] 1 \ Oh. 230; C. A. [1908] W. N. ■ 159 ; [1908] 2 Oh. 397 1 [1904] W. N. 106 ; 0. A. [1904] ' W. N. 180 . . [1903] W. N. 188 ; [1904] i K. B. 13 Ot. of Sess. (Sc.) [1901] W. N. 182 . . 0. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 2i9 . . [1905] W. N. 108 ; [1905] 2 Oh. 310 ., .. [1909] W. N. 234; C. A. [1910] 1 E. B. 285 . . 2784 2888 2759 2872 352 1784 385 372 1388 2478 125 1790 137 1367 406 392 2053 2038 931 238 2057 2277 1990 1410 1011 1403 1378 2925 lOSo 2865 1382 2252 1783 2749 1065 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST, Name of Case. Volume and Pago. Column of Digest. Harrison v. Alliance Assurance Co. . . Harrison : — Carroll v. . . Harrison : — Corns v. In re Lambert Harrison : — Davies v. . . Harrison : — Davies v. In re Lewis . . Harrison v. Harrison . . Harrison v. Harrison . . Harrison v. Ligram, In re. Ex parte Whinney Harrison v. Isaac. In re Isaac Harrison: — Kelceyf. im re Peacock's Settle ment . . Harrison : — Kenny v. . . Harrison v. Kirk Harrison v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. Harrison v. Owner of New Street Mews Harrison : — Roberts v.. . Harrison : — Walters v. In re Wbitmore Harrison : — ^WilUam Cory & Son, Ld. v. Harrisson, In re Harrod : — Plaistow Working Men's Club Harrogate Corporation v. Dickinson. . Harrogate Corporation v. Maokay . . Harrogate Estates, Ld., In re Harrold v. Plenty Harrowby and Paine's Contract, In re Harse v. Pearl Life Assurance Co. . . Hart :— Biddle « Hart : — Bow v. . . Hart : — Ireland v. Hart:— KeUyi- Hart : — Lanark County Council v. . . Hart : — Minister of Public Works v. Hart V. Portbgain Harbour Co. Hart-Dyke:— Eke i; Hart & Co. :— Miciael v Hart's Trade Mark, In re H?^rtley v, Pend^,rves C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 184 [1910] W. N. 104 [1908] W. N. Ill ; [1908] 2 Cb. 117 [1909] W. N. BY; [1909] 2 K. B. 104 [1907] W. N, 138 ; [1907] 2 Cb. 296 [1901] W.N. 92; [1901] 2 Cb 136 [1909] W. N. 206; [1910] 1 K. B. 35 [1905] W. N. 143 1905] 1 Cb. 427 1902] W. N. 51 ; [1902] 1 Ob 552 [1902] 2 k. B. 168 .. H. L. (It.) [1903] W. N. 190 [1904] A. C. 1 C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 420, n. . [1906] W. N. 102; [1906] K. B. 703 [1909] W. N. 163 [1901] W. N. 146 ; C. A. [1902] ) 2 Oh. 66 j H. L. (E.) [1906] A. 0. 274 [1907] W. N. 245 ; [1908] Cb. 282 [1910] 1 K. B. 582 . . C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 468 [1907] W. N. 164; [1907] K. B. 611 [1903] W. N. 33 ; [1903] 1 Ob 498 [1901] W. N. 119; [1901] Oh. 314 [1902] W. N. 137 [1903] 2 K. B. 92 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 44 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 658 C.A.[1907] W. N. 34; [1907] 1 K. B. 649 [1904] 2 K. B. 693; 0. A. [1905] W. N. 25 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 692 [1902] W.N. 12 ; [1902] 1 Cb. ') 622 j P. 0. [1910] A. 0. 192 H. L. (So.) [1904] W. N. 66; [1904] A. C. 235 . P. C. [1904] A. C. 259 [1903] W. N. 41 ; [1903] 1 Cb. 690 0. A. [1910] W. N. 181 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 677 [1901] 2 K. B. 867 ; C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 482 [1902] W. N. 153; [1902] 2 Cb. 621 [1901] W. N. 158; [1901] 2 Ob. 498 36; I 1259 1854 2926 1445 2364 2984 1185 155 2940 1936 1617 282 1639 1524 1132 2901 2191 1637 1445 271 2851 445 560 1344 1256 1647 761 868 1800 2328 1794 276 1605 2623 2694 2392 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Hartley v. Quick Hartley v. EooMale Corporation Hartopp : — Hargroves, Aronson & Co. v. . . Hartopp : — Law Union and Crown Insurance Co. V. In re Farnham's Settlement " Harvest Home," The Harvey, In re. Harvey v. Harvey . . Harvey, In the Estate of Harvey and London County Council, Inre. . Harvey : — Lawson v. In re Eichards Harvey : — Oldroyd v. . . Harvey v. Hex . . Harvey v. Truro Eural Council Harvey's Claim. In re Hunt . . Harwood and Abrahams, Inre . . . . j Harwood Cash & Co. : — Fine Cotton Spinners' ) and Doublers' Association, Ld., and John > Cash & Sons, Ld. v. . . . . . . . . I Haskell G-olf Ball Co. v. Hutchison . . . . j Haskins : — Verrier v. In re Adams . . Haslam & Hier Evans, Inre . . -I Hasluok (Trustee in Bankruptcy of E. T. Eose) V. Eose . . Hastie v. Dayrell. In re Dayrell , . Hastie (John) & Co. v. Andrew Betts, Brown and Brown Bros. & Co. Hastings and St. Leonards Gas Co. : — Hastings Tramways Co. v, . . Hastings Bros. v. The Stenotyper, Ld. In re The Stenotyper, Ld. . . Hastings Corporation v. Letton Hastings Tramway Co. v. Hastings and St. Leonards Gas Co. Hatch : — Lidbetter v. . . . . , . . j Hathaway v. Argus Printing Co. Hatschek's Patents, In re. Ex parte Zerenner Hausmann :— Eex v. . . " Havana," The. Eichelieu and Ontario ) Navigation Co. v. Taylor . . . . , . ] " Haversham Grange," The . . Haviside, Ex parte. In re Button . . Hawes : — Bush v. Hawke v. Hulton (E.) & Co Hawke ; — Mackenzie v. Hawke v. Mackenzie (Nos. 1 and 2) . . Volume and Page. Column of Digest. C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 369 [1908] 2 K. B. 594 . . [1905] W. N. 18; [1905] 1 E. B. 472 C. A. [1904] W. N. 138 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 561 [19041 P. 409; C. A. [1905] P. 177 [1901] W. N. 124 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 290 [1907] W. N. 74 ; [1907] P. 239 [1909] W. N. 18 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 528 I [1901] W.N. 148; [1901] 2 Ch. \ 399 I [1907] p. 326 '.'. '.'. P. 0. [1901] A. C. 601 [1903] W. N. 126; [1903] 2) Ch. 638 j [1902] 2 Ch. 318. n 0. A. [1901] W. N. 118 ; [1901] 1 2 K. B. 304 j [1907] W. N. 127 ; [1907] 2 ) Ch. 184 j [1906] W. N. 34; [1906] 1 Ch. ) 518 ] [1906] W. N. 220 C. A. [1902] W. N. 63 ; C. A. ] [1902] 1 Oh. 765 . . . . I [1904] W. N. 152; [1904] 2 Ch. 348; 0. A. [1904] W. N. 199"; [1905] 1 Oh. 94 [1904] 2 Ch. 496 H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 72.. 0. A. [1906] W. N. 186 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 578 . . [1901] W. N. 4 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 260 [1907] W. N. 105 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 378 . . . 0. A. [1906] W. N. 186; [1906] 2 Oh. 578 . . [1907] W. N. 29 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 404 . . 0. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 96 [1909] 2 Oh. 68 0. 0. A. [1909] W. N. 198 . . P. 0. [1910] A. C. 170 C. A. [1905] P. 307 . [1907] W. N. 24; [1907] 1) K. B. 397; C. A. [1907] W.N. 85; [1907] 2 KB. 180 0. A. [1902] 1 K B. 216 [1909] W. N. 88 ; [19091 2 K. B. 93 . . -^ [1902] 2 K. B. 216 . . [1902] 2 K B. 225 . . 1692 2854 1784 2353 2516 1080 2065 1181 1055 2054 345 1171 1549 731 501 1873 2751 2586 1932 2928 1879 2713 612 696 2713 1009 2528 1893 798 293 2487 204 1591 1129 1126 1127 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Hawke V. Mackenzie (No. 3) Hawks : — Stoddart v. . . Hawkins : — ^Att.-Gen. v. Hawkins : — Cooper v. . . Hawkins v. Edwards . . Hawley v. Blake. In re Houghton Haworth : — Prince v. . . Hawthorn Corporation v. Kannuluik " Hawthornbank," The Hawtrey : — ^Molyneux v. Hay, In re. Kerr v. Stinnear Hay : — African Grold Eecovery Co. Haycock's, Ld. v. Mulholland Haydon v. Cartwright . . Hayes, In re. Turnbull v. Hayes Hayes (Rector, &o. of) v. Fulford Hayhoe : — Horan v. Hayles v. Sandown Urban Council Haylett v. Thompson . . Haylett v. Vigor & Co. Haynes v. Foster Hayter : — Hankinson v. In re Wheeler Hayward, In re. Tweedie v. Hayward Hayward v. Att.-Gen. In re Waring Hayward v. Hamilton. In re Jordan Hayward : — Jelks v. (Hackney Fumi Co., Claimants) Hazeldine : ishing Hazeldine's Trusts, In re Headland v. Coster Health (Life and) Assurance Association Ld., In re Heat (Continental) and Light Co. : — La Compagnie HydrauliquedeSt. Fran9ois v. Heat (Montreal Light) and Power Co. Sedgwick Heath, In re. Heath v. Widgeon Heath v. Chinn . . Heath v. Deane Heath : — Tannenbaum & Co. v. Heath Laundry Co. : — Simmons v. [1902" [1901" 2 K. B. 234 . . W. N. 219; [1902] 1 K. B. 363 . . 1901] 1 K. B. 285 . . 1904] 2 K B. 164 . . 1901] W. N. 88 ; [1901] 2K. B 169 [1904] W. N. 54 ; [1904] 1 Ch 622 [1905] 2 K. B. 768 . . P. C. [1906] A. C. 105 [1904] P. 120 . . C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 487 [1904] 1 Ch. 317 P. C. [1904] A. 0. 438 [1904] 1 K. B. 145 . . C. A. [1902] W. N. 163 C. A. [1901] W. N. 175 ; [1901] ) 2 Ch. 529 [1910] P. 18 [1904] W. N. 14; [1904] K. B. 288 [1903] 1 K. B. 169 . . [1910] W. N. 227 C. A. [1908] W. N. 197 [1908] 2 K. B. 837 . . [1901] W. N. 22 ; [1901] 1 Oh 361 [1904] W. N. 100; [1904] 2 Ch. 66 [1901] W. N. 6 ; [1901] 1 Ch 221 [1906] W. N. 214; [1907] Oh. 166 [1904] W. N. 7 ; [1904] 1 Ch 260 [1905] 2 E. B. 460 . . [1904] W. N. 112 ; [1904] 2 : Ch. 17 [1907] W. N. 93 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 686; C.A.[1907]W.N. 218; C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 34 0. A. [1905] W. N. 2 ; [1905] 1 ' K. B. 219; H.L.(B.) [1906] W. N. 76 ; [1906] A. C. 286 [1910] W. N. 45 ; [1910] 1 ' Ch. 458 P. 0. [1909] A. C. 194 P. 0. [1910] A. C. 598 [1907] W. N. 127 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 270 [1908] W. N. 120 [1905] W. N. 74; [1905] 2 Ch. 86 0. A. [1908] 1 K B. 1032 . 0. A. [1910] W. N. 59 [1910] 1 K. B. 543 . . :1 1327 1128 2216 1158 1145 1050 659 2833 2497 2801 2892 2721 728 74 1953 996 2255 2633 2568 1623 1011 1202 1056 373 1977 757 1461 1473 2142 1258 302 304 1291 1734 395 898 1657 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Heatltcote, In re. Heathcote v. Trench Heather, In re. Pumfrey v. Fryer . . Heather :— Worthing Corporation v. . . " Heather Bell," The Heaton v. Beachey. In re Beachey . Heaton v. Goldney Heaver v. Fulham Borough Council . . Hebburn Urban Council v. Hedworth, Monk- \ ton and Jarrow United District School [ Board . . . . . . . . . . . . j Hedges : — Elms v. Hedland v. Coster. See Headland v. Coster, Hedley v. Webb Hedworth, Monkton and Jarrow United Dis- j trict School Board : — Hebburn Urban > Council V. . . . . . . . . . . ) Heerman (Emil), In the Estate of . . Hellicar : — Powell v. . . Hellwig V. Mitchell Helyar, In re. Helyar v. Beckett , . Hematite (Moss Bay) Iron and Steel Co. Aanie McLean Hemchand Devchand v. Azam Sakarlal Chhotamlal . . Hemmings v. Sceptre Life Association, Ld, Hemphill's Settlement, In re. Hemphill v. Hemphill. In re Chisholm's Settlement Hemsley : — Powell v. . . Hemsworth (South Kirkby), &c., Collieries Ld. : — Tates v. Henderson v. Arthur . . Henderson : — Sachs v. Henderson's Patent, In re Henderson's Transvaal Estates, Ld. : — BiS' good V. Henderson's Transvaal Estates, Ld. :— Thomson v. . . Hendry (Simpson or) : — United Collieries Ld. V. . . Henly : — Oxford (Bishop of) v. Henly (No. 2) :^Oxford (Bishop of) v. Hennell: — Hornsey Urban District Council v. Hennen v. Southern Counties Dairies Co. , Ld, Pearks, Gunston & Tee, Ld. o. Ward Henry, In re. Gordon v. Gordon . . Henry :— Kxell v. [1904] W. N. 79 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 826 [1906] W. N. 113 ; [1906] Ch. 230 [1906] W. N. 172; [1906] Ch. 632 [1901] W. N. 66; [1901] P. 143; C. A. [1901] P. 272.. C. A. [1903] W.N. 206; C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 67 C. A. [1910] W. N. 92 ; [1910] 1 K B. 754 . . [1904] 2 K B. 383 . . [1904] W. N. 38 [1906] W. N. 114 [1901] W.N. 77; [1901] 2 Ch. 126 [1904] W. N. 38 'i [i9io; [1910" [1904; p. 357 [1903] W. N. 154 1 K B. 609 . . W. N. 249 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 391 H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 102.. P. 0. [1906] A. 0. 212 [1906] W. N. 16 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 365 [1901] 2 Ch. 82 [1909] W. N. 61 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 680; 0. A. [1909] W. N. 141 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 252 C. A. [1910] W. N. 174; [1910] 2 K. B. 538 C. A. [1906] W. N. 207 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 10 0. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 612 P. C. [1901] A. 0. 616 [1908] W. N. 69 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 96; [1908] 1 Ch. 743 . . C. A. [1908] W.N. 105; [1908] 1 Ch. 766 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 146; [1909] A. C. 383 . . 1907] W. N. 12 ; [1907] P. 88 1909] P. 319 . . 1902] 2 K. B. 73 1902] W. N. 88; [1902] 2 K. B. 1 [1906] W. N. 199 ; [1907] i Ch. 30 0. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 740 11 2885 1417 2530 1763 895 2425 2312 751 2432 2312 25 713 879 2362 1598 1217 1262 1945 777 1625 1366 738 1889 563 610 1596 980 981 264 45 2345 661 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Gxxxix Name of Case, Henry Leetham & Sons, Ld. o. Johnstone- WMte , Henson, In re. Chester v. Henson . . Hepple : — Tati Concessions, Ld. v. . . Herbert v. Preshfield. In re Llanover's (Baroness) Will Herbert v. FresMeld (No. 2). In re Baxoness Llanover Herbert v. McQuade . . Herbert : — Phillimore v. In re Phillimore Herbert v. Earn. In re Baroness Llanover Herbert Eeeves & Co., Inre . . Herbert Smith & Co. :— Bowden's (E. M. Patents Syndicate, Ld. v. . . Herdmau v, Fewster. In re Fewster Herdman v. Wheeler . . Herefordshire County Council : — Coats v. Hermann v. Charlesworth Herne Bay Steamboat Co. v. Hufcton Heme Bay Urban Council v. Payne and Wood Herring, In re. Murray v. Herring , . Herring v. Geen . , , . Hertford Union : — New Eiver Co. v. Hertfordshire County Council v. Barnet Eural District Council Hertfordshire County Council v. Great Eastern Ey. Co. Hertfordshire County Council u. New Eiver Co Herts and Essex Waterworks Co., In re Herts : — Hooper v. . . ., , , Hertslet v. Oatway. In re Oatway . . Hesketh, Ex parte. In re Southport and Lytham Tramroads Act, 1900 Hesketh : — ^Pitzmaurioe v. Hesketh : — Groh v. , . , . . . . . ■ Heslop V. !5iCidster of Mines for New Zealand Volume and Page. 1906] W. N. Ill; [1907] 1 ■ Ch. 189; C. A. [1907] W.N. 20; [1907] 1 Oh. 322 1908] W. N. 138; [1908] 2') Ch. 356 ] P. 0. [1905] A. C. 139 '1902] W. N. 149 ; [1902] 2 ■ Ch. 679 ; 0. A. [1903] W. N. 62 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 16 1903] W. N. Ill ; [1903] 2 Ch. ') 330 i 1901] 2 K B. 761; C. A.\ [1902] W. N. 140 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 631 ) 1903] W.N. 83; [1903] 1 Oh 942 1907] 1 Ch. 635 C. A. [1901] W. N. 213 ; [1902] ) 1 Ch. 29 ] 1904] W. N. 106; [1904] 2 Oh. 86 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 133 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 122 . . 1901] W. N. 17 ; [1901] 1 Ch. ) 447 ( 1901] W. N. 251; [1902] 1 ) K. B. 361 j 1909] W. N. 129; C. A. [1909] ) 2 Ch. 579 j 1904] W. N. 195; [1905] 1) ■ K. B. 24 ; C. A. [1905] W. N. 61 ; [1905] 2 K B. 123 ) C. A. [1903] W. N. 150 ; [1903] ) 2 K. B. 683 i 1907] W. N. 104; [1907] 2 K. B. 130 ( 1908] W. N. 153 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 493 0. A. [1904] W. N. 202 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 152 . . . . • . , 1901] 2 K. B. 620; 0. A. [1902] 2 K B. 597 . . C. A. [1902] 2 KB. 48 1909] 1 K B. 368 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 124 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 403 1904] W. N. 158 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 613 1909] W. N. 48 . , D. A. [1906] W. N. 38 ; [1906] \ 1 Ch. 549 ] 1903] 2 Ch. 356 C. A. [1910] W. N. 256 1904] A. 0. 266 1907] W. N. 113; [1907] 2\ K. B. 232 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 27 ; [1908] IK. B. ( 654 .. ... .. ..; P. C. [1904] A. 0. 781 cxl TABLE OF CASES IN TEE DIGEST. Name of Case. ■1 Hetley, In re. Hetley v. Hetley . . Hewett : — Kitton v. Hewitt V. " Duchess " (Owners of Ship) . . j Hewling v. Graham . . Heydenrych : — Standard Bank of South \ Africa, Ld. v. . . . . . . . . . . j Haywood : — Brown v. In re Dunster . . j Heyworth : — Bellerhy v. .. . . . . I Hlbbard : — Church's Trustee v. . . . . } "Hibernian," The Hick V. Hargreaves. In re Hargreaves Hickman : — Harris v. . . Hickman : — Thompson v. Hickson : — Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik Higgins : — Bartlett v. . . Higgins V. Betts Higgins V. Campbell & Harrison, Ld. Turvey V. Brintons, Ld. Higgins V. Dawson Higgins V. Higgins." Higgins v. King's Proctor . . . . . . . . ' Higgs V. The Company. In re Kitson Empire Lighting Co. Highett and Bird's Contract, In re . . Highton : — Caddick v. . . Hilder v. Dexter . . . . . . . . j Hilder v. Wilcox & Co. hi re Wilcox & Co. Hildesheimer v. Faulkner (W. & F.), Ld. . , { Hill, In re. Hill v. Hill Hill V. Begg . . . . . . . . . . j Hill : — Buchanan v. In re Bilham . . . . j Hill V. Cliflord. Clifford. ■;;. Timms. Olif- j ford V. Phillips . . . . . . . . ) Volume and Page. [1902] W. N. 154; [1902] 2 Ch. 866 [1904] W. N. 21 C. A. [1 910] W. N. 49 ; 11910] ) 1 K B. 772 j [1901] W. N. 81 P. C. [1907] A. C. 336 [1908] W. N. 223; [1909] 1 i Oh. 103 ( 0. A. [1909] W. N. 126; [1909] 2 Ch. 23 ; H. L. (E.) I [1910] W. N. 102 ; [1910] ( A. 0. 377 ; [1902] W. N. 160; [1902] / W. N. 192 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 784 ( 0. A. [1907] P. 277 . . [1901] 2 Ch. 547, n. . . [1903] W. N. 188 ; [1904] 1 ) K B. 13 . . ( [1907] W. N. 55 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 560 . . C. A. [1905] W. N. 135; [1905] 2 Ch. 495 ; H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 134; [1906] A. 0. 419 . . 0. A. [1901] W. N. 84 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 230 . . [1905] W. N. 104; [1905] 2 Ch. 210 C. A. [1904] W. N. 5 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 328; H. L. :(E.) [1905] W. N. 72; [1905] A. 0. 230 . . H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 234 ; H. L. (E.) [1902] A. 0. 1 . . [1909] W. N. 214; [1910] P. 1 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 50; [1910] P. 151 . [1910] W. N. 154 [1902] W. N. 69 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 214 ; 0. A. [1903] W. N. 6 ■ [1903] 1 Ch. 287 . . [1901] 2 Ch. 476, n. . H.L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 156; [1902] A. C. 474 , [1903] W. N. 64 0. A. [1901] W.N. 171; [1901] 2 Oh. 552 -^ [1902] W. N. 26 ; [1902] 1 Oh'. 5B7; C. A. [1902] W.N. 72- [1902] 1 Ch. 807 C. A. [1908] W. N. 151; [1908] 2 K B. 802 [1901] W. N. 81 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 169 .. -' C.A.[1907]W.N. 149 ; [1907] 2Ch.236;H.L.(E.)[1907] W.N. 243.; [1908] A. 0.12 Column of Digest. 2955, 2998 2813 1641 342 333 2900 882 126 2454 2759 1382 2803 1880 740 1461 1604 2942, 2969 924 435 2818 2818 569 433 691 1150 1657 2984 881 TABLE OF CASES! IN THE DIGEST. cxli Name of Case. Hill : — Davidsson v. .. Hill V. Fearis . . Hill V. Fladgate. In re Page mil i;. HUl Hill : — HoUoway Brothers, Ld. v. Hill : — Law TJnion and Crown Insurance ) Co. V. . . Hill : — Merttens v. Hill V. Pannifer HiU. : — Eobinson v. Hill: — Stacey II. Hill :— Stokes v. Hill V. Withall. In re Eawlinson Hill (Norton) OoUiery Co. :— Gane ffiU (Peak) Goldfield, Ld., Ex parte. In re a Debtor Hills V. Archer . . Hills : — Hopkins v. Hills : — London and South -Western Ey. Qo.v. Hills : — Public Works Commissioner v. Hillyer : — Hannen v. In re Davis . . Hillyer v. St. Bartholomew's Hospital (Governors of) Hilton, In re. Gibbes v. Hale-Hinton Hinohlifi : — Meyding v. In re Turner Hincholiffe : — London and North Western Ey. Co. V. Hinde : — Davey v. Hinde ; — Davey v. Hinds V. Buenos Ayres Grand National Tramways Co. Hingeston v. Sidney. In re Sidney. . Hinton, In re. Gibbs v. Hale-Hinton Hippisley ■;;. Knee Brothers . . Hiram Maxim Lamp Co., In re Hird : — PeppereU v Hirst V. West Eiding Union Banking Co. . Hirst & Capes, In re. Hirst & Capes v Fox . . Volume and Page. [1901] W. N. 137 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 606 [1905] W. N. 12 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 466 C. A. [1910] W. N. 50; [1910] 1 Ch. 489 . . [1902] P. 140 [1902] W. N. 149 ; [1902] 2 Oh. 612 H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 80; [1902] A. C. 263 . . [1901] W. N. 47 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 842 [1904] 1 K. B. 811 . . [1909] W. N. 206 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 94 C. A. [1901] W. N. 51 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 660 [1901] W. N. 30; [1901] 1 K. B. 493 [1909] 2 Oh. 36 C. A. [1909] W.N. 140 ; [1909] 2 K B. 539 C. A. [1909] W. N. 5 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 430 [1904] W. N. 113 [1910] W. N. 98; [1910] 2 K. B. 29 [1906] W. N. 60 ; [1906] 1 ' K. B. 512 P. 0. [1906] A. C. 368 [1902] W.N. 56; [1902] 1 Ch. 876 0. A. [1909] W. N. 188 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 820 [1909] W. N. 180; [1909] 2 Ch. 548 [1906] W. N. 27 ■ . . [1903] 2 K. B. 32 1901] P. 95 1903] P. 221 1906] W. N. 187 ; [1906] 2 ■ Oh. 654 [1907] W. N. 219 ; [1908] 1 ' Oh. 126; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 37 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 488 [1909] W. N. 180; [1909] 2' (. li. 548 [l&oi] W. N. 186; [1905] 1 K. B. 1 [1902] W. N. 199; [1903] 1 Ch. 70 [1902] W. N. 17 ; [1902] 1 Oh. ' 477 0. A. [1901] W. N. 135 ; [1901] 2 K B. 560 0. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 982 ; H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 171; [1908] A. 0. 416 . . Column of Digest. 1780 1863 83 1194 1396 2977 1566 913 1674 174. 1702 2938 1583 221 1854 1718 1543 334 371 1176 1176 1037 2124 993 995 419 357 2937 2037 584 2011 278 2601 cxlii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Hiscock, In the Goods of Hiscock V. Lodder. In re Churchill Hisooe, In re. Hisooe v. Waits Hitchins (Stark and) : — Stark v. Ho Fung Hang : — Chan Ket San v. . . Ho Tung V. Man On Insurance Co. . . Hoade : — Nigel Gold Mining Co. v. . . Hoare : — Mile End Guardians v. Hoare v. Eitchie & Son Hoare v.' Robert Green, Ld. . . Hoare v. W. Tasker & Sons, Ld. In re W Tasker & Sons, Ld. . . Hoare & Co. v. Morshead Hoare & Co., Limited and Reduced, In re Hoare & Co., Limited, " and Reduced," In Hobbs : — Cook v. Hobbs: — International Tea Stores Co. v. Hobbs : — Langridge v. . . Hobbs V. Morey . . Hobbs V. Winchester Corporation Hobson V. Pattenden & Co. . . Hobson ; — Sanders v. In re Rhodes Hoddell V. Parker Hoddinott v. Newton, Chambers & Co. Hodgson V. Accles, Ld. In re Accles, Ld. Hodgson V. Bates. In re Bates Hodgson V. Braisby. In re Jaques . . Hodgson V. Hodgson . . Hodgson V. Owners of West Stanley Colliery Hodgson : — Shaipe v. In re Pimm . . Hodgson : — Peter Walker & Son, Ld. v. Hodgson Roberts v. Hodgson Roberts Hodgson's Kingston Brewery Co. : — Gard- ner V. . . Hodkinson : — Tromans v. Hodson V. Deans Hodson V. Railway Passengers' Assurance Co. Hofiman v. A. Boynton, Ld. Iji re A. Boynton, Ld. . . HofEman Manufacturing Co. : — Young v. . . j Hpgg V. Hogg. In reMagheramorne's (Lord) ' Settlement Volume and Page. [1901] P. 78 [1909] W. N. 178; [1909] 2 Oh. 431 [1902] W. N. 49, 54 . . C. A. [1910] P. 190 . . P. C. [1902] A. C. 257 P. C. [1902] A. C. 232 [1901] 2 K B. 849 , . [1903] W. N. 136; [1903] 2 E. B. 483 [1901] W. N. 18; [1901] 1 K. B. 434 [1907] 2 K. B. 315 . . [1905] 1 Oh. 283 ; C. A. [1905] W. N. 135 ; [1905] 2 Oh. 587 0. A. [1903] W. N. 139 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 359 C. A. [1904] W. N. 123 ; [1904] 2 Oh. 208 . . 1910] W. N. 87 1910] W. N. 219 1903] W. N. 82 ; [1903] 2 Ch, 165 [1901] W. N. 30; [1901] K B. 497 . . [1904] 1 K. B. 74 [1910] 2 K. B. 46 ; 0. A. [1910] W. N. 162 ; [1910] 2 K. B, 471 1903] 2 K. B. 760, n. 1909] 1 Ch. 815 1910] W. N. 146; [1910] 2 K. B. 323 . . H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 49 [1902] W. N. 164 [1906] W. N. 191; [1907] Oh. 22 0. A. [1902] W. N. 228 ; [1903] 1 Oh. 267 [1905] P. 233 H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 67 [1910] A. 0. 229 . . [1904] W. N. 135; [1904] Ch. 345 C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 239 [1906] P. 142 C. A. [1901] W. N. 69 ; [1901] 2 Oh. 198; H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 92 ; [1903] A. 0. 229 [1902] W. N. 204; [1903] 1 K. B. 30 [1903] W. N. 130 ; [1903] 2 Oh. 647 C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 833 [1910] W. N. 43; [1910] 1 Ch. 519 . . . . . . 0. A. [1907] W.N. 174; [1907] 2 K. B. 646 . . . . . . [1901] W. N. 152 Column of Digest. 2064 2933 66 1175 1244 1665 1668 1067 449 80 548 542 2200 2868 2779 697 1494 662 2356 1158 1634 446 2937 2887 929 1603 2990 877 959 2868 1130 1761 2008 525 1671 1282 TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. cxli I^ame of Case. Hogner's Patent, In re. Ex parte Braulik. ' In re Bremer's Patent. Ex -parte Braulik " HolienzoUern," The "Holar/'The Holbeach Union : — ^West Ham Union v. . . • Holden : — Att.-Gen. v. Holden v. Thompson . . Holder v. Williams. In re Williams Hole, In re. Davies v. Witts Hole V. Bethune. In re James Hole : — SadgroYO v. . . Holford : — Salaman v.. . Holland, In re. Brettell v. Holland Holland, In re. Gregg v. Holland Holland v. Bennett Holland : — Ideal Bedding Co. -u. Holland : — Sarpy v HoUard : — Taylor v. . . Holliday & Greenwood, Ld. : — Sharman v. . HoUingsworth v. Davy. In re Davy Hollingsworth :— -Goldstein v. Hollinshead v. Coley. In re Coley HoUinshead : — Nash v. HoHis V. Young HoUiweH v. Seacombe , . HoUoway and Howard :— Skipper and Tucker j Holloway : — ^Abbott v.. . HoUoway: — Daimcey i'. HoUoway Brothers, Ld. v. Hill Holmes, In re. Ex parte Ashworth . . Holm.es v. Holmes. In re Moon Holmes : — Parry v. In re Richardson Holsey : — Sheringham Urban District Couu' cil v. . i Volume ani Page. [1909] 2 Oh. 217 [19061 [1901" [1903" W.N. 184; [1906] P. 339 P. 7 2 K. B. 627 ; 0. A. \ [1904] W. N. 91 ; [1904] 2 ( KB. 121; H. L. (E.)[1905] ( W. N. 134 ; [1905] A. 0. 450 ] [1903] 1 K. B. 832 . . [1907] W. N. 129; [1907] 2) K. B. 489 ] [1903] W. N. 199 ; [1904] 1 \ Ch. 52 ) [1905] W. N. 109 ; [1905] 2 ' Oh. 384; C. A, [1906] W.N. 66 ; [1906] 1 Oh. 673 [1909] W. N. 236 ; [1910] 1 ) Ch. 157 j C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 1 [1909] W. N. 110; [1909] 2\ Ch. 64; 0. A. [1909] ( W. N. 198 ; [1909] 2 Ch. ( 602 ; [1907] W. N. 120; [1907] 2 Ch. 88 [1901] W. N. 72 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 145; C. A. [1902] W.N. 90; [1902] 2 Ch. 360 . . C. A. [1902] W. N. 76 ; [1902] IK. B. 867 [1907] W. N. 117 ; [1907] 2 Oh. 157 .. .. .. [1908] W. N. 19 ; [1908] 1 Oh. 443; 0. A. [1908] W.N. 126; [1908] 2 Oh. 198 . . [1902] 1 K. B. 676 . . 0. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 235 0. A. [1907] W. N. 210; [1908] ) 1 Ch. 61 I [1904] 2 K. B. 578 . . C. A. [1903] W. N. 86 ; [1903] ) 2 Oh. 102 } C. A. [1901] W. N. 64; [1901] i ■! 230; [1910] 2^ C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 700 [1909] 1 K. B. 629 . . [1906] W. N. 21 ; [1906] Oh. 426 [1909] W. N. K. B. 630 W.N. 74 '.. [1904] W. N. 124 0. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 441 [1902] W. N. 149; [1902] Ch. 612 [1908] 2 K B. 812 . . [1907] W. N. 154; [1907] Oh. 304 [1904] 1 Ch. 332 [1904] W. N. 83 'i Column of Digest. 1891 2657 2836 1927 2218 1560 38 2221 1945 1945 1387 1858 1112 1998 nil 686 1475 1632 2890 1070 3007 1619 255 2812 114 1463 879 1396 176 35 850 2726 cxliv TABLE OF CASES IK THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Holswortliy Urban Council v. Holsworthy | Eural Council . . . . . . . . ) Holsworthy Eural Council : — Holsworthy ) Urban Council u. . . . . . . . . \ Holt : — Wren v. Holwell Iron Co. v. Midland Ey. Co. Home and Colonial Stores, Ld. : — Colls v. Home Brewery Co. : — Palethorpe v. . . Home (Earl of) v. Lord Belhaven and Stenton Home Insurance Co. of New York v. Victoria-Montreal Fire Insurance Co. Homer : — British Mutoscope and Biograph Co. V. . . Honley Urban Council : — Eastwood Brothers V » Honywood v. Honywood Honywood v. Honj'wood Hood and West Ham Corporation Act, 1902, In re Hood (Lady) of Avalon v. Maokinnon Hood-Barrs : — Edwards v. Hooke : — Stuckey v. . . Hoole V. Speak . . Hooper v. Herts Hooson : — Lister v. Hooton V. Dalby Hope V. Ereeman. In re Freeman . . . . j Hope : — Galloway v. In re Jump . . , . j Hope V. Hope . . Hope-Edwardes : — Blaokburne v. Hope Johnstone, In re. Hope Johnstone v. ] Hope Johnstone . . . , . . . . j Hope Vers (I. C.) v. Guillemin or Hope ( Vere . . . . . . . . . . . . j Hoper : — Copestake v. . . . . . . | Hopkins : — Elwes v. . . Hopkins v. Gudgeon . . Hopkins v. Hills . . . . , . . . j Hopkins : — Tough v. . . Hopkinson v. Carter. In re Hailstone . . } [1907] W. N. 103 ; [1907] 2 ) Ch. 62 ] [1907] W. N. 103 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 62 ] C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 610 . . [1909] 1 K. B. 486 ; C. A. [1910] 1 K B. 296 . . C. A. [1902] W. N. 3 ; [1902] ) lCh.302; H. L. (E.) [1904] W.N. 96; [1904] A. C. 179J C. A. [1906] W. N. 96 ; [1906] ) 2 K. B. 5 ] H. L. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 104 ; [1903] A. C. 327 . . ..] P. C. [1907] A. C. 59.. [1901] W.N. 24; [1901] 1 Ch. 761 C. A. [1901] W.N. 38; [1901] 1 Ch. 645 [1902] W. N. 4 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 347 [1903] W.N. 72; C. A. [1903] W. N. 186, 190 [1910] W. N. 80 [1909] W. N. 38 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 476 [1904] W. N. 204 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 20 C. A. [1906] W. N. 95 ; [19061 2 K. B. 20 [1904] W. N. 145; [1904] 2 Ch. 732 C. A. [1906] W. N. 38 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 549 . . 0. A. [1907] W. N. 260 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 174 . . 0. A. [1907] W. N. 87 ; [1907] 2 K B. 18 . . [1910] W. N. 6 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 93 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 681 [1902] W. N. 202; [1903] 1 Ch. 129 0. A. [190r [1904' 470" 1902] W. N. 4, 23 1 Ch. 419 W. N. 54 ; [1904] 1 Ch. H. L. (So.) [1907] W. N. 187 [1907] W. N. 43 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 366; C. A. [1908] W. N. 129 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 10 [1906] 2 K B. 1 [1906] 1 K. B. 690 [1910] W. N. 98; [1910] 2 KB. 29 . [1904] 1 K. B. 804 C. A. [1909] W. N. 58 ; [1909] P. 118 -^ 1488 1488 2295 2132 1460 1376 2331 304 912 2431 2418 2916 1406 1946 2766 1069 512 567 220 892 2970 1956 73.1 2182 2396 1190 1151 1768 251 1718 1828 2068 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. cxlv Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Hopkinson v. Chamberlain . . . . Hopkinson ; — Cyclists' Touring Club v. . . j Hopkinson : — Noblett v. "Hopper No. 21," The " Hopper No. 66," The Hopper Barge " H. No. 1 " : — Owners of the ] Lightship " Comet " 1'. Hopwood : — Ounard Steamship Co. v. Horan v. Hayhoe Hordem v. Hordern Hordern v. Hordem Horn : — Chaytor v. In re Ohaytor . . Horn V. Lords Commissioners of the ) Admiralty Home, In re. Wilson v. Cox Sinclair Home : — Quinion v. . . . . j Home V. Struben Home (W. C.) & Sons, Ld., In re. Home v. } Home (W. C.) & Sons, Ld ) Homer v. Franklin Homer v. Stepney Assessment Committee . . Hornsey Corporation v. Birkbeck Freehold Land Society . . Hornsey Urban Council : — Collins v. Hornsey Urban District Council v. Hennell Horse (International) Agency and Exchange, ) Ld. : — Weatherby & Sons v. . . . . j HorsnaiU, In re. Womersley v. Horsnaill j Horst (E. Clemens) Co. : — Biddell Brothers v. Horton v. Oolwyn Bay District Council Horton v. Penn Hosegood & Sons v. Wilson Hoskins : — Dicksee v. . . Hoskins :— Stone v. . . Hospital (Belgrave) : — Att.-Gen. v Hospital (Governors of St. Thomas's) d. Bichardson . . Hospital (Weir), In re Hotham, In re. Hotham v. Doughty Houghton, In re. Hawley v. Blake D.D. [1908] W. N. 108; [1908] 1 Ch. 853 [1909] W. N. 260; [1910] I Ch. 179 1905 1903 1906' 2 K. B. 214 W. N. 114 P. 34; G. A. [1907] ) P. 254; H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 126 ) H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 274 [1908] W. N. 182; [1908] 2) Ch. 564 I [1904] W. N. 14; [1904] 1 1 K. B. 288 j P. C. [1909] A. C. 210 P. C. [1910] A. C. 465 [1904] W. N. 195 ; [1905] 1 ) Ch. 233 \ C. A. [1910] W. N. 242 [1904] W. N. 195 ; [1906] 1 ) Oh. 76 j [1906] W. N. 44 ; [1906] 1 Oh. } 596 . . , j P. 0. [1902] A. 0. 454 [1906] W. N. 5 ; [1906] 1 Ch. ) 271 I [1904] 2 K. B. 877; 0. A.) [1905] W. N. 20 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 479 [1908; W. N. 101 [1906] W. N. 59 ; [1906] 1 ' K B. 521 1901] 2 K. B. 180 1902] 2 K B. 73 1910] W. N. 158 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 297 [1909] W.N. 74; [1909] 1 Oh. 631 [1910] W. N. 238 [1906] W. N. 210; [1907] 1 K B. 14; 0. A. [1908] W.N. 8; [1908] 1 K. B. 327 [1907] 1 K. B. 561 . . C. A. [1910] W. N. 242 [1901] W. N. 94; [1901] 2 K. B. 122 ; C. A. [1901] 2 E. B. 660 [1906] P. 194 [1910] 1 Ch. 73 . . . . C. A. [1910] 1 K B. 271 [1910] W. N. 82 ; 0. A. [1910] ) W. N. 152 ; [1910] 2 Oh. 124 ( [1901] W. N. 209; [1901] 2' Oh. 790; C. A. [1902] W. N. 148 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 575 [1904] W. N. 64 ; [1904] 1 Ch. ) 622 j 2790 504 1447 2541 2624 2614 . 439 2265 1801 1797 2934 1595 2763 2785 332 414 1068 1068 2638 2638 2641 687 2973 2288 620 1429 1629 1508 2063 361 1374 367 2365 lOoO cxlvi TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Houghton V. Andrews . . Houghton V. Houghton Houghton : — Pearks, Gunston & Tee, Ld. v. Houghton V. Sutton Heath and Lea Green ) OoUieries Co. . . . . . . j Houghton Main Colliery Co., Ld. : — Eyre v. Houlder v. Weir Houlder Brothers & Co. : — Boulton v. Houlder Brothers & Co. r. Commissioner of \ . Public Works. Commissioner of Public , Works 1'. Houlder Brothers & Co. . . ) Houlder Brothers & Co. v. Compania San- )' sinena de Carues Congeladas . . . . ) Houlder Line, Ld. : — Anglo- Algerian Steam- ) ship Co. V. . . . . . . . . i Houlder Line, Ld. : — Griffin ;■. . . . . I HouldsTvorth : — Gordon Gumming v. . . j Houldsworth : — Hlingworth v. . . . . Houldsworth v. Yorkshire Woolcombers' ] Association, Ld. In re Yorkshire Wool- ! combers' Association, Ld. . . . . . . ' Hounsell v. Dunning . . . . . . . j Houston and KilleUan Parish and Glasgow ) Parish : — Kiluialcolm Parish v. . . . . j Houston: — Alston v. In re Alston . . Houston : — Brown v. . . Houston (John) & Co. : — Hamlyn v. Houston's Settlement, In re. Sparkes v. Hutchell How V. Winterton How 1'. Winterton (Earl) Howard v. Lightfoot. In re Lacey . . Howard v. Press Printers, Ld. Howard : — Eex p. Howard : —Taylor r. In re Howard Howarth, In re. Howarth v. Makinson Howarth : — Williams v. Howatson v. Webb Howden !■. Yorkshire Miners' Association . . Howe, In re. Ferniehough t'. Wilkinson . . Howe, In re. Wilkinson v. Ferniehough , . Volume and Page. [1905' [1903' [1902' 1 K. B. 503, n. P. 150 . . 1 K. B. 889 51;) C. A. ^:! C. A. [1901] 1 K B. 93 C. A. [1910] W. N. [1910] 1 K B. 695 . . [1905] 2 K. B. 267 C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 784 P. C. [1908] A. C. 276 [1910] W. N. 150 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 354.. [1908] 1 K. B. 659 . . C. A. [1904] W. N. 44 ; [1904] \ 1 E. B. 510 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 72 ; [1905] A. c. 220 ; H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 185; 1 [1910] A. C. 537 . . j H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 138; ] [1904] A. C. 365 . . . . ( C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 284 [1902] W. N. 11; [1902] 1 Ch. 512 H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W.N. 117; I [1906] A. C. 344 . . j [1901] 2 Ch. 584 C. A. [1901] 2 K B. 855 [1902] W. N. 218 ; C. A. [1903] i 1 K. B. 81 . . . . . . j [1903] W. N. 187 [1902] W. N. 230 [1904] W. N. 204 [1906] W. N. 213 ; C. A. [1907] ) W. N. 36 (Addendum), 42 ; ' [1907] 1 Ch. 330 . . .S [1904] W. N. 182 ; C. A. [1904] | W. N. 198 . . ] 0. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 363 [1901] W. N. 15 ; [1901] 1 Ch. ) 412 .. .. [1909]W. N. 30; [1909] 1 Ch. I 485; C. A. [1909] W. N. 116; [1909] 2 Ch. 19 P. C. [1905] A. C. 551 [1907] W.N. 62; [1907] 1 Ch. 537; C. A. [1907] W. N. 211 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 1 C. A. [1903] W. N. 17 ; [1903] 1 K B. 308; H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 72 ; [1905] A. C. 266 . . [1908] W. N. 223 [1910] W. N. 190 ) Column of Digest. 2871 928 41 1606 1649 2472 898 335 1976 1784 6, 1638 2332, 2806 499 423 1477 1928 2411 723 1865 713 2746 715 36 2017 1439 64 62 1796 2699 3005 67 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. cxlvil Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Howe : — De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ld. v Howe V. Howe & Howe Howe V. Engscote. In re Earl Howe'i Settled Estates Howe V. Newington Licensing Justices Howe : — Muspratt- Williams o. In re Mus pratf- Williams Howe (Curzon) : — Lady Cardigan v. . . Howe Trustees, Ex parte. In re Lake Howe's (Earl) Settled Estates, In re. Howe ) V. Kingsoote . . Howell :— Glyn v. Howell :— Green v. Howell : — Phillips v. . . Howes, In re. Ex parte White Howes V. Bishop Howey : — Mare i: In re Mare Howgate and Osborne's Contract, In re Howie : — ^French v. Howkins : — -Eainbow v. Hewlett V. Newington. In re Eoby Howiey Park Coal and Cannel Co. : — London and North Western Ey. Co. v. Hoyes v. Tate . . Hoyle'sCase. Haddock's Case. Jm re London and Northiern Bank, Ld. . . Hoyles, In re. Bow v. Jagg. . Hubback v. British North Borneo Co Hubbard v. Hubbard . . Hubbard : — Mullis v. . . Hubbuck, In the Estate of . . Hubert Unchangeable Eyelet Co. : — Engel's ■y. Huoknall (New^ Colliery Co. See New Hueknall Colhery Co. Hucknall (New) CoUiery Co. : — Butterley Co. v. C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 612 ; H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 168; [1906] A. C. 455 . . [1910] W. N. 80 [1903] W. N. 63 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 76 ; [1903] 2 Oh. 69 [1907] W. N. 112; [1907] 2 K.B.340;O.A.[1907]W.N. 257; [1908] 1 K. B. 260 [1901] W. N. U [1901] W. N. 147 ; [1901] 2 / Oh. 479 ( [1903] W. N. 9 ; [1903] 1 K. B. ^ 439 ) [1903] W. N. 63; 0. A. [1903] ) W. N. 76 : [1903] 2 Oh. 69 ( [1909] W. N. 37 ; [1909] 1 Oh. ) 666 j 0. A. [1910] W. N. 74 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 495 j [1901] W. N. 202 ; [1901] 2 ) Ch. 773 i [1902] W. N. 124; [1902] 2 K. B. 290 ) C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 390 [1902] W. N. 9 ; [1902] 2 Oh. ) 112 j [1902] W. N. 24 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 451 i [1905] W. N. 116; [190-5] 2\ K. B. 580 ; 0. A. [1906] W. N. 177 ; [1906] 2 K. B. ( 674 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 322 . . [1907] W. N. Ill; [1907] 2 ^ Ch. 84 ; C. A. [1907] W. N. 228 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 71 .. J [1910] W. N. 163 C. A. [1907] W. N. 35 ; [1907] ) 1 K. B. 656 i [1902] W. N. 55 ; 0. A. [1902] ) W. N. 84 ; [1902] 2 Oh. 73 ) [1910] W.N. 153; [1910] 2 Oh. 333; 0. A. [1910] W. N. 275 j 0. A. [1904] W. N. 105 ; [1904] ) 2 E. B, 473 j 0. A. [1901] W. N. 70 ; [1901] ) P. 157 ) [1903] W. N. 100 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 431 [1905] P. 129 [1902] W.N. 32 ; C. A. [1902] ) W. N. 48 j C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 37; H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 102; [1910] A. 0.381 2247 924 2357 1443 635 1080 2760 2357 1710 1861 2791 196 1194 2407 866 1189 131 2888 2123 732 593 639 726 726 2634 2894 1895 1707 k2 cxlviii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. ■ Huoks : — Willey v. Hudgell : — St. Thomas', St. Bartholomew's, | and B^ide^yell Hospitals v. . . . . , . . j Hudson, In re . . Hudson, In re. Cassels v. Hudson . , . . Hudson, In re. Spencer v. Turner . . Hudson V. Boutflower. In re Eochdale ) Notaries . . . . . . . . . . j Hudson : — Burton v. . . Hudson ,'. Gribble. Bell v. Gribble. . . . | Hudson i'. fihodes Hudson V. Spencer Hudson : — Thomas i'. Huggett V. Miers Hugh : — Whitehouse ; In re Creed Hughes and London & North Western 'Ry. ) Act (1865), lure ) Hughes : — Bedford c. In re Smilter . . j Hughes V. Britannia Permanent Benefit ) Building Society . . . . . . j Hughes V. Clover, Clayton & Co. . . ' Hughes V. Coed Talon Colliery Co. . . . . j Hughes : — Jones i.. , . j Hughes :— M'Donald i. Hughes i'. Pump House Hotel Co. . . j (No. 2) Hughes : — Speake v. . . Hughes : — Vinden v. . . Hughes : — Wells v. District Loan Co., Claimants Huinac Copper Mines, Ld., In re. Matheson & Co. V. The Company Hulbert v. Dale . , Hull V. London County Council Hull and Lady Meux, In re . . Hull Electric Co. v. Ottawa Electric Co. , . Hulme V. Bowbotham . . Hulse (Sir Edward), Bart., In re. Beattie V. Hulee Hulthen v. Stewart & Co. [1909] W. N. 39; [1909] 11 K. B. 760 ) [1901] 1 E. B. 364 [1904] W. N. 32 [1908] W. N. 50 ; [1908] 1 ( Ch. 655 j [1910] W. N. 269 [1910] W. N. 228 [1909] 2 K. B. 564 . . [1902] 2 K. B. 298 ; C. A. ) [1903] W. N. 37 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 517 ) [1908] W. N. 224 ; [1909] 1 / KB. 85 .. .. .. [1910] W. N. 157 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 285 . . . . ) [1905] W. N. 94 C. A. [1908] W. N. 115; [1908] 2 K. B. 278 . . [1905] W. N. 169 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 253; C. A. [1906] W. N. 151 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 283 [1906] W. N. 172 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 642 [1902] W. N. 236; [1903] 1 Ch. 198 [1906] W. N. 178 ; [19061 2 Ch. 607 . . C. A. [1909] W.N. 187; [1909] 2 K. B. 798; H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 73; [1910] A. C. 242 C. A. [1909] W.N. 77; [1909] 1 K B. 957 . . C. A. [1904] W. N. 193 ; C. A. [1905] 1 Ch. 180 [1902] 1 K. B. 94 C. A. [1902] W. N. 124 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 190 . . C. A. C. A. [190o 1902] 2 K. B. 485 '1904] 1 K. B. 138 W. N. 48; [1905] 1 K. B. 795 ) 0. A. [1907] 2 K B. 845 . . j [1910] W. N. 218 C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 570 [1901] 1 K. B. 680 . . 0. A. [1905] W.N. 15; [1905]) 1 K. B. 588 I P. C. [1902] A. C. 237 [1907] W. N. 162, 189 [1905] W. N. 17 ; [1906] 1 Ch. ) 406 .. . ' 0. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 199'; H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. . 389 .. ., ., ) 2438 1340 2598 2934 2989 1817 1324 2248 2151 969 2992 1094 278 2929 1730 1603 1626 2304 1434 111 1975 878 245 1289 526 2865 1513 1350 301 1869 1089 2463 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. cxlix Name of Case. Hulton (E.) & Oo. ;— Hawke v. Hulton (E.) & Co. : — Joues v. . . < Htunber & Co. i'. Griffltlis (John) Cycle Cor- \ poration, Ld. . . . . ) Humble v. Hvunphreys Hummel v. George Eoutledge & Sons, Ijd. ) In re George Eoutledge & Sons, Ld. Humphery v. Young . . Humphrey v. Stenbury. In re Viola's Indenture of Lease . . Humphreys : — Humble v. Humphreys : — Jones v. Humphreys v. Morten Humphries v. Humphries Humphris : — Eex t'. . . Humphrys v. Polak Hunloke's Settled Estates, In re. Fitzroy v. Hunloke Hunslet Union Assessment Committee : — Kirby v. Hiint, In re. Harvey's Claim . ' Hunt, In re. Pollard v. Geake Hunt V. Baker. In re Baker's ■ Settlement Trusts . . Hunt : — Bateman v. . . Hunt V. Luck . . Hunt : — Silicate Paint Co. and J. B. Orr & Co. V. In re Seager Hunt . . Hunt : — Skinner v. Hunt : — Spiers v. Hunt : — Staffordshire Financial Co. v. Hunt V. Star Newspaper Co. . Hunt V. Thorn. In re Birch . Hunt : — Williams v. . . Hunt, Eoope, Teage & Co V. Ehrmann Bulteel Brothers Hunt's Settled Estates, In r Lawdeshayne Hunt's (Catherine) Settled Estates and Settled Land Act, In re ■ . . Hunter and Hewlett's Contract, In re Volume and Page. [1909] W. N. 88 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 93 0. A. [1909] W. N, 133 ; [1909] \ 2 K. B. 444 ; H. L. (E.) f [1909] W. N. 249 ; [1910] A. 0. 20 ; H. L. (E.) [1901] W.N. 110., P. C. [1902] A. C. 207 [1904] W. N. 157; [1904] 2 / Oh. 474 I [1902] W. N. 203 ; [1903] 1 ) K. B. 44 [1908] W. N. 255 ; [1909] 1 ) Oh. 244 j P. C. [1902] A. C. 207 [1901] W. N. 219 ; [1902] 1 ) K. B. 10 ) [1905] W. N. 66 ; [1905] 1 Oh. 739 j [1910] W. N. 64; [1910] 1 v K. B. 796 ; 0. A. [1910] W.N. 168; [1910] 2 K. B. ( 531 ; 0. 0. E. [1904] 2 K. B. 89 . . 0. A. [1901] W. N. 128 ; [1901] / 2 K. B. 385 [1902] W. N. 70 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 941 H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 3; [1906] A. 0. 43 [1902] 2 Ch. 318, n 0. A. [1901] W. N. 144 [1908] W. N. 161 C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 530 [1901] 1 Oh. 45 ; 0. A. [1902] ) W. N. 14; [1902] 1 Oh. 428 ) [1906] 2 Ch. 295 C. A. [1904] W. N. 117; [1904] ) 2 K. B. 452 I [1908] W. N. 16 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 720 j [1907] W. N. 258 0. A. [1908] W. N. 80 ; [1908] ) 2 K. B. 309 [1909] W. N. 85 ; [1909] 1 j Ch. 787 j 0. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 512 [1910] 2 Ch. 198 [1905] W. N. 141 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 418; C. A. [1906] W.N. 105; [1906] 2 Oh. 11 [1905] W. N. 141 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 418 [1906] W. N. 193; [1907] 1 Ch.46 Oolunm of Digest. 1129 2304 660 1796 447 2425 1364 1796 110 1369 1030 806 1226 2367 2143 1549 2378 636 113 2815 1553 1537 1573 1722 874 2920 2005 2675 2365 2365 2388 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Hunter : — Grieve i'. Ferguson v. Hunter . . Hunter :— Hannali v. . . Hunter n. Hunter .. .. ... Hunter v. Bex . . Hunter (Eobertson or) : — General Accident, Fire and Life Assurance Corporation v. . . Hunter & Sons : — Dempster t'. Hunting (Eussell) Becord Co., In re Huntingdon Corporation v. Huntingdon ' Countj' Council Huntingdonshire County Council (Att.-Gen. ' and): — Simpson'!). .. Huntly (Marcliioness of) v. Gaskell . . Huntly (Mar..'liioness of) v. Gaskell . . Hm-lbatt, In re. Hurlbatt v. Hiu'lbatt Hurly's Divorce Bill . . Hurrell v. Littlejohn Husey !•. London Electric Supply Corporation Husey-Hunt v. BozzeUi. In re Bozzelli's Settlement Hutcholl : — Sparkes v. In re Houston's Settlement Hutcbings : — Davis v. Hutcbings : — Miles v. Hutchinson : — Cox v. Hutchinson : — Bex r. Hutchison :— Ha.skell Golf Ball Co. v. Hutchison (John and Feter) : — Striims Bruks Aktie Bolog v. Hiittenbach & Co., Tn re North We>tein Eubber Co. and Hutton : — Heme Bay SteaniLoat Co. v. Hutton V. Eas .'-^team Shipping Co. . . Hutton:— Eex v. Ex parte Metropolitan Water Board . . Huxtable, In re. Huxtable i'. Crawfurd Hyams v. Stuart King . . Hydi-aulic[ue (La Compagnie)de ^it. Francois !'. Continental Heat and Light Co. Volume and Page- H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 117 H. L. (Sc.) [1904] A. C. 379, . [1905] P. 217 [1902] 2 K. B. 2.55 ; C. A. . [1903] W. N. 38 ; [1903] 1 ( K B. 514 ; H. L. (E.) [1904] ( W. N. 66 ; [1904] A. 0. 161 ) H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 153; | [1909] A. C. 404 . . . . 1 (1902) a. of Sess. (Sc.)X1903] / W. N. 163 j [1910] W. N. 142; [1910] 2) Ch. 78 j [1901] 2 K B. 257 . . H. L. (E.) [1904] W.N. 166;) [1904] A. C. 476 . . i [1905] W. N. 140 ; C. A. [1905] ) W. N. 153, 157; [1905] 2 ' Ch. 656 H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 2 ; / [1906] A. C. 56 . . ..] [1910] W. N. 225 ; [1910] 2 " Ch. 553 H. L. (L-.) [1908] W. N. 41, / 124, 136 j [1904] W. N. 32 ; [1904] 1 Ch. ' 689 C. A. [1902] W. X. 31 ; [1902] ) 1 Ch. 411 I [1902] W.N. 51; [1902] 1 Ch. 751 .. ) [1903] W. N. 187 [1907] W. N. 28 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 356 . . [1903] 2 K. B. 714 . . [1910] W. N. 36; [1910] 1 Oh. 513 . . ) C. C. E. [1905] 2 K. B. 335 . . [1906] W. N. 34; [1906] 1 Oh. 518 H. L. (Sc.l [1905] W. N. 135; | [19()o] A. 0. 515 . . . . ) 0. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 907 0. A. [190.3] W. N. 150; [1903] 2 K. B. 683 . . C. A. [1907] W. N. 42 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 834 . . [1907] W. N. 163: [1907] 2 K. B. 578 . , I [1901] W. N. 230; [1902] 1 Ch. 214 ; C. A. [1902] / W. N. 193; [1902] 2 Ch. 793 . . 0. A. [1908] W. N. 145; [1908] 2 K. B. 696 . . . . ) P. C. [1909] A. 0. 194 Column of 2973 1179 1179 2242 1246 1656 613 1492 1492 965 1987 11 934, 935 2383 1016 638 713 2740 828 1220 806 1873 2458 93 665 2562 2847 353 1124 302 TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. oh Name of Case. Hyman v. Hyman Hyman v. Van den Bergh Hyman & Co. : — Davis v. Hymas v. Ogden Hythe Burial Board : — Godden v. Ibo Investment Co., In re . . . . ■ . . Ibo Investment Trust, Ld., In re . . IbrahimEsmaeli'.AbdoolCarrim Peermamode Ideal Bedding Co. v. Holland. . Iggo : — Moses v. Volume and Page. ■ ( Igoe V. Shann . . Ilford Gas Go. : — Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation, Ld. v. Ilford Gas Co. : — Benning v. . . Ilford Park Estates, Ld. v. Jacobs Ilfracombe Permanent Mutual Benefit Build- ing Society, In re Illingworth, In re. Bevir v. Armstrong Hlingworth : — Barker v. lUingvrorth v. Houldsworth Illuminated Advertisements Co. : — London Count J' Council v. . . Iniperial and Grand Hotels Co. •;;. Christ church. Guardians Imperial Bank of Canada v. Bank of Hamilton Improved Patent Forced Draught Eurnace Syndicate : — Budgett v. . . Improvement (General Land Drainage and) Co. V. United Counties Bank, Ld. . . Incoi^orated Law Society, Ex parte. In re a Solicitor Incorporated Law Society, Ex parte. Eour Solicitors In re [1904] P. 403 [1907] W. N. 183; [1907] 2) Ch. 616; C. A. [1907] W.N. 250 ; [1908] 1 Uh. 167 ..) C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 854 C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 246 [1906] W. N. 90 ; C. A. [1906] ( W. N. 126 ; [1906] 2 Oh. 270 ) 0. A. [1903] W. N. 110 ; [1903] ) 2 Ch. 373 j [1903] W. N. 192; [1904] 1) Ch. 26 j P. 0. [1908] A. C. 526 [1907] W. N. 117 ; [1907] 2 \ Ch. 157 I [1906] 1 K. B. 516 . . [1901] 2 K. B. 740 ; 0. A. [1902] \ W. N. 140 ; [1902] 2KB. 467; H.L.(E.) [1903] W.N. 132 ; [1903] A. C. 320 ..] C. A. [1905] W. N. 108 ; i [1906] 2 K. B. 493 . . . . ) [1907] W. N. 106 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 290 [1903] W. N. 126 ; [1903] 2 ) Ch. 522 j [1901] 1 Oh. 102 [1909] W. N. 149 ; [1909] 2 | Oh. 297 j [1908] W. N. 116 ; [1908] 2 / Ch. 20 j H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 138 ; / [1904] A. 0. 355 . . ( 11904] 2 K. B. 886 . . [1905] 1 K. B. 89 ; 0. A. , [1905] W. N. 92 ; [1905] 2 K B. 239 ) P. C. [1903] A. C. 49 [1901] W. N. 23 [1910] W. N. 187 [1903] W. N. 74 ; [1903] 1 K. B. \ 857 ; 0. A. [1903] W. N. 117 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 206 . . ) [1901] IK. B.'l87 Column of Digest. 921 1455 1865 763 285 591 589 1693 nil 1082 1440 1734 1979 272 280 1934 1762 499 1603 2149 293 626 1209 2609 2608 clii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Incorporated Society of Provincial Notaries Public of England and Wales, Ex ^mrte. In re Prior . . Incorporated Society of Provincial Notaries Public of England and Wales, Ex parte. In re TerriU . . Ind, Coope & Co. : — Normandy v. Indemnity (Monmouthsliire and Soutb Wales Employers' Mutual) Society, Ld., In re . . Indemnity Mutual Marine Insui-ance Co. : — Montgomery & Co. v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Go. : — Republic of Bolivia v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Co. : — Yangtsze Insurance Association v. Indenture (Viola's) of Lease, In re Inderwick !'. Tatohell. Tatchell ( Inderwick v. Inderwick Linder. India (British) Steam Navigation Co. : — Char- ) teredBank of India, Australia, and China v. ) India (London and) Docks Co. v. Att.-Gen. India (London and) Docks Co. o. MacDougall \ & Bonthron, Ld. : Loudon and India Docks [ Co. V. Page, Son & Bast, Ld. . . ) India (London and) Docks Co. o. Thames ) Steam Tug and Lighterage Co. . . ] India (National Bank of), Ld. : — Kepitigalla ) Rubber Estates, Ld. c. . . j India (Secretary of State in Council of) : — ■ ) East India By. Co. v. . . j India (Secretary of State in Council of ) India) : — Salaman i'. . . . , . . j India (Secretary of State in Council for) ; — \ Scoble V. . . . . . . . . ) " Indra," The , Industrial Insurance Association, Ld., In re Industrial (Premier) Bank, Ld. v. Carlton ) Manufactui'ing Co. Ld., and Crabtree, Ld. j Industrial (World) Bank, Ld., In re. . Ingall I'. Brown. In re Brown Inglis V. Gillins. In re CriUins Inglis r. Whiteford. In re Whiteford Ingram: — Lindou r. In re Venn . . Inland Revenue c Oliver Inland Revenue Commissioners : - Ex parte Silvester • • Inland Revenue Commissioners : (Marquis of) v. Inland Revenue Commissioners : Electric Traction Co. «. Inland Revenue Commissioners : Oil and Cake Mills, Ld. r. -Rex I I -Bristol ) -British -British ) Volume and Page. [1908] W. N. 19.3 [1908] W. N. 194 [1907] W. N. 229 ; [1908] I 1 Ch. 84 ) [1909] W. N. 6 [1901] 1 K. B. 147 ; C. A. ) [1902] IK B. 734.. .. ) C. A. [1909] W. N. 34 ; [1909] ) 1 K. B. 785 ) [1908] W. N. 64 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 910; C. A. [1908] W.N. 145 ; [1908] 2 K.B. 504 [1909] 1 Ch. 244 C. A. [1901] W. N. 206 [1901] 2 Oh. 738 ; H. L (E.) [1903] W. N. 52 ; [1903] A. C. 120 P. C. [1909] A. C. 369 H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 7 H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 25 H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 15 [1909] 2 K. B. 1010 . . 0. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 413 [1906] 1 K. B. 613 . . [1902] 2 K. B. 413 ; C. A. \ [1903] W. N. 37 ; [1903] 1 K. B.494; H. L. (E.) [1903] ( W.N. 116; [1903] A. C. 299 / [1905] W. N. 150 [1910] W. N. 245 . . [1909] 1 K. B. 106 . . [1909] W. N. 148 . . [1903] W. N. 209 ; [19041 Ch, 120 1909] 1 Ch. 345 1903] 1 Ch. 889 1904] W. N. 94; [1904] 2 Ch. 5 H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 161 [1909] A. C. 427 . . [1906] W. N. 216; [1907] K B. 108 ,. . . [1901] 2 K. B. 336 . . 0. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 441 C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 689 . Coliunn of Digest. 1820 1820 485 475 1265 1272 1279 1364 2984 2629 2257 2520 2520 144 22:34 15 2233 2546 606 484 606 1576 2908 2889 2894 2268 1897 2260 2269 2264 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. oliii Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Inland Eevenue Commissioners : — County of I "nnrlin.Tn "Rlftnf.rinnl PowfiT T)isf-rihnf,ioTi •; Durham Co, Inland Eevenue Commissioners : — Danubian ) Sugar Factories v. . . . . . . . . j Inland Eevenue Commissioners : — Firth & ] Sons, Ld. V. . . . . ) Inland Eevenue Commissioners ; — General ) Council of the Bar (England) v. . . . . I Inland Eevenue Commissioners : — Great ) Northern Ey. Co. v. . . . . , . . ) Inland Eevenue Commissioners : — Kemp v. Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Maple & Co. \ (Paris) V. . . . . . . . . j Inland Eevenue Commissioners : — Mount j LyeU Mining and Ey. Co. v. . . j Inland Eevenue Commissioners !'. Muller ) & Co.'s Margarine, Ld. . . . . ) Inland Eevenue Commissioners v. Priestley j Inland Eevenue Commissioners : — Pruden- ) tial Insurance Co. v. Inland Eevenue Commissioners ; — Eex v. Inland Eevenue Oopimissioners : — Eex v. Inland Eevenue Commissioners : — Eex v. \ Ex parte Silvester . . j Inland Eevenue Commissioners (Special for \ Purposes of Income Tax) : — Eex v. Ex I parte University College of North ( Wales ; Inland Eevenue Commissioners : — Eussell v. { Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Speyer Brothers " i Inland Eevenue Commissioners : — Suffield i (Lord) V. . . . . . . I Inland Eevenue Commissioners: — Under- | ground Electric Eailways Company of London v. . . .. . . . . . . I Inland Eevenue Commissioners : Bank of Scotland, Ld. v. Inman, In re. Inman v. Inman Inman v. Ackroyd & Best, Ld. Inman : — Nash v. Innes & Co., In re Innes, In re : — ^Innes v. Innes -Union ■■\ [1909] W. N. 54; [1909] 1 , K B. 131 ; 0. A. [1909] i W. N. 163 ; [1909] 2 K B. I 604 ' C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 245 [1904] 2 K. B. 205 [1907] W. N. 11; [1907] 1] K. B. 462 i C. A. [1901] W. N. 21 ; [1901] 1 K B. 416 j [1905] 1 E. B. 581 . . [1906] 1 K. B. 591; C. A. \ [1906] W. N. 178 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 834 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 244 ; [1908] A. C. 22 I [1904] 1 K. B. 757; C. A.) [1904] "W. N. 208 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 161 H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 110 [1901] A. C. 217 . . H. L. (Ir.) [1901] W. N. 103 [1901] A. C. 208 . . [1904] 2 K. B. 658 . , [1906] W. N. 216 . . [1910] 1 K. B. 851 . . [1907] 1 K. B. 108 . . [1908] W. N. 92 [1901] 2 K. B. 342; C. A.) [1901] W. N. 235; C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 142 . . . . ) [1906] 1 K. B. 318; C. A.\ [1906] W. N. 219 ; [1907] 1 KB. 246; H.L. (E.)[1908] W. N. 22 ; [1908] A. C. 92' / [1908] 1 K. B. 865 . . [1904] 2 K. B. 198; 0. A. [1904] W. N. 208; [1905] ) 1 K. B. 174 ; H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 2 ; [1906] A. C. \ 21 ' (1901) Ct. of Sess. [1902] ) W. N. 174 ) [1902] W. N. 220; [1903] 1 Ch. 241 C. A. [1901] 1 K B. 613 0. A. [1908] W. N. 68 ; [1908] ) 2 K! !B 1 1 [1903] W. N. 26; [1903] 1 Ch. ) 674; 0. A. [1903] W.N. 93; [1903] 2 Ch. 254 . . ) [1909] W. N. 238 ; [1910] 1 ) Ch. 188 2266 2265 2266 2265 2261 2261 2260 2258 2256 2209 2262 1897 1431 1897 2232 2269 2262 2267 2259 2229 1025 466 1233 28 cUt TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Insurance — See also under Assurance. Insurance (Crichton and Law Oar and General) Corporation, Ld., In re . . Insurance (Equity Fire) Co. : — Thompson v. Insurance (Essex and Suffolk Equitable) Society, Ld., In re . . Insurance (Industiial) Association, Ld., /)( ?•« Insurance (Irish. Catholic Churoli Property) Co., In re Insui-anoe (Lancashire Trust and Mortgage) Corporation v. Martin Insurance (London and Manchester) Co. : — Porter v. Insvu-ance (Maritime) Co. : — Mentz, Decker & Co. V. Insurance (Royal London Mutual) Society, Ld. :— McGlade v Interest (Reversionary) Society, Ld. : — Eulford V. In re Loom International Fibre Syndicate v. Dawson . . International Horse Agency and Exchange, Ld. : — Halbronn v. . . International Horse Agency and Exchange, Ld. : — Weatherby & Sons v. International Tea Stores Co. v. Hobbs Internationale Q-uano en Superphosphaat- werken u. Eobert Maoandrew & Co. " Inventor," The luverarity v. Forfarshire County Council . . Ireland v. Hart . . Ireland (Local Q-overnment Board for) .•. McKay Ireland : — Eex v. Irish Catholic Church Property Insurance Co., In re Irish Club Co., In re . . Iron (Dominion) and Steel Co. and National Trust Co. : -Dominion Coal Co. v. Iron (Duiiderland) Ore Co., In re . . Iron (Holwell) Co. v. Midland Ey. Co. Iron (Low Moor) Co. :— Provincial Bill- posting Co. V. Iron (Moss Bay Hematite and Steel) Co. /'. Annie McLean L-on Ore Co. : — Glasgow Navigation Co. v. Iron (Khymney) Co. : — Brewer v. Irvine Burgh Corporation : — Harris v. Irvine :— North and South Wales Bank, Ld. j V. North and South "Wales Bank Ld. v. Macbeth , . . . . . . 1 Volume and Fage. [1910] 2 K. B. 738 . . P. C. [1910] A. C. o92 [1909] W. N. 102 [1910] W. N. 245 [1909] W. N. 69 H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 76 [1909] W. N. 70; [1909] 2, K. B. 30 ) [1910] 1 K. B. 132 . . [1910] W. N. 75 ; C. A. , [1910] W. N. 130 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 169 ) [1910] 2 Ch. 230 H. L. (Sc.) [1901] W. N. 97.. [1903] 1 K B. 270 . . [1910] W. N. 158 ; [1910] 2 ( Ch. 297 I [1903] W. N. 82 ; [1903] 2 Oh. 165 , [1909] 2 K. B. 360 . , [1905] W. N. 22 H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 141 ; [1906] A. 0. 354 . . [1902] W. N. 12 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 522 j H. L. (Ir.) [1903]:W. N. 149; i [1903] A. 0. 402 . . 1 C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 35 [1910] 1 K. B. 654 . . [1909] W. N. 69 [1906] W. X. 127 P. 0. [1909] A. C. 293 [1909] W. N. 23 : [1909] 1 Ch. ) 446 ... . I [1909] 1 K. B. 486 ; C. A. / [1910] 1 K. B. 296.. . ( C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 344 H. L. (E.) [1910] W.N. 102.. H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 84 : [1910] A. 0. 293 . . [1910] 1 Ch. 766 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1901] W. N. 182 H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 137 Colanm of Digest. 304 491 606 1251 406 749 1268 1116 2941 655 130 687 2868 2469 2526 2316 568 2141 827 1251 476 296 604 2132 905 1598 2462 1705 2252 146 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. cIt Name pf Case. living : — Colonial Sugar Eefining Co. v. Irwin, In re. Irwin v. Parkes Isaac, In re. Harrison v. Isaac Isaacs : — Green v. Isaacson v. New Grand (Clapham Junction), ) Ld ) Islands (Bay of) Slate Syndicate, Ijd. : — Eeid- ] Newfoundland Co. v. . . .■.■ . . j Isle : — Dawson v. Isler : — Badische Auilin und Soda Fabrik v. ] Islington Borough CouncU v. London School ) Board . . Islington Corporation : — Arlidge v. . . Islington Corporation (No. 1) : — Nokes v. (No. 2) :— Nokes V. I ■ ) Stiles V. Galinski Islington Corporation : — ^White and Hales Islington (St. Mary's) Union v. Biggenden Ismay, Imrie & Co. v. Williamson . . Issott : — Mott V. In re Wright Isted : — Easton v. Itala Fabrica di Automobili's Application, Inre . . Itchen Overseers : — Mansel v. Ivemey : — James v. Ivimey v.- Ivimey Ixer : — Dawes !'. In re Barnett Volume and Page. J., In re . . J. C. V. Society of Contributors Widows' Fund of the ^ Faculty curators in Glasgow . . J. & G. Alward, Ld. :— Edgill v. Jackson, In re. Jackson v. Ward Jackson, In the Goods of Jackson, In the Goods of to the of Pro 2 K. B. 260 [1908] W. N. 28; [1908] Oh. 402 P. C. [1905] A. C. 369 ; P. C. [1906] A. 0. 360 . . [1904] W. N. ,153; [1904] 2 Ch. "752 [1905] 1 Ch. 427 [1907] W. N. 10 [1903] 1 K. B. 539 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 185 [1906] W. N. 58 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 633 [1906] W. N. 45 ; [1906] 1 Ch 605;C.A. [1906] W.N. 163 [1906] 2 Ch. 443 . . [1902] 2 K B. 701 ; 0. A [1903] W. N. 124 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 354 . . [1909] 2 K. B. 127 . . [1904] 1 K. B. 610 . . [1904] 1 K. B. 615 . . C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 133 [1910] 1 K. B. 105 . . H. L. (Ir.) [1908] W. N. 192 ; ) [1908] A. C. 437 , . [1906] W. N. 201; [1907] 1 Ch. 231 [1902] W. N. 08 ; C. A. [1903] 1 Oh. 405 . . [1910] W. N. 170 [1906] W. N. 14 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 221 . . [1901] 1 K. B. 193 . . C. A. [1908] W. N. 115 ; [1908] \ C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 574 H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W. N. 72 ; [1908] A. 0. 182 . . [1902] 2 K B. 239 . . [1907] W. N. 168; [1907] 2 Ch. 354 [1902] W. N. 215 . . [1903] W.N. 106 .. .. Column of Digest. 2091 2412 2940 1521 1683 655 244 1879 1526 1520 1520 1520 2147 1921 1621 2914 1463 2692 2148 1848 925 1939 1548 1281 2564 1040 2066 2070 clvi TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Jackson v. Bassford, Ld., In re Jackson v. Commissioner of Stamps Jackson v. De Kadioli , . Jackson c. Dickinson . . Jackson v. Jackson Jackson v. Jackson Jackson : — James v. Jackson : — McCiueen v. Jackson v. Price Jackson v. Eotax Motor and Cycle Co. Jackson c. Watson & Sons Jackson i'. Wimbledon Urban Council Jackson (Low or) v. General Steam Fishing Co. Jackson (Sir John), Ld. v. Owners of 8.S. ; "Blanche."' The " Hopper No. 66 " .. ] Jackson and Haden's Contract, In re . . < Jackson's Settled Estates, In re . . . . j Jacob, In re. Mortimer v. Mortimer . . j Jacobs, In re. Baldwin v. Pescott Jacobs :— Ilford Park Estates, Ld. Jacobs c. Morris Jagg:— How v. In re Hoyles Jagoe : — Mawle v. In re Connell Jalland : — Wagstaff c. In re Wagstaff Jamaica Ey. Co. i-. Colonial Bank James, In re. Hole v. Bethune James c. Ivemey James v. Jackson James ; — Marshall v James v. Morgan James : — Newsum, Sons & Co. v. James !■. Ocean Coal Co. i Volume and Page. Column of Digest. [1906] W. N. 158 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 467 P. C. [1903] A. C. 350 [1904] W. N. 168 [1903] W. N. 74 ; [1903] 1 Ch. : 947 . . [1908] P. 308 ' [1910J P. 230 [1910] W. N. 115; [1910] 2 1 Ch. 92 I [1903] W. N. 114; [1903] 2 ) K. B. 163 I [1909] W. N. 262 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 143 j C. A. [1910] W. N. 205; [1910] 2 K B. 937 . . . . ( C. A. [1909] W. N. 83 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 193 I [1904] 2 K. B. 359; C. A.) [1905] W. N. 73 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 27 j H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W.N. 185; ) [1909] A. C. 523 . . . . ( H. L. (B.) [1908] W. N. 61;) [1908] A. C. 126 . . . . I [1905] W. N. 65 ; [1905] 1 Ch. ) 603 ; 0. A. [1906] W. N. 25 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 412 . . ) [1901] W. N. 248; [1902] l) Ch. 258 . . . . [1907] W. N. 40 ; [1907] 1 Ch. ) 445 1 [1908] 2 Ch. 691 [1903] W. N. 126; [1903] 2) Ch. 522 I [1901]lCh. 26i; 0. A.' [1902] ) W. N. 48 ; C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 816 . . .1 [1910] W. N. 153 ; [1910] 2 Ch. ') 333; C.A. [1910] W.N. 275 ( [1903] W. N: 153 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 574 [1907] W. N. 87 ; [1907] 2 Ch. ) 35 ; C. A. [1907] W. N. 245 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 162 . ) [1905] W. N. 58 ; C. A. [19051 ) W. N. 62 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 677 [1909] W. N. 236; [19101 1 Ch. 157 [1901] 1 K. B. 193 , . . [1910] W. N. 115; [1910] 2) Ch. 92 . . j [1905] W. N. 28 ; [1905] 1 Oh. ) 432 . . I [1909] W. N. 31; [1909] 'l) K. B. 664 . . [1909] W. N. 112; [{9091 2 K. B. 384 0. A. [1904] W. N. Ill; [1904] 2 K. B. 213 , . 1811 1811 2796 2760 940 950 712 47 1717 2291 851 2426 1631 2524 2786 2386 1955 713 272 2035 639 2404 3007 1922 1945 1847 712 712 238 756 1611 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. clvii VTame of Case. James and Johnson : — Eex v. James Bay Eailway Co. v. Armstrong James Briggs & Son, In re . . James Edgconie, In re. Ex parte James Edgcome James Fisher & Sons : — Tagart, Beaton & Co V. West Hartlepool Steam Navigation Co. Third Parties James (Frank) & Sons, In re. . James Grieve v. Hunter. Ferguson v. Hunter James Hennessy & Co. v. Keating . . James Joicey & Co. and Eden's Executors v, North Eastern Ey. . . James Jones & Sons, Ld. v. Tankerville (Earl of) James (Judge) and Midland Ey. Co. ; — Eex V. Ex parte Bath Eural Council . . James Keith and Blackman Co. : — Eainford v. James Nelson & Sons, Ld. v. Nelson Line (Liverpool) Ld. James Nelson & Sons, Ld. v. Nelson Line ' (Liverpool) Ld. (No. 2) . . James' (Sparrow and) Contract, In re " James Westoll," The Jameson, In re. King v. Winn Jamieson : — ^Baroness Wesselenyi v. . . Janson : — Driefontein Consolidated Gold I Mines, Ld. v. . . . . . . . . | Jaques, In re. Hodgson v. Braisby . . . . j Jardine, Matheson & Co. v. Clyde Shipping ) Co. Jared v. Clements Jarrah Timber and Wood Paving Corpora tion, Ld. V. Samuel . . Jarvis : — Bankes v. Jarvis v. Birmingham Corporation. In re Best Jary V. Bamsley Corporation . . Volume and Page. C. C. E. [1902] -W. N. 27 [1902] 1 K. B. 540 . , P. C. [1909] A. C. 624 C. A. [1903] W. N. 105 ; [1903] ) 2 K. B. 156 ■ C. A. [1902] W. N. 141 [1902] 2 K. B. 403 . C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 391 [1903] W. N. 99 H. L. (Se.) [1906] W. N. 117 H. L. (L-.)" [1908] W. N. 95 [1906] 1 K. B. 195; C. A, [1907] 1 K. B. 402 ; H. L, (E.) [1907] W. N. 173 [1907] A. C. 400 . . [1909] W. N. 171; [1909] 2 Ch. 440 [1908] 1 K. B. 968 [1905] W. N. 8 ; [1905] 1 Ch, 296; C. A. [1906] W. N 102 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 147 C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 217; [1907] 1 K. B. 788, n, ; C. A. " [1907] W. N. 179 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 706; H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 40 ; [1908] A. 0. 108 [1906] 2 K. B. 804; C. A. [1907] W. N. 43 ; [1907] 1 KB. 769; H.L.(E.)[1907] W. N. 243 ; [1908] A. 0. 16 [1910] 2 Ch. 60 C. A. [1904] W. N. 198 ; [1905] P. 47 [1908] W. N. 100; [1908] 2 Ch. Ill H. L. [1907] W. N. 195 ; [19071 A. C. 440 C. A. [1901] W. N. 134 ; [1901] 2 KB. 419; H. L. (E) [1902] W.N. 167; [1902] A. C. 484 0. A. [1902] W. N. 228 ; [19031 1 Ch. 267 [1910] W. N. 54; [1910] 1 K B. 627 [1902] W. N. 116; [1902] 2 Ch. 399; C. A. [1903] W. N. 25 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 428 [1902] W. N. 128; [1902] 2 Ch. 479 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 29; [1903] 2 Ch. 1; H. L. (E.) [1904] W.N. 110; [1904] A. C. 323 . . [1903] 1 K. B. 549 [1904] W. N. 162 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 364 [1907] W. N. 184; [1907] 2 Ch. 600 Column of Digest. 825 315 1522 164 2469 711 2973 2677 2677 2614 1164 569 2468 2459 2806 2499 2979 2331 1250 2887 2459 2808 1757 2764 376 2434 clviii TABLE OF CASKS IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. '■Jassy,"Tlie .. Jeflerys: — Att.-Gren. v. In re Grlukman ■( Jeffreys : — Morgan t\ . . . . . . . . Jelks V. Hayward (Hackney Furnisldiig Co., ) Claimants) . . . . . . . . . . i Jemmett and Guest's Contract, In re . . Jenkins v. Emmett. In re Emmett . . Jenkins v. Qrocott Jenkins : — Hanbiary v. Jenkins c. Price . . , . . . . , ' Jenkins and H. E. Eandall & Co.'s Contract, ) Inre . , . . . . . , j Jenkins' Claim. In re " Otto " Electrical ) Manufacturing Co. (1905), Ld. . . i Jenkinson : — Berger v. In re Spark's Lease Jenks, Ex parte. In re Wallis . . . . Jennings, In re . . . . . . . . . . j Jennings v. Alexander. In re Alexander's ] Settlement . . . . . . . . . . j Jennings v. Matter . . . , . , ' Jennings : — Eeeve v. . . Jennings : — Waite v. . . Jeremiali Ambler & Sons, Ld. Corporation . . Jerome, In re . . Jesmond Case. In re St. (Jeorge, Newcastle- on-Tyne Jessopp, In re . . Jewell : — Baker v. Jewisli Colonial Trust (Juedische Colonial- bank), Ld., In re . . . . . . . . ) Jewish Colonization Association : — Att.-Gen. j " J Jobson & Co. : — Eaine v. . . ' Joel V. Law Union and Crown Lisurance Co. ' Bradford ) .. j s Johann Maria Farina & Co. : — Societe ) Generale du Commerce et de I'lndustrie ' en Prance v. . . . , . , j " Johannesburg," The Johannesburg Mining and General Syndi- ) oate, Inre . . . . . . . _ j Volume and Page. Column of Digest [1906] P. 270 [1907] W. N. 8 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 171; C. A. [1908] W. N, 46 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 552 ; H. L (E.) [1908] W. N. 171 [1908] A. C. 411 . . [1910] W. N. 59 ; [1910] : Ch. 620 [1905] 2 K. B. 460 . . [1907] W. X. 78 ; [1907] 1 Ch 629 [1906] W.N. 201 [1904] 1 K B. 374 [1901] 2 Ch 401 []907]W. N. 153; [1907] 2 Ch 229;C.A. [1907] W.N. 226: C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 10 [1903] W. N. 101 ; [1903] Ch. 362 [1906] 2 Ch. 390 [1905] W.N. 42; [1905] 1 Ch 456 [1902] W. N. 60; [1902] K. B. 719 . , [1903] W. N. 69 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 906 [1910] 2 Oh. 225 [1901]1K.B.108;C. A.[1901] W. N. 207 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 1 [1910] W. N. 171 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 522 . . C. A. [1906]2K. B. 11 C. A. [1902] W. N. 147 ; [1902 2 Ch. 585 . . C.A. [1907] W.N. 124; [1907 2 Ch. 145 . . [1907] P. 381, n. C. A. [1910] W. N. 128 C. A. [1910] W. N. 180 [1910] 2 K B. 673 . . [1908] 2 Ch. 287 C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 123 . H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 134 [1901] A. C. 404 . . [1908] W. N. 142; [1908] 2 'j K. B. 431 ; C. A. [1908] 2 ' K. B. 863 , . C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 794 [1907] P. 66 . . [1901] W. N. 46 2522 1055 1759 757 2380 1466 1849 1087 1358 2826 415 1353 182 1667 2414 228 1109 1358 700 77 989 52 1633 488 2211 1340 1254 472 2618 451 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIOEST. clix Name of Cose. Volume and Page. Oolumn of Digest. Johannesburg Mtinicipal Council v. J>.) Stewart & Co. . . . . j "Johannesburg" (Owners of Steamship): — \ Kitchenham v. Leach v. Oakley Street > & Co ) John : — Price v. . . . . j John and Peter Hutchison : — Stroms Bruks ) Aktie Bolag v. .... . . j John Clayton, Ld., In re John Griffiths Cycle Corporation, Ld., In re. '\ Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. John ! Griffiths, Cycle Corporation, Ld. .. ..) John Griffiths Cycle Corporation, Ld. : — \ Humber & Co. v. . . . . ) John Hall, junr. & Co. !'. Eickman . . John Houston & Co. : — Hamlyn v. . . John Roberts & Co., In re. Ex parte Bon zohne Manufacturing Co. . . John Tweddle & Co., In re John White & Sons v. J. & M. White Johnson, In re. Roberts v. Att.-Gen. , Johnson v. Adamson. In re Fieldwick Johnson : — Att.-Gen. v. Johnson : — Att.-Gen. v. Johnson : — Blackpool Corporation v. Johnson v. Bragge Johnson v. Clark Johnson i. Hadley. In re Hadley . Johnson o. Johnson -1 Johnson v. Kearley Johnson c Marshall, Sons & Co., Ld. Johnson i . Needham Johnson : — Pearl Life Assurance Co. v. Johnson u. Pickering. Norton, Claimant. Johnson v. Rex Johnson : — Rex v. Johnson : — Rex v. Johnson : — Westminster Corporation v. Johnson v. Wilson . . H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 161 C. A. [1910] W. N. 275 [1905] W. N. 75 ; [1905] 1 Ch. ) 744 I H. L. (8c.) [1905] W. N. 135 ; ) [1905] A. C. 515 . . . ) [1905] W. N. 27, 30 . . 0. A. [1902] W. N. 9 . . H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 110 .. [1906] 1 K. B. 311 . . C. A. [1902] W. N. 218 ; C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 81 . . C. A. [1904] W. N. 98 ; [1904] 2 !K £ 299 [1910] 2 K. B. 67 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 168 ; [1910] 2 K B. 697 H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 2; [1906] A. 0. 72 [1903] W. N. 53 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 821 0. A. [1908] W.' N. 212 ;' [1909] 1 Ch. 1 . . , . . . [1902] 1 KB. 416 ; 0. A. [1903] W.N. 66; [1903] 1KB. 617 1907] 2 K B. 885 . . 1902] 1 K B. 646 . . 1901] 1 Ch. 28 '1907] W. N. 253; [1908] 1 ■ Ch. 303 . . . . . . C. A. [1908] W, N. 220 ; [1909] 1 Oh. 20 [1901] P. 193 [1908] W. N. 90; [1908] 2 K B. 82; C. A. [1908] W. N. 162 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 514 H. L. (B.) [1906] A. C. 409 .. [1909] W. N. 26; [1909] 1 K B. 626 [1909 [1907 2 K B. 288 .-., W. N. 139; [1907] 2 K B. 437; C. A. [1907] W. N. 202 ; C. A. [1908] 1 K B 1 P. d. [1904] A.' b. 817 [1906] 2 K B. 69 C. C. A. [1909] W. N [1909] IK B. 439 . . [1904] 1 K. B. 19 ; 0. A. [1904] W. N. 166 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 737 [1909] W. N. 150 ; [1909] 2 K B. 497 . . 19;) 665 1645 868 2468 2458 730 660 2251 1866 172 522 2279 633 1203 2224 2272 2640 2416 1196 2216 927 2626 1637 843 1260 2436 2573 1427 792 1341 2204 clx TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Colnmn of Digest. Johnson & Co. : — Sharp v. . . Johnson (I. 0.) & Co., Inre . . . . . . . Johnson Johnson, In re. i^x _par Council , . . . . . . . . . j Jones, In re. Elgood v. Kinderley. Elgood ) V. Jones . . . . . . . . . . j Jones, In re. Lewis v. Lewis Jones, In re. Ex parte Official Receiver Jones, In the Estate of Jones V. Barker Jones V. Da vies . . Jones V. Gardiner Jones : — Gilbert v. ■I C. A. [1905] W. N. 80 ; [1905] / 2 K. B. 139 . . I C. A. [1902] W. N. 91 ; [1902] / 2 Oh. 101 ) [1904] 1 K B. 134 . . [1904] 1 K. B. 134 . . 1908] 2 Ch. 487 1909] 1 Oh. 114 1903] W. N. 193 ; [1904] 1 ) Ch. 132 ) C. A. [1904] W. X. 92; [1904] ; 2 K. B. 250 J [1907] W.N. 156 P. C. [1902] A. C. 396 C. A. [1904] W. N. 132 ; [1904] , 2 Ch. 234 ) [1904] W. N. 54 ; [1904] 1 Ch. ) 470 j [19061 W. N. 17; [1906] 1) K. B. 228 i [1906] W. N. 227 ; [1907] 1 Ch. \ 189 ; C. A. [1907] W. N. 20 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 322 . . .1 [1906] 1 K. B. 195; C. A. ' [1906] W. N. 225 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 402 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] l W. N. 173 ; [1907] A. C. 400 ) C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 43 . . 0. A. [1907] W. N. 5 : [1907] ) 1 K. B. 416 ( [1910] W. N. 194 ; [1910] 2 / Ch. 470 . . . . . . ) C. A. [1905] W. N. 2 ; [1905] , 1 Ch. 480 ; H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 186 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 1 . . . . j H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 123; / [1909] A. 0. 438 . . . . ) [1901] W. N. 217 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 92 [1910 [1908; ■) ICh. 167 W. N. 14 ; [19081 1 K. B. 204 . . 1905] W. N. 106 . . 1909] 1 Ch. 321 1901] 1 K. B. 118 . 1901] W. N. 237 ; [1902] 1 Oh. 191 . . ■■ [1905] W. N. 136 ; [19061 2 K. fe, 691 . . 1582 441 441 219 1889 1890 735 2015 1689 1810 431 2396 1439 2192 2192 822 764 1005 1461 1461 705 2919 181 2066 1747 237 2783 1499 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. clxi Name of Case. Volume and Page. Co] umii of Digest. Jones : — Goatley v. (No. 1) . . Jones:— Goatley v. (No. 2) Jones : — Goatley v. Jones t'. Great Central Ey. Co. Jones V. Hughes Jones v. Hulton (E.) & Co. Jones V. Humphreys Jones V. Jones . . Jones V. Jones . . Jones V. Jones. In re Edwards Jones V. Lavington Jones : — Mansell v. Jones V. North Vancouver Land and Im provement Co., Limited Liability Jones V. Owen. In re Griffith Jones V. Pacaya Rubber and Produce Co., Ld, Jones : — Parker v. Jones V. Pritchai'd Jones : — Eex v. . . Jones : — Eex v.. . Jones V. Ehymney Iron Co. Ayres v, Buckeridge. Wheale v. Ehymney Iron Co- Jones V. Eobson Jones V. Shervington . . Jones V. Stott Jones : — Tendring Hundred Waterworks In re Sisson's Settlement Co. Jones V. Xrappes. Jones : — Watson v. Jones & Co. v. Coventry Jones & Co. : — Skates v. Jones & Everett, In re Jones & Eoberts, In re Jones (James) & Sons, Ld. v. Tankerville (Earl of) Jones, Ld. v. Green & Co. Jones (Mordeoai), In re. Lewis v. Lewis Jones (Partridge) & Co. : — Coldrick v. Jones' Sewing Machine Co. : — Clayton v. Joplin Brewery Co., In re Jopling and Palmer's Travelling Cradle, Ld. : — McOabe v Jordan, In re. Hayward !'. Hamilton Jose ('. Metallic Eoofing Co. of Canada, Ld. Josef V. Mulder. . [1909] W. N. ■i-i ; [1909] 1 Ch. ) 575 i [1907] W. N. 161 H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 4 . . 0. A. [1904] W. N. 193 ; ) [1905] 1 Ch. 180 . . ) C. A. [1909] W. N. 13;3 ; [1909] \ 2 K. B. 444 ; H. L. (E.) I [1909] W. N. 249 ; [1910] I A. C. 20 ) [1901] W. N. 219 ; [1902] 1 \ K. B. 10 ) [1901] 1 Ch. 464, n [1910] W. N. 145 ; [1910] 2 ) 2 K. B. 262 ) C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 570 C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 253 . . C. A. [1905] W. N. 168 P. C. [1910] A. C. 317 [1904] W. N. 88.; [1904] 1 Ch. | 807 I C. A. [1910] W. N. 257 1910] 2 K. B. 32 °1908] 1 Ch. 630 '1909] W. N. 218 C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 259 . . C. A. [1901] W.N. 222; 0. A. ) [1902] 1 K. B. 57 . . . . t [1901] 1 Ch. 673 [1908] W. N. 148 ; [1908] 2 ) K. B. 539 . . . . , . ) 0. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 893 . . [1903] 2 Ch. 615 [1902] W. N. . 233 ; [1903] 1 / Ch. 262 I H. L. (Sc.) [1905] W. N. 130 ; | [1905] A. C. 480 . . . . j [1909] 2 K. B. 1029 . . C. A. [1910] W. N. 204 ; ) [1910] 2 K. B. 903 . . . , J [1904] 2 Ch. 363 [1905] W. N. 57 ; [1905] 2 Ch. ; 219 ( [1909] W. X. 171; [1909] 2 / Oh. 440 I 0. A. [1904] 2 Iv. B. 275 [1909] W. N. 228 H. L. (B.) [1909] W. N. 257 ; / [1910] A. 0. 77 . . . . j 0. A. [1908] W. N. 253 [1901] W. N. 216 ; [1902] 1 '/ Ch. 79 j 0. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 222 [1904] W. N. 7 ; [1904] 1 Oh. ) 260 \ P. C. [1908] A. 0. 514 P. C. [1903] A. 0. 190 1189 2549 2078 2304 2304 110 1983 1425 2903 1384 651 294 704 555 1389 2839 811 759 1613 2620 1427 707 2609 2770 1040 120 2648 725 2607 2614 2461 2919 273 1681 441 1622 1977 325 334 olxii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Xame of Case. Joseph, In re. Pain u. Joseph. . . . . Joseph : — Clare v. . . . . . . . . ■ Joseph r. Joseph Joseph : — Wood Green Urban District \ Council !'. . . . . . . . . I Joseph Crosfield & Suns, Ld., In re . . . . ' Joseph Crosfield & Suns, Ld. ( . Manchester Ship Canal Co. Joseph Ellis & Co. :- -Ellis r Joseph Thurlej', Ld. v. Orchis Steamship Co. Josolyne v. Boberts Joj- : — Stuart v. Juyiit V. Cycle Trade Publishing Co. Judd c. Judd . . Judd and Poland and Skelcher's Contract, j In re . . . . . . . . . . . . | Jude's Musical Compositions, In re, and In re \ the Copyright Act, 1842. Ej: parte Jude / Judgment Debtor (530 of 1908), In re a. .. } Jukes, In re. Er parte Official Eeceiyer . . I Jump, In re. Galloway !•. Hope . . . . { Junction (Grand) Canal Co. :- Att.-Gen. i'. . . } Jungheim, Hopkins & Co. i'. Poukelmaun . . K. K. V. K. (otherwise B.) Kahn & Co., Ld. : — Greener i'. Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, The Kalidas Mukerjee Kane ; — Beg. v. , . Kane :— Beigh >: In re Partington . . Kannuluik : — Hawthorn Corporation Karno t'. Spratt. . Karuuara'ne v. Ferdinandus , . East Indian Ey. Co. Voluiiie and Page. [1908] W. N. 38; [1908] 1 Ch. 599; C. A. [1908] W.N. 159 ; [1908] 2 Oh. 507 Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 592 ; 0. A. [1907] W. N. 116; [1907] 2 K B. 369.. [1909 [1905 P. 217 W. N. 144; [1907] W.N. 3; [1907] IK. B. 182; H. L. (E. ) [1908] W. N. 186 ; [1908] A. 0. 419 . . [1909] W. N. 147 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 233 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 118; C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 130 C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 123 ; H. L. (B.) [1906] W. N. 126; [1905] A. C. 421 . . C. A. [1905] W. N. 10; [1905] 1 K. B. 324 [1907] 1 K. B. 243; 0. A. [1907] W. N. 63 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 660 [1908] 2 K. B. 349 . . 0. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 362 0. A. [1904] W. N. 92 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 292 [1907] P. 241 C. A. [1906] W. N. 72 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 684 [1906] W. N. 170; [1906] 2 Ch. 596; C. A. [1907] W.N. 100 ; [1907] 1 Oh, 651 C. A. [1908] W. N. 146; [1908] 2K. B. 474.. [1902] W. N. 86; [1902] 2 K.B. 58 .. [1902] W. N. 202 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 129 . . [1909] W. N. 167 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 506 [1909] 2 K. B. 948 . . [1910] P. 140 . . 0. A. [1906] W. N. 167 [1906] 2 K. B. 374 , . [1907] P. 36; C. A. [190' P. 259 1901] A. C. 396 1901] 1 K. B. 472 . . 1902] W.N. 50; [1902] 1 Ch, 711 .. P. 0. [1906] A. 0. 106 0. A, [1909] W. N. 261 P. 0. [1902] A. 0. 406 .]| Column of Digest. 2914 2581 2681 2429 2694 508, 1563 1626 2457 2078 1416 873 951 2787 688 186 202 1956 329 92 732 730 2482 2124 823 2349 2833 82 346 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. olxiii Name of Case. Kaslo-Slocan Mining and Financial Corpora- ) tion, Ld., In re . . . . . . . . j "Kate," The Kaufman v. Qerson Kay V. Kay Kay's Atlas Brewery, Ld., Ex parte. Eex c. OhesMre Licensing Justices Kaye :^Beaumont v. . . Keam v. Adelaide Licensing Justices. Eieken V. Torke Peninsula Justices Kearley : — Johnson v. . . Keams : — Barratt v. . . Keates v. Lewis Merthyi Consolidated Col lieries, Ld. Keates v. Woodward Keating : — James Hennesay & Co. v. Keating : — Rex v. Keatiage v. Paringa Consolidated Mines, Ld Keek's Settlement, In re Keeling v. New Monokton Collieries, Ld Keen, In re. Ex parte Bristol School Board Keen i'. Adams. Gardner, Locket & Hinton '( V. Doe. Buck v. Smith Keen : — ^Cheese v. Keen & Keen, In re. Ex parte Collins Keene v. Thomas Keep : — ^Norey v. Keet, In re Keeton v. Sheffield Coal Co. . . Keevea : — Blaiberg v. . . Keighley, Maxsted & Co. v. Durant . . Keirl : — Chester v. In re Mayo Keith V. Gancia & Co. . . Keith (James) & Blackman Co. : — Eainf ord v. Kekewich : — Stucley v. In re Stucley Kelcey v. Harrison. In re Peacock's Settle ment . . KeUand : — WUson v. . . Kelly V. Hart . . Kelly V. Lonsdale & Co. Volume and Page. [1910] W. N. 13 . . " . . [1906] P. 317 ; 0. A. [1907] ) P. 296 ; in addenda [1903] W. N. 102 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 114; C. A. [1904] W. N. 53 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 591 [1904] P. 382 [1906] W. N. 18 ; [1906] 1 \ K. B. 362 . . C. A. [1904] W. N. 20 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 292 P. C. [1908] A. 0. 454 [1908] W. N. 90; [1908] 2 K. B. 82 ; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 152; [1908] 2 K. B. 514 .. C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 504 [1910] 1 K. B. 386 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 130 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 445 C. A. [1902] W. N. 30 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 532 ) H. L. (Ir.) [1908] W. N. 95 C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 198 . . [1902] W. N. 15 [1904] 2 Ch. 22 C. A. [1910] W. N. 249 [1902] W. N. 38 ; [1902] 1 ) K. B. 555 ] [1906] 2 K. B. 171 [1907] "W. N. 257 ; [1908] 1 ) Ch. 245 I 1902] 1 K. B. 555 , . 1905] 1 K. B. 136 . . .1909] 1 Ch. 561 0. A. [1905] W. N. 104 ; [1905] ) 2 K. B. 666 ( [1901] 2 K. B. 26 [1906] W. N. 99 ; [1906] 2 ) Ch. 175 . . . . . H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 110; ) [1901] A. 0. 240 . , [1901] W. N. 15 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 404 I C. A. [1904] W. N. 63 ; [1904] 1 Oh. 774 [1905] W. N. 8 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 296; O.A. [1905] W.N. 102; [1906] 2 Ch. 147 . . C.A. [1905] W.N. 157; [1906] 1 Ch. 67 . . . . . [1902] W. N. 51 ; [1902] 1 Oh. [1910] W. N. '132; [1910] 2 Ch. 306 P. 0. [1910] A. 0. 192 [1906] W. N. 144; [1906] 2 K. B. 486 .. .. .. Column of Digest. 611 2484 632 922 1424 1197 138 2626 877 1664 739 2677 799 560 23,49 1601 192 2664 2577 192 1453 2700 156 2146 2820 665 2931 1028 569 2802 1936 428 1800 401 12 clxiv TABLE 01* CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Kelly ('. Selwyn | Kelly : — Travers v. In re King . . . . Kelly's Directories, Ld. v. G-avin and Lloyds Kelly's Directories, Ld. v. Gavin and Lloyds Kelly's Settlement Trusts, In re. Gustard v. ) Berkeley Kelsey, In re. Wooley v. Kelsey. Kelaey v. Kelsey . . Kelsey : — Latchford v. . . Kemp V. Baerselman . . Kemp V. Inland Revenue Commissioners Kemp Brothers : — Barrett r. . . Kemp-Welch v. Kemp-Welch and Crymes . . Kempster, In re. Kempster v. Kempster , . Kempster : — Perham v. Kendall : — Cooper v. . . Kendrick :— Society of Architects v. Kennedy : — Batten Pooll v. . . Kennedy v. Kennedy . . Kenny v. Harrison Kensington Assessment Committee : — Western v. . . Kensington (Baron) In re. Earl of Long- ford V. Baron Kensington . . . . . . j Kensington Land Co. v. Canada Industrial Co. Kensit, In re . . Kensit v. St. Paul's (Dean and Chapter) Kent ('. Fittall (No. 2 (No. 3 Kent V. Kent Kent v. La Communaute dea Sceurs de ) Charite de la Providence , . . . . . ) Kent Coal Concessions, Ld. i-. Duguid , . I Kent County Council, Ex parte. Eex v. ) ^Wraith .. I Kent County Council : — Belmore (Countess ) oi)v Kent County Council v. Folkestone Corpora- | tion . . . . . . j Kent County Gas Light and Coke Co., In re Kent Justices : — Eex v. [On appeal svih nom. \ Tonbridge Urban District Council v. Ton- ! bridge Eural District Council] . . . . j Kent's (Davies and) Contract, and Vendor ) and Purchaser Act, 1874, In re . . . . j [1905] W.N. 69; [1905] 2 Ch. 117 [1904] W. N. 23 ; [1904] 1 Oh. 363 .. [1901] W. N. 22 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 374 ; 0. A. [1902] W. N. 41 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 631 . . [1901] W. N. 166 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 763 [1909] W. N. 203; [1910] 1 Ch. 78 [1905] W. N. 136 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 465 [1907] W. N. 89 C. A. [1906] W. N. 152 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 604 [1905]1 K. B. 581 C.A. [1904]W. N. 16; [1904] 1 K. B. 517 C. A. [1910] W. N. 121; [1910] P. 233 [1906] W. N. 38; [1906] 1 Ch. 446 . . . . : . [1907] W. N. 13 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 3Y3 C. A. [1909] W. N. 23; [1909] 1 K. B. 405 1910] W. N. 113 1907] 1 Oh. 266 1907] P. 49 1902] 2 K. B. 168 . . 1907] 2 K. B. 323 [1908] 1 K. B. 811 [1901] W. N. 229 ; Ch. 203 P. 0. [1903] A. C. 213 [1908] W. N. 235 [1905] 2 K. B. 249 . . 0. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 60 C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 933 [1909] 1 K. B. 215 . . [1902] P. 108 P. C. [1903] A. C. 220 C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 904; H.L.(E.) [1910] W.N. 161; [1910] A. 0. 452 . . [1907] W. N. 170 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 756 .. . .. [1901] W. N. 65 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 873 C.A. [1905] W.N. 30; [1905] 1 K. B. 620 ... [1909] W. N. 128; [1909] 2 Oh. 195 , . . . [1904] W. N. 113; [1904] 2 K. B. 349 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 203; [1905] IK.B. 378 [1910] W. N. 61 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 104 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 36 ; 0. A. [1902] i 631 2989 681 735 2396 2945 2202 666 2261 1656 720 426 1753 1478 2698 673 2199 1617 1518 2920 312 2735 1005 1847 1847 1850 1944 294 891 2307 1171 1169 234 1154 2821 TABLE or CASES IN THE DIGEST, OlxT Name of Case. Kenward, In re. Hammond v. Eade Kenworthy (G. H.), Ld. :— Bniley v. Kepitigalla Eubber Estates, Ld., v. National Bank of India, Ld. , . Kefly, Son & Verden, Tn re . . Kerr : — Ellis v Kerr : — Hales v. Kerr :— Smith v. Kerr v. Stinnear. In re Hay . . Kerr (Dick) & Co. :— Back o Kerr (Dick) & Co. :— T. Tilling, Ld. v. Kerr (Webster or) : — Screw CoUier Co. r'. . . Kershaw v. Brooks Keslake v. Board of Trade Keswick : — Batey v. . . Keswick ; — Cackett v. . . Kettle : — Eex v. Ex parte Ellis Kettlewell v. Eefuge Assuranee Co. . Key (W.) & Son, Ld., In re . . Keymer : — Salisbury (Marquis of) v. Keyser : — New York Security and Trust Co. Keyser : — Sourdis v. In re De Almeda Keyte :^Moore v. Kiddle, In re. Gent v. Kiddle Kidney : — Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co. V. . . Kieffer v. Le Seminaire de Quebec . . KUby V. Betts. In re Stephens Kilgour V. Gaddes KOlery's Divorce Bill . . KiUiok V. Manser. In re Manser Kilmalcolm Parish Council v. Glasgow Parish Council Kinahan & Co., Ld. v. Pany . . Kinderley : — Elgood u. In re Jones. Elgood V. Jones Kine v. Jolly King, Ex parte. In re Seed . . King. In re. Mellor v. South Australian Land, Mortgage and Agencies Co. King, In re. Travers v. Kelly King V. Bird Volume and Page. [1906] W. N. 16 0. A. [1908] W. N. ; [1908] | 1 K. B. 441 j [1909] 2 K. B. 1010 . . C. A. [1901] W. N. 8; [1901]} 1 C. H. 467 . . [1910] W. N. 52 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 529 [1908] 2 K. B. 601 . . C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 774 [1904] 1 Ch. 317 C, A. [190o] W. N. 80 ; [1905] 2K.B. 148; H.L.(E.) [1906] W. N. 105 ; [1906] A. C. 325 [1905] W. N. 38 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 562 H. L. (So.) [1910] A. C. 165.. Column of Digest. 2 K. B. 265 2 K. B. 453 . . W. N. 167 W.N. 159; C. A. [1902]' N. 118; [1902] 2 Ch. 1909 1903 1901' 1901' W.' 456 [1905] 1 K. B. 212 . . [1907] 2 K. B. 242 ; C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 545 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 64 ; [1909] A. C 243 [1902] W. N. 16; [1902] 1 Ch. 467 [1909] W. N. 31 [1901] W. N. 14 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 666 [1901] W. N. 142; C. A. [1902] W. N. 55 [1902] 1 K. B. 768 [1905] W. N. 81 P. C. [1905] A. C. 358 P. C. [1903] A. C. 85.. [1904] 1 Ch. 322 C. A. [1904] W. N. 36 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 457 H. L. (Ir.) [1907] A.C. 306 .. [1910] W. N. 61 H. L. (So.) [1906] W. N. 117; [1906] A. C. 344 . . [1910] 2 K. B. 389 . . [1901] W. N. 217 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 92 C. A. [1905] W. N. 2 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 480 ; H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 186 ; [1907] A. C. 1 [1910] 1 K. B. 661 . . [1906] W. N. 194 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 72 [1904] W. N. 23 ; [1904] l"Ch. 363 [1909] 1 K. B. 837 . . 172 1588 144 2019 775 1039 362 2892 1614 1162 2487 1504 2670 513 514 832 1264 555 2762 1549 966 2780 2931 3834 308 12 2869 933 1291 1928 2040 705 1461 1718 24 2987 1742 olxvi TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Columti of Digeit. Xing !'. Phoenix Assurance Co. King King King — Robertson u. . . - — Stevens r. — Toronto Ey. Co. v. -I King )'. Winn. /»/ re Jameson King & Co. : — Farquharson Bros. & Co. v. . . King & Co. V. Gillard & Go King's College, Cambridge v. Uxbridge Eural ' Council . . . . . . . . : King's Proctor (Tbe) i'. Carter King's Proctor (The) : — Higgins v. . . Kingdon and Wilson, In re . . Kinghorn : — Hex i. . . Kingsbury v. Walter Kingsbury Collieries, Ld. and Moore's Con- ) tract, In re . . . . . . . . . . i Kingsbiu'y Urban Council : — Middlesex ) County Council v. . . . . . . . . ] Kingscote : — Howe c In re Earl Howe's ) Settled Estates . . . . . . . . ) Kingston : — Peninsular and Oriental Steam 1 Navigation Co. v. . . . . . . . , ) Kingston : — Seal and Edgelow v. . . . . j Kingston-on-Thames, Surbiton, New Maiden ') and Combe Joint Burials Committee : — [ Young !'. . . . . . . . , ) Kingston-upon-HuU Incorporation for the Poor V. Hackney Guardians Kinloch: — Young r. '.. Kinloch-Cooke >■. The Public Trtistee. In re Coxwell's Trusts Kinnaird (Lord) c Field Kinnaird Lord) v. Field Kinnaird .'. Freake. /// re Freake's Settle- ment . . Kinross (Lord), In re . . Kintore (Earl of) : — Alex. Pirie & Sons, \ Ld. ('. . . ) Kirby, Li the Goods of Kirby r. Hunslet Union Assessment Com- mittee . . Kirby-Smith r. Parnell Kirchner & Co. v. Gruban Kirk ; — Harrison v. . . C. A. [1910] W. N. 186 ; [1910] ) 2 K. B. 666 i [1901] 2 K. B. 265 . . [1904] W. N. 93 ; [1904] 2 Oh. 30 P. 0. [1908] A. 0. 260 [1908] W. N. 100 ; [1908] 2 ( Oh. Ill t 0. A. [1901] W. N. 157 ; [1901] ) 2 K. B. 697 ; H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 325 . . . . ) 0. A. [1905] W. N. 68 ; [1905] ) 2 Oh. 7 j [1901] W.N. 176; [1901] 2 Oh. ) 768 I 0. A. [1910] W. N. 50 ; [1910] ) P. 151 0. A. [1910] W.N. 50; [1910]] P. 151 ) [1902] W. N. 65 ; C. A. [1902] ) W. N. 101 ; [1902] 2 Oh. 242 I [1908] W. N. 204 ; [1908] 2 ' K. B. 949 H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 90 [1901] A. C. 187 . . [1907] W. N. 118 ; [1907] 2 Ch, 259 C. A. [1909] W! N. 23 ;' [1909] 1 K. B. 554 ) [1903] W. N. 63 ; C. A. [1903] ) W. N. 76 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 69 j P. C. [1903] A. 0. 471 C. A. [1908] W. N. 136 ; '( [190S] 2 K. B. 579.. [1906] 1 K. B. 338 ; C. A [1907] W. N. 5; [1907] 1 K. B. 416 [1910] W. N. 24b H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 3 [1910] A. C. 169 . , [1909] W. N. 227 ; [1910] Ch. 63 [1905] W. N. 88 ; 0. A. [1905] W. N. [108] ; [1905] 2 Ob . 306 C. A. [1905] W. N. 126 ; [1905] 2 Oh. 361 [1901] W. N. 210 ; [1902] 1 Oh. 97 ,. .. H, L. (So.) [1905] A. 0. 468 H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 166 ; [1906] A. C. 478 . . [1902] P. 188 . . H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 3 ; [1906] A. 0. 43 [1903] 1 Oh. 483 [1909] W. N. 12 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 413 . . . . . . H. L. (L-.) [1903] W.N. 190; [1904] A. 0. 1 1594 1181 2938 313 2979 2290 720 2431 924 924 25S8 148 2902 505 1493 2357 2832 117 283 1927 1172 2222 1966 2013 2347 1179 1086 2076 2143 2968 28a TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. olxvii Name of Case. Kirk 1'. Kirk Kirk & Bandall : — Weavings v. Kirkby (South), &o., Collieries, Ld. : — Tates : Kirkby v. Taylor Kirkcaldy and District Ey. Oo. : — Gale- ) donian Ey. Co. v. . . . . . . . . | Kirkdale Burial Board v. Liverpool Corpora- ) tion . . . . . . . . . . . . j Kirkham : — Eex v. Kirkhouse v. Blakeway . , . . . . j Kirkland v. Peatfield , . . . . . . . j Kirkwood v. Carroll Kirkwood v. Gadd . . . . . . . . j Kish p. Taylor . . . . . . ' •• J Kistler v. Tettmar Kitohenham v. Owners of Steamship j "Johannesburg." Leach v. Oakley > Street & Oo ) Kitson Empire Lighting Co., In re. Higgs V. the Company Kitten V. Hewett Klaber and Steinberg's Patent, In re Klein, In re. Ex parte Goodwin Knee : — Gattward v. . . Knee Brothers : — Hippisley v. Knight V. Cubitt & Co. Knight : — Pearks, Gunston & Tee, Ld. v. Same v. Van Tromp . Knight V. Williams "Knight Errant," The, and "The W. H. ) No. 1 " I Knight Steamship Co., Ld. ; — Markt & Co., Ld. V. . . Knight Steamship Co., Ld. : — Sale & Erazar v. Kniveton v. Northern Employers' Mutual Indemnity Co. Knott End Ey. Co.'s Act, 1898, In re Knowles : — County Theatres and Hotels, ) Ld. j; . . . . I Knuokey v._ Eedruth Eural Council . . Knutsford (S.S.), Ld. v. Tillmanns & Co. Kodak, Ld. v. Clark Koffler : — ^Lever v. :) Volume and Page. [1902] P. 145 [1904] W.N. 4; [1904] 1 K. B 213 0. A. [1910] W. N. 174 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 538 . . [1910] W. N. 37 ; [1910] 1 ) K. B. 529 j H. L. (So.) [1901] W. N. 102 [1904] W. N. 79 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 1 829 J 0. 0. A. [1909] W. N. 141 . . [1901] W. N. 250 ; [1902] 1 ) K. B. 306 j [1903] W. N. 70; [1903] 1) K. B. 756 j 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 531 H. L. (B.) [1910] W. N. 157 ; ) [1910] A. C. 422 . . . . I [1910] W. N. 148; [1910] 2 ) K. B. 309 J C. A. [1904] W. N. 180 ; ) [1906] 1 K. B. 39 .. .. I C. A. [1910] W. N. 275 [1910] W. N. 154 [1904] W. N. 21 [1908] W. N. 50, 57, 89 ; [1908] ) 1 Oh. 847 ) 1906] W. N. 148 1902] P. 99 1904] W. N. 186 ; [1905] 1 ( K. B. 1 j C. A. [1901] W. N. 213 ; ) [1902] 1 K. B. 31 . . . . ) [1901] W. N. 179 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 825 [1901] 1 Ch. 256 0. A. [1910] P. 199 . . 0. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 1021 .. C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 1021 . . [1902] W. N. 78 ; [1902] 1 ) K. B. 880 1 [1901] W. N. 24 ; 0. A. [1901] ) W.N. 64; [1901] 2 Oh. 8.. i C. A. [1902] W. N. 22 ; [1902] ) 1 K. B. 480 i [1904] 1 K. B. 382 . . H. L. (E.) [1908] W.N. 165; [1908] A. 0. 406 . . [1902] 2 K. B. 460; 0. A. [1903] W. N. 37 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 805 [1901] W. N. 46 ; [1901] 1 Ch. ) 643 j Column of Digest. 162 1654 1625 2263 2109 1498 795 1846 1474 247 1716 2468 125 1645 435 2813 1880 202 2075 2037 1590 41 869 2514 1990 1990 748 2132 98 1708 2447 2240 2615 clxviii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. KofFyfontein Mines, Ld. : — Mnsely v. Eoffyfontein Mines, Ld. : — Mosely v. Kolchmann v. Meui'ice "Koning Willeml.," The "Koning Willem n.,"The " Kostroma " (S.S.) Ownersof the ; — Owners ( of the S.S. " Chittagong" /•. . . , . ( Krell ('. Henry . . / Kruger & Co. : — Moel Tryvan Ship Co. v. . . I Kydd V. Liverpool Watch Committee Kydd !'. Liverpool Watch Committee Kyle V. Dunsdon Kyle :— W. H. Smith & Son v. Kynnersley : — Smith v. KjTioch, Ld. : — Cribb v. Kynoch, Ld. (No. 2) :— Cribb v. Kyte : — Beale v. L. L. Syndicate, Ld., In re . . La Aseguradora Espaiiola : — Mutzenbecher v. Labouohere : — Dakhyl ... Lacey, In re. Howard <■. Lightfoot . . La Cloche : — Spurrier v. La Communaute des Soeure de Charite de la Providence : — Kent v. La Compagnie Hydranlique de St. Franyois V. Continental Heat and Light Co. La Oompania de Lob FerrocarriUes de Zara- goza Al Mediterraneo /•. Collingham Lacons r. Warmoll Lady Forrest (Murohison) Gold Mine, Ld In re . . Lagos V. Grmiwaldt Lai Hing Firm, In re. Piggott Laidler :— Cowper t . Chang Hang Kiu Laidley (Williaml & Co. :— Ohippendall v. . . Laing (Sir James) & Sons, Ld. v. Barclay, ) Curie & Co ; I Volume and Page. C. A. [1904] W. N. 117 ; [1904] / 2 Ch. 108 i [1910] W. N. 176; [1910] 2 Ch. 382; C. A. [1910] W.N. 231 0. A. [1903] W. N. 31 ; [1903] ( 1 K. B. 534 t [1903] P. 114 C. A. [1908] P. 125 . . P. C. [1901] A. C. 597 0. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 740 [1906] 2 K. B. 792 ; C. A [1907] W. N. 27 ; [1907] K. B. 809; H. L. (E.) [190 W. N. 173 ; [1907] A. C' 272 C. A. [1907] W. N. 159; , [1907] 2 K. B. 591 ; H. L. / (E.) [1908] W. N. 164 ; I [1908] A. C. 327 . . ..) 0. A. [1908] W. N. 26 [1908] W. N. 102 ; [1908] 2 / K. B. 293 ) [1902] 1 K. B. 286 . . C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 788 [1907] 2 K. B. 548 . . 0. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 551 [1907]W.N. 5(i; [1907] 1 Ch. 564 '■I [1901] W. N. 164 C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 254 H. L. (E.) [1908] 2 K. B, 325, n. [1906] W. N. 213 ; 0. A. [1907 W. N. 36 (Addendum), 42 [1907] 1 Ch. 330 . . P. C. [1902] A. C. 446 P. C. [1903] A. C. 220 P. C. [1909] A. C. 194 H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 66 [1904] A. C, 159 . . C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 350 [1901] W. N. 13; [1901] Ch. 582 C. A. [1909] W.N. 216; [1910] 1 K. B. 41 . . P. C. [1909] A. C. 312 [1903] W. N. 112 ; [1903] 2 '/ Oh. 337 . ■ P. C. [1909] A. C. 199 H. L. (Sc.) [1907] W. N. 243; [1908] A; 0, 35 . . | Column of Digest. 489, 563 489 349 2492 2482 2496 661 2449 1913 75 2872 2572 243 1670 1672 2804 564 1999 36 1297 294 302 624 1051 510 2022 1175 1459 1790 2294 TABLE OF GASES IN THE DTGE.ST. clxlx Name of Case. Laird v. Dobell . . Laitwood : — Rex v, . . Late, In re. Ex parte Cavendish . . Lake, In re. Ex parte Dyer . . Lake, In re. Ex parte Howe Trustees Lake George Mines, Ld., In re Lake View Consols: — Australian Gold Ee covery Co. v. . . La Marchant, Ex parte. In re Fanshawe Lamb v. Sambas Eubber and Gutta-Percha ) Co Lambe v. Manuel Lambert, In re. Corns v. Harrison . . Lambert v. Great Eastern By. Co. . . Lambert v. Lowestoft Corporation . . LambouTQ v. McLellan Lamboume : — Du Oros v. Lamonby v. Cai-ter. In re Castlehow Lamplough v. Company of Proprietors of the Kent Waterworks . . Lamport and Holt : — Branckelow Steamship )" Co. 1, I Lamson Pneumatic Tube Co. v. Phillips Lamson Store Service Co.:— British Cash and Parcel Conveyors, Ld. v. Lanark County Council v. Glasgow Court Houses Commissioners Lanark County Council v. Hart Lanark County Council : — Magistrates of '( Coatbridge v.. . Lanark (County Council) v. Magistrates of Airdrie Lanark (Lower Ward of County) v. Euther glen Magistrates , Lancashire and Cheshire Coal Association and '\ Eichard Evans & Co. v. London and North / Western Ey. Co. and Lancashire and ( Yorkshire Ey. Co. . . . . . . . . J Lancashire and Yorkshire Accident Lisur- ance Co., In re Etherington and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Accident Lisurance Co., Third Parties. Evans v. Cook Lancashire and Yorkshire Ey. Co. : — Armi- tage V... Lancashire and Yorkshire Ey. Co. : — Ashton v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Ey. Co. : — Ben- son V. . . . . Volume and Page. [1906] W.N. 7; [1906] 1KB. 131 C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 122 , . [1902] W. N. 230 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 151 [1901] W. N. 26 ; C. A. [1901] ) W. N. 43 ; [1901] 1 KB.! 710 ) [1903] W. N. 9 ; [1903] 1KB.) 439 i [1904] 1 Oh. 803 P. C. [1901] A. C. 142 [1905] 1 K B. 170 . . [1908] W. N. 83 ; [190.8] 1 Ch. ) 845 ] P. C. [1903] A. C. 68 . , [1908] W. N. Ill; [1908] 2) Ch. 117 .. . .. j C. A. [1909] W. N. 186 ; [1909] ) 2 K B. 776 I [1901] 1 K B. 590 [1903] W. N. 58 ; [1903] 1 Ch. ) 806 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 109 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 268 ..) [1907] 1 K. B. 40 [1903] W. N. 4 ; [1903] 1 Ch. ) 352 ) C. A. [1903] W. N. 61 ; [1903] \ 1 Ch. 575 ; H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 2 ; [1904] A. C. 27 . . ) [1907] 1 K B. 787, n. [1904] W. N. 56 (Erratum), ) 122 ; 0. A. [1904] W. N. 134 ( C. A. [1908] W. N. 73 ; [1908] ) 1KB. 1006 ) H. L. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 235 H. L. (Sc.) [1904] W. N. 66 : [1904] A. C. 235 . . H. L. (So.) [1910] W. N. 92 ; [1910] A. C. 286 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 92 ; [1910] A. C. 286 . . . . I H. L. (So.) [1902] W. N. 157 [1906] W. N. 82; [1906] 1\ K B. 577 ; C. A. [1907] W. N. 167 ; [1907] 2KB. 902 C. A. [1909] W. N. 35 ; [1909' 1 K B. 591 C. A. [1904] W. N. 193 [1905] 1 K B. 53 . . C.A. [1902] W.N. 118; [1902' 2 K B. 178 . . [1904] 2 K B. 313 C. A. [1904] 1 K B. 242 Column of Digest. 42 785 1752 201 2760 596 1891 207 565 320 2926 2113 2424 1093 1326 2936 2860 2466 2195 1561 2140 2328 2630 2630 1483 2120 1248 1687 1652 2123 1583 clxx TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Torkshire Ey. Co. Lancashire and Fletcher v. . . Lancashire and Torkshire Ey. Co. : — Lanca- ( shire Brick and Terra Cotta Co. p. . . . . ( Lancashire and Torkshire Ej-. Co. : — Lister v. ! Lancashire and Torkshire Ey. Co. : — Pom- ) fret !' _ I Lancashire and Torkshire Ey. Co. :■ — ^West ) Lancashire Sural Council r. . . ) Lancashire and Torkshire Ey. Co. : — \ Wilkinson r. . . . . . . j Lancashire and Torkshire Beversionary ( Interest Co. v. Burke. Tn re Palmer . . ) Lancashire Biick and Terra Cotta Co. o. \ Lancashire and Torkshire Ey. Co. Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Eail- \ way Acts, 1891 to 1895, In re, and In re f Lincoln and East Coast Eailway and Docks 1 Acts, 1897 to 1902 ] Lancashire (South) Tramways Co. : — Eccles Corporation v. Lancashire Trust and Mortgage Insurance Corporation v. Martin . . . . 1 Lancaster Eural Council r. Fisher & Le | Fanu . . . . . . . . j Land (Espuela) and Cattle Co. In re. . Land (General) Drainage and Improvement ] Co. V. United Counties Bank, Ld. . . I Land (North Vancouver) and Improvement ) Co., Limited LinhiHty : — Jones Land (Standard) Co. : — Bath v. Land's Patent, In re . . Landauer r. Asser Landon v. Poyser. In re Poyser Landon r. Poyser. In re Poyser Lands (Consolidated Tea and) Co. v. Wharf Lane, Iv re. Belli i'. Lane . . Lane : — Birmingham Excelsior Society v. Lane : — Hardwiok r. . . Lane : — Milman r. Lang : — Burrows r. Langdale, In re. . Langridge v. Hobbs In re Yase Oliver's ' Money Langrish Langrish t . Vase. ". Watts Langston :— Grant i'. [1902] W. N. 67 ; [1902] 1 / Ch. 901 ) [1902] 1 K. B. 381 ; C. A. ) [1902] W. N. 46; [1902] 1 K B. 651 ) [1903] W. X. 84; [1903] l' K. B. 878 C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 718 -^) [1903] 2 E. B. 394 . . [1906] W. N. 123; [1906] 2 K B. 619; C. A. [1907] W.N. 117; [1907] 2 K. B. 222 / [1907] W. N. 73 ; [1907] 1 Ch. ) 486 ) [1902] 1 K B. 381 ; C. A. ) [1902] W. N. 46; [1902] 1 K. B. 651 . . ) [1903] W. X. 184, 186 ; [1903] / 2 Ch. 711 ) [1910] W. N. 28 ; C. A. [1910] / W. N. 141 ;[19]0]2Ch. 263) H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W.X. 76.. C. A. [1907] W. N. 150 ; ) [1907] 2 E. B. 516 . . . . ) [1909] W. N: 142 ; [1909] 2 ( Ch. 187 j [1910] W. N. 187 P. C. [1910] A. C. 317 [1910] W. N. 206; [1910] 2 ( Ch. 408 ) 1910] 2 Ch. 236 1905] 2 K. B. 184 . . 1908] 1 Ch. 828 1910] W. N. 189 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 444 [1910] W. N. 97; [1910] 2 K B. 395 [1908] 2 Ch. 581 C. A. [1903] W. N. 196; [1904] 1 K. B. 35 . . [1904] W. N. 12; [1904] 1 E. B. 204 C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 745 [1901] W. N. 115; [1901] 2 Ch. 502 C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 3 . . [1901] W. N. 30; [1901] 1 Q. B. 497 [1901] W. N. 124 C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 636 . . Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1901] W. N. 185 . . 2120 2134 339 1582 2116 2103 2737 2134 2110 2715 406 1166 580 1209 294 2033 1881 1276 2892 2356 2876 1937 1199 1130 2948 285S 1557 2779 1SS4 1468 2228 TABLE OF CASES TN THE DIGEST. olxxi Name of CsHe. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Langton v. Scott. In re Soott Lapointe v. L'Assoeiation de Bienfaisance et de Eetraite de la Police de Montreal Laroombe v. Simey Larkworthy'a Case. In re Exchange Tn Ld Lamer v. Lamer Larsen v. Sylvester & Co. Las Oasas' (Norton and) Contract, In re Laskey : — ^Malone v. . . La Societe Anonjrme des Anciens Etablisse- ments Panhard et Levassor v. Panhard Levassor Motor Co. . . L'As.sociation de Bienfaisance et de Eetraite de la Police de Montreal. Lapointe v. . . Last : — Preist ». Lastingham and Kosedale Light Ey. Co. : — Beecham v. . . Latchford v. Kelsey Latham, In re. Seymour v. Bolton . . Latimer : — Tomlins v. In re Barton Lauderdale (Earl) : — Wedderburn v. Laughton Commissioners of Port Erin Launder, In re. Launder v. Eiohards Laundry (Heath) Co. : — Simmons v. I In re Church Patronage j Laurie v. Att.-Gen. Trust . . Lavell : — London General Omnibus Co. v. Lavell V. Eiohings Lavington : — Jones i'. . . Law : — City of Birmingham Tramways Co., Ld. ('. . . Law V. Graham Law I'. Law Law V. Law Law /'. Llewellyn Law Accident Insurance Co. : — Miller v Law (Crichton and) Car and General In- surance Corporation, Ld., In re . . Law Debenture Corporation, Ld. : — Corn- brook Brewery Co. i;. Law (English and Scottish) Life Assurance Association : — Wigan v. Law Guarantee and Trust Society, Ld. v. Mitcham and Oheam Brewery Co. Law Guarantee and Trust Society v. Eussian Bank for Foreign Trade \ C. A. [1902] W. N. 20C ; [1903] ) 1 Oh. 1 j P. C. [1906] A. C. 535 [1906] W. N. 203 ; [1907] 1 ) K. B. 139 i [1903] W. N. 33 ; [1903] 1 Ch. ) 711 j [1905] W. N. 116; [1905] 2) K. B. 539 \ H. L. (E.) [1908] A. 0. 295 . . [1909] W. N. 103 ; [1909] 2 \ Ch. 59 I C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 141 . . [1901] W. N. 153; [1901] 2 Ch. 513 P. C. [1906] A. C. 535 C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 148 . . [1907] W. N. 101 1907] W. N. 89 1901] W. N. 248 '1909] W. N. (Erratum 42)) 39 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 176 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 841 . . . . ) H. L. (So.) [1910] W. N. 92 ; ) [1910] A. 0. 342 . . . . j P. C. [1910] A. C. 565 [1908] W. N. 49 O.A. [1910] W. N. 59; [1910]) 1 E. B. 543 I [1903] W. N. 198; [1904] 1) Ch. 41 ; 0. A. [1904] W. N. 162 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 643 ..) C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 135 [1906] W. N. 47 ; [1906] 1 ) K. B. 480 j C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 253 . . [1910] 2 K. B. 965 . . [1901] 2 K B. 327 . . [1904] W. N. 162 0. A. [1905] 1 Ch. 140 C. A. [1906] W. N. 50 ; 1 K. B. 487 . . [1902] 2 K. B. 694; [1903] 1 K. B. 712 . . [1910] 2 K. B. 738 . . [1903] 2 Ch. 627 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 6; [1904] 1 Ch. 103 [1909] 1 Ch. 291 [1906] C. A. ' [1906] W. N. Ch. 98 91; [1906] 2 0. A. [1905] 1 K B, 818 2887 312 1852 562 1196 2462 2388 1372 501 312 2295 2111 2202 69 237 2320 1296 1657 350 2677 908 1384 2712 1666 702 1869 878 1276 96 • 438 644 1428 2629 clxxii TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Caie, Law Guarantee and Trust Society, Ld. : — Smith ('. Law Society, E.r parte. In re Ainswortli Law (Towry) .•. Burne. In re Ellenborough Law Union and Crown Insurance Co. v. Har- topp. In re Famham'a Settlement Law Union and Crown Insurance Co. '■. Hill Law Union and Crown Insurance Co. : — Joel i>. . . . . . . . . . Lawdeshayne : — Bulteel v. In re Hunt's ] Settled Estates ; Lawford v. Billericay Eou'al Council . . Lawford v. Bruce. In re Bruce , . < Volume and Page. Lawford & Lawrence, In re. Trustee E:r parte The ] ■ ( Lawley, In re. Zaiser v. Lawley Lawley, In re. Zaiser v. Perkins Lawley : — Beyfus ?•. Lawrence & BuUen, Ld., In re Lawrence & Porter, In re Lawrence & Bullen, Ld. ; — Aflalo v. Lawrence (Saqui &) v. Steams Lawson v. Edminson . . Lawson v. Harvey. In re Richards Lawson : — Hex v. Lawson v. Reynolds Lawson : — Wright v. . . Lawton : — Cobbold v. In re Cobbold Lax : — Bowman r. Lazarus v. Smith Lea V. Thursby. . Leach v. Oakley Street & Co. Kitchenham \ I'. Owners of Steamship " Johannesburg " ) Leacroft v. Harris. In re Harris Lead Company's Workmen's Fund Society, \ In re. Lowes v. Governor and Company ( for Smelting down Lead with Pit and Sea l Coal ; Leadbetter v, Marylebone Corporation ■\ Leadbetter v. St. Marylebone Corporation [1904] 1 Ch. 600; C. A. [1904] i W. N. 112 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 569 j [1905] 2 K. B. 103 [1903] W. N. 18 ; [1903] 1 Ch. \ 697 ) C. A. [1904] W. N. 138 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 561 . . . . j H. L. [1902] W. N. SO ; [1902] ( A. C. 263 ) [1908] W. N. 142 : [1908] 2 , K. B. 431 ; C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 863 ) [1905] 2 Ch. 418 ; C. A. [1906] / W. N. 105; [1906] 2 Ch. 11 j C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 772 [1908] W. N. 99; [1908] 1 Ch. 850 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 209 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 682 [1902] W. N. 129; [1902] 2 K. B. 445 [1902] W. N. 154 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 673; C. A. [1902] W. N. 195 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 799; H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 149; [1903] A. C. 411 .. [1901] W. N. 158 [1910] W. N. 270 [1901] W. N. 168 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 264; C. A. [1903] W.N. 2; [1903] 1 Ch. 318 ; H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 191 ; [1903] A. 0. 17 [1910] W. N. 147 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 257 . . [1908] W. N. 204 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 952 [1901] W. N. 148 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 399 j C. C. R. [1905] 1 K B. 541 . . [1904] W. N. 68 ; [1904] 1 Ch. ) 718 i C. A. [1903] W. N. 108 C. A. [1903] W.N. 88; [1903]) 2 Oh. 299 ) Chancery Court of York [1910] ) P. 300 . . . , ) C.A. [1908] W.N. 115; [1908] ) 2 K. B. 266 . . [1904] W. N. 100 ; [1904] 2 Ch. ^' i C. A. [1910] W. N. 275 [1909] 2 Ch. 206 [1904] W. N. 107 Ch. 196 [1904] 2 I C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 893 0. A. [1905] W. N. 64 ; [1905] t 1 K. B. 661 . . . . Column of Digest. 422 2611 2420 2353 2977 1254 2365 694 37 230 1933 542 685 1249 1449 1055 825 1318 1393 3000 984 1720 180 1645 1011 1114 1509 1609 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. olxxiii Name of C&ae. Volume and Page. Column of Digest, Leas Hotel Co., In re. Salter v. Leas Hotel Co Lease (Viola's) Laden ture of), In re. Hum- phrey V. Stenbury Leatham : — Chiua Navigation Co. v. Leathern : — Quinn v. . . Leavers, In re. In re New. In re Morley . . Le Claire : — Mourmand v. Provincial Union Bank Claimants Leconfield (Lord) v. London and North Western Ey. Co. Leconfleld's (Lord) Settled Estates, In re . . Lecouturier : — Eey v. . , Lee V. Atherton . . Lee V. Bent. Barlow v. Noblett. Groulder V. Eook. Bent v. Ormerod . . Lee : — Bird v. In re Eogerson Lee : — Crossley Brothers, Ld. v. Lee V. Guedella's Trustee. In re Gruedella . . Lee : — Sprange v. Lee Conservancy Board : — Hackney Corpora- tion V. . . Leech v. Life and Health Assurance Associa- tion Leeds and Hanley Theatres of Varieties, Ld., Inre . . . . . . . . . . Leeds and Hanley Theatres of Varieties, Ld., In re. . . Leeds City Council (Leeds Institute of Science and), Inre . . Leeds Corporation v. Ryder . . Leeds Forge Co. v. Deighton's Patent Plue and Tube Co. . . Leeds Forge Co. : — North Eastern Marine Engineering Co. v. . . Leeds Grammar School, In re Leeds Listitute of Science and Leeds City Council, In re Leeds Justices : — Kex v. (Leeds Justices.) Eex v. Woodhouse Lees : — Hall v. Lees Brook Spinning Co., In re Leetham & Sous, Ld. v. Johnstone-White . . Le Fanu v. Kochester (Bishop of) [1902] W.N. 10; [1902] 1 Ch. 332 [1909] 1 Ch. 244 P. C. [1908] A. C. 251 H. L. (L-.) [1901] W. N. 1(0 ; I [1901] A. C. 495 . ..] C. A. [1901] W.N. 162 ; [1901] | 2 Ch. 634 j [1903] 2 K. B. 216 . . [1906] W. N. 192 ; [1907] 1 Ch. ) 38 j [1907] W. N. 144 ; [1907] 2 ) Ch. 340 j 0. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 716;) H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 79; [1910] A. 0. 262 .. ) P. C. [1904] A. 0. 805 [1901] W. N. 108 ; [1901] 2 ) K. B. 290 [1901] W.N. 56; [1901] 1 Ch. ) 715 ) [1908] 1 K. B. 86 [1906] W. N. 115; [1905] 2) Ch. 331 I [1908] W. N. 13 ; [1908] 1 ) Ch. 424 j 0. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 541 0. A. [1901] W. N. 64 ; [1901]) 1 K. B. 707 j C. A. [1902] W. N. 141 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 809 [1904] 2 Ch. 45 [1909] W. N. 43 ; [1909] 1 Ch. ) 600 H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 195 ; | [1907] A. 0. 420 . . . . i [1903] W. N. 19 ; [1903] 1 Ch. ) 475 j [1906] W. N. 13 ; [1906] 1 Ch. j 324;C.A. [1906] W.N. 163; C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 498 . . ) [1901] 1 Ch. 228 [1909] W. N. 43; [1909] 1 Ch. / 500 ) [1906] W. N. 204 C. A. [1906] W. N. 134 ; [1906] , 2 K B. 601 ; H. L. (E.) / [1907] W. N. 196 ; [1907] A. 0. 420 ; C. A. [1904] 2 K B. 602 . . [1906] W. N. 130; [1906] 2) Ch. 394 ) [1906] W, N. 227; [1907] 1) Ch. 189; C. A. [1907] W. N. 20 ; [1907] 1 Oh. 322 . . ) [1906] 2 Ch. 513 429 1364 380 16 2754 252 1398 2349 2680 984 40 376 910 194 1187 1637 1680 509 582 2307 1437 708 1874 1398 2307 1442 1437 1679 545 2192 87 clxxiv TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Lefroy v. Bgmont (Earl of). In re Earl of / Egmont's Trusts . . . . . . . . ( Lefroy v. Egmont (Earl of), In re Egmont's \ (Earl of) Settled Estates j Legal and General Investment Co., In re Legg V. Mordan. In re Mordan , . . . Legge :■ -Eobbins u. la re Eobbins . . Legget V. Burke . . . . , . } Leggett : — Brown ;'. . . LegE V. Petre. In re Petre's Settlement / Trusts j Legh's Settled Estate, In re j Lehmann and Walker's Contract, In re , . Leicester v. Yolland, Husson and Birkett, Ld. ) In re Yolland, Husson and Birkett, Ld. . . j Leicester Coi-poration : — Att.-Q-en. v. . . \ Leicester & Co. u. Cherryman ( .. ^ Leigh : — Bvered v. In re Oliver's Settlement Leigh. V. Leigh . . . . . . . . . . j Leigh !'. Taylor . . , . . . , . . . j Leigh Union : — Smith v. Leigh Urhan District Council c. Eex Leigh-on-Sea Urban Council ; — Haurahan v. " Leitrim," The Lejoiudre : — Spain v. In re Leveridge . . j Le Maitie : — Richardson v. . . . . . . j Le Marchant, Ex iiarte. In re Panshawe . . } Lempriere : — Barton v. Leney & Sons, Ld. v. Callingham and | Thompson . . . . . . . . . . [ Leug (Sir W. C.) & Co. o. Andi-ews . . Lennox (Gordon) : — Neale c. . . . . | Lennox v. Stoddart. Davis o. Stoddart Lennox : — Trevanion v. In re Trevauion. . Lens : — Halbot v. . . . . , . j Leonard v. Leonard Leonis Steamship Co. v. Bank, Ld. . . . . j Leopold Oassella & Co., Gesellschaft Mit ) beschrankter Haffcung, In re . . . .] Volume and Page. [1908] W. N. 88 ; [1908] 1 Ch. ) 821 ) [1906] W. N. 80 ; [1906] 2 Ch. ) 151 j [1901] W. N. 72 C. A. [1905] W. N. 47 ; [1905] ) 1 Ch. 515 j [1906] W. N. 184; [1906] 2 j Oh. 648 ; C. A. [1907] W. N. 109 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 8 ..) (1902) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] '/ W. N. 163 ] [1906] 1 K. B. 330 . . [1910] 1 Ch. 290 [1902] W. N. 114; [1902] 2) Ch. 274 ) [1906] W. N. 171; [1906] 2) Oh. 640 [1907] 2 Ch. 471 ; 0. A. [1907] ( W.N. 249; [1908] 1 Ch. 152 j [1910] W. N. 169; [1910] 2 / Ch. 359 ) [1907] W. N. 95; [1907] 2 , K B. 101 1 [1904] W. N. 194; [1905] 1) Oh. 191 t [1902] W. X. 5 ; [1902] 1 Ch. ) 400 1 H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 30 ; ) [1902] A. 0. 157 . . . . i 0. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 484 . . ' [1901] 1 K. B. 747 . . [1909] W. N. 9; [1909] 1 , K B. 263 ; 0. A. [1909] W. N. 107 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 1 -57 ' [1902] P. 256 [1901] W. N. 203 ; [1901] 2 / Ch. 830 [1903] W. N. 101 ; [1903] 2 ) Ch. 222 . . I [1904] W. N. 211 ; [1905] 1 ) KB. 170 .. , , ) P. 0. [1910] A. C. 330 C. A. [1907] W. N. 224 ; [1908] / IK B. 79 ., .. ..) 0. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 763 [1902] W. N. 80 ; [1902] 1 ) K B. 838 ; H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 156 ; [1902] A. C. 465 ) C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 21 [1910] 2 Ch. 538 [1901] W.N. 6; [1901] iCh. ) 344 .. [1902] P. 243 . . [1907] 1 K B. 344 ; 0. A. ) [1908] 1 K. B. 499 . . . . I 0. A. [1910] W. N. 129 ; [1910] ) 2 Ch. 240 . . . . . Column of Digest 2360 2350 549 2752 62 1598 1906 2415 2352 2795 437 1017 1897 1935 975 1091 1916 1161 1270 1265 2993 90 207 1792 2170 2194 743 1127 9 2032 2073 2465 2693 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. olxxv Name of Cast. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Le Koi Mining Oo. : — McMillan v. Leschallas v. Woolf Le Seminaire de Quebec : — Kiefier Leslie : — Ouetod v. Leslie v. Leslie . . Lethbridge : — Att.-Gen. v. Letheby & Christopher, Ld., In re Letton ; — Hastings Corporation i'. Lever V. Koffler . . Lever : — Walker v. In re Appleby Lever Brothers v. Associated Newspapers Leveridge, In re. Spain v. Lejoindre Leveson-Grower's Settled Estate, In re Levi V. Anglo-Continental Gold Reefs of Ehodesia, Ld. Levi V. Taylor , . Levinstein, Ld. : — Bagnall v, Levitt V. Hamblet Levy, In the Estate of Levy : — Evans v. Levy V. Levj' and De Romance Le-win v. End. Lewin v. Civil Service Supply Association, Ld. Lewis, In re. Davies v. Harrison Lewis, In re. Lewis v. Lewis Lewis, In re. Lewis v. Lewis Lewis, In re. Prothero v. Lewis Lewis V. Baker . . Lewis V. Baker . . Lewis V. Cory . . Lewis : — Crump v. Lewis V. Green . . Lewis V. Lewis . . Lewis V. Lewis. In re Mordeoai Jones Lewis : — Moore v. Lewis : — Eex v. Lewis : — Bex v. . . Lewis : — Smith v. In re Smith [1906] 1 Ch. 331 [1908] 1 Ch. 641 P. C. [1903] A. C. 8S . . C. A. [1909] W. N. 66 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 880 [1908] P. 99 C.A. [1905] W.N. 98; [1906] 2 KB. 323; H.L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 218; [1907] A. 0. 19 [1904] W. N. 89 ; [1904] 1 Oh. 815 [1907] W. N. 105; [1908] 1 K. B. 378 [1901] W.N. 46; [1901] 1 Oh 543 C. A. [1903] 1 Oh. 565 C. A. [1907] W. N. 167 [1907] 2 K. B. 626 . . [1901] W. N. 203; [1901] 2 Oh. 830 [1905] W. N. 87 ; [1905] 2 Ch 95 0. A. [1902] W. N. 146 ; [1902] 2 K B. 481 . . [1903] W. N. 183 0. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 831 0. A. [1901] W. N. 58 ; [1901] 2 E. B. 63 . . [1908] P. 108 . . [1910] W. N. 22 ; [1910] 1 Ch, 462 [1908] P. 256 . . C. A. [1905] W. N. 35 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 669 ; H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 95 ; [1906] A. 0. 299 [1907] W. N. 138; [1907] 2 Ch. 296 0. A. [1904] W. N. 164 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 656 . . [1910] W. N. 217 [1910] W. N. 6 [1904] W. N. 190; [1905] 1 Oh. 46 [1906] 2 K. B. 576; 0. A [1906] W. N. 151; [1906] 2 K. B. 599 . . C. A. [1906] W. N. 96 [1908] W. N. 51; [1908] K. B. 868 . . [1905] W. N. 121 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 340 [1908] P. 1 [1909] W. N. 228; [1910] Ch. 167 [1905] W. N. 162; [1906] K. B. 27 [1906] 2 K. B. 307 0. 0. A. [1909] W. N. 128 ^ . [1902] W. N. 143; [1902] 2 Oh. 667 486 1368 308 1190 942 2217 569 696 2615 2960 2960 2993 2346 2012 893 1660 2626 2064 1366 931 2144 2364 1051 2732 2954 911 1379 73 1494 1973 2059 2919 2200 2537 803 2763 clxiTl TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Lewis •('. Sutton. In re Sutton Lewis & Solome v. Oliaring Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Ey. Co. Lewis Mei'tliyi- Consolidated Collieries, Ld. : Keates v. Lewison, Claimant. Van Laun & Co. r. Baring Brothers & Co. Lewthwaite (or Paton) : — Paton (J. M.) v. Leyland (Prederiok) & Oo. : — Cain v. Leyton and Walthamstow Cycle Co., Iti re. . Leyton Urban Council v. Chew Li Tan Sam : — Russo-Chinese Bank v. Liability (Employers') Assurance Corpora- tion, Ld. : — Board of Trade .■. Liberty & Co. : — Mappin Brothers c. Licenses Insurance Corporation and Guaran- tee Fund, Ld. v. Denton. In re Denton's Estate . . Lidbetter v. Hatch Life and Health Assurance Association, Ld., In re Life and Health Assurance Association : — Leech v. Life (Edinburgh) Assurance Co. v. The Lord Advocate Life (Pearl) Assurance Co. r. Johnson. The Same ('. Greenhalgh. . Life (Popular) Assm-anoe Co., In re. . Liggens : — Elliott v. . . Light (Continental Heat and) Co. : — La Com- pagnie Hydraulique de St. Pranfois v. . Light (G-as) and Coke Co. : — Davies v. Light, Heat, and Power (Montreal) Co. v. Sedgwick . . .... Light (Kent County Gas) and Coke Co., In re { Lighterage (Asiatic Petroleum Co. and the \ Taku Tug and) Co. :— China Navigation Co. y. . . . . . , . . \ Lighterage (Thames Steam Tug and) Co :- / London and India Docks Co. v. . . . . \ Lightfoot : — Howard c. In re Lacey Lighting (British Power Traction and) Co., Ld. , In re. Halifax Joint Stock Banking | Co., Ld. V. British Power Traction and I Lighting Co., Ld j Lighting (Kitson) Empire Co., In re. Higgs ) V. The Company . . . . . . . , i Lightship "Comet" v. Owners of Hopper I Barge "H. No. 1 " . | LUburn and Pyman : — Stirling v. Lilley v. Att.-Gen. In re Pyne Volume and Page. [1901] W. N. 168 ; [1901] 2 ) Ch. 640 ) [1906] 1 Ch. 508 [1910] 1 K B. 386; C. A. [1910] W. N. 130; [1910] 2 K. B. 445 C. A. [1903] W. X. 128 ; [1903] / 2 K. B. 277 I H. L. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 44 . . C. A. [1908] W. N. 5; [1908] ( 1 K. B. 441 I Column of Digest. [1901 [190' W. N. 225 2 K. B. 283 P. C. [1910] A. C. 174 [1909] W. N. 263; [1910] l\ K. B. 401 ; 0. A. [1910] W.N. 161; [1910] 2 KB. 649 1 [1902] W. N. 209 ; [1903] 1 Ch. ) 118 ( [1903] W. X. 140 ; [1903] 2 Ch. / 670 ; C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 178 ) [1907] W.X. 29; [1907] ICb. 404 [1910]W. N. 45; [1910] ICh. ) 458 j 0. A. [1901] W. N. 64 ; [1901] ( 1 K. B. 707 I H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 257 : ) [1910] A. C. 143 . . . , ) [1909] 2 K. B. 2.S8 [1909] 1 Ch. 80 [1902] 2 K. B. 84 P. C. [1909] A. C. 194 [1909] 1 Ch. 248 ; C. A. [1909] / W. N. 77; [1909] 1 Ch. 708 | P. C. [1910] A, C. 598 [1909] W. N. 128 ; [1909] 2 ) Ch. 195 I P. C. [1910] A. C. 204 II. L. (B.) [1909] A. C. 15 . . [190G]W. N.213;C. A. [1907] , W. N. 36 (Addendum), 42 ; ' [1907] 1 Ch. 330 , . , . * [1910] W. N. 194 ; [1910] 2 j Ch. 470 .. .. .. I [1910] W. N. 1.34 H. L. (E.) [1910] W.N. 274.. [1909] W. N. 204 . . [1903] 1 Ch. 83 369 1511 1664 1288 929 1588 589 2634 1174 226 1162 2043 1009 1258 1680 2233 1260 1256 1654 302 410 304 234 379 25:20 36 410 435 2514 1725 352 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. clxxvii Name of Case. Lilley v. London County Council Lincoln and East Coast Eailway Acts, 1897 ' to 1902, III re, and In re Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Eailway Acts, 1891 to 1896 ^ Linder : — ^Inderwick o. Inderwick v. Inder- •wick. Inderwick v. Tachell Lindlar's Case. In re Discoverers Finance ' Corporation, Ld. (No. 2) . . Lindon u. Ingram. In re Venn Liners (Manchester), Ld. : — Moore v. Lines : — Eex v... Lingard, In re. Lingard v. Squirrell Linneker : — Eex v. Linom : — Walker v Linsley, In re. Oattley v. West ' Lion Brewery Co. : — Smith v. Lipman v. Pulman Lishurne's (Earl of) Settled Estates, In re Liakeard and Caradon Ey. Co., In re Lisle u. Eeeve . . -i Volume and Page. Lister v. Hooson Lister v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Ey. Co. Litchfield V. Dreyfus . . Little : — Bastable v. Little V. Spreadbury . . Little : — ^Thornton v. . . Littledale: — Grant v. Settlement Trusts . . Littlejohn : — HiuTell v. In re Thursby's Liverpool and North Wales Steamship Co. v. Mersey Trading Co Liverpool, Brazil, and Biver Plate Steam ) Navigation Co. : — Blackburn v. .. .. j Liverpool Corporation : — ^Att.-Gen. v. Liverpool Corporation : — Evans v. . . Liverpool Corporation : — Kirkdale Burial ) Board v j Liverpool Corporation : — Maguire v. H. L.. (E.) [1910] A. C. 1 .. [1903] W. N. 184, 186; [1903] ) 2 Ch. 711 ) C. A. [1901] W.N. 206; [1901] 2Ch. 738; H. L. (E.) [1903] W.N. 52; [1903] A. 0. 120 [1909] W. N. 245; [1910] 1 Ch. 207 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 42; 1 Ch. 312 [1904] W. N. 94; [1904] 2 Ch. 52 C. A. [1909] W.N. -5; [1909] 1 K. B. 417; H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 184; [1910] A. 0. 498 C. C. E. [1901] W. N. 251 [1902] 1 K. B. 199 . . [1908] W. N. 107 C. C. E. [1906] 2 K. B. 99 . . [1907] W. N. 128; [1907] 2 Oh. 104 [1904] W. N. 140 ; [1904] 2 Ch 785 [1909] W. N. 54 ; [1909] 1 K. B 711; C. A. [1909] W. N 177; [1909] 2 K B. 912 [1904] W. N. 139 [1901] W. N. 91 [1903] W. N. 155 ; [1903] 2 Oh 681 C. A. [1901] W. N. 223 ; [1302] 1 Ch. 53 ; H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 152 ; [1902] A. 0. 461 C. A. [1907] W. N. 250; [1908] 1E.B. 174 .. ■ .. [1903] W. N. 84; [1903] 1 K. B. 878 [1906], W. N. 70 ; . [1906] 1 K. B. 584 ) [1906], W. N. 196;. [1907] 1 ) K. B. 59 ( 1910] 2 K B. 658 . . '1907] W. N. 68 1910] W. N. 151; 0. A. [1910] 2 Oh. 181 . . [1904] W. N. 32 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 689 ( [1908] W. N. 154 ; [1908] 2 Oh. 460;C.A. [1908] W.N. 233; 0. A. [1909] 1 Oh. 209 . . [1902] 1 K. B. 290 . . 1902] 1 K. B. 411 .. 1906] 1 K. B. 160 . . 1904] W. N. 79 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 829 C, A. [1905] W. N. 34 ; [1905] ' 1KB. 767 Column of Bigest. 1631 2110 2984 588 2894 1643 1122 2367 827 1750 2731 2237 1829 2348 2133 .1767 220 339 1719 1912 2578 2864 1948 2383 1908 2451 2263 1177 1498 1170 clxxviii TABLE OF CASES IX THE DIGEST. Name of Case- Volnine and Page. ColmniL of Digest Liverpool Corporation : — Merrick v... . . I Liverpool Corporation r. Peter Walker & i-^on, i Ld / Liverpool Corporation r. West Derby Union ) Assessment Committee . . . . . . I Liverpool (Friends' Eree School, Islington) / In re. CKbbom v. O'Brien. In re Friends' Free School. Clibborn r. O'Brien . . ) (Liverpool) Nelson Line, Ld.r. James Nelson (t Sons, Ld. . . (Liverpool) Nelson Line, Ld., James Nelson & Sons, Ld. V. Liverpool, St. Helen's and South Lancashire Ey. Co. : — Mercer r. . . Liverpool Watch Committee : — Kydd r. Livei-pool Watch Committee : — Kydd c. Livingstone c. Boss Livingstone r. Westminster Corporation Llanbadarnfawr School Board r. Official / Trustees of Charitable Trusts . . . . ( Llandafl and Diuas Powis Eural Council : — '( Wilkinson r. . . _ . . . . . ) Llangattock (Lord) >■. Watney, Combe, Eeid \ & Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Llanover (Baroness), In re. Herbert r. Freshfield (No. 2) Llanover (Baroness), /)) re. Herbert r. Eam Llanover's (Baroness) Will, In re. Herbert !'. Freshfield . . Llewellyn : — Law v. . . Llewelyn v. Washington. In re Maddock. . Lloyd, In re. Lloyd v. Lloyd Lloyd I . Boyes. In re Edwards . Lloyd : — Campbell Davys v. . . Lloyd V. Great Western Dairies Co. Lloyd < . Priohard .... Lloyd : — Eex r. Lloyd : — Wellington Corporation c. Lloyd Brazileno : — Workman, Clark & Co. [1910] W. N. 202; [1910] 2 Ch. 449 [1907] W. N. 214; [1908], 1 K. B. 28 ; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 79 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 33 ) C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 647 [1909] W. N. 189 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 675 H. L.- (E.) [1908] A. C. 16 . . H. L.(E.)[1908] A. C. 108 .. [1901] 2 K. B. 753 ; C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 652 ; H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 150; [1904] A. C. 461 C. A. [1907] W. N. 159; [1907] 2 K. B. 591 ; H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 164; [1908] A. C. 327 . . C. A. [1908] W. X. 26 P. C. [1901] A. C, 327 [1904] W. N. 69 ; [1904] 2 Iv. E. 109 C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 430 C. A. [1903] W. N. 186; [1903] 2 Ch. 695 [1909] 2 K. B. 884 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 250; [1910] 1 K. B. 236; H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 103; [1910] A. C. 394 ■ . . ■ ' . . ■ . . [1903] W. N. Ill ; [1903] 2 Ch. 330. . . .... .... [1907] 1 Ch. 635 [1902] W. N. 149 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 679 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 62 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 16 C. A. [1906] W. N. 50 ; [1906] IK.B. 487 .. .. [1901] W. N. 118 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 372; C. A. [1902] W. N. 102; [1902] 2Ch. 220 C. A. [1902] W. N. 224 : [1903] ■ ' 1 Ch. 835 ■ • .[1919] W. N. 60; [1910] 1 Ch. 541 . . . . . C. A. [1901] W. N. 150 ; [1901] 2Ch.518.... C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 727 [1908] 1 Ch. 265 [1905] W. N. 165 ; [1906] 1 K.B.22; C. A. [1906] W.N. 66 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 552 . . P. C. [1902] A. C. 396 C. A. [I90S] W. N. 7S ; [1908] 1 K. B. 968 1483 1434 2148 380 2459 2468 1399 1913 75 653 619 372 2432 1428 13 2380 2391 878 22, 2995 1741 2397 266 1969 2399 755 1810 1970 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. clxxix Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Lloyd (Edward), Ld. : — Brice v. Lloyd's Bank, Ld. :— Clark v. Lloyd's Bank, Ld. t . Cooke . . Lloyd's Bank:-^Deeley v. Lloyd's Bank v. Luck . . Lloyd's Bank v. Pearson . , ... Lloyd's Bank, Ld. v. Medway "Upper Navi gation Co. Local Government Board : — Beg. i . . . Local Grovemment Board : — Hex v. Ex parte \ South Stoneham Union. Local Govern- ment Board v. South Stoneham Union . . i Local Government Board of L-eland v. Black- ) burn Guardians . . . . . . , . ( Local Government Board for L-eland v. ) McKay. Local Government Board for } Ireland v. Kex . . . . . . . . j Loohgelly L-on and Coal Co. : — Pleming v... j Lock-Ear (Mephan-Perguson) Pipe Co. r. ) British Aluminium Co. . . . , ] Locke : — Eex v. Lockwood V. Cooper . . . . . . . . j Lodder : — ^Hiscook v. In re Churchill . . j Lodder v. Slowey Lodge and Harper :-"Pettit v. .. . . j Lodge V. National Union Investment Co. | Lodge Holes' ' Colliery Co. : — Wednesbury j Corporation v. . . . . . . . . j ■■( Loe : — ^Fleming v. Mackusibk v. Pleming . Logan V. Bank of Scotland . . Logan V. Bank of Scotland (No. 2) . . Logan :— Commissioner of PubKc Works ) (Cape Colony) v . , . 1 Lomagunda Eeefs, Ld. :— Doughty v. Lomas v. Graves & Co. Londesborough (Earl of) :— Att.-Gen. v. Londesborough (Earl of) :— Sitwell v. . . j " London," The i C. A. [1909] W. N. 187 ; ) . [1909] 2 K. B. 804 . . . . ( [1910] W. N. 187 . . 0. A. [1907] W. N. 67 ; ) [1907] 1 K. B. 794 . . . . j 1910] 1 Ch. 648 1901] W. N. 130 1901] W. N. 59 ; [1901] 1 ) ■ Ch. 865 1 C. A. [1905] W. N. 102 ; [1905] ) 2 K. B. 359 1 C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 210 C. A. [1908] W. N. 96 ; [1908] \ 2 K. B. 368 ; H. L. (E.) ' [1908] W. N. 241 ; [1909] l A. c. 57 .; [1909] 1 K. B. 454 . . H. L. (Ir.) [1903] W. N. 149 ; ) [1903] A. C. 402 . . . . j (1902) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] ) W. N. 165 j H. L. (Sc.)[1910] W. N. 67.. [1910] 2 K B. 201 . . [1903] W. N. 136; [1903] 2) K. B. 428 . . [1909] W. N. 178; [1909] 2 Ch. 431 . . -' P. C. [1904] A. C. 442 0. A. [1908] W. N. 45 ; [19081 ) 1 K. B. 744 . . [1907] W. N. 9; [1907] i Ch. 300 . . -' [1905]2K.B.823; O.A.[1906i\ • W. N. 212 ;• [1907] 1 K. B. 78; H.L.(E.) [1908] W.N. 168; [1908] A. C. 323 ) [1901] W. N. 178 ; [1901] 2 Ch. \ 594; C. A. [1902] W. N. 142; [1902]2Ch.359;H.L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 44 ) C. A. [1904] W. N. 139; [1904] ) 2 K. B. 495 . . . . ■'l [1906] 1 K. B. 141 . . ; . P. C. [1903] A. 0. 355 [1902] W. N. 143 ; [1902] 2 ) . Ch. 837 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 57 ; [1903] 1 Oh. 673 C. A. [1904] W. N. 145 ; [1904] ) 2 K. B. 557 . . [1904] 1 K B. 749; C. A.) [1904]W. N. 188; [1905] 1 K. B. 98 -' ) [1905] W.N. 11; [1905] ICh. 460 .. „ -' [1904] P. 365; 0. A.' [1905] W. N. 61 ; -[1905] P. 152 1584 1830 2079' 1729 892 1745 1238 1928 191T 1924 2141 1609 2319 692 1132 2933 1806 252 1723 1172 2789 2000 200& 332 497, 532: 2624 2210. 2375. 2541 ?n 2 clxxx TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. London and County Banking Co. : — Great Western Ey. Co. v. . . London and County Banking Co. : — Taylor v. London and County Banking Co. v. Nixon London and County Contracts, Ld. v. Tallack London and Globe Finance Co., In re London and Globe Finance Corporation, In re . . London and Globe Finance Corporation, Ld., Inre . . London and Hull Soap Works, Ld., Inre . . London and India Docks Co. v. Att.-Gen. . . London and India Docks Co. v. Great Eastern Ey. Co. and Midland Ey. Co London and India Docks Co. : — McDougall \ & Bonthron, Ld. v. Page, Son & East, Ld. V. The Same London and India Docks Co. !'. Thames Steam Tug and Lighterage Co. London and India Docks Co. v. Woolwich (Borough of) . . . . . . . . . . ( London and Manchester Insurance Co. : :| Porter u. London and North Western Ey. Co. : — Barr, ', Moering & Co. v. London and North Western Ey. Co. : — Chance & Hunt, Ld. v. London and North Western Ey. Co. : — Char- ringtou, Sells, Dale & Co. v. London and North Western Ey. Co. v. Hinch- cliffe London and North Western Ey. Co. v. Howley Park Coal and' Cannel Co. London and North Western Ey. Co. : — ' Leoonfield (Lord) v. . . London and North Western Ey. Co. : — Man- chester Ship Canal Co. v. . . London and North Western Ey. Co. : — Peel v. j London and North Western Ej'. Co. ' (No. 2) :— Peel v London and North Western Ey. Co. : — Pick- ' fords, Ld. v. . . London and North Western Ey. Co. : Eugby Portland Cement Co. v. London and North ' Western Ey. Co, Walker ' London and North Western Ey. Co. v. West- ' minster Corporation . . . . . . . ' London and North Western Ey. Co. : — ] Lord Leoonfield v. . . . . . . . . ( London and North Western Ey. Co. andLan- ' cashire and Yorkshire Ey. Co. : — Lan- ' cashire and Cheshire Coal Association and \ Eichard Evans & Co. v. . , . . _ I London and Northern Bank,' In re. Archer's ' Case Volume and Page. ,^1 H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 156; I [1901] A. C. 414 . . . . ) C. A. [1901] W. N. 79 ; [1901] ) 2 Ch. 231 j [1903] W. N. 8 [1902] W. N. 16 [1902] 2 Ch. 416 [1903] W. N. 54; [1903] 1 Ch. 728 [1907] W. N. 254 H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 7 . . C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 568 C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 175; H. L. ) (E.) [1909] A. C. 25 . . j C. A [1908] 1 K. B. 786 ; H. L. ) (E.) [1909] A. C. 16 . . i [1902] 1 K. B. 750 . . [1909] W. N. 70; [1909] K. B. 30 [1905] 2 K B. 113 .. [1909] 1 K. B. 550 • . . [1905] 2 K. B. 437 [1903] 2 K. B. 32 [1910] W. N. 163 . . [1907] 1 Ch. 38 [1910] 2 K. B. 913 . . C. A. [1906] W. N. 208 ; [1907] ) 1 Ch. 6 [1907] W. N. 70 ; [1907] 1 Ch. { 607 j C. A. [1905] 1 K B. 752 [1908] 1 K. B. 925; C. A.) [1908] 2 K. B. 606 . . .H. L. (E.)[1903] W. N. 104; [1903] A. 0. 289 . . [1901] W. N. 230 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 269; C. A. [1904] W.N.') . 67; [1904] ICh. 759; H.L.I (E.) [1905] W. N. 126; [1905] A. C. 426 .. ..J [1906] W. N. 192; [1907] 1 ) Ch. 38 . . i [1906] W. N. 82; [1906] 1\ K. B. 577; C. A. [1907]/ W. N. 167 ; [1907] 2 K. B. ( 902 .. j [1901]W.N.236;C.A;[190iii W. N. 247 . . I Colamn of Digert. 145 2740 235 593 2624 460 601 2267 2134 2520 2620 1626 749 2106 2131 2107 2124 2123 1398 2130 2112 718 2105 2119 2121 1517 1398 2130 594 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. olxxxi Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. London and Northern Bank, Ld., In re ] Haddock's Case. Hoyle's Case . . . . j London and Northern Bank, In re. ] McConnell's Claim . . . . . . j London and Provincial Marine and General Insurance Co. : — Steamship " Oarisbrook " Oo. V. . . London and Provincial Marine and General Insurance Oo. : — Steamship Nevr Orleans Oo. r London and Provincial Pure Ice Manufac- turing Oo., In re London and South-Western Ey. Oo. : — Bist v. London and South Western Ey. Oo. : — Ohallis V. London and South Western Ey. Oo. : — Critchell v. . . . . . . : . London and South Western Ey. Oo. v. Hills London (Bishop of) : — Whiteley v. In re Whiteley London, Birmingham and Manchester In- surance Oo. : — Molineaui v. London, Brighton and South OoastEy. Oo. : — ) London Oounty Council v.. . . . . . ] London, Brighton and South Coast Ey. Co. V. Metropolitan Water Board London (Central (Unemployed) Body for) : — Portion v. London (City of) Oom.mon Council : — Wag- staff V. London, City and Midland Bank : — Curtice v. London City and Midland Bank, Ld. : — Gor- don V. Gordon v. Capital and Counties Bank . . London City and Midland Bank : — Lyon Co. i; '! London Corporation : — City Electric Lighting Co. v. of London ' County of London "! and i London Corporation Electric Supply Oo London Corporation v. Great Western Metropolitan Railways London Corporation : — Lyons (J.) & Co. v. . . London Corporation v. Netherlands Steam- boat Oo. London Corporation : — Sion College v. London Oounty Council, JSx parte. In re Harris . . . . . . London Oounty OouncU, Ex parte. Eex v. High Bailiflf of Westminster London County Council, In re London Oounty Oonncil In re Chandler's Wiltshire Breweiy Co. and [1902] W. N. 55 ; 0. A. [1902] W.N. 84; [1902] 2 Oh. 73 . . [1901] W. N. 12 ; [1901] 1 Oh. ' 728 [1901] 2 K. B. 861; 0. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 681 . . 0. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 9-13 . . [1904] W. N. 136 H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. ) 209 j 0. A. [1905] W. N. 80 ; [1905] K. B. 512 [1910] W. N. 63; Oh. 600 2 K. B. 154 0. A. [1907] 1 K B. 860 [1906^ W. N. 60 ; [1906] [ioio] 1 ) 0. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 589 . . [1906] 2 K. B. 72 [1910] 1 K. B. 804 ; 0. A. ) [1910] W. N. 209 ; [1910] 2 \ K. B. 890 ) 0. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 173 [1908] W. N. 202 [1907] W. N. 146; 0. A.' [1908] W. N. 3; [1908] 1 K. B 293 0. A. [1901] W.' N. 247 ■ [1902] ' 1 K. B. 242 ; H.L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 92 ; [1903] A. C. 240 , [1903] 2 K. B. 135 . . 0. A. [1901] W. N 43 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 602 ; H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 149; [1903] ' ~ 434 A. 0. i [1910] 2 Oh. 208 [1910] W. N. 145 ; [1910] ■ 2 1 Ch. 314 j [1909] 2 K. B. 588 . . H. L. (E.) [1906] A. 0. 263 . . 0. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 617 . . [1901] 1 Ch. 931 [1903] 2 K. B. 189 0. A. [1901] W. N. 7 . . [1903] 1 K. B. 569 . . 593 464 1265 2546 600 1627 1627 2009 1543 375 462 1519 1542, 2154 1654 1524 145 146 1088 1016 1015 1395 1528 2140 2618 1403 1412 2001 1181 clxxxii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. London County Council v. Att.-Gren. London Countj' Council : — Att.-G-en. London County Council : — Att.-G-en. London County CoimoO. v. Bermondsey Bio- scope Co., Ld. . . . . . . . . London Count}' Council : — Brass r. . . London County Council : — Broderick c. London Countj' Council v. Cook London County Council : — Corsellis ( . London County Council !'. District Surveyors' Association and Willis London County Council c. Dundas . . London County Council : — EUis v. . . London County Council : — Fleming v. Metropolitan Ey. Co. v. London County Council (Consolidated Appeals) London County Council: — Frank Warr & Co. c'. . . London County Council ('. Great Eastern By. Co London County Council c. Hancock & James . . London Count}' Council : — Hull r. . , London County Council r. Illuminated Advertisements Co. London County Council : — Lilley c. . , London County Council v. London, Brighton and South Coast Ey. Co. London County Council : — London, Deptford and Greenwich Tramways Co. v. . . London County Council : — Marohant v. London County Council Co '. Metropolitan Ey. London County Council : — Parker r. London County Council v. Pa}Tie & Co. (No. 2) London County Council : — Price's Patent Candle Co. London County Council : — Eex v. Ex parte Norris . . London County Council : — St. James's Hall Co. X- London County Council : — St. Margaret, Lothbui-y (Eeotor, &o.) v. . . London County Council v. Schewzik London County Council :— South Eastern and Chatham Ey. Cos.' Managing Com- mittee V. H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 26 . . C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 781 ; H. L. \ (E.) [1902] W. N. 30; [1902] A. C. 165 J [1904] 2 E. B. 635; 0. A., [1905] W. N. 103 ; [1905] 1 2 K. B. 375 ; H. L. (E.) \ [1907] W. N. 73 ; [1907] A. C. 131 ^ [1910] W. N. 279 [190i] AV. N. 102 ; [1904] 2 ) K. B. 336 ( C. A. [1908] W. X. 187 ; [1908] ) 2 K. B. 807 ] [1906] 1 K B. 278 . . [1907] W. N. 79; [1907] 1 Ch. , 704 ; C. A. [1907] W. N. 227 ; ' [1908] 1 Ch. 13 [1909] 2 K. B. 138 . . [1903] W. N. 157 ; [1904] P. : [1904] 1 K. B. 283 . . H. L. (E.) [1910] W.N. 223 C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 713 [1906] 2 K. B. 312 . . [1907] W. N. 88; [1907] K. B. 45 [1901] 1 E. B. 580 . . [1904] 2 K. B. 886 . . H. L. (B.) [1910] A. C. 1 [1906] 2 K. B. 72 [1905] 1 K. B. 316 . . [1910] W. N. 148; [1910] K. B. 379 . -. [1909] 1 K. B. 116; C. A.) [1909] W.N. 117; [1909] 2 K. B. 317 [1904 [1904 [1905 [1908 2 K. B. 501 1 K. B. 194 1 K. B. 410 W. N. 131 ; C. A. [1908] : W. N. 188 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 526 ) [1906] W. N. 17 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 346 . . ■ [1901] 2 K. B. 250 [1909] P. 310 . . [1905] 2 K. B. 695 [1907] W. N. 81; [1907] K. B. 91 .. .. Column of Digest. 2) 2243 701 2238 382 1070 1606 2231 1540 1507 996 1504 1505 1398 2113 1513 1514 1503 1531 1519 2713 2255 1505 2084 2875 2874 1531 1486 1514 1001 1514 1505 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. clxxxiii Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. London County Council v. South Metropoli- ( tan Gas Co. . . . . i London County Council : — Southwark f Union i: . . \ London County Council v. Spink & Son, Ld. London County Council c. Wandsworth ) Borough Council . . . . 1 London County Council v. Watney, Combe & / Co j London County Council : — West Ham Union \ •■ ( London County Council : — Westminster ) Corporation v. London County Council : — Westminster Corporation c. . . . . . . . . I London County Council and Cohen's ] Executors, In re . . . . . . . . London County Council and Kettle : — Eex ( V. Ex parte Ellis ... . . . . . . ] London County Council (Harvey and). In. re London (County of) Electric Supply Co. : — London Corporation v. London (County of) Quarter Sessions : — Dartford Breweiy Co. v. . . London County Justices : — Hex c . . London, Deptford and Greenwich Tramways Co. t . Loudon County Council London, Edinburgh and Glasgow Assurance Co. : — Handley v. . . London Electric Supply Coi-poration : — Husey r. London Electrobus Co., Inre. . London General Omnibus Co. : — Bullock c. . . London General Omnibus Co. i London General Omnibus Co. : London General Omnibus Co. : — Clark v. Lavell -Wing V. . . London Graving Dock Co. : — Union Lighter- | age Co. t'. . . . . . . . . . ] London Investment Trust, Ld. v. Eussiau Petroleum and Liquid Fuel Co. In re I Russian Petroleum and Liquid Fuel | OO ; London Justices.: — Bex v. Ex parte South i Metropolitan Gas Co. . . . . J London Music Hall Ld. : — Underwood v. . . I London (Ontario) Water Commissioners : — \ Saunby v. . . . . . . I London Pressed Hinge Co., In re. Campbell i V. London Pressed Hinge Co. . . . . J London Eoad Car Co. : — Willmot o. . . . . < [1903] W. N. 90 ; [1903] 2 Oh. ~ 532 ;C. A. [1903] W.N. 205; C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 76 [1910] 2 K. B. 569 . . [1908] 2 K. B. 447 . . 0. A. [1903] W. N. 72 ; [1903] 1 K B. 797 [1909] W. N. 32 ; [1909] 1 ' K. B. 637 [1901] 1 K. B. 720 ; C. A. [1902] ^ W. N. 23 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 562 ; H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 3 ; [1904] A. C. 40 . . , [1902] 1 K. B. 326 . . [1906] W. N. 123 ; [1906] 2 ' K. B. 379 [1902] 1 Ch. 187 [1905] 1 K. B. 212 . . [1909] W. N. 18 ; [1909] 1 Oh. 528 .. .. .. [1910] 2 Ch. 208 [1906] W. N. 101 ; [1906] 1 ) K. B. 695 i C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 19 [1905] 1 K. B. 316 . . [1901] W. N. 226 ; [1902] 1 ) K. B. 350 C. A. [1902] W. N. 31 ; C. A. ) [1902] 1 Ch. 411 . . . . j [1906] W. N. 147 C. A. [1906] W. N. 224; C. A. \ [1907] IK. B. 264.. ..I C. A. [1905] W. N. 153 ; [1906] \ 2 K. B. 648 j 0. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 135 0. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 652 [1901] W. N. 92 ; [1901] 2 Ch. SOO; C.A. [1902] W.N. 147; [1902] 2 Ch. 557 . . C. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 540 [1907] W. N. 200 [1901] W. N. 113 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 309 P. C. [1906] A. C. 110 -j [1905] 1 Ch. 576 [1910] W. N. 95; [1910] 1 Ch. 754 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 209 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 625 1135 2302 1606 1536 1428 1922 1515 1531 1057 832 1181 1015 1443 1440 2713 749 1016 551 1969 1668 2677 1772 2651 432 1321 497 292 522 1353 clxxxiv TABLE OF CA^ES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. \'oiume and Page. Column of Digest. London (Eoyal) Mutual Insurance Society, Ld., In re . . . . . . . . , London (Eoyal) Mutual Insurance Society, Ld. : — McGlade v Loudon School Board : — Dyer !'. London School Board : — Dyer v. London School Board: — Islington (Jorpora- tion c. . . London Transport Co. r. Treohmann Brothers London L^niou (City of) : — Southwark Union v. London Union Pire and Life Insurance Co. : — Strickland v. In re Moore . . London United Breweries Ld., I'n re. Smith V. London United Breweries, Ld. . . London United Tramways : — Acton District Council V, London United Tramways Act, 1900, In re . . London United Tramways (1901), Ld. Ex parte. Eex v. Mouutford London LTnited Tramways, Ld. : — Fletcher r. London United Tramways, Ld. : — Ziok London (University of) Medical Sciences Institute, In re. Fowler?'. Att.-(ien. Londonderry and Lough SwiUj- liy. Uo. : McCartney v. . . Long, In re. Lovegrove v. Long Long V. Great Northern and City Ey. Co. Long : — Ward, Lock & Co. ?■. Long Eaton Eecreation Grounds Co. Midland Ey. Co Longbotham & Sons, hi re I [1910] W. N. 226 [19-10] W. N. 75 ; C. A. [1910] ) W. N. 1.30; [1910] 2 Ch. 169 ) C. A. [1902] W. N. 162 ; [1902] ) 2 Ch. 768 I [190.3] Vr. N. 83 [1902] 2 K. B. 701 ; C. A. [1903] ] W. N. 124 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 354 j 0. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 635 C. A. [1906] W. N. Ill ; ( [1906] 2 K B. 112 . . . . j [1907] W. N. 181 [1907] W. N. 198 ; [1907] 2 \ Oh. 511 ) [1908] ^^'. N. 216 ; [1909] 1 1 K. B. 68 j [1906] W. N. 33 ; [1906] 1 '( Ch. 534 1 [1906] 2 K. B. 814 . . 0. A. [1902] W. N. 123 ; [1902] '( 2 K. B. 269 ( [1908] 1 K. B. 611; C. A.) [1908] W. N. 98 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 126 j C. A. [1909] TT. N. 57 ; [1909] 1 2 Oh. 1 I H. L. (L-.) [1904] A. 0. 301 . . [1901] W. N. 166 0. A, [1906 1902] 1 K. B. 813 W. N. 183 ; [1906] 2 ( ); Longden & Sons : — Field r. . . Longford (Earl of) v. Baron Kensington. re Baron Kensington Longman v. Bath Electric Tramways, Ld. Lonsdale & Co. : — Kelly v. Loom, Jn re. Fulfoi-d '. Eeversionary Interest Society, Ld. Loosemore : — Murch v. In re Tuck Lopez V. Ohavarri Lord Advocate : — Buohan (Earl of) !■. Lord Advocate : — Edinburgh Life Assurance Co. r Lord Advocate v. Moray (Countess of) Oh. 550 C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 574 [1904] W. N. 78 ; 0. A. [1904] ) ■ • / i W. N. 118 : [1904] 2 Oh. 152 j ( 0. A. [1901] W. N. 224 ; [1902] \ ■ ( I 1 K. B. 47 I In I I [1901] W. N. 229 ; [1902] 1 Ch. ) . . ) I 203 I I 0. A. [1905] W. N. 55; [1905] ■■ \\ 1 OH. 646 .. . . ! [1906] W. N. 144; [1906] 2) K. B. 486 ) [1910] 2 Oh. 230 0. A. [1906] W. N. 77 ; [1906] 1 1 Oh. 692 . . [1901JW. N. 115 H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W. N. 241 ; [1909] A. 0. 166 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 257 ; [1910] A. 0. 143 H. L. (Sc.) [1905] W. N. 134 ; [1905] A. C. 531 . . t 494 1116 2311 711 1526 2469 1920 25 524 2710 1404 1414 1614 1408 368 2850 1231 70 682 1400 2601 16N2 2920 556 40 2941 127 199S 2271 2233 2208 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. clxxxT Name oX Case. Volume and Page. Coluum of Digest. Lord Advocate : — Parker v. Lord Advocate Trustees) Smith (Watherston's ( Lord Advocate v. Stewart Lord Elcho t: Andrews ■( ( Lord (Trustee in Bankruptcy of) v. Great ) Eastern Ey. Co. . . . . . . i Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty : — ) Horn V. Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Trea sury : — Bex i: Lorriman v. Lorciman and Clair Loughborough Corporation : — Moriis & Bas- tert, Ld. v. . . "Louisa," The Louisiana and Southern States Eeal Estate ) and Mortgage Co., In re . . . . , . i Louw : — Eex v. Ex parte Att.-Gen. for the ) Cape of Good Hope . . . . . . . . j Lovatt : — O'Eeefe v. . . Lovegrove : — Long v. In re Long . . Lovelace (Earl of) v. Anson. In re Anson's ) Settlement . . . . . . . . ) Loveland, In re. Lovelaud v. Lovelaud . . ! Lovell, Ex parte. In re Eiggs. Ex parte ) Trustee . . . . . . . . . • | Lovell & Christmas, Ld. v. Commissioner of ) Taxes . . Lovell and Collard's Contract, Inre. . Loveridge, In re. Drayton v. Lovei'idge Loveridge, In re. Pearce v. Marsh . . Lovick : — ^WiUis v. Low V. Guthi-ie . . Low Moor Iron Co. : — Provincial Billposting I Co. i; . • • I Low (or Jackson) v. General Steam Fishing / Co ( Lowe w. Adams. . Lowe V. Dorling & Son Lowe V. Moore . . Lowe V. Myers & Sons . . \ H. L. (So.) [1904] W. N. Ill; ) [1904] A. 0. 364 , . ..] [1902] Vs. N. lev (1901) Ot. of Sess. (So.) [1901] N W. N. 189 ; H. L. (Sc.) / [1902] W. N". 106 ; [1902] ( A. C. 344 j 0. A. [1910] W. N. 79 ; [1910] ) 1 Ch. 706 I [1907] W. K". 240 ; [1908] 1 , E. B. 195 ; C. A. [1908] j W. N. 74, 86 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 54; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 4 ; [1909] A. C. 109 ' C. A. [1910] W. N. 242 [1909] 2 K. B. 183 . . [1908] P. 282 . . C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 205 [1906] W. N. 60; [1906] P ■ 145 [1909] W. N. 170; [1909] 2 Ch. 552 P. C. [1904] A. C. 412 1901] W. N. 223 . . 1901] W. N. 166 . . 1907] W. N. W6; [1907] ■ Ch. 424 [1906] W. N. 46 ; [1906] Oh. 542 [1901] W. N. 81; [1901] K. B. 16 P. C. [1908] A. C. 46 . . [1907] W. N. 28; [1907] Ch. 249 [1902] W. N. 165; [1902] Ch. 859 [1904] 1 Ch. 518 [1901] W. N. 100; [1901] K. B. 195 H. L. (Sc?) [1909] W. N. 81 [1909] A. 0. 278 . . C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 344 . H. L. (Sc) [1909] W. N. 185 [1909] A. C. 523 . . [1901] W. N. 178; [1901] Ch. 598 [1905] W. N. Ill ; [1905] 2 ' K. B. 501 ; C. A. [1906] ( W. N. 177 ; [1906] 2 K. B. ( 772 ; [1906] W. N. 142 C. A. [1906] W. N. 119 ; [1906] ) 2 K. B. 265 1082 2222 2208 975 248 1595 1914 960 2618 2553 543 333 1587 1231 2759 2931 1354 1812 2261 1760 1734 766 2332 905 1631. 1655 1394 911 2000 1685 elxxxvi TABLE OF CASES IX THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Lowenfeld r. Loweufeld Lower Hutt (Mayor, &c., of): — Wellington (Mayor, &o., of) ;•. . . Lower Ward of County Lanark v. Euther- glen Magistrates Lowery v. Hallard Lowery v. Walker I Lowes i'. Smelting down Lead with Pit and ■ Sea Coal (G-overnor and Company for). I In re Lead Coiapan3''s Workmen's Fund \ Society Lowestoft Corporation : — Lambert v. Lowmau : — Bailey v. . . Lowndes: — Wrigley r. Lowther v. Eraser. /;/ re Eraser Volume and P.^ge. /;( re Xew Zealand I Lubbock : — Earl c. Lubbock : — Smith Midland Ey. Co. Lucas and Chesterfield Gras and Water Board, III re . . Lucas : — Att.-Gen l\ In re Manser Lucas: — Eush / . Luck : — Hunt r. Luck : — Lloyd's Bank v. Ludbrook v. Ludbrook . . Ludlow (Lord) v. Pike . , Lukey v. Sj'duey Harbour Trust Commis- sioners Lumb : — Atkinson r. . , Lumber (Victoria) and Manufacturing Co., Ld. :--Whitev Lumley v. Osboi-ue Lumsden : — G-illett & Co. c. . . Lumsdeu v. Shipoote Land Co. Luna Safety Eazor Co. : — Grillette Safety Eazor Co. v. . . Lunacj' — Practice note Lupton, Ex parte. In re Baker Lupton, In the Estate of Lurgan's (Lord) Case. In re Metal Consti- tuents, Ld. Lycett's Saddle and Motor Accessory Co : — Brooks (J. B. & Co.) f "Lyderhorn" (Sailing Ship) Co. v. Duncan Eox&Co [1903] W. N. 90 ; C. A. [1903] ) W.N. 110; [1903] P. 177.. j P. C. [1904] A. C. 773 H. L. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 157 [1906] 1 K. B. 398 . . [1909] W. N. 130 ; [1909] 2 K B. 433 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. \ 249 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 173 ; i H. L. (E.)[1910] W.N. 24i; [1904] W. N. 107 Ch. 196 [1904] 2 / .. ) [1901] 1 K. B. 590 . . [1910] 2 E. B. 39 [1908] P. 348 . . [1903] W. N. 202; [1904] 1 Ch. Ill; C. A. [1904] W. N, 82 ; [1904] 1 Oh. 726 C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 253 [1901] W. N. 105 ; C. A. [1901] W. N. Ill; [1901] 2 Oh 357 [1908] 1 K. B. 571 ; C. A [1909] 1 K. B. 16 . . [1904] W. N. 182; [1905] 1 Ch. 68 [1910] W. N. 9 ; [1910] 1 Oh. 437 [1901] 1 Ch. 45 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 14; [1902] 1 Ch 428 . [1901] W. N. 130 C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 96 [1904] W. N. 57 ; [1904] K B. 531 P. C. [1904] A. C. 382 C. A. [1903] 1 K B. 861 P. C. [1910] A. C. 606 [1901] W. N. 39; [1901] 1 K. B. 532 P. C. [1905] A. C. 601 C.A. [1906] W.N. 112; [1906] 2 K. B. 433 . . [1910] W. N. 170; [1910] 2 Ch. 373 C. A. [1908] W. N. 75 C.A. [1901] W.N. 150; [1901] 2 K. B. 628 , [1905] P. 321 . . [1902] W. N. 43 ; [1902] 1 Oh. 707 .. [1904] W. N. 40; [1904] 1 Ch. 512 ., C. A. [1909] W. N. 175 [1909] 2 K. B. 929 . . Coiumu of Digest. 491 1803 1483 39 2298 1114 2424 1517 1953 2898 1782 421 2849 351 1383 2815 892 1447 2669 1801 1614 313 762 315 2588 1879 1555 175 2880 586 1885 2472 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. olxxxvii Name of Case. Lyles V. Southend-on-Sea Corporation Lynch : — Eex v. . Lynn and J?akenhain Ry. (EKtensions) Act, 1880, Inre ... Lyon & Co. v. London City and Midland Bank Lyons v. Tramways Syndicate, Ld. and Perth Electric Tramways, Ld. In re Perth Electric Tramways, Ld. Lyons (J.) & Co. v. London Corporation Lysons v. Andrew Knowles & Sons, Ld. Stuart V. Nixon & Bruce . . Lytham (Southport and) Tramroads Act, 1900, In re. Ex parte Hesketh Lyttelton Times Co. p. Warners, Ld. M. M. : — ^W. V. In re W. Maas : — Mellor (Trustee of) v. Maas v. ) Pepper . . . . . . . . . . j Mabe v. Connor . . . . . . . . j Macalister v. Young . . . . . . j MacAndrew & Co. : — Dothie v. . . j Macandrew (Robert) & Co. : — Intei-nationale ) Gruano en Superphosphaatwerken v. . . ] MoAithur V. Dominion Cartridge Co. MoArthur : — Smith v. . . Macbeth : — North and South Wales Bank, Ld. I V. North and Sbuth Wales Bank, Ld. v. ' Lrvine . . . . . . . . . . . . f Macbeth & Co. : — Chislett v. Macbeth & Co. v. Maritime Insurance Co. . . Macbeth and Gray : — ^Reid v... McCabe v. Jopling and Palmer's Travelling Cradle, Ld. McCallum, In re. McCallum v. MoCallum . . McCartney v. Londonderry and Lough Swilly Ry. Co MoOheane I). Gyles (No. 2) MdOlure's Trusts, In re. Carr v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. MacOoU V. Bruce. In re Walker Volume and Page. C. A. [1905] W. N. 63 ; [1905] ) 2 K. B. 1 ) [1903] 1 K. B. 444 [1909] W. N. 24 [1903] 2 K. B. 135 [1906] W. N. 113 ; Ch. 216 [1906] ) [1909] 2 K. B. 588 , . H. L. (B.) [1901] W. N. 2; ) [1901] A. C. 79 . . . . ) C. A. [1910] W. N. 256 P. C. [1907] A. C. 476 C. A. [1907] W. N. 204 ; [1907] 2 Oh. 557 . . [1901] W. N. 215 ; [1902] 1 ^ K. B. 137 ; C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 226 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 40 ; [1905] A. C. 102 , [1909] W. N. 20 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 515 "H. L. (So.) [1904] W. N. 162 ; [1904] A. 0. 515 . . C. A. [1908] W. N. 45 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 803 [1909] 2 K B. 360 . . P. C. 1905] A. 0. 72 . P. C. [1904] A. C. 389 [1906] 2 K. B. 718; C.A. ^ [1908] 1 K. B. 13 ; H. L. ( (E.) [1908] W. N. 66 ; [1908] ( A. C. 137 ' [1909] W. N. 40; [1909] 2 K. B. 36 ; C. A. [1909] i W. N. 186 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 811;H.L. (E.) [1910] W.N, 33 ; [1910] A. C. 220 H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 66 [1908] A. C. 144 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1904] W. N. 60 [1904] A. 0. 223 . . 0. A. [1904] 1 E. B. 222 C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 143 H. L. (Ir.) [1904] A. C. 301 C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 287 [1902] W. N. 67 ; [1902] 1 Ch, 911 .. [1906] W. N. 200 [1908] W. N. 47; [1908] Ch. 560 Column of Digest. 2084 835 1410 1088 430 1528 1607 2707 1805 1228 250 687 978 1639 2469- 316 1809 146 1643 1280 2285 1622 1469 2850 1996 1975 2382 1949 olxxxviii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Xame of Case. MoConiiel !■. Wright McConnell v. Beattj- . . McConnell's Claim. In re London and ( Northern Bank . . . . ( McCormiok r. Simpson M'Cue V. Barclay, Curie & Co } Maoculloch !■. Anderson (M'Culloch's Trus- / McDermott v. Owners of S.3. " Tin- toretto " McDonald v. Belcher . . Macdonald : — G-eorge v. McDonald v. Hughes . . McDonald i'. Owners of S.S. " Banana" McDougall & Bonthi-on, Ld. v. London and India Docks Co. Page, Sou and East, Ld. V. The Same . . . . , . . . . . McDowall 1 . Great Western By. Co. MoSacharn i . Colton . . M'Ewau ; — Watson ;•. . . McPaddeu v. Blue Star Line . 2'art<: Glass Maofadyen (Patrick), In re. Ex Macfadyen (P.) & Co., In re. Vizianagaram Co. S.r ^tarte Macfadyen (P.) & Co., //, re. Ex parte Yizianagaram Co. . . . . . . M'Parlane v. Maxwell. . McFee, In re. McFee c. Toner McGrlade r. Eoyal London Mutual Insurance Society, Ld. . . M'G-overn v. Cooper & Co. MoGowan : — General Accident, Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Ld. v. M'Gowan : — Meally i'. Volume and Page. Olumn of McGrath : McGrath ; Adelaide Licensing Justices N"eiU & Sons McGrather v. Pitcher. McGruther v. Pitcher McGregor r. Esquimalt and Nanaimo Ey. Co. MacGuare r. Milligan . . Macharg : — Williams !'. Macintosh r. Dun Mcintosh V. Simpkins . . ]SIacintosh-Walker v. Walker. //; re Walker Maointyre, Grimond (or Maointyre) c. Grimond Molver & Co. v. Tate Steamers, Ld C. A. [1903] W. N. 16 ; [1903] ) 1 Oh. 546 ] P. C, [1908] A. C. 82.. [1901] W. N. 12 ; [191 ] 1 Oh. / 728 ) P. 0. [1907] A. 0. 494 (1902) Ot. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] ) W. N. 170 ( H. L. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 196 ; [1904] A. 0. 55 C. A. [1909] W. N. 162 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 704; H. L. (E.) [1910] W. K 274 . . P. 0. [1904] A. 0. 429 (19011 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] ) W. N. 159 . . . . j [1902] 1 K. B. 94 0. A. [1908] W. N. 192, 195, ( 219; [1908] 2 2. B. 926 .. ( C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 175 ; | H. L. (E.) [1909] A. 0. 25 . . ( [1902] 1 E. B. 618; 0. A.\ [1903] W. N. 117 ; [1903] \ 2 K B. 331 ) P. C. [1902] A. 0. 104 H. L. (Sc.)[1905] W.N. 130;) [1905] A. C. 480 . . . . ) [1905] 1 K. B. 697 . . ' [1908] W. N. 13 [1908] W. N. 3 K. B. 675 [1908] W. N. 161 ; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 198 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 817 H. L. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 206. . [1910] W. N. 186 [1910] W. N. 75 ; 0. A. [1910] W. N. 130 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 169 (1901) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 160 . . . . ( H. L. (Sc.)[1908] W. N. 95: I [1908] A. C. 207 , ) (1902) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] ) W. N. 165 . . P. 0. [1908] A. C. -187 C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 2U C. A. [1904] W.N. 144; [1904]) 2 Ch. 306 . . ) P. C. [1907] A. C 462 [1902] W. N. 209 ; [1903] 1 ) Ch. 145 .. P. C. [1910] A. C. 476 P. C. [1908] A. 0. 390 0. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 487 [1908] 2 Ch. 705 H. L. (Sc.) [1905] W.N. 44;) [1905] A. C. 124, 603 . . 1 C. A. [1902] W. N. 123; [1902] ) 2 K. B. 184 . . , . ) [1908] 1) 516 306 464 328 1608 2728 1642 316 1651 1434 1616 2520 1787 137 878 2454 161 160 204 2331 2950 1116 1628 2242 1620 135 1589 2286 321 734 1790 135 762 669 2999 741 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. clxxxix Name of Case. Mclver & Co. v. Tate Steamers, Ld. . . Maclver (D. & 0.) : — Bannatyne ?>. . . Maclver (D.), Sons & Co. : — Eathbone Brotters & Co. V. Mackay v. Gould. In re Mackay . . . . j Maokay : — Harrogate Corporation v. . . j McKay : — Local Government Board for Ire- ) land V. . . . . . . . . . . . . I Mackay (A. F. & D.) : — Mediterranean and ) New York Steamship Co. v. . . . . j McKeand, Claimant. Burgos v. Nascimento McKecknie v. Clark. In re Clark . . . . j Mackenzie, In the Estate of . . Mackenzie v. Allardes . , . . . . . . j Mackenzie v. Hawke . . Mackenzie : — Hawke v. (Nos. 1 and 2) Volume and Page. (No. 3) McKenzie : — Thompson v. McKinnery : — Palkers Gold Mining Co. Maokinnon : — Hood (Lady) of Avalon u. . . \ Mackintosh and Thomas, In re. In re Mack- ] intosh & Dixon . . . . . . . . ) Maokison v. Dundee Magistrates . . . . j Mackusiok v. Fleming . . MoLachlan & Co. v. Ship " Camosun " and') United Steamship Co. of British Columbia ) Ld ; McLaughUn, In re McLaughlin : — Att-Gen. i'. In re Pardee . . j McLaughlin v. Church Stretton Mineral ] Water Co | McLaughlin ■.—Daily Telegraph Newspaper | Co. V. .. . . . . . . . . . . j McLaughlin v. Penny. In re Pardee . . j McLaughlin : — Stewart v. hi re Stewart . . j Maclean : — Boyer v. In re Wells . . McLean v. Moss Bay Iron and Steel Co. MacLeay : — Tait v. McLellan : — Lambourn v. McManus v. Fortescue Macmillan &Co. v. Dent Column of Digest. C. A. [1903] W. N. 24 ; [1903] \ 1 K. B. 362 j C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 103 [1903] W. N. 128 ; [1903] 2 ) K. B. 378 t [1905] W. N. 159 ; [1906] 1 j Ch. 25 I [1907] W. N. 164 ; [1907] 2 | K. B. 611 j H. L. (Ir.) [1903] W. N. 149 ; \ [1903] A. 0. 402 . . ..] C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 297 [1908] W. N. 237 [1904].W.N. 10; [1904] 1 Ch. ) 294 j [1909] P. 305 H. L. (Sc.) [1905] W. N. 67 [1905] A. 0. 285 . . 1902] 2 K. B. 216 . , 1902] 2 K. B. 225 . . 1902] 2 K. B. 234 . . 1908] W. N. 52 ; [1908] 1 ) K. B. 905 i P. C. [1901] A. 0. 581 [1909] W. N. 38 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 476 [1903] W. N. 95 ; C. A [1903) ') • W.N. 117; [1903] 2 Ch. 394 j H. L. .(Sc.) [1910] W. N. 67 ; 1 [1910] A. 0. 285 . . . . j H. L. (B.) [1904] W.N. 44 .. P. C. [1909] A. C. 597 P. C. [1905] A. C. 343 [1906] W. N. 86 ; [1906] 2 Ch. ] 184 ] [1904] W. N. 48 P. C. [1904] A. C. 776 [1905] W. N. 178; [1906] 1 Ch. ) 265 ; C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 340 | [1908] W. N. 147 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 251 ) [1903] W.N. 68; [1903] 1 Oh.848 0. A. [1909] W. N. 137 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 521; H L. (B.) [1910] W. N. 102 . . C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 631 ; H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 2 ; [1906] [ A. C. 24 ) [1903] W. N. 58 ; [1903] 1 Ch. ) 806 ;C. A. [1903] W.N. 109 [1903] 2 Ch. 268 . . ..) C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 1 . . [1905] W. N. 173 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 101;C.A. [1906] W.N. 199; C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 107 2475 2031 2475 1467 2851 2141 2447 247 27 2914 2325 1126 1127 1327 1450 1798 1946 736 2325 2789 332 1796 350 2002 138 32 28 1225 1598 517 1093 131 683 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. McMillan r. Le Eoi ^Mining Co. M'Millan : — Malcolm r. McMurdo, In re. Penfield v. McMurdo Macnaghten r. Paterson McNair v. Baker McNair v. Cave . . Macnaughten : — Betts & Co., Ld. v. . . McNicol V. Pincli Macoun, In re . . Macoun v. Erskine, Oxenford & Co. McPhail :— Firth v. . . Macplierson ; — Dougan v. McQuade : — Hertert r. McQueen v. Jackson . . McQuire v. Western Morning News Co. Mc'V'ity i: Tranontli Madden r. Ehodes Maddison : — Emmerson !■. Maddison v. Gill, In re Shai-p Maddock, In re. Llewelyn r. Wasliington . . Maddy's Estate, In re. Maddy r. Maddy . . "Madeleine" and "Andre Theodore," The Magdalen College, Oxford. In re . . Volume and Page. ( t Magee: — Torkington ;•. •( Magheraraorne's (Lord) Settlement, I)i re. Hogg V. Hogg . . • • . . j Magnus, In re. E.r parte Salamau , . Maguire r. Liverpool Corporation . . . . j Mahlstedt : — Gorringe v. . . . . . . } Maidenhead Corpoi-ation : — Pearce v. . . { Maidstone Palace of Varieties, Ld., In re. ) Blair r. Maidstone Palace of Varieties, Ld. j Main (Houghton) Colliery Co., Ld. : — Eyre v. Mainwaring '■. Clarina (Lord) . . [1906] 1 Ch. 331 (1900) Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1902] ) \\. N. 186 1 [1902] W. N. 87 ; C. A. [1902] , W. N. 112 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 684 S P. C. [1907] A. C. 483 [1904] 1 K B. 208 . . [1902] W. N. 194 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 24 [1910] 1 Ch. 4.30 [1906] W. X. 143 ; [1906] 2 ( K. B. 352 C. A. [1904] TT. X. 156 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 700 ( C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 493 [1905] 2 K. B. 300 H. L. (So.) [1902] T\'. N. 36 ; ) [1902] A. C. 197 . . . . I [1901] 2 K. B. 761 ; C. A. [1902] ) W. N. 140; [1902] 2 K B. 631 ) [1903] ^Y. X. 114 ; [1903] 2 ) K. B. 163 I C. A. [1903] W. X. 98 ; [1903] ) 2 K. B. 100 ( P. C. [1908] A. C. 60.. [1906] "W. N. 60 ; [1906] 1 ) E. B. 534 ) P. C. [1906] A. C. 569 [1908] W. N. 10 ; [1908] 1 Ch. ) 372 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 146 ; ,' [1908] 2 Ch. 190 . . . . » [1901] W. N. lis ; [1901] 2 Ch. 372 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 102 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 220 [1901] W. N". 160 ; [1901] 2 / Ch. 820 . . I [1904] W. X. 14 [1901] W. X". 181 ; [1901] 2 ) Ch. 786 j [1902] 2 E. B. 427 ; C. A. i [1903] W. X. 60 ; [1903] 1 E. B. 644 j [1901] W. X^ 152 [1910] ^\. N. 190; C. A. [1910] \ W. X^. 205 ; [1910] 2 E. B. ' 1049 .... ) C. A. [1905] W. N. 34; [1905] ) 1 E. B. 767 , . . , ) H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 123 : ) [1907] A. C. 225 . . . | [1907] W. X. 89 ; [1907] 2 E. k 96 .. .. [1909] W. N. 156 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 283 .. .. C. A. [1910] W.N. 51; [1910] IE. B. 695.. .. . [1910] W. X. 14 Column of Digest 486 1653 206 134 1827 42 482 2226 209 2628 1493 2768 2236, 2247 872 297 2703 299 2904 22, 2295 2405 2567 1411 381 1282 221 1170 2925 2643 2168 1695 702 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. ColuniUi or Digest. Mair, In re. WilliamBon v. French.. . . . { Maitland, In re. Pickthall v. Dawes "Majestic" (Owners of Steamship): — ) Tutton V j Major V. Harness. In re Oddy Major V. Shrewsbury Town Clerk . . . . Major Brothers v. Eranklin & Son . . Makinson : — Howarth v. In re Howarth . . Malcolm v. M'Millan . . Malim : — Nicholls v. . . Malkin v. Eex . . Mallam : — Edwards v. . . Mallott V. Wilson Malone v. Laskey Malone : — O'Keefe v. . . Malone's Divorce (Valid Action) BiU Malpas : — Grrivell v. Man On Insurance Co. : — Ho Tung v. " Manar," The Manchester Brewery Co. v. Coombs . . Manchester Carriage and Tramways Co. v. Swinton and Pendlebury Urban Council . . Manchester Corporation : — Att.-Gen. c. Manchester Corporation : — Midwood & Co. r. Manchester Corporation liery, Ld. New Moss Col- Manchester Corporation v. Sugden . . Manchester Liners, Ld. : — Moore v. . . . . | Manchester Eacecourse Co. : — Manchester ) Ship Canal Co. i'. . . . . . . . . | Manchester Ship Canal Co. : — Joseph Oros- ) field & Sons, Ld. c. . . . . . . i Manchester Ship Canal Co. v. London and ) North Western Ey. Co 1 Manchester Ship Canal Co. < . Manchester ; Eacecourse .Co. . . . . .1 Manchester (North) Overseers : — Win- / Stanley v. , . . . . . . . . . . . I Manchester (London and) Insurance Co. : — / Porter V. . . . . , . . . I Manchester's (Duke of) Settlement, In re, ] and 111 re Settled Laud Acts, 1882 to 1890 J Manchester (St. Philip's Tavern) and Hardy's Crown Brewery, In re Mangena v. Wright Manitoba Licence Holders' Association : — '/ Att.-Gen. for Manitoba i'. . . . . . . j [1909] W. N. 148; [1909] 2 Ch.'280 [1903] W. N. 143' . . C. A. [1909] W. N. 92 ; [1909] \ 2 K. B. 54 j [1906] W. N. 5 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 93 [1909] 1 K. B. 348 . . [1908] 1 K. B. 712 [1909] W. N. 30 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 485-; C. A. [1909] W. N. 116; [1909] 2 Ch. 19 (1900) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1902] ') W. N. 186 j [1906] 1 K. B. 272 . . [1906] 2 K. B. 886 . . C. A. [1908] W. N. 67 ; ) [1908] 1 K. B. 1002 . . ) [1903] 2 Ch. 494 C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 141 P. C. [1903] A. C. 365 H. L. (D.) [1905] A. C. 314 [1906] 2 K. B. 32 P. C. [1902] A. C. 232 [1903] P. 95 [1901] 2 Ch. 60S H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 277 .. [1906] W. N. 39 ; [1906] 1 Ch. / 643 ) C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 597 . . [1906] W. N. 9 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 278; C.A. [1906] W.N. 181; [1906] 2 Ch. 564 ; H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 61; [1908] A. C. 117 C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 171 C. A. [1909] W. N. 5 ; [1909] 1 K. R 417 ; H. L. (E.) [1910] W.N. 184; [1910A. C. 498 C. A. [1901]2Ch. 37.. C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 123 ; H. L. ' (E.y • [1905] w: [1905] A. C. 421 [1910] 2 K. B. 913 N. 126 ; C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 37 . . .H.L. (E.)[1909] W. N. 233 , [1910] A. C. 7 [1909] W. N. 70 . K. B. 30 .... [1909] W. N. 212 ; [1910] 1 ,Ch. 106 [1910] W. N. 76 ; [1910] AV. N. 103; 2 K B. 257 . . [1909] 2 K. B. 958 . P. C. [1902] A. C. 73 . [1909] 2) I ) C. A.^ [1910] 2922 132 1650 125 1845 2681 62 1653 2230 1430 765 2421 1372 1795 .314 1522 1175 2545 1359 2710 1564 1020 2845 729 1643 660 508, 1563 2130 660 2141 749 2366 257 874 309 TABLE OF CASEH IX THE DIGEST. Xame of Case. Mann, In re. Hardy v. Att.-Gen. . . Manners v. St. David's Gold and Copper Mines, Ld. Manners v. Tyler Mannesmann Tube Co., In re. Von Siemens V. Mannesmann Tube Go. . . Manning : — ^Anglo-American Oil Co. v. Manning : — Geibler i'. . . Manning, Wardle & Co. : — Marshall's Valve Gear Co. (•. . . " Manor," Tbe Mansel v. Itcben Overseers Mansell i:. Allen. In re Da Bocbet Mansell v. Cobbam (Viscount). In re Badger Mansell v. Jones Mansell c. Griffin ■( Mansell i'. Valley Printing Co. Manser, la re. Att.-Gen. r. Luca^ . . . . ' Manser, In re. TCiHick v. Manser . . Mansfield v. EeK j Manuel : — Lambe v. . . Manufacturing (Carlton) Co. and Crabtree, ) Ld. : — Premier Industrial Bank, Ld. v. . . j Manufacturing (Simms) Co. v. Wbitehead Manufacturing (Walkden Spinning and) Co. : ] — Bootb u. . . " Maori King," The S.S \\ Maple & Co. (Paris) v. Inland Eevemie ) Commissioners . . . . . . ) Mappin Brothers i'. Liberty & Co. Marais (D. F.), Ex parte. Marais (D. F.) General Officer Commanding Lines Communication Marais, In re: — Eeg. v. Ex parte Marais March v. Eedgate. In re Eedgate March : — Shrager v. . , Marohant, In re Marchant i'. London County Council Marchant v. Morton, Down & Co. Mardorf i\ Accident Insurance Co. Mare, In re. Mare v. Howey of Volume aad Page. [1902] W. N. 231 ; [1903] 1 CTh 2*52 [1904] W. N. 147 ; C. A. [1904] W.N. 167; [1904] 2 Ch. 593 [1902] 1 K. B. 901 . . [1901] W. N. 104; [1901] 2 Ch. 93 [1908] 1 K B. 536 . . [1906] "W. N. 81; [1906] 1 K B. 709 . . [1908] W. N". 234 '1 [1906] 1 [1901] 2 [1905]'! -j C. A. [1907] P. 339 [1906] W. N. 14; K. B. 221 [1901] W. X. 119 Ch. 441 [1905] W. N. 37 Ch. 568 C. A. [1905] W. N. 168 [1907] W. N. 232 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 160: C. A. [1908] W. N. 73 (Erratum 78); [1908] 1 K. B. 947 . . [1908] W. N. 41; [1908] 1 Ch. 567 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 173 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 441 . . [1904] AY. N. 182 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 68 [1910] W. N. 61 C. A. [1907] W. N. 235 ; C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 71 . . P. C. [1903] A. C. 68.. [1909] 1 K. B. 106 . . [1909] W. N. 95 [1909] "W. N. 112 ; [19091 2 / K. B. 368 . . j P. C. [1909] A. C. 562 [1906] 1 K. B. 691 ; C. A. , [1906] W. N. 178 ; [1906] ' 2 K. B. 834; H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 244; H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 22 [1902] W. N. 209; [1903] 1 Ch. 118 P. C. [1902] A. C. 109 P. C. [1902] A. C. 51 . [1903] 1 Ch. 356 P. C. [1908] A. C. 402 C. A. [1908] W. N. 67 ; [1908] ) 1 K. B. 998 . . ) [1910] W. N. 148 ; [i910] 2 ) K. B. 379 .. j [1901] 2 K. B. 829 [1903] W. N. 42 ; [1903] 1 i K. B. 584 . [1902] W. N. 9; [1902] 2 Ch.ll2 ColnTDn of Digest. 363 537 42 613 2873 1523 506 2529 2148 2930 1479 651 105 691 351 1291 1374 320 481 905 572 379 2260 1162 333 1777 1947 2629 71 2255 110 1248 2407 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. " Margeiy," The Margetts, In re. Smith c. Margetts Margetts and Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation, In re . . " Marguerite Molinos," Th3 Marine (Indemnity Mutual) Assurance Co. : — Republic of Bolivia v. Maritime Insurance Co. c. Alianza Insurance Co. of Santander Maritime Insurance Co. :- ship Co. r. -Greenock Steam- Maritime Insurance Co. : — Macbeth & Co. r. Maritime Insurance Co. : — Mentz, Decker & Co. v Maritime Insurance Co. : — Price v. . . Maritime Insurance Co. r. Stearns . . Maritime Insurance Co. : — Swan and Cleland's Graving Dock and Shipway Co. v. Maritime Insurance Cu. and Oroshaw : — Swan and Cleland's Graving Dock and Shipway Co. u. Mark Fletcher & Sons, Ld. : — Verney v. Market Harborough Advertiser Co. : — Mylam v. Markham v. Paget Markham v. Shirebrook Overseers . . Markham's Settlement, In re. In Brotherton's Estate. Brotherton Brotherton Marks i'. Carne . . Marks V. Samuel Markt &, Co., Ld. c. KnightSteamship Co., Ld. Marlborough (Duke of):— Lily, Duchess of Marlborough v. Marlborough, Lily (Duchess of) v. Marl- borough (Duke of) " Marpessa," The. Mersey Docks and Har- bour Board c. Owners of S.S. " Marpessa " Marreco c. Richardson. . Marriott I'. East Grinstead Gas and Water Co Marriott o. Yeoward Brothers Marsh : — Bell c. Marsh : — Pearce v. In re Loveridge Marsh i\ Redgate. In re Redgate . . Marshall: — Colonial Bank of Australasia, Ld. <• ') Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Marshall : — Davenport c. Marshall i'. Graham. Bell c. Graham [1902] P. loY . . [1906] W. N". 44 [igOl] 2 K. B. 792 . . [1903] P. 160 . . C. A. [1909] W. N. 34 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 785 . . [1907] W. N. 190; [1907] 2 K. B. 660 . . [1903] 1 K. B. 367 ; C. A [1903] W. N. 150 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 657 H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 66 [1908] A. C. 144 . . [1910] 1 K. B. 132 . . C. A. [1901] W. N. 128 [1901] 2 K. B. 412 . . [1901] 2 Ch. 912 [1906] W. N". 222 [1907] 1 Iv. B. 116 . . [1909] W. N. 25; [1909] 1 K. B. 444 . . [1905] 1 K. B. 708 . . [1908] W. X. 81; [1908] 1 Ch. 697 [1906] P. 239 . . [1907] W. N. 230; C. A [1908] W. N. 56 C. A. [1909] W. N. 134 ; [1909] 2 K B. 516 , . C.A.[1904] W. N. 86; [1904] 2 K. B. 287 . . C. A. [1910] 2K B. 1021 C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 165 C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 165 [1906] P. 14 ; C. A. [1906] P. 95 H.L.(E.) [1907] W.N. 136 [1907] A. C. 241 . . C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 584 [1908] W. N. 227; [1909] Ch. 70 [1909] 2 K. B. 987 . . C. A. [1903] W. N. 30 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 528 [1904] 1 Ch. 518 [1903] 1 Ch. 356 P. C. [1906] A. C. 559 [1901] W. N. 210; [1902] 1 Ch. 82 [1907] W. X. 94; [1907] 2 Iv. B. 112 .. 2551 2968 1267 2554 1272 1280 1280 1280 1268 1270 1275 2528 2528 1068 2238 1386 998 2358 1651 877 1990 2412 2412 2488 1466 2857 2533 1029 1734 1947 135 2403 2301 n TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Kame of Caae. Marshall v. James Marshall v. Morrison . . Marshall v. Orient Steam Navigation Co. Marshall v. Eudef orth . . Marshall : — Sharp v. In re Pope Marshall v. " Wild Rose " (Owners of Steam- ) sWp) ) Marshall v. Wolseley. In re Salvin . . . . Marshall, Sons & Co., Ld. : — Johnson v. Marshall's Settlement, In re. Marshall i. ) Marshall . . . . i Marshall's Valve Gear Co. v. Manning, ( Wardle & Co. j Marsham : — Eex v. Ex parte Chamberlain Marsland : — Moran & Son, Ld. v. . . Marsland : — Moses v. . . Marten, In re. Shaw v. Marten . . . . Marten, In re. Shaw r. Marten . . , . ) Marten :— Andersen r. Marten : — Balmoral Steamship Co. Marten : — Ounard Steamship Co. r. . . . . Martin v. Benjamin . . . . . . ! Martin : — Harhurg India Eubber Comb ] Co. r I Martin v. Harding. In re Gibbs . . . . ' Martin : — Lancashire Trust and Mortgage Insurance Corporation v. . . Martin v. Nadel. Dresdner Bant, Garnishees j Martin : — Poplar Guardians v. Martin : — Sogers, Eungblut & Co. v. Martin v. White MartingeU, Ex parte. In re Browne . . j Marvin, In re. Chawter v. Marvin . . . . j Mary King, In re. Miller v. South Australian \ Land Mortgage and Agency Co., Ld. . . ) Volume and Page. Colutui of Digest. ) ■■ ) Marylebone Borough Council :— Adams v. [1905] W. N. 28 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 432 [1907] w'. N. 29 '.'. '.'. C. A. [1909] W. N. 225 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 79 0. A. [1902] W. N. 118; [1902] 2 K. B. 175 . . [1901] 1 Ch. 64 C. A. [1909] W. N. 84; [1909] 2 K. B. 46; H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 179 ; [1910] A. 0. 486 [1906] W. N. 146; [1906] 2 Ch. 459 H. L. (E.)[]906] A. C. 409 .. [1905] W. N. 128; [1905] 2 Ch. 325 [1908] W. N. 234; [1909] 1 Ch. 267 [1907] W. N. 163 ; [1907] 2 ( \ K. B. 638 [1909] 1 K. B. 744 . . [1901] 1 K. B. 668 [1901] W. N. 6 ; [1901] 1 Ch 370 C. A. [1902] W. K. 2 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 314 [1907] T\\ N. 129; [1907] 2 K. B. 248 ; C.A. [1908] W.N. 7; [1908] 1 K. B. 601; H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 164; [1908] A. C. 334 C. A. [1901] 2 K. B 896 ; ' H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 156 : [1902] A. 0. 511 [1902] 2 K. B. 624 ; C. A. ' [1903] W. N. 142 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 511 [1906] W. N. 203 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 64 C. A. [1902] W. N. 62 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 778 [1907] W. N. 54; [1907] 1 Oh. 465 H. L. (So.) [1909] W. N. 76 . . 0. A. [1906] W.N. Ill; [1906] 2 K. B. 26 1 K. B. 728 . . 1910] W. N. 223 1 K. B. 665 . . W. N. 69; [1904] 2 [1905 C.A, [1910 [1904^ K B. 133 [1905] W. N. 142; [1905] 2 Ch. 490 .. .. [1906] W. N. 194 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 72 [1906] 2 K. B. 767; C. A. [1907] W. N. 187; [1907] 2 K. B. 822 2342 512 1649 1635 111 1642 2897 1637 2390 506 1768 1503 1507 294:2 19+4 1279 1266 1277 1129 1140 2964 406 1133 1921 910 1770 1123 1056 24 1512 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Marylebone Corporation : — Bourne v. Marylebone Corporation : — Leadbetter i'. Marylebone County Court Judge and Great ( Western By. Co. : — Eex v. Ex parte \ Phillips (I Maryon Wilson's Settled Estates, In re Maskelyne & Cooke v. Smith . . Mason, In re. Mason v. Mason Mason, In re. Ogden v. Mason Mason : — Brooks v. Mason v. Fulham Corporation Mason v. Grrigg . . Mason v. Motor Traction Co. . . Mason : — Tenby Corporation v. Massey, Inre . . -Ogilvie V. . . Massey v. Spark. In re Spark's Trusts Massey and GrifBn's Case. In re National Bank of Wales, Ld. Masson, Templier & Co. i/. De Fries. De Pries, Claimant Masson, Templier & Co. v. De Fries. De i Fries, Claimant . . . . . . . . ) Masters and Great Western By., In re Masters and O-wners of S.S. " City of Lincoln ' V. Smith Masterson, In re. Trevanion o. Dumas Matabele Gold Eeefs and Estates Co. : — Burrows v. . . Mather : — De-whurst v. Mather : — Jennings ■;;. Matheson v. Taylor. In re Taylor's Trusts Matheson & Co. v. The Company. In re Huinac Copper Mines, Ld. . . Matheson (Jardine) & Co. v. Clyde Shipping \ Co Mathews : — Grorer & Grover, Ld. v. Mathieson : — ^Att.-Gen. v. Matley : — Brinckman v. [1908] W. N. 52 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 14 C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 893 [1906] 2 K. B. 426 ; C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 664; H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 36, 40 ; [1908] A. C. 101 [1901] W. N. 66 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 934 [1902] 2 K B. 158; C. A. [1903] W. N. 39 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 671 0. A. [1910] W. N. 93 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 695 0. A. [1901] W. N. 44 ; [1901] ICh. 619; H. L.(E.)[1902] W. N. 206 ; [1903] A. C. 1 . . 0. C. E. [1902] W. N. 193; [1902] 2 K. B. 743 . . [1910] W. N. 38; [1910] 1 K. B. 631 C. A. [1909] W. N. 127 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 341 [1905] W. N. 27; [1905] 1 Ch. 419 [1907] W. N. 251 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 23 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 45" [1909] W. N. 211 0. A. [1910] P. 243 .. [1904] W. N. 31 ; [1904] 1 ) • Ch. 451 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 129 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 121 . . ) [1907] 1 Ch. 582 C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 831 C. A. [1910] W. N. 51 ; [1910] \ 1 K. B. 535 ) C. A. [1901] W. N. 76 ; [1901] ) 2 K. B. 84 ) P. C. [1904] A. C. 250 '8]j 57) 172: [1902] [1901] [1901] W. N. W. N. 192 . . 0. A. [1901] W. N. 68 ; 2 Ch. 23 C. A. [1908] W. N. 181 ; [1908] ' 2 K. B. 754 [1901] 1 K. B. 108; C. A. [1901] W. N. 207; [1902] 1 K. B. 1 [1905] 1 Oh. 734 [1910] W. N. 218 [1910] W. N. 54; [1910] 1 K. B. 627 [1910] 2 K. B. 401 0. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 383 0. A. [1904] W. N. 150; [1904] 2 Oh. 313 . . 694 1509 2136 2367 1110 2966 2968 821 1512 708 530 698 2600 2057 2338 571 1205 706 1400 1778 2981 563 1693 228 478 526 2459 1251 358 2335 It 2 TABLE OF CASES IX THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume aud Page. Column of Digest. Mathews : — Clarke v. . . Mathews : — Colmore v. Mathews : — Tunbridge v. Matthews, In re. Oates ('. Mooney Matthews : — Aylward v. Matthews v. Gray Matthews v. Euggles-Brise Matthews v. Smallwood Matthews v. Strachan . . Matthews and Wilkinson v. Johnson John- \ son and Dibb, JSx parte. In re Johnson > Johnson . . . . . . j Mattinson v. Binley Matua's (Wi) Will, In re Maunder, In re. Maunder v. Maunder . . \ Maunder : — Tweedie v. In re Megret . . j Mawle V. Jagoe. In re O'Connell . . . . { Maxim (Viokers, Sons &), Ld. : — Evans v. ] Maxwell v. British Thomson Houston Co. Black well & Co., Third Parties Maxwell : — M'Farlane v. Maxwell v. Wolseley (Viscount) May V. Beeley . . May V. BeUeviUe Maj' V. Ma5' May V. Waters . . Mayer : — Safiery v, Mayers v. Strover. In re Canney's Trusts Mayes : — Dickeson & Co. v. . . Mayhew, In re. Spencer v. Cutbush Mayhook ; — Tinwell v. Maynard v. Consolidated Kent Collieries Cor^ poratiou, Ld. Mayne, In re. Ex parte Official Receiver Mayo, In re. Chester v. Keirl Mead : — Eex (•. . . Meade : — Eex c. Meadows : — Pulman v. Meakin : — Dowsott v. In re Dowsett Meally v. M'Growan Meai's V. Callender Mears v. Western Canada Pulp and Paper Co. [1903] W. X. 158 [1903] Wi N. 158 [1903] W. X. 158 [1905] 2 Oh. 460 C. A. [1906] 1 K B. 343 [1909] W. N. 88 ; [1909] 2 / K B. 89 I [1910] W. jS". 234 [1910] W. N. 69; [1910] 1 / Oh. 777 ) [1901] 2 K. B. 540 . . [1904] 1 K. B. 134 . . [1908] 2 K B. 534 . . P. C. [1908] A. 0. 448 [1902] W. N. 159; [1902] 2) Oh. 875 ; 0. A. [1903] W. N. 48 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 45i . . ) [1901] W. N. 15; [1901] 1 Ch. 547 [1903] W. N. 153 ; [1903] 2 ( Ch. 574 ) C. A. [1910] W. N. 41 ; [1910] ) 1K.B.554;H.L.(E.)[1910] W. N. 161 ; [1910] A. 0. 444 ) [1904] 2 K. B. 342 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 206 [1906] W. N. 225 ; 0. A. ) [1907] 1 K. B. 274 . . . . ) 1910] 2 K. B. 722 . . 1905] 2 Ch. 605 . . . . 1902] P. 103, n 1910] 1 K. B. 431 . . 1901] 1 K. B. 11 1910] W. N. 45 1910] W. N. 22 K. B. 452 [1901] W. N. 55 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 677 [1904] 2 K. B. 790 . . 0. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 121 [1907] W. N. 202 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 899 [1901] W. N. 15 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 404 [1902] 2 K. B. 212 .. C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 62; [1909] 1 K. B. 895 . . [1901] 1 Ch. 233 [1901] 1 Ch. 398 (1902) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 165 [1901] W. N. 114; [1901] 2 Oh. 388 [1905] W. N. 105 : 0. A. [1905] W. N. 120; [1905] 2 Ch. 353 . . [1910] 1 ) .. ( 1818 1818 1818 615 1589 1908 2751 1353 2428 219 262 448 2981 634 2404 1669 737 2331 1978 1328 2869 2073 1121 1130 2900 1446 1937 2225 567 203 2931 1328 1055 2885 1620 1351 403 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Caiie. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Measures : — Measures Brothers, Ld. Measures Brothers, Ld. v. Measures Meatyard, In the Goods of . . Medical (University of London) Sciences Institute Fund, In re. Fowler v. Att.-Gen. Medicine Hat Land Co., In re Calgary and. See Calgaxy and Medicine Hat Land Co., In re. Mediterranean and Nevr York Steamship Co, V. Maokay (A. F. & D.) . . Medvray (Upper) Navigation Co. : — Lloyd' Bank Ld. v. . . Medway (Upper) Navigation Co. : — Eeeve i Medway (Upper) Navigation Co. : — Stagg i Meech's WiU, In re. Butchers Co. r. Hut- land M6gret, /re re. Tweedie v. Maunder . . Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works V. Metropolitan Gas Co. . . . . . . j Melbourne Brewery and Distillery, In re Melbourne Corporation: — Att.-Gen. for Vic toria V. . . . . . . . , Melbourne Corporation: — Melbourne Tram- way and Omnibus Co. v. Melbourne Tram way and Omnibus Co. v. Kidney . . Melbourne Notaries. Fay v. Society of Notaries for State of Victoria Melbourne Notaries (Victorian Society of Notaries) : — Bailleau v. Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co. Fitzroy Corporation . . Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co. Kidney. Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co. v. Kidney Melhado v. Woodcock. In re Brettingham Melladew : — Bex v. Mellison, In re. Ex 'parte Day Mellor V. South Australian Land Mortgage and Agency Co. In re King Mellor V. Walmesley . . Mellor's Trustee v. Maas. Maar v. Pepper | Melson (Alfred) & Co., In re [ Meltham Urban Council : — Brook v. Brook ) Brothers, Ld. v. Meltham Urban Council i [1910] W. N. 28 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 336; 0. A. [1910] W. N. 136 ; 2 Ch. 248 [1910] W. N. 28 ; [1910] 1 Oh. 336; C. A. [1910] W. N. 136 ; 2 Ch. 248 [1903] P. 125 C. A. [1909] W. N. 57 ; [1909] ) 2 Ch. 1 j C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 297 0. A. [1905] W. N. 102 ; [1905] 1 2 K. B. 359 ( [1905] W. N. 75 [1902] W. N. 69 ; 0. A. [1903] ) W. N. 3 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 169 j [1910] 1 Oh. 426 [1901] W. N. 15 ; [1901] 1 Ch 547 P. C. [1905] A. 0. 595 [1901] 1 Ch. 453 P. C. [1907] A. C. 469 P. C. [1905] A. 0. 358 [1909] P. 15 [1904] P. 180 P. C. [1901] A. C. 163 P. C. [1905] A. C. 358 [1904] W. N. 168 . . C. A. [1907] W.N. 6; [1907 1 K. B. 192 [1906] 2 K. B. 68 [1906] W. N. 194; [1907] Ch. 72 [1904] 2 Ch. 525 ; C. A. [1905 W. N. 98, 102 ; [1905] 2 Ch 164 [1901] W. N. 215 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 137 ; C. A. [1903] 1 KB. 226; H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 40 ; [1905] A. C. 102 ) [1906] W. N. 91 ; [1906] 1 ) Ch, 841 j [1908] W. N. 121 ; [1908] 2 , K.B.341; O.A. [1908] W.N. ) 180 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 780 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 123; [1909] A. 0.438 .. ' 454 454 2060 368 2447 1238 1765 700 367 634 2833 604 2831 2834 1819 1819 2714 2834 1986 2160 174 24 2333 250 606 2427 TABLE OF (JAf^ES IN THE DIGEST. Xame of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Mendelssohn, Ex parte. In re Mendelssohn. See next Case. Mendelssohn : — Eatcliff and Dealtry v. ... I Mentz, Decker & Co. o. Maritime Insurance \ Co. . . . . , . , . . . . . I Menzies : — Bartholomew v. In re Weston. . j 1 Mephan-Ferguson Lock-Bar Pipe Co. British Aluminium Co. Mercantile Lighterage Co., In re Mercantile Steamship Co. v. Hall " Mercedes de Larriuaga," The Mercer v. Deune [1901] 2K. B.844 ; C. A. [1902] '. 2K:.B.65.3;H.L.(E.)[1904] W. N. 150 ; [1904] A. 0. 456 [1910] 1 K. B. 132 . . [1902] W. N. 36 ; [1902] 1 Oh. | 680 ) ( Mercer v. Liverpool, St. Helens and South j Lancashire Ry. Co. . . . . . . . . l Mercer : — Pharmaceutical Society of Great / Britain v. Merchants' Fire OiEce Ld. v. Armstrong Merchants' Marine Insurance Co. : — Angel Merchiston Steamship Co., Ld. v. Turner Mercier v. Mercier Mere Eoihi : — Assets Co. i'. . . Merrick c. Liverpool Corporation Meirill v. Wilson, Sons & Co. Merriman : — Cox v. Merriman : — Pearce v. . . Merritt n. Boswell. In re BosweU Merry & Ounninghame, Ld. : — Forrest Merry & Son : — Dulaney v, . . " Mersey," The | Mersey Docks and Harboui' Board v. Birken- I head Assessment Committee . . . . j Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Owners ) of S.S. Marpessa. The Marpessa . . . . j Mersey Docksand Harbour Board : — Williams j ^ ) Mersey Ey. Co. : — Att.-Geu. v. Mersey Trading Co. : — Liverpool and North I Wales Steamship Co. v. . . . ' Merthyr (Britannic) Coal Co. : — David v. . j ! H.L. (Sc.) [1910] W.N. 67 .. ' [1906] W. N. 28 ; [1906] 1 / Oh. 491 j 1909] 2 K. B. 423 . . 1904] W.N. 80; [1904] P. 215 1904] W. N. 136 ; [1904] 2 ■ Oh. 634 ; C. A. [1905] W. N. 140 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 538 . . [1901] 2 K.B. 753; 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 652 ;H.L.(E.) [1904] 1 W. N. 150 ; [1904] A. C. 461 I [1909] W. N. (223) 213 ; [1910] ) 1 K. B. 74 i C. A. [1901] W. N. 163 0. A. [1903] IK. B. 811 .. [1910] 2 K. B. 923 . . C. A. [1903] W. N. 86 ; [1903] ) 2Ch. 98 .. j P. C. [1905] A. O; 176 [1910] W. N. 202; [1910] 2 ) Ch. 449 . , . 0. A. [1905 [1903 1901] 1 K B. 35 1 K. B. 139 . . W. N. 200 : [1904] i K. B. 80 [1906] W. N. 22 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 359 ; C. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 331 H. L. (Sc.)[1909] W. N. 160; [1909] A. 0. 417 . . [1901] 1 K. B. 536 . . [1901] W. N. 220; [1901] P 369 .. H. L. (E.) [1901] W.N. 90; ' [1901] A. C. 175 . H. L. (B.) [1907] W. N. 136 ; ' [1907] A. 0. 241 0. A. [1905] W.N. 68; [1905] 1 K. B. 804 . . [1906] W.N. 62; [1906] 1 Ch. ' 811 ;0. A. [1906] W.N. 220- C. A. [1907] W. N. 5, 15 ; [1907] 1 Oh. 81 ; H. L. (E. , [1907] W. N. 173 ; [1907] I A. C. 415 .. -^ [1901] W. N. 154 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 460 ;C. A. [1908] W.N. 233; C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 209 C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 146; H.L.(E.) [1909] W.N. 257; H. L. (E.) [1910] A C. 74 . 2623 1268 968 2319 588 2618 2535 846 1399 1907 467 1268 2250 1198 1808 1483 1642 1849 1848 1476 1706 631 2546 2154 2488 2083 2123 1908 1676 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. VoUime and PaRe. Column of Digeet- Merthyr (Lewis) Consolidated Collieries, \ Ld. : — Keates v. . . . . . . . . I Merttens v. Hill ■■( \ Metal Constituents, Ld., In ye. Lord Lui'gan's ) Case . . . . . . . . . . . . Metallic Eoofing Co. of Canada, Ld. : — Jose r. Metcalf, In re. Metoalf ». Blencowe Metoalf : — "WTiite v: Metcalf & Co. : — Bentley Bros. >■. Metoalf & Greig : — Att.-Gen. <•. Metcalfe, In re. Metcalfe '■. Earle Metcalfe : — Bastable v. Metcalfe ; — ^Foster v. In re Hall Metropolitan (Chief Commissioner of) Police : — Gordon v. . . MetropoKtan District Ey. Co. : — Covington v. Metropolitan Electric Supply Co. : — Att.- Gen. V. MetropoKtan Electric Supply Co. v. Ginder MetropoKtan Gas Co. : — Melbourne and MetropoKtan Board of Works c . . Metropolitan (Great Western and) Eail ways : — London Corporation v. Metropolitan Ey. Co. v. London Council. Eleming o. London Council (Consolidated Appeals) ■i County i County ' MetropoKtan Ey. Co. : — Taylor ;'. MetropoKtan Ey. Co. and Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, In re . . Metropolitan Water Board, Ex parte. Eex v. Hutton ■•), MetropoKtan Water Board . . Brooks MetropoKtan Water Board : — Chelsea Water- works Co y. . . MetropoKtan Water Board : — English . Metropolitan Water Board v. London, Brighton and South Coast Ey. Co. Metropolitan Water Board r. Paine . . MetropoKtan Water Board v. Solomon Metropolitan Water Board : — South Siiburban ) Gas Co. V. Meurice : — Kolohmann v. Meux (Lady), In re Hall and . . [1910] 1 K B. 386; 0. A. [1910] W. N. 130; [1910] 2 K B. 445 . . [1901] W. N. 47 ; [1901] 1 Oh. ) 842 [1902] W. N. 43 ; [1902] 1 Ch 707 t P. 0. [1908] A. C. 514 [1903] W. N. 89 ; [1903] 2 Oh, 424 [1903] W. N. 134; [1903] Ch. 567 C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 548 [1907] W. N. 36 ; [1907] 2 Ch, ) 23 ; C. A. [1908] 1 Oh. 327 j [1909] W. N. 15 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 424 i [1906] 2 K. B. 288 . . [1902] W. N. 208; C. A. ^ [1903] W. N. 93 ; [1903] 2 Oh. 226 ) 0. A. [1910] 2 K B. 1080 . . [1903] 1 K. B. 231 . . [1904] W. N. 190 ; [1905] 1 ) Ch. 24; 0. A. [1905] W.N. 61 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 757 . . ) [1901] W. N. 93 ; [1901] 2 Ch. ) 799 j P. C. [1905] A. 0. 595 [1910] W. N. 145 ; [1910] 2 ) Ch. 314 j [1909] 1 K. B. 116; 0. A. \ [1909] W. N. 117 ; [1909] 2 ( K.B.317; H. L. (E.) [1910] ( W. N. 223 ; [1906] W. N. 100 ; [1906] 2 ) K. B. 55 ) [1906] 1 Oh. 619, n [1907] W. N. 163 ; [1907] 2 ) K. B. 578 j [1910] 2 K. B. 134; C. A. ) [1910] W. N. 258 . . . . I C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 77 [1907] W. N. 50; [1907] 1 ) K. B. 588 ) [1910] 1 K. B. 804; C. A.) [1910] W, N. 209; [1910] '■> 2 K. B. 890 . . . . ) [1907] 1 K. B. 285 . . [1908] W. N. 98 ; [1908] 2 Ch. ) 214 j [1909] W. N. 199 ; [1909] ) 2 Oh. 666 i C. A. [1903] W. N. 31 ; [1903] ) IK B. 534 ) 0. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 688 . . 1664 1566 586 326 61 1736 1377 1506 2926 2713 1052 242 1407 1014 1015 2833 1395 1505 2128 1406 2847 2849 2860 2859 1542, 2154 1541 1541 1543 349 1350 TABLE OF CASES IX THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume find Page. Column of Digest. Meux's (Crunden and) Contract, In re Mew, Langton & Co. : — Johnston r. . . Meyding i\ Hinohliff. In re Turner Meyer, In the Estate of Meyriok : — Eussell v. In re Bolton Estates Michael v. Hart & Co. Michaelson : — Chapman r. Michaelson v. Nichols , . Michelmore : — Pitts !■. . . Middlemas v. Stevens . . Middlesex County Council, E.r fiarte. In re Wood Green Gospel Hall Charity . . Middlesex County Council. In re Cannings, Ld. and Middlesex County Council v. Kingsbury Urban Council Middlesex County Council : — Piggott r. Middlesex (County of) Light Eailways Order, 1903, hire l^Iiddlesex Justices : — Eex v. Ex parte Wal- sall Union Middleton Parish Council : — West Biding of Yorkshire Countj^ Council t. Midland Counties District Bank, Ld. v. Att- wood . . Midland Great Western Ey. of Ireland : — Cooke V. Midland Lace Co. : — Squire ?'. Midland Eailway Carriage and Wagon Co. Limited and Eeduced, In re Midland Ey. Co. , Ex parte Midland Ey. Co. : — Anderson v. Midland Ey. Co. :— Att.-Gen. /■ Midland Ey. Co. :— Blake v Midland Ey. Co. : —Great Western Ey. Co. -y :. ) Midland Ey. Co.: — Hampstead Corporation v. Midland Ey. Co. : — Holwell Hon Co. •■ ( Midland Ey. Co., Judge James and : — Eex v. ) Ex parte Bath Eural Council . . . . j [1909] W. K. 60 ; [1909] 1 Ch. ) 690 j igOV] W. X. 156 1906] W. K 27 1908] P. 353 1902] W. N. 214 ; C. A. [1903] \ W. K. 124; [1903] 2 Ch. 461 ) [1901] 2 K. B. 867 ; C. A. ) [1902] 1 K. B. 4H2 . . . . j [1908] W. N. 177 ; [1908] 2 Ch. , 612 ; C. A. [1908] W. K. 241 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 238 . . . . ) [1910] W. N. 69 [1909] 1 K. B. 227 ; C. A. , [1909] W. X. 97 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 244 j [1901] W. N. 24; [1901] 1 Ch. ) 574 ] [1909] 1 Ch. 263 C.A. [1907]1 K. B. 51 C. A. [1909] W. N. 23 ; [1909] ) 1 K. B. 554 j [1908] W. N". 193 ; [1909] 1 ) Ch. 134 [1908] W. N. 167 [1906] 2 K B. 365 ; C. A [1907] 2K. B.581 .. [1906] 2 K. B. 157 . . [1905] W. X. 6 ; [1905] 1 Ch 357 H. L. (H.) [1909] W. N. 56 [1909] A. 0. 229 . . [1905] 2 K. B. 448 . . [1907] W. X. 175 [1903] W. X. 99 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 201 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 61 [1901] W. N. 209 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 369 C. A. [1901] 1 K B. 220 H. L. (E.) [1902] W. X. 40; [1902] A. C. 171 [1904] 1 K. B. 503 . . [1908] W. N. 146; [1908] 2 Ch. 455 ; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 198 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 644; H.L. (E.) [1909] W.X. 167; [1909] A. C. 445 . . [1904] 2 K. B. 802; C. A. [1905] W. N. 31 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 638 . . [1909] 1 K. B. 486; C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 296.. [1908] 1 K. B. 958 . . ) I ) ) 2749 1689 1037 2059 2617 2623 1723 1724 1849 2370 355 2117 1493 1416 1412 1926 2139 554 2114 1691 647 1411 2136 2265 1585 2126 1536 2132 1164 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Midland Ey. Co. : — Long Eaton Eeoreation ) Groimds Co. r. . . . . j Midland Ey. Co, /■. Myers, Eose & Co. . . | Pontefraot Assessment / Midland Ey. Co. Committee Midland Ey. Co. : — Scott r Midland Ey. Co. :— Sharpe i: Midland Ey. Co. :— Stone & Co. v. . . Midland Ey. Co. : — Williams v. Midland Ey. Co. /■. Wright . . Mid-wood & Co. v. Manchester Corporation Miers : — Huggett r. . . Milbank (,'. Francis MUch <'. Frankau & Co. Mile End Guardians v. Hoare Mile End Guardians v. Sims . . Miles, In re Miles V. Hutchings Miles V. Wilson. In re Cozens Millar & Lang, Ld. -■. Polak , . Volume and Page. Millar's Karri and Jarrah Forests, Ld. : — ] Eepetto V. . . . . . . . . ) Millard v. Balby-with-Hexthorpe Urban ) Council . . . . . . . . . . ) Miller, In re . . Miller : — ^Bagel v. Miller v. Canada Grand Trunk Ey. Co. Miller : — Dawes r. In re Brockett . . Miller : — Deschamps r. Miller v. Law Accident Insurance Co. Miller & Co. r. Solomon Millett V. Ballard Milligan : — MacGuax'e v. Mills, In re. Ex 2>arte Mills . . Mills V. Johnston. In re Johnston J Mills (New) Urban Council, Ex parte. Eex j V. Derbyshire Justices . . . . . . I Mills (Eichard) & Co. (Brierley Hill), Ld., | In re. Smith i>. The Co ] "Millwall,"The C. A. [1902] 2 Iv. B. 574 . . C. A. [1908] W. N. 80 ; [1908] , 2 K. B. 356 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 13 . . ) [1901] 2 K. B. 182 . . [1901] 1 K. B. 317 C. A. [190.3] 2 K. B. 26 ; H. L. ■ (E.) [1904] W. N. HI; [1904] A. C. 349 . . . . ) [1903] 1 K B. 741 ; C. A. ) [1904] 1 K. B. 669 . . . . | C. A. [1907] W. X. 256 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 252 [1901] W. N. 38 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 738 C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 597 C. A. [1908] W. N. 116 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 278 [1901] W. N. 91 [1909] W. N. 95 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 100 ) [1903] W. N. 136 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 483 ( [1905] 2 K. B. 200 . . [1903] W. N. 122 ; [1903] 2 ) Ch. 518 ) [1903] 2 K. B. 714 . , [1902] W. N. 203 ; [1903] 1 ) Ch. 138 j [1908] W. N. 19; [1908] 1 ) Ch. 433 ) [1901] 2 K. B. 306 . . 0. A. [1904] W. N. 180 ; ) [1905] 1 K. B. 60 . . . . j C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 51 [1903] 2 K. B. 212 . . P. C. [1906] A. C. 187 [1907] W. N". 237 ; [1908] 1 ) Ch. 185 j [1908] 1 Ch. 856 [1902] 2 K. B. 694 ; C. A. / [1903] IK B. 712.. .. j [1906] 2 K. B. 91 C. A. [1904] W. N. 156 ; [1904] ) 2 K B. 593 j [1902] W. N. 209 ; [1903] 1 ) Ch. 145 ) [1900] W. N. 4; [1906] 1 K. B. 389 i [1903] W. N. 193 ; [1904] 1 ] Ch. 132 [1909] W. N. 26 ; [1909] 1 ) K. B. 449 ) [1905] W. N. 36 [1904] W. N. 169; 0. A. [1905] ) W. N. 51 ; [1905] P. 165 .. j Colutun of Dige.st. 1400 2135 2152 1706 1628 2104 2112 2137 1020 1094 1972 1521 1666 1922 2603 82S 2905 .685 2452 2642 154 1858 310 2978 1313 1276 756 748 734 212 735 1922 575 2511 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. I In re Phillimore's ) i Milman v. Lane . . Milner r. Walbran. In re Walbrau . . Milner's Safe Co. -■. Great Northern and City Ry. Co Milnes : — Philliniore Estate . . Milton V. Studd Milward r. Barry Urban Council Minerals Separation, Ld. v. Ore Concentra' tion Co. (1905), Ld j Miners (Prested) Co., Ld. v. Gamer, Ld. . . | Mines (Consolidated South Eand) Deep, Ld., ) IrL re . . . . . . . . . , . . j Mines (De Beers Consolidated), Ld. : — British / South Africa Co. t. . . . . . , . . j Mines (Huinac Copper) , Ld. , In re. Matheson ) & Co. i: The Company . . . . . . ] Mines (Koffy fontein , Ld.) : — Mosely u. Mines (Paringa) 1909, Ld. : — Barrow r. Mining (Kaslo-Slocan) and Financial Cor- poration, Ld., In re . . Mining (United) and Finance Corporation, Ld. V. Becher Minister & Co. r. Apperly Minister of Agriculture of the Colony of Natal : — Dundee Coal Co. .-. Minister of Education for Ontario : — Brothers of the Christian Schools -v. . . Minister of Lands ■;;. Wilson . . Minister of Mines r. Harney . . Minister of Mines for New Zealand: — Heslop r. Minister of Public Works c. Hart " Minneapolis," The . . Minister of Stamps r. Townend " Minnetonka," The .. Minter : — Fulham Vestry v. . . Minty r. Bourne. In re Davidson . . Mirams r. Our Dogs Publishing Co. Mirrlees Charity, In re. Mitchell r. Att.- Gen. Mitoham and Cheam Breweiy Co. : — Law Guarantee and Trust Society, Ld. r. Mitoham Common Conservators : — Cook v. . . Mitchell, In re. Ex 23arte Cohen . . Mitchell : — Andrews v. Mitchell ('. Att.-Gen. In re Mirrlees Charity Mitchell I'. Crawshaw . . Mitchell : — Hellwig v.. . Volume and Page. 0. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 745 [1905] W. N. 165 ; [1906] 1 ) Ch. 64 j [1906] W. N. 163 ; C. A. [1906] ) W. N. 21.3 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 208 j [1904] W. N. 163; [1904] 2 I Ch. 460 ) [1910] W. N. 98 ; [1910] 2 / K. B. 118 ) [1904] W. N. 158 ; [1904] 2 ) Ch. 481 I 0. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 744 . . i [1910] W. N. 196; [1910] 2) K. B. 776 ; 0. A. [1910] W. N. 276 j [1909] W. N. 35 ; [1909] 1 Ch. ) 491 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 66 ) [1910] 1 Ch.354; 0. A. [1910] 1 2 Ch. 502 I [1910] W. N. 218 [1910] W. N, 176; [1910] 2 Ch. 382 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 231 [1909] W. N. 195; [1909]) 2 Ch. 658 j [1910] W. N. 13 [1910] 2 K. B. 296 . . [1902] 1 K. B. 643 . . P. C. [1906] A, C. 511 P. C. [1907] A. C. 69 . . P. C. [1901] A. C. 315 P. C. [1901] A. C. 347 P. C. [1904] A. C. 781 P. 0. [1904] A. C. 259 [1902] P. 30 . . P. C. [1909] A. C. 633 [1904] W. N. 58 ; [1904] P. ) 202 ; C. A. [1905] P. 206 .. ) [1901] W. N. 25 ; [1901] 1 ) K B. 501 . . . . j C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 567 0. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 564 . [1909] W. N. 227 ; [1910] 1 ) Ch. 163 . . . . ( [1906] W. N. 91 ; [1906] 2 Ch. ) 98 ] [1901] 1 Ch. 387 [1910] W. N. 24 H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 78 .. [1909] W. N. 227 ; [1910] 1 ) Ch. 163 .. .. 1903] 1 K. B. 701 .. 1910] 1 K. B. 609 .. Column of Digest. 2943 3004 2866 2383 242 2303 1883 2291 • 609 632 526 489 •537 611 2611 707 1777 320 1792 137 1804 1794 2549 1813 2507 1534 372 821 3*68 1428 395 198 1117 368 820 879 TABLE OF GASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case*. Vohime and Page. Column of Digest. Mitchell : — ^Moutrie r. . . Mitchell V. New Zealand Loan and Mercan- tile Co. Ex j)arte Mitchell . . Mitcheson : — Stokes r. . . Moel Tryvan Ship Co. v. Andrew Weir & Co. Moel Tryvan Ship Co. v. Kruger & Co. Mole:— H. Tolputt& Co., Ld. i; Moliueaux v. London, Birmingham and Man- chester Insurance Co. Molineux v. Evered. In re Evered . . Molyneux v, Hawtrey Molyneux i'. Natal Land and Colonization Co. Molyneux v. Richard . . Monckton v. Gramophone Co., Ld. . . Monckton v. Hands. In re Swain , . Monckton (New) Collieries, Ld. : — ^Keeling v. Monk V. Arnold . . Monmouthshire and South Wales Employers' ] Mutual Indemnity Society, Ld., Inre . . ) Monmouthshire County Council (Att.-Gen. | and) V. Scott . . . . . . . . J Monmouthshire Steel and Tinplate Co., In re I Montagu (Lord) : — ^Att.-Gen. v. I Montague Hihbard & Co. : — Church's Trustee \ V. Montaldi : — Elswick Steamship Co. Montefiore v. Guedalla Montefiore v. Guedalla Montefiore v. Guedalla (Monteomerie intervening. ) Davison Davison Montgomerie & Co. i'. Haddington (Provost, &c., of) Montgomerie & Co. v. Wallace-James Montgomerie & Co. v. Wallace-James Montgomery & Co. v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Insurance Co. Montgomery Moore Ship Collision Doors Syndicate, In re Monti V. Barnes Montreal and St. Lawrence Light and Power Co. V. Robert . . Montreal City : — Montreal Street Ry. Co. Montreal (City of) v. Cantin . . C. A. [1901] W.N. 33; [1901] ( 1 K. B. 596 j P. e. [1904] A. C. 149 [1902] 1 K. B. 857 . . C. A. [1910] W.N. 179; [1910]) 2 K. B. 844 I [1906] 2 K. B. 792; 0. A. [1907] W. N. 27 ; [1907] 1 ] KB. 809; H.L. E.)[1907] W. N. 173 ; [1907] A. C. 272 [1910] W. N. 252 C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 589 0. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 147 C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 487 P. C. [1905] A. C. 555 [1905] W. N. 164; [1906] Ch. 34 [1910] W. N. 277 C. A. [1905] W. N. 61 ; [1905] '/ 1 Ch. 669 j C. A. [1910] W. N. 249 [1902] 1 K B. 761 . . [1909] W.N. 6.. C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 404 [1906] W. N. 128 ^ . . [190:2] 1 K. B. 429; C. A, [1903] W. N. 29 ; [1903] 1 ( K. B. 483; H. L. (E.)[1904] ( W.N. 110; [1904] A. C. 316/ [1902] W. N. 160 ; C. A. [1902] ) W. N. 192 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 784 ) [1907] W. N. 46 ; [1907] 1 ) K. B. 626 ( [1901] W. N. 8 ; [1901] 1 Ch. ) 435 i C. A. [1903] W. N. 77 ; [1903] ) 2 Ch. 26 ■ [190.3] W. N. 184; [1903] Ch. 723 [1909] P. 308 . . . . H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W. N. 54 [1908] A. C.J170 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1904] W. N. 3 [1904] A. 0. 73 H. L. (Sc.) [1904] A. C. 214. [1901] 1 K. B. 147, C. A, [1902] 1 K. B. 734 . . [1903] W. N. 121 C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 205 P. C. [1906] A. C. 196 P. C. [1900] A. C. 100 P. C. [1906] A. C. 241 ) 1965 1811 1321 2456 2449 259" 462 1954 2801 1776 276 685 355 1601 760 475 1159 540 2220 126 2455 176 1198 2734 927 2429 2318 1180 1265 602 1090 293 317 324 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Montreal Light, Heat and Power Co. : — Dumphy v. . . Montreal LigM, Heat, and Power Co. v. Sedgwick Montreal Street Ey. Co. : — City of Montreal v. Montreal Street Ey. Co. v. Montreal Citj- . . Moody : — Smith v. Moon, In re. Holmes v. Holmes Moon : — Turner r. Moon (Emily) : — Eex v. Moon (Frederick) : — Eex v. . . Mooney v. Edinburgh and District Tramway Co. Mooney : — Gates r. In re Mathews Mooney : — Taxation Commissioners v. Moor (Low) Iron Co.:— Provincial Billposting Co. V. . . Moore, Ex parte. In re Slobodinsky Moore, In re. Moore v. Bigg Moore, In re. Moore i'. Moore . . . . In re Bigge Moore, In re. Prior v. Moore Moore, In re. Strickland v. London Union Eire and Life Insurance Co. Moore, In the Goods of Moore: — Bmner v. Moore : — Coates v. Moore r. Gibbon. In re Gibbon Moore : — Granville Moore v. Keyte . . Moore r.Ljewis . . Moore v. Lowe . . Moore r. Manchester Liners, Ld. Moore v. Oxford (Bishop of) . . Moore (Cox) v. Peruvian Corpoi-ation, Ld. Moore : — Porter ?•. Moore i'. Smee and Cornish . . Moore v. Somerset. In re Donald . . Moore : — Townsend v. . . Moore v. Ullooats Mining Co. Moore v. Wilson. In re Wilson Volume and Page. P. C. [1907] A. C. 454 P. C. [1910] A. C. 598 P. C. [1903] A. C. 482 P. C. [1906] A. 0. 100 [1903] 1 K. B. 56 [1907] W. N. 154 ; [1907] 2 i Ch. 304 [1901] W. X. 174 ; [1901] 2 ) Ch. 825 ) C. C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 818 C. C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 818 (1901) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] / W. N. 161 I [1905] 2 Ch. 460 P. C. [1907] A. C. 342 C. A. [1909] 2 K B. 344 [1903] W. N. 154 ; [1903] 2 ) , E. B. 517 .. [1906] W. K. 53 ; [1906] 1 Ch 789 [1901] W. N. 48 ; [1901] 1 Ch, 691 [1901] W. N. 66 ; [1901] 1 Ch, 936 [1907] W. N. 181 [1901] P. 44 . . [1904] W. N. 23 ; [1904] 1 Ch, 305 . . C. A. [1903] W. X. 105 [1903] 2 K. B. 140 . . [1909] 1 Ch. 367 [1907] W. K 94; [1907] 1 Ch. 714 [1902 [1905; KB. 2 [1906 C. A. 1 Iv 1 E. B. 768 W. N. 162 ; [1906] 1 W. N. 142 1909] W. N. 5 ; [1909] , B. 417; H. L. (E.) N. 184; [1910] [1910] W^ A. C. 498 . . P. C. [1904] A. C. 283 [1908] W. N. 62 ; [1908] 1 ' Ch. 604 . . [1904] 2 Ch. 367 C. A. [1907] W.N. 84; [1907] 2 K. B. 8 . [1909] W. N. 169; [1909]' 2 Ch. 410 . . C. A. [1905] W. N. 4 ; [1905] P. 66 . . [1907]W.N.231; [1908] 1 Ch. 575; C. A. [1908] W. N. (Erratum 40) 35 . [1907] W. N. 45; [1907] 1 Ch. 394 .. ,. Column of Digest. 310 304 323 317 804 35 2789 1234 1234 1653 625 1799 905 179 2394 2992 2999 25 2058 666 249 32 64 2780 2200 2000 1643 984 426 1031 1370 2986 2064 1388, 1968 2366 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Moore v. Wingfleld. In re Wilmer's Trusts Moore : — Wingfield v. In re Wiliner's Trusts Moore, Nettlefold & Co. v. Singer Manu- \ facturing Co. . . . . . . . . . . ( Moore-Stevens : — Great Toriington Commons / Conservators v. . . . . . . . . ) Moran, Galloway & Co. v. Uzielli Moran & Son, Ld. ( . Marslaud Moray (Countess of) : — Lord Advocate v. . . \ Mordan, In re. Legg v. Mordan . . j Mordaunt Brothers v. British Oil and Cake ] Mills, Ld ] Mordecai Jones, In re. Lewis v. Lewis Morel Brothers & Co. v. Westmoreland (Earl \ of) j Moreland (E.) & Son, Ld. : — Warneken v. . . '. Moreton v. Eeeve . . . . . . . . } Morey : — Hobbs v. . . ' Morgan, Exparte. Eex v. Shoreditch Assess- ) ment Committee . . . . . . . . | Morgan, In re. Ex parte Board of Trade . . j Morgan v. Aylesford Licensing Justices Morgan : — Cooper v. . . . . . . . . Morgan : — Dovey v. In re Gwawr-y-Gwei- ( thyr and Provident Society . . . . ) Morgan v. Elvet ColKery Co. Dyson v. Morgan ' Morgan : — Fear v. Morgan : — James v. . . Morgan v. Jeffreys Morgan v. Eussell & Sons Morgan (Seed, Quinn), &c. : — Dyson v. Morgan: — ■ " Tynron " (Owners of the Vessel) V. Morgan : — WUliams v. . . Morgan v. William Harrison, Ld. . . Morgan's Brewery Co. v. Crosskill . . Morison v. Telfer . . . . Morley, In re. In re New. In re Leavers j ■ i •• f [1903] 1 Ch. 874 ; C. A. [1903] ) W.N. 118; [1903] 2 Ch. 411 j [1910] 2 Ch. Ill [1903] 2 K. B. 168 ; C. A. ) [190'1] W. X. 76 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 820 ) [1904] W. N. 11 ; [1904] 1 Ch. ) 3^" ) [1905] 2 K B. 555 . . [1909] 1 K. B. 744 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1905] W. N. 134 ; 1 [1905] A. 0. 531 . . C. A. [1905] W. N. 47 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 515 ) [1910] 2 K B. 502 . . [1909] W. N. 228 C. A. [1902] W. N. 206 ; C. A. \ [1903] 1 K. B. 64 ; H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 190; [1904] A. 0. 11 , . / C. A. [1908] W. N. 252 ; [1909] ) 1 K. B. 184 ) C. A. [1907] W. N. 137 ; \ [1907] 2 K B. 401 . . . . j [1904] 1 K B. 74 0. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 859 [1903] W. N. 183 ; [1904] 1 ) K. B. 68 ] [1906] 1 K. B. 437 [1908] W. N. 256; [1909] 1) Ch. 261 . . . . j [1901]2K. B. 477 C. A. [1908] W. N. 26 ; \ [1908] 1 K. B. 629 ; H. L. ( (E.) [1908] W. N. 250 ; ( [1909] A. C. 98 . . ..J C. A. [1906] W. N. 136 ; [1906] \ 2 Ch. 406; H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 196 ; [1907] A. C. 425 / [1909J W. N. 31 ; [1909] 1 ) K. B. 564 [1910] W.N. 59; £1910] ] Ch. ) 620 j [1908] W. N. 245 ; [1909] 1 ) K. B. 357 ( ILL. (E.) [1908] W.N. 250; ) [1909] A. C. 98 . . . . ) C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 66 [1906] W. N. 80 ; [1906] 1 / Ch. 804 C. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 137 [1902] 1 Ch. 898 [1906] W. N. 31 C. A. [1901] W. N. 162 ; [1901] ) 2 Ch. 534 ) Column of Digest. 1903 1026 913 2279 1269 1503 2208 2762 2294 2919 1192 1650 1666 697 2168 750 1441 2807 1222 1462 238 1769 2813 770 1633 1738 1365 508 1993 2754 TABLE OF CASES IK THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Morris, hi re MoitIs, hi re Morris v. Beale . . Morris v. Carnarvon County Council . . ( Morris, Claimant. Byford v. Eussell Morris i). Harden Star, Lavis and Sinclair Co. Morris : — Jacobs v. . . . . . . . . < Morris v. Northern Employers' Mutual In- ) demity Co. . . . . . . . . . Morris r. Skrewsbury Town Clerk . . Morris v. Woore. hi re Boxer Morris & Bastert, Ld. v. Loughborough Cor- poration Morrison, hi re. Morrison v. Morrison Morrison or Cochrane : — Cochrane r. Morrison: — Marshall f. Morrissey v. Morrissey Morriston Tinplate Co. v. Brooker, Dore &Co Morse ; — Eex v. Morshead : — Hoare & Co. r. . . Morten : — Ilumphrej-s v. Mortgage (Australian Estates and) Co., In re Mortgage (British Equitable Bond and) Corporation, Ld., hi re . . . . . . ( Mortgage Insurance Corporation c. Canadian ) Agricultural, Coal and Colonization Co. . . j Mortimer, In re. Gray v. Gray Mortimer v. Mortimer, hi re Jacob Mortimer : — Eex v. Mortimer v. Secretan . . Mortimer : — Vogt v Morton r. Bank of England . . Morton : — Tates v. In re Dodson . . Morton & Co. r. Woodward . . Morton, Down & Co. : — Marchant r. Moseley : — Dartford Brewery Co. r. ( Moseley (David) & Sons, Ld. : — Dunlop ) Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. . . . . . . i Moseley ". Koffyfontein Mines; Ld. . . Mosely r. Koffyfontein Mines, Ld. ( [1902] P. 104 C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 473 . . [1904] W. N. 158 ; [1904] 2 , K. B. 585 ) [1909] W. N. 263 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 159; C. A. [1910] ( W. N. 94 ; [1910] 1 K. B. ( 840 ; "1907] 2 K. B. 522 . . °1903] W. N. 64 1901] 1 Ch. 261 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 48 ; 0. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 816 C. A. [1902] W. N. 113 ; [1902] \ 2 K. B. 165 j [1909] 1 E. B. 342 [1910] W. N. 132 ; [1910] 2 ) Ch. 69 ) C. A. [1908] 1 E. B. 205 [1901] W. N. 60 ; [1901] 1 Ch. ) 701 ) H.L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 81 .. [1907] W. N. 29 [1905] P. 90 [1908] W. N, 16 ; [1908] 1 / K. B. 403 ( [1904] W. N. 114 C. A. [1903] W.X. 139 ; [1903] ) 2 K. B. 359 ) [1905] W. N. 66 ; [1905] 1 Ch. | 739 I [1910] W. N. 44 ; [1910] 1 Ch. / 414 I [1910]W. N. 53; [1910] 1 Ch. } 574 I [1901] W. N. 135 ; [1901] 2 ) Oh. 377 I [1905] W. N. 47 ; C. A. [1905] ) W. N. 139 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 502 [1907] W. N. 40 ; [1907] 1 \ Ch. 445 I C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 210 . . 0. A. [1909] W. N. 92 ; [1909] ] 2 K. B. 77 j [1906] W.N. 180 [1904] W. N. 49 ; [1904] 1 Ch. ) 664 i "1908] 2 Ch. 638 1902] 2 K. B. 276 . . '1901] 2 K. B. 829 0. A. [1906] W. N. 38 ; [1906] ) 1 K. B. 462 ) [1904] W. N. 11 ; [1904] 1 Ch. ) 164 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 60 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 612 . . . , J C. A. [1904] W.N. 117; [1904]) 2 Ch. 108 I [1910] W.N. 176; [1910] 2 Ch. 382 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 231 1188 2607 1071 2309 2436 435 2035 1681 1845 2997 2618 2758 955 512 962 767 1161 81 1369 544 582 420 848 1955 241 1656 1128 1925 1854 1633 110 741 1876 489 489 TABLE OF CASES IK THE DIGEST. Xame of Cass. Moses, In re. Beddington v, Beddington . . Moses, In re. Moses v. Valentine . . Moses V. Iggo . . Moses V. Marsland Moss, In re. Ex parte Hallett Moss V. Elphick . . Moss V. Great Eastern Ey. Co. Moss Bay Iron and Steel Co. : — McLean v. . . Moss Steamship Co., Ld. : — Whinney v. Mostyn (Lord) t . Eitzsimmons Motor Mail-Coaoli (National) Co., In re. See National Motoi' Mail-CoachCo., In re. Motor (New) and General Eubber Co. : — Warwick Tyre Co. v. Motor (Provincial) Cab Co. <■. Dunning . Motor (Eotax) and Cycle Co. : — Jackson v. . Motor Traction Co. : — Mason ■;'. Motors (Fiat), Ld. : — Bristol Tramways, &c. Carriage Co. v. Mott V. Issott. In re Wright Moulis V. Owen . . I Mount LyeU Mining and Ey. Co. v. Liland | Eevenue Commissioners . . Mountain (Eed) Ey. Co. : — Blue and Des champs v. Mountford : — Eex v. Ex parte London United Tramways (1901), Ld Mourmand v. Le Claire. Provincial Union Bank, Claimants " Mourne," The Moutrie v. Mitchell Muckleston : — ^Brooks v. Mulder : — Josef v. Mulholland : — Haycocks, Ld. v. Muller V. Traflord Muller & Co. : — Blakeley v. . . Miiller & Co.'s Margarine, Ld. : — Inland Eevenue Commissioners v... MullhoUand v. Whitehaven Colliery Co. Mulliner : — Solomon v. Mullis V. Hubbard Volume and Page. C. A. [1901] W. N. 241 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 100; H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 212 ; [1903] A. C. 13 [1908] W. N. 156; [1908] 2 Ch. 236 [1906] 1 K. B. 516 . . 1901] 1 K. B. 668 . . 1905] 2 K. B. 307 1910] 1 K. B. 465 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 94; [1910] 1 K. B. 846 C. A. [1909] W. N. 82 ; [1909] ' 2 K. B. 274 C. A. [1909] W. N. 137 ; [1909] 2 K B. 521; H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 102 . . C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 813 [1902] 1 K. B. 512 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 17 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 349 ; H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 3 ; [1904] A. C. 46. 205; [1910] W. N. 8 ; [1910] 1 Ch. / 248 j [1909] 2 K. B. 599 . . C. A. [1910] W. N. [1910] 2 K. B. 937 . . [1905] W.N. 27; [1905] 1 Oh. 419 C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 831 [1906] W. N. 201; [1907] 1 Ch. 231 C.A. [1907] W.N. 62; [1907] IK. B. 746.. [1904] 1 K B. 757 ; 0. A. [1904] W. N. 208; 1905 1 K B. 161 . . P. C [1909] A. C. 361 [1906] 2 K. B. 814 . [1903] 2 K. B. 216 . [1901] W. N. 18 ; [1901] P. 68 C. A. [1901] W. N. 33 ; [1901] 1 K B. 596 [1909] W. N. 188; [1909] 2 Ch. 519 P. 0. [1903] A. C. 190 [1904] 1 K. B. 145 . . [1901] 1 Ch. 54 [1903] 2 K. B. 760, n. H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 110 [1901] A. C. 217 . . C. A. [1910] W. N. 120 [1910] 2 K. B. 278 . . C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 76 [1903] W. N. 100; [1903] 2 Ch. 431 Column of Digest. 1951 637 1082 1507 207 1880 1684 1598 528 1390 2696 1767 2291 530 2287 2914 1128 2258 317 1414 262 2606 1966 1728 334 728 1397 662 2256 1670 764 2634 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Xame of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Mulrooney v. Todd Municipal Council of Sydney v. Austral Freezing Works, Ld. Municipal Council of Sydney v. Bull Munro : — Eattenberry v. Murch. V. Loosemore. In re Tuck Murgatroyd v. Wright. Bannister (Claimant) Murnin v. Calderwood Murphy v. Deichler Murphy- G-rimshaw' s BiU . . Divorce (Validation) Murray; — Att.-Gen. v. Murray : — Clergue v. Murray v. Dunn Murray : — Garner v. Murray v. Herring. In re Herring . . . . Murray : — Eex v. . . . . . . MuL'ray : — Shuttleworth i-. . . Murray v. Sitwell Murray & Co. , Ex parte. In re English and i Ayling . ) Muspratt - Williams, In re. Muspratt- ) Williams v. Howe . . . . . . . . j Musselburgh (Provost, &c., of) : — Mussel- ) burgh Eeal Estate Co. v. . . . . . . J Musselburgh Eeal Estate Co. v. Musselburgh ] (Provost, &o., of) I Mutual (Indemnity) Marine Assurance Co. — j Eepublic of Bolivia (•. . . . . . . J Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York :: — I EUinger & Co. v. . . . . . . . . j Mutual (Eoyal London) Insurance Society, ) Ld. , Id re . . . . . . . . . . j Mutual (Eoyal London) Insurance Society, i Ld. : — McGlade v. I Mutzenbecher v. La Aseguradora Espanola . . Myers, /m re. Ex parte "iiLyeTS .. .. Myers v. Washbrook . . Myers & Sons : — Lowe v. . . . . . . ■ Myers, Eose & Co. : — Midland Ey. Co. c . . Mvlam V. Market Harborough Advertiser i Co I C. A. [1908] W. N. 242 ; [1909] \ 1 K. B. 165 j P. 0. [1905] A. C. 161 [1909] 1 K B. 7 [1910] W. N. '245 C. A. [1906] W. N. 77 ; [1906] ) 1 Ch. 692 [1907] W. N. 120; [1907] 2 K B. 333 (1899) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 185 H. L. (Ir.) [1909] W. N. 167 ; [1909] A. 0. 446 H. L. [1907] W. N. 134 [1903] 2 K. B. 64 ; 0. A. [1904] W. N. 6; [1904] 1 K. B. 165 P. C. [1903] C. A. 521 H. L. (Sc.)[1907] W.N. 123; [1907] A. C. 283 [1903] W. N. 194; [1904] 1 Ch. 57 [1908] W. N. 153; [1908] 2 Oh. 493 C. C. E. [1906] W. N. 122; [1906] 2 K B. 385 . . C. A. [1901] W. N. 69 ; [1901] ) 1 Ch. 819; H. L. (E.) [1902] J A. 0. 263 ) [1902] W. N. 119 [1903] W. N. 49 ; [1903] 1 ) K. B. 680 j [1901] W. N. 14 H. L. (Sc.) [1905] W. N. 130 ; ] [1905] A. C. 491 H. L. (So.) [1905] W. N. 130 [1905] A. C. 491 . . I 0. A. [1909] W. N. 34 ; [1909] / 1 K. B. 785 . . . , ) [1904] 1 K. B. 832 ; 0. A. ) [1904] W. N. 184; [1905] ' 1 K. B. 31 . . . , . ) [1910] W. N. 226 [1910] W.N. 75; C. A. [1910] / W. N. 130 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 169 t C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 254 [1908] W. N. 51 ; [1908] 1 , K. B. 941 . . j [1901] 1 K. B. 360 0. A. [1906] W. N. 119 ; ) [1906] 2 K. B. 265 , ) 0. A. [1908] W. N. 80 ; [1908] ) 2 K. B. 356 ; H. L. (E.) ' [1909] A. C. 13 . . . . ) [1905] 1 K. B. 708 . . 1623 1801 2637 2637 127 767 1589 1940 933 2218 314 2329 1859 3004 825 2977 1227 166 635 1146 1146 1272 1263 494 1116 1999 208 2882 1685 2135 2238 TABLE OF CASES tX THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Mynors : — Ootgrave v. In re Cotgrave . . ! Mysore Eeefs (Kangundy) Mining Co. : — ) Stephens v. . . . . . . . . ) " Mystery," The N. Nadel: — Martin u. Dresdner Bank,Garnishee8 "Nader," The .. Nairn v. University Coiu-t of University of St. Andrews . . Napper : — Freeborn v. In re Corsellis Narbeth's (Sansom and) Contract, In re Nascimento : — Burgos v. McKeand,01aimant Nash, In re. Cook v. Frederick Nash V. Oalthorpe . . . . . . Nash, Field & Co. : — Serjeant v. Nash V. HoUinshead . . . . . . Nash V. Inman . . Natal Bank, Ld. v. Eood Natal Land and Colonization Co. :— Molyneux V. . . . . . . . . Natal Land and Colonization Co. v. Pauline Colliery Syndicate, Ld. Natal (Minister of Agriculture of the Colony of) : — Dundee Coal Co. «... Nathan v. Eouse National and Provincial Bank of England : — Perry v. National Amalgamated Labourers' Union of Great Britain and Ireland : — Giblan v. . . National Association of Operative Plasterers V. Smithies National Association of Operative Plas- terers : — Smithies v... National Bank of Australasia v. Falkingham & Sons National Bank of China, Ld. : — Poole v. National Bank of India, Ld. : — Kepitigalla Eubber Estates, Ld. v. National Bank of Wales, In re National Bank of Wales, ,Ld. In re Massey and GifBn's Case . . National Co. for Distribution of Electricity by Secondary Generators, Ld., /n re National Hospital for the Eelief and Cure of the Paralysed and Epileptic : — Att.-Gen. v. National Motor Mail-Coaoh Co., In re. Anstis' and McLean's Claims [1903] W. N. 153 ; [1903] 2 ; Ch. 705 [1902] W. N. 44 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 746 [1902] W. N. 58 ; [1902] P. 115 C. A. [1906] W. N. Ill ; [1906] ) 2 K. B. 26 j [1909] P. 300 H. L. (So.) [1908] W. N. 250 ; \ [1909] A. C. 147 [1906] W. N. 98 ; [1906] ;2 Ch. ) 316 j [1910] W. N. 113 ; [1910] 1 1 Ch. 741 j [1908] W.N. 237 [1909] W. N. 162 ; [1909] 2 > Ch. 450 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. ( 209 ; [1909] W. N. 226 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 1 . . ; C. A. [1905] W. N. 100 ; ) [1905] 2 Ch. 237 . . . . | C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 304 C. A. [1901] W. N. 64 ; [1901 ) 1 K. B. 700 C. A. [1908] W. N. 68 ; [1908] ) 2 K. B. 1 ) P. C. [1910] A. C. 570 P. C. 1905] A. 0. 555.. P. C. [1904] A. C. 120 P. C. [1906] A. 0. 511 [1905] 1 K. B. 527 [1909] W. N. 261 ; C. A. [1910] ] W. N. 20 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 464 j [1903] W. N. 172 ; 0. A. [1903] \ 2 K. B. 600 ) H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 434 . . C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 310 P. C. [1902] A. C. 585 H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 229 . . [1909] 2 K. B. 1010 . . [1902] 2 Ch. 412 [1907] 1 Ch. 582 C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 31.. [1904] W. N. 135; [1904] 2 / Ch 252 i [1908] W. N. 153 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 228 2921 496 2485 1133 2494 2326 2932 2805 248 1961 513 1357 1619 1233 2722 1776 1776 1777 1529 2044 2702 890 2703 2830 542 144 736 571 610 365 403 TABLE OF CAKES IX THE DIGE.ST. Name of Case. Volume and Page, Column of Digest, National Motor Mail-Ooaoh. Oo,, In re Clinton's Claim National Phonograph Co. i'. Edison-Bell Consolidated Phonograph Oo. National Provincial Bank of England, Ld. : — BeU !■ National Provincial Bank of England : — Perry v. National Starch Co.'s Application for Regis- tration of a Trade Mark, In re National Telephone Co. General v. Postmaster- National Telephone Co. : — Sewell !■. . . National Telephone Oo. : — South Eastern Ey. Oo. r National Trust Oo. (Dominion Iron and Steel Oo. and) : — Dominion Coal Co. v. . . National Trustees Company of Australasia, Ld. V. General Finance Company of Australasia, Ld. National Union Investment Oo. : — Lodge v. National United Investment Corporation, In re . . Nat\iral (Dominion) Gas Co. v. Collins and Perkins Nautilus Steam Shipping Co, : — Oliver ,•. , . Naval, Military and Civil Service Co-opera- tive Society of South Africa, Ld,, In n- . . Naval, Military and Civil Service Co-operative Society of South Africa, Ld, : — Young v. . . Naval (Royal) School, In re. Seymour v. Eoyal Naval School , , Navigation (British India Steam) Co, : — Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and China v. Navigation (China) Oo, v. Asiatic Petroleum Co. and the Taku Tug and Lighterage Co. Navigation (Glasgow) Oo, v. Iron Ore Oo. . . Navigation (Orient Steam) Oo. : — Marshall v. Navigation (Pacific Steam) Oo. : — Radcliffe v. Neagle v. Nixon's Navigation Co. Edwards V. Guest, Keen & Nettlefolds, Ld. Neale v. City of Birmingham Tramways Co. Neale v. Electric and Ordnance Accessories Co Neale v. Lennox (Gordon) Neale : — Pasquier v. Neale : — Star Tea Co. r. ■■( [1908] W. N, 130 ; 0, A, [1908] W, N, 172; [1908] 2 Ch, 515 [1907] W. N. 6 ; 0. A, [1908] W. N. 8 ; [1908] 1 Oh, 335 [1903] 2 K. B. 249 ; 0, A, [1904] W, N, 3; [1904] 1 K, B. 149 0. A, [1910] W. N, 20 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 464 [1908] W. N. 203 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 698 [1907] W.N, 78; [1907] 1 Ch, 621;C,A, [1908] W,N. 144; [1908] 2 Oh. 172 ; H, L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 91 ; [1909] A. 0, 269 C, A. [1907] 1 K. B, 557 [1908] W, N, 106 ; [1908] 2 Ch, ' 50 ; 0, A, [1908] W. N. 172 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 514 [1909] A, 0, 293 P, 0, [1905] A. 0, 373 [1907] W, N, 9 ; [1907] 1 Oh. 300 [1901] W. N. 76; [1901] 1 Ch. ' 950 P. 0, [1909] A, 0, 640 0, A. [1903] W, N. 132 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 639 C. A, [1903] W. N. 120 [1905] W. N, 41 ; [1905] 1 K. B, 687 , , [1910] W. N. 88 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 806 P. C, [1909] A, C. 369 P, 0, [1910] A, C. 204 H. L, (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 84 ; 1 [1910] A. 0. 293 . , . 1 0. A, [1909] W. N. 225 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 79 ( 0. A, [1910]W, N, 58; [1910]) 1 K B. 685 . . 0. A, [1904] W.N, 16; [1904]) 1 K, B, 339 . . I [1910] W, N. 175 ; [1910] 2 ) Ch, 464 . , ) 0, A, [1906] W. N, 169; [1906] ) 2 K, B. 558 . . . t 0. A, [1902] W. N, 80 ; [1902] ) 1 K.B. 838 ;H.L,(E.) [1902] W. N. 156 ; [1902];A. 0. 465 ) [1902] 2 K. B. 287 ' . . [1909] W. N. 200 418 18 2236 2044 2683 2660 1072 2660 296 2835 1723 617 303 1687 601 464 1226 2629 379 2462 1649 1631 1686 553 1673, 1685 743 1448 1327 TABLE OF CASES JN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Neame : — Bonnin v. . . . . . . Neaverson n. Peterborougli Rural Council . . ! Needham : — Johnson v. . . . . . . j Neeves v. Weston. In re Weston's Settle- ) ment . . . . ) Neill & Sons : — McGrath c. . . Nelson v. Empress Assurance Corporation, \ Ld. Faber, Third Party ) Nelson : — Ogdens, Ld. v. Ogdens, Ld. r. \ Telford Nelson v. Eex . . Nelson & Co. , hi re Nelson (Edward) & Co. v. Faber & Co. Nelson Line (Liverpool), Ld. : — James Nelson ) & Sons, Ld. V. . . . . . . ] Nelson Line (Liverpool), Ld. : — James ) Nelson & Sons, Ld. v. . . . . l Nelson Line (Liverpool), Ld. (No. 2) : — ) James Nelson & Sons, Ld. i^. . . . . i Nepean, In re. Ex parte Eamchund Nesbitt V. Wallace Ness & Co. : — Eennie & Co. v. Netherlands Steamboat Co. : — London Cor- ) poration v. . . . . . . . . . . j Neville v. Benjamin. In re Benjamin Nevinson : — Scarisbrick v. In re Chet- ) wynd's Settlement . . . . . . . . | New, In re. In re Leavers. In re Morley ! New AJriiander Gold Mining Co. : — Booth v. New Balkis Ersteling, Ld. Mining Co. -Bandt Gold New De Kaap, Ld., In re New Ferry Co. (Balmain), Ld. : — Kobinson ) '"• . . . . . . . . . . . New Gold Coast Exploration Co. , Inre New Grand (Olapham Junction), Ld. :- Isaacson v. . . New Hucknall Colliery Co. : — Butterley Co. i New London and Suburban Omnibus Co., In re. Appleyard v. Same Co, . . I . . Volume and Page. [1910] W. N. 94 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 732 [1901] 1 Oh. 22'; 0. A. [1902] W. N. 46 ; [1902] 1 Oh. 557 [1909] W. N. 26 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 626 [1906] 2 Ch. 620 0. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 211 0. A. [1905] W. N. 93 ; [1905] ) 2 K. B. 281 ( [1903] 2 K.B. 287; 0. A. [1904] \ W. N. 98 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 410; H.L.(E.) [1905] W.N. 54 ; [1905] A. (J. 109 . . ' P. C. [1902] A. C. 250 [1905] 1 Ch. 551 [1903] 2 K. B. 367 . , C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 217 ; [1906] ) 2 K. B. 804 j [1907] 1 K B. 788, n. ; C. A. \ [1907] W. N. 179 ; [1907] 2 ( KB. 705; H. L. (E.) [1908] ( W. N. 40 ; [1908] A. C. 108 ) C. A. [1907] W. N. 43 ; [1907] \ 1 K. B. 769 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 243 ; [1908] A. c. 16 ; [1903] W. N. 67 ; [1903] 1 ) K. B. 794 j [1901] W. N. 180 ; [1901] P. 354 H. L. (So.) [1902] W. N. 122 H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 263 . . [1902] W. N. 26 ; [1902] 1 \ Ch. 723 ) [1902] W. N. 43 ; [1902] 1 ) Oh. 692 0. A. [1901] W. N. 162 ; ) [1901] 2 Ch. 534 .'. ,, ) 0. A. [1902] W. N. 212 ; ) [1903] 1 Ch. 295 . . . . ) C. A. [1903] W. N. 23 ; [1903] -, 1 K. B. 461 ; H. L. (E.) ( [1904] W. N. 76 ; [1904] I A. 0. 165 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 589 P. 0. [1910] A. 0. 295 [1901] W. N. 63 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 860 [1903] 1 K. B. 539 . . [1908] W. N. 161 ; [1908] 2 Oh. , 475 ;C. A. [1908]; W.N. 221; J [1909] 1 Ch. 37. (En-atum 226); H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 102 ; [1910] A. 0. 381 ' [1908] 1 Oh. 621 Column of Digest. 1864 2025 843 1952 1589 2013 659 1295 1255 427 897 2468 2459 213 1005 1035 2140 2983 2747 2754. 535 412 597 136 650 1683 1707 439 o2 TABLE OF CASES IX THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. New Mills TJrbau Council, Ex parte. Eex v. Derbyshire Justices . . New Monckton Collieries, Ld. : — Keeling v. New Moss Colliery, Ld. :- poration v. -Manchester Cor- New Motor and General Rubber Co. Warwick Tyre Co. v. New Eiver Co. v. Hertford Union ( New Eiver Co. : — Hertfordshire County | Council V. . . . . . . i New Sharlston Collieries Co. r. "Westmorland / (Earl of) j New : — Smith v. In re Smith New South Wales (Att.-Gen. for) i: Collector / of Customs for New South Wales . , . . I New South Wales Taxation Commissioners ( V. Baxter. Webb v. Crouch and Flint . . j New South Wales Taxation Commissioners / V. Palmer . . , . . . j New (Steamship) Orleans Co. u. London and i Provincial Marine and General Insurance Co ] New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Co. <>. Att.-Gen. New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Co. : — Poster v. New Vacuum Cleaner Co. :- -British Vacuum / Cleaner Co. !>. . , . . . . . I New York Security and Trust Co. i: Keyser New Zealand (Commissioner of Taxes for) r. Eastern Extension Australasia and China Telegraph Co. New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Co. : — Mitchells. fejUfirff Mitchell New Zealand Midland Ey. Co. , In re. Smith V. Lubbock New Zealand (Minister of Mines for) : — Heslop V. New Zealand (Otago Farmers' Co-operative Association of) v. Thompson New Zealand Shipping Co. : — Parsons />. New Zealand (Solicitor-General for) : — Wallis V. Newbold : — Samuel v. . . Newbold v. Saunders . . Newbury Eural Council : — Parquhar v. Newcastle (Duke of) : — Pelham Clinton v. Newcastle (Duke of) District Council Worksop LTrban ) ), Newen, In re. Carruthers u. Newen ( [1909] W. N. 26 ; [1909] 1 ) K. B. 449 j C. A. [1910] W. N. 249 [1906] W. N. 9 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 278 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 181 ; j [1906] 2 Ch. 564; H. L. (B.) } [1908] W. N. 61 ; [1908] 1 A. C. 117 . , [1910] W. N. 8 ; [1910] 1 Ch. ) 248 j [1901] 2 K. B. 620 ; C. A. ) [1902] 2 K. B. 597 . . . ( [1904] W. N. 158; [1904] 2 Ch. 513 (1900) H. L. (B.) [1904] 2 Ch. 443, n ) [1907] W. N. 188 P. C. [1909] A. C. 345 P. C. [1908] A. C. 214 P. C. [1907] A. C. 179 C. A. [1909] 1 Iv. B. 943 P. C. [1904] A. C. 415 [1901] 1 Ch. 208 [1907] W. N. 144 ; [1907] 2 ) Ch. 312 . . ( [1901] W. N. 14 ; [1901] 1 Ch. / 666 ) P. C. [1906] A. C. 526 P. C. [1904] A. 0. 149 [1901] W. X. 105 ; C. A. [1901] / W.N. Ill; [1901] 2 Oh. 357) P. C. [1904] A. C. 781 [1910] 2 K. B. 145 . . C. A. [1901] W. N. 42 ; [1901] '/ 1 K. B. 548 , . . , . ) P. C. [1903] A. C. 173 H. L. (E.) [1906] W.N. 157; / [1906] A. 0. 461 . , ) C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 260 [1908] W. N. 183 ; [1908] 2 Ch. ) 586; 0. A. [1908] W.N. 213; [1909] 1 Oh. 12 0. A. [1901] W. N. 207 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 34 ; H. L. (E.) [1903] , W.N. 36; [1903] A. 0. Ill [1902] W. N. 77 ; [19021 2 1 Oh. 145 ^ )' [1903] W. N. 52 ; [1903] 1 Oh. ) 812 .. .... .. ) 1922 1601 2845 2696 2161 265 1211 1982 138 139 1789 2546 2726 467 503 1549 1812 1811 421 1804 1278 2449 1804 1719 1153 2975 1570 2579 TABLE OF CASES TN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Newfoundland (Government of) : — New- foundland Steam Whaling Co. v. . . Newfoundland (Eeid-) Co. v. Anglo-Ameri can Telegraph Co. . . Newfoundland (Eeid-) Co. v. Bay of Islands Slate Syndicate, Ld. Newfoundland Steam. Whaling Co. v. New foundland (Government of) Newham v. Austin Newington :-- Hewlett v. In re Eoby Newington Licensing Justices : — Howe r. . . Newland, In re. Bush v. Summers . . Newman and Dale Steamship Co. and British ] and South American Steamship Co., In re Newport Assessment Committee : — Tstradj'- fodwg and Pontypridd Main Sewerage , Board v. . . . . . . . . , Newport Corporation : — Escott v. . . Newport Union v. Stead. V. Green Newport Union Newsholme : — Chesney b. Newsholme c Chesney (No. 2) Newsum, Sous & Co. c. James Newth : — Ford v. In re Gloucester Municipal Election Petition, 1900 (Tuffley Ward) Newton v. Birmingham Small Arms Co. Newton : — Chesterfield Eural Council v. Newton : — Ohislehurst Common Conser- vators V. Newton : — Price v. In re Price Newton u. Eolfe. In re Frith Newton, Chambers & Co., Ld. v. Hall Newton, Chambers & Co. : — Hoddiuott v. NiocoUs (W.) & Sons, Ld. :— W. Edge & Sons^ Ld. V. . . Nicholas v. Eidley Nicholas : — Stead v. " Nicholas (S.) " : — Beadle v. . . Nicholl: — Ash t/. Nioholl : — Evans v. Nicholls : — Crick v. Nicholls V. MaHm Nichols, ExpaHe. In re White Nichols and Van Joel's Contract, In re Nichols: — Michaelson v. Volume and Page. P. C. [1904] A. 0. 399 P. C. [1910] A. 0. 560 H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 185 P. C. [1904] A. C. 399 [1906] 2 K. B. 167 . . [1907] W. N. HI; [1907] 2^ Ch. 84 ; 0. A. [1907] W. N. ! 228 ; [1908] 1 Oh. 71 , . ) [1907] W. N. 112; [1907] 2N K. B. 340 ; C. A. [1907] W. N. 257 ; [1908] 1KB. 260 ) [1904] W. N. 181 [1903] 1 K. B. 262 . . C. A. [1901] W. N. 28 ; [1901] ) 1 K. B. 406 I [1904] 2 K. B. 369 [1906] 2K B. 147; 0. A. [1907] \ W. N. 125 ; [1907] 2KB. 460; H.L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 220 ; [1909] A. C. 36 [1908] P. 301 . . [1909] W. N. 112; [1909] 5 K B. 384 . . [1901] W. N. 62; [1901] K. B. 683 . . [1906] W.N. 146 ; [1906] 2 Ch 378 0. A. [1904] 1 K B. 62 [1901] 1 Oh. 389, n. . . [1905] W. N. 74; [1905] Oh. 65 [1902] W. N. 10; [1902] Ch. 342 . . [1907] 2 K B. 446 . . H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 49 . 0. A. [1910] W. N. 250 [1903; 1 Ch. 192 [1901 0. A. [1905 [1909" [1905 W. N. 49 ; C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 163 1909] W. N. 227 1 K B. 139 W. N. 26 K B. 778 W. N. 32; K B. 501 [1909] [1906] [1906] 1 K. B. 272 [1902] W. N. 114 0. A. [1909] W. N. 226 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 43 [1910] W, N. 69 Column of Digest. 1814 1813 656 1814 1349 2888 1443 2765 2469 2167 2643 2165 1007 766 697 402 1166 396 2957 2746 1341 1634 1871 1739 1082 1683 1849 1169 2870 2330 196 2816 1724 Table of cases in the digest. Name of Casiii Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Nicholson, In re. Eade v. Nicholson Nicholson : — Burton v. . . Nicholson v. Piper Nicholson : — Eaven v. In re Elliott . , Nicholson : — Soames v. Nicholson & Sons, Ld. : — Bostook & Co. ( . . . NickoU and Knight v. Ashton, Bdridge & Co. Nicol : — Ziegler v. In re Segelcke . . Niddrie and Benhar Coal Co. : — Peacock r. Nigel Gold Mining Co. v. Hoade Niger Patent Elastic Enamel Co., In re. Eurther hearing of this Case reported sub nom. In re Taylor's Agreement Trusts, [1904] W. N. 120 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 737 Nightingale, In re. Bowden v. Griffiths Nightingale : — Ohorley Corporation v. Nightingale v. Eeynolds Nile VaUey Co. : — Bisgood Ninnis : — Brayshaw c. In re Warriner Nireaha Tamaki v. Baker Nisbet V. Hamilton Nisbet V. Eayne & Burn Nisbet : — ^Walker v. In re Appleby Nisbet and Potts' Contract, In re Nitedals Taendstikf abrik v. Bruster . . Nixon, In re. Gray v. Bell . . Nixon : — London and County Banking Co. i . Taylor v. London and County Banking Co. Nixon V. Smith. In re Timmis Nixon : — Thornhill v. In re Thornhill Nixon & Bruce : — Stuart v. Lysons r. Andrew Knowles & Sons, Ld. Nixon's Navigation Co. : — Neagle v. Edwards V. Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds, Ld. " Nizam " (Owners of Steam Trawler) : — Gilbert v. No. 9, Bomore Eoad, In re . . [1902] 1 ) 7;' [1901] [1906] 2 [1909] W. N. 109 ; [1909] 2 ( Ch. Ill j [1909] W. N. 19 ; [1909] 1 ) K. B. 397 j H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 215 . . [1910] W. N. 106 [1901] W. N. 219 ; K. B. 157 [1904] 1 K. B. 725 C. A. [1901] W.N. 9 2 K. B. 126 . . [1906] W. N. 107 ; Ch. 301 (1902) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 162 [1901] 2 K. B. 849 . . [1904] W. N. 99, 120 ; [1904] / 2 Oh. 737 ) [1909] W. N. 17 ; [1909] 1 Ch. ) 385 J [1906] W. N. 174, 176 ; [1906] \ 2 K. B. 612 ; 0. A. [1907] W. N. 167 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 637 ; [1902] W. N. 108 ; [1902] 2 \ Ch. 117; C.A. [1903] W.N. 108 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 236 . . ) [1906] W. N. 43 ; [1906] 1 ') Ch. 747 ( [1903] W. N. 118 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 367 ) P. 0. [1901] A. 0. 561 H. L. (Sc.) [1907] W. N. 67 ; ] [1907] A. C. 158 . . I 0. A. [1910] W. N. 194; ) [1910] 2 K. B. 689.. .. i 0. A. [1903] W. N. 45 ; [1903] j 1 Ch. 565 [1905] ; W. N. 32 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 391; 0. A. [1906] W.N. 12 ; [1906] 1 Oh. 386 . . [1906] W.N. 173; [1906] 2Ch. 671 ) [1904] W. N. 72 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 638 .. .. I C.A. [1901] W. N. 79; [1901]) 2 Ch. 231 I [1901] W. N. 242 ; [19021 1 Ch. 176 . 0. A. [1904] W. N. 112 H. L. (E.) [1901] W. K. 2 ; ) [1901] A. 0. 79 C. A. [1904] W. N. 16 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 339 0. AJigiO] W. N. ISO ; [1910] 2 K. B. 555 . . j [1906] W. N. 16 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 359 2389 1771 1580 351 1379 2285 663 2884 1609 1244 574 2904 1154 1753 531 1380 1809 2330 1592 2960 2822 2038 1052 2740 2743 1042 1607 1686 1646 573 TABLE Oil' OASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Vohirae and Page, Column of Digest. Noakes v. Noakes & Co. Noakes & Co. v. Day . . Noakes & Co. : — Noakes v. Noakes & Co. v. Eioe . . Noble V. Eeast . . Noblett: — Barlow i'. Groulder v. Rook. Bent V. Ormerod. Lee )'. Bent Noblett V. Hopkinson . . Noel : — General Accident Assurance Cor poration v. . . Nokes V. Islington Corporation (No. 1) (No. 2). Stiles V. Gfalinsky . . Nokes V. Strong Nolloth : — Emary v. Nord Deutsche Insurance Co. .: — ApoUinaris Co. V. . . Norey v. Eeep Norfolk County Council : — Rex v. . . Norfolk (Earldom of) Peerage Claim Norfolk Justices : — Rex v. Ex parte Way land Union . . Norman v. Norman Norman & Burt v. Walder . . " Normandy," The Normandy v. Ind, Coope & Co. Norris, In re . . Norris, Ex parte. Rex v. London County Council Norris : — Willingale v... North, In re. Grarton v. Cumberland North and South Wales Bank : — Macbeth v North and South Wales Bank : — Irvine o North :— Elliot v North American Land and Timber Co. r Watkins North British and Mercantile Insurance Co V. OlifEord North Baitish Ry. Co. Budhill Coal and Sandstone Co. North British Ry. Co. :— Toal v. North Eastern 100 A Steamship Insurance ) Association v. Red " S " Steamship Co. . . j North Eastern Breweries, Ld. : — Wooler v. North Eastern Marine Engineering Co. v Leeds Eorge Co. North Eastern Marine Engineering Co. :— Thompson & Sons v. . . . . . . ) [1906] W. N. 193 ; [1907] 1 Oh. 64 C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 270, n. [1907] 1 Ch. 64 H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 247 [1902] A. C. 24 [1904] P. 34 . . [1901] W. N. 108 ; [1901] K. B. 290 . . [1905] 2 K. B. 214 . . [1902] 1 K. B. 377 . . [1904] 1 K. B. 610 . . [1904] 1 K. B. 615 . . 1909 1903 1903 [1909" [1901' 2 K. B. 625 2 K. B. 264 W. N. 208; K. B. 252 [1904] 1 1 Ch. 561 2 E. B. 268 H. L. (E.) [1907] A. 0. 10 . . [1909] 1 K. B. 463 [1908] P. 6 C. A. [1904] 2 E. B. 27 [1904] W. N. 50; [1904] P. 187 [1907] W. N. 229; [1908] 1 Ch. 84 [1902] W. N. 20 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 741 [1906] W. N. 17; [1906] 1 K. B. 346 t [1909] 1 K B. 57 [1909] W. N. 68 ; [1909] 1 ) Oh. 625 j [1906] 2 K B. 718 ; C. A. [1907] \ W. N. 205 ; 0. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 13; H. L. (E.) [1908] ( W. N. 66 ; [1908] A. 0. 137 J [1901] 1 Ch. 424 [1903] W. N. 206 ; [1904] 1 Oh, 242; C. A. [1904] W. N 144 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 233 [1903] W. N. 77 H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 223 H. L. (So.) [1910] A. C. 116 H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W. N. 136 [1908] A. C. 352 . . [1905] W. N. 124 . . [1909] W. N. 254 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 247 . , [1906] W.N. 13; [1906] 1 Ok 324;0.A. [1906] W.N. 163 [1906] 2 Ch. 498 [1903] 1 K. B. 428 . . 263 1361 263 1757 987 40 1447 2030 1520 1520 2146 820 1269 2700 2867 1899 1923 963 1632 2480 485 2593 1486 1516 2372 146 1206 1476 772 2122 2124 1271 1451 1874 1662 TABLE OF CAKES IN THE DIGEST. Name of OasB. North Eastern By. Co. : -Att.-Gen. v. North Eastern Ey. Co. : — Drury v. . . North-Eastern Ey. Co. : — Eden n. . . North Eastern Ey. : — James Joicey it Co. / and Eden's Executors r. North Eastern Ey. Co. :— Todd n. . . North Eastern Salt Co. : — Seddon v. , . North-Eastern Steel Co. : — Stanland r. North Lamheth Liberal and Eadical Club, Ld. : — Baxendale v. . . North (London and) Western Ey. Co. :- - Chance & Hunt, Ld. ... North Manchester Overseers i: Winstanley North of England Steamship Co. , In re North Stafiordshire Colliery Owners' Assooia- 1 tion V. North Staiiordshire Ey. Co., London j and North- Western Ey . Co. , Great Western ' Ey. Co., and Shropshire Union Railways and Canal Co. . . . . North Stafiordshire Ey. Co. , London and ( North- Western Ey. Co., Great Western I Ey. Co., and Shropshire Union Eailways< and Canal Co. : — North Staffordshire 1 OolHery Owners' Association r. . . . . / North Vancouver Land and Improvement Co. , ) Limited LiabiJity : — Jones r. . . j North-Western Eubber Co. and Huttenbach ) & Co., In re . . . . . . \ North's Navigation Collieries (1889), Ld. :— \ Williams v. . . . . . . . i Northampton Corporation t . Ellen , . Northamptonshire County Council : — Blen- ) cowe I'. . . . . . . . . j Northern Employers' Mutual Indemnitj' ) Co. : — Kniveton v. . . . . . . j Northern Employers' Mutual Indemnity ) Co. : — Morris v. . . | Northern (Great) Ey. Co. : — Att.-Gen. v. . . Volume and Page. Northern (Great) Ey. Co. : — Sutton v. [1905] W. N. 183; [1906] 1 Ch. 310 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 158 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 675 [1901] 2 E. B. 322 . . H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 173 ; [1907] A. C. 400 . . [1906] W. N. 170 ; [1906] 1 E. B. 195 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 225 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 402 H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 173; [1907] A. 0. 400 [1903] W. N. 9 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 30 [1905] W. N. 4 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 326 C. A. [1907] 2 E. B. 425, n. . . [1902] W. N. 138 ; [1902] ) 2 Ch. 427 i [1909] 1 E. B. 550 . . [1906] W. N. 196; [1907] 1 E. B. 2T ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 61 ; [1908] 1 E. B. 836;H.L.(E.) [1909] W.N. 233 ; H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 7 [1905] W. N. 66 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 609; C. A. [1905] W. N. 77; [1905] 2 Ch. 15 0. A. [1907] W. N. 86 ; [1907] 2 E. B. 191 ; Eailway and Canal Commission [1908] 1 E. B. 771 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 171 ; [1908] 2 E. B. 765 . . [C. A. [1907] W.N. 86; [1907] 2 E. B. 191 ; Eailway and Canal Commission [1908] 1 E. B. 771; C. A. [1908] W. N. 171 ; [1908] 2 E. B. 765 P. C. [1910] A. V. 317 C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 907 r. A. [1904] W. N. 97 ; [1904] , 2 E. B. 44 ; H. L. (E.) ( [1906] W. N. 62 ; [1906] I A. 0. 136 , . ' C. A. [1904] 1 E. B. 299 [1907] W. N. 49 ; [19071 1 ) Ch. 504 . ) [1902] W. N. 78 ; [1902] 1 E. B. ,S80 C. A. [1902] W. N 113; [1902] 2 E. B. 165 C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 775 C. A. [1909] W.N. 177; [1909]) 2 E. B. 791 . , ^ I TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Northern (Great), Piccadilly, and Brompton Ey. Co. V. Att.-Gen. . . Northern (Great) Steam Shipping Co. : — Whelan v. Northleach Eural Council : — Smith v. Northumherland (Duke of) : — Att.-Gen. /•. , . Northumberland (Duke of) and Tynemouth Corporation, In re . . " Northumbria," The . . Norton : — Fulton v. . . Norton and Las Casas' Contract, In re Norton, Claimant. Johnson r. Pickering Norton : — Eex v. Norton : — Savage v. Norton v. Taylor Norton v. Yates Norton Hill Colliery Co. : — Gane r. . . Norton's Settlement, In re. Norton v. Norton NoiTell, Ex parte. In re Taylor Norwich Corporation v. Norwich Electric Tramways Co. Norwich Electric Tramways Co. : — Norwich Corporation v. Norwich Notaries. Eaton v. Watson. Same V. Hansell Notaries. See Incorporated Society of Provin- cial Notaries Public of England and Wales. Notaries (Eochdale), In re. Hudson i-. Boutflower Notaries (Society of) for State of Vic- toria : — Pay i). Note Nott V. Dunsanj'. In re Dunsany's Settle- ment . . Nott V. Nott Nottidge V. Daring. Eaban v. Dering Nottingham Corporation : — Att.-Gen. c Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building Society : — Thurstan y. Novis, Ex parte Nugent V. Nugent ■■( H. L. (E.) [1909] A. 0. 1 C. A. [1909] W. N. 136 [1901] W. N. 215 : [1902] 1 ) Oh. 197 i [1903] 2 K. B. 71 ; 0. A. ■ [1904] W. N. 77 ; [1904] 1 ( K. B. 762 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] W.N. 118; [1905] A. 0. 406 ; [1909] W. N. Ill ; [1909] 2 ) K. B. 374 J [1906] P. 292 P. 0. [1908] A. C. 461 [1909] W. N. 103 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 69 [1907] W. N. 139 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 437; C. A. [1907] W. N. 202 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 1 0. C. A. [1910] W. N. 162; [1910] 2 K. B. 496 , . [1908] 1 Ch. 290 P. 0. [1906] A. C. 378 [1906] W. N. 176; [1906] 1 K. B. 112 0. A. [1909] W. N. 140 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 639 C. A. [1908] 1 Oh. 471 C. A. [1910] W. N. 26; [1910] 1 K. B. 562 . . 0. A. [1906] W. N. Ill ; [1906] 2 K. B. 119 0. A. [1906] W. N. Ill ; [1906] 2 K. B. 119 [1904] W. N. 24 Eccl. Ct. [1910] W. N. 228 . . [1909] P. 16 H. L. [1910] W. N. 120 0. A. [1906JW. N. 51 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 571 [1901] P. 241 [1909] 2 Ch. 647; 0. A. [1910] W. N. 41 ; [1910] 1 Oh. 297 [1904] W. N. 55; [1904] 1 Ch. 673 [1901] 1 Ch. 88 ; 0. A. [1901] W. N. 235 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 1 ; H.L.(E.) [1902] W.N. 212; [1903] A. 0. 6 [1905] W. N. 96; [1905] 2 K. B. 466 [1907] W. N. 169; [1907] 2 Ch. 292 ; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 37 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 546 2269 1646 728 2272 1404 2460 312 2388 2436 802 143 1797 523 1583 2006 219 2709 2709 1819 1817 1819 716 2406 917 2415 1831 279 1317 2171 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page, Columa of Digest. Nmin & Co. V. Tyson . . . . . , . . Nunnery Colliery Co., Ld. : — Barnes v. Niirnberger Celluloid Waren Pabrik Ger- ) briider Wolfl : — Dover, Ld. v. . . I Nussey v. Provincial Billposting Co. and ) Edd'ison . . ( Nye : — Eeetell n. Cbamber,'! r. Goldtborpe . 0. 0. C. S. (a Debtor), /// re. E.r parte The / Debtor Oakley Street & Co. : — Leaeh v. Eitohenliani V. Owners of Steamship " Johannesburg " Oates V. Mooney. In re Mathews . . Oatwa}', In re. Hertslet v. Oatway . . O'Brien : — Clibborn r. In re Friends' Free School . . O'Brien v. Debbie & Son Oberrheinisohe Metallwerke : — Goldschmidt *'. Oberrheinisohe Metallwerke G. M. B. H. v. Cocks . . Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corjjoration Ld. V. Ilford Gas Co Ocean Coal Co. : — James r. . . Ocean Coal Co. : — Williams v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. : — Harrison c. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. .•. Waterford Steamship Co. Oohs V. Ochs Brothers . Ochs Brothers : — Ochs v. O'Connell, In re. Mawle r. Jagoe . . O'Connell : — De Vesci (Evelyn, Viscountess) Oddy, In re. Major ;■. Harness Odell:— Att.-Gen. , Odessa Waterworks Co., //( re Oettinger r. Cohn Official Eeceiver (as Trustee of Preston) Cooke . , Official Eeceiver, 7i> parte. In re Ahmed Official Eeceiver, Ex parte. In re Bennett Official Eeceiver, I'J.r parte. Official Eeceiver, Ex parte. Official Eeceiver, Ex parte. In re W. H. Greaves /(( re Betts In re Evei'sou In re C. Greaves, [1901] W. N. 138 ; [1901] 2 ( K. B. 48'7 t 0. A. [1910] W. N. 248 C. A [1910] W. N. 127 ; [1910] / 2 Ch 2o ( C. A. [1909] W.N. 93 ;' [1909] ) 1 Ch. 734 ) C. A. [1901] W. N. 51 ; [1901] / 1 K. B. 024 ) 0. A. [1904] W. N. 104 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 161 . . C. A. [1910] W. N. '27.3 1905] 2 Ch. 460 1903] 2 Ch. 356 °1909] W. N. 189 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 675 C. A. [1905] W. N. 15 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 346 C. A. [1906] W. N. 24; [1906] 1 K. B. 373 [1906] W C. A. [1905" C. A. [1904 N. 127 108 1905] W. N. 2 E:. B. 493 . . 1904] W. N. Ill 2 K. B. 213 . . C. A. [1907] W.N. 143; [1907] 2 K. B. 422 . . C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 420, n H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 66 . . [1909] W. N. 128; [1909] 2 Oh. 121 [1909] W. N. 128; [1909] 2 Oh. 121 [1903] W. N. 153 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 574 .. H. L. (Ir.) [1908] W. N. 135 ; [1908] A. C. 298 . . C. A. [1906] W. N. 5 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 93 [1905] W. N. 81 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 84 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 47 [1901] 2 Ch. 190, u. [1908] W. N. 24; K. B. 582 . . [1906] W. N. 166 2 Ch. 661 [1901] W. N. 106 [1906] W. N. 221 ; K B. 149 . . [1901] 2 K. B. 39 [1904] 2 K. B. 619 [1904] W. N. 124; Iv. B. 493 . . ■ ) [1908] 1 ; [1906] [1907] 1 [1904] 2 1186 1677 886 274 186 1645 625 2754 360 1636 2164 2018 1734 1611 1602 1639 2493 95 95 2404 1294 126 1345 582 2264 233 228 233 213 197 1857 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Official Eeceiver, JEx parte. Be Hall . . I Official Eeceiver, Ex parte. In re Jones Official Receiver, JEx parte. In re Jiikes . . ! Official Receiver, Jlx parte The. In re Mayne } Official Receiver, Ex parte The. /)( re Sims Official Eeceiver, Ex parte The. In re ] Summers . . . . j Official Receiver, Ex parte. In re Tyler Official Receiver, Ex parte The. In re Webster Official Solicitor, Ex parte. In. re Aytoun Official Trustees of Charitable Trusts ; — Llanbadarnfawr School Board v. . . Offin V. Rochf ord Riu'al OouuolI Volume and Page. ■ ( Ofner, In re. , Samuel v. Ofner Ogden : — Hymas .■. Ogden r. Mason. In re Mason Ogden V. Ogden Ogdens, Ld. c Nelson. Ogdens, Ld. r. Telford Ogilvie V. Massey Oil (British) and'Cake Mills, Ld. :— Mordant i Brothers v. . . . . . . . , . . ) O'Eeefe v. Lovatt O'Keefe v. Malone O'Eeefe : — Williams v. Old Bushmills Distillery Co. : — Adair v. Old Monkland Conservative Association : — ) Curtis V. . . . . ) Olde V. Olde | Oldfield, In re. Oldfield v. Oldfield. . . . | Oldham Corporation v. Bank of England . . | Oldroyd v. Harvey ■'Die Bull," The Oliphant : — Eex v. . . . . . . . . Oliver, In re. Wilson v. Oliver . . . . j Oliver o. Bank of England. Starkey, Leveson, and Cooke, Third Parties. Oliver v. Bank < of England [1906] W. N. 229; C. A.) [1907] W. N. 53 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 875 ) [1908]^ W. N. 14 ; [1908] 1 ) K. B. 204 j [1902] W. N. 86; [1902] 2) K. B, o8 ) [1907] W. iN". 202 ; [1907] 2 1 X. B. 899 j [1907] W. N. 80; [1907] 2 K. B. 36 [1907] W. N. 112; [1907] 2 ) K. B. 166 j [1906] 2 K. B. 202 ; 0. A. ) [1907] W. N. 52; [1907] 1 K. B. 865 ) [1907] W. N. 31 ; [1907] 1 \ K. B. 623 ) [1904] W. N. 56 C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 430 [1906] 1 Ch. 342 0. A. [1908] W. N. 208 ; \ [1909] 1-Ch. 60 . . 1 C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 246 C, A. [1901] W. N. 44 ; [1901] ) 1 Oh. 619; H. L. (E.)[1902] W. N. 206 ; [1903] A. C. 1 ) [1907] P. 107 ; C. A. [1907] ) W. N. 236 ; [1908] P. 46 . . j [1903] 2 K. B. 287 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 98 ; [1904] 2 ) K. B. 410 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 54 ; [1905] A. 0. 109 ' C. A. [1910] P. 243 . . [1910] 2 K. B. 502 . . C. A. [1901] W. N. 223 P. C. [1903] A. 0. 365 P. 0. [1910] A. C. 186 [1908] W. N. 24 H. L. (So.) [1906] W. N. 3 ; ) [1906] A. C. 86 [1903] W. N. 207 ; [1904] 1 ) Ch. 35 j C. A. [1904] W. N. 53 ; [1904] ) 1 Ch. 549 ) C. A. [1904] W. N. 173 ; [1904] ) 2 Oh. 716 j [1907] P. 326 .., [1905] P. 52 C. C. R. [1905] 2 K. B. 67 . . [1908] W. N. 117 ; [1908] -1 Ch. 7i j [1901] W. N. 45 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 652 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 41 ; [1902] 1 Oh. 610 ; H. L. (B.) [1903] W.N. 53; [1903] A. C. 114 Column of Digest. 223 181 202 203 193 173 224 179 232 372 1172 2947 763 2968 937 659 2057 2294 1587 1795 1793 470 2252 2806 2957 2312 2064 2484 816 2364 2031 TABLE OF CASES IX THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digeflt. Oliver : — Inland Revenue v. . . Oliver v. Nautilus Steam Shipping Co. Oliver's Settlement, In re. Evered v. Leigh OKver's Wharf : — Consolidated Tea and Lands Go. v. . . Ollivant : — Wormall v. In re Wormall's Settled Estate Olympia (Wimbledon) Ld., In re Omnibus (London General) Co. : — Wing v. Ontario Mining Co. v. Seybold Ontario (Att.-Geu. for) : — Att.-Gen. for Quebec v. Ontario (Province of) : — Dominion of Canada V. Oppenheimer, In re. Oppenheimer v. Boatman Oppenheimer v. Attenborough & Son Oppenheimer v. Frazer & Wyatt Oppert : — Alman i . Orchis Steamship Co. : — Joseph Thorlev, Ld. '.. Ore Concentration Co. (1905), Ld. : — Minerals ) Separation, Ld. r. . . Ore (Dunderland Iron) Co., In re . . Ore (Iron) Co. : — Grlasgow Navigation Co. Orient Steam Navigation Co. : — Marshall !■, Orleans (Steamship New) Co. v. London and Provincial Marine and General Insurance Co Orlebar, In re. Wynter v. Orlebar . . Ormerod : — Bent v. Lee v. Bent. Barlow v. Noblett. Goulder v. Eook. . Ormerod : — Crane & Sons v. . . Ormerod, Grierson & Co. r. St. George's Iron- works, Ld. Ormskirk Union v. Chorlton Union . . Orrell Colliery Co. : — Schofield i: Osborn : — Wilton & Co. v. . . Osborne v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servant* H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W.N. 161; ) [1909] A. 0. 427 . . C. A. [1903] W. N. 132 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 639 j [1904] W. N. 194 ; [1905] 1 Ch.'/ 191 j [1910] W. N. 97 ; [1910] 2 ) K. B. 395 ) [1908] W. N. 214 [1910] W. N. 62; [1910] 1 Ch. ( 630 ) C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 652 P. C. [1903] A. C. 73 . P. 0. [1910] A. C. 627 P. C. [1910] A. C. 637 [1907] W. N. 54 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 399 [1907] 1 K. B. 510 ; C. A. [1907] W. N. 237 ; [1908] 1 K B. 221 ) [1907] 1 K. B. 519 ; C. A. ) [1907] W. N. 85 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 50 ) C. A. [1901] W. N. 135 ; [1901] ) 2 K. B. 576 I [1907] 1 K. B. 243 ; C. A. ) [1907] W. N. 53 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 660 ) C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 744 [1909] W. N. 23 ; [1909] 1 Ch. ) 446 ... . ) H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 84 ; ) [1910] A. 0. 293 . . ( C. A. [1909] W. N. 225 ; C. A. f [1910] 1 K. B. 79 . . ) C. A. [1900] 1 K. B. 943 [1907] W. N. 220 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 136 [1901] W. N. 108 ; [1901] 2 K B. 290 . [1903] 2 K B. 37 C. A. [1905] W. N. 44 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 505 [1902] W. N. 193; [1903] 1 K. B. 19 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 138 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 498 C. A. [1908] W. N. 243 ; [1909] IK.B. 178;H.L.(E.)[1909] W.N. 115; [1909] A. 0. 433 [1901] 2 K. B. 110 . . [1908] W. N. 188; C. A. [1908] W. N. 251 ; [1909] 1 Oh. 163; H. L. (E.) [19101 W. N. 3 ; [1910] A. 0. 87 2268 1687 1935 2S76 2355 516 1772 306 291 307 87 1065 1066 2457 1883 604 2462 1649 2546 2992 40 757 891 1926 1598 1725 2701 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Osborne v. Barclay, Ourle & Co. Osborne v. Bradley Osborne : — Lumley v. . . Osborne : — Eex c. Osborne and Bright's, Ld., In re . . . . Osmond v. Campbell & Harrison, Ld. Ostrum : — Att.-Gen. of British Columbia v. Otago Parmers' Co-operative Association of ) New Zealand v. Thompson . . . . j Ottawa Electric Co. : — Hull Electric Co. v. . . " Otto " Electrical Manufacturing Co. (1905), / Ld., In re. Jenkins' Claim . . ) Otto Monsted, Ld. : — Eex v. . . . . Otto Thoresen's Linie : — Wilson & Coventry, ] Ld. t; ; Our Dogs PubKshing Co. : — Mirams v. Outrim : — Webb v. Overtoun (Lord) : — General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland v. " Ovingdean Grange," The . . Owen : — Assheton Smith v. Owen : — Dunning c. . . Owen V. Gibbons Owen : — Gray v. Owen : — Griffith v. Owen : — Jones ; Volume and Page, //, re Griffith Owen : — ^Moulis >: Owen : — Eex v. . . Owen V. Spiritine, Ld. In re Spiritine, Ld. Owen and Ashworth's Claim. Whitworth's Claim. In re Bank of Syria Owens V. Campbell, Ld. Owner of New Street Mews :— Harrison v. . . Oxford (Bishop of) v. Henly ~ _ "'v. Henly I Oxford (Bishop of) :— Moore v. Oxford (Bishop of) v. Henly (No. 2) - - - '--- ,of):- "' Oxford Canal Navigation : — Att. Gen. u. Oxfordshire (South) Water and Gas Co. ; South Oxfordshire Water and Gas. Co. Pacaya Eubber and Produce Co., Jones V. Ld. [1901] A. C. 269 [1903] W. N. 96 ; [1903] 2 Oh, 446 [1901] W. N. 39 ; [1901] 1 K. B, 532 C. C. E. [1905] 1 K. B. 551 [1902] W. N. 10 ; [1902] 1 Ch 335 C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 862 P. C. [1904] A. C. 144 [1910] 2 K. B. 145 . . P. 0. [1902] A. C. 237 [1906] W. N. 154; [1906] : Ch. 390 [1906] W. N. 143 ; [1906] K. B. 456 [1910] 2 K. B. 405 . . 0. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 564 P. C. [1907] A. 0. 81 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1904] W. N. 162 [1904] A. C. 515 . . [1901] W. N. 39; [1901] P, 127; C. A. [1902] W. N 132 ; [1902] P. 208 . . C. A. [1906] W. N. 12 ; [1906] '] 1 Ch. 179 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] W.N. 72; [1907] A. C. 124 ) [1907] W. N. 114; [1907] 2 ( K. B. 237 0. A. [1902] W. N. 42 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 636 [1910] W. N. 46; [1910] K. B. 622 . . [1907] 1 Ch. 195 [1904] W. N. 88 ; [1904] 1 Ch, 807 C. A. [1907] W. N. 62 ; [1907] ') 1 K. B. 746 . . [1902] 2 K. B. 436 0. A. [1902] W. N. 124 C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 115 C. A, [1906; 1904] 2 K. B. 60 W. N. 102; [1906] K. B. 703 [1907] W. N. 12 ; [1907] P. 88 [1909] P. 319 . . P. C. [1904] A. C. 283 [1902] W. N. 119; C. A. [1903] W. N. 39 . . Columo of Digest. 1681 273 762 809 2384 1599 303 1278 301 415 45 2467 821 2833 978 2496 1147 1450 1236 1396 1740 704 1128 1685 2172 462 1646 1624 980 981 984 1157 C. A. [1910] W. N. 257 565 TABJ;E OF CASES IN THE DIG-EST. Name of Case. Pacific Co-operative Steam Coal Co. v. EaU- '( way Commissioners of New South Wales j Pacific Steam Navigation Co. : — Eadclifie v. { Packet (Eoyal Mail Steam) Co. and Eiver ) Plate Steamship Co., Inre . . . . . . j Paddington Borough Council : — Boyce r. . . Paddington Corporation v. Att.-Gen. Paddon, In re. Stainclifie v. Adlam Page, In re. Hill v. Eladgate Page V. Burtwell Page V. Page. In re Bowles . . Page, Son & Bast, Ld. v. London and India Docks Co. McDougall & Bonthron, Ld. The Same Paget : — Markham r. . . Paignton (Vicar of All having Interest . Pain V. Joseph. /?i re Joseph Paine : — Metropolitan Water Board Paine v. Paine . . Palace (Crystal) Football Club, Ld. :- Walker v. Palace Shipping Co. v. Caine . . Palethorpe v. Home Brewery Co. Palin : — Eex. v. . . Palin : — Eohde v. In re Vincent Palliser : — Alderson v. . . Palmer, In re. Lancashire and Yorkshire Eeversionary Interest Co. v. Burke. 7n re Palmer's Settlement. Lancashire and Yorkshire Eeversionary Interest Co. v. Burke . . Palmer v. Ouadagni Palmer : — New South Wales Taxation Com- missioners u. . . Palmer v. Thames Conservators Palmer : — Whitaker v. In re Whitaker Palmer : — Whitaker r. li> re Whitaker Palmer : — Whitehead c. Palmer v. Young Palmer'sDecorationandFurnishingOo., In re Palmes, In re. Palmes r. Eex Volume and Page. Colnmn of Digest. P. C. [1904] A. C. 795 C. A. [1910] W. N. 58 ; [1910] / 1 K. B. 685 j [1910] 1 K. B. 600 . . [1902] W. N. 201 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 109 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 143 ; / [1903] 2 Ch. 556; H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 166 ; [1906] \ A. 0. 1 'I H. L. (B.) [1906] A. C. 1 . . [1909] W. N. 162 . . . . ! C. A. [1910] W. N. 50 ; [1910] / 1 Ch. 489 . . • ■ " . . ) C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 758 [1905] W. N. 21; [1905] 1 Ch. ) 371 i C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 175 ; H. L. ) (E.) [1909] A. C. 25 . . ) | [1908] W. N. 81 ; [1908] 1 Ch. ( ■ 697 ) [1905] P. HI [1908] W. N. 38 ; [1908] 1 Ch. ) 599 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 159 ; ! [1908] 2 Ch. 507 . . . . ) [1907] 1 K B. 285 [1903] P. 263 C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 87 C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 670 ; H. L. j (E.) [1907] W. N. 195 ; [1907] A. C. 386 . . . . j C. A. [1906] W.N. 96; [1906] ) 2 K B. 5 . . I [1905] W. N. 162 ; C. C. E. ) [1906] 1 K. B. 7 I [1909] W. N. 94 ; [1909] 1 ) Ch. 810 . . 1 [1901] W. N. 138 ; [1901] 2 K B. 833 . . . . ( [1907] W.N. 73; [1907] 1 Ch. 486 ,. [1906] W. N. 165 ; Ch. 494 [1906] 2 P. C. [1907] A. C. 179 [1901] W. N. 228 ; [1902] 1 ) Ch. 163 C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 9 [1904] W. N. 22 ; [1904] 1 Ch. ) 299 1908] 1 K. B. 151 ■ '1903] 2 Ch. 65, n. "1904] 2 Ch. 743 1901] W. N. 146 1791 1631 2467 28:j 283 2381 83 1596 2420 2520 1386 990 2914 1541 928 1620 2563 1376 814, 815 2903 763 2737 1988 1789 2662 1049 30 33 1392 436 1040 TABLE OF CAS lis IN' THK DIGEST. Name of Case. Panes v. Att.-Gen. In re Bond Panhai'd Levassor Motor Go. : — La SooiSte \ Anonyme des Ancieus ^fitablissements : Panliard et Levassor v. ' Pannifer : — Hill r. Panton, In re . . . . . ■ Papeteries de L'Aa (Aktiebolaget Eoberts fors and La Societe des), In re Paquin, Ld. !'. Beauclerk .. , Paquine v. Snary Parbola, Ld., In re. Blackburn / . Parbola Ld Pardee, In re. McLaughlin r. Att.-Gen. . Pardee, In re. McLaughlin v. Penny Pardy's Mozambique Syndicate, Ld. v. Alex ander . . Pares : — Scott Chad c. In re Pares. In re Scott Chad Paringa Consolidated Mines, Ld. : — Keat inge V. Paringa Mines, Ld. v. Blair. Paringa Mines, Ld. V. Boyle. Paringa Mines, Ld. v. Smith Paringa Mines (1909), Ld. : — Barrow v. Park, In re. Bott v. Chester . . Parke : — Eex v. . . Parker, In re. Parker v. Parker Parker, In re. Jdtephenson c. Parker Parker : — Greville v. . . Parker • — Grimshaw, Baxter & Elliott, Ld V. Parker : — Hoddell v. . . Parker v. Jones . . Parker v. London County Council Parker v. Lord Advocate Parker v. Pullen. In re Pullen Parker : — Suckling v. . . Parker v. Talbot Parker's Policies, hi re. Parker's Policies \ and the Married Women's Property Act, [ 1870, In re Parkas : — Irwin c In re Irwin Parkgate Iron and Steel Co. : — Vamplew v. . Parkin v. South Hetton Coal Co. ( ■ ( Volume and Page. [1901] 1 Ch. 16 [1901] W. N. 153 ; [1901] 2 Oh. ) 513 j [1904] 1 K. B. 811 [1901] W. N. 116; [1901]) P. 239 I [1910] 2 K B. 727 H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 64 ; ) [1906] A. C. 148 C. A. [1909] W. N. 14 ; [1909] 1 K B. 688 . , [1909] W. N. (B. 185) 179; [1909] 2 Oh. 437 . . [1906] W. N. 86 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 184 [1905] W. N. 178 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 265 ; C. A. [1906] 2 Oh. 340 [1902] W. N. 229 ; [1903] 1 Oh. 191 [1901] W. N. 61 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 708 [1902] W. N. 15 [1906] 2 Oh. 193 [1909] W. N. 195 ; [1909] 2 Oh. 658 [1910] 2 Oh. 322 [1903] 2 K. B. 432 [19.10] W. N. 21 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 581 [1901] W. N. 16 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 408 P. C. [1910' K : [1910 K. B. 323 1910] A. 0. 335 W. N. 137; [1910] 2 5. 161 W. N. 146; [1910] 2 [1910] 2 E. B. 32 [1904] 2 K. B. 501 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1904] W. N. Ill ; [1904] A. 0. 364 . . [1910] W. N. 60 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 564 [1906] W. N. 59; [1906] 1 K. B. 527 0. A. [1905] W. N. 149; [1905] 2 Oh. 643 . . [1906] W. N. 28 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 526 [1904] W. N. 163 ; [1904] 2 Oh. 752 0. A. [1903] W. N. 80;' [1903] 1 K. B. 851 [1907] W. N. 81 ; 0. A. [1908] W.N. 7 Columu of Digest. 501 913 2065 97 1184 2167 1736 350 32 947 2402 560 459 637 2910 651 1151 2971 1808 76& 1158 1389 2084 1082 2995 39 1500 1192 2412 1658 1662 TABLE OF (JARES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Golnmn of Digest. Parkinson v. Q-arstang and Knott End Railway Parnell : — Kirby- Smith v. Parry, In re. Ex parte Salamau Parry (Descours) & Co., In re Parry v. Holmes. In re Eichardson Parry : — Kinahan & Oo. , Ld. v. Parson, In re. Parson v. Parson Parsons : — Armitage >'. Parsons v. New Zealand Shipping Co. Parsons v. Parsons Parsons : — Winoanton Eural District Covin oil f . . . Partick (Provost, &c., of) : — Da Prato v. Partington, 7« re. Eeigh v. Kane . , . . j Partridge v. Rhodesia Goldfields, Ld. In re ) Rhodesia Groldfields, Ld. . . . , ) Partridge v. Ward. In re Bridgwater's j Settlement . . . . , . . . . . ( Partridge, Jones & Cn. : — Coldrick ■{ Pasquier v. Neale Patching v. Barnett Patentwood Keg Syndicate, Ld. v. Pearse Paterson : — British Homes Assurance Cor- poration, Ld. !•. Paterson : — Macnaghten «... Paterson & Son, Ld. : — Glasgow Corpora tion V. Paton I'. Lewthwaite (or Paton) Paton : — Stackmann r. Paton : — Willmott v. . . Paton, In the Goods of Patrick : — Smith u. Pattenden & Co. : — Hobson v. Pattullo, Ex parte. In re Van Laun Paul r. Hargreaves . . . . Pauline OolHery Syndicate, Ld. : — Natal Land ) Colonization Co. . . . . . . . . j Pawley v. Pawley . . . , . . Pawson : — Fieldings v. . . Pawson : — Hancock v. In re Hancock Payne and Wood : — Heme Bay Urban j Council V. . . . . . . . , i Payne v. Bennett. In the Estate of Good- j rich . . . . . . . . j 1910] 1 K. B. 616 1903] 1 Ch. 483 1903] W. N. 206 ; C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 129 . . 1909] W. N. 50 1904] 1 Oh. 332 1910] 2 K. B. 389 1901] W. N. 94 ; [1901] 2 Oh 176 . . 0. A. [1908] W. N. 127 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 410 . . C. A. [1901] W. N. 42 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 548 [1907] P. 331 [1905] W. N. 76; [1905] K. B. 34 H. L. (Sc.) [1907] W. N. 67 [1907] A. 0. 163 . . [1902] W. N. 50 ; [1902] 1 Oh, 711 . . [1910] W. N. 7 ; [1910] 1 Oh 239 [1910] W. N.' 188; [1910] 2 j Ch. 342 . . ] C. A. [1909] W. N. 15 ; [1909] ^ 1 K. B. 630 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 257 ; [1910] ( A. 0. 77 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 287 0. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 154, n. . [1906] W. N. 164 . . [1902] W. N. 133 ; [1902] 2 ( Ch. 404 ) P. C. [1907] A. 0. 483 H. L. (Sc.) [1901] W. N 162 H. L. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 44 . . [1906] W. N. 79 ; [1906] 1 ) Oh. 774 I C. A. [1902] 1 K B. 237 [1901] P. 188 H. L. (Sc.) [1901] W. N. 96 ; / [1901] A. C. 282 . . ) [1903] 2 K. B. 760, n. [1907] 1 K. B. 156; 0. A. , [1907] W. N. 73 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 23 ) [1908] W. N. 109 ; [1908] 2 ) K. B. 289 j P. C. [1904] A. C. 120 [1905] W. N. 56 ; [1906] 1 ) Ch. 593 , . ■ [1907] W. N. 231 [1904] W. N. 194 ; [1905] 1 Oh. 16 [1907] W. N. 104; [19071 K. B. 130 . . [1904] P, 138 . . 2116 2968 217 603 850 2040 716 1304 2449 936 2426 2330 2349 422 867 1676 1448 2710 483 1862 134 91 929 690 1618 2061 2744 662 229 2S7li 1776 1186 1719 1011 2644 1032 Table Oi* cases in The digest. Name of Case. Payne v. Grey. In re Earl of Stamford and Warrington Payne v. Rex Payne : — Eex c. Payne & Co. : — London County Oounoil v. . (No. 2) : — London Ooimty Conn oil y. . . Payne (David) & Co., Zn re. Young v. David Payne, Ld. Paynter : — Grarwood v. In re Garwood'] Trusts Pajrton & Co. V. Snelling, Lampard & Co. . Peach's Patent. Ex parte Peach and Boswell Hatfield & Co Peacock v. Niddrie and Benhar Co. . . Peacock's Settlement, In re. Kelcey Harrison Peak Hill Goldfield, Ld., Ex parte. In re A Debtor Pearce, In re Pearce, In re. Crutchley v. Wells Pearce v. Bastable's Trustee in Bankruptcy Pearce v. Bolton Pearce v. Bullard, King & Co. Pearce : — Corbett v. Pearce v. Maidenhead Corporation Pearce v. Marsh. In re Loveridge Pearce v. Merriman Pearce's Trusts, Inre . . Pearks, Gunston & Tee, Ld. v. Houghton Pearks, Gunston & Tee, Ld. «. Knight Same v. Van Tromp . . Pearks, Gunston & Tee, Ld. v. Richardson Pearks, Gunston & Tee, Ld. !'. Ward. Hennen V. Southern Counties Dairies Co. . . Pearl Life Assurance Co. : — Harse v. Pearl Life Assurance Co. r. Johnson. The Same v. Greenhalgh Pearl Life Assurance Co. v. Scottish Legal Life Assurance Society Pearl Life Insurance Co. :— Chadwick v. . . "Pearlmore," The Pearse :— Patentwood Keg Syndicate, Ld. v. Pearse's Settlement, In re. Pearse v. Pearse Pearson : — Lloyd's Bank v. . . Pearson v. Stead. Stead v. Pearson . Pearson v. Wilcook D.D. Volmiie xind Page. [1910] W. N. 114; [1910] 2 Oh. 83 ; [1910] W. N. 277 P. C. [1902] A. C. 552 7 . C. C. E. [1905] W. N. I 9 [1906] 1 K. B. 97 . . [1904] 1 K. B. 194 .... [1905] 1 K. B. 410 . . C. A. [1904] W. N. 128 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 608 [1902] W. N. 231 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 236 H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 308 . . P. C. [1902] A. C. 414 (1902) Ot. of Sess. (Sc.) [4903] W. N. 162 [1902] W. N. 51 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 552 0. A. [1909] W. N. 5 ;' [1909] 1 K. B. 430 C. A. [1909] W. N. 116; [1909] 2 Oh. 492 [1909] W. N. 94; [1909] 1 Oh. 819 [1901] W. N. 70 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 122 [1902] 2 K. B. Ill [1908] W. N. 48; [1908] 1 Ch. 780 [1904 2 K. B. 422 [1907] W. N. K. B. 96 [1907] 2 [1904] 1 Ch. 518 [1903] W. N. 200 ; [1904] 1 ) K. B. 80 ) C. A. [1909] W. N. 116; ) [1909] 2 Ch. 492 . . ) [1902] 1 K. B. 889 [1901] W. N. 179 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 825 [1901] W. N. 226; [1902] 1 K. B. 91 [1902] W. N. 88; [1902] 2 K. B. 1 [1903] 2 K. B. 92 ; C. A. [1904] W.N. 44; [1904] 1 K. B. 558 [1909] 2 K. B. 288 [190i; W. N. 33; [1901] 1 K. B. 528 1905] 2 K. B. 507 . . 1904] P. 286 1906] W. N. 164 1908] W. N. 244; [1909] 1 Ch. 304 [1901] W. N. 59 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 865 [1903] P. 66 0. A. [1906] W. N. 141; [1906] 2 K. B. 440 . . Column ot Digest. 2223 2832 824 2875 2874 411 1857 2676 1889 1609 1936 221 216 36 2613 753 214 1647 2643 1734 1848 216 41 41 45 45 1266 1260 1263 2235 2450 483 2401 1745 1000 751 P TABLE OF CASES IK THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Pearson, Ld. : — De la Bere v. . . . . . . ' Pearson (S.) & Son, Ld. r. Dublin Corpora- / tion . . . . . . . . . ) Pearson (S.) & Son, Ld. v. Dublin & South ( Eastern Ey. Co. , . . . . . . . j Pearson (S.) & Son, Ld. : — Tomalin /■. . . { Pease v. Courtney . , . . . . . . j Pease : — Gibbon i . . . . . . . [ Peat V. Clayton . . . . . . . . ' Peatfield :— Kirkland ,■ j / Peckham, East Dulwicb, and Crystal Palace \ Tramways Bill, In re . . i Pedlar v. Road Block Gold Mines of India, Ld. j Pedley, Hx parte. In re Garner . . . . Peel V. Loudon and North Western Ey. Co. Peel V. London and North Western Ey. Co. (No. 2) (Peel, Claimant). Harbottle ■'. Eoberts Peel's (Sir Eobert) Settled Estates, In re . . Peerless, In re. Peerless v. Smith . . Pegg & Jones, Ld. c. Derby Corporation Pegler v. Gillatt. In re Anderson . . Peiris : — Corea v. Peirse : — Clayton r. . . Peirson's (T.) Settlement, In re. Caylev ?■. De Wend " . , PeUiam Clinton r. Newcastle (Duke of) / Pemberton, In re. Pemberton -, Royal ) Hospital for Incurables Pemberton r. Pemberton. In re Torry Hill Estate . . Pemsel and Wilson r. Tucker Pendarves : — Hartley r. Penfield (•. McMurdo. In re McMurdo Penfold ('. Dixon, In re Dixon Penfold : — Eex v. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. : — Haniel o. ' ( [190'7] W. N. 31; [1907] 1) KB. 483; C. A. [1907] W.N. 244 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 280 . . ) H. L. (Ir.) [1907] A. C. 351 . . H. L. (Ir.) [1909] A. 0. 217 . . C. A. [1909] W. N. 86 ; [1909] 2 K B. 61 [1904] W. N. 418; [1904] 2 Oh. 503 C. A. [1905] W. N. 55 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 810 [1906] W. N. 40 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 659 [1903] W. N. 70; [1903] 1 K B. 756 [1909] W. N. 180 (Erratum 185) ; [1909] 2 Ch. 540 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. Ill ; [1910] 2 Ch. 1 [1905]W.N. 131; [1905] 2 Ch. 427 [1906] W. N. 122; [1906] 2 E. B. 213 C. A. [1906] W. N. 208 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 5 [1907] W. N. 70 ; [1907] 1 / Ch. 607 I [1905] W. N. 31 ; [1905] 1 ) K. B. 572 I [1910] W. N. 16; [1910] 1 Ch. 389 [1901] W. X. 151 . . [1909] W. N. 158 ; [1909] 2 ) K. B. 511 . . . . ) [1906] 2 Ch. 70 P. 0. [1909] A. C. 549 [1904] 1 K. B. 424 . . [1903] W. N. 100 C. A. [1901] W. N. 207 ; C. A. , [1902] 1 Ch. 34 ; H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 36 ; [1903] i A. cm .. .. ..! [1907] W. N. US [1909] 1 Ch. 468 [1907] W. N. 128 ; [1907] 2 ) Oh. 191 . . I [1901] W. N. 158 ; [1901] 2 ) Ch. 498 I [1902] W. N. 87 ; C. A. [1902] ) W.N. 112; [1902] 2 Ch. 684 [1901] W. N. 243 ; [1902] 1 ) Ch. 248 . . , C. C. E. [1902] AY. N. 28 ; ) [1901] 1 K. B. 647 . . [1908] W. N. 110; [1908] 2 K. B. 298 . , j 656 653 2125 1581 2374 100 561 1474 2716 497 168 2122 718 1288 2385 2913 1496 1031 344 1086 2417 2976 2167 2377 2819 2392 206 2214 804 2442 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. V. Kingston Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. V. Eex Penn : — Horton c Penn v. Spiers & Pond, Ld. PenneU : — Philip v. Pennington v. Pincock Penny : — MacLaughlin v. In re Pardoe Penrikyber Navigation Colliery Co. : — Price v, Penrikyber Navigation Colliery Co. : — Eees v Pepin V. Bruyere Pepper : — ^Maas c. PeppereU r. Hird Percival, Ex parte. (Governor of) Percival v. Eoberts. Eex V. Brixton Prison In re Eoberts . . Percival v. Wright Perera v. Perera Perham v. Kempster . . Perkin : — Bland v. In re Bland's Settle ment . . Perkins, In re. Brown v. Perkins Perkins v. Chapman. Chapman v. Perkins. . In re Chapman Perkins (Collins and) : — Dominion Natural Gras. Co. V. Perkins : — Zaiser v. In re Lawley. Beyfus V. Lawley Permanent Trustee Co. of New South Wales, Ld. : — ^Williams v. . . Perpetual Trustee Co. : — Wise v. Perrin : — South London Electric Supply Corporation v. Perring & Co. v. Emerson Perry v. Clissold Peny : — Smith v. Perry v. National and Provincial Bank of England Perry :^Eex v.. . Perry v. Wright Perry & Co. : — Harris v. P. C. [1903] A. C. 471 [1901] 2 K. B. 686 . . [1907] 1 K. B. 561 0. A. [1908] W. N. 47 ; [1908] ) 1 K. B. 766 j [1907] 2 Oh. 577 [1908] W. N. 101; [1908] K. B. 244 . . [1905] W.N. 178; [1906] 1 Ch. ) 265 ; C. A. [1906] 2 Oh. 341) ] C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 221 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 259 0. A. [1901] W.N. 208; [1902] 1 Oh. 24 H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 40 [1905] A. C. 102 . . [1902] W. N. 17 ; [1902] iCh 477 [1907] 1 K B. 696 . . [1903] 2 Ch. 200 [1902] W. N. 134; [1902] 2 Ch. 421 .. . P. 0. [1901] A. 0. 354 [1907] W. N. 13 ; [1907] 1 ) Ch. 373 ) [1904] W. N. 189 ; [1905] 1 ] Ch. 4 .. [1907] W. N. 219 ; [1907] 2 ) Ch. 596 0. A. [1904] W. N. 52 ; [1904] \ 1 Oh. 431 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] ( W. N. 43 ; [1905] A. 0. ( 106 ; P. 0. [1909] A. 0. 640 [1902] W. N. 154 ; 0. A. [1902] N W.N. 195; [1902] 2 Ch. 799 H. L. (B.) [1903] W. N 148; [1903] A. 0. 411 P. 0. [1906] A. C. 249 P. 0. [1901 1903] A. 0. 139 W. N. 100; [1901] K. B. 186 [1905] W. N. 154; [1906] P. d. [1907] A.' b. 73 ' ' [1906] W. N. 7 ; [1906] 1 K. B, 262 [1909] W. N. 261; 0. A.) [1910] W. N. 20 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 464 0. 0. A. [1909] W. N. 154 [1909] 2 K. B. 697 . . C. A. [1908] W. N. 5 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 441 . . 0. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 219 2832 2562 1429 1611 1421 1445 32 1600 1598 641 250 2011 1064 3001 466 346 1753 2403 2344 2924 303 1933 1793 386 1827 909 1794 804 2044 808 1588 1783 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. " Persia," The Perth Electric Tramways, Ld., /?? re. Lyons V. Tramways Syndicate, Ld., and Perth Electric Tramways, Ld. Peruvian Corporation, Ld. : — Cox Moore v. Pescod V. Westminster Corporation . , Pesoott : — Baldwin v. In re Jacobs . . Peter Dawson : — International Fibre Syndi- cate, Ld. V. . . Peter Walker & Son, Ld. v. Hodgson Peter Walker & Son, Ld. : — Liverpool Cor- poration V. . . Peterborough Rural Council : — Neaverson v. " Petersen (P. C.)," The Peterson, In re . . Petition for Judicial Separation, In re. Ex parte Beecham Petitioning Creditor, Ex parte The. In re a Debtor . . Petre : — Legh v. In re Petre's Settlement Trusts Petre's Settlement Trusts, In re. Legh v. Petre Petrie : — Davis v. Petroleum (Asiatic) Co. and the Taku Tug ' and Lighterage Co. : — China Navigation Co. V. . . Pettit V. Lodge and Harper . . Pettitt & Valentine, In re Peverett, Li the Goods of Pharmaceutical Society v. White Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britaiu : Edwards v. . . Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain Mercer Philbrick : — Eex v. Ex parte Edwards Philip V. PenneU Philippart v. William Whiteley, Ld. In Phifippart's Trade Mark " Diabolo " Phillimore, In re. Phillimore v. Herbert Phillimore's Estate, In re. Phillimore Milnes . . Phillips V. Alhambra Palace Co. PhilUps :— OHfiord v. Hill v. Clifford. Clif ford V. Timms Phillips : — Erogley v. . . Phillips : — Glenwood Lumber Co. v. . . Volume and Page. [1902] W. N. 210 [1906] W. N. 113; [1906] 2 / Ch. 216 ) [1908] W. N. 62 ; [1908] 1 Ch 604 ) [1905] W. N. 142 ; [1905] 2 Ch, ' 475 [1908] 2 Ch. 691 H. L. (So.) [1901] W. N. 97 C. A. [1909] 1 K B. 239 [1907] W. N. 214 ; [1908] 1 \ K B. 28 ; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 79 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 33 / [1901] 1 Ch. 22 \ C. A. [1902] ) W. N. 46 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 557 ( [1903] W. N. 34 [1909] W.N. 149 ; C. A. [1909] ) W. N. 194 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 398 ] [1901] P. 66 [1907] W. N. 202 ; [1907] 2 ) K B. 896 ) [1910] 1 Ch. 290 [1910] 1 Ch. 290 [1905] 2 K. B. 528 ; C. A, [1906] W. N. 177 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 786 . . P. C. [1910] A. 0. 204 C. A. [1908] W. N. 45 ; [1908] ) 1 K. B. 744 . . j [1901] W. N. 112 [1902] P. 205 . . C. A. [1901] W. N. 37 ; [1901] ) 1 E. B. 601 . . [1910] 2 K. B. 766 . . [1909] W. N. (223) 213 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 74 . . [1905] 2 K. B. 108 [1907] 2 Oh. 577 [1908] 2 Ch. 274 [1903] W. N. 83 ; [1903] 1 Ch, 942 .. [1904] W. N. 153 ; [1904] 2 Oh. 460 [1901] 1 K. B. 69 0. A. [1907] W.N. 149; [19071 2 Oh. 236 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 243; [1908] A. C. 15 [1901] W. N. 243 P. 0. [1904] A. C. 406 Column of Digest. 2569 430 426 1538 713 655 877 1434 2026 2508 2583 941 170 2415 2416 172 379 252 738 2058 1906 1905 1907 759 1421 2687 2344 2383 1858 881 1983 1814 TABLE OF CASES tN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Phillips V. Howell Phillips : — Lamson Pneumatic Tube Co. v. Phillips V. Poole. In re Swain Phillips' Trusts, In re . . Phillips : — "Waters o. . . Phillips & Co., Exparte. Eex v. Marylebone County Court Judge and The Great Western Ey. Co. Philpot V. Bath Philpot : — Dierken v. . . Phoenix Assurance Co. : — King v. Phoenix Assurance Co. v. Spooner Picard : — Edwards & Co. v. . . Piccadilly (Great Northern) and Brompton \ Ry. Co. V. Att.-Gen ; Piokavance v. Pickavance Pickering : — ^Purness, Withy & Co. v. . . Pickering: — Johnson v. Norton (Claimant) • Pickering v. Willoughby Pickett : — Seymour v. . . Pickett (E. & W.) :— Whitehouse c. . . Pickford v. Oorsi Pickfords, Ld. : — Frederick Betts, Ld. v. Pickf ords, Ld. v. London and North Western Ey. Co Pickles V. SutclifEe Pickles : — Yorkshire Laundries, Ld. v. PickthaU v. Dawes. In re Maitland . . "Picton," The Pidgeon v. Great Yarmouth Waterworks Co. Pieroy, In re. Whitwham v. Piercy Pigeon V. Calgary and Medicine Hat Land Co. In re the Co. Piggott: — Chang Hang Kiu v. In re Lai ffing Pirm Piggott V. Middlesex County OouncU Piggott V. Toogood Pike, In re Court of Chancery Act, 1841, and Pike : — Ludlow (Lord) v. Pike : — Hex v. . . [1901] W. N. 202 ; [1901] 2 \ Oh. 773 i [1904] W. N. 66, 122 ; C. A. | [1904] W. N. 134 . . . . j [1908] W. N. 209 [1902] W. N. 225 ; [1903] 1 ) Oh. 183 ) [1910] W. N. 171 ; [1910] 2 \ E. B. 465 I [1906] 2 K. B. 426 ; C. A. [1907] \ 2 K. B. 664; H. L. (B.) [1908] W. N. (Erratum 40), ( 35 ; [1908] A. 0. 101 ..] 0. A. [1905] W. N. 114 [1901] 2 K. B. 380 C. A. [1910] W.N. 186; [1910] ) 2 K. B. 666 I [1905] 2 K. B. 753 . . C. A. [1909] W. N. 191 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 903 H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 1 . . [1901] P. 60 [1908] W. N. 152 ; [1908] 2 ) Oh. 224 j [1907] W. N. 139; [1907] 2\ K. B. 437 ; C. A. [1907] ( W. N. 202 ; [1908] 1 K. B. I [1907] W. N.'ll2; [1907] 2) K. B. 296 ( C. A. [1905] W. N. 40 ; [1905] [ 1 K. B. 715 I H. L. (So.) [1908] W. N. 168 ; ) [1908] A. C. 357 . . . . i [1901] 2 K. B. 212 [1906] W. N. 51 ; [1906] 2 ) Ch. 87 ) 0. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 752 [1902 0. A. [1903 [1910' [1901 [1902] [1907] ' N. 213; W. N. 200 "'1901] W. N. 28 ""W.N. 143 P. 46 . . W. N. 231 ; K. B. 310 . . [1906] W. N. 227 ; Ch. 289 C. A. [1908] W. [1908] 2 Ch. 652 . . P. C. [1909] A. 0. 312 [1908] W. N. 193; [1909] 1 Oh. 134 1904] W. N. 130 '1902] W. N. 42 1904] W. N. 57; [1904] 1 K. B. 631 C. C. E. [1902] W. N. 27; [1902] 1 KB. 662.. 2791 2196 366 114 1121 2136 2338 766 1694 1263 2163 2269 1197 2001 2436 829 882 1241 1896 1510 2106 2783 1038 132 2513 2850 652 429 1175 1416 613 1971 2669 807 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Pilcher : — Addison v. In re Amalgamated Sooietv of Bail way Servants ( Parliamentary Fund Trusts) . . Pilcher .-—Elliot v. Pilliner : — Scott v. Pilling, In -re Pilling, In re. Pilling, In re. Pilling, In re. Pimm, In re. Ex parte Board of Trade Ex parte Chapman Ex parte Salaman Sharpe v. Hodgson Pinch V. McNicol Pinckney : — Bex v. Pincock : — Pennington v. Pipe (Mephan-Ferguson Lock-Bar) Co British Aluminium Co. Piper : — Nicholson v. . . Piper V. Piper Pirie (Alex.) & Sons, Ld. v. Kin tore (Earl of) Pitcher : — McGruther v. McGruther Pitcher " Pitgaveney," The Pitt : — Farmer v. Pitt Eivers, In re. Scott v. Pitt Rivers Pitts V. Michelmore Pix, In re. Plomley v. Stilemau Pizzi, Re. Scrivener v. Aldridge Plaistow Working Men's Club v. Harrod Plant : — Bailey v. Plant V. Wright & Co. (No. 2) Plasterers (National Association of Opera five) : — Smithies v. . . Player & Son's Trade Mark, No. 225,03'5, In re Pledge ('. Pomfret Plenty : — Harrold v. . . Plews V. Samuel Plomley v. Stileman. In re Pix Plowden : — Eex v. Plummer : — Eex v. Plumpton V. Birkinshaw Plumptre's Marriage Settlement, In re. Underhill v. Plumptre [1910] W. N. 210; [1910] 2) Oh. 547 ( 1901] 2 K B. 817 1904] 2 K. B. 855 . . 1909] W. N. 196 ; [1909] / 2 K. B; 788 ) C. A. [1903] W. N. 76 ; [1903] / 2 K B. 50 ) [1906] W. N. 99 [1906] W. N. 160; [1906] 2 ] K. B. 644 j [1904] W. N. 135 ; [1904] 2 ) Oh. 345 ) [1906] W. N. 143; [1906] 2 K B. 352 C. A. [1904] W. N. 68 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 84 ) [1908] W. N. 101 ; [1908] 2 ] K B. 244 I H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 67 . . H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 215 . . [1902] P. 198 H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 156 ; \ [1906] A. C. 478 C. A. [1904] W. N. 144; [1904] ) 2 Oh. 306 I [1910] P. 215 [1902] W. N. 65 ; [1902] 1 Oh. ) 954 [1901] W. N. 22 ; [1901] 1 Oh. \ 352 ; [1902] W. N. 23 ; [1902] 1 Oh. 403 ) [1909] 1 K. B. 227; C. A. [1909] W. N. 97 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 244 [1901] W. N. 165 [1906] W. N. 202 ; [19071 1 ) Ch. 67 . . .1 [1910] 1 K. B. 5S2 . . C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 31 C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 353 C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 310 [1901] 1 Ch. 382 [1905] W. N. 56 [1901] W. N. 119; [19011 2 ; Oh. 314 1 [1904] W. N. 47 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 464 .. [1901] W. N. 165 [1909] W. N. 87; [1909]) 2 K. B. 269.. 0. C. R. [1902] W. N. 126 ; ) [1902] 2 K. B. 339 . , C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 672 [1910] W. N. 63; [19101 1 Ch. 609 1974 44 1484 169 160 169 231 2990 2226 1145 1445 2319 1580 1188 1086 2286 2489 1731 2883 1849 1346 2642 1445 1684 1591 2703 2685 1988 560 2809 1346 1768 647 1665 2398 TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Plymouth Corporation : — Crocker v.. . , . Plymouth. Guardians v. Gibbs Plymouth Mutual Co-operative and In- i dustrial Society, Ld. u. Traders' Publishing Association, Ld. . . . . . ' Plympton St. Mary Rural Council ?■. Reynolds Poe V. Spencer Cooper. In re Spencer ) Cooper . . . . i Polak : — Humphrys i\ . . . . ' Polak : — Millar & Lang v Police (Chief Commissioner of Metro- politan) : — Gordon v. Policy No. 6,402 of the Scottish Equitable Life Assurance Society, In re Poll V. Dambe . . Pollard, In re. Ex parte Pollard Pollard, III re. PoUard v. PoUard . . Pollard, In re. Pollard v. Pollard . . Pollard v. Gare . . Pollard V. Geake. In re Hunt PoUey V. Pordham Pollock, In re. Pollock v. Pollock . . Polsue & Alfieri, Ld. : — Rushmer v. . . Poltimore o. ftuicke. In re Gluicke's Trusts Polushie : — Zacklynski v. " Polynesien," The Pomery v. Pomery Pomfret v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Ry Co Pomfret : — ^Pledge v. . . Pomfret Brothers : — Whitaker v. Pomphrey v. Southwai-k Press Ponamma v. Arumogam. Ex parte Pouamma Ponnamma v. Arumogam Poncia: — Taylor v. Ponsf ord, In re. Ex parte Pousford . . Ponsford, Baker & Co. v. Union of London and Smith's Bank, Ld. Ponsolle V. Webber Pontardawe Rnral District Council Election Petition Pontefract Assessment Committee : — Midland Ry. J' Pontypool Guardians v. Buck Pontypridd Union Assessment Committee : — RhondSa Yalley Breweries Co. Volume and Page. [1906] W. N. 58 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 494 . . [1903] 1 K. B. 177 . . C.A. [1906] W.N. 30; [1906]) 1 K. B. 403 [1909] 1 K. B. 768 . . [1907] W. N. 238 ; [1908] Ch. 130 C.A. [1901] W.N. 128; [1901] 2 K. B. 385 [1908] W. N. 19 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 433 C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 10,80 [1902] 1 Oh. 282 [1901] W. N. 132; [1901] 2 K. B. 579 [1903]W. N. 58; C. A. [1903] W. N. 87 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 41 1902] W. N. 49 1902] W. N. 144 1901] W. N. 65 ; [1901] 1 Ch 834 C.A. [1904" [1906' 146" C. A. [1906] W. N. 3 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 234 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 67 ; [1907] A. C. 121 1901] W. N. 144 2 K. B. 345 W. N. 9 ; [1906] 1 Ch [1908 P. C. [1910 [1909' 1 Ch. 887 1908] A. C. 65 P. 28 . . W. N. 158 0. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 718 [1905 [1902 K. B. 661 W. N. 56 W. N. 52 [1902] C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. P. C. [1902] A. C. 561 P. C. [1905] A. C. 383 [1901] W. N. 87 C. A. [1904] W. N. 163 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 704 . . [1906] W. N. 121; 0. A. [1906] W. N. 182; [1906] 2 Oh. 444 [1908] W. N. 12 ; , [1908] Ch. 254 .. . [1907] W. N. 130; [1907] K. B. 313 [1901] 2 K. B. 182 . . [1906] W. N. 195,; [1906] K B. 896 0. A. [1909] W. N. 29 ; [1909] 1 K. B, 652 Column of Digest. i 2310 238 893 1495 2996 1226 685 242 1260 2564 218 709 2339 1458 2378 2083 2381 1832 1252 301 2502 1196 1582 1988 471 1607 345 345 1981 164 223 1763 1013 2152 1922 2151 TABLE OF CASES IX THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of - Digest. Pontypridd Urban Council: — Att.-Gen. r. .. Pontypridd Waterworks Co : — Att. -Gren. i . ' Pontypridd Waterworks Co. : — BwUfa and )' Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891), Ld. j Pock : — Dowden & Pook, Ld. r. . . . . j Poole : — Barclay & Co. c. Poole V. National Bank of China, Ld. Poole : — Phillips ;.■. /)/ re Swain Poole V. B,iversdale. /;/ re Stawell's Trust . . Poole : — Western Assurance Co. of Toronto i\ Poole & Clarke's Contract, lu re Pope, In re. Ex iiarte 'DicVsee Pope, In re. Sharp c. Marshall Pope : — Cavalier !■. . . Pope : — Stein v. . . Pope : — Wightwick v. . Poplar Corporation : — Barnett v. Poplar Guardians c. Martin . Popular Life Assurance Co., In r<: . . " Port Caledonia," and The "Anna," The Port Erin (Commissioners of) : — Laughton r. " Port Hunter," The .. " Port Victor," The Cargo ex " Port Victoria," The Portal : — Grove v. Porte V. Williams Porter (Lawrence &), Porter I'. Bowermau. In re In re Bowennan [1905] W. N. 146 ; [1905] 2 ) Ch. 441 ; C. A. [1906] W. N". 117; [1906] 2 Ch. 257 ..) [1908] W. N. 11 ; [1908] 1 ) Ch. 388 i H. L. (E.) [1903] W. X. 149 ; ) [1903] A. C. 426 . . j 0. A. [1903] W. X. 192 ; C. A. ( [1904] 1 K. B. 45 . . - . . j [1907] W. N. 152 ; [1907] 2 ) Ch. 284 i H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 229 . . [1908] W. N. 209 [1909] W. N. 36 ; [1909] 1 Ch. > 534 ; C. A. [1909] W. X. 124 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 239 . . ) [1903] W. N. 14 ; [1903] 1 ) I K B. 376 . . . . ) C. A. [1904] W. N. 133 ; [1904] ) 2 Ch. 173 1 C. A. [1908] W. N. 105 ; [1908] ) 2 K. B. 169 . . ) [1901] 1 Ch. 64 C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 757 Porter : — Green-well v. . . Porter v. London and Manchester Insurance Co Porter v. Moore . . Porter : — Eex v. Porthgain Harbour Co. : —Hart v. . . H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N: 140 ; [1906] A. C. 428 C. A. [1902] W. N. 40 ; [19021 ) 1 K. B. 595 . . . . I C. A. [1902] W. N. 1 1 3 ; fl 902] 2 K B. 99 . . . 1901] 2 K. B. 319 1905] 1 E. B. 728 . . 1908] W. N. 222 : [1909] 1 / Ch. 80 ! [1903] P. 184 . P. C. [1910] A. C. 565 C. A. [1910] P. 343, 348 [1901] W.N. 73; C. A. [1901] , P. 243 I [1902] P. 25 . . [1902] W. N. 33 ; [1902] 1 Ch. / 727 . , . , j [1910] W.N. 233 .. [1910] W. N. 270 I [1908] W. N. 137 ; [1908] 2 / Ch. 340 [1902] W.N. 19; [1902] 1 Oh. N. 7U ; [1909] 2 ) X. 5 Portland (Alabama) Cement Co., In re Portland (Associated) Cement Manufacturers ) (1900), Ld. :— South Eastern Ry. Co. !'. . . Porton V. Central (Unemployed) Body for London . . . . ) 530 [1909] W. K. B. 30 [1904] 2 Ch. 367 C. C. A. [1910] W [1910] 1 K. B. 369 . [1903] W. X. 41 ; [1903] 1 Ch 690 . . [1909] W. X. 157 . C. A. [1909] W. N. 217 ; [1910] ) 1 Ch. 12 -' C.A. [1908]W. N. 242 ; C. A [1909] IK. B. 173.. 1019 2854 1711 2192 2630 542 366 2409 1274 2792 222 10 139 181 731 2710 1921 1256 2548 1296 2551 2554 2476 1357 2996 26 571 749 1031 646 276 691 2099 1664 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Portsmouth and District Vacuum Cleaner Co., In re " Portsmouth,". The Portsmouth Justices : — Smith v. Postmaster-General : — Bainbridge /■. Postmaster-General v. National Telephone Co • ' Poulett Peerage, The . . . , . . Poultei- i'. D'Este. In re D'Este's Settle- ) ment Trusts . . . . ) Poulton i'. Adjustable Cover and Boiler Block I Co j Powell c. Brodhurst . . Powell ('. Browne . . Powell : — Evans v. In ve Evans . . . . Powell V. Hellicar Powell V. Hemsley . , . . ' Powell r. Viokers, Son8& Maxim, Ld. Powell & Thomas v. Evan Jones & Co. Power, In re. In re Stone. Aoworth v. { Stone . . . . . . . . . . j Power V. Banks . . . . . j Power : — Boaler v. . . . . . . . . Power (British) Traction and Lighting Co., Ld., In re. Halifax Joint Stock Banking / Co., Ld. V. British Power Traction and 1 Lighting Co., Ld j Power (Montreal Light, Heat and) Co. v. ) Sedgwick . . . . . . j Powley : — Westhorpe v. ... Pownall V. Pringle & Co. In rePringle & Co. Poynton : — Galhraith r. Peyser, In re. Laudon v. Peyser Poyser, In re. Landon v. Poyser Practice Direction Practice Notes , . Practice Note ■ ( [1908] W. N. 203 [1910] P. 293 C. A. [1906] W. N. 141 ; ) [1906] 2 K. B. 229 . . . . ) C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 178 . . [1907] W. N. 78 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 621 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 144; [1908] 2 Ch. 172; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 91; [1909] A. C. 269 . . H. L. (Committee for Privi- leges) [1903] W. N. 142; [1903] A. C. 395 . . [1903] 1 Ch. 898 C. A. [1908] W. N. 167 ; [1908] 2 Oh. 430 . . [1901] W. N. 106 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 160 [1907] W. N. 152; C. A. [1907] W. N. 228 . . [1909] W. N. 98 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 784 [1903] W. N. 154 [1909] W. N. 61 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 680; C. A. [1909] W. N. 141 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 522 0. A: [1906] W. N. 207 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 71 C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 11 [1901] W. N. 158 ;[1901] 2 - Ch. 659 [1901] W. N. 137 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 487 [1910] 2 K. B. 229 . . [1910] W. N. 194 ; [1910] 2 ) Ch. 470 j P. C. [1910] A. 0. 598 1905 1903' 1905' 1908' [191U' Ch. [1910] [1901] 107, [1902] [1902] [1903] 1904 1904' 1905' 1905' 1 K B. 286 W. N. 207 2 KB. 258 1 Ch. 828 W. N. 189; 444 W. N. 154 W. N. 14, 7i 218 W.N. 5 W.N. 77 W. N. 58, 72 W. N. 203 W. N. 208 W. N. 82 W. N. 128 [1910] 2 ) 85, 94', ) ..) 644 2462 1449 2659 2660 1419 639 1885 1745 1749 2979 713 777 726 2036 2990 699 180 410, 529 304 103 2011 680 2892 2356 406 1966, 2736 1836 605 1972, 1974 2018 2018 1962 609 TABLE OF CASES IX THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Practice Note Practice Notice . . Pratt & Haynes : — Wallis, Sou & Wells c. Prefontaine r. Grenier . . Premier Industrial Bank, Ld. r. Carlton Manufacturing Co., Ld. and Crabtree, Ld, Press Printers, Ld. : — Howard r. Prested Miners Co., Ld. v. Cramer, Ld. Preston : — Bonnell r. . . Preston (Official Receiver as Trustee of) Cooke . . Preston : — Eex c. Preston r. Tunbridge Wells Opera House, Ld, Pretoria Pietersburg By. Co., In re Volume and Page. Column of Digest. (No. 2) Pretty & Sons : — Trace)' c. Prevost V. Prevost Price, /(( re. Price c. Newton Price : — Berwick & Co. y. Price /■. Clinton . . Price : — Jackson c. Price : — Jenkins v. Price '■. John Price >■. Maritime Insurance Co. Price V. Peurikyber Navigation Colliery Co. Price : — Price-Potliergill v. In re Potker- gill's Estate . . . . Price : — Read i\ London County Price's Patent Candle L'o. Council . I Price's Patent Candle Co.'s Trade Mark, In re. Ill re Compagnie Industrielle des Petroles' Application Price & Co. '■. Union Lighterage Co. I Price-Fothergill i\ Price. /)/ re FothergUl's i Estate . . [1907] W. N. 44 [1907] W. N. 180 C. A. [1907] W. N. 245 C. A. [1908] W. N. 75 H. L. [1909] W. N. 186 [1910] W. N. 98 C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 206 C. A. [1909] W. N. 6 . . C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 1003 P. 0. [1907] A. C. 101 [1909] 1 K. B. 106 [1904] W. N. 1.S2 : C. A. [1904] W. N. 198 [1910] W. N. 196; [1910] 2 K B. 776; 0. A. [1910] W. N. 276 . . C. A. [1908] W. ^i'. 155 [1906] W. N. 166 ; [1906] 2 Oh. 661 C. C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 568 . [1903] 2 Cb. 323 C. A. [1904] W. N. 129 ; [1904] 2 Oh. 170 [1904] W. N. 140 ; [1904] 2 Cb. 359 [1901] W. N. 17 ; [1901] ] K. B. 444 P. C. [1908] A. C. 541 [1905] W. N. 74 ; [1905] 2 Cb 55 [1905] 1 Cb. 632 [1906] W. N. 159 ; [1906] 2 Cb. 487 [1909] W. N. 262; 1 K B 143 [1907] W. N. 153 ; [1907] 2 Cb 229; C. A. [1907] W. N 226 ; [1908] 1 Cb. 10 [1905] W.N. 75; [1905] 1 Cb 744 C. A. [1901] W. N. 128 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 412 . C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 221 [1902] W. N. 215; [1903] Cb. 149 [1909] 1 E. B. 577 ; C. [1909] 2 K. B. 724,. [1908] W.N. 131; C. A. [1908] W. N. 188; [1908] 2 Cb. 526 , . ) [1907] W. N. 176 ; [19071 2 Cb.435 .. ,. [1903] 1 K. B. 750; C. A. \ [1904] W. N. 20 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 412 . . i [1902] W. N. 215 ; [1903] 1 ) Cb. 149 . . . . . 5 1982 1034 749 1555 1179 768 831 1962 2290 292 481 2017 2291 1996 233 810 1756 601 591 1667 328 2957 1752 724 1717 1358 868 1270 1600 2883 1466 1531 2688 340 2883 TABLE OF GASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. In re Shum's Tiiist Prichard : — Lloyd v. . . Prichard v. Eiohardson. Pridgeon : — Eex v. . . . . . . '. Priest ('. Last . . Priestley : — Inland Revenue Commissioners ) V. "Primus" (Aktiebolaget B. A: F. Hjorth & Co.'s Trade Mark), In re j Prince v. Hawortli Prince & Baugh, Ld., In re. Bedell v. Prince ) & Baugh, Ld. . . ) " Prince Leopold de Belgique," The " Prince Llewellyn," The . . Priugle & Co., In re. Pownall r. Pringle & ) Co. .( Printers' (Calico) Association, Ld.' : — Shirt v. Prior, In re. Ex parte Licorporated Council \ of Provincial Notaries Public of England > and Wales . . ) Prior V. Moore. In re Moore . . Prior Fibres Consolidated, Ld. : — Vinson v. . . Prison Commissioners : — Gorton Local Board V. Pritchard : — Jones r. . Pritchard : — Taylor v. . . Pritchard : — Thomas v. Proctor V. Atkinson. In re Atkinson Propert : — Eex v. Property and Estates Co. v. Erost. In re Falconer's Trusts Property Exchange, Ld. v. Wandsworth. Board of Works Prospecting (Spanish) Co., Ld., In re Prosser : — Dover v. Prosser : — Smith c. Prothero v. Lewis. Iii re Lewis Provident (Bristol, &o., Trade and) Society : — ) Gro2aiey v. . . . . . . . . j Provident (United) Assurance Co., Ld., In re Province of Ontario : — Dominion of Canada ) Provincial Bank of Ireland : — FuUerton v. . . Low Moor \ Provincial Billposting Co. Iron Co. Provincial Billposting Go. and Eddison : — Nussey v. Provincial (London and) Marine and General Insurance Co. : — Steamship New Orleans Co. V. . . Provincial Motor Cab Co. v. Dunning Provincial (National and) Bank of England | V. Perry . . . . . . ■ • ■ • j 1908] 1 Oh. 266 1904] W. N. 146 .'. 1910] W. N. 164; [1910] 2 ( K. B. 543 ) C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 148 H. L. (Ir.) [1901] W. N. 103 ; \ [1901] A. 0. 208 . . ..] [1910] W. N. 123 ; [1910] 2 \ Oh. 64 ) [1905] 2 K B. 768 [1902] W. N. 96 ; [1902] ) W. N. 120 ) [1909] P. 103 [1903] P. 83 [1903] W. N. 207 C. A. [1909] W. N. 84 ; [1909 ) 2 K. B. 51 j [1908] W. N. 193 [1901] W. N. 66 ; [1901] 1 Ch. ) 936 [1906] W. N. 209 [1904] 2 K. B. 166, u. [1908] 1 Oh. 630 [1910] W. N. 147 ; [1910] K. B. 320 [1903] 1 K B. 209 [1908] W. N. 18 ; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 129 ; [1908] 2 Oh. 307 [1910] W. N. 245 [1908] W. N. 28 ; [1908] 1 Oh. 410 C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 61 [1910] W. N. 241 [1903] W. N. 199 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 84 C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 735 [1910] W. N. 6 0. A. [1909] W. N. 58 ; [1909] 1 K. B, 901 [1910] W. N. 199; [1910] 2 Ch. 477 P. 0. [1910] A. C. 637 H. L. (Ir.) [1903] W. N. 128 ; [1903] A. 0. 309 0. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 344 C. A. [1909] W. N. 93 ; 1 Oh. 734 . . [1909] 0. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 943 [1909] 2 K. B. 599 [1909] W. N. 261 ; C. A. [1910] \ W. N. 20 ; [1910] 1 Oh, 464 j 2399 357 2273 2295 2209 2692 669 433 2608 2648 2011 1650 1820 2999 1989 839 2839 1087 841 35 2158 1946 1532 463 1849 2080 2964 2705 407 307 1754 905 277 2546 1767 2044 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Provincial Union Bank : — G-add Provincial Union Bank : — Eosefield i: . . j Provincial Union Bank, Claimants. Mour- ) mand v. Le Claire . . . . . . ) Ee venue ) ■ J Prudential Insurance Co. v. Inland Comirdssion ers Pryce-Jones v. Williams (No. 2) Pryse, In re PubKc Trustee : — Kiiilocli-Cooke v. In re Ooxwell's Trusts Public Works Commissioners : — Graham r . . PubKc Works Commissioner c Hills Puckett and Smith's Contract, In re PuUen, In re. Parker v. PuUen Pulman : — Lipman v. . Pulman v. Meadows Pulsford V. Devenisb . . Pumfrey i . Pryer. In re Heather . . Pump House Hotel Co. : — Hughes v. Punt i>. Symons & Co. - . Purcell : — Pitzhardinge (Lord) Purdey : — Eobertson ( . Purvis, In re . . Pye !'. British Automobile Commercial Syndicate, Ld. Pym V. Wilsher . . Pyman (Silburn &) : — Stirling v. Pyne, In re. Lilley r. Att.-Gen. Q. Quarries (Eival Granite), Ld. : — Evans v. . Quebec Bridge and Eailway : — Quebec Im provement Co. v. Quebec Improvement Co. i. Quebec Bridge and Eailway . , Quebec (Att.-Gen. for) e. Att.-Gen. for Ontario In re V. Brisbane City Queen's School (Chester), Queensland (Att.-Gen. for Council Volume and Page. i C. A. [1909] W. N. 126 ; [1909] ^ 2 K. B. So3 ; H. L. (E.) f [1910] W. N. 157 ; [1910] ( A. C. 422 / C. a'. [1910] W. N. 185 ; [1910] ) 2 K. B. 781 j [1903] 2 K. B. 216 . . [1904] 2 E:. B. 058 . . [1902] W. N. 125 ; [1902] 2 ( Oh. 517 I C. A. [1904] W. N. 104; [1904] P. 301 [1909] W. X. 227 ; [1910] 1 Oh. 63 [1901] 2 K. B. 781 . . P. 0. [1906] A. C. 368 C. A. [1902] W. X. 101 ; [1902] 2 Oh. 258 [1910] W. N. 60 ; [1910] 1 Oh. 564 . 1904] W. N. 139 1901] 1 Ch. 233 1903] W. N. 179 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 625 [1906] W. N. 113; [1906] 2 Ch. 230 C. A. [1902] W.N. 124; [1902] 2 K. B. 190 C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 485 [1903] W. N. 121 ; [19031 2 Ch. 606 [1908] W. N. 119 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 139 [1906] 2 Ch. 615 [1904] W. N. 47 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 373 [1906] W. N. 35; [1906] 1 K. B. 426 . . [1901] W. N. 126 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 806 . , [1910] 1 K. B. 67 [1903] 1 Ch. 83 Column of Digest. C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 979 P. C. [1908] A. C. 217 P. C. [1908] A. 0. 217 P. 0. [1910] A. 0. 627 [1910] W.N. 63; [1910] 1 Ch. ) 796 ( [1909] A. C. 582 1716 251 252 226o 2817 2068 2222 842 334 2817 2995 1829 1056 596 2886 m 1975 490 1101 1877 1568 657 2780 1725 352 426 290 290 291 373 2092 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Quick : — Conoley v. In re Delaney , . Quick : — Hartley v. . . Quicke i\ Chapman Quicke's Trusts, Jn re. Poltimore !'. Quicke Quin r. Elvet Colliery Co. Dyson v. Quin . . Quin and Axtens, Ld. : — Salmon v. Quinion v. Home Quinlan v. Quiulan Quinn V. Leathern Quinn (Seed), Morgan, &c. : — Dyson r. R. R., In re . . E. S. A. (a Debtor), In re E. Moreland & Son, Ld. : — Warncken v. Eaban v. Dering. Nottidge v. Dering Eabot V. De Silya " Eacine," Tbe EadcKffe v. Pacific Steam Navigation Co. Eadford & Bright, Ld., In re. . (No. 2) Eaeburn : — Darling v. . . Eahtken's Shipping Co. :— Whittall & Co. Eailway : — See under the well-known name of each railway. Eailway Commissioners of New South Wales : — Pacific Co-operative Steam Coal Co. v. Eailway Passengers' Assurance Co. : — Hodson !'. Eailway Servants (Amalgamated Society \ of) : — Osborne v. . . . . . . j Eailway Servants (Amalgamated Society of) ) (Parliamentary Fund Trusts), In re. [ Addison v. Pilcher . . . . . . . . ) Eailway Servants, Amalgamated Society \ of :— Taff Vale Ey. Co. v j Rainbow v. Howkins . . Volume and Page. [1902] W. N. 149 ; [1902] 2 \ Ch. 642 ) C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 359 [1902] W. N. 163 ; C. A. [1903] | W. N. 47 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 659 ) [1908] 1 Ch. 887 C. A. [1908] W. N. 26 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 629 ; H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 250 . . C. A. [1908] W. N. 254 ; C. A. [1909] ICh. 311;H.L. (B.) [1909] W. N. 123 ; [1909] A. C. 442 [1906] "W. N. 44 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 596 ) P. C. [1901] A. 0. 612 H. L. (Ir.) [1901] W.N. 170; ) [1901] A. C. 495 . . . . ( H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 250 ; ) [1909] A. C. 98 , . . . j C. A. [1906] W. N. 57 ; [1906] ) 1 Ch. 730 I 0. A. [1901] W. N. 58 ; [1901] 2 K B. 32 j C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 184 [1909] 2 Ch. 647 ; C. A. [1910] ) W. N. 41 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 297 j P. C. [1909] A. C. 376 0. A. [1906] P. 273 . . C. A. [1910] W. N. 58 ; [1910] ) 1 K B. 685 j [1901] 1 Ch. 272 [1901] W. N. 13 ; [1901] 1 Ch. ) 735 i [1906] W. N. 81 ; [1906] 1 ) K. B: 572 ; C. A. [1907] W.N. 61; [1907] 1KB. 846 j [1907] W. N. 63 ; [1907] 1 ) K. B. 783 j P. C. [1904] A. C. 796 C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 833 C. A. [1908] W. N. 251 ; \ [1909] 1 Ch. 163 ; H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 3 ; [1910] A. c. sr ; [1910] W. N. 210; [1910] 2 Ch. 547 H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 157 ; [1901] A. C. 426 [1904] 2 K B. 322 Column of Digest. 371 1592 1457 1252 770 459 2785 2283 16 770 1556 1547 1650 2415 344 2499 1631 583 583 2457 2465 1791 2008 2701 1974 2704 131 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Eaine v. Jobson & Co. Bainford v. James Keith & Blackman Co. Ram : — Herbert v. In re Baroness Llanover Eam.age : — Harrington v. '{ Eamcbund, Ex parte. In re Nepean Eamsay & Co. : — Andrews v.. . fiand (Consolidated South) Mines Deep, Ld., ) In re . . . . . . . . . . j Randall (H. E.), Ld. v. Britieb and American ( Sboe Co j Randerson : — Dickins v. Randt Gold Mining Co., In re Randt Gold Mining Co. :- Eersteling, Ld. v. -New Balkis ) .. .. ] Randt Gold Mining Co. v. Wainwright Rank, Ld. : — Leonis Steamship Co. v. . . j "Raphael" (Owners of Steamship): — ) Brandy v. . . . . . . . . ] Rapid Road Transit Co. , In re Rapps : — Gentel t . Ras Steam Shipping Co. : — Hutton c Rasoh & Co. V. Wulfert Rashleigh : — Xremayne i . Rashleigh (No. 2) : — Tremayne v. Rashleigh : — Vezey v. . . RatoKfl : — Mendelssohn v. RatolifB & Dealtry v. Mendelssohn Rathbone Brothers & Co. r. Maclver (D.), j Sons & Co ) Rattenberry, In re. Ray v. Grant . . . . j Rattenberry v. Munro Raven v. Nicholson. In re EUiott . . Raven v. Southampton Justices Ravenshear: — Coles and, In. the matter of ) an Arbitration between . . i Ravensworth, In re. Ravensworth v. Tindale j Rawlinson, In re. Hill v. Withall , . Rawson : — Rex v. . . . . . . Eawsthorne v. Rowley . . H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 134 ; [1901] A. 0. 404 . . [1905] W. N. 8; [1905] 1 Ch. 296 ; C. A. [1905] W. N. 102 ; [1905] 2 Oh. 147 . . 190/ 1907 1903 [1903' [1909" 1 Ch. 635 W. N. 137 W. N. 67 ; [1903] K. B. 794 1 ( 2 K. B. 635 W. N. 35 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 491 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 66 I [1902] 2 Ch. 354 [1901] W. N. 30 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 437 [1904] W. N. 139; [1904] 2 Ch. 468 C. A. [1903] W. N. 23 ; [1903] , 1 K. B. 461 ; H. L. (E.) ( [1904] W. N. 76 ; [1904] ( A. C. 165 ' [1901] 1 Ch. 184 [1907] 1 K. B. 344 ; C. A. j [1908] 1 K B. 499 . . . . ( C. A. [1910] W. N. 266 [1908] W. N. 222 ; [1909] 1 ) Ch. 96 . . . . ) [1901] W. N. 230 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 160 . . j C. A. [1907] W. N. 42 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 834 ) 0. A. [1903] W. N. 204 ; [1904] IK. B. 118 .. ..I [1908] W. N. 31 ; [1908] 1 Ch. ) 681 .. .. I [1908] W. N. 42 ; [1908] 1 Ch. ) 681 ... . I [1904] W.N. 64; [1904] 1 Ch. ) 634 .. .. H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 150 ; [1904] A. C. 456 . . [1901] 2 K. B. 844 ; C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 653 . . 0. A. [1903] W.N. 128; [19031 2 K. B. 378 . [1906] W. N. 27 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 667 .. 1910] W. N. 245 1910] W. N. 106 1904] 1 K. 430 C. A. [1906] W. N. 198 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 1 . . C. A. [1905] W. N. 60 : [1906] 2 Ch. 1 -' [1909] 2 Ch. 36 [1909] W. N. 190; [1909] 2 K. B. 748 . . C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 409, n. 1640 569 2380 1990 213 2036 609 500 40 413 412 486 2465 1644 2606 2709 2562 97 2401 2401 658 2623 2623 2475 2974 2637 351 1441 83 2975 2938 843 2756 TABLE OF CASES IX THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Bay V. Grant. In re Eattenberry . . Eay 0. Hazeldine Eaybould : — Eex v. Eayer, In re. Eayer v. Eayer Eayment ■«. Eayment and Stuart Eayne & Burn : — Nisbet v. . . Eayner, In re. Eayner v. Eayner . . Eayner ; — ^Anderson i. . . Eazor (Gillette Safety) Co. v. Luna Safety ) Eazoi' Co. . . . . . . . . I Eeacher : — EUiston .... Eead v. Friendly Society of Operative Stone masons of England, Ireland and Wales Eead f. Price Eeade, In the Goods of Eeader : — ^Wbitehead v. " Heading," The Eeast : — ^Noble v. Eeceiver of Metropolitan Police : — Field Eecord (Eussell Hunting) Co., In re Eed "S" Steamship Co. :— North Eastern 100 A Steamship Insurance Association v. Eed Mountain Ey. Co. : — Blue & Desohamps Eederi AktiebolagetNordstjernan :— Salvesen ' (Chr.) & Co. V Superior'' o. Dewar & Eederiactieselskabet Webb . . Eedgate, In re. Marsh v. Eedgate . . Eedman, In re. Warton v. Eedman Eednith Eural Council : — EJiuokey v. Eeed v. Great Western Ey. Co. Eees : — David v. Eees ('. Penrikyber Navigation Colliery Co. Eeeve v. Jennings Eeeve : — Lisle v. . . . . . . Eeeve v. Medway (Upper) Navigation Co. . . Eeeve : — Moreton v. . . . . . . j Eeeve v. Surrey County Council (Clerk of) . . Eeeves (Herbert) & Co., In re . ^ . . j [1906] W. N. 27; [1906] 1 Ch. 667 [1904] W. N. 112; [1904] 2 Ch. 17 C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 118 . . [1903] W. N. 19 ; [1903] 1 Oh. 685 [1910] P. 271 C. A. [1910] W. N. 194; [1910] 2 K. B. 689 . . C. A. [1904] W. N. 16 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 176 C. A. [1903] W. N. 52 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 589 [1910] W. N. 170; [1910] 2 Oh. 373 [1908] 2 Oh. 374 ; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 221, 226; [1908] 2 Ch. 665 [1902]2K. B. 88;0. A. [19021 2 K B. 732 : [1909] 1 K B. 577; C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 724 . , [1902 0. A.' 1908 1904' 1907' 1910' P. 75 1901] 2 K. B. 48 P. 162 P. 34 2 K. B. 853 . . W. N. 142 ; [1910] Ch. 78 . . [1905] W. N. 124 P. C. [1909] A. 0. 361 H. L. (Sc.) [1905] W. N. 72 ; ) [1905] A. C. 302 . . ) [1909] 1 K. B. 948; 0. A. [1909] ) W. N. 195 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 998 ) [1903] 1 Oh. 356 [1901] W. N. 136; [1901] 2 Oh. 471 [1904] 1 K. B. 382 . . H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 212 ; ) [1909] A. 0. 31 . . . . j 0. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 435 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 259 [1910] W. N. 171 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 522 C. A. [1901] W. N. 223; [1902] 1 Ch. 53; H. L. (E.) / [1902] W. N. 152 ; [1902] I A. C. 461 ; [1906] W. N. 75 C. A. [1907] W. N. 137 ; [1907] ) 2 K. B. 401 j [1905] 1 K. B. 439 0. A. [1901] W. N. 213 ; [1902] \ 1 Ch. 29 j 2974 1461 791 2988 920 1592 2936 2564 1879 2794 17 1466 2073 1592 2501 987 833 613 1271 317 2041 2470 1947 1118 1708 1626 732 1598 1109 1757 1765 1655 1845 74 ccxl TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Eefuge Assurance Co. : — Kettlewell c . . Beg. !'. Barton and Great Southern and ) Western Ey. Co. of Ireland . . . . j Reg. ('. Cockerton . . . . fieg. V. Kane Reg. V. Local Government Board Eeg. V. Marais, In re. Ex parte Marais Eeg. V. Sovvter , . Eeg. V. Stoddart. . Regent's Canal & Dock Co. : — Att.-Gen. r. . . Registrar of Titles : — Spencer v. Registrar of Titles : — Spencer c. Reid /■. Bickerstaff Eeid : — BjTne r. Eeid V. Macbeth and Graj' Eeid-Newfoundland Co. !'. Anglo-American Telegraph Co. Eeid-Newfoundland Co. v. Bay of Islands Slate Syndicate, Ld. . . Eeid-Newfoundland Co. : — Shea i'. . . Eeid (Watney), Combe & Co. :— Lord ; Llangattock v. . . . . . . < Eeigate Eural Council v. Sutton District \ Water Co. (Ewart, Third Party) . . . . J Eeigh ('. Kane. In re Partington Reis, In re. Samuel Ex parte Clough. Clough c. Eeitlinger, Third Party. Gerson r. Simpson Eelf :— Mansfield v Eendall v. Darby. In re Darby's Estate Eendell, In re. Wood v. Rendell Render : — Edmundson ( . Eennie & Son v. Ness & Co. . . Renshaw & Co., In re . . Eepetto V. Millar's Karri and Jarrah Forests Ld Eepington, In re. Wodehouse c. Soobell Eepublic of Bolivia v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Co. Restell V. Nye. Chambers v. Goldthorpe . . Reubell : — Board of Education v. In the Estate of Bryan ... Volume and Page. Column of Digest. [1907] 2 K. B. 242 ; C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 545 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 64 ; [1909] A. C. 243 H. L. (L) [1902] W. N. 90 ; [1902] A. C. 268 . . [1901] 1 K. B. 322; C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 726 . . [1901] 1 K. B. 472 . . C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 210 . . P. C. [1902] A. C. 51 . . [1901] 1 K. B. 66 ; 0. A. [1901] W. N. 11; [1901] 1 K. B. 396 [1901] 1 K. B. 177 [1903] 2 K. B. 80 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 3; [1904] 1 K. B. 263 P. C. [1906] A. C. 503 P. C. [1908] A. C. 235 C. A. [1909] W. N. 132 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 305 C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 735 H. L. (Sc.) [1904] W. N. 60; [1904] A. C. 223 . . P. C. [1910] A. C. 560 H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 185 P. C. [1908] A. C. 520 H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 103 i [1910] A. C. 394 . [1908] W. N. 120 ; C. A. [1909] i W. N. 28 [1902] W. N. 50 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 711 I [1904] W. N. 22 ; [1904] 1 ' K. B. 451 ; C. A. [1904] , W. N. 116; [1904] 2 K. B. ' 769 ;H.L.(E.) [1905] W.N. ' 130 ; [1905] A. C. 442 C. A. [1903] W. N. 1 16 ; [1903] ) 2 K. B. 197 . . C. A. [1907] W. N. 235 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 71 . . , I 1907] 2 Oh. 465 1901] 1 Oh. 230 1905] W. N. 121 ; [1905] 2 ) Ch. 320 . . H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 122 . [1908] W. N. 210 [1901] 2 K. B. 306 [1904] W. N. 88 ; [1904] 1 Oh. ) 811 ... 1 C. A. [1909] W. N. 34 ;' [1909] 1 K. B. 785 . . 0. A. [1901] W. N. 51 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 624 . . [1906] P. 88 1264 2309 823 1928 1777 978 1125 2258 136 137 2795 1864 2285 1813 655 1813 1428 1107 2349 182 517 1374 1732 1048 2610 1035 450 2452 2253 1272 274 2705 TABLE OF GAHES IN THE DIGEST. ccxli Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Reversiona];y and General Securities Co. v. Hall. In re Beard. Beard v. Hall. In re Beard . . Reversionary Interest Society, Ld. : — Fulford V. In re Loom Eex V. Abrahams. Solicitor of Board of Trade v. Abrahams .. • Eex : — AJgoma Central Ry. Co. u. . . Rex (I. Atterley Rex V. Audley . . Rex V. Baines Eex V. Barraclough Rex V. Bartholomew Rex V. Bath (Recorder of) Rex V. Beer Rex V. Beesby . . Rex V. Benson . . Rex V. Best Rex V. Birmingham County Court Judge Rex V. Blake Rex : — BlundeU v. Bex V. Board of Education Rex V. Bond Eex V. Bradford Eex V. Brailsford Rex V. Bridgwater Rex V. Briggs Rex V. Bright . . Rex V. Brixton Prison (Governor of). Ex | parte Calberla Rex V. Brixton Prison (Governor parte Percival Eex V. Brixton Prison (Governor parte Van Der Auwera Eex :'■ — Bruhn v. Rex V. Bull Rex V. Cable Rex : — Calgary and Edmonton Ry. Co Eex V. Canterbury (Archbishop of) . . Rex V. Canterbury (Archbishop of) . . Eex : — Carmack v. Eex V. Carson Eoberts . . Eex V. Carter Eex V. Chandra Dharma Rex V. Chapman D.D. [1908] W. N. 18 ; [1908] W. N. ) 383 I [1910] 2 Ch. 230 [1904] 2 [1904] W. N. 159 K. B. 859 P. C. [1903] A. C. 478 C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 251 . C. C. R. [1907] W. N. 9 [1907] 1 K. B. 383 . . [1908] W. N. 238 ; [1909] K. B. 258 C. C. R. [1905] W. N. 166 [1906] 1 K. B. 201 . . 0. C. E. [1908] W. N. 20 [1908] 1 K. B. 554 . . [1904] 2 E. B. 570 . . [1903] 2 K. B. 693 . . [1909] W. N. 62; [1909] K. B. 849 C. C. E. [1908] W. N. 122 [1908] 2 K B. 270 . . C. C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 692 [1902] 2 K. B. 283 C. 0. A. [1910] W. N. 123 [1905] 1 K. B. 516 [1909] 2 K. B. 1045 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 110 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 165 C. 0. E. [1906] W. N. 138 [1906] 2 K. B. 389 . . [1908] W. N. 14; [1908] 1 K. B. 365 [1905] 2 K B. 730 . . C. 0. R. [1905] 1 K. B. 131 . C. C. A. [1908] W. N. 244 [1909] 1 K. B. 381 . . C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 85 [1907] 2 K. B. 861 . . [1907] 1 K B. 696 [1907] W. N. E. B. 157 88; [1907] 2 P. 0, P. G [1906 1909] A. C. 317 1903] A. C. 158 W. N. 82; [1906] K. B. 719 P. 0. [1904] A. C. 765 C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 289 [1902] W. N. 52; [1902] K. B. 503 P. C. [1904] A. C. 127 [1907] W. N. 114; [1907] 2) K. B. 878 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 9 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 407 ) [1907] 1 K. B. 298 0. C. R. [1905] 2 K. B. 335 . . C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 131 . . 2911 2941 2519 320 827 818 812 871 1162 1460 695 834 818 807 759 791 879 2310 783 1157 647 809 787 800 1063 1064 1062 2628 2832 843 318 2602 1565 310 1481 1430 806 813 ccxlii TABLE Oi? CASE8 IN THE UiUEBT. Name of Case, Volume and Page. Colnmn of Digest, Eex : — Chappelle v. . . Eex V. Ohesliire Licensing Justices. Ex ] parte Kays Atlas Brewery, Ld. . . \ Eex V. Ohitsou . . Eex V. City of London Assessment Committee Eex V. Clerkenwell (Q-eneral Commissioners of Taxes for) . . Eex V. Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax. Ex parte University College of North Wales Eex V. Connali's Quay Overseers Eex V. Connor . . Eex V. Cornwall Justices Eex V. Oostello and Bishop Eex V. Court West . . Ex parte Sekgome E«x V. Cox. Ex parte Eex V. Crewe (Earl o^ Eex V. Crippen . . Eex V. Orossley . . Eex V. Davidson Eex V. Davies Eex V. Davies Eex V. Daye Eex V. Deaville (Albert). Eex v. Deaville (John). Eex v. Simpson Eex V. De Mamy Eex V. Derbyshire Justices. Ex parte New Mills Urban Council Eex V. Dibdin . . Eex V. Dickinson. Ex parte Davis Eex V. Dodds Eex V. Dover (Mayor of) Eex V. Dr. Tristram Eex V. Drinkwater (Wincott's Case) Eex V. Duguid . . Eex V. Dunleavey Eex V. Dyson Eex V. Elliott Eex V. Elliott Eex V. Ellis Eex V. Essex Justices Eex V. Ettridge. . Eex : — Faulkner v. Eex V. Fisher Eex V. Fisher . . P. C. [1904] A. 0. 127 [1906] W. N. 18; [1906] 1 K. B. 362 0. C. A. [1909] W. N. 192 ; ) [1909] 2 K. B. 945 . . . , ) C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 764 C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 879 [1908] W. N. 92 W. N. 57 C. A. [1909] ) [1901] 2 K. B. 174 0. C. E. [1908] 2 K, B. 26 . . [1903] W. N. 106 ; [1903] 2 ( K. B. 178 ] C. C. A, [1909] W. N. 210 ; 1 ( K. B. 28 ) C. C. E. [1905] 2 K B. 335 . . [1905] 2 K. B. 478 . C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 576 C. C. A. [1910] W. N, 243 . , C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 18 ; / [1909] 1 jr. B. 411 .. . . I 0. C, A. [1909] W. N. 52 [1905] W. N. 176 ; [1906] 1 \ E. B. 32 j C. 0. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 892 . . [1908] W. N. 112 ; [1908] 2 \ K. B. 333 ( C. C. E. [1903] 1 K. B. 468 . . C. C. E. [1907] W. N. 10; [1907] 1 K. B. 388 . . [1909] W. N. 26; [1909] 1 K. B. 449 I C. A. [1909] W. N. 258 ; [1910] ) P. 57 ) [1910] 1 K. B. 469 . . C. A. [1905] 2 E. B, 40 [1903] 1 K. B. 668 [1901] 2 K B. 141 ; C. A. ( [1902] 1 K. B. 816 . . . I [1905] 2 K. B. 469 . . C. 0. E. [1906] W. N. 100 C. 0. A. [1908] W. N. 245 ; ) [1909] 1 K. B. 200 . . C. C. A. [1908] W. N. 142 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 454 . . . ) C. C. A. [1908] W. N. 141; ) [1908] 2 KB. 462.. .. ) [1909] W. N. 118 . . C. 0. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 746 . . [1901] W. N. 231; [1902] 1) K. B. 180 ... ( 0. 0. A. [1909] W. N. 67'; [1909] 2 K. B. 24 . . [1905] 2 K B. 76 P. C. [1903] A. C. 158 C. 0. A. [1909] W. N. 252 ; ) [1910] IK. B. 149.. .. 310 1424 808 2150 2246 2232 284 805 2140 833 806 1436 1144 794 795 799 649 796 2647 1131 826 1922 1002 820 1442 692 1007 1442 646 796 786 802 814 2138 801 824 2832 813 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. ccxliii Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Eex V. French . . Bex V. Fulham Guardians Eex V. Garland . . Rex V. Garrett . Eex V. Gillespie Rex V. Glamorgan Justices . . Rex V. Goldberg Eex V. Governor of Brixton Prison. Ex part Savarkar Eex V. Governor of H.M. Prison at Stafford Ex parte Emery Rex V. Grimwade Eex V. Groom. Ex parte Cobbold Eex V. Hadwen and Ingham Eex V. Hale Eex V. Halkett . . Eex i;. Hamilton Eex V. Hankey . . Rex : — Harvey v. Rex V. Hausmann Rex V. Howard . . Rex I-. Humphris Rex V. Hunter . . Rex V. Hutchinson Rexr. Hutton. jEk ^arie Metropolitan Water Board . . Eex V. Inland Revenue Commissioners Eex V. Inland Revenue Oommissioners. Ex parte Silvester Rex V. Ireland . . Rex V. James and Johnson Eex V. James (Judge) and Midland Ey. Co Ex parte Bath Eural Council Eex : — Johnson v. Rex V. Johnson . . Rex V. Johnson . . Rex V. Johnstone Eex 1'. Joiner Eex V. Jones Eex V. Jones Eex V. Keating . . Eex V. Kent Justices [on appeal from sub nom. Tonbridge Urban District Council V. Tonbridge Rural District Council] Rex V. Kettle. Ex parte Ellis Eex 1). Kinghorn. [1902] 1 K. B. 637 [1909] 2 K. B. 504 0. C. A. [1909] W. N. 252; [1910] 1 K. B. 154 . . C. A. [1907] W.N. 43; [1907]) 1 K. B. 881 I [1904] W. N. 12 ; [1904] 1 ) K. B. 174 J [1910] 1 K. B. 861 . . [1904] W. N. 154 ; [1904] 2 ) K. B. 866 ) C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 1056 . . [1909] W. N. 95; [1909] 2) K. B. 81 [1905] 1 K. B. 50, n. . [1901] 2 K. B. 157 . . C. 0. E. [1902] W. N. 88 [1902] 1 K. B. 882 . . C. A. [1905] 1 K B. 126 [1909] W. N. 205 ; [1916] K. B. 50; [1901] W. N. 78; [1901] K. B. 740 [1906] 2 K. B. 687 . . P. C. [1901] A. C. 601 C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 198 . C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 363 C. C. R. [1904] 2 K. B. 89 . [1902] 2 K. B. 255; 0. A [1903] W. N. 38 ; [1903] 1 K. B.514; H. L. (E.)[1904] W. N. 66 ; [1904] A. 0. 161 0. C. R. [1905] 2 K. B. 335 . . [1907] W. N. 163; [1907] 2 K. B. 578 . . [1910] 1 K. B. 851 . . [1906] W. N. 216 ; [1907] K. B. 108 . . C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 35 C. C. E. [1902] W. N. 27 [1902] 1 K. B. 540 [1908] 1 K. B. 958 P. C. [1904] A. C. 817 [1905] 2 K. B. 59 0. C. A. [1909] W. N. 19 [1909] 1 K. B. 439 . . [1906] W. N. f7; [1906] K. B. 228 C. C. A. C. 0. A. C. 0. A. C. 0. A. 1910 1909 1910' 1910 W. N. 43 W. N. 218 W. N. 259 W. N. 198 [1904] W. N. 113 ; [1904] 2 K.B.349;O.A.[1904]W.N 203 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 378 [1905] 1 K. B. 212 [1908] W. N. 204 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 949 . . 1325 1560 825 1516 2158 1431 2619 1143 828 1442 1424 811 806 1329 817 1771 345 798 1439 806 2242 806 2847 1431 1897 827 825 1164 2573 1427 792 1439 822 811 790 799 1154 832 148 q2 ccxliv TABLE OF TAISES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Eex i: Kirkham Eex V. Laitwood Hex V. Lawson . . Eex V. Leeds Justices . . Rex V. Leeds Justices . . Rex : — Leigh Urban Council v. Bex V. Lewis Rex V. Lewis Eex V. Lines Eex V. Linneker Rex V. Lloyd Rex V. Local Government Board. Ex parte South. Stoneham Union. Local Govern- .ment Board v. South Stoneham Union Rex : — Local Government Board for Ireland v, Eex V. Locke Rex V. London County Council. Ex parte \ Norris . . . . .1 Rex V. London County Justices Rex V. London Justices. Ex parte South \ Metropolitan Gas Co. . . I Rex V. Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's | Treasury . . . . . . j Rex V. Louw. Ex parte Att.-Gen. for the ) Cape of Good Hope , . . . j Eex V. Lynch Eex : — Malkin r. Rex V. Marsham. Ex parte Chamberlain Eex V. Marylebone Countj' Court Judge and I Great "Western Ey. Co. Ex parte Phillips & Co / Eex V. Mead Eex V. Meade . . . . Eex V. Melladew . . Eex V. Middlesex Justices. Union . . . . Eex V. Moon (Emily) '. . Rex V. Moon (Frederick) Eex V. Morse Eex V. Mortimer Eex V. Mouutford. Ex parte London United Tramways (1901), Ld Rex V. Murray , , Rex : — Nelson t'. Rex V. Norfolk County Council Eex V. Norfolk Justices. Ex parte Wayland Union . . Ex partey^slssW Volume and Page. C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 141 . . 0. C. A. [1910] W. N. 122 .. C. C. R. [1905] 1 K. B. 341 [1906] W. N. 204 C. A. [1906] W. N. 134 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 501 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 195; [1907] A. C. 420 [1901] 1 K. B. 747 . . [1906] 2 K. B. 307 . . C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 128 . . [1901] W. N. 251 ; C. C. R. [1902] 1 K. B. 199 . . C. 0. R. [1906] 2 E. B. 99 . . [1905] W. N. 165 ; [1906] 1 KB.22;C. A. [1906]W. N. 66 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 552 C. A. [1908] W. N. 96 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 368; H. L. (B.) [1908] W. N. 241; [1909] A. C. 57 H. L. (Ir.) [1903] W. N. 149 ; [1903] A. C. 402 [1910 [1906; C. A. 2 K. B. 201 . . W. N. 17 ; [1906] K. B. 346 ;i903] 2 K. B. 19 [1907] W. X. 200 [1909] 2 K. B. 183 P. 0. [1904] A. C. 412 [1903] 1 K. B. 444 . . [1906] 2 K. B. 886 . . [1907] W. N. 163 ; [1907] 2 < K. B. 638 I [1906] 2 K. B. 426 ; C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 664; H. L. (E.) / [1908] W. N. 35, 40 ; [1908] 1 A. C. 101 . . . , ' [1902] 2 K B. 212 0. C. A. [1909] W. N. 62 ; ) [1909] 1 K. B. 895 . . j 0. A. [1907] W. N. 6 ; [1907] ) 1 K B. 192 . . 1 [1906] 2 K B. 365 ; C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 581 . . ( C. 0. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 818 . ' C. C. A. [1910] IK. B. 818.. [1904] W. N. 114 0. C. A. [1910] W. N. 210 . . [1906] 2 K. B. 814 . 0. C. R. [1906] W. N. 122 ; ( [1906] 2 K B. 385 , . i P. 0. [1902] A. C. 260 [1901] 2 K. B. 268 [1909] 1 K. B. 463 . . Column of Digest. 795 785 825 1442 1437 1161 2537 803 1122 827 755 1917 2141 692 I486- 1440 1321 1914 333 835 1430 1768 2136 1328 786 2160 1926 1234 1234 1161 241 1414 825 1295 2867 1923 'l*ABLi5 OF CASES TN THE DlftEST. ccxlv Name of Case. Eex V. Norton . . Eex V. Oliphant Eex V. Osborne . . Eex V. Otto Monsted, Ld. Eex V. Owen Eex v. Palin Eex : — ^Palmes v. In re Palmes Eex V. Parke Eex V. Payne . . Eex v. Payne . . Eex V. Peufold . . Eex : — Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navi- gation Co. V. Eex V. PeiTy E«x V. PMlbrick. Ex parte Edwards Eex V. Pike Eex V. Pinckney Eex V. Plowden Eex V. Plummer Eex v. Porter Eex V. Preston . . Eex V. Pridgeon Eex V. Propert . . Eex V. Eawson . . Eex V. Eaybould Eex V. Eichards Eex. V. Eiohardson Eex : — ^Eiddif ord v. Eex V. Eoberts . . Eex V. Eouse Eex V. Eowland . . Eex V. Eowlands Eex V. Eowlands. Ex "parte Beesley Eex V. Salisbury (Bishop) Eex V. Selfe Eex V. Shann . . Volume and Page. Eex V. Sharpcote Eex V. Shoreditch. Assessment Committee. \ Ex parte Morgan . . . . . . . . ) Eex V. Simpson . . Eex V. Slater . . . . . i Eex V. Smith . . [1910; W. N. 164 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 543 [1910] W. N. 245 [1909] W. N. 190; [1909] 2 K. B. 748 . . 0. 0. A. [1909] W. N. 118 0. 0. A. [1910] W. N. 268 . . [1909] W. N. 172 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 851 . . P. 0. [1905] A. 0. 147 [1901] W. N. 87; [1901] K. B. 117 . . C. C. E. [1904] 1 E. B. 184 0. 0. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 458 "1906] 2 E. B. 292 1910] 2 K B. 930 . . 1901] W. N. 34; [1901] 1 E. B. 573 ; 0. A. [1901] 2 E. B. 225 [1908] 2 E. B. 121 , . [1910] 1 E. B. 10 ; C. A. [1910] ) W.N. 113; [1910] 2 K. B. 418 j 0. C. A. [1909] W. N. 218 0. A. [1910] 2 E. B. 859 C. 0. E. [1903] 1 E. B. 468 0. 0. E. [1905] 2 E. B. 335 0. 0. A. [1909] W. N. 236 C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 162 [1910] 2 E. B. 496 . . C. C. E. [1905] 2 E. B. 67 0. 0. E. [1905] 1 E. B. 651 [1906] W. N. 143 ; [1906] E. B. 456 [1902] 2 E. B. 436 . . [1906] W. N. 162 ; 0. C. E [1906] 1 E. B. 7 . , [1901] W. N. 146 [1903] 2 E. B. 432 P. 0. [1902] A. 0. 552 C. 0. E. [1906] 1 E. B. 97 0. C. E. [1902] W. N. 28 [1902] 1 E. B. 547 . . [1901] 2 E. B. 686 . . C. 0. A. [1909] W. N. 154 [1909] 2 E. B. 697 . . [1906] 2 E. B. 108 . . C. C. E. [1902] W. N. 27 [1902] 1 E. B. 552 . . 0. A. [1904] W. N. 68 ; [1904] ) 2 E. B. 84 * [1909] W. N. 87 ; [1909] E. B. 269 0. 0..E. [1902] W. N. 126 [1902] 2 E. B. 339 . . 0. 0. A. [1910] W. N. 5 [1910] 1 E. B. 369 . . C. 0. A. [1909] 1 E. B. 568 Column of Digest. 802 816 809 45 1686 814, 815 1040 681 2832 824 804 2662 808 759 807 1145 1768 647 646 810 2273 2158 843 791 823 1204 1808 2874 809 831 1490 1486 979 756 1449 798 2168 1131 806 801 ccxivi TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Hex V. Smith. Eex «. Weston Eex V. Smith. Eex v. Wilson Eex V. Snagge . . Eex V. Solomons Eex V. Somers . . Eex V. Southampton Justices . . Eex V. Southampton Licensing Justices. Ex parte Oardy Eex V. Southwark Assessment Committee . . Eex V. Special Commissioners for Purposes of Income Tax. Ex parte University College of North Wales Eex V. SpratKng Eex V. Stepney Corporation . . Eex V. Stride and MiUard Eex V. Sunderland Justices Eex V. Surrey County Court Judge Eex V. Thompson Eex V. Surrey Justices . . Eex V. Tate Eex V. Taylor Eex V. Tewkesbury Justices Eex V. Thompson Eex V. Thompson Eex V. Tibhits . . Eex V. Tides well Eex V Tolhurst. Ex parte Farrell Eex V. Tristram (Dr.) . . Eex V. Tui'ner Eex V. Turner . . Eex : — Tweed v. Eex V. Vasey and Lally Eex V. Waller Eex V. Walsall Justices Eex ■!'. Warwickshire Justices Eex V. Watkins . . Eex V. West Eaud Central Gold Mining Co. v. Eex V. West Eiding of Yorkshire County Council. Ex parte Att.-Gen. and the Board of Education . . Eex V. West Eiding Justices . . Eex V. Westminster (High Bailiff of). parte London County Council Eex V. Weston. Eex v. Smith Eex V. White Ex) Volume and Page. Column of Digest. C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 210 ; / [1910] 1 K. B. lY . . . . ( [1909] 2 K. B. 766 . . C. A. [1909] W. N. 42 ; [1909] ( 1 K. B. 644 j C. C. A. [1909] 2 K B. 980 . . [1906] 1 K. B. 326 [1906] W. N. 54 ; [1906] 1 ] K B. 505 j [1906] W. N. 18 ; [1906] 1 / K. B. 446 j C. A. [1909] W. N. 4 ; [1909] 1 K B. 274 ( [1908] W. N. 92 ; C. A. [1909] | W. N. 57 ) C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 216 [1902] 1 K. B. 317 . C. C. E. [1908] W. N. 20 ; [1908] 1 K B. 617 C. A. [1901] W. N. 122 [1901] 2K. B. 357.. [1910] 2 K. B. 410 C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 2 [1910] 1 K B. 640.. [1908] W. N. 16; [1908] K. B. 374 . . C. C. A. [1908] 2 K B. 680 '1908 1903' 1909' 2 E:. B. 237 1 K. B. 39 W. N. 150 ; [1909] 2 ) K. B. 614 . . I C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 27 ; I [1910] 1 K. B. 640 . . ) C. C. E. [1902] 1 K. B. 77 . . C. C. E. [1905] 2 K. B. 273 . . [1905] 2 K. B. 478 . . [1901] 2 K B. 141 ; C. A. ) [1902] 1 K. B. 816.. ,. ) C. 0. E. [1904] 1 K. B. 181 . C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 242 ; ) [1910] 1 K. B. 346 . . ) P. C. [1904] A. 0. 127 C. C. E. [1905] W. N. 150 ; ] [1905] 2 K. B. 748 . . ) C. C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 364 . . [1910] 2 K. B. 210 . [1902] 2 K. B. 101 C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 169 [1905] 2 K. B. 391 . , [1906] W. N. 142 ; 0. A. [19061 W. N. 182 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 676 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 29 [1904] W. N. ' 41 ; [1904] ' 1 K. B. 545 [1903] 2 K. B. 189 0. C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 17 C. 0. A. [1910] W. N. 122 [1910] 2 K. B. 124 788 795 758 816 1163 1434 1450 2153 2232 797 1496 819 1426 768 811 1165 787 1069 2139 1330 1330 648 826 1436 1007 235 789 310 1084 791 1444 1319 836 1905 2310 1433 1433 789 788 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. ccxlvii Name of Case. Volume and Page. Eex V. Whiteliorne (His Honour Judge) . . ! Rex V. Wilkins . , Eex : — ^WinanB v. . . . . . . < Eex V. Woodcock Eex V. Woodhouse (Leeds Justices) . . . . , Eex V. Wraith. Ex parte Kent County ) Oounoil . . ) Eex V. Wyatt Eex : — ^Yeoman v. Eex V. Yorkshire (West Biding) Justices . . , Eex V. Yorkshire (West Eiding) Justices. ) Ex parte. Broadbent . . . . . . j Bex V. Yorkshire (West Eiding) Justices. ) Ex parte Shackleton . . . . . . ) Bey V. Lecoutuiier . . . . I Eeynolds v. Ashby & Son, Ld. Eeynolds v. Barnes Eeynolds v. Ellis. In re Banks Eeynolds : — Lawsou v. Eeynolds : — Nightingale v. Eeynolds : — Plympton St. Mary Eural ] Council V. Ehodes : — Capital and Counties Bank, Ld. v. Rhodes : — Hudson v. . . Ehodes : — Madden v. . . Ehodes v. Soothill Wood CoUiery Co. Ehodesia Consolidated, Ld. : — Brailey v. Ehodesia Goldfields Ld., In re. Partridge ) /'. Ehodesia Goldfields, Ld. . . ) Rhodesian Properties Ld., Jn re Ehondda Urban Council v. Taff Vale Ry. Co. Ehondda Urban Council (Att-Geu; and) v. Pontypridd Waterworks Co. [1904] W. N. 51; [1904] 1 K. B. 827 [1907] 2 K. B. 380 0. A. [1908] W. N. 76 ; [1908] \ 1 K. B. 1022 ; H. L. (E.) ( [1909] W. N. 249 ; H. L. (E) [1910] A. C. 27 . . ,' [1907] W. N. 105; [1907] 2 K. B. 104 C. A. [1906] W. N. 134 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 501 ; H. L. ( (E.) [1907] W. N. 195 ; [1907] A. 0. 420 J [1907] W. N. 170 ; [1907] 2 ) K. B. 756 I 0. C. E. [1904] 1 K. B. 188 . . C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 429 [1908] W. N. 109 ; C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 635 ; H. L. f (E.) [1909] W.N. 82; [1909] l A. 0. 247 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 192 . . [1910] W. N. 23 ; [1910] 1 ) K. B. 439 ( 0. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 715 H. L. (E.) [1910] W.N. 79; [1910] A. C. 262 C. A. [1902] W. N. 218 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 87 ; H. L. (B.) [1904] W. N. 166 ; [1904] A. C. 466 [1909] 2 Ch. 361 [1902] W. N. 129 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 333 [1904] W. N. 68 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 718 [1902] W. N. 108; [1902] 2 Ch.ll7; C. A. [1903] W. N. 108 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 236 . . [1909] 1 K. B. 768 [1902] W. N. 94 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 45 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 631 [1908] W. N. 224; [1909] 1 K. B. 85 [1906] W. N. 60; [1906] 1 K. B. 534 C. A. [1908] W. N. 252 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 191 [1910] W. N. 123; [1910] 2 Ch. 95 [1910] W. N. 7 ; [1910] 1 Oh. 239 [1901] W. N. 130 [1907] 1 K. B. 739; 0. A. [1907] W. N. 256 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 239 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 91 ; [1909] A. C. 263 [1908] W. N. 11; [1908] 1 Ch. 388 Column of Digest. 761 1325 2210 2612 1437 2307 :808 2462 2462 2301 1769 2680 1089 1211 2402 1318 1753 1496 1699 2161 5703 1672 630, 616 422 498 2102 2864 Iviii TABLK OK CAMOS IK THE l)T(iEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Rhondda Valley Breweries Co. ( . Pontypridd Union Assessment Committee Khymney Iron Co. : — Brewer v. Ehymney Iron Co. : — Wlieale v. Jones v. Ehymuey Iron Co. Ayres r, Buokeridge Eioe : — Butler v. ... Hice : — Noakes & Co. > . Eiohard : — Molyneux r. Richard and Great Western Ry. Co., In re . Richard Mills & Co. (Brierly Hill) Ld., In re. Smith V. The Co. " Biohardes v. Yates. In re Belham . . Richards, In re. Ex, parte Deeping . . Richards, In re. Davies /'. Edwards Richards, In re. Lawsou v. Harvej' . . Richards, In re. Uglow ;■. Richards Richards : — Behrens p. . . I Richards v. De Winton. Richards r.. Evans Richards Richards Richards -Launder r. [n re Launder -Rex i'. -Shields, Whiteley and District Amalgamated Model Building Society Richards : — WilHams v. Parry v. Holmes Richardson r. Richard Richardson, In Richardson, In son Richardson : — Baudains c. Richardson v. Grraham . . Richardson v. Le Maitre Richardson : — Marreco v. Richardson : — Pearks, Gunston & Tee, Ld, Richardson : — Pritchard c. In re Shum's -) Trust . . Richardson :- -Rex V. Richardson : — St. Thomas's Hospital (Gov ernors of) i;., . . Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Co. Owners of SS. " Cape Breton " . . Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Co. Taylor. . Richings : — Lavell c. . . " Richmond," The C. A. [1909] W. N. 29 : [1909] 1 K. B. 652 [1910] 1 Ch. 766 0. A. [1901] W. N. 222 ; C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 57 . [1910] W. N. 143 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 277 H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 247; [1902] A. C. 24 [1905] W. N. 164; [1906] 1 Ch. 34 C. A. [1904] W. N. 192 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 68 . [1905] W. N. 36 C. A. [1901] W. N. 80 ; [1901] 2 Oh. 52 [1907] W. N. 79 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 33 [1910] W. N. 131 ; [1910] 2 ] CIj. 74 ' [1901] W. X. 148 ; [1901] 2 \ Ch. 399 ' [1901] W. N. 216 ; [1902] 1 , Oh. 76 I [1905] 2 Ch. 614 [1901] W. N. 146; [1901] 2 Oh. 666 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. ( 113; [1903] W. N. 37; ( [1903] 1 Ch. 507 . . . . ; [1908] W. N. 49 C. C. A. [1910] W, N. 268 . . [1901] W. N. 106 [1907] W. N. 90, 92 ; [1907] 2 ) K. B. 88 . . . , 1 [1904] 1 Ch. 332 [1904] W. N. 169; [1904] Ch. 777 . . P. 0. [1906] A. C. 169 C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 39 [1903] W. N. 191 ; [1903] 2 / Ch. 333 . . I 0. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 584 [1901] W. N. 226; [1902] 1 K. B. 91 [1904] W.N. 146 .. [1909] W. N. 172 ; [1909] / 2 K. B. 851 . . . . .1 0. A. [1910] 1 K B. 271 P. 0. [1907] A. 0. 112 P. 0. [1910] A. C. 170 [1906] W. N. 47 ; [1906] 1 , K. B. 480 . . -^ [1902] W. N. 204 ['. 2151 1706 1613 1744 1757 276 2121 575 1056 227 2965 1055 2882 2724 394 2021 823 764 964 850 2386 1299 1462 90 1466 45 357 1204 1374 321 293 908 2515 Table of cases in the digest. ccxli^ Name of Case. 0. 1) :- ( Eichmond and Gordon (Duke of) (Ni Att.-Gen. Eichmond, Gordon and Lennox (Duke of) ) (No. 2) :— Att.-Gen. v ) Eiokaby v. Eickaby Eiokai'd v. Graham Eickards : — Sharp v. Eioketson : — Oook v. . . Eickett V. Green Eickett V. Green Eickett V. Eickett. In re Sharp Eicketts v. Enfield Churchwardens Eickman : — John Hall, Junr. & Oo. Eidd V. Thome . . Eiddell : — Gillespie r Eiddiford v. Eex Eidley, In re. Eidley v. Eidley Eidley : — Nicholas v. . . Eidley : — Uppei-ton v. . . Eidout V. Fowler ( Eieken v. Yorke Peninsula Justices. Keam ) V. Adelaide Licensing Justices , , i Eighy & Oo. v. Cox (No. 2) Eiggs, In re. Ex parte Lovell. Ex parte The Trustee Eighton : — Hadwell v.. . Eigler : — Burden v. . . Bileys, Ld., In re. Harper v. Eileys, Ld. . Eimmer v. Webster Eisdon L-on and Locomotive Works v. Pur- ness Eising, In re. Eising v. Eising Eitohie & Son : — Hoare v. Eival Granite Quarries, Ld. : — Evans v. Biver Boden Co. v. Urban District Council of Barking Town ( Volume and Page. [1907 ; 2 K. B. 923 ; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 165; [1908] 2 K. B. 729; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 185; [1909] A. C. 466 [1907] 2 K. B. 940 . . C. A. [1901] W. N. 45 ; [1901] P. 134 [1910] W. N. 86; [1910] Oh. 722 [1908] W. N. 234 ; [1909] 1 ] Oh. 109 P. C. [1901] A. 0. 588 [1910] 1 K. B. 253 Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 262 [1910] IK. B. 253.. [1906] 1 Oh. 793 [1909] W. N. 43 ; [1909] 1 Oh, 544 [1906] 1 K. B. 311 . . [1902] W. N. 110; [1902] 2 Oh. 344 H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W. N. 219 [1909] A. 0. 130 . . P. 0. [1905] A. 0. 147 [1904] W. N. 147 ; [1904] 2 ) Oh. 774 j [1903] W. N. 49 ; C. A. [1904] ) 1 Oh. 192 0. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 384 H. L. (B.) [1903] W. N 104; [1903] A. 0. 281 [1904] W. N. 39 ; [1904] 1 Oh, 658; 0. A. [1904] W. N. 128 ; [1904] 2 Oh. 93 P. C. [1908] A. 0. 454 0. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 358 [1904] W. N. 101; [1902] 2 K. B. 208 [1901] W. N. 81 ; [1901] 2 K B. 16 [1907] W. N. 130; [1907] 2 K. B. 345 . . [1910] W. N. 279 [1903] W. N. 135; [1903] Oh. 590 [1902] W. N. 86 ; [1902] 2 Oh 163 [1905] W. N. 12 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 304 ; C. A. [1906] 1 \ K. B. 49 ) [1904] W. N. 33 ; [1904] 1 Oh. ) 533 j [1901] W. N. 18 ; [1901] 1 ) K. B. 434 ) 0. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 979 [1902] W. N. 86 ; 0. A. [1902] ) W. N. 108 J Column of Digest. 2206 2213 2213 1008 1759 1795 1390 1390 2750 1361 2250 2607 2324 1808 1056 1739 1914 2809 138 1680 1683 1364 2723 1695 406 2039 472 472 1668 426 1402 ccl TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. River Plate Steamship Co. and Koyal Mail ) Steamship Packet Co., In re River Wear Commissioners: — Bede Steam- ship Co. V. Rivers v. Waidanis. In re Waidanis . . ! Rivers (West Riding of Yorkshire) Board : — ( Butterworth v. . . ) Rivers (West Riding of Yorkshire) Board v. ] Robinson Brothers . , . . , . . . ) Riversdale : — Poole i'. In re Sta-well's Trust Rivington v. Garden Road Block Gold Mines of India, Ld. : — Pedlar v. Road (London) Car Co. : — Willmott v. Road (Rapid) Transit Co., In re "Roanoke," The Robarts, Lubbock & Co. : — Outhbert r. ■■{ Robbins, In re. Robbins u. Legge . . Robbins v. Alexander. In re Samson . . ! Robbins v. Whyte . . j Robert : — Montreal and St. La'wrence Light ) and Power Co. v. . . . . . . . . ) Robert Green, Ld. : — Hoare v. Robert Maoandrew & Co. : — Internationale ) Guano en Superphosphaatwerken v. \ Roberts, In re. Percival v. Robei'ts . . Roberts, In re. Roberts v. Roberts . . Roberts, In re. Roberts v. Roberts . . Roberts v. Att.-Gen. In re Johnson Roberts v. Brennan Roberts : — Carter v. . . (No. 2) :— Carter v. Roberts v. Charing Cross, Euston and Hamp stead Ry. Co. . . Roberts : — Commissioner of Police v. Roberts : — De Romaha r. Roberts v. Breaut Roberts : — Harbottle Roberts v. Harrison Roberts : — Josolyne r. Roberts : — Rex r. (Peel, Claimant) Roberts (Carson) : — Rex v. [1910] 1 K B. 600 . . C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 310 . . [1907] W. N. 213 ; [1908] 1 ) Ch. 123 I H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 45 . C. A. [1907] W. N. 19; [1907 ) 1 K. B. 431 j [1909] W. N. 36 ; [1909] 1 Ch 534; 0. A. [1909] W.N. 124 [1909] 2 Ch. 239 . . [1901] W. N. 29 ; [1901] 1 Ch 561 [1905] W. N. 131 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 427 [1910] W. N. 95; [1910] 1 Ch. 754 ; C. A. [1910] W. N 209 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 525 [1909] l"Ch. 96 0. A. [1908] P. 231 . . [1909] W. N. 11 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 125; [1909] 2 Ch, 226 [1906] W. N. 184; [1906] 2 Ch 648; C. A. [1907] W. N 109 ; [1907] 2 Oh. 8 C. A. [1906] W. N. 190 [1906] 2 Ch. 584 . . [1905] W. N. 176; [1906] 1 K B. 125 . . P. C. [1906] A. C. 196 [1907] 2 K. B. 315 . . [1909] 2 K B. 360 . . [1903] 2 Ch. 200 [1902] W. N. 196 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 834 . . C. A. [1905] 1 Ch. 704 [1903] W. N. 53 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 821 . . [1902] P. 143 . . [1903] W. N. 95 ; [1903] 2 Ch, 312 .. [1903] W.N. HI [1903] W. N. 13 [1904] 1 K. B. 369 . [1906] P. 332 , P. C. [1905] A. C. 61.. C. A. [1906] W.N. 31; [190o 1 K B. 572 . . 1909] W. N. 163 1908] 2 K. B. 349 , "1901] W. N. 87; [1901] ; K. B. 117 . . C. A. [1908] W. N. 9 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 407 . . 2467 1149 2735 2278 2278 2409 721 497 1353 2606 2498 148 62 26 1396 293 1067 2469 3001 33 626 633 939 124 124 2126 1446 986 1298 1288 1132 2078 2874 1481 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. ccli Name of Case. Roberts : — Stanford v.. . Eoberts : — West v. In re West Eoberts (Jobn) & Co., In re. Ex parte Bon zoline Manufacturing Co. . . Eobertson or (Hunter) : — General Aocident, Fire and Life Ass\u'ance Corporation v. . . Eobertson : — Grand Trunk Ey. Co. of Canada v. . . Eobertson v. King Eobertson v. Purdey Eobertson v. Sbuckburgh. In re Shuck burgb's Settlement . . Eobertson v. Willmott . . Eobertson : — ^Windram v. Eobins v. Goddard Eobins v. Eobins Eobins : — ^Townshend (Lord) v. In re Lord Townsbend's Settlement Eobinson, In re. Clarkson v. Eobinsou •■ I Eobinson : — Admiral FisMng Co. v. Eobinson : — Att.-Gen. v. Eobinson v. Balmain New Ferry Co., Ld. Eobinson : — Booth v. In re Booth . . Eobinson v. Bumell's Vienna Bakery Co. . . Eobinson : — Cballoner v. Eobinson v. Cleveland. In re Charlesworth Eobinson v. Fawcett & Firth Eobinson v. Giffard Eobinson v. Gregory Eobinson v. Hill Eobinson v. Eobinson . . Eobinson : — Wappett v. In re Steel Eobinson Brothers v. Dixon . . Eobinson Brothers : — ^West Biding of York shire Bivers Board v. Eobinson Gold Mining Co. v. Alliance Insur- ance Co. Eobinson Printing Co. v. Ohio, Ld. . . Eobson, Ex parte. In re FitzGeorge Eobson V. Biggar Eobson : — Jones v. Volume and Page, [1901] W. N. 16; [1901] 1 Ch. ; 440 I [1909] W. N. 143 ; [1909] 2 ' Oh. 180 0. A. [1904] W. N. 98 ; [1904] 2KB. 299 H. L. '(So.) [1909] W.N. 153' [1909] A. 0. 404 . . P. 0. [1909] A. 0. 325 [1901] 2 K. B. 265 [1906] 2 Oh. 615 [1901] 2 Ch. 794 [1909] W. N. 155 H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 140 [1904] W. N. 123; [1904] 2] Oh. 261 ; C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 294 ; [1905] 1 Oh. 278 [1907] W. N. 90 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 13 [1907] W. N. 252 ; [1908] 1 Oh. 201 [1910] W. N. 226; [1910] 2 Oh. 571 0. A. [1910] W. N. 49 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 540 [1901] 2 It. E. 67—92 ; [1901] ! W. N. 192 P. 0. [1910] A. 0. 295 1906] 2 Oh. 321 1904] 2 K. B. 624 . , 1907] W. N. 199 ; 0. A. [1907] ' W. N. 217 ; 0. A. [1908] 1 Oh. 49 1910] W. N. 18 1901] 2 K. B. 325 1903] W. N. 69; [1903] 1 ■ Oh. 865 [1905] 1 K. B. 534 [1909] W. N. 206; [1910] 1 K. B. 94 [1903] P. 155 [1902] W. N. 202; [1903] 1 Oh. 135 [1903] 2 K. B. 701 0. A. [1907] W. N. 19 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 431 [1901] 2 K. B. 919; 0. A. [1902] W. N. 140 ; [1902] 2 K.B. 489; H.L.(E.) [1904] W. N. 144; [1904] A. 0. 359 [1905] 2 Oh. 123 ' ' [1905] W. N. 17; [1905] 1 K. B. 462 [1907] 1 K. B. 690; 0. A. [1907] W. N. 244; 0. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 672 . . [1901] 1 K. B. 673 . . Column of Digest. 2352 2072 172 1246 318 1181 1877 1938 2194 2495 276 935 1545 1721 1619 2205 136 1012 425 906 354 764 839 694 1674 950 3004 2226 2278 1264 523 206 72 2620 cclii TABLE OF CASES IX THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Golnmn of Digest. Koby, In re. Hewlett v. Newington . . ' V Koolidale Corporation : — Hartley v. . . Kochdale Notaries, In re. Hudson v. Bout- ) flower . . . . . . . . \ Eoclie V. Roche Eocliester (Bishop of) v. Le Fanu Boohford Eural Council : — Offin v. . . Eock Life Assurance Co. : — Biggar v. Eodes, In re. Sanders r. Hobson Eodocanacbi : — Grand Junction Waterworks ) Co. y ( Eoebuck : — Dive v. In re Dive Eoehrich : — Whaley r. In re Whaley Eoger V. Cochrane (J. P.) & Co. Eogers, /)( re. 77r iiarte Sheriff of Sussex Eogers v. Cardifi Corporation , , Eogers, Eungblut & Co. v. Martin Eogerson, In re. Bird ti. Lee Eohde V. Palin. In re Vincent Eolfe : — Newton i'. In re Frith Eolt (Sir John), In re. Eolt v. Burdett Eomain, In re . . " Eomanoe," The Eood : — Natal Bank, Ld. v. . . Eook : — Goulder o. Bent v. Ormerod. Lee ) V. Bent. Barlow v. Noblett Eoope (Hunt), Teage & Co. v. Ehrmann Brothers Eooper, In re. In re Carrie's Settlement, Eooper v. Williams . . Eoper V. Eyland. In re Eyland Eoscoe & Sons : — Darlington ,-. Eose, In re. Hasluck (Trustee of the Property of E. T. Eose) v. Eose Eose V. Buckett Eosefield v. Provincial Union Bank Eosenbaum v. Belson . . Eosenqvist v. Bowring & Co. Eoss, In re. Wingfield v. Blair Eoss V. Beaudry Eoss V. Buckett Eoss : — Channel Coaling Co. v. [1907] W. N. Ill ; [1907] 2 Ch. 84; C. A. [1907] W.N 228; C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 71 [1908] 2 K. B. 694 . . Eccl. Ct. [1910] W. N. 22S 1905] P. 142 . . 1906] 2 Ch. 513 1906] 1 Ch. 342 '1902] 1 K. B. 616 1909] 1 Ch. 815 [1904] 2 K. B. 230 [1909] 1 Ch. 328 [1908] W. N. 62; [1908] Ch. 615 H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 106 [1909] A. C. 285 . . [1910] W. N. 238 . . 0. A. [1905] W.N. 148; [1905" 2 K. B. 832 C. A. [1910] W. N. 223 [1901] W. N. 56 ; [1901] 1 Ch 715 [1909] W. N. 94; [1909] : Ch. 810 . . [1902] W. N. 10 ; [1902] 1 Ch 342 [1908] W. N. 76 [1903] W. N. 32; [1903] Ch. 702 [1901] P. 15 . . P. C. [1910] A. C. 570 [1901] W. N. 108 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 290 [1910] 2 Ch. 198 [1910] W. N. 16; [1910] 1 Ch. 329 [1903] W. N. 13'; [1903] 1 Ch. 467 . . C. A. [1907] W. N. 4 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 219 . . [1904] W. N. 152 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 348 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 199 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 94 C. A. [1901] W. N. 118; [1901] 2 K B. 449 . C. A. [1910] W. N. 185 ; [19101 2 K B. 781 . . [1901] W. N. 124 C. A. [1908] W. N. 88 ; [1908] 2 K B. 108 . . [1907] W. N. 55; [1907] 'l Ch. 482 .. -' P. C. [1905] A. C. 570 C. A. [1901] W. N. 118; [1901] 2 K B. 449 [1907] 1 K. B. 146 2888 2856 1817 953 87 1172 1249 2356 2853 2755 1091 1878 2438 1615 910 376 2908 2745 1940 2586 2477 2722 40 2675 2970 370 1699 1932 230 251 123 1636 23 303 230 767 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. ccliii Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Ross : — Livingstone v.. . Rosser & Sons : — Devonald v. Eossi V. Edinburgh (Provost, etc., of) " Eosslyn," The Eotax Motor and Cycle Co. : — Jackson u. Eouse V. Dixon , . Eouse : — Nathan v. Eouse : — Eex v... Eoussell V. Burnham . . Eoutledge (George) & Sons, Ld., In re, ) Hummel v. George Eoutledge & Sons, Ld. j Eoutledge'e Trusts, In re. Eoutledge v. Saul j Eow V, Jagg. In re Hoyles . . Eowbotham : — Hulme v. Eowe, In re. Ex parte Derenburg & Co. . . Eowe, In re. Ex parte West Coast Goldfields, Ld Eowe V. Oough. Gough v. Bolton . . Eowe : — Truro Corporation v. Eowe's Trustee's Claim. In re West Coast Goldfields, Ld EoweU V. Satohell Eowland v. Chapman . . Eowland : — Eex v. Eowland v. Wright Eowland & Marwood's Steamship Co. : — Bellerby v. . . Eowlands : — Eex v. Eowlands: — Eex i;. Jix parte Seesley Eowley : — Eawsthorne v. Eowson V. Atlantic Transport Co. Eoy : — Canadian Pacific Eailway v Eoyal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society, Ld. : — Stroud v. . . Eoyal College of Veterinary Surgeons v. CoUinson Eoyal Exchange Assurance Corporation. Inre . . Eoyal Exchange Assurance Corporation : — Oornfoot v. Eoyal Exchange Assurance Corporation v. Sjoforsakrings Aktiebolaget Vega. , Eoyal Hospital for Incurables : — Pemberton V. In re Pemberton . . P. C. [1901] A. 0. 327 C. A. [1906] W. N. 152; [1906] 2 K. B. 728 . . H. L. (So.) [1904] W.N. 192; [1900] A. C. 21 [1904] W. N. 196 C. A. [1910] W. N. 205 ; : [1910] 2 K. B. 937 . . [1904] 2 K. B. 628 '.. [1905] 1 K. B. 527 . . 0. 0. E. [1904] 1 K. B. 184 [1908] W. N. 228; [1909] Oh. 127 [1904] W. N. 157; 1904] • Ch. 474 [1908] W. N. 256; [1909] Ch. 280 [1910] W. N. 153 ; [1910] 2 Ch. ' 333 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 275 [1907] W. N. 162, 189 [1904] W. N. 64 ; C. A. [1904] ) W. N. 98 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 483 ( [1904] W. N. 125 ; [1904] 2 ) K. B. 489 j H. L. (I.) [1908] W. N. 249 ; \ [1909] A. C. 64 . . , . ) [1901] 2 K. B. 870 ; C. A. ) [1902] 2 K. B. 709 . . . ) [1905] W. N. 65 ; [1905] 1 Ch. ) 597; C. A. [1905] W.N. 157; [1906] 1 Ch. 1 . , ) [1908] W. N. 113 ; [1903] 2 \ Oh. 212 ] [1901] W. N. 153 0. 0. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 458 . . C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 963 . . [1901] W. N. Ill; [1901] 2) Oh. 265 ; 0. A. [1902] W. N. 93; C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 14. ) [1906] 2 K B. 292 . . [1910] 2 K. B. 930 C. A. [1909] 1 Oh. 409, n. . , [1902] W. N. 220; [1903] 1) K.B.IU; 0. A. [1903] W.N. 150; [1903] 2K B. 666 .. ) P. C. [1902] A. C. 220 [103] W. N. 146 [1908] W. N. 102; [1908] 2) K. B. 248 j [1910] W. N. 211 [1903] 2 K. B. 363 ; C. A. ) [1903] W. N. 191 ; 0. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 40 . . . , ) [1901]W.N.132; [1901]2K.B. ) 567; 0. A. [1902] W. N. 136 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 384 . , ) [1907] W. N. 118 . . 653 1662 2319 2525 2291 1682 1529 809 406 447 2737 639 1869 208 408 1294 1084 409 273 2810 831 1693 566 1490 1485 2766 2446 313 474 2829 1261 1278 1277 2167 ccliv TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Eoyal London Mutual Insurance Society, ) Ld., In re . . . . I Eoyal London Mutual Insurance Society : — ) McGrlade v I Eoyal Mail Steam Packet Co. and Kiver / Plate Steamship Co., In re . . . . . . ) Eoyal Mail Steam Packet Co. : — Baxter's ( Leather Co. v. . . j Eoyal Naval School, In re. Seymour v. Eoyal / Naval School . . . . . . j Eoyal Worcester Corset Company's AppKca- ) tion to Eegister a Trade Mark . . . . j Eoyce, Ld. : — Shaw v. . . Eoyds r. Briscoe. In re Briscoe Eoyle V. Eoyle . . Eubber (Kepitigalla) Estates, Ld. v. National | Bank of India, Ld. . . . . . . j Eubber (New Motor and Greneral) Co : — ) Warwick Tyre Co. v. . . ) Eubber (Pacaya) and Produce Co., Ld. : — j Jones I'. , . . . . . ) Euben v. Great Fingall Consolidated Volume and Page. Eueklidge : — Western Suburban and Notting Hill Permanent Benefit Building Society . . Euddington Land, In re Eudeforth : — Marshall v. Eugby Portland Cement Co. v. London and North Western Ey. Co. Euggles-Brise : — Matthews v. Eush : — Gilbey v. Eush V. Lucas Eushforth : — Adie v. . . Eushmer v. Polsue & Alfieri, Ld. EuBsell V. Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners EusseU : — Byford v. ; Morris (Claimant) Eussell : — EUiott v EusseU V. Inland Eevenue Commissioners . . Eussell V. Meyrick. In re Bolton Estates Eussell : — Toronto Corporation )■. EusseU (Earl), Trial of Eussell Hunting Eecord Co. , In re . . EusseU & Co. :— Morgan v. . . [1910] W. N. 226 [1910] W. N. 75 ; 0. A. [1910] ) W. N. 130; [1910] 2 Ch. 169 ) [1910] 1 K B. 600 . . [1908] 1 K. B. 796 ; C. A. \ [1908] W. N. 105 2 K B. 626 . . [1910] W. N. 88 Ch. 806 [1909] 1 Ch. 4o9 W. N. 251 W. N. 251 P. 24 . . [1908] Column of Digest. [1910] [1910" [1910° [1909; [1909] 2 K. B. 1010 . . [1910] W. N. 8 ; [1910] 1 Ch. ) 248 1 C. A. [1910] W. N. 257 [1904] 1 K. B. 650; C. A. [1904] W. N. 163 ; [1904] i 2 K. B. 712; H. L. (E.) ' [1906] W. N. 157 ; [1906] \ A. C. 439 [1906] W. N. 141 : [1905] 2 ) Ch. 472 . ( [1909] 1 Ch. 701 C. A. [1902] W. N. 118; ) [1902] 2 K B. 175.. ..I [1908] 1 E. B. 925 ; C. A. / [1908] 2 K. B. 606 . . . . | [1910] W. N. 234 . [1905] W. N. 153 ; [1906] 1 ) Ch. 11 1 [1910] W.N. 9; [1910] 1 Ch. ) 437 ) [1901] W. N. 98 C. A. [1906] W. N. 3 ; [1906] ^ iCh. 234; H. L. (E.) [1907] ' W. N. 67 ; [1907] A. C. 121 \ C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 506 1907] 2 K. B. 522 1902] 2 K. B. 748 1901] 2 K. B. 342 ; C. A. ) [1901] W. N. 236 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 142 . , [1902] W. N. 214; C. A. \ [1903] W. N. 124 ; [1903] ' 2 Ch. 461 . . ) P. C. [1908] A. C. 493 H.L. [1901] W. N. 156; [1901] ) A. C. 446 . . , ) [1910] W. N. 142 ; [1910] 2 ) Ch. 78 . . , . . j [1908] W. N. 245 ; [1909] 1 1 K.B. 357 ,. 494 1116 2467 2453 1226 2690 476 2987 943 144 2696 655 473 2001 1220 1635 2119 2751 2371 1383 236 1832 2705 2436 2847 2269 2617 307 243 613 2813 TABLE OF GASES IN THE DIGEST. ccIy Name of Case. Eiissian Bank for Foreign Trade : — Law Guarantee and Trust Society v. Eussian Petroleum and Liquid Puel Co., In re. London Investment Trust, Ld. v. Eussian Petroleum and Liquid Fuel Co. . . Eusso-OMnese Bank v. Li Tan Sam Euther v. Euther Eutherglen Magistrates : — ^Lower Ward of County Lanark v. . . Eutherglen (Parish. Council of) v. Glasgow (Parish Council of) . . Eutland : — Butchers' Co. v. In re Meeoh's Will Eutter, In re. Donaldson v. Butter Eycroft: — Galliers v. . . Eyder : — ^Leeds Corporation o. Eydon v. Williams. In re Salmond . Eyland, In re. Eoper v. Eyland Eyle V. Eyle. In re Bewick . . ■■I a.v.s S.S.B., In re Saccharin Corporation, Ld. v. Anglo-Conti- nental Chemical Works Saccharin Corporation, Ld., v. White (E.) & Sons, Ld. . . Saccharin Corporation, Ld. v. Wild . . Sachs : — ^Erskine, Oxendale & Co. v... Sachs V. Henderson SackviUe (Lord) : — West v. SackviUo-West v. Att.-Gen. (Lord Sackville and others cited) Sadd V. Griffln . . Sadgrove v. Bryden Sadgrove v. Hole Sadler v. Cobb & Co. . Sadler : — Whiteman v. Safety Explosives, Ld., In re Safety (Gillette) Eazor Co. i Eazor Co. Safiery v. Mayer Sailing Ship " Glenpark," Ld Trade v. Luna Safety -Board of ] Volume and Page. 0. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 815 C. A. [1907] 2 Oh. 540 P. C. [1910] A. 0. 174 [1903] 2 K. B. 270 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 157 H. L. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 106 ; ) [1902] A. C. 360 . . . . j [1910] 1 Oh. 426 [1907] W. N. 207; [1907] Oh. 592 P. 0. [1901] A. 0. 130 H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 195 [1907] A. C. 420 . . [1906] W. N. 6 [1903] W. N. 13 ; [1903] 1 Ch, 467 [1910] W. N. 261 '.] [1907] P. 224 C. A. [1906] W. N. 86 ; [1906] ) 1 Oh. 712 j [1901] 1 Oh. 414 C. A. [1903] W. N. 120 0. A. [1903] W.N. 7; [1903]) 1 Oh. 410 J 0. A. [1901] W. N. 141 ; [1901] ) 2 K. B. 604 ) 0. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 612 [1903] W. N. 94 ; C. A. [1903] ) W. N. 110 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 378 j [1909] W. N. 220; [1910] P. 143 0. A. [1908] W. N. 151 ; [1908] ) 2 K. B. 510 ( [1907] W. N. 23 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 318 0. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 1 [1910] W. N. 29 0. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 868; H.L.(E.) [1910] W.N. 193; [1910] A. C. 514 . . 0. A. [1904] W. N. 9 ; [1904] ) 1 Oh. 226 I [1910] W. N. 170 ; [1910] 2 ■ Ch. 373 i 0. A. [1901] 1 K B. 11 [1903] 2 K.B. 324 ; 0. A. [1904] ) W. N. 72 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 682 j Column of Digest. 2529 432 1174 1203 1483 1925 367 1833 2980 1437 725 370 2963 1834 1647 1876 1888 1887 2627 738 1420 1420 2688 486 1945 1726 1724 615 1879 1130 2665 cclvi TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Cage. Sainsbuiy : — Q-undi-y r. St. Albans (Bishop of) v. Pillingham St. Andrews (University Court of) : — Nairn . V. St. Anne's, Limehouse (Rector of) r. Parishioners of Same St. Anselm's, Pinner, Tn re . . St. Aubin, The St. Bartholomew's Hospital (Governors of) : — Hilljer v. St. David's Gold and Copper Mines, Ld. : — ', Manners v. St. PranQois (La Compagnie Hydraulique de) ] V. Continental Heat and Light Co. . . J St. George, Hanover Square (Rector and i Churchwardens) : — Westminster Corpora- tion e. . . . . , . _ / St. George, Newcastle-on-Tyue, In re. Jes- / mond Case . . . j St. George's Ironworks, Ld. : — Ormerod, / Grierson & Co. c. . . j St. Hilda's Incorporated College, Cheltenham, / In re . . . . i St. James and Pall Mall Electric Lighting / Co., Ill re . . _ I St. James the Great, Buxton, //; re. St. John ) the Baptist, Buxton (Vicar) v. Parishioners ' of the same . . . . . , ) St. James's Hall Co. c. Loudon County / Council . , . . I St. John : — Scholefield v. In re Soholefield. / In. re Young. Smith r. St. John . . ) St. John :— Wille ..... * St. John :— WUle v St. John Pilot Commissioners v. Att.-Gen. for ^ Dominion of Canada and Cumberland Ry. ! and Coal Co. . . . . , . ) St. John the Baptist, Buxton (Vicar) c. \ Parishioners of the same. In re St. James 5 the Great, Buxton . . . ( St. John the Evangelist, Clevedon (Vicar and 1 ^ Churchwardens) v. All Having Interest . . ) St. Lawrence Fire Insurance Co. : — Bank of j Toronto v. . . . j St. Liike's, Chelsea (Rector of) i\ Wheeler . '. St. Margaret's, Lothbury (Rector, &o.) v. / London County Council . . . . i St. Margaret's, Westminster, in re . . Volume and Page. Column of Digest. [1909] W. N. 213 ; [1910] 1 , K. B. 99 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 58 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 645 . . ' [1906] W. N. 48; [1906] P. / 163 J H. L. (Sc.) [1908J W. N. 250 ; / [1909] A. 0. 147 . . . . j [1901] P. 73 [1901] W. N. 62 ; [1901] P. 202 [1907] P. 60 C. A. [1909] W. N. 188 ; [1909] / 2 K. B. 820 ) [1904] W. N. 147 ; C. A. [1904] ( W. N. 167 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 593 ) P. C. [1909] A. C. 194 [1908] 2 Ch. 600 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 66 ; [1909] 1 Oh. 592 ; f H. L. (E.) [1910] W.N. 57; 1 [1910] A. C. 225 . . ; [1907] P. 381, n C. A. [1905] W. N. 44 ; [1905] / 1 Ch. 505 ) [1901] 1 Ch. 556 [1904] W. N. 68 [1907] W. N. 192 ; [1907] ( P. 368 .. .. . j [1901] 2 K. B. 250 [1905] W. N. 123 ; [1905] 2 Ch. , 408 ; C. A. [1907] 1 Ck. 664 ) [1909] W. N. 229 ; [1910] 1 Ch. \ 84 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 34 ; ' [1910] 1 Ch. 325 . , . . j C. A. [1910] W. N. 112; [1910] 1 Ch. 701 ^j P. C. [1910] A. C. 208 [1907] W. N. 192 368 . . [1907] P [1909] P. 6 P. C. [1903] A. C. 69 . [1904] P. 257 . . [1909] P. 310 [1905] P. 286 . . 2601 982 2326 988 985 2478 1176 537 302 284 989 891 493 1786 989 1514 640 2795 706 328 989 991 299 988 1001 992 TABLE OF GASES IN THE DIGEST. cclvii Name of Case. St. Mark's, Wimbledon, In re. Vicar and ) Chnrcli-wardens of Wimbledon v. Eden , . j St. Mary, Islington, Union v. Biggenden . . St. Mary, Madingley, Inre . . St. Mary Woolnotb and St. Mary Woolchurch \ Haw (Rector, &c., of) and City and South London Ey. Co., In re . . . . ; St. Marylebone Corporation : — Leadbetter v. St. Marylebone Union : — South- West Sub- ] urban Water Co. v. . . . . . . j St. Neot's Water Co., Inre . . St. Pancras Borough Council : — Colwell v.. . ' " St. Paul," The I I St. Paul, Bow Common (Vicar and Church- ) wardens) v. Inhabitants of the Same . . j St. Paul's (Dean and Chapter) : — Kensit v. . . St. Philip's Tavern, Manchester, and I Hardy's Crown Brewery, Inre . . j St. Thomas's Hospital (Governors of) Kichardson St. Thomas', St. Bartholomew's and Bridewell Hospitals V. HudgeU Saker, In the Estate of Salaman, Ex parte. In re Borovsky & Wein baum , . Sa,la,m.a,Ti, Ex parte. /» re Magnus .. Salaman, Ex parte. In re Parry Salaman, ^a;^ar<6. /» re Pilling Salaman, Ex parte. In re Saumarez Salaman, In re. De Pass v. Sonnenthal Salaman v. Holford . . | Salaman v. Secretary of State in Council for ) India . . , i Sale : — Groodwin v. Sale & Erazar v. Knight Steamship Co., Ld Salisbury (Bishop of) :— Eex. v. . , . j Salisbury (Marquis of) v. Eeymer Salmon, In re. Ex parte The Trustee . . j Salmon v. Edwards Salmon v. Quin and Axtens, Ld. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. [1908] P. 16Y [1910] 1 K. B. 105 . . [1910] P. 23, n. C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 728 H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 1 [1905] A. 0. 1 C. A. [1905] W. N. 54 ; [1905] ) 1 E. B. 661 j [1904] 2 K. B. 174 . . [1905] W. N. 183 [1904] W. N. 40; [1904] 1 Ch. ) 707 ( [1908] P. 320 ; C. A. [1909] 1 P. 43 j [1909] P. 245 [1905] 2 K. B. 249 [1910] W. N. 76 ; C. A. [1910] ) W. N. 103 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 257 ) C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 271 . . [1901] 1 K. B. 364 [1909] P. 233 [1902] W. N. 109 ; [1902] 2 ) K. B. 312 j [1910] W. N. 190 ; 0. A. ) [1910] W. N. 205; [1910] 2 K. B. 1049 . . ) [1903] W. N. 206; [1904] 1 K B. 129 [1906] W. N. 160; [1906] 2 K. B. 644 C. A. [1907] W. N. 109 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 170 [1907] W. N. 100; [1907] 2 Ch. 46; C. A. [1907] W. N. 218 ; [1908] 1 Oh. 4 [1909] W. N. no ; [1909] 2 Ch. 64 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 198 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 602 C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 613 [1907] W. N. 106 ; [1907] 2 ) K. B. 278 I C. A. [1910] 2KB. 1021 . . [1901] W.N. 34; [1901] 1 K. B. | 573 ; C. A. [1901] 2 K B. 225 j [1909] W. N. 31 [1902] W. N. 225 ; [1903] 1 \ K. B. 147 I [1910] W. N. 68; [1910] 1 ) Ch 552 i C. A.' [1908] W.'n. 254 ; C. A. X [1909] 1 Oh. 311; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 123; [1909] ( A. C. 442 ; 1921 997 1400 1609 2851 607 1832 2503 999 1006 1433 1374 1340 2025 177 221 217 231 157 2906 1387 15 2674 1990 979 2762 1730 395 459 cclviii TABLE^OF ClASER IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Salmon & Gluokstein, Ld. : — Bourne & Tant V. Salmond, In re. In re Gordon Salmond, In re. fiydon v. Williams Salt : — Oarlisli v. Salt V. Scott Hall Salt (Thomas) & Co., /;, re Salt Union, Ld. v. Brunner, Mond & Co. Salter v. Leas Hotel Co. In re Leas Hotel Co Salting : — Stamp Duties Commissioner v. . . Salts V. Battersby Salveson (Chr.) & Co. v. Eederi Aktiebolaget Nordstjernan Salvin, In re. Marshall v. Wolseley " Salybia," The Sambas Rubber and Gutta Percha Co. :— Lamb v. Sampson, In re. Sampson v. Sampson Samson, In re. Bobbins v. Alexander Samuel : — Clough v. . . Samuel : — Jarrah Timber and Wood Paving Corporation, Ld. r, . . Samuel : — Marks v. Samuel v. Newbold Samuel c. Ofner. In re Ofner Samuel : — Plews v. Samuel Allen & Sons, Ld., In re Samuel Allsopp & Sons, Ld., In re . . Samuel Birch Co., In re Samuel Brothers, Ld. v. Whetherly . . Samuel Johnson & Sons, Ld. / . Brock Sanatorium (Churchill's Veterinary), Ld. and James Churchill : — Att.-Gen. d. . . Saudbach School and Almshouse Foundation , In re. Att.-Gen. r. Crewe (Earl of) Sandeman, Clark & Co. :"-DeYerges r. Sander & Co. : —Douglas i'. . . Sanders ". Hobson. //( re Rhodes . . Sanderson : — Blackburn Corporation v. Sanderson r. Blyth Theatre Co. 2 K. B. 245 W. N. 63 2 K. B. 822 W. N. 10 ; [1902] 1 Oh. [1906] 2 ) [1908] 1 C. A. [1907] W. N. 93; [1907] 1 Ch. 616 [1903] 2 K. B. 164 . . [1906] W. N. 6 [1906] W. N. 10 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 335 [1903" [1908° [1906° [1902° 332 P. C. [1907] A.' C. 449 ' .'. [1910] W. N. 116; [1910] 2 K. B. loo H. L. (Sc.) [1905] W. N. 72 ; [1905] A. C. 302 . . [1906] W. N. 146 Oh. 459 [1910] P. 25 . . [1908] W. N. 83; Ch. 845 [1906] W. N. 26; [1906] 1 Ch. 435 0. A. [1906] W. N. 190 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 584 H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 130; [1905] A. C. 442 [1902] W. N. 128 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 479 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 29 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 1 ; H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 110; [1904] A. C. 323 . . C. A. [1904] W. N. 86 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 287 H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 157 ; [1906] A. C. 461 C. A. [1908] W. N. 208 ; [1909] 1 Oh. 60 [1904] W. N. 47 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 464 [1907] 1 Ch. 576 C. A. [1903] W. N. 132 [1907] W. N. 31 [1907] W. N. 32: [1907] 1 K. B. 709 ; C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 184 189; [1907] [1910] 195 [1907] W. N. 2 Oh. 633 [1910] W. N. 2 Oh. 401 . , [1901] 2 Ch. ol7 [1901] 1 Ch. 70 ; C. A. [1902] ) W. N. 48 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 579 ) P. 0. [1902] A. 0. 437 [1909] 1 Ch. 816 0. A. [1902] W. N. 63 ; [1902] ) 1 K. B. 794 . . C. A. [1903] W.N. 145; [1903]) 2 K. B. 533 ) 1387 163 725 2811 1484 478 1709 429 1800 1392 2041 2897 2541 555 2734 26 182 1757 877 1719 2947 2809 1088 506 503 103 1474 2830 1841 1762 1776 2356 2641 719 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. cclix Name of Case. Sanderson v. Collins . . Sanderson Brothers : — Vigers Brothers v. . . Sanderson's Trust, In re. Wright v. Sander- \ son. In re Wright's Trust. Wright u. } Sanderson Sandkuhl !•. Schnadhorst. In re Schnadhorst Sandover : — Att.-Gen. v. Sandown Urban Oounoil : — Hayles v. Sandstone (Budhill Coal and) Co. : — North ) British Ey. Co. v. . . . , ) Sanf ord, In re. Sanf ord v. Sanf ord . . Sanford's Will, In re . . Sangster v. Caledon Shipbuilding and En gineering Co. . . Sansom and Narbeth's Contract, In re Sap-well V. Bass . . Saqui & Lawrence v. Stearns . . Saragossa and Mediterranean Ey. Co. v. CoUingham Sark, Constables of the Island of : — Godfray v. Sarpy v. Holland Satchell : — Eowell v. . . Saul : — Eoutledge v. In re Eoutledge . . j Saul Moss & Sons, Ld., In re. . Saumarez, In re. Ex parte Salaman . . j Saunby v. London (Ontario) Water Com- missioners Saunders' {In re Voss and) Contract. Saunders v. Nevrbold . . Saunders v. Shafto °:1 Saunders v. White . . . . . . . . j Saunders, Olaunant ; Birstall Candle Co. v. ) Daniels . . . . j Saunders Davies v. BailUe Saunders (T. H.) & Co., In re .. . . | Saunderton Glebe Lands, In re. Ex parte ) Eector of Saunderton . . , . ( Saunderton (Eector of), Ex parte. In re ) Saunderton Glebe Lands . . ] Savage v. Bentley Savage v. Norton Savage : — Smith v. Savarkar, Ex parte. Eex v. Governor of ) Brixton Prison . . , . . . j Savile v. Drax. In re Drax . . Savin Brothers, Ex parte. EUis In re Carter and Volume and Page. C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 628 [1901] 1 K. B. 608 0. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 317 [1901] W.N. 99; [1901] 2 Ch. 338; C. A. [1902] W.N. 76; [1902] 2 Oh. 234 . . [1904] 1 K. B. 689 , . [1903] 1 K B. 169 H. L. (So.) [1909] W.N. 223; [1910] A. C. 116 fl901] 1 Ch. 939 [1901] W. N. 152 H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 104 [1910] W. N. 113; [1910] 1 Ch. 741 [19101 2 K B. 486 . . [1910] W.N. 147; C. A. [1910] W. N. 257 H. L. (E.) [1904] W.N. 66; [1904] A. C. 159 . . P. C. [1902] A. 0. 534 [1908] W. N. 19 ; [1908] 1 Oh. ' 443; C. A. [1908] W. N. 126 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 198 . . [1903] W. N. 113; [1903] 2' Ch. 212 [1908] W. N. 256 ; [1909] 1 ' Oh. 280 [1906] W. N. 142 C. A. [1907] W. N. 109 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 170 P. C. [1906] A. C. 110 [1910] W.N. 217 0. A. [1905] 1 Oh. 260 C. A. [1904] W. N. 203 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 126 [1901] 1 K B. 70 ; 0. A. [1902] ' W.N. 23; [1902] 1 K B. 472 , [1908] 2 K B. 234 . . 0. A. [1907] W. N. 237 [1908] W. N. 29; [1908] Oh. 415 [1903] W. N. 32 ; [1903] 1 Oh, 480 [1903] W. N. 32 ; [1903] 1 Ch 480 1904 1908' 1905' W. N. 89 1 Ch. 290 1 K. B. 88 C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 1056 0. A. [1903] W.N. 66; [1903]: 1 Oh. 781 . . . . . . C. A. [1905] W. N. 46 ; [1905] ' K. B. 735 . . Columu of Digest. 1675 2286 •2589 2902 678 2633 2122 2881 2943 1630 2805 856 1249 624 1142 686 273 2737 579 157 292 1347 1719 1300 253 767 84 551 2115 2115 2170 143 46 1143 1453 236 r2 cclx TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. SavUl Brothers, Ld. v. Betliell Savill Brothers, Ld. : — Southwell v. . . SawbriSge : — Debenham v. . . Sawhridge : — Dunsany (Baroness) v. In re ] Drax's Will ; Sa-wdon & Co. : — Turner ii. . . awyer : — Blovelt Saxby v. Pulton . . . . Sayer : — Orosbie-HiU v. , . . Scarborough v. Oosgrove Scarborough (Mayor, &c., of) v. Cooper Scarisbrick v. Nevinson. In re Chetwynd'B / Settlement . . j Scarisbrick : — Talbot t: Scarr and General Accident Assurance Cor- ) poration, In re . . . . ) " Scarsdale," The. Board of Trade v. Baxter Soarth : — Davy v. Sceptre Lite Association, Ld. : — Hemmings v. Schevzik : — London County Council v. Schloss Brothers v. Stevens . . Schmarr, In re . . Schnadhorst, In re. Sandkuhl v. Schnadhorst Schofield V. Orrell ColKery Co. . . . . Scholefield, In re. Soholefield v. St. John, j In re Young. Smith v. St. John . . . . j School (Royal Naval), In re. Seymour v. Eoyal Naval School Sohott, In the Goods of Sohuler & Co. : — Edelstein v. . . Schulze V. Galashiels (Magistrates of) Sohwabaoher, In re. Stern v. Sohwabacher " Sohwan," The. Abram Lyle & Sons v. \ Owners of Steamship " Schwan " . . . . i Schweppes, Ld. v. Gibbens Schwepps, Ld. v. Gibbens. Same v. Biscombe ) & Sons f Schweppes, Ld. : — Godwin v. . . Soobell : — Wodehouse v. In re Eepington . . C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 623 [1901] W. N. 120 ; [1901] 2 ) K B. 349 [1901] W. N. 86 ; [1901] 2 Ch. ) 98 j [1906] W. N. 53 C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 653 C. A. [1904] W. N. 4 ; [1904] ) 1 K. B. 271 ) 0. A. [1909] W. N. 83 ; [1909] 2 K B. 208 [1908 1 Ch. 866 0. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 805 [1909] W. N. 228: [1910] 1 Ch. 68 [1902] W. N. 43 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 692 [1908] 1 Ch. 812 [1905] 1 K. B. 387 . . C. A. [1906] W. N. 24 ; [1906] P. 103 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] I W. N. 195 ; [1907] A. C. I 373 ' [1905] W. N. 165 ; [1906] 1 ) Ch. 55 [1905] W. N. 16 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 366 ... . ( [1905] 2 K. B. 695 . . [1906] 2 K. B. 665 C. A. [1902] W. N. 14 ; [1902] ■) 1 Ch. 326 . . . . j [1901] W. N. 99 ; [1901] 2 Ch. ) 338 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 76 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 234 . I C. A. [1908] W. N. 243; [1909] 1 K B. 178 ; H. L. (B.) [1909] W. N. 115: [1909] A. C. 433 [1906] W. N. 123 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 408 ; 0. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 664 [1910] W. N. 88; [1910] 1 Ch. 806 [1901] P. 190 . . [1902] 2 K B. 144 H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 67 " [1907] W. N. 69 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 719 , , -' [1908] P. 356 ; 0. A. [1909] P. 93 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 175; [1909] A. 0. 450 .. [1905] w. N. 28 . . ; ; 0. A. [1904] W. N. 208 [1902] 1 Ch. 926 [1904] W. N. 88 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 811 .. 672 2238 2784 2949 1661 1589 1124 1746 1781 696 2747 3279 1245 2567 1866 1262 1614 1274 713 2902 1598 640 1226 2069 1788 2316 23 2460 73 732 1468 2253 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. colxi Name of Case. Scoble V. Secretary of State in Counoil for India . . " Scotia " S.S. :— Young v. . . Scott, In re Scott, In re. Langton v. Scott ■■! Scott, In re. Scott v. Scott . . Scott, In the Goods of . . Scott : — ^Att.-Gen. v. , . Scott : — Att. - Gen. and Monmouthsliire ) County Council v. . . .1 Scott V. Clifford. In re Clifiord . . | Scott V. Coulson . . . . . . ' Scott V. Denton . . Scott : — Langton v. In re Scott Scott V. Mid£nd Ey. Co Scott V. PiUiner . . Scott V. Pitt Eivers. In re Pitt Eivers . . ] Scott & Co. : — Beckley v. Scott & Co. V. Solomon Scott & Horton v. Godfrey Scott & "WMt-wrorthi : — Boardman v. . . . . Scott Chad, In re. In re Pares. Scott Chad ) u. Pares . . . . . , j Scott HaU :— Salt v Scott Eobson :— Yuill & Co. Scottish (English and) Law Life Assurance | Association : — Wigan v. . . . . ( Scottish Equitable Life Assurance Society, ) In re a Policy No. 6,402 of . . j Scottish Legal Life Assurance Society : — Pearl ) Life Assurance Co. ■;;. . . . . j Scottish Provident Institution v. Allan Scottish Provident Institution v. Commis- ) sioner of Taxes . . . . . . ( Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assui-ance ) Society v. Allan . . . . . . . . j Screw Collier Co. <,■. Webster . . . . . . Scrivener v. Aldridge. In re Pizzi . . . . Sea Insurance Co. v. Carr Sea Spray, The . . Seabrook (Selina), In re. Gray v. Baddeley Seacombe : — Holliwell v. . . . . Volume and Page. [1902] 2 K. B. 413 ; C. A. [1903] ' W. N. 37 ; [1903] 1 K. B. f 494; H.L.(E.) [1903] W.N. i 116; [1903] A. C. 299 .. J P. C. [1903] A. C. 501 C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 228 . . C. A. [1902] W. N. 206 ; [1903] ) 1 Oh. 1 [1902] W.N. 72; [1902] 1 Ch. 918 j [1903] P. 243 0. A. [1905] 2 K B. 160 C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 404 [1901] W. N. 217 ; [1902] 1 Ch, 87 [1903] 1 Ch. 453 ; C. A. [1903] \ W 249 [1907; 1901" 1904° 1901' N. 88; [1903] 2 Ch. 1 k. B. 456 1903] 1 Ch. 1 1 K B. 317 2 K. B. 855 W. ■. N. 22 ; [1901] 1 Ch. ) 352"; C. A. [1902] W. N. 23 ; [1902] 1 Oh. 403 . . . . j 0. A. (Ir.) [1903] W.N. 173.. [1905] 1 K. B. 577 [1901] 2 K. B. 726 0. A. [1901] W.N. 222; [1902] ] 1 K. B. 43 [1901] W. N. 61 [1901] 1 Ch. ) 709 ) [1903] 2 K. B. 245 [1907] 1 K B. 685; C. A. [1908] W. N. 4 ; [1908] 1 K B. 270 [1909] 1 Ch. 291 [1901] W. N. 249 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 282 [1901] W. N. 33; [1901] 1' K. B. 528 (1901) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 182 ; H. L. (So.) [1903] W. N. 86 ; [1903] | A. C. 129 P. C. [1901] A. C. 340 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1901] W. N. 185 H. L. (Sc.)[1909] W. N. 258; [1910] A. C. 165 . . [1906] W. N. 202; [1907] 1 Ch. 67 C. A. 1907 1910 1906 Ch. 426 1901] 1 K. B. 7 P. 133 W. N. 244 W. N. 21; [1906] Column of Digest. 2233 1814 2219 2887 1230 2074 1160 1159 2376 1262 2141 2887 1705 1484 2883 1688 2254 2626 1584 2402 1484 2289 644 1260 1263 2243 2239 2227 2487 2642 71 2517 1943 2812 cclxii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Seager Hunt, In re. Silicate Paint Oo. and J. B. Orr & Co., Ld. V. Hunt Sealiam Colliery Oo. : — Caledonian Coal Co. v. Seal and Edgelow v. Kingston In re Seal and Edge- Seale Seal : — Hamilton v. Seal (a Solicitor), In re. low (Solicitors) Sealey v. Tandy Searle, In re. Searle e. Secretan: — Mortimer y. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Cliarlesworth, Pilling & Co. Secretary of State for War v. Wynne Secretary of State in Council of India :- Bast Indian Ry. Oo. o. Secretary of State in Council of India :- Salaman v. . . Secretary of State in Council of India :- Scoble V. Seddon v. North Eastern Salt Co. Sedgwick : — Montreal Light, Heat, and / Power Co. v. . . . . . , j Seed, In re. Ex parte King . . Seed V. Elvet Colliery Co. : Dyson v. Seed . . ' Seed, Quinn, and Morgan : — Dyson ?■. / Dyson o. Eorster . . . . . , . ) Segar : — Weiser v. Segelcke, In re. Ziegler v. Nicol Seisdon Union : — Davies c. . . Sekgome, Ex parte. Eex v. Earl of Crewe Selborne (Earl of) :— Att.-Gen. v. Selby, In re. Church v. Tancred Seldon v. Wilde . . Selfe : — Eex v. . . Selina Seabrook, In re. Gray u. Baddeley Sellar : — Bright's Trustee v. . . Sellar v. Charles Bright & Co. Sellar : — Charles Bright & Co. v. Selot's Trust, In re Selous, In re. Thompson v. Selous Selwyn : — Kelly v. Sendall : — Harington c. [1906] 2 Oh. 295 P. 0. [1901] A. C. 554 C. A. [1908] W. N. 136 ; ] [1908] 2 K. B. 579 C. A. [1904] W.N. 87; [1904] | 2 K. B. 262 j [1902] W. N. 200 ; [1903] 1 ) Ch. 87 ( [1902] 1 K. B. 296 [1905] W. N. 86 C. A. [1909] W. N. 92 ; [1909] / 2 K. B. 77 j P. 0. [1901] A. 0. 373 [1905] W. N. 150; [1905] 2 / K. B. 845 I C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 413 C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 613 0. A. [1903] W. N. 37 ; [1903] , 1 K. B. 494 ; H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 116; [1903] A C 299 ] [1905] W. N. 4;'[1905] 1 Ch.326 P. 0. [1910] A. C. 598 [1910] 1 K. B. 661 . . 0. A. [1908] W. N. 26 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 629; H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 250 . . H. L. (E.)[1908] W. N. 250; [1909] A. 0. 98 j C. A. [1904] W. N. 93 [1906] W. N. 107 ; [19061 2 ) Ch. 301 [1906] 1 K. B. 214 ; C. A. [1907] W. N. 19 ; [1907] 1 \ K. B. 630 ; H. L. (E.) [1908] ( W.N. 135; [1908] A. C. 315 ' C. A. ^ ~ 0. A. 1903" 1910° 1908° 1910" 1904' " Oh." [1904] N. 128 1910] 2 K. B. 576 '1902] 1 K. B. 388 1 Oh. 715 2 K. B. 9 2 K. B. 121 . W. N. 244 W. N. 33; 369 0. A. [1904] W. [1904] 2 K. B. 446 C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 6 [1902] W. N. 11; [1902] ] Oh. 488 [1901] W.N. 72; [1901]! Oh 921 .. .. [1905] W. N. 69 ; [1905] 2 Ch 117 ,. [1903] W. N. 50 ; [1903] 1 Oh 921 .. 1563 1799 117 723 124 1451 2882 1656 3046 840 2234 15 2233 658 304 1718 770 770 2015 2884 2165 1144 2270 1964 2595 756 1943 714 348 1990 637 1697 631 385 TABLE OF GASEN IN THE DIGEST. cclxiii Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Senior : — Orosthvraite Fire Bar Syndicate v. Senior v. Fountains & Burnley Senior and Bull : — Beaumont v. Senior OflBcial Receiver, Ex parte. In re Dunn . . Separation (Minerals), Ld. r. Ore Ooncen tration Co. (1905), Ld Septimus Parsonage & Co., In re Sequah : — Elliman c. . . Serjeant v. Nash, Field & Co. Service (United) Shares Purchase Society, Ld., In re Seton-Smith, In re. Burnand y. Waite Sewell, In re. White v. Sewell Sewell V. National Telephone Co. Seybold: — Ontario Mining Co. d. " Seymolicus," The Seymour v. Bolton. In re Latham . . Seymour v. Pickett Seymour v. Eoyal Naval School. In ri fioyal Naval School . . Shackleton, Ex parte. Bex u. Yorkshire (West Biding) Justices Shaddock : — Adams v. . . Shadwell : — Att.-Gen. u. Shafto : — Saunders v. . . Shann : — Igoe v. Shann : — Bex v. Share (United Service) Purchase Society, ) Ld., In re . . . . . . . . . . j Sharmau, /m re. Wright w. Sharman .. ! Sharman v. Holliday & Greenwood, Ld. Sharp, In re. Sharp, In re. Maddison v. Gill Eickett V. Eickett Sharp V. Johnson & Co. Sharp V. Marshall. In re Pope Sharp V. Eickards Sharp : — West Ham Corporation v. Sharp & Co. : — Webster v. Sharpcote : — Bex v. Shaipe ; — Cope v. [1909] 1 Ch. 801 0. A. [1907] W. N. 169 ; ) [1907] 2 K. B. 563 . . ..] [1903] 1 K. B. 282 0. A. [1901] W. N. 225 ; ) [1902] 1 K. B. 107 . . . . ) C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 744 [1901] W. N. 136; [1901] 2 i Ch. 424 ) [1903] W. N. 187 C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 304 [1909] W. N. 169 ; [1909] 2 ) Oh. 526 I [1902] W. N. 68 ; [1902] 1 ) Ch. 717 1 [1909] 1 Ch. 806 0. A. [1907] 1 Iv. B. 557 P. C. [1903] A. 0.73 . . [1909] P. 109 [1901] W. N. 248 0. A. [1905] W. N. 40 ; [1906] ( 1 K. B. 715 ) [1910] W. N. 88 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 1 806 j [1910] W. N. 23 ; [1910] 1 ) K. B. 439 I C.A.[1905]W.-N. 162; [1906] ) 2 K B. 859 ] [1909] W. N. 229 ; [1910] 1 | Ch. 92 0. A. [1904] W. N. 203 ; \ [1905] 1 Ch. 126 . . . . ) [1901] 2 K B. 740 ; C. A. [1902] \ W. N. 140 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 467 ;H.L.(E.) [1903] W.N. 132 ; [1903] A. 0. 320 ..) [19101 1 K. B. 10; 0. A. [1910] ) W. N. 113 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 418 j [1909] W. N. 169 ; [1909] 2 ) Ch. 526 j [1901] W. N. 123; [1901] 2 Ch. 280 j 0. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 236 [1908] W. N. 10 ; [1908] 1 Ch. \ 372 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 146 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 190 , . ) [1906] 1 Oh. 793 C. A. [1905] W. N. 80 ; [1905] ) 2 K. B. 139 ) [1901] 1 Oh. 64 [1908] W. N. 234 ; [1909] 1 J Oh. 109 ) [1907] 1 K. B. 445 . . 0. A. [1904] 1 K B. 218 ; ) H. L. (B.) [1906] A. 0. 284 C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 218 . . [1910] W. N. 19 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 168 1882 1600 739 190 1883 650 642 1367 1221 3004 2997 1072 306 2496 69 882 1226 1769 1613 373 1300 14J0 1449 1221 2995 1632 2904 2750 1582 10 1759 2643 1625 798 2724 cclxiv TABLE OF CA>SES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Colnmn of Digest. Sharpe i'. Hodgson. In re Pimm Sharpe v. Midland Ey. Co. Sharpe v. Sharpe Sharpington v. Pulham Guardians Shaw, In the Estate of . . Shaw V. Gates Shaw V. Crompton Shaw V. Marten. In re Marten Shaw V. Eoyoe, Ld. Shaws, Bryant & Co., In re Shea : — Couturier v. In re Couturier Shea V. Eeid-Newfoundland Co. Sheffield Coal Co. : — Keeton v. Sheffield Corporation v. Barclay Sheffield Corporation : — Groodwin v. . . Sheffield Corporation and Trustees of St. William's Eomau Catholic Chapel and Schools, Sheffield, In re Sheffield (Goole and) Transport Co. : — Bamfield v. . . Sheffield Union : — Great Central Ry. Co. v. "Sheila," The Shenstone & Co. v. Freeman . . Shephard, In re. George v. Thyer . . Shepheard v. Bray Shepheard v. Broome . . Shepheard i: Brown & Gregory, Ld. //( re Brown & Gregory, Ld. Andrews /'. Brown & Gregory, Ld. Shepherd : — Addison c. Shepherd c. Broadbent Shepherd v. Harris Sheppard v. Sheppard . . Sheriff of Sussex, Ex parte. In re Eogers Sheringham Urban District Council v. Holsey Shervington : — Jones v. Sherwell v. Combined Incandescent Mantles Syndicate, Ld. [1904] W. X. 135 ; [1904] 2 ) Ch. 346 ) C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 26 ; H. L. i (E.) [1904] W. N. Ill ; ' [1904] A. C. 349 . . . . 1 [1909] P. 20 [1904] W. N. 146 ; [1904] 2 Oh. 449 [1905] P. 92 [1909] W. N. 7 : [1909] 1 Ch. 389 [1910] 2 K B. 370 [1901] W. N. 6 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 370 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 2 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 314 . . .1 1910] W. N. 251 1901] W. N. 124 1907] W. K. 69 ; [1907] 1 / Ch. 470 . ) P. C. [1908] A. C. 520 [1901] 2 K. B. 26 [1902] W. X. 2(13; [1903] 1 K B. 1 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. / 151 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 580 ; ' H.L.;E.)[1905]W. N. 118; \ [1905] A. C. 392 . . [1902] 1 K. B. 629 [1902] W. N. 219 ; [1903] 1 / Ch. 208 .1 C. A. [1910] W. X. 136 ; [1910] / 2 K. B. 94 . . ) 0. A. [1908] W. N. (Erratum ' 60), 55; [1908] 1 K. B. 750; / H. L. (E.) [1908] W. X. 250 ; l [1909] A. C. 78 1909] P. 31, n. 1910] 2 K. B. 84 1904] 1 Ch. 456 1906] W. X. 131 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 235 ; C. A. [1907] W. X. 206 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 571 H. L. (E.) [1904] W.X. Ill; [1904] A. C. 342 [1904] W. X. 55 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 627; C. A. [1904] W. X. 173 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 448 [1908] W. X. 102 ; [19081 2 K. B. 118 . [1901] 2 K B. 274 [1905] W. X. 108 ; [19051 2 Ch. 310 [1905] P. 185 , . [1909] W. X. 238 [1904] W. X. 83 [1908] W. X. 148; [1908] 2 K. B. 539 . . [1907] W. X. 110 ; ■ C. A. 1 [1907] W. X. 211, 216 2990 1628 940 2085 2062 2757 1478 1944, 2942 476 465 2942 1813 2146 473 1912 364 341 2158 2463 909 1514 518, 519 516 448 906 1826 2749 925 2438 2725 1427 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. oclxv Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Shields, Whiteley and District Amalgamated Model Building Society v. Eicliards SMllito V. Biggart Shilson, Ooode & Co., In re. Shilton V. Freeman. In re Freeman Ship V. 59.3 (Owners of) :— Dittmar v. Shipoote Land Oo. : — Lumsden v. Shipping (Astral) Co., Ld. : — Owners of Cargo of S.S. ' ' Tongariro ' Shipping (Clyde) Co. : — Jardine, Matheson & Co. «... ' Shirebrook Overseers : — Markham Shirt V. Calico Printers' Association, Ld. Shoe (United) Machinery Co. of Canada v. Brunet Shoreditch Assessment Committee : — Rex Ex parte Morgan Short : — Egbert v Short V. Turffontein Estates, Ld. Shorto V. Colwill Shrager v. March Shrewsbury Town Clerk : — Cartwright u. Shrewsbury Town Clerk : — Major v. Shrewsbury Town Clerk : — Morris v. Shrubb, In re. Shrubb v. Shrubb Shuckburgh's Settlement, In re. Eobertson V. Shuokburgh Shum's Tnist, In re. Prichard v. Richardson Shuttieworth v. Clews . . Shuttleworth : — Darlow v. Shuttieworth v. Murray Sibray, Hall & Co. : — Smith v. Sidebottom, In re. Beeley v. Sidebottom Sidebottom, In re. Beeley v. Waterhouse Sidney, In re. Hingeston v. Sidney Silberhiitte Supply Co. , /ji re Silbey v. Ashforth. In re Ashlorth . . Silburn & Pyman : — Stirbng v. Silicate Paint Co. and J. B. Orr & Co. v. Hunt. In re Seager Hunt . Silkstone and Haigh Moor Coal Co. v. Edey Silles V. Eulham Borough Council . . Silvester, Ex parte. Rex. v. Inland Revenue ) Commissioners . . . . ) [1901] W. N. 106 . . ri903] 1 K. B. 683 . . [1904] W. N. 83 ; [1904] 1 ) Ch. 837 C. A. [1908]W. N. 44; [1908]) 1 Ch. 720 ) C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 389 C. A. [1906] W. N. 112; ] [1906] 2 K. B. 433 . . . . j H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 274.. [1910] "W. N. 54; [1910] 1 ) K B. 627 I [1906] P. 239 0. A. [1909] W. N. 84 ; [1909] ) 2 K. B. 61 j P. C. [1909] A. 0. 330 C. A. [1910] 2 K B. 859 [1907] W. N. 131 ; [1907] 2 ) Ch. 206 P. C. [1909' P. C. [1909 1909 1909' 1910 1906] A. C. 584 W. N. 218 1908] A. 0. 402 W. N. 77 ; [1909] K. B. 169 2 1 1 K. B. 348 1 K. B. 342 W. N. 143 [1901] 2 Oh. 794 [1904] W. N. 146 [1909] W. N. 254 ; [1910] 1 ) Ch. 176 ) [1902] 1 K. B. 721 C. A. [1901] W. N.69 ; [1901] 1 ) Ch. 819;H.L.(E.)A.C. 263 ) [1903] 2 K. B. 707 . . C. A. [1901] W. N. 76 ; [1901] ) 2 Ch. 1 j 0. A. [1902] W. N. 132 ; ' [1902] 2 Ch. 389 . . [1907] W. N. 219; [1908] 1 Oh. 126 ; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 37 ; [1908] 1 Oh. 488 [1910] W. N. 81 [1906] W. N. 52 ; [1905] 1 Oh. 535 [1909] W. N. 204; [1910] 1 K. B. 67 [1906] 2 Oh. 295 [1901] W. N. 158 ; 0. A. [1901] ) W. N. 170 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 652 j 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 829 [1906] W. N. 216; [1907] 1 ) K. B. 108 ( 764 2629 2597 353 1626 2588 2483 2459 998 1650 309 2158 2007 2720 569 2629 1848 1845 1845 2918 1938 357 2797 76 2977 1667 370 370 357 592 2962 1725 1653 737 1530 1897 cclxvi TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Simey : — Larcombe d. ... Simmonds v. Stourbridge Glazed Brick and Fire Clay Co., Ld Simmons' Contract, In re Simmons v. Heath Laundry Co. Simms Manufacturing Co. v. Whitehead Simon, In re Simpkins : — Mcintosh r. Simpson, Iv re. Simpson r. Simpson Simpson v. Att.-Gen. . . Simpson : — Douglas v. In re Douglas Simpson v. Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron and Coal Co Simpson v. Foxon Simpson : — Uerson v. Eeitlinger, Thii-d Party Simpson : — McCormiok v. Simpson : — Hex. v. Simpson v. South Oxfordshire Water and Q-as Co. Simpson v. Teignmouth and Shaldou Bridge Co. Simpson (or Hendry) : — United Collieries, Ld. V Simpson : — Walker !•. . . Sims, In re. Ex parte the Official Receiver Sims V. Castiglione Sims V. Cyolemakers' Co-operative Supply Co. Sims : — Mile End Guardians c. Simultaneous Colour Printing Syndicate i'. Poweraker Sinclair, In re. Young v. Sinclair Sinclair (Cox) ; — Wilson v. In re Home Singer Manufacturing Co. : — Moore, Nettle- fold & Co Singleton : — Brinklow v. In re Dunn Singleton : — Brinklow v. In re Dunn Sion College v. London Corporation . Sirdar Eubber Co. c. WalKngtou, Weston & Co Sisson's Settlement, In re. Jones v. Trappes Sitwell V. Londesborough (Earl of) . . Sitwell : — Murray «... Sivewright v. Allen Volume and Page. [1906] W. N. 203 ; [1907] 1 / K. B. 139 j [19101 2 K. B. 269 . . [1908] 1 Ch. 452 C. A. [1910] W. N. 59 ; C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 543 . . [1909] W. N. 95 C. A. [1908] W. N. 253 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 201 C. A. [1901] 1 E. B. 487 C. A. [1903] W. N. 191 [1904] 1 Ch. 1 C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 671 ; H. L, (E.) [1904] W. N. 166 [1904] A. C. 476 . . [1905] W. N. 7 : [1905] 1 Ch, 279 C. A. [1905] W.N. 20; [1905] 1 K. B. 453 [1907] P. 54 C. A. [1903] W. N. 116 [1903] 2 E. B. 197 . . P. C. [1907] A. C. 494 C. C. R. [1903] 1 K. B. 468 . [1908] W. N. 64; [1908] 1 K. B. 917 ... C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 405 H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 146 [1909] A. 0. 383 . . P. C. [1903] A. G. 208 [1907] W. N. 80; [1907] K. B. 36 [1905] W.N. 112 [1903] 1 K. B. 477 . . [1905] 2 K. B. 200 . . [1901] 1 K. B. 771 . . [1903] W. N. 113 [1904] W. N. 185 ; [1905] Ch. 76 [1903] 2 K. B. 168 ; C. A. [1904] W. N 76; [1904] 1 K. B 820 . . [1902] W. N. 76 [1904] W. N. 39 ; [1904] 1 Ch, 648 .. C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 617 [1905] W. N. 37 ; [1905] 1 Ch 451 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 24 [1906] 1 Ch. 252 [1902] W. N. 233 ; [1903] Ch. 262 [1905] W. N. 11 ; [1905] 1 Ch 460 .. [1902] W.N. 119 [1906] W. N. 92; [1906] K. B. 81 Column of Digest. 1852 2 I ■i TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. colxvii Name of Case. Sjoforsakrings Aktiebolaget Vega : — Eoyal ( Exchangs Assurance Corporation v. . . j Skailes v. Blue Anchor Line, Ld. Skates v. Jones & Co. . . . . . . ! Skene v. Cook . . Skinner, In re. Cooper v. Skinner . Skinner v. Hunt Skipper and Tucker v. HoUoway and Howard Skipper v. Wade. In re TurnbuU "Skipsea,"The.. Skirrow : — Brown v. Skirrow : — Dibden c. . . " Skudenaes," The Slade V. Ohaine . . Slate (Bay of Islands) Syndicate foundland Co. v. . . Slater : — Eex v. . . Slater v. Slater. In re Slater Slater : — Stubbs v. -Eeid-New Volume and Page. Slaughter, In re. Walton r. Aitchison Slazenger & Sons v. Spalding and Brothers SHngsby v. Bradford Patent Truck and Trolley \ Co ) Slobodinsky, In re. Ex parte Moore Sloper : — Collingham c. . . . . . ' Slowey : — Lodder v. . . Smallwood, In re. Gothard v. Chapman . . Small-wood : — Matthews v. . . j Smart, In the Groods of Smart : — Barry v. In re Barry's Trusts . . Smart : — Dawson v. . . . . . . . . Smart v. Taylor. In re Taylor . . . . j Smart : — Tomalin v. . . Smee and Cornish : — Moore v. . . ' [1901] W. N. 132 ; [1901] 2 ) K. B. 567 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 136 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 384 . . ) 0. A. [1910] W. N. 267 C. A. [1910] W. N. 204 ; ) [1910] 2 K.B. 903.. [1901] 2KB. 7; C. A. [1902] W. N. 60 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 682 [1904] W. N. 8 ; [1904] 1 Oh. 289 C. A. [1904] W. N. 117; [1904] 2 K. B. 452 . . [1909] W. N. 230 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 630; C. A. [1910] W. N. 74 [1905] W. N. 64; [1904] 1 Ch. 726 ) 1905] P. 32 1902' P 3 1907] W. N. 30 ; [1907] 1 Ch. ) ■ 437 ; C. A. [1907] W. N. 225 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 41 . . 1 [1901] W. N. 142 C. A. [1908] W.N. 36; [1908]) 1 Ch. 522 ] H. L. (So.) [1910] W. N. 185 C. C. E. [1905] 2 K. B. 335 . . [1906] W. N. 147 ; [1906] 2 Oh. 480 ; 0. A. [1907] W. N. 99 ; [1907] 1 Oh. 665 [1909] W. N. 237 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 195 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 73 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 632 [1907] W. N. 197 [1909] W. N. 261 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 257 [1905] W. N. 122 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 51 [1903] W. N. 154; [1903] 2 K B. 517 0. A. [1901] W. N. 50 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 769 ; H. L. (B.) [1904] A. 0. 159 P. 0. [1904] A. 0. 442 ri910] 1 Oh. 272 [1910] W. N. 69 ; [1910] 1 Oh. 777 [1902] P. 238 [1906] W. N. 68 ; [1906] 1 Oh. 768;C.A. [1906] W.N. 153; [1906] 2 Ch. 358 H. L. (So.) [1903] W. N. 138 ; [1903] A. 0. 457 [1901] W.N. 91; [1901] 2 Oh. 134 [1904] P. 141 0. A. [1907] W. N. 84 ; [1907] 2 K B. 8 Column of Digest. 1277 1659 1648 1470 2731 1537 114 2993 2516 2917 1076 754 2761 655 806 2946 2622 24 2677 683 179 624 1806 2146 1353 2061 2240 956 2912 2057 370 cclxviii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest Smelting Corporation, Ld. : — Chester (Dean j and Oliapter of ) v. . . . . . . ) Smelting Corporation, Ld. : — Chester (Dean | and Chapter oi) v. . . . . . . j Smethurst : — Chapman v. . . . . . . .' SmUter, In re. Bedford v. Hughes . . Smit : — Att.-Q-en. for the Cape of Good Hope i Smith, Ex parte. In re A Dehtor Smith, In re. Ex parte Durhan Smith, In re. Ex parte Valentine Smith, In re. Ex parte Wilson Smith, In re. Eaetick v. Smith Smith, In re. Smith v. Dodsworth . . Smith, In re. Smith v. Lewis Smith, In re. Smith v. New . . Smith, In the Goods of Smith : — Airey v. Smith : — Antoniadi v. . . Smith V. Associated Omnibus C(j. Smith V. Atkins. In re Atkins' Trusts Smith V. Betty Smith Smith Smith Smith : — Buck v. Keen v. Adams. Gardner, Looket and Wintou Smith: — Burr c. Birkin v. — Boyle V. — Bromley v. Buck V. Keen v. Adams. Doe .. Smith ('. Callander Smith : — Carringtons, Ld. v. . . Smith : — Chapman v. . . Smith V. Coles . . Smith V. Dauuey Smith !'. Dodsworth. In re Smith Smith : — Douglas v. Smith V. Draeger. In re Broad Smith : — Edwards v. In re Unite Smith : — Gardiner v. In re Gardiner Smith V. Giddy [1901] "W. N. 179 [1902] W. N. 5 . . . . ' [1908] W. N. 224; [1909] 1 K. B. 73 ; C. A. [1909] / W. N. 66 ; [1909] 1 K. B. i I 927 [1902] W. N. 236; [1903] 1 / \ Ch. 198 1 P. C. [1904] A. C. 114 . . C. A. [1902] W. N. 128 ;( i [1902] 2 K. B. 260 . . . . | i C. A. [1902] W. N. 196; ( [1903] 1 K. B. 33 . .1 [1910] W. N. 23 [1910] W. N. 138 ; [1910] 2 j K. B. 346 [1903] W. N. 207 Ch. 139 [1906] W. N. 79; Ch. 799 [1902] W. N. 143 Ch. 667 [1904] 1 ) [1906] [1902] 2 1) 1907' 1904' 1907' [1907] 1 [1909] 1 W. N. 188 P. 114 W. N. 96; [1907] 2 K B. 273 C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 589 [1907] W. N. 74; " K. B. 916 [1908] W. N. 228; Ch. 471 C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 317 C. A. [1909] 2K. B. 112 [1906] 1 K. B. 432 [1909] 2 K. B. 235 . . [1906] 2 K. B. 171 C.A. [1909] W.N. 115; [19091 2 K. B. 306 . . H. L. (So.) [1901] W. N. 102 ; [1901] A. C. 297 [1906] 1 K. B. 79 [1907] 2 Ch. 97 0. A. [1905] W. N. 152- [1905] 2 K. B. 827 [1904] 2 K. B. 186 [1906] W. N. 79 Ch. 799 [1907] 1 K. B. 126; C. a'. [1907] W. N. 150 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 568 . [1901] W. N. 90; [19011 2 Ch. 86 [1906] W. N. 26 [1901] W. N. 55; [1901] 'l Ch. 697 -^ [1904] W. N. 130; [1904] 2 K. B. 448 . . [1906] 1 ) ) 1828 117 509 2929 333 187 188 199 170 2764 1429 2753 1982 2054 1491 251 1675 1196 89 1432 1447 1670 2664 870 1350 1720 1378 1687 2229 1429 1846 1936 361 10 1832 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. colxix Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. SmitK V. Gold Coast and Ashanti Explorers Ld Smith : — Golding v. Smith ('. Greenwood Smith V. Grummitt. Tn re Gedney Smith V. Kerr Smith V. Kynnersley Trust Society, Smith V. Law Guarantee and Ld Smith : — Lazarus v. Smith V. Leigh Union . . Smith !'. Lion Brewery Co. Smith V. London United Breweries, Ld. In re ] London United Breweries, Ld. . . j Smith (Watherston's Trustees) v. Lord i Advocate . . . . . . ) Smith V. Lubbock. In re New Zealand Mid- } land Ey. Co ) Smith V. McAjrthur Smith V. Margetts. In re Margetts . . Smith : — Maskelyne & Cooke v. Smith : — Masters and Owners of S.S. " City of Lincoln " v. . . Smith V. Moody . . Smith : — ^Nixon v. In re Timmis Smith V. Northleach Eural Council . Smith r. Paringa Mines, Ld. . . Smith V. Patrick Smith : — Peerless v. In re Peerless . Smith V. Perry . . Smith V. Portsmouth Justices Smith V. Prosser Smith : — ^Eex v... Smith : — Eex v. Eex v. Weston Smith : — ^]Rex v. Eex v. Wilson Smith V. Eichard Mills (Brieriy Hill), Ld. In re Eichard Mills (Brierly HUl), Ld Smith V. St. John. In re Young. In re Scholefield. Scholefield v. St. John Smith V. Savage Smith V. Sibray, Hall & Co Smith V. Smith . . Smith V, South Normanton Colliery Co. Smith V. Southampton Corporation . . Smith V. Standard Steam Fishing Co. Burden V. Gregson & Co. [1908] 1 [1903] 1 K. B. 285; 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 538 . . [19101 W. N. 14; [1910] 1 K. B. 462 [190Y] 2 K. B. 385 [1908] W. N. 82 Ch. 804 C. A. [1902] 1 Oh. 774 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 788 [1904] 1 Oh. 500; 0. A. [1904] W. N. 172 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 569 0. A. [1908] W.N. 115 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 266 0. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 484 [1909] W. N. 54; [1909] 1 K.B.711;C.A.[1909]W.N. 177 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 912 . . [1907] W. N. 198; [1907] 2 Ch. 511 (1901) Ot. of Sess. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 167 [1901] W. N. 105 ; 0. A. [1901] W.N. Ill; [1901] 2 Oh. 357 P. 0. [1904] A. C. 389 [1906] W. N. 44 [1902] 2 E. B. 158; 0. A. [1903] W. N. 39 ; [1903] K. B. 671 P. 0. [1904] A. 0. 250 [1903] 1 K. B. 56 [1901] W. N. 242 ; [1902] Oh. 176 [1901] W. N. 215; [1902] Oh. 197 [1906] 2 Ch. 193 H. L. (Sc.) [1901] W. N. 96 [1901] A. 0. 282 [1901] W. N. 151 [1906] W. N. 7; [1906] K. B. 262 0. A. [1906] W. N. 141 [1906] 2 K. B. 229 . . 0. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 736 C. 0. A. [1909] W. N. 235 0. 0. A. [1909] W. N. 210 [1910] 1 K. B. 17 . . 0. 0. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 756 [1905] W. N. 36 [1905] W. N. 123; [1905]) W. N. 408 I 1905] 1 K. B. 88 1903] 2 K. B. 707 1905] P. 249 0. A. [1903] W. N. 2 ; [1903] \ 1 K. B. 204 j [1902] 1 K. B. 244 0. A. [1906] W. N. 118; [1906] 2 K. B. 275 . . ') 1109 762 2861 30 362 243 422 1720 1916 2237 824 2222 421 1809 2968 1110 1778 804 2743 728 469 2744 2913 804 1449 2080 801 795 796 575 640 46 1667 1624 2139 1648 cclsx TABLE OF CASES IS THE DIGEST. Name of Case. )( Smith :—Tlirelkeld ?. Smith : — Turner v. Smith : — Weiner v. Weiner r. Q-ill . . Smith V. Whiteman Smith : — Wilkins v. Jn re Smith's Settle ment . . Smith (Bruce) : — Glenie v. . . Smith (George C), Ld. :^Att.-Gen. v. Smith (Herbert) & Co. :— Bowden's (E. M. Patents Syndicate, Ld. v. . . Smith (W. H.) & Son v. Kyle Smith (W. H.) & Sons :— Hanfstaengl Smith (Woodham) v. Edwards Smith's Dock Co. >•. Tynemouth Corporation Smith's (J.) Settled Estates, /« re .. Smith's Settlement, In re. Wilkins r. Smith Smithers v. Wallis Smithers : — Wheatley v. Smithies v. Bridge Smithies : — National Association of Opera tive Plasterers v. Smithies c. National Association of Operative Plasterers Smyth V. Stretton Smyth & Co. : — Temperley Steam Shipping Co. V. . . Smythies, In re. Weyman v. Smythies Snagge : — Rex i: Snary : — Paquine v. Sneade u. Wotherton Barytes and Lead Mining Co. Sneath i'. Taylor Snell : — Baker r. Snell : — Dansk Eekylriffel Syndicat Aktie- selscah v. Snelling, Lampard & Co. : — Payton & Co. r. Soames v. Nicholson Sobinska : — Toomer v. . . Society Generale du Commerce et de I'lndus- trie en France v. Johann Maria Farina & Co. Volume and Page C A, [1906] 107 [1901] 2K. B. 531 [1901] 1 Ch. 213 [1905] 2 K. B. 172 [1906] W. N. 157 : 2 K B. 574 . . C. A. [1909] W. N. [1909] 2 K. B. 437 . . [1902] W. N. 232; [1903] Ch. 373 [1907] 2 K B. 507; C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 263 . . [1909] 2 Ch. 524 [1904] W. N. 106; [1904] 5 Ch. 86 ; C. A. [1904] W. N, 133 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 122 [1902] 1 K B. 286 [1905] W. N. 36 ; [1905] 1 Ch, ol9 C. A. [1908] W. N. 181 [1908] 2 K. B. 899 . . [1908] W. N. 15; [1908] 1 K. B. 315; C. A. [1908] W.N. 79; [1908] 1 KB. 948 [1901] W. N. 33 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 689 [1902] W. N. 232 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 373 C. A. [1902] W. N. 228; [1903] 1 K. B. 200 . . [1906] W. N. 124; [1906] 2 K. B. 321 ; C. A. [1907] 2 K B. 684 . . [1902] 2 K. B. 13 H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 434 0. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 310 [1904] W. N. 90 C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 791 [1902] W. N. 232: [1903] Oh. 259 C. A. [1909] W. N. 42 ; [1909] 1 E. B. 644 . . C. A. [1909] W. N. 14 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 688 . . C. A. [1904] W. N. 21 ; [19041 1 K. B. 295 . . [1901] 2 K. B. 376 [1908] W. N. 122 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 352; C. A. [1908] W.N 187 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 825 . , [1908] W. N. 69; [1908] 2 Ch. 127 , H. L. (E.) [1901] A. 0. 308 [1901] W. N. 219; [1902] 1 K. B. 157 [1907] P. 106 . . C. A. [1904] 1 K B. 794 column of Digest. 822 1755 2293 253 2407 246 881 1885 2572 690 1046 2160 2375 2407 1586 130 44 890 2703 2244 2445 2885 758 2167 745 42 964 1894 2676 1379 2074 472 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. colxxi Name of Case. Society of Accoiuitants and Auditors v. " G-oodway and London Association of Ac- countants, Ld. Society of Architects v. Kendrick Society of Contributors to the Widows' " Fund of the Faculty of Procurators in Grlasgow : — J. Q. V. . . Society of Notaries for State of Victoria : Fay )'. , Society of Provincial Notaries Public of England and Wales, Ex parte. In re ] Champion Society for Training Teachers of the Deaf ] and Whittle's Contract . . J Society (Pharmaceutical) of Great Britain : — i Edwards v. . . . . . . ' Society (Pharmaceutical) of Great Britain v. ] Mercer ; Society (20th Century Equitable Friendly), '] In re . . . . . . . . . . . . Solicitor, In re A. Solicitor, In re A. Ex parte Hales . . SoKcitor, In re A.. Ex parte Incorporated Law Society . . . . , . . . , Solicitorto the Treasury : — See under Treasury (Solicitor to the). Solicitor-General for-New Zealand : — WalUs v. Solomon : — Metropolitan Water Board v. Solomon : — MiUer & Co. r. . . Solomon ;;. Mulltner Solomon : — Scott & Co. v. Solomons, In re. . Solomons, In re. Ex parte Solomons Solomons : — Eex v. Somers : — Eex v. Somerset : — Moore v. In re Donald SomervUle :— C. A. Van Eijck & Zoon i-. . . { Somerville v. Tancred. In re Tanored's ) Settlement . . . . . . . . j Somerville and Turner's Contract, In re . . Somerville (William & Son) :— Edinburgh and ) District Water Trustees v ( Sonnenthal : — De Pass r. In re Salaman . Soothill Upper Urban Council r. Wakefield j Rural Council . . . . . . . ' Soothill Wood Colliery Co. : — Rhodes v. Volume and Page. [1907] W. N. 45 ; [1907] 1 Ch. ) 489 j [1910] W.N. 113 H. L. (So.) [1908] W. N. 72 ; / [1908] A. 0. 182 . . ) [1909] P. 15 [1906] W. N. 36; [1906] P. 86 [1907] W. N. 188 ; [1907] 2 ) Ch. 486 [1910] 2 K B. 766 . . [1910] 1 K. B. 74 Column of Digest. [1910] W. N. 236 C. A. [1901] W. N. 234 [1902] 1 K. B. 128 . . [1907] W. N. 155; [1907] 2 K. B. 539 [1903] W. N. 74 ; [1903] 1 K. B 857; 0. A. [1903] W. N 117 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 205 . . P. C. [1903] A. 0. 173 [1908] W. N. 98 ; [1908] 2 ) Ch. 214 I [1906] 2 K. B. 91 C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 76 [1906] 1 K. B. 577 C. A. [1903] W. N. 197 [1904X1 K. B. 106 . . [1904] W. N. 169 ; [1904] 2 ) K. B. 760 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 188; [1904] 2K.B. 917 ) C. C. A. [1909] 2K. B. 980. [1906] 1 K. B. 326 . . [1909] W. N. 169; [1909] 2 Ch. 410 H. L. (Sc.) W. N. 162 ; [1906] ) A. C. 489 ) [1903] 1 Ch. 715 [1903] W. N. 153 ; [1903] Ch. 583 C. A. [1906] W. N. 162 [1907] W. N. 100 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 46 ; 0. A. [1907] W. N. 218 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 4 [1904] W. N. 200 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 53 ; 0. A. [1905] W. N. 138 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 516 C. A. [1908] W. N. 252 ; [1909] ') 1 K. B. 191 j 2697 2698 1281 1819 1820 358 1905 1907 1116 2577 2611 2609 1804 1541 756 754 2254 174 163 816 1163 2986 2479, 2616 1964 2843 2906 1489, 2846 1672 colxxii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Sorstie v. Tea Corporation, Ld. In re Tea ) Corporation, Ld. . . . . . . J Sourdis u. Keyser. In re De Almeda . . j South Africa (British) Co. ii. De Beers Con- ) solidated Mines, Ld. . . . . . . j South African Supply and Cold Storage Co., ) In re. Wild v. Same Company . . J South Austrahan Land Mortgage Co., Ld. : — ) Mellor V. In re King . . . . j South British Fire and Marine Insurance Co. j of New Zealand v. Da Costa . . ] South Eastern & Chatham Railway Com- j panies' Managing Committee : — Corbett v. I South Eastern and Chatham Ey. Co. : — ) Dunn V. . . j South Eastern & Chatham Eailway Com- ) panies' Managing Committee f. London [ County Council . . . . ) South Eastern and Chatham By. Companies' ) Managing Committee. Eex v. Southwark ' Assessment Committee . . . . I South Eastern (Dublin and) Ey. Co. : — ) Pearson (S.) & Son, Ld. v. . . . . . . i South Eastern Eailway Company and ( WiflSn's Contract, In re . . . . j South Eastern Ey. Co. v. Associated Portland i Cement Manufacturers (1900), Ld. . . j South Eastern Rj. Co. v. National Telephone j Co South Hetton Coal Co. : — Parkin r. . . . South Kirkby, &c., Collieries, Ld. : — Yates v. } South Lancashire Tramways Co. : — Eccles ( Corporation v. . . . . ) South London Electric Supply Corporation v. ) Pen-in . . . . . . . . j South Metropolitan Gas Co., Ex parte. Eex ) V. London Justices . . . . . . j South Metropolitan County Council v. Gas Co. : — London South Normanton Colliery Co. : — Smith i'. South of England Dairies, Ld.. t;. Baker South Oxfordshire Water and Gas Co. : — Simpson v. . . South Stoneham Union, Ex parte. Eex v. Local Government Board. Local Govern- ment Board v. South Stoneham Union South Suburban Gas Co. v. Metropolitan Water Board . . South Wales Miners' Federation gan Coal Co. v. -Glamor- Volume and Page. 0. A. [1903] W. N. 198 ; ) [1904] 1 Ch. 12 [1901] W. N. 142 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 55 . . . . ) [1910] 1 Ch. 354 ; C. A. ^ [1910] 2 Ch. 502 . . ..] [1904] 2 Ch. 268 [1906] W. N. 194 ; [1907] 1 ( Ch. 72 ) j [1906] 1 K. B. 456 . . [1905] W. N. 93 ; [1905] 2 Ch. ) 280;C.A. [1906] W.N. 106; [1906] 2 Ch. 12 . . ) [1903] W. N. 20 ; [1903] 1 ) K. B. 358 i [1907] W. N. 81 ; [1907] 2 ) K B. 91 j C. A. [1909] W. N. 4 ; [1909] ( 1 K. B. 274 ) H. L. (Ir.) [1909] A. C. 217.. [1907] W. N. 161 ; [1907] 2 / Ch. 366 .. ) C. A. [1909] W. N. 217 : [1910] 1 Ch. 12 [1908] W. N. 106 ; [1908] 2 Oh. 50 ; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 172 ; [1908] 2 Oh. 514 [1907] W.N. 81; 0. A. [1901] W.N 7 C.A. [1910] W.N. 174; [19101 2 K. B. 538 . . [1910] W. N. 28 ; 0. A. [1910] W. N. 141 ; [1910] 2 Oh. } 263 ) [1901] W. N. 100; [19011 2) K. B. 186 .. . ..) [1907] W. N. 200 [1903] W. N. 90 ; [1903] 2 Ch. ) 532 ; 0. A. [1903] W. N. 205 ; C. A. [1904] 1 Oh. 76 ) 0. A. [1903] W. N. 2 ; [1903] ) 1 K. B. 204 . . ■ ) [1906 [1908; C.A. 2 Ch. 631 W. N. 64 ; [1908] K. B. 917 K '1908] W.N. 96; [1908]^ • B. 368 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] A. 0. 57 . . [1909] W. N. 199; [1909]) 2 Oh. 666 . . [1903] 1 K B. 118; 0. A. \ [1903] W. N. 152 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 545 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 72 ; [1905] A. C. 239 } Coluimi ot Digest. 407 966 632 534 24 1276 2109 760 1605 2153 2125 2808 2099 2660 1662 1625 2715 1827 1321 1135 1624 1354 2864 1917 1543 664 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. cclxxiii Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. South. Wales Miners' Federation : — Steele v South-West Suburban Water Co. v. St. Marylebone Union . . South- Western (Glasgow and) Ey. Co. v. Grreenock Port and Harbour Trustees South Western of Venezuela (Barquisimeto By. Co., In re Southall Development Syndicate, Ld. Dunsdon Southam : — Butler v. In re Brewster Southampton Corporation : — Smith v. Southampton, Isle of Wight, and South of 1 England Boyal Mail Steam Packet Co : — Cowes Urban Council v. . . . . . . } Southampton Justices : — ^Raven v. . . Southampton Justices : — Eex v. . . . . Southampton iLicensing Justices : — B,ex v. \ Ex parte Cardy . . . . . . . . ] Southend-on-Sea Corporation : — ^Lyles v. . . > Southern : — ^Abram Coal Co. v. . . . , ' Southern Brazilian Rio Grande do Sul Ey. ] Co., In re . . . . , . . . . . . ' Southern Counties Dairies Co., Ld. : — Hennen , V. Pearks, Gunston & Tee, Ld. v. Ward . . ; Southern (Louisiana and) States Eeal Estate 1 and Mortgage Co., In re . . . . . . I Southport and Lytham Tramroads Act, 1900, i In re. Ex parte Hesketh . . . . . . | Southwark Assessment Committee : — Eex v. '• Southwark Corporation : — Berwick v. ' Southwark Press : — Pomphrey v. Southwark Uiiion v. City of London Union ' Southwark Union v. London County Council Southwell i;. Savill Brothers, Ld. . . . . Sowter : — Reg. v. . . . . . . . Spacey v. Dowlais Gas and Coke Co. SpafEord & Co. : — ^White v. . . . Spain V. Lejoindre. In re Leveridge Spalding and Brothers : — Slazenger & Sons ) V. . . . . . . . . . . . . I Spalding Eural Council (Att.-Gen. and) v. \ Garner . . . . . . . . j Spanish Prospecting Co., Ld., Inre . . Sparkea v. Hutchell. In re Houston's Settle- 1 ment . . . . . . . . . . . . ) Spark's Lease, In re'. Berger v. Jenkinson D.D. [1907] W. N. 24 ; [1907] 1KB.) 361 j [1904] 2 K B. 174 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 152 [1902] 1 Ch. 701 [1907] W. N. 16 [1908] W. N. 139 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 365 [1902] 2 K. B. 244 . . [1905] 2 K. B. 287 . . [1904] 1 K. B. 430 . . [1906] W. N. 54; [1906] K. B. 505 . . [1906] W. N. 18; [1906] K. B. 446 C. A. [1905] W. N. 63 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 1 H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 124 [1903] A. C. 306 . . [1905] 2 Ch. 78 [1902] W. N. 88 ; [1902] 2 ) K. B. 1 . . . . . . ) [1909] W. N. 170; [1909] 2 Ch. 552 j 0. A. [1910] W. N. 266 C. A. [1909] W. N. 4 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 274 . . [1908] W. N. 224; [1909] K. B. 78 0. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 86 C. A. [1906} W. N. Ill; [1906] ) 2 K B. 112 j [1910] 2 K. B. 559 [1901] W. N. 120 ; [1901] 2 ) E. B. 349 j [1901] 1 K. B. 66 ; C. A. [1901] W. N. 11 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 396 C. A. [1905] W. N. 156 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 879 . . .... C. A. [1901] W. N. 104 [1901] 2 K. B. 241 . . [1901] W. N. 203 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 830 [1909] W. N. 261 ; [1910] Ch. 257 [1907] 2 E. B. 480 . . C. A. [1910] W. N. 241 [1903] W. N. 187 [1906] W.N. 42; [1905] 1 Ch 456 2704 2851 654 466 2021 2907 2139 1075 1441 1434 1450 2084 1611 430 46 543 2707 2153 2148 1607 1920 2302 2238 978 1618 891 2993 2677 20, 1210 463 713 1353 s C3lxxiv TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Columii of Digest. Spark's Trusts, In re. Massey v. Spark . . •Sparro-w and James' Contract, hire. . Speak : — Broome v. Shepheard v. Broome . . Speak : — Hoole v. . . .. . . . . j Speake v. Hughes Spearman Settled Estates, hire Special Commissioners for Purposes of Income Tax : — Eex v. Ex parte Univer- sity College of North Wales Spence v. Coleman Spence : — Wills v. ment . . hi re Watkin's Settle- Spencer V. Cutbush. In re Mayhew Spencer : — Hudson v. . . Spencer v. Registrar of Titles . . Spencer v. Eegistrar of Titles . . Spencer v. Turner. In re Hudson . . Spencer Coopor, In re. Poe v. Spencer / Cooper . . ■ . . Spencer, Whatley & Underhill v. Forster Co Spencer's (Hammond) Settled Estates, In re Speyer Brothers v. Inland Eevenue Com- missioners . . . . . . . . . . ' Spicer : — Alton Urban Council v. Spiers v. EngHsh Spiers v. Hunt . . Spiers & Pond, Ld. : — Penn v. Spiers & Pond, Ld. : — Toller v. Spillers & Bakers, Ld. v. Grreat Western Ey. Co ( Spillers & Bakers, Ld. v. Great Western Ey. | Co . . I Spindler and Mear's Contract, In re. . , . j Spink & Son, Ld. : — London County Council ' •.:;l Spinning (Walkden) and Manufiioturing Ci — Booth V. . . . : Spiral Globe, Ld., In re (No. 2). Watson v. Spiral Globe, Ld. Spiritine, Ld., In re. Owen v. Spiritine, Ld. Spooner : — Phoenix Assurance Co. v. Sprague v. Booth [1904] W. N. 31 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 451 ; 0. A. [1904] W. N. 129 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 121 [1910] 2 Ch. 60 [1902] W. N. 96 ; C. A. [1903] ) W.N. 12; [1903] 1 Ch. 586 ; H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 342 ) [1904] W. N. 145 ; [1904] 2 ) Ch. '732 J C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 138 [1906] 2 Oh. 602 [1908] W. N. 92 ; 0. A. [1909] ( W. N. 57 ( 0. A. [1901] W. N. 97 ; [1901] ) 2 K B. 199 j C. A. [1910] W. N. 232 [1901] W. N. 55 ; [1901] 1 Ch. ] 677 ■ i [1910] W. N. 157 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 285 P. C. [19(16] A. C. 503 P. C. [1908] A. C. 235 [1910] W. N. 269 [1907] W. N. 238; [1908] 1 Ch. 130 [1905] W. N. 22; [1905] 1 K. B. 434 . . [1902] W. N. 200; [1903] 1 Ch. 75 ... [1906] 1 K B. 318 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 219 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 246; H.L.(E.) [1908] W.N. 22 ; [1908] A. C. 92 1904] 1 K. B. 678 1907] P. 122 . . '1908] W. N. 16 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 720 . . 0. A. [1908]W. N. 47;[1908i 1 K. B. 766 . . [1903] W. N. 4; [1903] 1 Oh. 362 ., 0. A. [1909] W.N. 47; [1909] 1 K. B. 604 . . [1910] 1 K. B. 778 ; C. A. ' [1910] W. N. 250 [1901]W. N. 71; [1901] 1 Ch. ' 908 [1908] 2 K. B. 447 [1909] W. N. 112; [1909] 2 K. B. 368 . . [1901] W. N. 250; [1902] i Ch. 396 [1902] W.N. 82; [1902] 2 Ch. 209 ... C. A. [1902] W, N. 124 [1905] 2 K. B. 753 . P. C. [1909] A. 0. 576 2338 2806 616 512 878 2392 2232 120 66 1937 969 136 137 2989 2996 761 2394 2262 2157 2056 1673 1611 1666 2127 2103 2810 1506 572 442 439 2172 1253 296 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. COIXXT Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Sprange v. Lee . . Spratley, In re . . Spratling : — ^Rex v. Spratt : — Karno ■;;. Spreadbury : — Little v. Spiailing, In re . . Spurrier v. La Cloclie . . Squire v. Bayer & Co. . . Squire : — Fullers, Ld. v. Squire v. Midland Lace Co. . . Squire v. Squire Squirrell : — Lingard v. In re Lingard Staoey v. Hill . . Staokemann : — Paton v. Stafford (Governor of H.M. Prison at) : — Eex V. Ex parte Emery . . Stafford's (Lord) Settlement and Will, In re. Gerard v. Staif ord . . Staflordsliire County Council : — ^Att.-Gen. u. StaffordskLre Financial Co. v. Hunt . . Staffordshire Financial Co. v. Valentine Stagg V. Medway (Upper) Navigation Co. . . Staincliff e v. Adlam. In re Paddon . . Stainland and Holywell Green Industrial ~ Corn and Provision Society v. Stainland with. Old Lindley Urban Council . Stainland with Old Lindley Urban Council : ' — Stainland and Holywell Green Industrial ! Corn and Provision Society v. Stalkartt : — Furness v. In re Fumess Stallard : — Bast Barnet Valley Urban Council V. . . . . . . . . . . . . Stamford and Warrington (Earl of), In re. ) Payne v. Grey . . . . . . . . j Stamford v. White Stam.p Duties Commissioner v. Salting Stanbury v. Exeter Corporation Stancomb v. Trowbridge Urban District Council Standard Bank of South Africa, Ld. v. ) Heydenrych . . . . . . . . j Standard Land Co. : — Bath v. 'i •t Standard Life Assurance Co. v. Allan Standard Steam Fishing Co. Burden v. Gregson & Co. . . Stanford v. Eoberts -Smith ."•i Stanford : — ^Whitmores (Edenbridge), Ld. v. Stanier : — Orouan v. . . Stanland v. North-Eastern Steel Co. . . [1908] W.N. 13; [1908] 1 Ch. 424 [1909] W. N. 31 ; [1909] 1 K. B 559 0. C". A." [1910] W. N.' 216 0. A. [1910" C. A P. C. [1902] A. C. 446 [1901 [1901 [1906' [1905° [1908' 1909] W. N. 251 2 K. B. 658 . . 1909] 1 Oh. 199 2 K B. 299 2 E. B. 209 2 K. B. 448 P. 1 .. W. N. 107 0. A. [1901] W. N. 51 ; [1901] ) 1 K. B. 660 . . . . ] [1906] W. N. 79; [1906] " Ch. 774 [1909] W. N. 95; [1909] 2 K. B. 81 [1904] W. N. 100; [1904] 2 Oh. 72 [1905] W.N. 5; [1905] 1 K. B, 336 [1907] W. N. 258 0. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 233 [1902] W. N. 69 ; 0. A. [1903] ) W.N. 3; [1903] 1 Oh. 169 j [1909] W. N. 162 [1906] 1 K B. 233 . . [1906] 1 K B. 233 . . [1901] W. N. 107 ; [1901] 2 ) Oh. 346 j [1909] W. N. 189 ; 0. A. [1909] I W. N. 208 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 555 ) [1910] W. N. 114 ; [1910] 2 Oh. 83 ; [1910] W. N. 277 [1901] P. 46 . . P. 0. [1907] A. C. 449 [1905] 2 E. B. 838 . . [1910] W. N. 105 ; [1910] 2 ) Ch. 190 ■ j P. 0. [1907] A. 0. 336 206; [1910] 2: n [1910] W. N, Oh. 408 (1901) a. of Sess. (Sc.J [1902] W. N. 176 0. A. [1906] W. N. 118; [1906] 2 K B. 275 . . [1901] W. N. 16 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 440 [1909] W.N. 8; [1909] 1 Oh. 427 [1904] 1 K. B. 87 C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 425, n. '':! 1187 172 797 82 2578 1555 1297 1690 1071 1691 947 2367 174 690 828 2361 1486 1722 1723 700 2381 1496 1496 2885 2430 2223 2053 1880 900 2340 333 2033 2243 1648 2352 2632 1277 1602 s2 cclxxyi TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Stanley, In re. Tennant v. Stanley . . Stanley : — TKe G-ramophone and Typewriter, Ld. V. . . Stanley (West) Colliery (Owners of) : — Hodgson V. . . Star Newspaper Co. : — Hunt v. Star Tea Co.-y. Neale .. Start V. Stark and Hatchins Starkey v. Bank of England . . Starkey v. Barton • ■ . . State of Wyoming Syndicate, In re . . States (Louisiana and Southern) Eeal Estate and Mortgage Co., In re . . . . . . ) Stawell's Trust, In re. Poole v. fiiversdale | Stead, In re . . . . . . . . . . j Stead V. Aykroyd Stead : — Newport Union v. . . .. . . Stead V. Nicholas Stead w. Pearson. Pearson ?>. Stead. . Steam (Accrington Corporation) Tramways ) Co., In re ■•..••. . . . . . . . j Steam (General) Eishing Co. : — Low or Jack- ) son V. . . . . . . . . . . . . j Steam (Great Northern) Shipping Co : — Whelan v. Steam (Orient) Navigation Co. : — Marshall v. Steam (Pacific) Navigation Co. : — EadclifEe v. Steam Packet (Royal Mail) Co. and Eiver Plate Steamship Co., Jn re Steam Trawler "Nizam" (Owners of): — GUbert v Steamship CCalcutta) Co., Ld. v. Andrew Weir & Co Steamship " Carishrook '' Co. v. Loudon and Provincial Marine and General Insurance Co Steamship (Dowgate) Co. :: — Thorman v. Steamship " JohannesbiU'g " (Owners of): — Kitchenham v. Leach v. Oakley Street & Co .. Steamship (Knight) Co., Ld. : — Markt & Co.,Ld. r. . Steamship (Knight) Co., Ld. : — Sale & Frazar v. Steamship (Liverpool and North Wales) Co. V. Mersey Trading Co. Steamship (Merchiston) Co., Ld. v. Turner. . Steamship (Moss) Co., Ld. : — Whinney v. . . [1906] 1 Ch. 131 [1906] 2 K: B. 8o6; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 88 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 89 . . ■ . . H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 67 ; [1910] A. C. 229 . . . . t C. A. [1908] W.N. 80; [1908] / 2 E. B. 309 . . . . . . ( [1909] W. N. 200 0. A: [1910] P. 190 . . H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 52; / [1903] A. C. 114 . . . . ( [1909] 1 Ch. 284 [1901] W. N. 141 ; [1901] 2 '( Ch. 431 I [190S] W. N. 170 ; [1909] 2 ) Ch. 552 i [1909] W. N. 36 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 634; C. A. [1909] W. N. 124; [1909] 2 Oh. 239 C. A. [19101 W. N. 157; [1910] 2 K."B. 713 . . [1910] W. N. 227 [1906]2K.B.147; C.A. [1907] W. N. 125 ; [1907] 2 K. B. / 460 ; H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. i 220 ; [1909] A. C. 35 [1901] 2 K. B. 163 . . [1903] P. 66 . . [1909] 2 Ch. 40 H. L. (Sc.)[1909] W. N. 185; [1909] A. C. 523 . . G A. [1909] W. N. 135 C. A. [1909] W. N. 225 ; / [1910] IK. B. 79 .. ) C. A. [1910] W. N. 58 ; [1910] ) 1 K. B. 685 ) [1910] 1 K. B. 600 . . C.A. [1910] W.N. 180; [1910] ) 2 K. B. 555 . . . . . ( [1910] 1 KB. 759 .. C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 681 [1910] 1 K. B. 410 . . C. A. [1910] W. N. 275 0. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 1021 .. C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 1021 . . C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 209 [1910] 2 KB. 923 0. A. [1910] 2 K B. 813 2935 2240 1603 874 1327 927 2031 1380 599 543 2409 724, 2593 241 2155 10S2 1000 580 1631, 1655 1646 1649 1631 2467 1646 2452 1265 2471 1645 1990 1990 1908 2250 628 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. cclxxvii Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Steamship New Orleans Co. v. London and \ Provincial Marine and General Insurance > Co. ) Steamship " Eaphael" (Owners of) : — Brandy ' Steamship (Eiver Plate) Co. and Eoyal Mail ) Steam Packet Co., /?i re .. .. .. ( Steamship " Tintoretto " (Owners of) v. ] McDermott . . . . . . . . . . i Steamship " Tongariro" (Owners of Cargo of) 1 V. Astral Shipping Co., Ld. . . . . j Steamship "Wild fiose " (Owners of): — ) Marshall v. . . . . . . . . . . ) S.S. Albano v. Allan Line Steamship Co. \ Union Dampfschit&rhederei Actiengesell- [ schaft V. S.S. " Parisian" . . . . . . ) S.S. "Banana," (Owners of) : — McDonald v. j S.S. "Blanche" (Owners of):— Sir John) Jackson, Ld. v. . . , . . . . . j S.S. " Knutsford," Ld. v. Tillmanns & Co. . . ] S.S. ' ' Parisian " : — Union Dampfschiffs- ) rhederei Actiengesellschaf t S. . . . . ] Stearns : — Maritime Insurance Co. v. Steams : — Saqui & Lawrence v. Steedeu v. Walden Steel, In re. Wappett v. Robinson Steel V. CammeU, Laird & Co. Steel : — Dixon v. Steel : — Wilcox v. Steel : — Wilson v. Steel Brothers & Co. : — Borland's Trustee v. Steel (Moss Bay Hematite Iron and) Co. :— McLean v. . . Steel (Upper Forest and Western) and Tin plate Co. V. Thomas . . Steele v. South Wales Miners' Federation . Stein V. Pope . . Steinhardt, Walker & Co. : — Alexander v. . Stenbury : — Humphrey v. In re Viola'i Indenture of Lease . . Stenotyper, Ld., The, In re. Hastingi Brothers v. The Stenotyper, Ld. . . Stephan v. Cape Town Board of Executors . Stephen : — Commissioner of Stamp Duties v. Stephens, In re. Eilby v. Betts Stephens v. l)udbrid.ge Ironworks Co. Stephens v. Mysore Eeefs (Kangundy) Mining ) Co. j C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 943 C. A. [1910] W. N. 266 [1910] 1 K. B. 600 H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 274 •H. L. (E.)[1910]W. N. 274 H. L. (E.)[1910]W. N. 179 [IQIO] A. 0. 486 . . P. C. [1907] A. C. 193 0. A. [1908] W. N. 192, 195, 219 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 926 . , H. L. (li.) [1908] W. N. 61 ; [1908] A. C. 126 . . [1908] 1 K. B. 185; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 67 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 386 r H. L. (B.) [1908] W. N. 165; [1908] A. C. 406 P. C. [1907] A. C. 193 [1901] 2 K. B. 912 . . [1910] W. N. 147 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 2, ^ [1910] W. N. 182; [1910] 2 Ch. 393 [1902] W. N. 202; [1903] 1 Ch. 135 C. A. [1905] W. N. 84 ; [1905 2 K. B. 232 [1901] W. N. 178; [1901] 2 Ch. 602 0. A. C. A. 1904] 1 Ch. 212 1903] W. N. 205 [1901] 1 Ch. 279 H. L. (E.) [1910] W.N. 102. C. A. [1909] 2 E. B. 631 [1907] W. N. 24; [1907] K. B. 361 0. A. [1902] W. N. 40; [1902] 1 K. B. 595 . . [1903] 2 K. B. 208 . . [1908] W. N. 255; [1909] Ch. 244 [1901] W. N. 4; [1901] 1 Oh 250 P. C. [1909] A. C. 347 P. C. [1904] A. C. 137 [1904] 1 Ch. 322 C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 225 [1902] W. N. 44 ; [1902] 1 Ch 745. 2546 1644 2467 1642 2483 1642 322 1616 2524 2447 322 1275 1249 1233 3004 1604 2042 1570 1569 569 1598 1686 2703 181 110 1364 612 336 1798 12 1673 496 oclxxTiii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Stephens & Sons : — Greenshields, Oowie & Co. t; Stephenson v. Parker. In re Parker Stepney Assessment Committee : — Homer v Stepney Borougli Council :- Eoskett, Ld., v. -Gringell, Son & Stepney Corporation : — Bex v. SterioTis & Co. : — Taddy & Co. c. Stern v. Schwalaolier. In re Sch-wabacher Steven v. Bunole Stevens : — Betts v. Stevens v. Chown. Stevens v. Clark Stevens v. G-eneral Steam Navigation Co. Stevens v. King . . Stevens : — Middlemas v. Stevens : — Sohloss Brothers v. Stevens v. Theatres, Ld. Stevens : — Watts v. Stevens (Moore) : — Great Torrington Com- mons Conservators v. Stevenson : — Diestal v. Stevenson v. Goldstraw. Same v. Craig Stewart, In re. Stewart v. McLaughlin Stewart : — Breadalbane (Marquess) r. Stewart v. Crigglestone Coal Co. In Crigglestone Coal Co. Stewart c Darngavil Coal Co. Stewart : — Lord Advocate v. . . Stewart v. Thames Conservators Stewart v. Williamson . . -Johannesburg Muni Stewart (D.) & Co. :- cipal Council u. Stewart & Co. : — Hulthen v. . . Stileman : — Plomley c. In re Pix Stiles V. Bcclestone Stiles V. Galiiiski. Nokes v. Islington Cor- poration (No. 2) Stinnear ; — Kerr v. In re Hay 0. A. [1907] W. N. 224; [1908] 1 K. B. 51 ; H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 192; [1908] A. 0. 431 . . [1901] W.N. 16; [1901] ICh. 408 [1908] W. N. 101 [1906] 2 K. B. 468; C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 115; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 72 ; [1909] A. C. 245 1902] 1 K. B. 317 . . 1904] 1 Oh. 354 1907] W. N. 69 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 719 [1902] W. N. 44 [1909] W. N. 200; [1910] 1 KB! [1901] W. N. 64; [1901] 1 Oh'. 894 C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 890 [1904] W. N. 93 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 30 [1901] W. N. 24; [1901] 1 Ch. 574 [1906] 2 K. B. 665 [1903] W. N. 68 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 857 [1906] W. N. 124; [1906] 2 K. B. 323 [1904] W.N. 11; [1904] ICh. 347 [1906] W. N. 138; [1906] 2 K. B. 345 [1906] 2 K. B. 298 . . [1908] W. N. 147; [1908] 2 Ch. 251 H. L. (Sc.) [1904] W. N. 60 ; [1904] A. C. 217 [1906] W. N. 20; [1906] 1 Oh. 523 (1902) Ot. of Sess. (So.) [1903] W. N. 162 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1901] W. N. 189; H. L. (Sc.) (1902] W. N. 106 ; [1902] A. C. 344 .. [1908] 1 K. B. 893 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 119; [1910] A. 0. 455 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 161.. 0. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 199; H. L. (E.) [1903] A. 0. 389 [1901] W. N. 165 [1903] W. N. 26; [1903] 1 K. B. 544 . . . . . . [1904] 1 K. B. 615 . . [1904] 1 Oh. 317 2442 2971 1068 1571 1495 666 23 97 1771 1572 1640 2938 2370 1273 1760 43 2279 655 2300 28 2324 431 1641 •220S 2248 2322 655 2463 1346 759 1520 2892 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. colxxix Name of Case. Stirling, In re. Stirling v. Stirling . . Stirling v. Silburn and Pyman Stockdale v. Asoherberg ■t -I Volume and Pago. ■■( Btoddart v. Argus Printing Co. Stoddart : — Davis v. Stoddart v. Hawke Stoddart : — Lennox v. Davis v. Stoddart . . Stoddart : — Eeg. v. Stokes V. Hill Stokes i'. Mitoheson . . Stone, In re. In re Power. Acworth v. Stone Stone : — Aplin v. Stone : — Bennett v. Stone V. Hoskins Stone V. Tyler . . Stone & Co. V. Midland Ey. Co. . Stone & Hastie, In re . . Stoneham (South) (Jnion : — Local Govern- ment Board v. Storey v. Bermondsey Town Clerk . . Storey : — Cloutte v. . . . . . . . . j Stott : — Jones v. Stoxirbridge Glazed Brick and Fire Clay Co., | Ld. : — Simmonds v. Stourbridge Urban Council v. Butler and Grove . . Stouroliffe Estates Co. v. Bournemoutb Cor- poration Stowe V. Benstead Stracban : — Matthews v. Straok :— Austin Priars Steam Shipping Co. v. Strand Wood Co., In re Strathm.ore v. Vane. In re Bowes . . Stretton : — Smyth «... Strickland v. London Union Fire and Life Insurance Co. In re Moore Strickland v. Strickland Stride and Millard : — Eex v. .. . . . . j Stringer & Eiley Brothers, In re [1908] W. N. 130 ; [1908] 2 1 Ch. 344 j [1909] W. N. 204; [1910] 1] K. B. 67 J [1903] W. N. 84; [1903] r K. B. 873 ; 0. A. [1904] I W. N. 30 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 447 , [1901] W. N. 125 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 470 C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 21 [1901] "W. N. 219; [1902] 1 K. B. 353 C. A, [1901" [1901" 1902] 2 K B. 21 1 K B. 177 W. N. 30; [1901] 1 Column of Digest. K. B. 493 [1902] 1 K. B. 857 . . [1901] W. N. 158 ; [1901] 2 ) Ch. 659 [1904] W. N. 34; [1904] 1 Ch. ] 543 [1901] W. N.'225; [1902] 'l^ Ch. 226 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 22 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 509 . . ' [1905] P. 194 [1904] W. N. 186 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 290 [1903] 1 K. B. 741 ; 0. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 669 . . [1903] 2 K. B. 463 . . H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 241 ; ) [1909] A. 0. 57 . . . . j C. A. [1910] W.N. 4; [1910] | 1 K. B. 203 I [1910] W. N. 163 ; C. A. | [1910] W. N. 250 . . 1 C. A. [1910] 1 K B. 898 [1910] 2 K. B. 269 , , . . | [1908] W. N. 210; [1909] 1 ) Ch. 87 I 0. A. [1910] W. N. 120 ; ] [1910] 2 Ch. 12 . . . . i [1909] W. N. 119 ; [1909] 2 ) K. B. 415 j [1901] 2 K. B. 540 . . [1906] 2 K. B. 315; 0. A.) [1906] W. N. 158 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 499 j C. A. [1904] W.N. 122; [1904]) 2 Ch. 1 j [1907] W. N. 198 [1904] W. N. 90 [1907] W. N. 181 P. C. [1908] A. C. 551 C. C. B. [1908] W. N. 20; [1908] 1 K. B. 617 . . [1901] 1 K. B, 106 , 2321 1725 1381 1125 1127 1128 1127 1125 1702 1321 2990 2894 2801 2063 2875 2104 1510 1917 1852 1941 707 1594 2639 2790 1123 2428 83 590 1981 2244 25 1562 819 9X cclxxx TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case, Volume and Page, Column of Digest. Stroms Bruks Aktie Bolag v. John & Peter ) Hutchison , . , . . , , , | Strong : — Nokes v. Strong V. Treise . . Strong & Co, v. Woodifield . . , , . . • Stroud V. Koyal Aquarium and Summer and ( Winter Garden Society, Ld. . , . . j Strover : — ^May.ers v. In re Cowney's Trusts Struben : — Home v. Strutt : — Cavendish v. . . Strutt V. Clift Stuart V. Freeman Stuart V. Joy Stuart V. Nixon & Bruce. Lysons v. Andrew ) Knowles & Sons, Ld. . . . . . . ] Stuart (Bayment and) : — Eayment v. Stuart King : — Hyams v. Stuhberfield v. Grassi. In re Grassi Stubbs -w. Slater. . Stuckey v. Hooke Stucley, In re. Stuoley i'. Kekewich Studd : — Milton v. ■^1 Suart V. Suart . . Suburban (South) Gas Co. v Water Board . . Suckling V. Parker Metropolitan ) ( Sudbury Corporation v. Empire Electric Light and Power Co. . . , . " Suevio," The ' "Suevic,"The Suffleld (Lord) ■;;. Inland Eevenue Commis- sioners Suflolk (Essex and) Equitable Insurance Society, Ld., In re . . Sugden, In the Estate of Sugden : — Manchester Corporation v. Sullivan v. Gurney. In re Gurney's Marriage ) Settlement . . . . . . . . j Summers, In re. Ex parte The Official ) Eeceiver In re Walker In re Newland Summers v. Barrow. Summers : — Bush i\ Summers : — White v. Sunderland Justices : -Eex Sunderland Union : — Waddle v. H. L, (Sc.) [1905] W. N, 135 ; ) [1905] A. C, 515 , . . . j [1909] 2 K B. 625 . . [1909] 1 K. B. 613 0. A. [1905] W. N. 192 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 350 ; H. L. (E.) I ■ [1906] W.- N. 169 ; H. L. i [1906] A, 0. 448 ' [1903] W. N. 146 [1910] W, N. 45 P. C. [1902] A. 0. 454 [1904] 1 Ch. 524 [1910] W. N. 212 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 47 C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 362 H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 2 ; ) [1901] A. C. 79 . . . . ) [1910] P. 271 C. A. [1908] W. N. 145; [1908] 2 K. B. 696 . . [1905] W. N: 66 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 584 ) [1909] W. N. 237; [1910]) lCh.l95;C,A,[1910]W.N, 73;.[1910] 1 Ch. 632 ..) C. A. [1906] W. N. 95 ; [19061 ) 2 E. B. 20 . . I 0. A. [1905] W.N. 157; [1906] 1 1 Ch. 67 . . 1 [1910] W. N. 98 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 118 . . . .[1910].P. 246 . . [1909] W. N. 199 ; [1909] 2 ) Ch. 666 .. . ) [1906] W. N. 59 ; [1906] 1 ) K B. 527 . . [1905] W. N. 68 ; [1906] 2 Ch. ) 104 .. [1908] P. 154 . . [1908] P. 292 [1908] 1 K. B. 865 . . [1909] W. N. 102 fl904]W. N. 70 0. A.,[1903]2K. B. 171 [1907] W. N. 189 ; [19071 2 ) Ch. 496 .. I [1907] W. N. 112; [1907] '2) K. B. 166 . . [1901] 1 Ch; -259 ' " [1904] W. N. 181 . [1908] W. N. 108; [190812) Ch. 256 . . 0. A. [1901] W. N. 122 • [1901] 2 K. B. 357 . . 1 [1906] W. N. 188 ; [1906] 2 K.B. 899; C. A. [1908] W,N.27;[1908]1K.B. 642 2458 2146 2299 2249 474 2900 332 729 2201 1264 1415 1607 920 1124 2940 2622 1069 2802 242 962 1543 39 1019 2553 2443 2267 491 2003 729 2389 173 2732 2766 2913 1426 2146 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. cclxxxi Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. " Sunlight," The " Superior ". (Eederiactieselskahet) v. Dewar & Webb Superphosphaat-werken (Internationale Gruano en) v. Robert Macandrew & Oo. . . Supply (Silberhutte) Co., In re Surman v. Fitzgerald. In re Fitzgerald Surrey Commercial Dock Co. v. Bermondsey Corporation Surrey County Council : — Ohing v. . . Sui-rey County Council (Clerk of) : — Reeve v. Surrey County Council (Clerk of) : — Wolfe v. Surrey County Court Judge : — Eex v. Surrey County Cricket Club, In re . . Surrey Justices : — Rex v. Surtees v. Woodhouse . . Surveyors' (District) Association and Willis — ^London County Council v. " Sussex," The Sussex {Ex paiie Sheriff of). In re Rogers Sussex Brick Co., In re Sutoliffe:— Att.-Gen. ■!; SutcHffe V. Gledhill. In re Greenwood Sutoliffe V. Great Western Ry. Co. . . Sutoliffe : — ^Pickles v. . . Sutherland v. Thomson Sutleffe V. Von Liverhoff. In re Chantrell Sutton, In re. Lewis v. Sutton Sutton V. English and Colonial Produce Co. Sutton r. Great Northern Ry. Co. Sutton District Water Co. : — Reigate Rural Council V. (Ewart third party) Sutton Heath and Lea Green Collieries Co, — ^Houghton V. Swain, In re. Monckton v. Hands . . Swain, In re. Phillips v. Poole Swallow : — Caridad Copper Mining Co. v. Swan and Oleland's Graving Dock and Shipway Co. v. Maritime Insurance Co. and Croshaw . . Swan & Edgar, Ld. : — Bourne v. In re Bourne's Trade Marks Swanloy Coal Co. v. Denton (Gillespie, Claimant) . . . . . . [1903] P. 100 [1909] 1 K. B. 948 ; 0. A. [1909] W. N. 195 ; [1909] 2 K B. 998 [1909] 2 K. B. 360 . . [1910] W. N. 81 [1903] W. N. 69 ; [1903] 1 Ch. ' 933 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 61 ; . [1904] 1 Ch. 573 . . ..] [1904] 1 K. B. 4'74 [1909] W. N. 163; [1909] 2' KB. 762; C. A. [1910] W.N. 74; [1910] IK B. 736 .. 1905 1905" 1910' 190r 1908 0. A. 1 K. B. 439 1 K. B. 4;i9 2 K B. 410 2 K B. 400 W. N. 16 ; K B. 374 [1908] 1 1903] W.N, 28; [1903] .e 1 K B. 396 [1909] 2 K. B. 138 . . [1904]*W. N. 79 ; [1904] P. 236 '1910] W. N. 238 '.A.. [1904] W.N. 38; [1904] 1 Ch. 598 .[1907], W. N. 191 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 997 [1901] W. N. 60 ; [1901] 1 Ch, ' 887 C. A.[1910] W.N. 13; [1910] 1 K B. 478 [1902], W. N. 200 H. L. (Sc.) [1905] W. N. 172 ; , [19.0.6] A. C. 51 [1907] W. N. 213 [1901] W. N. 168; [1901] 2 ■ Ch. 640 [1902] W. N. 125; [1902] 2 Ch. 602 C. A. [1909] W. N. 177 ; [1909] 2 K B, 791 [1908] W. N. 120 ; C. A, [1909] W.N. 28 0. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 93 C. A. [1905] W. N. 61 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 669 , , • , . [1908] W. N. 209 C. A. [1902] 2 E. B. 44 [1906] W. N. 222; [1907] 1 K B. 116 [1902] W. N. 214 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 211 0. A. [1906] W. N. 176; [1906] 2 K B. 873 . . 2488 2470 2469 592 634 1508 2308 1845 1845 768 2203 1155 1380 1507 2535 570 56 2923 2108 2783 2323 27 369 453 1685 1167 1606 355 366 465 2628 2680 253 colxxxii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Sweeney v. Coote Sweet V. Ely (Bishop of) Sweet V. Toung . . Sweetmaii : — Grimsdiok v. Swetman : — Dunning v. " Swift," The . . Swift Cycle Co. : — Dyer v. Swinton and Pendlebury Urban Council : — Manchester Carriage and Tramways Co. v. Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners : — Lukey v. Sydney Municipal Council v. Cook. Bull Third Party Sydney Municipal Council v. Terry Sykes, In re. Sykes v. Sykes Sykes V. Barraclough . . Sykes : — Challinor v. In re Dyson Sylvester & Co. : — Larsen v. Symes, Ex parte Symon : — Emanuel v. . . Symons v. Baker Symons & Co. : — Punt c. Synge c. Synge . . Syria (Bank of), In re. Owen and Ash worth' Claim. "Whit worth's Claim Syrup (California Pig) Co., In re T. Table Cape Marine Board : — Van Diemen's Land Co. v. . . Tactician, The . . Taddy & Co. c. Sterious & Co. Tafl Vale Ey. C'o. : — Alexandra (Newport ) and South Wales) Docks and Ey. Co. v. . . j Tafl Vale Ey. Co. v. Amalgamated Society of j Eailway Servants . . . . , . . . j Tafl Vale Ey. Co. :^CardiS Ey. Co. v. Tafl Vale Ey. Co. r. Gordon Canning Tafi Vale Ey, Co.: — Ehondda Urban Council v. ■ Volume and Page. H. L. (Ir.) [igOY] W. N. 92 [1907] A. C. 221 . . [1902] W. N. 116; [1902] 2 Cb. 608 [1902 [1909; K. B. 740 [1909 P. 37 . . W. N. 182; [1909] 2 / W. N. 44 ; [1909] 1 K B. 774 [1901] P. 168 . C. A. [1904] W. N. 86 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 36 H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 277 . P. 0. [1904] A. 0. 382 [1908] W. N. 205; [1909] 1 K. B. 7 P. 0. [1907] A. 0. 308 [1909] 2 Ch. 241 [1904] 2 K. B. 675 . . [1910] W. N. 81 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 750 H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 295 . . [1910] W. N. 219 . . [1907] 1 K. B. 235; C. A. [1907] W. N. 236 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 302 . . [1905] 2 K. B. 723 . . [1903] "W. N. 121 ; [1903] Ch. 506 C. A. [1901] "W. [1901] P. 317 C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 115 [1909] W. N. 109; [1909] 2 Ch. 99 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 233 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 130 N. 164 P. C. [1906] A. C. 92 . C. A. [1907] P. 244 . [1904] 1 Ch. 354 0. A. [1907] 1 K B. 356 C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 170: H.L.(E.) [1901] W.N. 157; [1901] A. C. 426 . . [iHOo] W. N. 105 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 289 [1909] W. N. 108; [19091 2 Ob. 48 . . . [1907] 1 K. B. 739; C. A. [1907] W. N. 256 ; [1908] ) 1 K. B. 239 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 91 ; [1909] A. C. i.-iS / CJolumn of Digest. 648 1003 1004 1365 242 1083 1619 2710 1801 2637 1800 2959, 2998 1703 2959 2462 1770 1097, 1862 2523 490 930 462 2694 2657 2498 666 2100 2704 2125 2115 2102 TABLE OP OASES IN THE DIGEST. cclxxxiii Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Tagart, Beaton & Co. v. James Fisher & Sons. West Hartlepool Steam Navigation Oo., Third Parties "Tagus," The Tait V. MacLeay ( -,1 Taku Tug and Lighterage Co. (Asiatic Petro- leum. Co. and The) : — China Navigation Oo. V. . . Talbot, Lire . . Talbot V. Blindell ^ Talbot : — Great Western Ey. Oo. v. . . Talbot : — Parker v. Talbot V. Soarisbriok . . TaUack : — London and County Contracts, Ld. V. Tallowin : — Cheney v. Talon (Coed) Colliery Oo. : — Hughes v. . . Tame, (Birmingham,) and Eea District \ Drainage Board : — Att.-Gen. v. . . . . j Tamworth Colliery Co., Ld. : — Hall v. Tancred's Settlement, In re. Somerville v. Tancred Tandy : — Sealey v. TankerviUe (Earl of) : — James Jones & Sons, ) Ld. ■« j Tannenbaum & Oo. v. Heath . . Tapp and London Dock Oo.'s Contract, In re Tasker : — Grieve v Tasker (W.) & Sons, Ld., In re. Hoare W. Tasker & Sons, Ld. Tatohell : — Inderwick v. Tatohell v. Inder- wick V. Inderwick Tate V. Pullbrook Tate : — Hoyes v. Tate : — Eex v. . . Tate Steamers, Ld. :- iv. ) -Mclver & Co. v. Tate Steamers, Ld. : — Mclver & Oo. v. Tatham v. Ermen. In re Ermen Tati Concessions, Ld. v. Hepple Tattersall, In re. Topham v. Armitage Tavener :^- Wilson v. . . Taxation Commissioners v. Mooney. . Taxi-Cab (Waterloo) Oo. : — Doggett v. Taylor, In re. Ex parte Norvell Taylor, In re. Ex parte Bolton -I 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 391 . . [1903] P. 44 C. A. [1904] 2 Oh. 631 ; H. L. (E.) [1906] W.N. 2; [1906] A. 0. 24 P. 0. [1910] A. 0. 204 [1901 [1908 P. 1 W. N. KB. 114 84 ; [1908] 2 ■:| C. A. [1902] W. N. loY ; [1902] 2 Oh. 769 0. A. [1905] W. N. 149 ; [1906] 2 Oh. 643 [1908] 1 Oh. 812 [1903] W. N. 8 [1904] K B. 763 0. A. [1909] W.N. 77; [1909] IK. B. 957 0. A. [1910] 1 Oh. 48.. C. A. [1910] W. N. 268 [1903] 1 Oh. 716 [1902] 1 K. B. 296 [1909] W. N. 171; [1909] 2) Oh. 440 i C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 1032 . . [1905] W. N. 85, 92 . . P. 0. [1906] A. 0. 132 [1905] 1 Oh. 283 ; 0. A. [1906] ) W. N. 136 ; [1906] 2 Oh. 587 | C. A. [1901] W. N. 206; [1901] ' 2 Oh. 738; H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 62 ; [1903] A. 0. 120 C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 821 . . C. A. [1907] W.N. 35; [1907]) 1 K. B. 6.56 j C. 0. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 680 . . 0. A. [1902] W. N. 123; [1902] 2 K. B. 184 C. A. [1903] W. N. 24 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 362 [1903] W. N. 78 ; [1903] 2 Oh. 156 . P. 0. [1905] A. 0. 139 [1906] W. N. 148; [1906] 2 Oh. 399 [1901] W. N. 25 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 878 P. 0. [1907] A. 0. 342 0. A. [1910] W. N. 137; [1910] 2 K. B. 336 . . 0. A. [1910] W. N. 26 [1908] W. N. 229 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 103 2469 2569 ' 517 379 998 1370 2098 1500 2379 235 1923 1625 2631 1597 1954 1451 2614 898 2823 1813 449 2984 684 732 787 741 2476 720 330 2757 1423 1799 1651 219 196 colxxxiT TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Taylor, In re. Taylor, In re. Taylor, In re. Taylor, I)i re. Ex parte Norvell Ex parte Taylor Dale V. Dale . . Edmonton Union v. Deely Smart v. Taylor Taylor, In re. Taylor v. Allhusen Taylor : — Geisse v. Taylor v. Great Eastern Ey. Co. Taylor v. Hampstead ColUery Co. Taylor : — Hargreaves v. In re Allen Taylor v. Hollard Taylor v. Howard. In re Howard . . Taylor : — Kirkby v.- . . Taylor : — Kish v. Taylor : — Leigh r. Taylor : — Levi v. Taylor c. London and County Banking Co London and County Banking Co. v. Nixon Taylor v. Metropolitan Ey. Co, Taylor : — Norton v. Taylor v. Poncia Taylor v. Pritcliard Taylor :- Taylor :- Co. V. -Kex V. -Eiclielieu and Ontario Navigation Taylor : — Sneatli v. Taylor : — University CoUege of North Walei and University of Wales v. In re Williams Taylor : — Ward v. In re De Falbe Taylor >•. Winsford Urban Council ■( (No. 2) Taylor, Sons & Co., Ex parte, ire re Brindley Taylor & Hartland : — Geisse v. Taylor & Sons : — British Motor Syndicate, Ld. i' Taylor's Agreement Trusts, In re Taylor's Trusts, In re. Matheson v. Taylor Te Eoera Tareha : — Te Teira Te Paea v. Te Teira Te Paea v. Te Eoera Tareha Tea (Consolidated) and Lands Co. v. Oliver's Wharf Tea Corporation, Ld., In re. Sorsbie v. The Same . . Tea (Star) Co. v. Neale 0. A. [1910] W. N. 26; [1910] 1 K. B. 562 t [1901] 1 K. B. 744 [1909] W. N. .59 C. A. [1901] W. N. 21 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 480 '1901] W.N.91 ; [1901] 2 Ch.i;M 1905] 11 Ch. 529 "1905] 2 Iv. B. 658 . . °1901] 1 K. B. 774 . . C. A. [1904] Vs. N. 76 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 838 . . [1906] W. N. 127; [1905] 2 Ch. 400 [1902] 1 K. B. 676 . . [1901] W.N. 15 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 412 [1910] W. N. 37 ; [1910] 1 K. B. .529 [1910] W. N, 148; [1910] 2 K. B. 309 H. L. (B.) [1902] W. N. 30; [1902] A. 0. 157 . [1903] W. N. 183 0. A. [1901] W. N. 79; [1901] 2 Ch. 231 [1906] W. N. 100 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 55 P. C.[1906] A. C. 378 [1901] W. N. 87 [1910] W. N. 147 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 320 [1908] 2 K. B. 237 . . P. C. [1910] A. C. 170,. [1901] 2 K. B. 376 , . [1907] P. 228; 0. A. [1907] W. N. 217; [1908] P. 140.. C. A. [1901] W. N. 32 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 523 ; sub nom. Leigh ('. Taylor, e. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 157 .. [1901] W. N. 87 [1907] W. N. 162; [1907] 2 K. B. 396 , , C. A. [1906] W. N. 3 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 377 , . [1905] 2 K. B. 658 . , 0. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 122 [1904] W. N. 120 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 737 , . [1905] 1 Ch. 734 P. C. [1902] A. 0. 56,, P. C. [1902] A. C. 56,. [1910] W. N. 97; [1910] 2 K. B. 395 . . 0. A. [1903] W. N. 198 ; , [1904] 1 Ch. 12 . , [1909] W. N. 200 . . 219 157 2963 1552 2912 1951 119 2292 1581 352 1475 64 2263 2468 1091 893 2740 2128 1797 1981 1087 1069 293 42 2062 1092 1090 2574 201 119 1876 574 478 1805 1805 2876 407 1327 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. cclxxxv Nkme of Case. Teage (Hunt, Eoope) & Co. v. Ehrmann Brothers . . • ■ . . Teede and Bishop, I/d., In re. . Teignmouth and Shaldon Bridge Co. :— Simpson v... . . Telegraph (Anglo-American) Co. : — Eeid Newfoundland Co. v. .... Telephone (National) Co. : — Postmaster. Greneral v. . . ■ . ■ , . Telescriptor Syndicate, Ld., In re Telfer : — Morrison v: . . Telford : — Ogdens, Ld. v. Ogdens, Ld. Nelson . . Temperley Steam Shipping Co. v. Smyth & Co Tenty Corporation v. Mason . . Tendring Hundred "Waterworks Co. v. Jones Tennant v. Stanley. In re Stanley . Tennent : — Game v. In re Game " Tergeste," The Terrill, In re. Ex, parte Incorporated Society of Provincial Notaries Public of England and "Wales Terry : — Sydney Municipal Council v. Terry : — ^Yates v. Tettmar : — ^Kistler v. . . Tewkesbury Justices : — Eex v. Tewkesbury Union v. Birmingham "Union . . Thairlwall ti. Great Northern Ey. Co. Thames Conservatoxs v. Gravesend Corpora- tion Thames Conservators v. Palmer Thames Conservators : — Stewart v. Thames Steam Tug and Lighterage Co. :- London and India Docks Co. Thames Tunnel (Eotherhithe and Act, 1900, In re EatcKfl) Thavie's Charity (Trustees of), Ex parte ■■( Theatre Eoyal, Drury Lane, Ld. : — Burr v. Theatres, Ld. ; — Stevens v. . . Thellusson v.' Valentia (Viscount) Thomas : — Battie - "Wrightson v. In re "Wrightson Thomas v. Bradbury, Agnew & Co. Thomas : — Oraster v.- . . Thomas : — George v.. . . Thomas v. Hudson. In re Creed Volume and Page. [1910J 2Ch.,198 [1901] W. N. 52 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 405 P. C. [1910] A. C. 560 H. L.. (E.). [1909] W. N. 91 [1909] A. C. 269 [1903] "W. N-. 41 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 174 i [1906] W. N. 31 [1903] 2 K. B. 287 ; C. A. [1904] "W. N. 98; [1904] 2KB 410; H.L.(E.) [1905] W.N 54 ; [1905] A. 0. 109 C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 791 [1907] "W. N. 251 ; C. A. [1908] ) "W. N. 23 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 457 j [1903" 1906° i907° Ch." [1903: 2 Ch. 615 1 Ch. 131 W. N. 13 276 P. 26 . . [1908: "W. N. 194 ' [1907] ') P. C. [1907] A. C. 308 [1901] 1 E. B. 102 ; C. A. [1902] ) "W. N. 23 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 527 t 0. A, [1904] "W. N. 180 ; [1905] ) 1 K. B. 39 j 1903' 1904' 1910' 1 K. B. 39 2 K. B. 395 2 K. B. 509 [1910] 1 K. B. 442 . . [1901] W. N. 228 ; [1902] 1 ) Ch, 163 i [1908] 1 K. B. 893 C. A. [1908] 1 E. B. 786 ; ) H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 15 C. A.. [1908] W. N. 46 : [1906] ) 1 Ch. 493 . . [1905] "W. N. 26 ; [1905] 1 Ch 403 I 0. A. [1907] W.N.4«; [1907] j 1 K B. 544 j [1903] W. N. 68; [1903] 1; Ch. 857 [1906] W. N. 45; [1906] 1 Oh. 480 ; 0. A. [1907] "W. N 99 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 1 . . 0. A. [1904] W. N. 116 ; [1904] ) 2 Ch. 95 C. A. [1906] 2 E. B. 627 [1909] W. N. 143; [1909] 2 Ch; 348 . . ■ . . [1910] 2 E. B. 961 . . [1905] W. N. 94 Column o! Digest. 2675 618 242 1813 2660 608 1993 659 2445 698 2609 2935 1200 2569 1820 1800 121 125 2139 1926 469 2663 2662 2248 2520 1405 1407 1690 1760 386 2960 872 30 1486 2992 colxxxvl TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Thomas : — Keene v. Thomas v. Pritcliard . . Thomas v. United Butter France, Ld. . . Thomas: — Upper Forest and and Tinplate Co. v. . . Thomas v. Wilkinson. In re Companies of Western Steel Wilkinson .] Thomas : — Williams v. . . Thomas Salt & Co., In re. Thompson, In re. Thompson v. Thompson Thompson, In re. Thompson v. Watkins . . Thompson, Ex parte. In re Van Gelder's Patents Thompson : — Banister v. Thompson : — Brooklebank v. . . Thompson ■;;. City Grlass Bottle Co Thompson v. Eccles Corporation Thompson v. Equity Fire Insm-ance Co. . . Thompson : — Gadd v. . . Thompson v. Gill Thompson v. Goold & Co. Thompson v. Hammersmith Corporation Thompson ; — Haylett v. Thompson v. Hickman Thompson : — Holden v. Thompson v. MoKenzie Thompson : — Otago Farmers' Co-operative Association of New Zealand v. Thompson : — Eex v. . . Thompson : — Eex v. . . Thompson v. Selous. In re Selous , . Thompson & Capper : — Wellcome (trading as Burroughs, Wellcome & Co.) v. . . Thompson & Sons v. North Eastern Marine Engineering Co. Thompson's Patent, In re Thompson's Settlement Trusts, In re. Thomp- son V. Alexander Thomson : — Dykes v. . . Thomson v. Henderson's Transvaal Estates, Ld Thomson : — Sutherland v. Thomson v. Walpole. In re Walpole's Mar- riage Settlement Thoresen's (Otto) Linie : — Wilson & Coventry, Ld. u. . . 3S, I Volume and Page, [1906] 1 E. B. 136 . . [1903] 1 K B. 209 . . [1909] 2 Ch. 484 C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 631 [1910J 2 Ch. 216 C. A. [1909] W. N. 73; [1909] ) 1 Ch. 713 j [1908] W. N. 63 [1906] W. N. 121 : [1906] 2 ) Ch. 199 j [1908] W. N. 195 P. C. [1907] A. 0. 174 [1908] W. N. 189 ; [1908] P. 362 [1903] 2 Ch. 344 [1901] 2 K. B. 483 ; 0. A. [1901] W. N. 228; [1902] 1 K. B. 233 [1904] 2 E. B. 1 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 189 ; [1905] 1 K. B. UO P. C. [1910] A. C. 592 [1910] W. N. 262 C. A. [1903] W. N. 67 ; [1903] ) 1 K. B. 760 . . . . } H. L. (E.)[1910]W. N. 156; [1910] A. C. 409 . . [1906] 1 Ch. 299 [1910J W. N. 227 [1907] W. N. 55; Column of Digest. [1907] [1907] ii90S] Ch. 550 [1907] W. N. 129 K B. 489 . . [1908] W. N. 62; K B. 905 . . [1910] 2 K. B. 145 [1909] W. N. 150; [1909] 2) K. B. 614 . . C. 0. A. [1910] W. N. 27 ; ) [1910]_1K.B. 640.. .. j N. 72; [1901] 1 [1901] W. Ch. 921 ( C. A. [1904] W. N. 87 ; [1904] ) ICh. 736 .. .. ..] [1903] 1 K. B. 428 . . [1909] 2 Ch. 447 [1904] W. N. 20 Ch. 229 . . ' [1909] W. N. 104 [1908] W. N. 105 ; Ch. 765 H. L. (So.) [1905] W.N. 172- [1906] A. C. 51 [1903] 1 Ch. 928 [1910] 2 K. B. 405 [1905] 1 ) i:i908]'i| '■I 1453 841 616 1586 1938 1477 479 2962 68 1888 1002 2863 1624 2427 304 1224 2164 1593 1538 2568 2803 1560 1450 1278 1330 811 1697 2688 1622 1888 2734 1972 610 2323 1950 2467 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. cclxxxvii Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest Thorley (J.) & Co. :— Fenton v | Thorley (Joseph), Ld. v. Orchis Steamship Oo, Thorman v. Do"wgate Steamship Co. , . Thorn V. Dickens Thorn : — Hunt v. In re Birch Thome : — Eidd v. Thornhill, In re. Thornhill v. Nixon Thornton : — Brigg v. . . Thornton v. Little Thornton Urban Council : — Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Co. v. . . Thorpe v. Davies Threlkeld v. Smith Thumau v. Best . . Thursby : — Lea v. Thursby'e Settlement Trusts, In re. Grant V. Littledale . . Thurstan v. Nottingham Permanent Benefit Btiilding Society Thurston & Oo. : — Bailey v. . . Thyer : — George v. In re Shephard . Tibbits : — Eex v. Tideswell : — Eex. v. . . " Tientsin," The TiU :— Att.-Gen. i; ■■I TUley V. Bowman, Ld. Tillett : — Great Northern and City Eailway ) " i TUhng (T.), Ld. v. Dick Kerr & Co Tillmanns & Co. :— S.S. " Knutsford," Ld. v. Tilonko v. Att.-Gen. of Natal Tilonko v. Att.-Gen. of Natal Timbrill : — Gist v. In re Gist Timmins (Ebenezer) & Sons, Inre .. Timmis, In re. Nixon v. Smith ') C. A. 'O. A. [1902] ) H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 149 ; [1903] A. 0. 443 . . [1907] 1 K B. 243 ; C. A. ) [1907] W. N. 53 ; [1907] 1 K B. 660 1910] 1 K. B. 410 , . 1906] W. N. 54 1909] W. N. 85; [1909] 1 Ch. 787 [1902] W. N. 110; [1902] 2 Ch. 344 0. A. [1904] W. N. 112 0. A. [1904] 1 Oh. 386 [1907] W. N. 68 0. A. [1907] W. N. 26 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 568; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 91; [1909] A. C. 264 [1908] 2 K B. 750 [1901] 2 K. B. 531 . . [1907] W. N. 170 [1904] W. N. 100; [1904] 2 Ch. 57 [1910] W. N. 151 [1910] 2 Oh. 181 [1901] 'l Oh. 88 ; [1901] W. N. 236 1 Ch. 1 ; H. L. (E.) [1902] |. W. N. 212 ; [1903] A. C. 6 ' [1902] 2 K. B. 397; C. A. [1902] W. N. 213; [1903] 1 K. B. 137 [1904] 1 Ch. 456 0. 0. E. [1902] 1 K. B. 77 . . 0. 0. E. [1905] 2 K B. ) 273 j P. 0. [1910] A. 0. 204 C. A. [1909] W. N. 47 ; [1909] N 1 K B. 694; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 249; [1910] ( A. 0. 50 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 745 . . [1902] 1 K B. 874 . . [1905] W. N. 38 ; [1905] 1 1 K. B. 562 j [1908] 1 K B. 185 ; 0. A. , [1908] W. N. 67 ; [1908] 2 j K B. 385 ; H. L. (E.) [1908] } W. N. 165; [1908] A. C. 406 ' P. 0. [1907] A. 0. 93 . . P. 0. [1907] A. 0. 461 [1906] W. N. 160; [1906] 1 Oh. ) 58; O.A. [1906] W.N. 136; [1906] 2 Oh. 280 . . . . ) [1901] W. N. 238; [1902] 1) Ch. 238 ] [1901] W. N. 242 ; [1902] 1 ) Oh. 176 j 1684 2467 2471 2071 2920 2607 1042 1376 2864 2132 1704 822 1371 180 1948 279 232 1574 648 826 379 2245 214 1401 1162 2447 1777 1777 2892 665 2743 cclxxxviii TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Timms :- -Clifford v. HiU v. CUfEord. Clif- ford V. PhiQips Tindale : — Eavenswortlit;. Inre Eavensworth Tingri Tea Co., Jw re .. Tinplate. See under Morriston Tinplate Co " Tintoretto " (Owners of Steamship) : — j McDermott i'. . . . . . . ■ ■ ] Tinwell v. Mayliook . . . . . . . . Tipper : — Christy v. . . . . . . < Toal V. North British Ey. Co. Todd : — Miilrooney v. . . . . . . . . { Todd V. North Eastern Ey. Co | Todd, Birleston & Co. and North Eastern Ey. j Co., In re . . . . . . . . ■ ■ ) Tolhui-st V. Associated Portland Cement Mann- \ facturers, Ld. (1900). Associated Portland ( Cement Manufacturers, Ld. (1900), and the 1 Imperial Portland Cement Co. v. TolhurstJ Tolhurst : — Eex v. Ex parte Earren Tollemache, In re Toller V. Spiers & Pond, Ld. . . Tollitt : — Aerators, Ld. v. Tolputt (H.) & Co., Ld. V. Mole Tomalin v. Pearson (S.) & Son, Ld. . Tomalin v. Smart Tomey Homma : — Cunningham v. . Tomkins & Co., In re . . Tomlins v. Latimer. In re Barton -Ton- Sec ' Tonbridge Eural District Council bridge Urban Listrict Council v. — under Eex v. Kent Justices . . . . ) Tonbridge Urban District Council v. Ton- bridge Eural District Council. See under Eex V. Kent Justices Toner : — McFee v. In re McFee " Tongariro "• (Owners of Cargo of Steamship) | V. Astral Shipping Co., Ld. Tonge's Settled Estate, In re . . Toogood : — Piggott v. . . Toomer v. Sobinska Toovey v. Turner. In re Bacon Topham v. Aimitage. In re Tattersall Volume and Page. [1907] W. N. 39 ; [1907] 1 Oh. 420; C. A. [1907] W. N, 149; [1907] 2 Ch. 236 H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 12 [1907] W. N. 243 . . C. A. [1905] W. N. 60 ; [1905 2 Ch. 1 [1901] W. N. 165 . . 0. A. [1909] W. N. 162 [1909] 2 K. B. 704 ; H. L (E.) [1910] W. N. 274 [1904] 2 E. B. 790 . . [1904] W. N. 33; [1904] ] Ch. 696; 0. A. [1904] W. N 188; [1905] 1 Oh. 1 H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W. N. 136 [1908] A. 0. 352 . . 0. A. [1908] W. N. 242; [1909] 1 K. B. 166 . . [1903] W. N. 9 ; C. A. [1903] ) W. N. 30 . . C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 603 [1901] 2 K. B. 811 ; 0. A [1902] 2 K. B. 660 ; H. L, (E.) [1903] W. N. 149: [1903] A. C. 414 . , [1905] 2 K. B. 478 [1903] W.N. 18; [1903] 1 Ch 457; C. A. [1903] W. N 98;-[1903] 1 Ch. 955 [1903]W.N.4;[1903]lCh.362' [1902] W. N. 115; [1902] 2 Ch. 319 , . . . [1910] W. N. 252 C. A. [1909] "W. N. 86 ; [1909 2 K. B. 61 [1904] P. 141 . . P. C. [1903] A. 0. 151 C.A.-[1901JW.N.'ll; [1901] 1 K. B. 476 . . [1909] W. N. (Erratum 42)^ 39; C. A. [1909] W. N. ■ 176;[1909]2K..B. 841 ,., 0. A. [1904] W. N. 203 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 378 . . C. A. [1904] W. N. 203 [1905] 1 K. B. 378 . . [1910] W. N. 186 H.L;(E.) [1910] W.N. 274 1902] W. N. 72 1904]. W. N. 130 1907] P. 106 . . 1907] W. N. 44; ■ Oh; 475 [1906] W. N. 148; Oh: 399 [1907] [1906] Column of Digest. 881 2975 440 1642 2226 2686 2124 1623 710 1703 654 1436 2760 1666 502 2597 1581 2057 290 199 237 1154 1154 2950 2483 2387 613 2074 2965 2767 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. oclxxxjx Name of Case, Topping : — Cowling v. . . Torbook v. Westbury (Lord) . . " Torbryan," The Torkington v. Magee . . Toronto Corporation v. Bell Telephone Com- pany of Canada Toronto Corporation : — Canadian Pacific Ey Co. ?- . . Toronto Corporation v. Canadian Pacific Ey, Co. .. .. Toronto Corporation v. EusseU Toronto Corporation v. Toronto Ey. . . Toronto Corporation : — Toronto Ey. Co. v. Toronto Corporation : — Toronto Ey. Co. v. Toronto Corporation v. Toronto Ey. Co Toronto Ey. Co. v. Toronto Corpora- tion Toronto Ey. Co. v. King . . _ . . Toronto Ey. : — Toronto Corporation v. Toronto Ey. Co. v. Toronto Corporation Toronto Ey. Co. v. Toronto Corporation Toronto Ey. Co. v. Toronto Corporation Toronto Corporation v. Toronto Ey. Co. Toronto's Applications {In re Gutta Peroba and India Eubber Co. of ) . . . . _ Torquay Corporation : — Brooks, Jenkins & Co. t; Torrens v. Walker Torrens' Divorce Bill (Second Eeading) Torrington and Okebampton Eailway Bill ) .{1895), In re I Torry HUl Estate, In re. Pemberton Pemberton . . . . . . Tory V. Dorchester Corporation " Toscana," The Tough V. Hopkins Touring Club (Cyclists') v. Hopkiason Tower Qulvanizing Co. : — Duck v. . . Tower Justices v. Chambers . . Towers v. African Tug Co. Town Properties Investment Corporation : — ( Davies v. . . . .. . . . . • ■ ) Town Properties Investment Corporation, j Ld. : — Davis v. . . . . Townend : — Minister of Stamps v. . . Townend v. Townend . . Townend v. Townend Tqwnsend, Inr? B.C. Volume and Page, [1906] W. N. 17 ; [1906] 1 ) K. B. 466 ( [1902] W. N. 160; [1902] 2) Ch. 871 [1902] W. N. 234; [1903] P. 36; 0. A. [1903] W. N, 138 ; [19031 P. 194 [1902] 2 K. B. 427; C. A. [1903] W. N. 60 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 644 , . P. C. [1905] A. 0. 52.. P. 0. ;i906] A. 0.33. p. c. 1908] A. C. 64 . P.O. p. 0. P.O. P.O. "1908] A. 0. 493 1910] A. 0.312 1904] A. 0. 809 1906] A. 0. 117 P.O. [1907] A. 0. 315 P.O. p. 0. P.O. P.O. [1908] 1910" 1904° 1906" A. 0. 260 A. 0. 312 A. C. 809 A. 0. 117 P. 0. [1907] A. C. 315 C. A. [1909] W. N. 100 [1909] 2 Ch. 10 [1902] 1 K. B. 601 . . [1906] W. N. 98; [1906] Ch. 166 H. L. (Ir.) [1909] W. N. 72 [1906] W. N. 221; [1907] Oh. 186 [1909] 1 Ch. 468 [1907] 1 K B. 393 . . 0. A. [1905] W. N. 50 ; [1905 P. 148 [1904] 1 E. B. 804 [1909] W. N. 260; [1910] Ch. 179 [1901] 2 K. B. 314 . . 0. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 903, 0. A. [1904] W. N. 64 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 558 [1902] W. N. 164; [1902] i Ch.635; 0. A. [1903] W. N 62 ; [1903] 1 Oh. 797 [1902] W.. N. 164; [1902]-2 Ch.635; 0. A. [1903] W.N, 62; [1903] 1 Oh. 797 P. 0. [1909] A. 0. 633 0. A. [1905] W. N. 158, 163 178 [1907] P. 239, n. [1901] 2 K. B. 331 . . Column of Digest. 1268, 1323 484 2471 381 325 308 298 307 319 317 317 319 313 319 317 317 319 2681 1497 1394 934 2111 2377 753 2552 1828 504 450 1435 456 1384 1384 1813 122, 123 2055 2219 t TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Townsend v. Cox Towneend v. Moore Townshend's (Lord) Settlement, Tn re. Lord Townshend v. Eobins Towry Law v. Burne. Toynbee: — Tonga v. . In re Ellenborough Tozeland v. West Ham Union Tozer : — ^Devonport Corporation v. . . . . Traae and Lennard & Sons, Ld., In re Tracey v. Pretty & Sons . . . . Traction (British Power) and Lighting Co., \ Ld., In re. Halifax Joint Stock Banking f Co., Ld. V. British Power Traction and ( Lighting Co., Ld j Trade (Board of) v. Employers' Liability I Assurance Corporation, Ld. . . .". j Trade (Bristol, &c.) and Provident Society :— / Gozney v. . . . . . . . . . . j Trade Mark, No. 37,760 of David Gestetner, j In re . . . . . . . . . . j Trade Marks Act, 1905, and Gutta Percha, &c., Co. of Toronto's AppKcations, In re . . Traders' Publishing Association, Ld. : — Plymouth Mutual Co-operative and Indus- trial Society, Ld. v. . . Trading (Mersey) Co. : — Liverpool and Xorth Wales Steamship Co. v. Traflord :— Muller v Train v. Clapperton Tramroad (Blackpool and Fleetwood) Co. v. Bispham with Norbreok Urban District Council Tramroad (Blackpool and Fleetwood) Co. : — Dixon V. Tramroad (Blackpool and Fleetwood) Co. : — Thornton Urban Council v... Tramroads (Southport and Lytham) Act, 1900, In re. Ex parte Tlesketh Tramways (Accrington Corporation Steam) Co., In re Tramways (Anglo - Argentine) Co. : — Att.- Gen. V. Tramways (Bristol Gtas Co. and Bristol) and Carriage Co., Inre . . Tramways (Bristol), &o.. Carriage Co. v. Fiat Motors, Ld. . . Tramways (City of Birmingham) Co., Ld. v. Law Tiainways (City of Birmingham) Co. : — Neale V. . . . , Volume and Page. P. C. [1907] A. 0. 514 C. A. [1905] W. N. 4 ; [1905] ) P. 66 j [1907] W. N. 252 ; [1908] 1 ) Ch. 201 ) [1903] W. N. 18 ; [1903] 1 Ch. j 697 J C. A. [1910] W.N. 5; [1910]) 1 K. B. 215 ) [1906] 1 K. B. 538 ; C. A. [1907] W. N. 48; [1907] 1 K. B. 920 [1902] W. N. 73; [1902] 2 Ch. 182; C. A. [1903] W. N. 38 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 759 C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 377 [1901] W. N. 17; [1901] 1 ( K. B. 444 I [1910] W. N. 194; [1910] 2 ) Ch. 470 ) [1909] W. N. 263 ; [1910] 1 ~) K:.B.401;C.A.[1910]W.N 161 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 649 C. A. [1909] W. N. 68 ; [1909] ) 1 K. B. 901 j [1907] W. N. 182 C. A. [1909] W. N. 100 [1909] 2 Ch. 10 C. A. [1906] W. N. 30 ; [1906] ) 1 K. B. 403 ] C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 209 [1901] 1 Ch. 54 H. L. (So.) [1908] W. N. 135 [1908] A. C. 342 [1910] 1 K. B. 592 [1909] 1 K. B. 860 . . H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 91 [1909] A. C. 264 . . C. A. [1910] W. N. 256 [1909] 2 Ch. 40 [1909] W. N. 53; [1909] K. B. 677 . , [1909] 2 K. B. 297 ; C. A.) [1909] W. N. 223 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 114 . . . . j C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 831 [1910] 2 K. B. 965 . . [1910] W, N. 175; |[1910] 2 Oh.;464 ,. .. Ctolumn of Digest, 325 2054 1545 2420 2592 1918 1483 2474 1667 410, 529 226 2705 2687 2682 893 1908 1397 2748 2144 2145 2132 2707 580 2257 2708 2287 2712 553 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Tramway (London United) : — Acton District Council V. Tramways (Peckham, Dulwich and Crystal ) Palace) BiU, In re . . . . . . . . j Tramways (South Lancashire) Co. : — Eccles Corporation v. Tramways Syndicate, Ld., and Perth Electric V Tramways, Ld. : — Lyons v. In re Perth [ Electric Tramways, Ld. . . . . ) Tranouth : — McVity v. Transit (Eapid Eoad) Co., In re Transport (Goole and SheBSeld) Co. : — ) Bamfield v. . . . . . . . . . . j Transvaal (Henderson's) Estates, Ld. See under Henderson's Transvaal Estates, Ld. Tranter : — Finck v. Tra,ppes : — Jones v. In re Sisson's Settle- ment . . Travers v. Kelly. In re King Trawler (Steam) "Nizam" (Owners of): — Gilbert v. Treasury (Solicitor to the) : — Dixon v. Treasury (Solicitor to the) : — ^Wigley v. Treasury (Lords Commissioners of H.M.) : — Eex V. . . Trechmann Brothers : — London Transport ) Co. r ( Tredegar Dry Dock and "Wharf Co. : — ) Ascherson v. . . . . . . . . j Treise : — Strong v. Tremayne r. fiashleigh . . j Tremayne v. Eashleigh (No. 2) . . { Trench : — Heathcote v. In re Heathoote . . j Trenchard, In re. Trenchard v. Trenchard j Trenchard, In re. Trenchard v. Trenchard Trevanion, In re. Trevanion v. Lennox Trevanion v. Dumas. In re Masterson Volume and Page. Trevenen :- Trevener :- -Van Grutten v. -Cook V. Trewhy v. Balls. In re Balls . . Trigg, In the Goods of . . Trimble v. Goldberg Tringham's Trusts, In re. Tringham Greenhill Trinity House Corporation: — Cairn Line of Steamships, Ld. v. , . Tristram : — Eex v. Tromans v. Hodkinson [1909] 1 K. B. 68 C. A. [1910] W. N. Ill [1910] 2 Ch. 1 [1910] W.N. 28; C. A. [1910] W. N. 141; [1910] 2 Ch 263 [1906] W. Oh. 216 N. 113; [1906] 2] P. C. [1908] A. C. 60 . . [1909] 1 Ch. 96 0. A. [1910] W. N. [1910] 2 K. B. 94 . . 136: [1905] 1 K. B. 427 . . [1902] W. N. 233; [1903] 1 \ Ch. 262 I [1904] W. N. 23 ; [1904] 1 ) Ch. 363 0. A. [1910] W. N. 180 ; ) [1910] 2 K. B. 555 . . . . j [1906] P. 42 [1902] P. 233 [1909] 2 K. B. 183 C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 636 [1909] W. N. 168 ; [1909] 2 ) Ch. 401 . . [1909] 1 K. B. 613 [1908] W.N. 31; [1908] 1 Ch 681 [1908] W. N. 42 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 681 [1904] W. N. 79; [1904] Oh. 826 [1902] W. N. 18 ; [1902] 1 Oh 378 [1904] W. N. 195; [1906] 1 Ch. 82 [1910] 2 Ch. 538 [1901] W. N. 172; C. A [1902] W. N. 192 0. A. 1902] 2 K. B. 82 [1910] W. N. 211 [1909] W. N. 86; [1909] 1 Ch. 791 [1901] P. 42 . , P. C. [1906] A. C. 494 [1904] W. N. 153 ; [1904] 2 I Oh. 487 ) [1907] W. N. 58 ; [1907] 1 ) K. B. 604 ; C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 828 ) 0. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 816 [1902] W. N. 204 ; [1903] 1 ] K. B. 30 j Column of Digest. 2710 2716 2715 430 297 2606 341 1760 2770 2989 1646 2070 2063 1914 2469 2041 2299 2401 2401 11 2360 68 9 2981 1352 1122 2897 2069 2721 2412 2567 1007 1130 <2 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Trowbridge Urban District Council : — ) Stancomb v. . . . . . . . . . . ) Trowbridge Water Co. v. Wilts County ) Council . . . . . . ... . . j Truflontein Estates, Ld. : — Short v. . . Truman, Hanbury, Buxton & Co., Ld., In re '. Trunk (Grand) Ey. Co. of Canada v. Robertson Truro Corporation v. Eowe . . . . . . j Truro Eural Council : — Harvey c. . . . . j Trust and Agency Co. of Australasia, Ld. ) In re . . . . . . . . . . ) Trust and Loan Company of Canada r. ] Gautbier . . . . j Trust (Lancashire) and Mortgage Insurance ] Corporation v. Martin . . . . . . ) Trustee, The, Ex parte. Trustee, The, Ex parte. Lawrence Trustee, The, Ex parte. pjarte Lovell . . Trustee, The, Ex parte In re Bastable In re Lawford In re Eiggs. Ex In re Salmon Trustee, The, Ex -parte. In re Webster Trustees of Mary Clarke Home r. Anderson Trustees of St. Mark's Glebe : — Commissioners of Taxation v. Trusts and Guarantee Co. : — Central Ontario Ey. V _ Tryvan (Moel) Ship Co. v. Andrew Weir & Co Tryon, In re. Ex parte Davis " Tryst," The Tshingumuzi v. Att.-Gen. of Natal . . Tuck, In re. Murch v. Loosemore . . . . j Tucker : — Pemsel and Wilson v. . . . . j Tug (Asiatic Petroleum Co. and the Taku) \ and Lighterage Co. : — China Navigation > Co. i; ^ ) Tug (Thames Steam) and Lighterage Co. : — j London and India Docks Co. v. . . . . j TuUock V. Waygood (B.) & Co | Tunbvidge v. Mathews. . Tunbridge Wells Opera House, Ld. V. -Preston ' Column of Digest. Tunniclifie & Hampson, Ld. v. West Leigh ) Colliery Co Tunstall Urban District Council : — Wolstan- ton O'nited Urban District Council v. [1910] W. N. 105 ; [1910] 2 ' Oh. 190 [1909] W. N. TO; [1909] 1' K. B. 824 P. C. [1905] A. C. 584 [1910] W. N. 200; [1910] 2 Ch. 498 P. 0. [1909] A. C. 325 [1901] 2 K. B. 870; C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 709 . . [1903] W. N. 126 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 638 [1908] W. N. 229 P. C. [1904] A. C. 94.. H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W.N. 76.. C. A. [1901] W. N. 122 ; [1901] ) 2 K. B. 518 ) [1902] W. N. 129 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 445 [1901] W. N. 81 ; [1901] 2 E. B. 16 [1902] W. N. 225 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 147 [1907] W. N. 31 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 623 [1904] 2 K. B. 645 . . P. C. [1902] A. C. 416 P. C. [1905] A. C. 576 C. A. [1910] W. N. 179 ; [1910] ) 2 K. B. 844 j C. A. [1901] W.N. 176 [1909] P. 333 P. C. [1908] A. C. 248 C. A. [19061 W. N. 77 ; [1906] ) 1 Oh. 692 [1907] W. N. 12S: [1907] 2 ) Oh. 191 .. .. I P. 0. [1910] A. C. 204 H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 15 . . 0. A. [1906] W. N. 118 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 261 [1903] W. N. 158 [1903] 2 Ch. 323 [1905] W. N. 110; [1905] 2, Ch. 390 ; 0. A. [1906] W. N. , 105 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 22 ; H. L. ' fE.) [1907] W. N. 249 ; [1908t A. C. 27 . [1910] W. N. 144; [1910] 2 Ch. 347 ; 0. A. [1910] W. N. 232 2340 2314 2720 647 318 1084 1171 488 303 406 176 230 1354 1730 179 2229 1795 319 2456 649 2500 1778 127 2819 379 2520 1615 1818 1756 1709 1491 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Turiontein Estates, Ld. : — Short v. Turnbull, In re. Skipper v. Wade TurnbuU v. Hayes. In re Hayes Turnbull & Co. v. Duval Turnell v. Carshalton Park Estate, Ld. In re the Co. Turner, In re. Meyding v. Hinohlifl Turner, In re. Wood v. Turner Turner v. Oarlton Turner : — Fielding v. . . Turner v. Haji Goolam Mahomed Azam Turner v. Handsworth Urban Council Turner : — Merchiston Steamship Co., Ld. v. Turner v. Moon Turner : — Eex v. Turner : — Eex v. Turner v. Sawdon & Co. Turner v. Smith Turner :— Spencer v. Turner : — Toovey v. Turner v. Walsh In re Hudson In re Bacon . Turner :^- Wilder v. In re Harrington Turner v. Willis " Turquoise," The " Turret Court," The .. Turvey v. Brintons, Ld. Higgins v. Camp bell & Harrison, Ld. Tutton ('. " Majestic" (Owners of Steamship) j Tutton & Sons : — Bartlett v. . . Twamley : — Wilson v. . . Tweddle (John) & Co., In re .. Tweed v. Eex . .< Tweedie v. Hayward. In re Hayward Tweedie v. Maunder. In re Megret Tweedie, Solicitors, In re Tweedie's Taxation, In re Twentyman v. Twentyman Twist v.Tje Tye :— Twist v Tyler, In re. Ex parte Official Eeceiyer Tyler v. Ferris . . P. 0. [1905] A. C. 584 [1905] W.N. 64; [1905] 1 Oh "726 • 0. A. [1901] W. N. 175 [1901] 2 Oh. 529 . . [1902] A. 0. 429 [1908] W. N. 107 ; [1908] 2 Oh. 62 [1906] W. N. 27 [1906] W. N. 226 ; 0. A. [1907] W. N. 124 ; [1907] 2 Oh 126 ; [1907] 2 Oh. 539 [1909] 1 K. B. 932 [1903] 1 K B. 867 . . P. C. [1904] A. 0. 826 [1909] W. N. 7 ; [1909] 1 Oh 381 [1910] 2 K B. 923 . . [1901] W. N. 174; [1901] Oh. 825 C. 0. E. [1904] 1 K B. 181 . 0. 0. A. [1909] W. N. 242 [1910] IK B. 346.. 0. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 653 [1901] 1 Ch. 213 1910] W. N. 269 °1907] W. N. 44 ; [1907] 1 Oh 475 0. A. [1909] W. N. 133; [1909] 2 K. B. 484 . . [1908] W. N. 203 ; [1908] Oh. 687 [1905] 1 K. B. 468 . . [1908] P. 148 . . [1901] W. N. 62 0. A. [1904] W. N. 5 ; [1904] 1KB.328;H.L. (E.)[1905] W. N. 72 ; [1905] A. 0. '230 0. A. [1909] W. N. 92 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 54 . . 0. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 72 0. A. [1904] W. N. 97 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 99 . . [1910] 2 K B. 67; 0. A [1910] W. N. 168 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 697 P. 0. [1904] A. 0. 127 [1901] W. N. 6 ; [1901] 1 Oh 221 [1901] W. N. 15'; [1901] 1 Oh. 547 1909] W. N. 110 1908] W. N. 257 ^ . . 1903] P. 82 . . 1902] P. 92 . . 1902] P. 92 . . 1906] W. N. 202; 0. A. [1907] ■ W.N. 52; [1907] 1 K B. 865 [1906] W. N. 8 ; [1906] 1 K.B. 94; 0. A. [1907] W.N 52- [1907] IK. B. 865 2720 2993 1953 1297 521 1037 2685 2241 1131 1218 2644 2250 2789 235 789 1661 1755 2989 2955 1743 238 2582 2490 734 1604 1650 1612 1383 522 310 1056 634 2600 1732 936 2056 2056 224 2873 ocxoiv TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Colunm of Digest. Tyler : — Manners v. . . Tyler :— Stone , Tynemoutli Corporation (In re Duke Northumberland and) Corporation :- "'I - Smith's Dock Tynemouth Co. V. . . " Tynron " (Owners of the Vessel) v. Morgan Tyre (Warwick) Co. v. New Motor and ) General Rubber Co. . . . . . . . . j Tyson : — Nunn & Co. v. u. Uglow V. Richards. In re Richards , , UUcoats Mining Co. : — Moore v. Ullmann & Co. v. Cesar Leuba Dlmann v. Cowes Harbour Commissioners. . Umphelby : — Douglas-Men2des i'. Underground Electric Railways Company of | London, Ld. i . Inland Revenue Commis- • sionere . . . . . . . . . j TJnderhill v. Plumptre. In re Plumptre's Marriage Settlement Underwood v. London Music Hall, Ld. " Uneeda " Trade Mark, In re Unemployed (Central Body for Loudon) : — Porton II. Union Bank of Scotland v. Inland Revenue Oommrs. Union Dampfschiflsrhederei Actiengesell- sohaft V. S.S. " Parisian " .. Union Lighterage Co. v. London Graving Dock Co ; Union Lighterage Co. : — Price & Co. t . Union Marine Insurance Co. : — Ajum Goolam Hossen & Co. r. Hajee Cassim Joosub i', Ajum Goolam Hossen & Co. Union of London and Smith's Bank, Ld. Ponsford, Baker & Co. v. . . Union (Provincial) Bank : — Gadd v. Union (Provincial) Bank : — Rosefield v. Union Steamship Company of British Colum- bia, Ld. (The Ship " Camosun " and) : — Bow, McLachlan & Co. f . . . [1902] 1 E. B. 901 . . [1904] W. N. 186 ; [1905] 1 \ K. B. 290 ) [1909] W. N. Ill ; [1909] 2 ' K B. 37-1 [1908] W. N. 15 ; [1908] 1 K B. 315 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 19 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 948 C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 66 [1910] W. N. 8 ; [1910] 1 Ch. \ 248 J [1901] W. N. 138 ; [1901] 2 ) K. B. 487 j [1901] W. N. 216; [1902] 1 Ch. 76 [1907] W. N. 231 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 575 ; 0. A. [1908] W. N (Erratum 40) 35 P. C. [1908] A. C. 443 [1909] 2 K. B. 1 P. C. [1908] A. C. 224 [1904] 2 K. B. 198; C. A [1904] W. N. 208 ; [1905] / 1 K. B. 174; H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 2 ; [1906] A. 0. 21 ' [1910] W. N. 63 ; [1910] 1 Ch. ) 609 i [1901] W. N. 113; [1901] 2 1 Ch.309 ... j [1901] W. N. 29 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 560 ; C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 783 J C. A. [1909] 1 K B. 173 (1901) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1902] ) W. N. 174 I P. C. [1907] A. C. 193 [1901] W. N. 92 ; [1901] 2 Ch. ] 300 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. } 147 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 557 [1903] 1 K. B. 750; C. A. [1904] W. N. 20 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 412 . . . . . . ) P. C. [1901] A. C. 362 [1906] W.N. 121-; 0. A. [1906] ) W. N. 182 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 444 ... . j C. A. [1909] W.N. 126; 1 19091 ) 2 K. B. 353 . . [1910] W. N. 185; [1910] 2 K. B. 781 .. . ..j P. C. [1909] A. 0. 597 42 2875 1404 2160 1633 2696 1186 2882 1388, 1968 1175 841 1802 2259 2398 497 2687 1654 2229 322 2651 340 2566 223 1716 251 322 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Unite, In re. Edwards v. Smith United African Lands, Ld. : — Arnot v. United Alkali Co. : — Acetylene Illuminating Oo. V. . . United Butter Companies of France, Ld. : — Thomas v. United Collieries, Ld. v. Simpson (or Hendry) United Counties Bank, Ld. : — General Land Drainage and Improvement Co. v. United Gold Coast Mining Properties, Ld. : — ^Dexter v. . . . . . . . . . . ) United Mining and Finance Corporation, j Ld. V. Beoher . . . . . . j United Parishes of St. Mary Woolnoth and S St. Mary Woolchurch Haw: — City and South Loudon Ry. Oo. v. . . , . . . ] United Provident Assurance Co., Ld., In re United Service Association, In re United Service Share Purchase Society, Ld., ) In re . . . . . . . . . . . . I United Shoe Machinery Oo. of Canada v. j Brunet . . . . . . . . . . j United States of America v. Gaynor . . United States Playing Card Company's j Application, In re . . . . . . j United States Shipping Co. v. Empress j Assuiunce Corporation . . . . . . j United (Wolstanton) Urban District Council j V. Tunstall Urban District Council . . | University College of North Wales, Ex parte. "| Eex V. Special Commissioners for Purposes of Income Tax . , . . . . . . ! University College of North Wales and '' University of Wales u. Taylor. In re Williams . . . . . . ' University of London Medical Sciences ' Institute Fund, In re. Fowler v. Att.- Gen University of St. Andrews : — Nairn c . , < Upper Forest and Western Steel and Tin- ] plate Co. V. Thomas , , . . , . . . J I Upperton v. Eidley . . . . . . • • " Upton Castle," The , . . , Us borne : — Economic Life Assurance Society ] V J " Uskmoor," The ; Uxbridge Sural Council : — King's College, ] Cambridge v. . . . . . . ■ ■ ', Uzielli: — Moran, Galloway & Co. v. [1906] W. N. 26 0. A. [1901] W. N. 28 ; [1901] ) 1 Ch. 518 I [1902] W. N. 25 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 494 [1909] 2 Ch. 484 H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 146 ; [1909] A. 0. 383 [1910] W. N. 187 [1901] W. N. 152; C. A. [1901] W. N. 157 . . [1910] 2 K. B. 296 . . 11. L. (B.) [1905] W. N. 1 ; ) [1905] A. 0. 1 , . . . j [1910] W. N. 199; [1910] 2 Ch. 477 [1901] 1 Oh. 97 [1909] W. N. 169 ; [1909] Ch. 526 P. 0. [1909] A. 0. 330 P. C. [1905] A. 0. 128 [1907] W. N. 251 ; [1908] Oh. 197 [1907] 1 K. B. 259; C. A. [1907] W. N. 219 ; [1908] 1 J K. B. 115 ]. [1910] W. N. 144; [1910] 2 ) Ch. 347 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 232 ) [1908] W. N. 92 ; 0. A. [1909] I W. N. 57 j [1907] P. 228 ; C. A [1907] i W. N. 217 ; [1908] P. 140 ) [1908] W. N. 182 ; 0. A. [1909] 1 W. N. 57 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 1 . . j H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W. N. 250 ; ( [1909] A. C. 147 . . . . ) C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 631 0. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 384 ; , H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 104 ; [1903] A. 0. 281 . . ) [1906] P. 147 H. L. (I.) [1902] A. C. 147 . . [1902] W. N. 150 ; [1902] P. ) 250 j [1901] W. N. 176; [1901] 2) Oh. 768 J [1905] 2 K. B. 555 . . 361 486 1881 616 1596 1209 562 2611 1400 407 686 1221 309 302 2677 1267 1491 2232 2062 368 2326 1586 1914 2512 778 2506 2431 1269 TABLE OF CASES IN THE] DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. V. " V 593 " (Owners of Ship) :— Dittmar 11. . . Vagliano, In re. Vagliano v. Vagliano Vagliano Anthracite Collieries, Ld., In re . . Vale (Taff) Ry. Co. v. Gordon Canning , . ' Vale (Tafl) Ey. Co. :— Ehondda Urban j Council V. . . . . . . J Valentia (Viscount) v. Lady Chesham. In re j Lord Ghesham's Settlement , . . . j Valentia (Viscount) : — Thellusson v. . . Valentine, Ex parte. In re Smith . . Valentine v. Moses. In re Moses . . j Valentine : — Staffordshire Pinancial Co. v. . . "Valkyrie," The Vallentine v. Vallentine Valletort Sanitary Steam Laundry Co., In re. \ Ward «. Valletort Sanitary Steam Laundry [ Co. . . , . . . . . . , . . ) Valley Printing Co. : — Mansell ti. .. .. Valley (Ehondda) Breweries Co. v. Ponty- pridd Union Assessment Committee Valpy, In re. Valpy v. Valpy Valve (Marshall's) Gear Co. v. Manning, j Wardle & Co ( Vamplew v. Parkgate Iron & Steel Co. . . j Van den Bergh : — Hyman v. . . Van Der Auwera, Ex parte. Eex v. Governor of Brixton Prison Van Diemens Land Co. v. Table Cape Marine \ Board . . . , . . . . j Van Eijok (C. A.) and Zoon v. Somerville . . Van Gelder's Patents, In re. Ex parte Thompson Van Grutten v. Trevenen Van Joel's (Nichols and) Contract, In re Van Laun, Re. Ex parte Ohatterton Van Laun & Co. v. Baring Brothers & Co. . . Van Praagh v. Everidge . . . . . . ' Van Eeenan : — Att.-Gen. for the Cape of | Good Hope v. Smit . , . . ... . . ) Van Straubenzee, In re. Boustead v. Cooper j C. A. [1909] 1 K B. 389 1905] W. N. 179 1910] W. N. 187 1909] W. N. 108 ; [1909] 2 ; Ch. 48 H. L. (B.) [1909] W. N. 91 ; j [1909] A. C. 253 . . . . J C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 329 [1906] W. N. 45; [1906] 1 Ch. 480 ; 0. A. [1907] W. N. 99; [1907] 2Ch. 1 .. [1910] W. N. 23 [1908] W. N. 156; [1908] 2 Ch. 235 C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 233 [1910] W. N. 138 [1901] P. 283 [1903] W. N. 135; Ch. 654 [1903] 2 [1908] W. N. 41 ; [1908] 1 ) Ch. 567 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 173 ; [1908] 2 Oh. 441 .. ) 0. A. [1909] W. N. 29; [19091 ) 1 K. B. 652 1 [1906] W. N. 32 ; [1906] 1 ) Ch. 531 . , . . . . J [1909] 1 Oh. 267 G. A. [1903] W. N. 80 ; [1903] 1 K B. 8S1 . . [1907] W.N. 183; [1907] 2 Ok 516 ;C. A. [1907] W.N. 250; [1908] 1 Ch. 167 [1907] W. N. 88 ; [1907] 2 KB. 157 .. P. C. [1906] A. C. 92 . . H. L. (So.) [1906] W, N. 162; ) [1906] A. 0. 489 . . . . J P. 0. [1907] A. 0. 174 0. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 82 0. A. [1909] W. N. 226 ; 0. A. ) [1910] 1 Ch. 43 1 [1906] W. N. 228; [1907]) 1 K. B. 155 ; 0. A. [19071 ' W.N. 73; [1907]2K.B. 23) 0. A. [1903] W. N. 128 ; [1903] 2 K B. 277 . . [1902] W. N. 103 ; [1902] 2 ) Ch. 266; 0. A. [1903] W.N. < 26; [1903] ICh. J 34 ..) P. C. [1904] A. 0. 114 [1901] W. N. 181; [19011 2) Ch. 779 . ..] 1626 364 650 2115 2102 1151 386 199 637 1723 2560 948 424 691 2151 2920 506 1658 1455 1062 2657 2479, 2516 1888 1362 2816 229 1288 2804 333 2404 Table of CASiES in the digest. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Van Tromp : — Pearks, Gunston & Tee, Ld. u Same v. Knight Vancouver (North) Land and Improvement \ Oo-, Lim.ited Liability : — Jones v.. . . . ] Vandeleur : — Att.-Gen. for Ireland v. Vane : — Strathmore v. In re Bowes Vanguard Motorbus Co., In re Vannini, In the Goods of Vase, In re. Langrish v. Vase Vasey and Lally : — Eex v. Vauxhall Colliery Co. : — ^Williams v. Veazey v. Ohattle "Velox,"The Venn, In re. Lindon v. Ingram "Venture," The Venugopal (Chetti) v. Ohetti (Venugopal) " Veritas," The Verney v. Mark Pletcher & Sons, Ld. Vernon, In re . . Verrell's Contract, In re Verrier v. Haskins. In re Adams . . Vetch V. Elder Veterinary (Churchill's) Sanatorium, Ld. and ) James Churchill : — Att.-Gen. v. . . . . ] Vezey : — Griffiths v. . . Vezey v. Bashleigh. Vickers, Sons & Maxim, Ld. v. Coventry \ Ordnance Works, Ld. Vickers, Sons & Maxim .'—Evans v. . . Vickers, Sons & Maxim, Ld. : — Powell v. Vickerstaff, In re. Vickerstaff v. Chadwick j Victoria (City of) Corporation : — ^Esquimalt Waterworks Co. v. . . Victoria Lumber and Manufacturing Co., Ld. :— White v Victoria-Monti'eal Eire Insurance Co. : — ) Home Insurance Company of New York v. | Victoria (Society of Notaries for State of) : — Fay V. . . Victorian Daylesford Syndicate, Ld. v. Dott * Victorian Hallway Commissioners v. Brown. JSx parte Victorian Hallway Commissioners ) Victorian Society of Notaries (Melboiirne j Notaries) : — BaUleau v . . ) Vigors Brothers : — ^Harper & Co. v. . . [1901] W. N. 179 ; [1901] 2 K B. 825 . . P. C. [1910] A. C. 317 H. L, (Ir.) [1907] W. N. 178 [1907] A. 0. 369 . . 1907] W. N. 198 1908] W. N. 99 1901] P. 330 . . 1901] W. N. 124 C. C. E. [1905] W. N. 150 [1906] 2 K. B. 748 . . 0. A. [1907] W. N. 143 [19071 2 K. B. 433 . . C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 494 [1906] P. 263 . . [1904] W. N. 94; [1904] 2 Oh, 52 0. A. [1908] P.' 218 ' .' [1909] P. 67 . . [1901] W. N. 174; [1901] 304 [1909] W. N. 25 ; [1909] 1 ' E. B. 444 [1901] 1 E. B. 297 [1902] W. N. 207; [1903] Ch. 65 [1906] W. N. 220 [1908] W. N. 137 [1910] W. N. 195; [1910] 2) Ch. 401 [1906] W. N. 73; [1906] Ch. 796 [1904] W. N. 64; [1904] Oh. 634 [1908] W. N. 12 [1910] W. N. 41 ; [1910] 1 ) E. B. 654 ; H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 161 ; [1910] A. 0. 444 ) 0. A [1907 207 1906] W. N. 1 K. B. 71 . . [1906] 'W. N. 67; [1906] Oh. 762 P. C. [1907] W. N. 499 P. 0. [1910] A. C. 606 P. C. [1907] A. C. 69 . . [1909] P. 15 . . [1906] W. N. 141 ; [1906] 2 ) Ch. 624; 0. A. [1906] W.N. ' 90 P. C. [1906] A. C. 381 [1904] P. 180 . . [1909] 2 K. B. 549 . , 41. 294 1100 1981 600 2060 1854 1084 1585 1635 2563 2894 2547 1676 2557 1068 2210 2819 2751 2402 2830 2807 658 1964 1669 726 34 328 313 304 1819 1722 139 1819 2038 TABLE OP CASlES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Vigers Brothers v. Sanderson Brothers Vigor & Co. :— Haylett v | Vilander Concessions Syndicate v. Cape of 1 Grood Hope Grovernment . . . . . . ) Villar V. Grilbey . . . , . . . . ' Vincent, In re. EoMe v. Palin Vinden v. Hughes Vines (In the Estate of). Vines v. Vines . Vinson v. Prior Fibres Consolidated, Ld. Vintners' Co. : — Pladgate v. In re Gassiot. Viola's Indenture of Lease, In re. Humphrey l 1.. Stenbury . , Vivian (Lord) v. Vivian (Lady), In re Vizianagaram Co., Ex -parte. In re P. Maofadyen & Co. Vizianagaram Co., Ex parte. Macfadj'en & Co. In Vogeler (Charles A.) & Co. : — Cooke v. Vogt V. Mortimer Von LiverhofE : — Siilefie d. In re Chantrell Von Luedecke : — Whitby v . . Von Siemens v. Mannesmann Tube Co. In re \ Mannesmann Tube Co. .'. . . . . j Voss, Ex parte. In re Button Voss and Saunders' Contract, In re . . w. W., In re. W. i'. M W. -u. S " W. H. No. 1 " and The " Knight Errant" W. J. Hall & Co., In re W. Tasker & Sons, Ld., In re Waddle v. Sunderland Union . , Wade : — Att.-Gen. ti. . , Wade : — Conway v. Wade : — Skipper v. In re Turnbull. . Wade V. Wade . . Wagstaff, In re. Wagstaff v. Jalland [1901] 1 K B. 608 . . C. A. [1908] W. N. 197 [1908] 2 K. B. 837 . . P. C. [1907] A. 0. 186 [1906] W. N. 94; [1905] 2 Ch. 301 ; 0. A. [1906] W. N. 56; [1906] 1 Ch. 583; H. L, (E.) [1907] W. N. 72 ; [1907] A C 139 [1909] W. N. 94'; [1909] 1 Ch, 810 :! [1905 W. N. 48; [1905] K B. 795 1910] P. 147 . . 1906] W. N. 209 1901] W. N. 23 1908] W. N. 255 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 244 0. A. [1909] P. 57 [1908] W. N. 32; [1908] 1 K B. 675 [1908] W.N. 161 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 198 ; [1908] 2 K B, 817 H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 2 [1901] A. C. 102 . . [1906] W. N. 180 . . [1907] W. N. 213 [1906] 1 Ch. 783 [1901] W. N. lOJ ; [1901] 2 Ch. 93 C. A. [1905] W. N. 24 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 602 . . [1910] W. N. 217 C. A. [1907] W. N. 204 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 557 [1905] P. 231 . . C. A [1910] P. 190 . . [1909] W. N. 49 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 521 [C. A. [1905] W. N. 135 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 587 . . [1906] W. N. I,s8; [1906] 2 K.B.899;C.A.[1908]W.N. 27 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 642 . . [1910] 1 K. B. 703 C. A. [1908] 2 K B. 844; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 185 ; [1909] A. G. 506 [1905] W. N. 64 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 726 [1903] P. 16 . , [1907] W. N. 87 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 35 ; C. A. [1907] W. N. 245 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 162 . . 2286 1623 330 3002 2903 245 2908 1989 2909 1364 962 160 204 153 1128 27 1933 613 216 1347 1228 939 2514 581 449 6146 2273 2702, 2706 2993 923 3007 taSle of cases In the digest. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Wagstaff V. City of London Common Council Wagstafi's Settled Estates, In re Wagstafie v. Bentley . . Waidanis, In re. Eivers v. Waidanis Wainwright : — Eandt Gold Mining Co. v Waite : — Andrews v. . . ■t Waite : — Burnand v. In re Seton-Smitli Waite : — Hiscoe v. In re Hisooe Waite V. Jennings Wakefield Corporation : — Wakefield and | District Light Railways Co. v. . . . . ' Wakefield Corporation v. Cooke . . . . < Wakefield Rural Council :— SoothiU Tipper i Urban Council v. . . . . . . . . j Wakefield and District Light Railways Co. v. \ Wakefield Corporation . . . . . . i Walbeok, In re . . Walbran, In re. Milner v. Walbran . . j Walden : — Steeden v. . . Walder : — Norman & Burt v.. . Waldock V. Winfield Wales :— University College of North Wales j and University of Wales v. Taylor. In re \ Williams . . . . ■ ■ ) Wales V. Carr . . . . . . ■ ! Wales (Liverpool and North) Steamship Co. i V. Mersey Trading Co. . . . . . • i Wales(Monmouthshire and South)Employers' j Mutual Indemnity Society, Ld., In re . . ) Wales (University College of North), £'a! parte. \ Rex V. Commi&sioners for Special Purposes I of Income Tax . . • • ) Walkden Spinning and Manufacturing Co. : — Booth V. Walker, In re . . . . . . . . • ■ j Walker, In re. Ex parte ChUde Walker, In re. MacCoU r. Bruce . . . . Walker, Inre. Mackintosh- Walker v. Walker Walker, In re. Summers v. Barrow Walker, In re. Walker v. Dunoombe Walker, In the Estate of ( [1908] W. N. 202 [1909] W. N. 142 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 201 C.A. [1901] W.N. 212; [1902] 1 K. B. 124 [1907] W. N. 213 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 123 [1901] 1 Ch. 184 [1907] W. N. 160 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 500 [1902] W. N. 68 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 717 [1902] W. N. 49, 54 . . C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 11 [1906] 2 K. B. 140 ; C. A. [1907] W. N. 77 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 256; H.L.(E.) [1908] W.N. 124; [1908] A. C. 293 [1902] 1 K. B. 188 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 28 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 417 ; H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 3 ; [1904] A. C. 31 . [1904] W. N. 200 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 63 ; C. A. [1905] W. N. 138 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 516 [1906] 2 K. B. 140 ; C. A. [1907] W. N. 77 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 256; H.L.(E.) [1908] W.N. 124 ; [1908] A. C. 293 [1904] W. N. 204 [1905] W. N. 165 ; [1906] 1 ) Ch. 64 j [1910] W. N. 182; [1910] 2 1 Ch. 393 ) C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 27 C. A. [1901] W. N. 145 ; [1901] 1 2 K. B. 596 j [1907] P. 228 ; C. A. [1907] \ W. N. 217 ; [1908] P. 40 , . j [1902] W. N. 43 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 860 C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 209 [1909] W. N. 6 [1908] W. N. 92 ; C. A. [1909] ] W. N. 57 j [1909] W. N. 112; [1909] 2) K. B. 368 i C.A. [1907] W.N. 123; [1907]] 2 Ch. 120 j [1909] W. N. 104 . . [1908] W. N. 47 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 560 1908] 2 Ch. 705 1901" 1 Oh. 259 1901] 1 Ch. 879 1909 P. 115 . . 1624 2388 727 2735 486 1465 3104 66 1358 2163 2153 2636 1489, 2845 1343 3004 1233 1632 1679 2062 1733 1908 476 2232 672 1545 198 1949 669 2732 2362 2068 TABLEi OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Colnnm of Digest, Walker v. Crystal Palace Football Club . . j Walker : — ^Doughty v. In re Betts . . . . j Walker v. Lever. Walker v. Nisbet. In re ' Appleby . . . . . . . . . . Walker v. Linom . . . . . . . . j Walker : — London and North-Western Ey. ' Go.v Walker : — Lowery v. , . Walker v. Nisbet. Walker v. Lever. In re Appleby Walker v. Simpson Walker : — Torrens v. . . Walker v. Walker. Ex parte Walker Walker v. York Corporation . . Walker (Peter) & Son, Ld. v. Hodgson Walker (a Lunatic so found), In re . . Walker & Oaksbott's Contract, In re Walker & Smith, Ld., In re . . Walker's Conti-act : — In re Lebmann and . . Walkers, Winser & Hamm and Shaw, Son & Co., In re Wallace, Ex parte Wallace : — Nesbitt v. . . Wallace-James : — Montgomerie & Co. v. . . Wallace-James : — Montgomerie & Co. v. . . Wallas, In the Estate of Waller, Ex parte. In re Dunkley & Son Waller : — Hanson v. . . Waller : — Eex v. Wallington, Weston & Co. : — Sirdar Eubber Co. f Wallis, /'/( re. Ex parte Jenks Wallis : — Davis v. Wallis : — Smithers v. . . Wallis r. Solicitor-General for New Zealand Wallis & Grout's Contract, In re . . . . . Wallis, Son & Wells v. Pratt & Haynes . . " Wallsend," The .._ Wallsend Borough Council and Northumber- \ land County Council, In re. . . . . . j Walmesley :— MeUor c. 0. A. [1909] W. N. 225 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 87 . . [1907] W. N. 101 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 149 C. A. [1903] W. N. 45; [1903] 1 Ch. 565 [1907] W. N. 128; [1907] 2. Ch. 104 H. L. (B.) [1903] W. N. 104; [1903] A. C. 289 . . [1909] W. N. 130 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 433 ; C. A. [1909] / W. N. 249 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 173 ;H.L.(E.) [1910] W.N. 241 ' C. A. [1903] W. N. 45 ; [1903] ) 1 Ch. 565 ) P. 0. [1903] A. C. 208 [1906] W. N. 98 ; [1906] 2 Ch. ) 166 j P. C. [1903] A. C. 170 [1906] 1 K. B. 724 . . C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 239 C. A. [1904] W. N. 185 ; [1905] ICh. 160 [1901] W. N. 145; [1901] 2 Ch. ) 383 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 147 ) [1903] W. N. 82 [1906] W. N. 171 [1904] 2 E. B. 152 . . [1902] 2 K. B. 488 . . [1901] W. N. 180 ; [1901] P.354 H. L. (Sc.) [1904] W. N. 3 ; ) [1904] A. C. 73 . . . . I H. L. (Sc.) [1904] A. C. 214. [1905] P. 326 [1905] W. N. 132; [1905] 2) K. B. 683 ) [1901] 1 K. B. 390 . . 0. C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 3G4 . [1905] W. N. 37 ; [1905] 1 Ch. ) 451; C.A. [1906] W.N. 24; [1906] 1 Ch. 252 . . . . ) [1902] W. N. 60 ; [1902] 1 ) K B. 719 . [1908] W. N, 58; [1908] K. B. 134 C. A. [1902] W. N. 228 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 200 P. C. [1903] A. C. 173 [1906] W. N. 108 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 206 0. A. [1910] 2KB. 1003 . . [1907] P. 302 [1906] W. N. 179 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 506 [1904] 2 Ch. 525 ; C. A. [1905] W. N. 98, 102 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 164 . ( ■ ) 1620 2960 1760 2122 2298 2960 1789 1394 1789 1184 877 1548 2825 541 2795 2286 1329 1005 2318 2318 2064 209 1668 791 1876 182 2147 1586 1804 2822 2290 2517 2311 2233 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Walpole V. Walpole Walpole V. Walpole Walpole's Marriage Settlement, In re. Thorn son V. Walpole Walsall Justices : — Bex v. Walsall Union, Ex parte. Eex v. Middlesex \ Justices Walsh : — Turner v. Walsh (w Boyle) v. Wilson Walter v. Ashton Walter : — Kingsbury v. Walter v. Talden Walters v. French-Brewster. Brewster's Settlements In re French- Walters V. Harrison. In re Whitmore Council :- Walthamstow Urban District Att.-G-en. V. . . Walton V. Atchison. In re Slaughter Wand, In re. Escritt v. Wand Wandsworth (In re Wesleyan Methodist Chapel in South Street) Wandsworth Board of Works : — Property Ex change, Ld. v. Wandsworth Borough Council : — Anderson v Wandsworth Borough Council : — London County Council v. . . Wandsworth Corporation v. Baines - . Wandsworth Union v. Worthington . . Wanklyn : — Green v. . . Wantage Union v. Bristol Union Wappett V. Robinson. In re Steel .. . WarbKngton Urban Council : — Foster v. Ward, Ex parte. In re Attree Ward, Ex parte. In re Eastgate Ward, Ex parte. In re Weibking ,. . Ward V. Alpha Co. In re Alpha Co. Ward V. Benett. In re Benett Ward :-^Dormer v. Ward V. Dwelley. In re Ohenoweth Ward V. Franklin Ward V. Haddrill Ward : — Jackson v. In re Jacksgn . , [1901] P. 86 [1901] P. 196 [1903] 1 Ch. 928 [1910] 2 K B. 210 . . [1906] 2 K. B. 365 ; C. A. ) [1907] 2 K. B. 581 . . C. A. [1909] W. N. 133; [1909] ) 2 K. B. 484 j H. L. (So.) [1906] W. N. 218 ; ) [1907] A. 0. 45 . . . . j [1902] W.N.66; [1902]2Ch.282 H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 90 ; I [1901] A. 0. 187 . . . . I [1902] 2 K B. 304 . . [1904] W. N. 64 ; [1904] 1 Ch. ] 713 I [1901] W. N. 146 ; C. A. [1902] ) W. N. 107 ; C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 66 I [1910] W. N. 35 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 347 [1907] W. N. 197 . . [1907] W. N. 38 ; [1907] 1 Oh. 391 [1909] 1 Ch. 454 0. A. [1902] 2 K B. 61 [1908] W. N. 118 ; [1908] 2 Ch.81 C. A. [1903] W. N. 72 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 797 . . [1906] W. N. 22; K. B. 470 . . [1906] W. N. 34; K. B. 420 . . [1906] 1 K B. 394 [19061 W. N. 204 K. B. 68 [1902] W. N. 202 ; [1903] 1 Oh. 136 ) 0. A. [1906] W. N. 77 ; [1906] ) 1 K. B. 648 ) [1906] 1 j [1906] ' 1 I [1907]' i I [1907 [1905; K. B. 465 [1902 K. [1902] 203 2 K. B. 868 W. N. 18; 42; [1905] 1 [1902] ' i W. N. fe. 713 W.N. 230; [1903] ICh 0. Aj:i905] W. N. 173 ; [1906] ) 1 Oh. 216 C. A. [1901] P. 20 [1902] W. N. 133 Ch. 488 [1909; [1904] 1 K. B. 399 [1907] W, " """ Oh. 354 [1902] 2 I N. 168; [1907] 2| W. N. 200 919 957 1950 1444 1926 1743 1426 1775 2902 1470 1697 2901 239 24 2906 1340 1532 282 1536 1528 1920 1851 1923 3004 1084 205 231 191 435 2767 9158 1135 2871 763 1040 cOOu TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Coiuinn of Digest. In re Bridgwater's Ward : — Partridge v. Settlement Ward : — Pearks, GrUEston & Tee, Ld. v. Hennen v. Suuthern Counties Dairies Co., Ld Ward V. Taylor. In re De Falbe (No. 2) . . Ward V. Valletort Sanitary Steam Lauudry Co. Ward, Lock & Co. a-. Long Waring, In re. Hay ward v. Att.-Gen. Wai-mold : — Lacons v. . . Warncken /-. Moreland (R.) & Son, Ld. Warner v. Coucliman . . Warners, Ld. : — Lyttelton Times Co. v. Warr (Prank) & Co. W.London County Council Warren v. Brown Warren : — CoUison v. . . t Warriner, In re. Brayshaw v. Ninnis . . j Warrington (Earl of Stamford and), In re. ) Payne v. Grey . . . . . . ( Warton v. Eedman. In re Eedman . , Warwick Deeping, Ex parte. In re Grant Richards Warwick Tyre Co. i . New Motor and General Rubber Co. , . . . . . . . i Warwickshire Justices : — Rex v. Washbrook : — Myers v. Washington : — Llewelyn ;;. In re Maddock , I Water (Bognor) Co. : — Frederick v. . . Water (East Grinstead Gas and) Co. : — ' Marriott v. . . . . . . . . . . Water (Lucas and Chesterfield Gas and) Board, In re , . Water (Metropolitan) Board v. Brooks Water (Metropolitan) Board v. London, Brighton and South Coast Ey. Co. Water (Metropolitan) Board : — South Sub- urban Gas Co. V. Water (Sutton District) Co. :— Reigate Rural Council V. (Ewart, third party) . . Water (Trowbridge) Co. v. Wilts County Council Water (West Gloucestershire) Co. : — Att.- Geu. V, [1910] W. N. 188 ; [1910] 2 / Ch. 342 j [1902] W. N. 88 ; [1902] 2 / K B. 1 ) C. A. [1901] W. N. 32 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 523 ; sub nom. Leigh / V. TayJor, H. L. (E.) [1902] 1 A. C. 157 ' [1901] W. N. 87 [1903] W. N. 135; [1903] 2 Ch. 654 [1906] W. N. 183 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 550 ) [1906] W. N. 214 ; [1907] 1 | Ch. 166 j C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 350 C. A. [1908] W. N. 252 ; [1909] \ 1 K. B. 184 ) C. A. [1910] W. N. 266 P. C. [1907] A. C. 476 C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 713 C. A. [1901] W. N. 214 ; [1902] ) 1 K. B. 15 j [1901] W. N. 55 ; 0. A. [1901] | W. N. 65 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 812 ) [1903] W. N. 118; [1903] 2 / Ch. 367 I [1910] W. N. 114; [1910] 2 ) Ch. 83 ; [1910] W.N. 277.. ( [1901] W. N. 136 ; [1901] 2 ) Ch. 471 ( [1907] 2 K. B. 33 [1910] W. N. 8 ; [1910] 1 Ch. ) 248 I '1902] 2 K. B. 101 . . "1901] 1 K. B. 360 . . 1901] W.N. 118; [1901]2Ch. \ 372 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 102 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 220 \ [1909] 1 Ch. 149 [1909] 1 Ch. 70 C. A. [1909] 1 K B. 16 [1910] 2 K. B. 134 ; C. A. ] [1910] W. N. 258 .. .. 1 [1910] 1 K. B. 804 : [1910] i W. N. 209 ; C. A. [1910] 2 I K. B. 890 ... i [1909] W. N. 199 ; [1909] ) 2 Ch. 666 j C. A. [1909] W. N. 28 [1909] W. N. 70; [1909] K. B. 824 [1909] W. N. 60; [1909] 1 Ch. 636 ; C. A. [1909] W. N, 141 ; [1909] :2 Oh. 338 , . ■I 867 45 1092 1090 424 682 373 1061 1660 1621 1805 1398 1460 1238 1380 2953 1118 227 2696 1319 2882 22, 2995 2S51 2857 2849 2849 1542 1643 1167 2314 2857 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Gdse. Waterford Steamship Co. : — Oceanic Steam Navigation Oo. v. . , Waterhouse : — Beeley v. In re Sidebottom | Waterloo Taxi-Oab Oo. : — Doggett v. . . j Waters : — May v. Waters v. Phillips . . . . . . . . j Watherston's Trustees r. Lord Advocate Waterworks (Herts and Essex) Co., Iti re . . Watkin's Settlement, In re. Wills v. ) Spence . . . . . . . . . . j Watkiiis: — North American Land and Timber ( Oo. ^• i Watkins :^Eex v. Watkins : — Thompson v. In re Thompson . . Watiiey, Combe & Co. : — London County ] Council V. . . . . . . . . ■ . J Watney, Combe, Eeid & Co. : — Llaugattook \ (Lord) V. . . . . . . J Watson V. Oharlesworth Watson : — Eaton v. . . Watson : — Hancock v.. . Watson V. Jones • • j Watson u. M'Ewan | Watson u. Spiral Globe, Ld. In re Spiral j Globe, Ld. ... j Watson V. Watson. In re Beverly . . . . Watson V. Watson. In re Hancock. Han- cock V. Watson Watson : — ^Westminster Corporation v. Watson and Parker v. Gregory. The " Oaii-o " Watson & Sons : — Jackson v. Volume and Page. Watson & Sons v. Daily Eecord (Glasgow), Ld. j Watson (William) & Co., In re. Ex parte 1 Atkin IJrothers . . ■ • j Watt V. Assets Co. Bain v. Assets Co. . j Watt V. Watt Watt :— Whitbread & Co. n | Watts:— Watts and Att.-Gen. for British | Columbia v. -. . . . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ) Watts : — Barrett v ^ Watts J). BucknaU Watts V, Driscoll H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 66 . , C.A. [1902] W.N. 132; [1902] 2 Oh. 389 0. A. [1910] W. N. 137 [19]0]2K. B. 326 .. [1910] 1 K. B. 431 . . [1910] W. N. 171 ; [1910] 2 K B. 465 [1902] W. N. 167 [1909] W. N. 48 C. A. [1910] W. N. 232 [1903] W. N. 206; [1904] 1) Oh. 242 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 44 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 233 . . ) 0. C. A. [1910] W. N. 169 . . ' [1908] W. N. 195 [1909] W. N. 32; [1909] 1 ) K. B. 637 ) [1909]2K. B.884; C.A. [1909] , W. N. 250; [1910] 1 K. B. 236 ;H.L.fE.) [1910] W.N. 103 ; [1910] A. C. 394 0. A. [1904] W. N. 202 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 74 : H. L. (B.) [1905] W. N. 168 ; [1906] A. 0. 14 [1904] W. N. 24 H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 14 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1905] W. N. 130; [1905] A. C. 480 , , H. L. (Sc.) [1905] W.N. 130; [1905] A. 0. 480 [1902] W. N. 82 ; [1902] 2 Ch. i 209 j [1901] 1 Cb. 681 0. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 482; H. L. ) (E.) [1901] W. N. 246; ' [1902] A. C. 14 . . ) [1902] 2 K. B. 717 . . [1908] W. N. 230 C. A. [1909] W. N. 83 ; [1909] ) 2K. B. 193 C.A. [1907] W. N. 61 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 853 C. A. [1904] W. N. 163; [1904] 2 K. B. 753 H. L. (So.) [1905] W. N. 98 ; ] [1905] A. C. 317 . . I H. L. (B.) [1905] W. N. 60; ■) [19(15] A. 0. 115 . . i [1901] ICh. 911; C.A. [1902]) W. N. 64 ; [1902] 1 Oh. 835 j P. 0. [1908] A. 0. 573 [1909] W. N. 237 [1902] W. N. 163 ; [1902] 2 j Ch. 628 ; 0. A. [1903] W. N. 57 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 766 . ) 0. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 1194 Column of Digest. 2493 370 1651 1121 1121 2222 444 65 1476 836 68 1428 1428 1707 1819 2881 1040 878 439 1048 2881 1606 2539 861 1995 193 585 2014 2796 299 1855 616 1868 TABLE OF CASES TN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Oripps Watts : — Flower v. Watts : — Harington v. In re Good. Watts : — Langrish v. . . Watts V. Stevens Watts and Att.-Gen. for Britisli Columbia ) V. Watts j Waudby v. Waudby . Waugh, In re. Waugb Way, In the Goods of . , Waygood (B.) & Co. :— TuUook v. Wayland Union , E:r parte. Eex v. Norfolk j Justices Weardale and Consett Water Co. ;•. Chester le-Street Co-operative Society Weatherby & Sons v. International Horse \ Agency and Exchange, Ld, Weatheritt v. Cantlay . . Weatheritt : — Evans v. Weavings v. Kirk & Bandall Webb : — Bevan v. Webb : — Bevan v. Webb V. Cro uoh and Flint. New So uth Wales ) Taxation Commissioners v, Baxter . . | Webb V. Derbyshire. In re Derbyshire Webb : — Hedley v. Webb : — Howatson v. Webb V. Outrim Webber : — Ponsolle v. Weber : — ^Wood v. Weber, Lohmann & Portland Cement Co, Co. : — Commonwealth V. Webster, J» re. Ex parte The Official Receiver In re Webster. Ex parte The Trustee . Webster : — Chandler v. Webster : — Curl Brothers, Ld. v. Webster : — Eimmer !'. , . Webster (or Kerr) : — Screw Collier Co. v. . Webster v. Sharp & Co. Webster & Jones' Contract, In re . . Wedderburn v. Earl of Lauderdale . . Wedmore, In re. Wedmore v. Wedmore . [1904] 2 ■ [1910] 2' [1910] W. N. 146 ; [1910] 2 K B. 327 [1905] W. N. 82; [1905] 2 Ch. 60 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 636 [1906] W. N. 124; [1906] K. B. 323 . . P. C. [1908] A. C. 573 [1902] P. 85 . . [1903] W. N. 32, 36; [1903] 1 Ch. 744 [1901] P. 345 C. A. [190f.] W. N. 118 [1906] 2 K. B. 261 . . [1909] 1 K. B. 463 . . [1904] W. N. 102 K. B. 240 [1910] W. N. 138 Ch. 297 [1901] 2 K. B. 285 [1907] 2 K. B. 80 C. A. [1904] W. X. 4 ; [1904] 1 K B. 213 [1901] W.N. 61; [1901] 1 Ch. 724; C.A. [1901] W.N. 85; [1901] 2 Ch. 59 [1905] W.N.58;[1905]lCh. 620 P. 0. [1908] A. C. 214 [1906] 1 Ch. 135 [1901] W. N. 77 ; [1901] 2 Oh. 126 [1907] W. N. 62 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 537; 0. A. [1907] W. N. 211 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 1 P. 0. [1907] A. C. SI . . [1908] W.N. 12 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 254 P.O. [1905] A. 0. 66.. [1908] W. N. 121 [1907] W. N. 31; [1907] 1 K B. 62.S .. C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 493 [1904] W. N. 56 ; [1904] 1 Oh 685 .. [1902] W. N. 86 ; [1902] 2 Ch 163 .. H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 258 [1910] A. C. 16o 0. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 218, H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 284 C. A. [1902] W. N. 146, 152 [1902] 2 Ch. 551 . H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 92 [1910] A. C. 342 . . [1907] W. N. 134 ; [1907] 2 Oh 277 .. Column of Digest. 255 372 1468 43 299 926 2916 2917 1615 1923 2844 687 105 43 1654 1856 2766 139 2946 2432 2833 1763 1798 765 179 664 1137 2039 2487 1625 2791 2320 2941 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Wednesbury Corporation v. Lodge Holes Colliery Co. . . . . . . . . . . Wehner c. Dene Steam Shipping Co. Weibking, In re. Ex parte Ward Weighell, In re. . Weiner v. Gill. Same v. Smith. Weiner v. Harris ::i Weir V. Crum-Brown . . . . . . ! Weir : — Houlder v. Weir (Andrew) & Co. : — Ardan Steamship ) Co. D. i Weir (Andrew) & Co. : — ^Moel Tryvan Ship \ Co. ■« 1 Weir (Andrew) & Co. : — Steamship Calcutta ) Co., Ld. V j Weir Hospital, In re . . . . . . j Weiser v. Segar . . Welch : — G-runnell v. . . Weld-Blundell v. Wolseley . . Wellbome, In re Wellcome (trading as Burroughs, Wellcome ) & Co.) V. Thompson & Capper . . . . j Wellington Corporation v. Johnston Wellington Corporation v. Lloyd Wellington (Mayor, &o., of) v. Lower Hutt ) (Mayor, &c., of) j Wells, In re. Boyer v. Maclean . . . . j Wells V. Allott Wells : — Crutchley v. In re Pearce . . . . Wells : — George D. Emery & Co. v. . . Wells V. Hughes. District Loan Co., ) Claimants . . . . • • j Welsbaoh Incandescent Gas Light Co., In re j Wenhorn & Co., Inre . . . . ■ ■ • ■ j Weniger's Policy, In re ■ ■ • • j Werner Motors, Ld. v. Gamage (A. W.) Ld. Wesleyan Methodist Chapel in South Street, Wandsworth, Inre . . Wesselenyi (Baroness) v. Jamieson . . West, JEx parte. B«x v. Cox . . D.D. ■I [1905] 2 E. B. 823 ; C. A. [1906] \ W. N. 212 ; C. A. [1907] 1 ( K B. 78 ; H. L. (E.) [1908] W.N. 158; [1908] A. C. 323 J [1905] 2 K. B. 92 [1902] W. N. 42 ; [1902] 1 ] K. B. 713 I C. A. [1908] W. N. 232 ; ') [1909] 1 K. B. 92 . . . . j [1905] 2 K. B. 172; C. A. ^ [1906] W. N. 157 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 574 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. 234; [1910] 1 K. B. 285 . . H. L. (So.) [1908] W. N. 40 ; ■ [1908] A. C. 162 . . [1905] 2 K B. 267 H. L. (So.) [1905] y\ N. 134 ; [1905] A. C. 501 0. A. [1910] W. N. 179 ; [1 910] 2 K. B. 844 [1910] 1 K B. 759 . . 1910] W. N. 82 ; 0. A. [1910] W.N. 152; [1910] 2 Ch. 124 0. A. [1904] W. N. 93 [1905] 2 K. B. 650; C. A. [1906] W. N. 153; [1906] 2 K. B. 555 [1903] W. N. 130; [1903] 2 Oh. 664 C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 312 0. A. [1904] W. N. 87 ; [1904] 1 Oh. 736 P. 0. [1902] A. 0. 396 P. 0. [1902] A. 0. 396 P. C. [1904] A. C. 773 [1903] W. N. 68 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 848 C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 842 . . [1909] W. N. 94; [1909] 1 Oh. 819 P. 0. [1906] A. 0. 515 0. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 845 . . 0. A. [1904] W.N. 4; [1904] 1 Ch. 87 [1905] W. N. 26 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 413 [1910] W. N. 278; [1910] 2 Ch. 291 , [1904] 1 Oh. 264 ; 0. A. [1904] ) W. N. 174; [1904] 2 Oh. 580 j [1909] 1 Ch. 454 H. L. (So.) [1907] W. N. 195 ; ] [1907] A. 0. 440 . . . . j [1905] 2 K. B. 478 . . 1172 2473 191 170 2293 1065 362 2472 2474 2456 2462 367 2015 911 2841 2583 2688 1810 1810 1803 1225 1716 36 267 1289 493 589 1259, 1261 887 1340 2331 1436 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. West, In re. West v. Eoberts West V. Bristol Tramways Co. West : — Cattley v. In re Linsley . . West : — Grround Eent Development Co. v. . West V. Saokville (Lord) West Coast Goldfields, Ld., Ex parte. In re \ Eowe . . . . . . . . . . . . ! West Coast Gold Fields, Ld., In re. Eowe's Trustee's Claim West Derby Union Assessment Committee : — Liverpool Corporation West Glouoestershii'e Water Co. : — Att.- Qen. V. West Ham Corporation : — Att.-Gen. v. West Ham Corporation : — Clarke v. . . . . j West Ham Corporation v. Sharp West Ham Corporation Act, 1902, In re Hood ) and hi re . . . . . . . . . . ] West Ham Union v. Edmonton Union , . { West Ham Union v. Holbeaoh Union West Ham Union v. London County Council ■ West Ham Union : — Tozeland v. West Hartlepool County Borough, v, Dm-ham j County Council . . . . . . j West Hartlepool Steam Navigation Co., Third \ Parties. Togart, Beaton & Co. v. James \ Fisher & Sons ) West Lancashire Eru-al Council v. Lan- | cashire and Yorkshire By. Co. . . . . | West Leigh Colliery Co. : — Tuuniclifie & HampsoD, Ld. West Metropolitan Ey. Co. : — Goldsmith's \ Co. t- i West Band Central Gold Mining Co. v. Eex West Eiding Justices : — Eex v. . . . . j Volume and Page. [1909] W. N. 143 ; [1909] 2 Oh. 180 C. A. [1908] W. N. 95 ; [1908] ( 2 K. B. 14 ) [1904] W. N. 140 ; [1904] 2 ) Ch. 785 ( [1902] W. N. 64 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 674 [1903] W.N. 94; C. A. [1903]) W. N. 110; [1903] 2 Ch. 378 ) [1904] W. N. 125 ; [1904] 2 ) K. B. 489 ) [1905] W. N. 65 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 597; C. A. [1905] W. N. 157 ; C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 1 . . C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 647 . . [1909] W. N. 60; [1909] 1) Ch. 636 ; C. A. [1909] W. N. [ 141 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 338 . . ) [1910] 2 Ch. 560 C. A. [1909] W. N. 194 ; ) [1909] 2 K. B. 858 . . ..] [1907] 1 K. B. 445 . . [1910] W. N. 80 H. L. (E.) [lt<07] W. N. 235;) [1908] A. C. 1 j [1903] 2 K B. 627; 0. A.' [1904] W. N. 91 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 121; H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 134; [1905] A. 0. 450 [1901] 1 K B. 720; C. A. \ [1902] W. N. 23 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 562 ; H. L. (E.) [1904] W.N. 3; [1904] A. C. 40.. ,) [1906] 1 E. B. 538; C. A.) [1907] W. N. 48 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 920 ) [190.i] 2 K. B. 340; 0. A. \ [1906] 2 K. B. 186 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 137 ; [1907] A. C. 246 . . . . ; [1903] 1 K. B. 391 . . [1903] 2 E. B. 394 . . [1905] W. N. 110 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 390 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 105 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 22 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 249; [1908] A. 0. 27 C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 1 [1905] 2 K. B. 391 . . [1904] W. N. 41 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 545 . . . . Column of Digest. 2072 2712 2731 1348 1420 408 409 2148 2867 692 2717 2643 1406 1927 1927 1922 1918 1487 2469 2116 1709 1408 1905 1433 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case Volume and Page. West Biding of Torksliire County Council v. Middleton Parish Council . . West Biding of Yorkshire County Council v. Bex. Ex parte Att.-Geu. and the Board of Education . . West Biding of Yorkshire County Council : Wilford V. :) West Biding Bex V. . . of Yorkshire Justices :- -Bex West Biding (Yorkshire) Justices Ex parte Broadbeat . . West Biding of Yorkshire Justices : — ^Bex v. Ex parte Shackletou West Biding of Yorkshire Bivers Board : — Butterworth v. West Riding of Yorkshire Bivers Board v. Bobinson Brothers . . West Biding Union Banking Co. : — Hirst v. West Biding Window Cleaning Co. : — Crowther v. . . West Stanley Colliery (Owners of) :- West Yorkshire In re . . Darracq Agency, West and Hardy's Contract, In re Hodg- , Ld.", ' :i. Westbury (Lord) : — Torbook v. Westcott V. Westcott . . Western v. B!ensington Assessment Com- mittee . . Western Assurance Co. of Toronto v. Poole. . Western Canada Pulp and Paper Co. : — Mears v. Western (Q-lasgow and South) By. Co. v. Greenock Port and Harbour Trustees Western (Great) By. Co. See under its well- known name of Great Western By. Co. Western (Great) By. Co., Ex parte In re Great Western Bailway (New Eailway) Act, 1905 Western (Great) By. Co. v. Bawy By. Co. Western (Great) By. Co. u. Carpalla United China Clay Co. Western (Great) Bv. Co. u. Carpalla United China Clay Co. (No. 2) Westeru (Great) By. Co. :— Midland By. Co. v. Western (Great} By. Co. : — ^Beed v Western (Great) By. Co. : — Spillers & Bakers, Ld. V. . . Western (Great) By. Co. :— Sutolifle v. Western (Great) and Metropolitan Bail- ways : — London Corporation v. . . . . , [1906] 2 K. B. 157 . . [1906] W. N. 142 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 182 ; [1906] 2 K. B 676 [1908] 1 K. B. 685 . . [1908] W. N. 109 ; C. [1908] 2 B:. B. 635 ; H. (E.) [1909] A. C. 247 [1910] 2 K. B. 192 . . [1910] W. N. 23; [1910] 1 K. B. 439 , . H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 45 C. A. [1907] W. N. 19 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 431 0. A. [1901] W. N. 135 [1901] 2 K. B. 560 . . C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 232 H. L. (B.) [1910] W. N. 67 [1910] A. C. 229 . . [1908] W. N. 236 . . [1903] W. N. 210; [1904] 1 Ch. 145 [1902] W. N. 160; [1901] 2 Ch. 871 [1908] P. 250 . . [1907] 2 K. B. 323; C. A, [1908] 1 K. B. 811 , . [1903] W. N. 14; [1903] 1 K B. 376 [1905] W. N. 105 ; C. A. [1905] W. N. 120 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 353 H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 152 C. A. [1909] W. N. 202 C. A. [1909] W. N. 176 ; [1909] ) 2 K. B. 670 j 0. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 218 ; H. L. ) [1910] (E.) [1910] W. N. 3 ; A. C. 83 [1909] 2 Oh. 471 H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 167 [1909] A. 0. 445 . . H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 31 . O.A.'[1909] W. N.47; [1909] 1 K. B. 604 0. A. [1910] W. N. 13 ; [1910] IK. B. 478 .. [1910] W. N. 145; [1910] Ch. 214 Column of Digest. 2139 2310 2303 2462 2301 1769 2278 2278 278 1635 1603 405 2805 484 924 1518 1274 403 654 1411 2101 2118 718 2126 1626 2127 2108 1395 «2 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case, Western (LoBdon aud North) Ey. Co. :- Chance & Hunt, Ld. v. Western (Midland Great) Railway of Ire- ) land : — Cooke v. . . . . . . . . ) Western Morning News Co. : — MoQuire v...\ ■Western Suburban and Netting Hill Perma- ) nent Benefit Building Society v. EuckHdge | Westgate v. Crowe Westhorpe v. Powley . . Westlake :— Gill J) _ Westlake v. Westlake (otherwise Williams) Westminster Corporation v. Army and Navy Airxiliary Co-operative Supply, Ld. Westminster Corporation : — Chaplin (W. H.) & Co. r' Westminster Corporation : — Denman & Co. v. Cording & Co. v. Westminster Corporation Westminster Coi-poration v. Fuller . . Westminster Corporation v. Gordon Hotels, \ Ld i Westminster Corporation v. Johnson Westminster Corporation : — Livingstone v. . rthi Westminster Corporation : — London & North Western By. Co. ?>. . . . . . . j Westminster Corporation v. London County ) Coimoil . . . . . ■ • • ) Westminster Corporation v. London County j Council • • ■ • • • ■ ■ ) Westminster Corporation : — Pescod >: Westminster Corporation (. St. George, 1 Hanover Square (Eeotor aud Church- ■wardens) . . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ) Westminster Corporation r. Watson Westminster (High Bailifi of) _:— Eex v. Ex ) parte London County Council . . . . j Westminster Syndicate, Ld., In re . . Westmoreland (Earl of) :— Morel Brothers & ) C'u. V. . . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • -I Westmoreland (Earl of) :— New Sharlston j Collieries Co. i'. Weston, In re. Bartholomew v. Menzies Weston and Thomas's Contract, In re Volume and Page. [1909] 1 K. B. 550 H. L. (Ir.) [1909] W. N. 56 [1909] A. C. 229 . . 0. A. [1903] W. N. 98 ; [1903] \ 2 E. B. 100 ) [1905] W. N. 141 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 472 [1907] W. N. 208 ; [1908] 1 ) E. B. 24 j [1905] 1 K. B. 286 . . P. C. [1910] A. C. 197 [1910] P. 167 . . [1902] 2 K B. 125 . . [1901] W. N. 131 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 329 [1906] W. N. 31 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 464 [1904] 1 K. B. 19 ; C. A. [1904] ' W. N. 156; [1904] 2KB. 737 I [1906] 2 K B. 39 ; C. A. [1907] ^ W. N. 76 ; [1907] 1 K. B. I 910; H.L. (E.) [1908] W.N. | 67 ; [1908] A. C. 142 .. j [1904] 1 K. B. 19 ; C. A. [1904] ^ W. N. 156 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 737 ) [1904] W. N. 69 ; [1901] 2 j K B. 109 I [1901] W. N. 230 ; [1902] 1 , Ch. 269 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. / 67; [1904] 1 Ch. 759 ; H.L. ' (E.) [1905] W. N. 126; I [1905] A. 0. 426 . . . . ' [1902] 1 K. B. 326 . . [1906] W. N. 123 ; [1906] 2 / K. B. 379 . . . . ) [1905] W. N. 142 ; [1905] 2 / Ch. 475 . . . ) [1908] 2 Ch. 600 ; C. A. [1909] ^ W. N. 66 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 592 ; / H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 57 ; , [1910] A. C. 225 . ' [1902] 2 K. B. 717 . . [1903] 2 K. B. 189 . . [1908] W. N. 236 C. A. [1902] W. N. 206 ; 0. A. • [1903] 1 K B. 64; H. L. ( (E.) [1903] W. N. 190 ; i [1904] A. 0. 11 . ) [1900] H. L. (E.) [1904] 2 Ch. 4-13, n. [1902] W. N. 36 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 680 .. [1907] W. N. 21; [1907] i Ch. 244 . Column of Digest 2131 2114 872 2001 752 103 1296 918 2152 1163 2645 1341 1527 1341 619 1517 1515 1531 1538 284 1506 1412 685 1192 1211 968 2811 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Weston : — ^Neeves v. In re Westoa Settle- ment . . Weston : — Eex v. Eex v. Smith Weyman v. Smythies. In re Smythies Weymouth i'. Davis Weymouth Point Elizabeth Ey. and Coal Co. , In re. Tuill v. Weymouth Point Elizabeth Ey. and Coal Co. Whaley, In re. Whaley v. Eoehrich WhaUey, In re . . Wharf (OKver's) : — Consolidated Tea and Lands Co. v. . . Wheale v. Ehymney Iron Co. Jones v. Ehymney Iron Co. Ayres v. Buckeridge Wheatley i\ Smithers . . Wheeler, In re. Hankinson v. Hayter Wheeler : — Herdman v. Wheeler : — St. Luke's, Chelsea (Eeotor of) v. Whelan v. Great Northern Steam Shipping Co Whetherly : — Samuel Brothers, Ld. v. Whinney, Ex^mrte. In re Harrison & Ingram Whinney v. Moss Steamship Co., Ld. Whitaker, In re. Denison-Pender v. Evans Whitaker, In re. Whitaker v. Palmer Whitaker, In re. Whitaker v. Palmer Whitaker v. Pomfret Brothers Whitbourne v. Williams Whitbread & Co. v. Watt Whitby V. Von Luedecke White, E.v parte. In re Bumpus White, Ex parte. In re Howes White, In re. Ex parte Nichols White, In re. White v. Edmond White : — Bennett v. . . White V. Butt White : — ^Demerara Electric Co. v. White : — ^Martin v. White V. Metcalf [1906] 2 Ch. 620 0. C. A. [1909] W. N. 210; ) [1910] 1 K. B. 17 . . . . I [1902] W. N. 232 ; [1903] 1 ) Ch. 259 ) [1908] W. N. 139 ; [1908] 2 1 Oh. 169 .. . ,. I [1903] W. N. 187, 190; [1904] 1 Ch. 32 [1908] W. N. 62; [1908] 1 Oh. 615 C. A. [1906] W. N. 42 ; [1906] 1 Oh. 565 ( [1910] W. N. 97 ; [1910] 2 K B. 395 i C. A. [1901] W. N. 222; [1902] 1 K B. 57 . . [1906] W. N. 124 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 321; C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 684 [1904] W. N. 100; [1904] 2 Ch. 66 [1901] W. N. 251; [1902] 1 K. B. 361 [1904] P. 267 C. A. [1909] W. N. 135 [1907] W. N. 32; [1907] 1 K. B. 709; 0. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 184 W. N. 143 1910] 2 K. B. 813 W. N. 236 "19C1] 1 Oh. 9 . . "W. N. 22 ; [1904] 1 Oh [1905 C. A. [1910 C. A. [1904' 299 [1902] W. N. 62; [1902] 1 K. B. 661 0. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 722 [190'1] 1 Oh. 911 ; 0. A. [1902] W. N. 64; [1902] 1 Oh. 835 [1906] 1 Ch. 783 [1908 W. N. 90; [1908] 2 K. B. 330 [1902] W. N. 124; [1902] K. B. 290 W. N. 114 W.N. 39; [1901] Ch [1902 [1901" 670 [1910] W. N. 97 ; [1910] 5 K. B. 1 ; 0. A. [1910] VV. N 167 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 643 . . C. A. [1908] W. N. 208 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 50 P. 0. [1907] A. 0. 330 [1910] 1 K. B. 665 . . [1903] W. N. 134; [1903] Oh. 667 . ... . I 1952 789 28S6 1347 463 1091 1550 2876 1613 130 1202 2078 988 1646 103 166 628 705 1049 30 47 2337 2796 1933 176 196 196 1042 2341 2746 276 1770 1736 TABLE OF GASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case, Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Wbite White — Pharmaceutical Society !'. — Eex V. ( White (E.) & Sons, Ld. :- tion, Ld. D. White : — Saunders i<. . . White V. Sewell. I71 re Sewell White 1:. Spafford & Co. White : — Stamford v. . . White V. Summers ( White V. Victoria Lumber and Manufacturing ) Co., Ltd j White and Hales v. Islington Corporation . . White & Co. V. Credit Reform Association and Credit Index, Ld. White & Sons : — Dtilieu v. White (John) & Sons v. White (J. & M.) . . | -Saccharin Corpora- | White Feather Eeward, Ld. : — Fuller v. Whiteford, Tn re. Inglis v. Whiteford Whitehaven Colliery Co. : — Mullholland v. . . Whitehaven Guardians : — Bootle Guardians ) 1': ] Whitehead v. Palmer . . Whitehead v. Eeader , . Whitehead : — Simms Manufacturing (?o. f. . . Whitehorne, In re. Whitehorne 1'. Best Whitehorne (His Honour Judge) : — Eex v. . . Whitehouse ''. Hugh . . . . . . Whitehotise r. E. & W. Pickett Whiteley, In re. Bishop of London r. Whiteley Whiteley v. Burns Whiteman v. Sadler Whiteman : — Smith u. . . . . . , . j Whitfield's Bedsteads, Ld. (Application by) \ for Eegistration of a Trade Mark. . . . | Whitham, In re. Whitham v. Davies Whiting's Settlement, In re. Whiting v. De Eutzen Whitmarsh, Watson & Co. : — Greaves v. Whitmore, In re. Walters v. Harrison N. 120 C. A. [1901] W. N. 37 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 601 C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 122; [1910] 2 K B. 124 . . [1901] 1 KB. 70; C. A. [1902] W. N. 23 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 472 [1909] 1 Oh. 806 C. A. [1901] W. N. 104 [1901] 2 K. B. 241 . . [1901] P. 46 . . [1908] W. N. 108; [1908] Oh. 256 P. 0. [1910] A. 0. 606 0. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 133 C. A. [1905] W. N. 50; [190 1 K. B. 653 . . [1901] 2 X. B. 669 . . H. L. (So.) [1906] W. N. i [1906] A. 0. 72 C. A. [1903] W. N. 120 [1906] W. N. 74; [1906] 1 Oh. 823 [1903] 1 Oh. 889 C. A. [1910] W [1910] 2 K. B. 278 [1903] W. N. 100; [1903] 2 Oh. 142 [1908] 1 K. B. 151 . . 0. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 48 [1909] W. N. 96 [1906] 2 Oh. 121 [1904] W. N. 57; K. B. 827 . . [1905] W. N. 169 ; Oh. 253; 0. A. [1906] W."N 151 ; [1906] 2 Oh. 283 H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W. In". 15S [1908] A. C. 357 . . [1910] W.N. 63 ; [1910] 1 Oh 600 [1908] W. N. 42; [1908] K. B. 705 . . C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 868 H.L.(E.) [1910] W.N. 193 [1910] A. 0. 514 0. A. [1909] W. N. 107 [1909] 2 K. B. 437 [1909] W. N. 144; [1909] Oh. 373 . . . . [1901] W. N. 86 [1904] W.N. 118; C. A. [1904] W. N. 199; [1905] 1 Oh. 96 [1906] W. N. 132 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 340 . . [1901] W. N. 146; 0. A. [1902] W. N. 107 ; 0. A. [1902] 2 Oh. 66 . . [1904] [1906] 1906 785 263 2997 891 2083 2913 313 2147 894 1785 2279 529 2889 1670 1498 33 1592 905 2972 761 1241 375 2255 1724 263 2682 2786 1574 1380 2901 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Whitmore-Searle v. Whitmore-Searle Whitmores (Edenbridge), Ld. v. Stanford Whittaker & Sons : — ^Wrigley v. Whittall & Co. V. Eahtken's Shipping Co. WMtton :^— Brook v. In re Winn . . WMtton V. Whitton WMttuck V. Withy Whit wham v. Piercy. In re Pieroy, . Whitwham v. Piercy. /ji re Piercy . . Whitworth v. Wright. In re Wright Wnitworth's Claim. O^ven and Aahworth Claim. In re Bank of Syria Whyler v. Biagham Eural Council . . Whyte : — Robbins v. . . Wicks : — Baker v. Wicks V. Dowell & Co. Wicks : — G wendolen Freehold Land Society v, Widdrington : — Bradshaw v. . . Widdrington and Oust v. Bradshaw. Brad shaw V. Widdrington and Oust Widgeon : — ^Heath v. In re Heath . . Wigan V. Clinch. In re Blunt's Trusts Wigan : — Craske v. Wigan V. English and Scottish Life Assur ance Association Wiggins : — Cameron v. Wightwick V. Pope Wigley V. Treasury (Solicitor to the) Wilcock : — Pearson v. . . Wilcox V. Steel . . Wilcox & Co., In re. Hilder v. Wiloox & Co, Wild : — Saccharin Corporation, Ld. v. Wild V. South African Supply and Gold Storage Co. . . Wild V. Woolwich Borough Council . . "Wild Rose " (Owners of S.S.) :— Marshall v. Wilde, In re Wilde, In re Volume and Pago. [1907] W. N. 126 ; [1907] 2 ( Oh. 332 I [1909] W. N. 8 ; [1909] 1 Oh. 427 ) H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 84; ) [1902] A. 0. 299 . . . . ) [1907] W. N. 63; [1907] 1 K B. 783 1910 1901 1907 1 Ch. 278 P. 348 . . W. N. 105; K. B. 626 [1907] 2 1906 1907 1906 W. N. 227 1 Ch. 289 2 Ch. 288 '.\ :i 0. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 115 C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 45 [1905] W. N. 176 ; [1906] 1 \ K. B. 125 j [1904] W. N. 74 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 743 j 0. A. [1905] W. N. 84 ; [1905] j 2 K. B. 225 j [1904] 2 K. B. 622 0. A. [1902] W. N. 107; [1902] 2 Oh. 430 [1901] W. N. 148 [1907] W. N. 127; [1907] 2 Oh. 270 [1904] W. N. 174 ; [1904] 2 ) Oh. 767 I 0. A. [1909] W. N. 136 [1909] 2 K. B. 635 . . [1908] W. N. 236 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 291 [1901] 1 K B. 1 C. A. [1902] W. N. 113 [1902] 2 K. B. 99 . . [1902] P. 233 0. A. [1906] W. N. 141; [1906] 2 K. B. 440 0. A. "' "" [1903 :l :i 1904] 1 Ch. 212 W. N. 64 "1903] W. N. 7 ; 1 Ch. 410 [1903] ( [1904] 2 Oh. 268 [1909] W. N. 138 ; [1909] 2 ) Oh. 287; 0. A. [1909] W.N. 217; [1910] 1 Oh. 35 ..) 0. A. [1909] W. N. 84; , [1909] 2 K. B. 46 ; H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 179 ; [1910] ( A. 0. 486 ; [1909] W. N. 230; [1910] 1) Ch. 100 [1910] W. N. 105 ; 0. A. [1910] ) W. N. 128 i Column of Digest. 901 2632 1616, 1618 2465 2906 960 1435 562 552 2414 462 1153 1396 2142 1616 1221 1472 1472 1291 2925 1683 644 2678 731 2063 761 1570 433 1887 634 2636 1642 2587 127 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest Wilde :— Seldon v Wilder v. Turner. In re Harrington Wilding : — A ins worth t . Wiliiey Ore Concentrator Syndicate, Ld. N. Guthridge, Ld. . . Wilford V. West Riding of TorksMre County Council Wilkes V. DoweU & Co WilMns, In re. Emsley v. Wilkins . . Wilkins : — Eex v. Wilkins V. Smith. In re Smith's Settle ment Wilkinson, In re. Esam v. Att.-Gen. Wilkinson, In re. Thomas v. Wilkinson . Wilkinson, In re. Ex parte Fowler . . Wilkinson : — Dawes i . Wilkinson :^Ferniehough v. In re Howe . Wilkinson v. Ferniehough. In re Howe Wilkinson v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Ey Co Wilkinson v. Llandafi and Dinas Powis Eural Council Wilkinson v. Wrigglesworth. In re Wriggles worth . . Wilks V. Dowell & Co. . . WUlatts, In re. Willatts r. Artley . . Waie V. St. John Wille V. St. John Willesden Overseers : — Hagmaier v. . . Wuley V. Huoks Wm. Brandt's Sons & Co. v. Dunlop Rubber Co William Cory & Son, Ld. :— Ellis o. . . William Cory & Son, Ld. v. Harrison William Ewing & Co. v. Dominion Bank William Harrison, Ld. : — Morgan i\ . . William Laidley & Co. : — Chippendall v. William Watson & Co., In re. Ex parte Atkin Brothers William Whitelev- Ld. : — Philippaii v. In re Philippart's Trade Mark " Diabolo " Williams, In re. Holder v. Williams Williams, In re. University College of North Wales v. Taylor Williams, In re. Williams v. Williams [1908] i [1910] 2 K. B. 9 [1908] W. N. 203; 2 Ch. 687 ) [1905] W. N. 11 ; [1905] 1 Ch, ' 435 P. C. [1906] A. 0. 548 [1908] 1 K. B. 685 . . 0. A. [1905] W. N. 84 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 225 1901 1907 1902 W. N. 202 2 K B. 380 W. N. 232 ; Ch. 373 [1903] [1902" [1910 [1905^ K. B. 713 [1906 1 Ch. 841 2 Ch. 216 W. N. 143 ; [1905] W. N. 195; [1907] 1| K. B. 278 [1908] W. N. 223 [1910] W. N. 190 [1906]W. N. 123; [1906] 2 K. B. 619; C. A. [1907] W.N. 117; [1907] 2 K.B. 222 C. A. [190:i] W. N. 1S6; [1903] 2 Ch. 695 . . [1901] W. N. 172 C. A. [1905] W. N.84; [1905] 2 K. B. 225 [1905] W. N. 16 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 378 ; C. A. [1905] 2 Ch. 135 [1909] W. N. 229 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 84 ; 0. A. [1910] W. N. 34 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 325 . . C. A. [1910] W. N. 112;) [1910] 1 Ch. 701 . . . . ) [1904] 2 K. B. 316 .. [1909] W. N. 39 ; [1909] 1 ( K. B. 760 ) H. L. (E.)[190o] W. N. 134 ;i [1905] A. C. 454 . . . . ( 0. A. [1901] W. N. 214 ; [1902] K. B. 38 . . H. L. (B.) [1906] A. C. 274 . . P. C. [1904] A. C. 806 C. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 137 P. C. [1909] A. C. 199 C. A. [1904] W. N. 163 ; [19041 2 K. B. 753 [1908] 2 Ch. 274 [1903] W. N. 199 . n 904"] j ) Ch. 52 . . . . ] C. A. [1907] W. N. 217 ; [1908] ) P. 140 . . 1 [1906] W. N. 210 ; [1907] 1 ) Ch. 180 .. .. . j 2595 238 1728 138 2303 1616 127 1325 2407 365 1938 165 45 3005 67 2103 2432 624 1616 2935 2795 707 1320 2438 109 1656 2191 314 1365 1790 193 2687 36 2062 3001 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Williams v. Baker Willianis v. Briton Ferry Burial Board Williams v. Curator of lutestate Estates Williams v. Gabriel Williams v. Howarth. . . Williams v. Hunt Williams : — Knight v. Williams V. Macnarg . . W^illiams v. Mersey Docks and Harbom- Board . . Williams v. Midland Ey. Co. . . Williams v. Morgan . . Williams v. North's Navigation Collieries (1889), Ld Williams v. O'Eeefe Williams v. Ocean Coal Co. . . Williams v. Permanent Trustee Co. of New 8outh Wales, Ld. Williams : — ^Porte v. Williams : — ^Pryce-Jones v. . . Williams v. Eiohards . . WilUams : — Eooper v. In re Currie's Settle ment. la re Eooper Williams : — Eoydon v. In re Salmond WiUiams v. Thomas Williams v. Vauxhall Colliery Co. . . Williams : — Whitbourne v. Williams v. Williams . . WiUiams : — Yapp v. . . Williams' Settled Estates, In re Williams & Co. v. Canton Insurance Office Ld Williamson v. Durham Eural Council Williamson v. French. In re Mair . . WiEiamson : — Ismay, Imrie & Co. v. WiUiamson : — Stewart v. Willingale v. Norris Willis, In re. Willis v. WiUis Willis V. Lovick Willis : — Turner v. Willis V. Young and Stembridge Willis (District Surveyors' Association and) — London County Council v. Willmot V. Qarduer. In re Anglesey (Mar quia of) Volume and Page. [1910] W. N. 280 [1905] 2 K. B. 565 . . f . 0. [1909] A. C. 353 [1906] 1 K. B. 155 . . P. 0. [1905] A. 0. 551 C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 512 . . [1901] 1 Ch. 256 P. C. [1910] A. 0. 476 C. A. [1905] W. N. 68 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 804 C. A. [1907] W. N. 256 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 252 [1906] W. N. 80; [1906] 1 Ch. 804 C. A. [1904] W.N. 97; [1901] 2K. B. 44;H.L. (E.)[1906] W. N. 62 ; [1906] A. C. 136 P. C. [1910] A. C. 186 C. A. [1907] W. N. 143 ; [1907] ) 2 K. B. 422 I P. C. [1906] A. C. 249 [1910] W. N. 233 [1902] W. N. 125 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 517 [1907] W. N. 90, 92 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 88 [1910] W. N. 16 [1910] 1 Oh. 329 [1906] W. N. 6 ' .' .' '.'. 0. A. [1909] W. N. 73 ; [1909] | . 1 Ch. 713 i C. A. [1907] W. N. 143; [1907] ) 2 K. B. 433 j n C. A. 1904 1901 1910 1901] 2 E. B. 722 P. 145 . . W. N. 91 W. N. 200; [1910] ::1 Ch. 481 I H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 157 [1901] A. C. 462 . . [1906] W. N. 102 ; [1906] 2 \ K. B. 65 I [1909] W. N. 148; [1909] 2 Ch. 280 H. L. (Ir.)[1908] W.N. 192; [1908] A. 0. 437 . . H. L. (Be.) [1910] W. N. 119 ; [1910] A. C. 455 . . [1909] 1 K. B. 67 0. A. [1901] W. N. 208 [1902] 1 Ch. 15 [1901] W. N. 100; [1901] 2 K. B. 195 ) [1905] 1 K. B. 468 . . [1907] 1 K. B. 448 . . [1909] 2 K. B. 138 . . C. A. [1901] W. N. 171 ; [1901] ) 2 Ch. 648 j Column of Digest. 1568 282 1799 1385 1796 2005 869 1790 2083 2112 1738 1690 1793 1602 1793 2996 2817 964 2970 725 1477 1685 2337 928 1971 1986 1269 2427 2922 1621 2322 1516 2944 766 2582 1129 1507 1285 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Willmott V. London Eoad Car Co., Ld. Willmott V. Paton Willmott : — Robertson v. Willoughby : — Pickering v. . . Willoughby Brothers, Ld. : — East Stonehouse Urban District Council v. . . WUls V. Barron . . Wills V. Spence. In re Watkin's Settlement Wilmer's Trusts, In re. Moore v. Wingfield Wilmer's Trusts, In re. Wingfield u. Moore Wilsher : — Pym v. Wilson, Ex parte. In re Burnand Wilson, Ex parte. In re Smith. Wilson, In re. Moore v. Wilson Wilson, In re. Wilson v. Batchelor Wilson, In re. Wilson v. Wilson Wilson : — Att.-Gen. v... Wilson : — Barnard Castle Urban Council v. Wilson V. Bassil Wilson : — Boyle {or Walsh) v. Wilson V. Carnley Wilson V. Cox Sinclair. In re Home Wilson V. Crewe Justices Wilson : — Glamorgan Quarter Sessions v. Wilson : — Grand Hotel Company of Caledonia Springs, Ld. v. Wilson V. Harper Wilson : — Hosegood & Sons v. Wilson : — Johnson v. . . Wilson ('. Kelland Wilson : — Mallott 1J Wilson : — Miles v. In re Cozens Wilson : — Minister for Lands v. Wilson V. Oliver. In re Oliver Wilson : — Eex v. Eex v. Smith Wilson t;. Steel . . Wilson V. Tavener Wilson V. Twamlev [1910] W. N. 95 ; [19101 1 Ch. 754 ; 0. A. [1910] W. N. 209; [1910] 2 Ch. 525 C. A. [1909_ [1907' 1902] 1 K. B. 237 W. N. 155 W. N. 112; [1907] 2 E. B. 296 [1902] 2 K. B. 318 . . H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 100 ; [1902]A. 0. 71 0. A. [1910] W. N. 232 [1903] 1 Ch. 874 ; C. A. [1903] W.N. 118; [1903] 2Ch. 411 ^1 [1910 [1901 K. B. 806 [1904 2 Ch. Ill W. N. 126; [1901] 2 ,806 - - _, W. N. 73 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 77 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 68 [1910] W. N. 138; [1910] 2 K. B. 346 [1907] W. N. 45 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 394 [1907] 1 Oh. 460 ; C. A. [1907] W. N. 206 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 572 [1908] W. N. 106; [1908] 1 Ch. 839 C. A. [1901] W. N. 5 [1901] W. N. 173 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 813; C. A. [1902] W. N. 146 ; [190^] 2 Ob. 746 [1903] P. 239 H. L. (So.) [1906] W. N. 218 ; [1907] A. 0. 45 C. A. [1908] W. N. 36 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 729 [1904] W. N. 185; [1905] 1 Oh. 76 [1905] 1 K. B. 491 . . [1910] 1 K. B. 725 . . P. C. [1904] A. C. 103 [1908] W. N. 141 ; [1908] 2 Oh. 370 0. A. [1910] W. N. 242 [1909] W. N. 150; [1909] 2 K. B. 497 [1910] W. N. 132 ; [1910] 2 Oh. 306 [1903] 2 Ch. 494 [1902] W. N. 203; [1903] Ch. 138 P. 0. [1901] A. C. 315 [1908] W. N. 117; [1908] Oh. 74 0. C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 756 0. A. [1903] W. N. 205 [1901] W. N. 25 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 578 C. A. [1904] W. N. 97 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 99 1363 1618 2194 829 1471 2603 65 1903 1026 2780 164 170 2366 2906 2946 841 2862 2066 1426 1673 2763 1438 2242 326 392 1629 2204 428 2421 2905 1792 2364 796 1669 1423 1383 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case. :■! Wilson I'. Wilson Wilson & Coventry, Ld. v. Otto Thoresen's Linie . Wilson, Sons & Co. :— Merrill c. Wilson's (Maryon) Settled Estates, In re . . { Wilson's Music and General Printing Co. v. ) Finsbury Borough Council . . . . . . j Wilton & Co. : — Osborn v. Wilton's (Earl of) Settled Estates, In re , . j Wilts County Council: — ^Tro-w bridge Water' Co. D Wi Matua's Will, In re Wimbledon House Estate Co. : — Att.-Gen. v. j Wimbledon Olympia, Ld., In re Wimbledon Urban Council : — Jackson v. . . I Wimbledon (Vicar and Churcbwardens of) v. \ Eden. In re St. Mark's, Wimbledon . . ) Wimborne (Lord) and Browne's Contract, \ In re . . . . . . . . . . . . ] Winans v. Att.-Gen. , . Winans o. Eex . . . . . . . . . . I Wincanton Eural District Council u. Parsons j Wincbester Corporation : — Hobbs v... . . \ Wincott's Case. Eex ?;. Drinkwater . . Windram o. Eobertson . . Winfield :— Waldock v j Wing V. Epsom Urban Council Wing V. London General Omnibus Co. Wingfield v. Blair. In re Eoss . . . . j Wingfield : — Moore v. In re Wilmer's Trusts . . Wingfield v. Moore. In re Wilmer's Trusts Wingfield & Blew, Ex parte. In re Brigbt j Wingfield & Blew (Solicitors), In re Wingrove : — Garner, ti. " Winktield," The Winn, In re. Brook v. Whitton Winn : — King v. In re Jameson Winsford Urban Council :— Taylor v. Volume and Page. ■! A [1903] P. 157 [1910] 2 K. B. 405 . . C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 35 [1901] W. N. 66 ; [1901] 1 Ch. ) 934 j [1908] 1 K. B. 563 [1901] 2 K. B. 110 [1906] W. N. 209 ; [1907] 1 ) Ch. 50 I [1909] W. N. 70 ; [1909] 1 1 K. B. 824 j P. C. [1908] A. C. 448 [1904] W. N. 112; [1904] 2} Ch. 34 ( [1910] W. N. 62 ; [1910] 1 Ch. \ 630 ) [1904] 2 K. B. 359 ; C. A. ) [ipOo] W. N. 73 ; [1905] 2 K, B. 27 j [1908] P. 167 [1904] W. N. 34; [1904] 1 Ch. \ 537 j H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 287 . . C. A. [1908] W. N. 75 ; [1908] \ 1 K. B. 1022 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 249 ; [1910] A. C. 27 ; [1905] W. N. 76; [1905] 2) K. B. 34 i [1910] 2 K. B. 46 ; C. A. [1910] \ W. N. 162 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 471 j [1905] 2 K. B. 469 . . H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 140 C. A. [1901] W. N. 145 ; [1901] ) 2 K. B. 596 j [1904] 1 K. B. 798 0. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 652 [1907] W. N. 55 ; [1907] 1 Ch. ) 482 I [1901] 1 Oh. 874; 0. A. [1903]) W. (N. 118; [1903] 2 Ch. 411 ) [1910] 2 Ch. Ill [1903] W. N. 40; [1903] n C. A. [1904] W.N. 167 ; [1904] j 2 Oh. 665 j [1905] W. N. 110 ; [1905] 2 j Ch. 233 ) 0. A. [1901] W. N. 248; [1902] j P. 42 ) [1910] 1 Oh. 278 [1908] W. N. 100 ; [1908] 2 ] Oh. HI ) [1907] W. N. 162 ; [1907] 2 j E. B. 396 • . . . . . . I Column of Digest. 1573 2467 1642 2367 1529 1725 2385 2314 1810 2634 516 2426 988 2388 965 2210 2426 1494 1442 2495 1679 1831 1772 23 1903 1026 167 923 1469 2495 2906 2979 2574 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. Name of Case, Winstanley:— North Mancliester Overseers J Winter : — Capell v. Wiaterton : — How c. . , Winterton (Earl) : — How v. . . Wirrall Em-al Council c. Carter Wise V. Dunning Wise V. Perpetual Trustee Co. Withall : — Hill v. In re Eawlinson . . Withy :— Whittuok v Witts : — Davies r. In re Hole Wodehouse t: Pox. In re Fox Wodehouse v. Scobell. In re Eepington . . Wolfe V. Surrey County Council (Clerk of) . . Wolseley : — Marshall v. In re Salvia Wolseley (Viscount) : — Maxwell v. . . Wolseley : — Weld-JBlundell v. Wolstanton United Urban District Council v. Tunstall Urban District Coimcil . . Wolverhampton Corporation v. Emmons Womersley : — Horsnaill r. In re HorsnaOl Wood, In re. Wood v. Wood Wood:— Gattw Wood :— Cobbett v Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Wood V. Ealing Tenants, Ld. . . Wood : — Gophir Diamond Co. v. Wood V. Eendell. In re Eendell Wood V. Turner. In re Turner. Turner, In ) re. Turner v. Turner Wood V. Weber . . Wood Green Gospel Hall Charity, In re. Ex parte Middlesex County Council . . j Wood Green Urban District CounoU v. Joseph < Wood (Soothill) Colliery Co. :— Ehodes v. . . Woodall V. Clifton | [1906] W. N. 196; [1907] 1 K. B. 27 ; 0. A. [1908] W. N, 61 ; [1908] 1 K B. 835 : H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 233 [1910] A. C. 7 [1907] W. N. 154; [1907] Ch. 376 [1902 [1904 [1903 [1902 P. 0. [1909 [1907 W. N. 230 . . W. N. 204 1 K. B. 646 . . 1 K. B. 167 . , 1903] A. 0. 139 2 Ch. 36 W. N. 105; [1907] K B. 526 [1905] W. N. 109; [1905] Ch. 384 ; [1906] W. N. 65 [1906] 1 Ch. 673 . . [1904] W. N. 27 ; [1904] 1 Ch 480 [1904] W. N. 88 ; [1904] 1 Ch 811 [1905] 1 K. B. 439 [1906] W. N. 146; [1906] 2 Ch. 459 . . [1906] W. N. 225 ; 0. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 274 . . [1903] W. N. 130; [1903] 2 Oh. 664 [1910] W. N. 144 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 347; C.A. [1910] W. N. 232 C. A. [1901] W. N. 36; [1901] 1 K. B. 515 [1909] W. N. 74; [1909] 1 Oh. 631 [1901] W. N. 171; [1901] 2 Ch. 578 ; 0. A. [1902] W. N. 136; [1902] 2 Ch. 542 0. A [1908] 2 K B. 458 ; H. L. (B.) [1910] A. 0. 404 [1908] 1 K B. 590; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 128 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 420 . . [1907] 2 K. B. 390 [1902] W. N. 74 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 950 . , [1901] 1 Oh. 230 [1906] W. N. 226 ; 0. A. [1907] W. N. 124 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 126; [1907] 2 Oh. 539 [1908] W. N. 121 [1909] 1 Ch. 263 [1905] W.N. 144 ; 0. A. [1907] \ W. N. 3; [1907] IK. B. 182; H.L.(E.) [1908] W.N. 186; [1908] A. C. 419 . . . . ) C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 191 . . [1904] W. N. 205 ; 0. A. [1905] ) W N. 99 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 257 j 2141 1749 2746 715 2643 1324 386 2938 1435 2221 2890 2253 1845 2897 1978 2841 1491 277 2973 2932 1117 2582 2423 2191 1048 2585 766 355 2425 1672 774 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. N'ame of Case. Volume and Page. Column of Digest. Woodbridge & Sons v. Bellamy Woodcock : — Melhado v. In re BrettiDgham Woodcock : — Sex v. . . Woodham Smitli v. Edwards . . Woodhead v. Ambler. In re Ambler Woodhead : — Goodbart v. In re Greenwood Woodbouse (Leeds Justices) : — Eex v. Woodhouse : — Surtees v. Woodifield : — Strong & Co. v. Woods V. Beaumont. In re Beaumont Wooler V. Nortb Eastern Breweries, Ld. Woodrufi V. Att.-Gen. for Ontario . . Woods, Inre. Gabellini v. Woods . . Woodward : — Keates v. Woodward : — Erancis Moreton & Co. v. Woodward & Co. : — Elvin v. . . Woolf : — Lescballas v.. . Woolfe V. Automatic Picture Gallery, Ld. ■•1 WooUey, In re. Wormald v. WooUey Woolley V. Kelsey. Eelsey v. Kelsey. In re \ Kelsey . . . . . . . . . . j Woolwicb Borough Council : — Wild v. Woolwicb (Borougb of) : — London and India I Docks Co. V. . . . . . . . . ■ ■ ] Woolwicb Corporation, .^Kjfiarte Woolwicb Union v. Eulbam Guardians . . < Woore ; — ^Morris v. In re Boxer . . . . j Wootton-Isaacson v. Wootton-Isaacson _ . . Worcester (Eoyal) Corset Co.'s Application ) to register a Trade Mark . . . . . . j Workman, Clark & Co. . . . Young V. S.S. " Scotia " Young V. Sinclair. In re Sinclair , . Young : — Sweet v. Young and Stembridge : — Willis v. . . Young, Hamilton & Co., In re. Ex parte ( Carter . . . . . . . . . . . . i Yoxall : — Bowden v. . . Ystradowen Colliery Co. v. Griffifchs . . . . j Ystradyf o Iwg and Pontypridd Main Sewer- ) age Board v. Beusted . , . . , . j Ystradyfodwg and Pontypridd Main Sewer- \ age Board v. Newport Assessment Com- ! mitfcee . . . . . . . . . . . . ) Yuill V. Greymouth Point Elizabeth Ey. and \ Coal Co \ YuUl V. Weymouth Point Elizabeth fiy. and ( Coal Co j YuDl & Co. V. Soott-Eobson . . Z. Zacklynski v. Polusbie Zaiser v. Lawley. hi re Lawley. Beyf us c / Lawley . . . . . . . . . . j Zaiser v. Perkins. In re Lawley. Beyfus v. i Lawley . . . , . . . . . . ' Zaretzky, Bock & Co.'s Arbitration {In re ) Enoch and) . . . . . . , . . . ) " Zent" (Owners of Steamship) : — Bender v. Zerenner, Exparte. In re Hatsohek's Patents Zetland (Marquis of) : — Wright v. . . Zick V. London United Tramways, Ld. Ziegler v. Nicol. In re Segelcke Zimbler v. Abrahams . . [1906] 1 K. B. 338; C. A. [1907] W. N. 5; [1907] 1 K B. 416 H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 3 ; [1910] A. C. 169 , . H. L. (So.) [1904] W.N. 162; [1904] A. C. 515 [1905 K B. 687 W. N. 41; [1905] 1 2 Ch. 65, II. . . 1903] A. C. 501 W.N. 113 P. 37 . . ] K B. 448 W.N. 95; [1905] 2 K.B.') ■ C. A. [1905] W. N. [1903 P.O. 1903 '1902^ 1907' 1905' 381 145 ; [1905] ^K. B. 112 .. , C. A. [1901] 1 Oh. 1 . . C. A. [1909] W. N. 134 ; ) [1909] 2 K B. 533 . . , . i [1906] 1 K B. 294; C. A. [1906] - •W. N. 219; [1907] I K. B. ( 490 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 149; [1907] A. C. 264. J [1901] 1 K. B. 28; C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 406 . . [1903] W. N. 187, 190; [1904] ) 1 Ch. 32 I [1907] 1 K. B. 685; C. A. [1908] ) W. N. 4 ; [1908] 1 K B. 270 j P. C. [1908] A. C. 65.. [1902] W. N. 154 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 673 ; 0. A. [1902] W. N. 195; [1902]2Ch. 799;H. L. , (E.) [1903] W. N. 148 ; [1903] A. C. 411 ..^ C. A. [1910] W. N. 3 ; [1910] ) 1 K B. 327 ) 0. A. [1909] W. N. 82 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 41 ) [1909] 2 Ch. 68 0. A. [19.t7] W. N. 225 [1908] 1 K. B. 63 . [1908] 1 K. B. 611; 0. A [1908] W. N..98; [1908] 2 K. B. 126 [1906] W. N. 107; [1906] 2 Ch. 301 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 577 . . 25; I 283 1172 978 464 1392 1814 2939 1004 1129 225 77 1604 2248 2157 463 2289 301 1933 99 1616 1893 2300 1408 28S4 1349 P.D. ( cccxxiii ) TABLE OF CASES AFFIRMED, EEVERSED, FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, OR JUDICIALLY COMMENTED ON OR SUPERSEDED BY STATUTE OR ORDER, 1901—1910. Note. — Oases in this Table are sometimes referred to in the Courts heloiv, but not on Appial, or in the Headnotes to a later Report of the Case, as to ivhich reference can be made to the Table of Cases to this Volume at page xv., ante. A. S. S- Co., In re - [1900] 1 Q. B. 541 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nam. Cooke f. Charles A. Vogeler Co. [1901] A. C. 102 Abbott, Re - - (1861) 4 L. T. (N.S.) 576 See In re Longbotham & Sons C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 152 Abralmm v. Bullock - ■ (1902) 86 L. T. 796 Distinguished by C. A. Cheshire v. Bailey - [1905] 1 K. B. 237 Ahram v. Cunningham - (1677) 2 Lev. 182 Examined and applied by Warrington J. Ellts r. Ellis [1906] 1 Ch. 613 Aeatos v. Burns - (1878) 3 Ex. D. 282 Discussed by C. A. Bamfield r. GooLB AND Sheffield Traijsport Co., LD. [1910] 2 K. B. 94 Adam v. British and Foreign Steamship Co., [1898] 2 Q. B. 130. Dissented from by Div. Ct. Davidsson V. Hill - [1901] 2 K. B. 606, 611, 618 Adams v. London and Blackmail By. Co., (1850) 2 Mac. & a. 118. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Caet-Elwes' Contbaot [1906] 2 Ch. 143 Adams v. Marylebone Borough Council, [1906] 2 K. B. 767. Affirmed by C. A. - [1907] 2 K. B. 822 Adams and Kensington Vestry, In re, (1884) 27 Ch. D. 394. Inapplicable. Woodalt, v. Clifton C. A. [1905] 2 Ch. 257 Adamson v. Jarvis, (1827) 4 Bing. 66 ; 29 E. R. 503. Referred to by Bruce J. Hal- BRONN V. International Horse Agency and Exchange, Ld. [1903] 1 K. B. 270, 273 , Blahe - - (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 478 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Pennington ■e. PiNCOCK - [1908] 2 K. B. 244 Affleck Aerators, Ld. v. TollM - [1902] 2 Ch. 319 Referred to by Parker J. British "Vacuum Clbanbe Co. r. New- Vacuum Cleaner Co. [1907] 2 Ch. 312 Aflalo v. Lawrence ^- Bullen, Ld., [1901] W. N. 168 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 264. Aifirmed by C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 318 The decision of the C. A., [1903] 1 Ch. 318, reversed by H. L. (E.) sub nam. Lawrence k Bullen, Ld. v. Aplalo AND Cook - [1904] A. C. 17 V. Affleck - (1857) 8 Sm. & G. 394 Applied by Warrington J. Charlton V. Charlton [1906] 2 Ch. 673 Agency Co. v. Shm't (1888) 13 App. Cas. 793. Considered by Parker J. Samuel Johnson & Sons, Ld. r. Brock [1907] 2 Ch. 633 " Agnes Otto," I7te (1887) 12 P. D. 56 See The " Dallington " Bucknlll J. [1903] P. 77 AgricuUuraliit Cattle Insurance Co., In re, (1872) 4 Ch. D. 34, n. Approved by H. L. (I.). Economic Life Assurance Society v. Dsbobnb [1902] A. C. 147, 151 Ailesbury's (^Marquis of) Case (1893) 2 Ch. 345 Applied by Farwell J. In re Philli- MORE's Estate [1904] 2 Ch. 460 Aird's Estate, In re - (1871) 12 Ch. D. 281 Not followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Kelsey - [1905] 2 Ch. 465 Airdrie Magistrates v. Lanark County Council ; Coatbridge v. Lanark County Council (190b) 8 F. 802. Reported at a later stage [1910] A. C. 286 Akerman, In re - - (1891) 3 Ch. 212 Distinguished by Warrington J. In re Abrahams - - [1908] 2 Ch. 69 x 2 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEULED, &o., Akerman, In re - (1891) 3 Ch. 212 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Rhodesia GoLDriBLDS, Ld. [1910] 1 Ch. 239 Alcooli V. Smith - - [1892] 1 Ch. 238 Followed bY C. A. Embietoos v. Anolo- AttsteiamBauk - [1905] 1 E. B. 677 AUlam's Settlement, In re [1901] W. N. 229 Reversed by C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 46 Alil'm V. Latimer (.larli. Muirlieai S) Co., [1894] 2 Ch. 437, 444. ApiJlied by Kekewioh J. Fredeeick Betts, Ld. v. Pickfoeds, Ld. [1906] 2 Ch. 87 Aldous V. Conmell (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 573 Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. Bishop of Ceediton v. Bishop of Exetbe [1905] 2 Ch. 455 Aldred, In re - - [1888] W. N. 82 Distinguished by Kekewioh J. In re SLAUGfHTBR [1907] W. N. 197 Alex. Pirie 3; Sons v. Kintore {Earl of^, (1904) 5F.'818. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1906] A. C. 478 Alexander, In re, Batlmrst v. Greenwood, I 1910] W. N. 36, Reversed by C. A. [1910] W. N. 94 Alexander \. Anderson - (1910) S. C. 73.i. Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 266 Alexander v. BarnhUl (1888) 21 L. R. Ir. 511 Explained by C. A. Meroiee v. Meecieb [1903] 2 Ch. 98 Alexander v. Simjmm - - (1889) 43 Ch. 139 Distinguished by C. A. In, re Noeth OF England Steamship Co. [1906] 2 Ch. 15 Alianui Co. v. Bell - [1905] 1 K. B. 184 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 18 Allan, In re - [1903] 1 Ch. 276 Adopted by Swinfen Eady J. In re Wakd . [1907] 1 Ch. 391 Allan V. Golf - - (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. 439 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Spencer Coopee - [1908] 1 Ch. 130 Allan V. Thomas Spowart d Co., Ld., 43 Sc. Law Reporter, 599. Followed by C. A. Baker r. Jewell [1910] 2 K. B. 673 Allan's Trustees - (1907) 24 R. 718 See In re FoEEBST Parker J. [1910] W. N. 201 Allardice v. Bohertson, (1830) 1 Dow & Clark 495. Is not law in England. Law r. Llewellyk C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 487 Allcard V. Skinner - (1887) 36 Ch. D. 145 Discussed by Ridley J. WiLTON & Co. v. OSBOKN [1801] 2 K. B. 110, 118 Allen, In re ■ - (1879) 1 Ch. D. 244, 249 Referred to by Kekewioh J. Mort- gage iNSUEANCB COEPOEATION, Ld. r. Canadian Agricultural Coal AND Colonization Co. [1901] 2 Ch. 377, 380 Allen, In re (1887) 34 Ch. D. 433 Referred to. In re Baylis Kekewich J. [1907] 2 Ch. 54 , Allen V. Allen - (1862) 30 Beav. 395, 403 Explained by Swinfen Eady J. In re Birch [1909] 1 Ch. 787 Allen V. Flood - - - ■ [1898] A. C. 1 Explained by H. L. (Ir.). Quinn r. Leathb.\i [1901] A. C. 496 Considered by C. A. GiBLAN v. Na- tional Amalgamated Labourers' Union of Gee4.t Britain and Ireland [1903] 2 K. B. 600 The law as laid down by Lord Watson in, applied by C. A. National Phono- graph Co. v. Edison-Bell Con- solidated Phonogeaph Co. [1908] 1 Ch. 335 Allen V. Gold Beefs of West Africa, [1900] 1 Ch. 666. Principle of, applied by Byrne J. Punt r. Symons & Co. [1903] 2 Ch. 806 Distinguished by C. A. Baily r. British Equitable Asstjeance Co. [1904] 1 Ch. 374 See Ex parte West Coast Gold Fields, Ld. Bigham J, [1904] 2 K. B. 984 Allen V. Gomme - (1840) 11 Ad. & E. 755 Referred to by Kekewich J. Milnee's Safe Co. r. Great Noethbbn and City Ry. Co - [1906] W. N. 163 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 213 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 208 Allen V. .U.iddock ■ (1858) 11 Moo. P. C. 427 Rules laid down in, applied by C. A. In re Williams [1907] W. N. 217 Allen V. Taylor, (1871) 19 W. R. 556 ; 24 L. T. 249. Referred to 'ly Warrington J. Robert- son c. Willmott [1909] W. N. 186 Allen and DriscolVs Contract, In re [1904] W. X. 39 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 493. Affirmed by C. A. - [1904] 2 Oh. 226 Allhusen Y. ^mtfell - (1867) L. E. 4 Eq. 295 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. Jn re PBEiaNs - - [1907] 2 Ch. 896 Rule in, applicable. In re Hanbuey Eve J. [1909] W. N. 157 Allinson v. General Council of Medical Educa- tion and Begistration, [1894] 1 Q. B. 750. Referred to by Warrington J. Clif- POED e. TiMMS - [1907] 1 Ch. 420 ; C. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 236 Allman v. Hardcastle - (1903) 2 L. G. R. 13 Followed by Div. Ct. Gieblee l: Manning - [1906] 1 K. B. 709 DURING THE TEARS 1901—1910. Allnut V. Iiifflis, (1810) 12 East, 527, 539 ; 11 R. R. i82. Referred to by H, L. (E.). Simpson v. Att.-Gen. [1904] A. C. 476. 483 Allj)oH V. Nutt - (1845) 1 C. B, 974 Referred to by Div. Ct. Hardwick v. Lane [1904] 1 K. B. 204 Allsoji's Estate., In re - [1884] "W. N. 196 Discussed by Joyce J. In re Swain [1908] W. N. 209 ''Alj}s;' The - [1893] P. 109 Referred to by Gorell Barnes, Pres. "Watson and Parker v. Gregory [1908] W. N. 230 Alsop, Ex parte - (1859) 1 De G. F. & J. 289 Followed by C. A. In re Brindley [1906] 1 K. B. 377 Alston, Inre - - [1901] 2 Cli. 584 ' Followed by G. A. In re. ATKINSON [1904} 2 Ch. 160 Alt V. Gregory (1856) 8 D. M. & G. 221 Followed by Buckley J. In re White- HORNE - [1906] 2 Ch. 121 " Altair," T/ie - - [1897] P. 105 See The " Harvest Home " C. A. [1905] P. 177 Alven V. Bond, - (1841) Fl. & K. 196 Approved by C. A. Nugent v. Nugent - [1908] 1 Ch. 546 Amherst's trusts. In re, (1872) L. R. 13 Eq. 464 FoUiwed by Kekewich J. In re COT- ghave - [1903] 2 Ch. 705 Amos, In re ■ [1891] 3 Ch. 159 Distinguished by Byrne J. In re Clarke - - [1901] 2 Ch. 110 Ancell V. Rolfe [1896] W. N. 9 Followed by Joyce J. Carroll r. Harrison [1910] W. H. 104 Andersen v. Marten ■ [1907] 2 K. B. 248 Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 601 Decision of C. A. affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 334 Anderson v. Hank of British Columlia, (1876) 2 Ch.^D. 644. Approved by H. L. (E.). JoNES v. Great Central Ry. Co. [1910] A. C. 4 Anderson v. Dwyer - (1804) 1 S. C. & L. 301 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re HISCOB [1902] W. N. 49, 64 Anderson v. Moriee - (1874) L. E. 10 C. P. 58 Approved of by P. C. Ajdm Goolam HossEN & Co. V. Onion Marine Insurance Co. [1901] A. C. 362 Anderson v. Vicary [1900] 2 Q. B. 287 Followed by Div. Ct. Waters r. Phillips - [1910] 2 K. B. 465, 469 Anderson ^- Co. v. Beard [1900] 2 Q. B. 260 Referred to by C. A. Levett v. Ham- BLETT - [1901] 2 K. B. 63, 58, 62 Anderson's Trade-marli, In re, (1884) 26 Ch. D. 415. Referred to by Kekewich J. In re Fauldee's Trade-mark [1901] W. N. 3 This case wa'? reversed by 0. A. sub nom. In re Fauldee & Co.'s Teade-mark [1902] 1 Ch. 125 Andrew v, Andrew (1875) 1 Ch. D. 410, 417 Followed by Swinfen Eadv J. In re Francis [1905] 2 Ch. 295 Andrew v. Brldqman [1907] 2 K. B. 494 Affirrae-i by C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 596 Andrews v. Gas Meter Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 361, 369, 370. Referred to by C, A. In re Wblsbach Incandescent Gas Light Co. [1804] 1 Ch. 84, 97, 100 Andrews v. Ramsay 4- Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 635 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Hippisley V. Knee Brothers [1906] 1 K. B. 1 Discussed by Neville J. Nitedals Taendstikfabrik v. Brustbr [1906] 2Ch. 671 Principle of, applied by Neville J. Stubbs 11. Slater [1910] 1 Ch. 195 ; C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 632 Angel v. Merchants' Marine InsuranceCo., [1903] 1 K. B. 811. Overruled by H. L. (E.). Macbeth & Co. 1 . Maritime Insurance Co. [1908] A. C. 144 Angerstein, In re - ■ [1895] 2 Ch. 883 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Fothergill's Estate [1903] 1 Ch. 149 Anglesea ^Marquis of}. In re - [1903] 2 Ch. 727 Adopted by Kekewich J. IDEAL Bed- ding Co. V. Holland - [1907] 2 Ch. 157 Anglo-Ameriean Exploration and Development Co., In re, [1898] 1 Ch. 100. Referred to by Buckley J. In re " Grosvbnoe " House Peopebty Acquisition and Investment Build- ing Society [1902] W. N. 115 Anglo-American Telegraph Co. v. Sjmrling, (1879) 5 Q. B;D.188. Dissented from by H. L. (E.). Shef- field COEPOEATION V. BAECLAY [1905] A. C. 392, 401 Anglo-Italian Banh, In re [1906] W. N. 202 Followed by Parker J. In re Gbneeal Industrials Development Syndi- cate, Ld. [1907] W. N. 23 Anglo-Oriental Carpet Manufacturing Co., In re, [1903] 1 Ch.914. Approved and distinguished by C. A. In re Ehrmann Brothers, Ld. [1906] 2 Ch. 697 Ankerson v. Connelly - • [1906] 2 Oh. 544 Affirmed on the facts by C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 678 Anlaly v. Prietorius - (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 764 Distinguished by C. A. Aemitage c. Parsons [1908] 2 K. B. 410 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &,C., Ami, III re - - [1894] 1 Ch. 5i9 Overruled by C. A. In re FlELDWiCK [1909] 1 Ch. 1 Annali/'s (ladi/} Trusts, In re, (1904) 92 L. T. 13, TFie view taken of the nature of the bonusin,adoptedby Eve J. Teematsb r. Rashleigh [1908] 1 Ch. 681 Alton, y. Aiwn., (1856) 22 Beav. 481; 2.3 Beav. 273. Overruled by H. L. (E.). The Poclbtt Pbeeagb [1903] A. C. 395 Anslow V. Canniwli Chase Colliery Co., [1909] 1 K. B. 3.52. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 435 Apollinaris Co.'s Trade-marhs, In re, [1891] 2 Ch. 186. Considered by C. A. In re Registered Teadb-maeks of Bass, Ratclipp & Geetton, Ld. (No. 2) [1902] 2 Ch. 679 Aj^plehj, In, re - - - [1903] 1 Ch. 565 Followed by C. A. Sladb v. Chaine [1908] 1 Ch. 622 Arlein's Aj/j^lication, In re, (1887)35 Ch. D. 248. Referred to by Kekewich J. In re J'AnLDBE'S TEADE-MAEK [1901] W.N. 3 This case was reversed by C. A. sut nwn. In re Fadldbe & Co. 's Teadb-maek [1902] 1 Ch. 126 Arbuthnot v. Bunsilall - (1890) 62 L. T. 234 Referred to by H. L. (I.). Economic Life Assueance Society r. Usboene [1902] A. C. 147, 151, 153 Ardau Steamship Co. v. Andrew Weir & Co., (1905) 6 F. 294. Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1905] A. C. 501 Ardan Steamship) Co. v. IVeir, (1904) 41 Sc. L. R. 230. Distinguished by G. A. Jones, Ld. v. Geben&Co. ■- [1904] 2 K. B. 276 ArkwricjlU v. Gell ■ (1839) 5 M. & W. 230 Referred to by Farwell J. Bueeows *. Lang [1901] 2 Ch. 602 Armitage v. Lancashire and Yorlishire Ry. Co., [1902] 2 K. B. 178 Followed and appioved by C. A. FlTZ- 6EEALD V. W. G. CLAEKE & SON [1908] 2K. B. 796 Armstrong, In re - (1886) 55 L. J. (O-B.) 578 Referred to by Eve J. Teemayne r. Rashleigh [1908] 1 Oh. 681 Army and Nary Hotel, In re, (1886) 31 Ch. D. 644. Referred to by Buckley J. In re London and Peovincial Puee Ice Manupactdeinq Co. [1904] W. N. 136 Arnot V. United African Lands, [1901] 1' Ch. 518 Referred to by Buckley J. In re Caeata (New Mines), Ld. [1902] 2 Ch. 489 Asbestos and Asbestic Co. v. Durand-, (1900) 30 S. C. R. 285. See McAethue v. Dominion Cae- TEIDGE Co. P. C. [1906] A. C. 72 Ashbury v. Watson - (1885) 30 Ch. D. 376 Distinguished by C. A. In re Wbls- BACH Incandescent Gas Light Co. [1904] 1 Ch. 87 Ash bury HaiUcay Carriage and Iron Cu. v. Riclie, (1875) L. R. 7 H. L. 653. Referred to by H. L. (E.). London County Council v. Att.-Gbn. [1902] A. C. 165, 167 Ashhurst v. Ma.wn (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 225 Explained and applied by Swinfen Eady J. Jackson v. Dickinson [1903] 1 Ch. 947 Ashton V. Stool ■ - (1877) 6 Ch. D. 719 Followed by Neville J. Thompson v. Hickman [1907] 1 Ch. 560 Ashworth v. Lord - (1887) 36 Ch. D. 545 Discussed by Eve J. Heath r. Chinn [1908] W. N. 120 Ashew V. Woodhead (1880) 14 Ch. D. 27 Practice laid down in, followed by Neville J. In re Lisgaed [1908] W. N. 107 Assheton Smith v. Owen [1906] 1 Ch. 179 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1907] A.C. 124 Aston, In re - (1883) 23 Ch. D. 217 Applied by Farwell J. In re Chet- wynd's Sbttlbment [1902] 1 Ch. 692 Aston V. Aston ■ - (_1703) 2 Vern. 452 Followed by C. ^V. In re Whiting's Settlement [1905] 1 Ch. 96 Aston Tube U'orhs, Ld. v. Dumbdl, [1904] 1 K. B. 535. Approved of by C. A. EvEEALL r. Beown - [1306] 2 K. B. 884 Atkinson, In re - [1904] 2 Ch. 160 See In re Beoadwood's Settlement Swinfen Eady J. [1907] W. N. 212 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 115 Atkinson, In re, Proctor x. Atkinson, [1908] W. N. 18. Reversed by C. A. [1908] 2Ch. 307 " Atlas," The (1862) Lush. 518 Principle of, applied by Bucknill J. The "August Koepp" [1908] P. 166 Attack V. Bramwell (1863) 3 B. & S. 520 Considered by Div. Ct. Geunnell v. Welch . [1905] 2KB. 650 ; C. A. [1906] 2K. B. 556 Att.-Gen. y. Ailesbury {Marquis of), (1887) 12 App. Cas. 672, 688. Principles of, applied by C. A. In re Gist - [1904] 1 Ch. 398 DURIN'G THE y'BARS 1901—1910. AU.-Gen. v. Aslibarne Recreation Ground Co., [1903] 1 Gh. 101. Approved by C. A. Devonport Coe- POBATION V. TOZEB [1903] 1 Ch. 759 Followed by Farwell J. Att.-Gbn. v. Wimbledon House Estate Co. [1904] 2 Ch. 34 Att.-Oen. V. Ashton Gas Co. - [1904] 2 Ch. 621 Affirmed by H. L. (B.) sub nom. Ashton Gas Co. (. Att.-Gen. [1906] A. C. 10' AU.-Gen. v. Birmingham, Tame, and Ilea Dis- trict Drainage Board, [1908] 2Ch. 551. On appeal C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 48 Att.-Gen. v. Bournemouth Corporation, [1902] W. N. 126. Eeversed by C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 714 Att.-Gen. v.Bouwens (1838) 4 M. & W. 171 Followed and apnlied by C. A. Winaks V. Rex -' [1908] 1 K. B, 1022 : H. I. (E.) [1910] A. C. 27 Att.-Gen. v. Bradlaugh, (1885) 14 Q. B. D. 667 Referred to by C. C. A. Rex i-. Haus- MAtm - [1909] W. N. 198 Att.-Gen. v. Carrington (Itori), (1843) 6 Beav. 454, 460. See In re Bailey - - - Eve J. [1909] W. N. 110 Att.-Gen. r. Clerhenwell Vestry, [1891] 8 Ch. 527, 584. Applied by C. A. East Baeket Valley Uebait Council i: Stallaed [1909] 2 Ch. 656 Att.-Gen. t. Copeland - [1901] 2 K. B. 101 Reversed by G. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 690 Att.-Gen. v.. Daxison (1825) M'Cl. & Y. 160 Considered by C. A. In re Enoch AND Zaeetzky Bock & Co.'s Arbi- tration [1910] 1 K. B. 327 Att.-Gen. v. Dobree - [1900] 1 Q. B. 442 See Att.-Gbn. r. Murray [1903] 2 K. B. 64 ; C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 165 Att.-Gen. v. Dodington - [1897] 2 Q. B. 373 Approved of by H. L. (Ir.). Inland Revenue Gommes. v. Peiestley [1901] A. C. 208 Att.-Gen. v. Eastlourne Corporation, [1901] 2 K. B. 773. Affirmed by C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 403 Decision of C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 403, affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 155 Att.-Gen. V. Edison Telephone Co. of London, Ld. (1880) 6 Q. B. D. 244, 260—262. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. PosT- mastee-Genbeal 1). National Tele- phone Co. - ■ [1907] 1 Ch. 621 ; H.L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 269 Att.-Gen. v. Glossop - [1906] 1 K. B. 284 Affirmed by C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 163 Att.-Gen. v. Frimley and Farnbovongh District Water Co., [1908] 1 Ch. 727. See Marriott v. East Geinstead Gas and "Watee Co. Swinfen Eady J. [1909] 1 Ch. 70 Att.-Gen. t. Glendining (1904) 92 L. T. 87 Affirmed by C. A. WiNANS v. Rex [1908] 1 K. B. 1022 ; H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 27 Att.-Gen. v. Great Eastern Ry. Co., (1880) 5App. Cas. 478. Referred to by H. L. (B.). London County Council v. Att.-Gen. [1902] A. C. 165, 167 Att.-Gen. v. Hanwell Urban Council, [1900] 2 Ch. 377. Applied aud followed by FarweU J. Att.-Gen. v. Pontypridd Urban Council [1906] 2 Ch. 441 ; C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 257 Att.-Gen. v. Hatch [1893] 8 Ch. 86 Referred to by Buckley J. Att.-Gen. i: ASHBOENE ReCEEATION GROUND Co. [1902] W.N. 208; [1903] 1 Ch. 101 Att.-Gen. v. Horner, (1855) 14 Q. B. D. 245 ; 11 App. Cas. 66. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. . GiNGBLL, Son & Foskbtt, Ld. v. Stepney Borough Council [1906] 2 K. B. 468 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 245 Att.-Gen. v. Hulbuch - (1884) 18 Q. B. D. 275 Distinguished by C. A. In re LORD Geimthoepe [1908] 2 Ch. 676 Att.-Gen. v. .Teimsh Colonization Association, [1900] 2 Q. B. 556. Affirmed by C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 123 Att.-Gen. v. Johnson - [1902] 1 K. B. 416 Reversed by C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 617 Followed by Ridley J. Att.-Gen. v. Holdbn - [1903] IK. B. 832 Att.-Gen. y. Lepine (1818) 2 Sw. 181 See In re Vagliano Buckley J. [1905] W. N. 179 Att.-Gen. v. Lethbridge - [1905] 2 K. B. 823 Reversed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. . Lethbeidge 4). Att.-Gen. [1907] A. C. 19 Att.-Gen. v. Londesborough (^Earl of), [1904] 1 K. B. 749. Reversed by C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 98 Att.-Gen. v. London and North Western Ry. Co., [1900] 1 IC. B. 78, 87. Referred to by Buckley J. Att.-Gbn. V. Ashboene Reoeeation Ground Co. [1902] yr. N. 208 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 101 Dicta of Vaughan Williams L.J. in, approved by C. A. Att.-Gbn. v. Bir- mingham, Tame, and Eea District Drainage Board [1910] 1 Ch. 48 Att.-Gen. v. London County Council, [1900] 1 Q. B. 192. Reversed by H. L. (B.) sub nom. Lon- don County Council r. Att.-Gen. [1901] A. C. 26 Att.-Gen. v. London County Council, [1901] 1 Ch. 781. Affirmed by H. L. (B.) sub nom. Lon- don County Council v. Att.-Gen. [1902] A. C. 166 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERBULED, &c., Att.-Geii. v. London County Council, [1905] 2 K. B. 375. Eeversed by H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 131 Att.-Gen. V. Mersey Ri/. Co. [1906] 1 Ch. 811 Order varied by C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 81 Decision o£ 0. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 81, reversed by H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 415 Att.-Gen. t. Metcalf S; Greig [1907] 2 Ch. 23 Eeversed by C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 327 Att.-Gen. v. Metropolitan Ulectric Sujjply Co., [1905] 1 Ch. 24. Affirmed by C. A. [1905] 1 Ch. 757 Att.-Gen. v. Midland Ry. Co. [1900] 2 Q. B. 353 Affirmed by 0. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 220 Decision of C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 220 affirmed by H. L. (E.) suh num. Mid- laud Ry. Co. «. Att.-Gen. [1902] A. C. 171 Att-Gen. v. Montagu {Lord) [1902] 1 K. B. 429 Reversed by C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 483 Decision of C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 483 reversed by H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 316 Att-Gen. y. Murray - [1903] 2 K. B. 64 Reversed by C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 165 Att.-Gen. v. Myddletons, Ld., [1907] 1 I. R. 471. Approved and followed by Neville J. Att.-Gbs. r. Chukohill's Veteki- NAKY Sanatorium, Ld. [1910] 2 Ch, 401 Att.-Gen. v. Xoi-th Eastern Ry., [1906] 1 Ch. 310 Affirmed by C. A. - [1906] 2 Ch. 676 Att.-Gen. v. Korthvmierland {DuJ/e of), [1903] 2 K. B. 71. Affirmed by C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 762 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) snh m>in. Nobthumbeeland (Duke op) v. Att.-Gen. - [1905[ A. C. 406 Att.-Gen. Y. Odcll - [1905] W. N. 81 Reversed on appeal [1906] 2 Ch. 47 Att.-Gen. v. Owen [1899] 2 Q. B. 253 See In re Campbell C. A. [1901] W. N. 228 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 113, 116, 119 Att.-Gen. v. Oxford Canal Navigation, [1902] W.N. 119. Affirmed by C. A. - [1903] W. N. 39 Att.-Gen. v. Penrhyn - (1900) 83 L. T. 103 Considered and applied by Walton J. Att.-Gen. v. Glossop - [1906] 1 K. B. 284 ; C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 163 Att.-Gen. v. Pontypridd Urlan Council, [1905] 2Ch. 441. Affirmed by C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 257 Att.-Gen. T. Radlojf - (1854) 10 Ex. 84 FoUowed by G. C. A. Rex r. Haus- MANN [1909] W. N. 198 Att.-Gen. v. Regeni's Canal and Doclt Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 86. Eeversed by C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 263 Att.-Gen. v. Richmond and Gordon (Jhilie of), [1908] 2 K. B. 729. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 466 Att.-Gen. V. Robinson - (1901) 2 L E. 67 Approved by C. A. Att.-Gbn. v. MUBEAY - [1904] 1 K. B. 165 Att.-Gen. V. Rufford Sf Co. - [1899] 1 Ch. 537 Referred to by Buckley J. Att.-Gbn. J). ASHBOENE ReCEEATION GeOUND CO. [1902] W. N. 208 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 101 Att.-Gen. v. Scott ■ [1904] 1 K. B. 404, 407 Referred to by C. A. Att.-Gen. x. Scott [1905] 2 K. B. 160, 170 Att.- Gen. y. Scott - - [1905] 2 K. B. 160 Considered by Div. Ct. Chiohestee COEPOBATION V. FOSTEE [1906] 1 K. B. 167 Att.-Gen. v. Sheffield Gas Consumers' Co., (1853) 3 D. M. & G. 304. Followed by Joyce J. Att.-Gen. v. Gband Junction Canal Co. [1909] 2 Ch. 505 Alt.-Gen.^. Simpson ■ - [1901] 2 Ch. 671 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Simp- son V. Att.-Gen. and Huntingdon- shire County Council [1904] W. N. 166 ; [1904] A. C. 476 Att.-Gen. v. Smart - (17+7) 1 Ves. Sen. 72 See Att.-Gen. r. National Hospital foe the Eeliep and Cube op the Pabalysed and Epileptic Kekewich J. [1904] 2 Ch. 252 Att.-Gen. v. Strange [1S9S] 2 Q. B. 39 Considered and applied by Walton J. Att.-Gen. r. Glossop [1906] 1 K. B. 884; [1907] IK.B. 163 Att.-Gen. y. Sturge - (1854) 19 Beav. 597 See In re Vagliano Buckley J. [1905] W. N. 179 Att.-Gen. v. Teddington Urban Council, [1898] 1 Ch. 66. Applied and followed by Farwell J. Att.-Ge.\. ,. Pontypridd Deban Council - - [1905] 2 Ch. 441 ; C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 257 Att.-Gen. v. Theobald - (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 557 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re LOYELL and COLLAED'S l^ONTBACT [1907] 1 Ch. 249 Att.-Gen. v. Till - [1909] 1 K. B. 694 Eeversed by H. L. (E.). [1910] A. C. 50 Att.-Gen. v. Tomline - (1880) 14 Ch. D. 58 Followed by H. L. (Sc.) Musselbueqh Real Estate Co. v. JIusselbuegh (Provost, &c., of) [1905] A. C. 491 Att.-Gen.y.Walthamstow Ui-ba n District Council, (1895) 11 Times L. E. 533. Referred to by Warrington J. Stan- COMB r. Trowbridge Urban Dis- trict Council [1910] 2 Ch. 190 Att.-Gen. v. ll'csi GUnicestersIiire Water Co., [1909] 1 Ch. 636. Affirmed by C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 338 DUEING THE YEARS 1901—1910. Att.-Gin. V. Wilson - [1900] W. N. 263 EeTersed by C. A. [1901] W. N. 5 Att.-Oen. T. WinMedon Home Edate Co., [1904] 2 Ch. 34, 42. Dicta of Farwell J. in, approved by C. A. Att.-Gen. v. Birmingham, Tame, and Rea District Drainage Board [1910] 1 Ch. 48 Att.-Gen. v. Wood [1897] 2 Q. B. 102 Followed by C. A. Att.-Gen. v. Glossop [1907] 1 K. B. 163 AU.-Gen. v. Woi-rall - [1895] 1 Q. B. 99 Followed by Ridley J. Att.-Gen. v. HOLDEN [1903J 1 K. B. 832 Att.-Gen. f 07- Ireland v. Vandeleui; [1905] 1 I. R. 483, 509. Affirmed by H. L. (Ir.) [1907] A. C. 369 Att.-Gen. for Ontario t. Att.-Gen, for t/i^ Dominion, [1896] A. C. 348. Followed by P. C. Att.-Gen. OF Manitoba v. Manitoba Licence Holders' Association [1903] A. C. 73 Att.-Gen. for Ontario v. Att.-Gen. for Queiec, [1903] A. C. 39. Followed by P. C. Att.-Gen. for Quebec o. Att.-Gen. for Ontario [1910] A. C. 627 "AucJdand, Ikirl of," The (1861) Lush. 164, 387 Followed by Jeune Pres. The " Bris- tol City" [1902] P. 10 " Auckland, Earl of," The (1862) 15 Moo. P. C. 304. Followed by C. A. The " Cato Bonito " - [1903] P. 203 " Augusta," The - (1887) 6 Asp. M. L. C. 161 See The " Dallington " BuckniU J. [1903] P. 77 "Auguste Legenibre," llie - [1902] P. 123 See The " Cayo Bonito " Gorell Barnes [1904] P. 310 Australian Joint Stock Bank, Inre, [1897] W. N. 48. Distinguished by Wright J. In re Melbourne Brewery and Distil- lery [1901] 1 Ch. 463 Automatic Self-Cleanniig Filter Syndicate Co. V. Cuninghaine, [1906] W. N. 46. Affirmed by 0. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 34 See Patentwood Keg Syndicate, LD. 1!. Peahsb Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 164 Distinguished by NeviUe J. Mar- shall's Valve Gear Co. v. Manning, Wardlb & Co. [1909] 1 Ch. 267 Principle of, applied by C. A. Salmon V. QniN & Axtens, Ld. [1909] 1 Ch. 311 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 442 " Amn and Thomas Joliffe," Tlte - [1891] P. 7 See The " Frankland " [1901] P. 161, 166 Ayr Harlour Trustees V. Oswald, (1883) 8 App. Cas. 623, 624. Referred to by C. A. Great Western Ry. Co. V. Talbot [1902] 2 Ch. 759 Principle of, applied by Neville J. In re South Eastern By. Co. and WiFFiN's Contracts [1907] 2 Ch. 366 Distinguished by C. A. Stouhcliffe Estates Co. v. Bournemouth Cor- poration - - [1910] 2 Ch. 12 Ayres v. Bucheridge - - [1902] 1 K. B. 57 Not followed by Ct. of Sess. (Sc). Grewar t'. Caledonian Ry. Co. [1903] W. N. 167 Ayseough v. BuUar - (1889) 41 Ch. D. 341 Applied by Warrington J. Att.-Gen. r. Pontypridd Waterworks Co. [1908] 1 Ch. 389 Bach V. Bich Kerr .f- Co. [1905] 2 K. B. 148 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 326 Bach V. Stacey, [1826) 2 C. & P. 465 ; 31 R. E. 679. Followed by Farwell J. Higgins v. Betts - [1905] 2 Ch. 210 Bacon, In re (1893) 62 L. J. (Ch.) 445 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Henry [1907] 1 Ch. SO Not followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Perkins - [1907] 2 Ch. 596 See In re Thompson - Joyce J. [1908] W. ». 195 Referred to by Parker J. In re Poysbr Landon v. Poyser [1910] 2Ch.444 Bacon, In re, Grissel v. Leathes, (1893) 62 L. J. (Ch.) 445 ; 41 W. E. 478 ; 68 L. T. 522 Not followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Dawson - [1906] 2 Ch, 211 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Henry - [1907] 1 Ch. 30 Badham, Inre- ■ (1893) 10 Morr. 252 Distinguished by Bigham J. In re Dunkley & Son [1906] 2 K. B. 683 Badische Anilin und Soda Fahrih v. Basle Chemical Wm-hs, Bindschedlei; [1898] A. C. 200, 208. Considered by C. A. British Motor Syndicate, Ld, v. Taylor & Son [1901] 1 Ch. 122 Badische Anilin und Soda Fahrih f. Hichson, [1905] 2 Ch. 49.5. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 419 Badisclte Anilin und Soda Fahrih v. Isler, [1906] W. N. 45 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 605. Affirmed by C. A. - [1906] 2 Ch. 443 Bagge v. Mawley - (1853) 8 Ex. 641 Considered by Div. Ct. Grunnell v. Welch - - [1905] 2 K. B. 660; [1906] 2 E. B. 666 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEREULEt), &C., Bagcjs, In re ■ - [1894] 2 Oh. 416, n. Referred to by C. A. In re A. [1904] 2 Ch. 328, 332 Followed by C. A. In re S. S. B. [1906] 1 Ch. 712 Followed by Joyce J. In re Db MoLEYIiS' AND HAEEIS'S CONTEACT [1908] 1 Ch. 110 Bagley v. Mollard, (1830) 1 Russ. & My. 581 ; 32 E. E. 281 Siv In re Kiddle. Kekewich J. [1905] W. N. 81 Bagot V. Ckapnan - [1907] 2 Ch. 222, 227-8 Bictum of Swinfen Eady J. in, doubted by C. A. HowATSOU r. Webb [1908] 1 Ch. 1 Bagot Piwiimatic Tyre Co. v. Clipper Pneumatic Tijre Co., [1900] W. N. 272 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 196. Affirmed by C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 146 Followed by Neville J. Dansk Eektleipfel Sindikat Aktibsel- SKAB V. Snell [1908] 2 Ch. 127 Bagott V. Orr, (1801) 2 Bos. & P. i72 ; 5 R. E. 66.S. Discussed by C. A. Bbibckman r. Matlby [1904] 2 Ch. 313, 327 Bahia and San Franciseo Rij. Co., In re (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. :>U. Referred to by C. A. Sheffield Coe- POEATION V. Bakclat - [1903] 2 K. B. 580 ; H. L, (E.) [1905] A. C. 392 Bahin v. Hughes (1886) 31 Ch. D. 390, 395 Applied by Warrington J. In re LINSLEY - [1904] 2 Ch. 785 BaUe V. Baile - - (1872) L. R. 13 Eq. 497 Applied by Kekewich J. In re Turner, Wood v. Tuenee [1907] 2 Ch. 126 BaiUy T. Bailey (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 855 Applied by Jovce •! . Robins r. Robins [1907] 2K, B. IS Bailey v. Bisliop - (1803) 9 Ves. 6 Referred to by Swiufen Eady J. In re ROBBINS ■ [1906] 2 Ch. 648 Bailey v. Kemoortliy - [1908] 1 K. B. 441, 466 . Followed by C. A. (A statement in the head-note too wide.) Anslow v. Can- nock Chase Collieey Co. [1909] 1 K. B. 352 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 435 Bailey v. Stephens ■ (1862) 12 C. B. (N.S.) 91 Principle of, applied by C. A. Lord Chesteefield t. Haeeis [1908] 2 Ch. 397 Bailey v. Thurston .?■ Co. - [1902] 2 K. B. 397 Affirmed by C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 137 Bailey and Zeetham's due, (1869) L. E. S Eq. 94. Followed by Buckley J. In re Wbn- boen & Co." [1905] 1 Ch. 413 Baillie S^- Co., In re - (1899) 15 T. L. R. 277 Referred to by Buckley .J. In re RoilAIN [1903] 1 Ch. 702 Baily v. Briti-^h EquitaMe Assurance Co. [1904] 1 Ch. 374. Reversed by H. L. (E.) suT> nom. British Equitable Assueancb Co. r. Baily [1906] A. C. 36 Baily ,)'■ Co. v. Clarh, Son J{- Morland, [1902] 1 Ch. 649. Followed by Eve J. Whitmoees (Edbnbeidge), Ld. ■( . Stanfoed [1909] 1 Ch. 427 Bainbridge v. Smith - (1889) 41 Ch. D. 462 Referred to by Buckley J. Sutton v. English and Colonial Produce Co. [1902] 2 Ch. 602 Bain V. Assets Co. - [1904] 6 F. 754,692 Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1905] A. C. 317 Bain v. Fotliergill ■ (1874) L. R. 7 H. L. 158 Referred to by Kekewich J. HOLLI- WBLL c. Seacombe - [1906] 1 Ch. 426 Principle of, applied by Div. Ct. MOE- GAN r. Russell & Sons [1909] 1 K. B. 357 Baintridge v. SmUh (1889) 41 Ch. D. 462, 474 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. Bos- CHOEK Proprietary Co. i: Fukb [1906] 1 Ch. 148 Baines, Be - (1902) 86 L. T. (N.S.) 691 Disapproved by C. A. I71 re PlLLING [1003] 2 K. B. 50 Baird v. Monies Patent Earth Closet Co., (1876) 17 Ch. D. 139, n. See Atkinson r. Beitton - Neville J. [1909] W. N. 102 Bahe v. Freneh - [1907] 1 Ch. 428 Reported on other points. j%« Bake r. Feenoh (No. 2) Warrington J. [1907] 2 Ch. 215 Baiter, In re - (1898) 79 L. T. (N.S.) 343 Approved of by C. A. Owen r. Gibbons [1902] 1 Ch. 636 Baher v. Ambrose. - [1896] 2 Q. B. 372 Referred to by C. A. In re Bagley [1910] W.K. 224 Baher v. Bolton - (1808) 1 Camp. 493 Considered and distinguished by C. A. Jackson i\ Watson & .sons [1909] 2 K. B. 193 Baker v. Snell - - [1908] 2 K. B. 352 Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 825 Baker, Lees ,<■ Co., In re [1903] 1 K. B. 189 See In re Fanshawe [1906] W. N. 64 Baldwin v. Roche - (1842) 5 Ir. Eq. 110 Approved and followed by C. A. Saun- ders r. Shafto [1905] 1 Ch. 126 Balian v. Joly, Victoria ,<■ Co., (1890) 6 Times L. R. 345. Followed by C. A. Joseph Thoeley, Ld. . . Oechis Steamship Co. [1907] 1 K. B. 660 Balkis Conwlidated Co. v. 2'omhimon. [1893] A. C. 396, 407. Sec SHEFFIELD CORPORATION f. BAR- CLAY - C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 580 ; H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 392 DURING THE TEARS 1901—1910. Ball, In re - [1899] 2 I. R. 313 Distinguished by Bigham J. In re Bennett [1907] 1 K. B. 149 Ball, In re, Slattery v. Ball (1888) 40 Ch. D. 11; 59 L. T.|800. Referred to by Joyce J. Barkwobth r. Barkwoeth - [1906] W. N. 171 Ball V. Bay - - - (1873) L. R. 8 Ch. 467 Considered by Kekewich J. Att.-Gbn. r. Cole & Son [1901] 1 Ch. 205 Ball {John), In. the Goods of [1902] W. N. 226 See Erratum [1902] W. N. 228 BaU'x Trust, In re - (1879) 11 Ch. D. 270 Not followed on one point by Swinfen Eady J. In re Smith's Settlement [1903] 1 Ch. 373 Ballance, In re (1889) 42 Ch. D. 62, 64 Not adopted by Swinfen Eady J. Inre Wand [1907] 1 Ch. 391 Balnwral Steamship Co. t. Marten, [1901] 2 K. B. 896. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 811 Bamfm-d v. TuroiUy - (1860) 3 B. & S. 62 Considered by Kekewich J. Att.-Gen. .. Cole & Son [1901] 1 Ch. 205 Bandy y. Cartwright - (1853) 8 Ex. 913 Followed by Div. Ct. Bddd-Scott v. Daniell [1902] 2 K. B. 351 Banister v. 2hompson [1908] P. 362 See Rex i\ Dibdin - C. A. [1910] P. 57 Barker v. Bemming. - (1880) 5 Q. B. D. 609 Referred to by Parker J. Bake v. French [1907] 1 Ch. 428 Banl of Africa, Ld. v. Cohen, [1909] W. N. 50 Affirmed by C. A. - [1909] 2 Ch. 129 Bank of England v. Cutler - [1907] 1 K. B. 889 Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 208 Banh of Mngland v. Vagliano Brothers, [1891] A. C. 107. - Distinguished by Warrington J. ViN- DEN «. Hughes [1908] 1 K. B. 795 Banh of Hindustan, China and Japan QCamp- tell's Case), In re, (1873) L. R. 9 Ch. 1,22. Followed by Eve J. MoSELY v. KOPPTFONTBIN MINES, IjQ., [1910] 2 Ch. 382 ; but this case was reversed by C. A. - - - [1910] W. N. 231 Banh of Syria, In re [1900] 2 Ch. 272 Affirmed by C. A. - [1901] 1 Ch. 115 Bannatyne v. Direct Spanish Telegraph Co., (1886) 34 Ch. D. 287. Referred to by Farwell J. In re Credit Assurance and Guarantee Corporation - [1902] 2 Ch. 178 ; C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 601 Bannatyne v. United Free Church of Scotland, (1902) 4 F. 1083. Reversed by H. L. (So.) sub nom. General Assembly op Free Church OP Scotland v. Overtoun (Lord). Macalisteb v. YouNa [1904] A. C. 618 Baring Brothers ^ Co. v. Marine Insurance Co. Cave J. [1893] W. N. 164 ; 10 Times Law Reports, 44. Was reversed on appeal, (1894) 10 Times Law Reports, 276. W. N. 1894, Feh. 17th, p. 23, Record of Business. Barker, In re - - - [1897] W. N. 1. ",4. Approved by C. A. In re Atkinson [1904] 2 Ch. 160 Barker v. Furlong [1891] 2 Ch. 172 Principle of, applied by Phillimore J. In re Magnus. E.v parte Salaman [1910] W. N. 190 Note. — This decision was affirmed by C. A. [1910] W. N. 206 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 1049 Barker v. Hemming (1880) 5 Q. B. D. 609 Followed by C. A. David r. Reks [1904] 2 K. B. 435 Barker v. Pui-rh (1886) 56 L. T. (N.S.) 131 Referred to by C. A. Chessum & Sons t. Gordon - [1901] 1 K. B. 694, 699 Barkworth v. Young - (1856) 4 Drew. 1 Approved by C. A. In re Holland [1902] 2 Ch, 360 Barluw v. Gains (1856) 23 Beav. 244, 246 Statement in, discussed by Eve J. Heath ik Chinn [1908]W. N. 120 Barnard Castle Urban District Coiincil v. ^Yilson, [1901] W. N. 173 ; 1901 2 Ch. 813 Reversed by C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 746 Barnardoy.McHugh - [1891] A. C. 388 Followed by C. A. Humphrys v. POLAK - [1901] 2 K. B. 385 Barnes v. Brown - [1909] 1 K. B. 38 Overruled by H. L. (E.). Bellerby I . Hbtworth [1910] A. C. 377 Ban-nes v. Shore (1846) 1 Roberts, 382 See Nesbitt v. Wallace [1901] P. 354, 365 Barnes v. Soach - - (1879) 4 Q. B. D. 494 Referred to by Kekewich J. Milneb'S Safe Co. r. Great Northern and City Railway Co. [1906] W. N. 163 ; C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 208 Barnes v: Youngs ■ [1898] 1 Ch. 414 Dicta of Romer J. in, overruled by C. A. Green r. Howell [1910] I'Ch, 496 Barnrtt v. Guildford iFarT) - (1855) 11 Ex. 19 Approved and applied by C. A. Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corpo- ration, Ld. v. Ilpord Gas Co. [1905] 2 K. B. 493 Burnett v. Howard - ■ [1900] 2 Q. B. 784 Followed by C. A. BROWN v. Dimbleby [1904] 1 K. B. 28 Barnett v. Wheeler ■ (1841) 7 M. & W. 364 Followed by C. A. In re Highbtt AND Bird's Contract [1903] 1 Ch. 287 Barnetfg Estate, In re [1889] W. N. 216 Appioved by C. A. In re Dbhatnin [1910] 1 Ch. 223 TABLE OP CASES E'OLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c., Barnhart v. Gh-eemhieUs, (1853) 9 Moo. P. C. 18 Followed by C. A. Hunt v. Ltjck [1902] 1 Ch. 428 Sarque Quiljme, Ld. v. Brown, [1904] 2 K. B. 264. Referred to by C. A. Jones, Ld. v. Green & Co. [1904] 2 K. B. 276, 283 Barraclough v. Cooper, [1905] H. L. (E.). Re- ported [1908] 2 Ch. 121, n. Followed by Eve J. In re Lambeet [1908] 2 Ch. 117 Referred to by C. A. In re CoPE [1908] 2 Ch. 1 Barraclough v. Johnson, (1838) 8 A. & E. 99 ; 47 R. R. 506. Referred to by H. L. (E.). SIMPSON v. Att.-Gen. - [1904] A. C. 476, 494 Barrett t. Mao-Mam ■ (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 405 Applied by Div. Ct. Madden r. Rhodes - [1906] 1 K. B. 534 Barrie v. Caledonian By. Co., (1902) 40 S. L. R. 50. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) nui nom. Cale- donian Rt. Co. 1'. Baeeib [1903] A. C. 126 Barrie ■/. Perurian Corporation, (1896) 2 Com- Cas. 50. Discussed by Bigham J. In re Newman & Dale Steamship Co. and British AND South American Steamship Co. [1903] 1 K. B. 262, 267 Bart-btytun, la re - (1886) 33 Ch. D. 523 Not followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re FULLERTON'S WILL [1906] 2 Ch. 138 Barron >'. WiUh - - - [1900] 2 Ch. 121 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) mb nom. Willis V. Baeron - [1902] A. C. 271 Approved by C. A. Howes c. Bishop [1909] 2K. B. 390 Barrow v. Isaacs J- Son - [1891] 1 Q. B. 417 Referred to by Parker J. Matthews r. Smallwood [1910] 1 Ch. 777 Barrow HamatUe Steel Co., In re, (1888) 39 Ch. D. 582. See Bond p. Barrow Hematite Steel Co. [1902] 1 Ch. 353 Barrow Srsmatita Steel Co., In re, [1900] 2 Ch. 846. Affirmed by C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 746 Explained by C. A. I?i re HoAKE & Co., Ld. and Reduced [1904] 2 Ch. 208 Barrow v. Isaacs S,- Sun, [1891] 1 Q. B. 417, 420 Discussed by Eve J. Lady Hood op Avalon v. MacKinnon [1909] 1 Ch. 476 Barroiv v. Myers, (1888) 4 T. L. R. 441 ; 52 J. P. ur,. Overruled by C. A. Croziee, Stephens & Co. v. Aubrbaoh [1908] 2 K. B. 161 Barrow's Trusts, In re [1864] 10 L. T. 184 Followed by Joyce J. In re Gkippith's Policy - [1903] 1 Ch. 739 Approved by C. A. In re COLEY [1903] 2 Ch. 102 Barryh Trusts, In re, Barry v. Smart, ri906] W. N. 68 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 768. Affirmed by C. A. - [1906] 2 Ch. 358 Bartell v. W. Gray S,- Co. [1902] 1 K. B. 225 Followed by C. A. Weavings v. Kirk & Randall [1904] 1 K. B. 213 Headnote in, corrected by C. A. Harrison r. Oceanic Steau Navi- gation Co. [1907] 2 K. B. 420 Barwicli v. English Joint Stock Bank, (1867) L. R. 2 Ex. 259. Principles of, applied by C. A. GlB- LAN r. National Amalgamated Labodeees' Union op Great Britain and Ireland - [1903] 2K. B. 600 Approved by P. C. Citizens' Life Assurance Co. v. Brown [1904] A. C. 423 Basset v. St. Leren (1894) 43 W. R. 165 Undistinguishable. In re GOSSELIN Farwell J. [1906] 1 Ch, 120 Bassett v. Tong [1894] 2 Q. B. 332 See Spencer, Whatley & Undehhill r. Foster & Co. - Div. Ct. [1905] 1 E. B. 434 Ba.^.nl Y. lister ■ ■ (1851) 9 Haie, 177 Referred to by Buckley J. In re Gar- diner - [1901] 1 Ch. 697, 699, 700 Bate, In re - - (1890) 43 Ch. D. 600 Overruled by Kekewich J. on one point. In re BoBEETS [1902] 2 Ch. 834 Bateman v. limit [1904] 2 K. B. 530 Distinguished by Joyce J. Powell )•. Browne [1907] W. N. 1S2; on appeal, C. A. [1907] W. K. 228 Bater v. Bater [1906] P. 209 See Bateu t\ Batbe BuokniU J. [1907] P. 333 Bates, In re - - [1907] 1 Ch. 22 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Wilson. Moore r. Wilson [1907] 1 Ch. 394 Discussed by Warrington J. In re Nicholson [1909] 2 Ch. Ill Bates, In re - - (1887) 4 Morr. 192 Considered by C. A, In re A Debtor [1908] 2 K. B. 684 Bates V. Bates (1884) W. N. 129 Dissented from by Farwell J. In re Greenwood [1901] 1 Ch. 887 Bath V. Bath - - [1901] 1 Ch. 460 Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re Williams' Settled Estates [1910] 2 Ch. 481 Bathurst {Borough of) v. Mocphcrson, (1879) 4 App. Cas. 256. Explained by Lord Alverstone C.J. Lambert v. Lowestoft Corpora- tion [1901] 1 X. B. 590 Batten v. Earnley - - (1723) 2 P. Wms. 162 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re Hiscoe . [1902] W. N. 49, 64 DURING THE YEAES 1901—1910. Batten v. Wedgwood Goal and Iron Co., (1884) 28 Ch. D. 317. Followed by Neville J. In re London United Bbbweries, Ld. [1907] 2 Ch. 511 Sattishill v. Beed - (1856) 18 C. B. 696 Followed by Joyce J. Dampbe v. Bassbtt - [1901] 2 CIi. 350 Baxendale. v. Ch-eat Weste^-n Bailway, (1863) 14 C. B. (N.S.) 1 ; (1864) 16 C. B. (N.S.) 137. Distinguished by C. A. Stone & Co. r. Midland Ky. Co. [1904] 1 K. B. 669, 676 Baj:tcr v. Taylm; (1882) 4 B. & Ad. 72 ; 38 B. E. 227. Followed by Joyce J. Dampee v. Bassett - - [1901] 2 Ch. 350 Baxter's Leather' Co. v. Royal Mail Steam Pacltet Co. - [1908] 1 K. B. 796 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1908] 2 K. B. 626 Bayley-Wmihington and Cohen's Contract, In re, [1908] 1 Ch. 26. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Cohen V. Batlex-Wobthington [1908] A. C. 97 See In re Baylet-Worthington and Cohen's Contract ■ - Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. 648 Baynes 4' Co. v. Lloyd S; Sons, [1895] 2 Q. B. 610 Dicta in, dissented from by Div. Ct. BUDD-SCOTT V. DANIELL [1902] 2 K. B. 861 Considered by C. A. Jones v. Laving- TON [1903] 1 K. B. 263 Explained by Swinfen Eady J. Mark- ham V. Paget [1908] 1 Ch. 697 BeaVs Estate, In re - (1872) L. E. 13 Eq. 489 Followed by Bnckley J. In re Beau- MONT [1902] 1 Ch. 889 Beal,MxpaHe (1868) L. E. 3 Q. B. 387 Approved of and followed by C. A. HiLDESHEIMBE «. W. & F. FAULKNER, Ld. [1901] 2 Ch. 652 BeaU V. Beale - (1874) L. E. 3 P. & M. 779 Approved by Jeune Pres. Tomalin v. Smart - [1904] P. 114 Beales' Settlemeitt, In re [1905] 1 Ch. 256 FoUowed by Buckley J. In re Wright [1906] 2 Ch. 288 Bear Island Defence WorJis and Boyle, In re, [1903] 1 L E. 164. Applied by Svpinfen Eady J. In re London United Tramways Act, 1900 [1906] 1 Ch. 834 Queried by C. A. as to the "death duties" there allowed. In, re Thames Tunnel (Eothbehithe and Eat- CLIFF) ACT, 1900 [1908] 1 Ch. 493 Beardman v. Wilson (1868) L. E. 4 C. P. 57 Followed and applied by Swinfen Eady J. Lewis v. :Baker [1906] 1 Ch. 40 Beardsley v. Giddvngs ■ [1904] 1 K. B. 847 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Brooks v. BAGSHAW [1904] 2 K. B. 798, 801 Beattie v. Cordner - - [1903] 1 I. E. 1 Affirmed by H. L. (Ir.) sul> nom. HAR- BISON V. KiBK - - [1904] A. C. 1 Seattle v. Ehury (_Zord), (1872) L. E. 7 Ch, 777, 800. Applied by Kekewioh J. Halbot v. Lens [1901] 1 Ch. 344 Beaufort (Dulte of) v. Ashhurnham {Earl of), (Jan. 17, 1863) 13 C. B. (N.S.) 598 ; 32 L. J. (N.S.) C. P. 97. Considered by C. A. Baetlett v. HiGGiNS [1901] 2 K. B. 230 Beaumoitt v. Bowels - [1900] 2 Q. B. 204 Not followed by C. A. Hudson v. Geibblb [1903] 1 K. B. 817 Beil V. Banny ■ - (1854) 1 K. & J. 216 Followed by Warrington J. In re Craven's Mortgage [1907] 3 Ch. 448 Bechuanaland Exploitation Co. v. London Irading Bank, [1898] 2 Q. B. 658. Followed by Bigham J. Edelstein r. SCHULER & Co. [1902] 2 K. B. 144 Beclett v. Tower Assets Co. [1891] 1 Q. B. 638 Undistinguishable. Mbllor (Trustee of) v. Maas C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 226, 230 BecUford v. ToVvn - (1749) 1 Ves. Sen. 308 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Bowlby [1904] 2 Ch. 686 Becltham v. Dralie (1849) 2 H. L. C. 579, 627 Eeferrei to by C. A. EoSE i'. BucKBTT [1901] 2 K. B. 449 Principle of, applied by C. A. Bailey V. Thubston & Co. [1903] 1 K. B. 137, 140 Eeferred to by C. A. Fokmby «, Barker - [1903] 2 Ch. 639 Beckhmon and Gibhsy.HavMett, [1900] 2 Q.B. 18. Affirmed by C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 73 Becliley v. Scott # Co. [1902] 2 I. R. 504 Eeferred to by C. A. Tayloe v. Ham- stead Colliery Go. [1904] 1 K. B. 838, 847 Decision of the majority of the Court in, disapproved by C. A. Cribb v. Kynoch (No. 2), Ld. [1908] 2 K. B. 551 Bechwith, Ex paiie [1898] 1 Ch. 324 Followed by Warrington J. In re Dover Coalfield Extension, Ld. [1907] 2 Ch. 76 ; on appeal, C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 65 Becquet v. MacCarthy (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 951 Commented on by C. A. BmANUEl v. Symon [1908] 1 K. B. 302 Bedford (J)ulie of) v. Ellis - [1901] A. C. 1 Referred to by H. L. (E.). Taff Vale Ry. Co. v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1901] A. C. 426, 439 Beech V. Lard St. Vincent, (1850) 8 De G. & Sm. 678. Followed by Buckley J. In re Stephens - - [1904] 1 Ch. 338 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &o., Belcher v. Williams (1890) 45 Ch. D. 510 Referred to by Joyce J. Caeeoll v. Haeeison [1910] W. N. 104 Bell V. GribUe - [1902] 2 K. B. 298 On appeal see C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 517 Bell V. Iloltty - (1873) L. R. 15 Bq. 178 Followed by H. L. (E.). Cohen v. Bayley-Woethin&ton [1908] A. C. 97 Bell V. jViitiuniil Protincial Banli of England,, L(l., [1903] 2 K. B. 219. Reversed by C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 149 Bellairs v. Belhiirs (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 510 Considered and explained by War- rington J. In re Oliver [1908] 2 Cli. 74 "BellaTWoh," The - [1907] P. 170 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) suh num. Owners of S.S. " Canning" d. Owners OF S.S. " Bellanoch." The " Bella- NOOH [1907] A. C. 269 Discussed by C. A. The " CoEiNTHiAfr " [1909] P. 260 Bellencontre, In re ■ [1891] 2 Q. B. 122 See Larceny Act, 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. 10). Bellerly v. Heyworth - [1909] 2 Ch. 23 Affirmed by H. L. (E.). [1910] A. C. 377 Bellerhy v. Rowland and Marwood's Steamship Co., [1901] W. N. Ill ; [1901] 2 Ch. 265. Reversed by G. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 14 Belmore (^Countess of") v. Kent County Council, [1901] 1 Ch. 873. Distinguished by Joyce J. Harvey i. Truro Rural Disteict Council [1903] 2 Ch. 638 Belt V. Lawes (1884) 12 Q. B. D. 356 Overruled on one point by H. L. (E.). Watt v. Watt - [1905] A. C. 115 Belton V. Busty - [1899] 2 Q. B. 380 Followed by Div. Ct. Teomans v. HODKINSON [1903] 1 K. B. 30 Followed by C. C. R. Rex v. Dbaville [1903] 1 K. B. 468 Bendery. Owners of Steamship " Zent," [1909] 2 K, B. 41. Followed by C. A. Gilbert v. Owners OF Steam Trawler " Nizam " [1910] 2 K. B. 565, 659 Bendy, In re - - [1895] 1 Ch. 109 Not followed by Bucldey J. In re Clutterbuck's Settlement [1906] 1 Ch. 200 Benfm-d v. Sims - - [1898] 2 Q. B. 641 Followed by Div. Ut. Du Ceos v. Lambouene [1907] 1 K. B. 40 Bengovgh v. Walker, (1808) 15 Ves. 507, 512 ; 10 R. R. 106. Referred to by C. A. In re Jaques [1903] 1 Ch. 267 " Benlarig:' The - (1888) 14 P. D. 3 Principle of, applied by Buckuill J. The " August Kohff " [1903] P. 166 Benn v. Benn ■ (1885) 29 Ch. D. 839, 846 Referred to by Joyce J. In re Bilham [1901] 2 Ch. 169 Bennett v. Stone, [1901] W. N. 225 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 226. Affirmed by C. A. - [1903] 1 Ch. 509 Explained by Parker J. In re Bayley- Woethington and Cohen's Con- tract - [1909] 1 Ch. 648 Bennett v. White [1910] W. N. 97 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 1. Reversed by C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 643 " Bernimi," The (1888) 13 App. Cas. 1 See The " Harvest Home "" C. A. [1905] P. 177 Berry v. Gaukroger ■ [1903] 2 Ch. 116 Referred to by Kekewich J. Db Quetteville c. De Quettevillb [1906] W. N. 85 ; C. A. [1905] W. N. ISO Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Spencer Cooper [1908] 1 Ch. 130 BettesiL'orth and. Richer, In re, (1888) 37 Ch. D. 535. See In re ALLEN AND Deiscoll's Con- tract C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 226 Belts, In re. Ex parte Betts, C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 50. See In re Beits. E.v parte Official Receiver Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 39 Betts V. Armstead, (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 771 Referred to by Div. Ct. Pbarks, Gunston and Tee, Ld. v. Wakd [1902] 2 K. B. 1 Bevati\.HapgooA - (1860) 1 J. & H. 222 Questioned by Farwell J. BoYCE v. Edbkooke - [1903] 1 Ch. 836 Bevan v. Webb, [1901] W. N. 61 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 724. Reversed by C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 69 See In re Gold Coast Finance Syndi- cate, Ld. Byrne J. [1904] W. N. 78 Followed by Parker J. NORBT c. KEEP [1909] 1 Ch. 561 Beverley's Case - (1604) 4 Eep. 123 b Referred to by C. A. In re Walkee [1906] 1 Ch. 160 Bickerton v. Walker - (1885) 31 Ch. D. 151 Applied by G. A. Bateman r. Hunt [1904] 2 K. B. 530 Distinguished by Joyce J. Powell r. Browne [1907] W. N. 152 ; on appeal, C. A. [1907] W. N. 228 Bidder v. Trinidad Petroleum Co., (1868) 17 W. R. 153. See Lambouene r. McLellan C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 268 Biddnlph, In re - (1849) 3 D. & S. 587 See In re IjAKE Wright J. [1903] 1 K. B. 439 Bigge,Inre- - . [1907] 1 Ch. 714 See In re Howakth [1909] 1 Ch. 486 ; C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 19 Can no longer be cited as a binding authority by C. A. In re Watkins' Settlement - [1910] W. N. 232 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. JBiggs v. Hoddiiiott - - [1898] 2 Ch. 307 Referred to by Joyce J. Morgan v. Jeffbets - [1910] 1 Ch. 620 Billiam, In 7-e ■ - - [1901] 2 Ch. 169 Distinguished by FarweU J. In re Friend's Settlement [1906] 1 Ch. 47 Billings v. Holloway [1899] 1 Q. B. 70 See Knight h. Gttbitt & Co. C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 31, 35 Binning v. Easton ^- Sons (1906) 8 Eraser, 407 Not followed by Div. Ct. Johnston c. Mew, Langton & Co. [1907] W. N. 156 Binns v. Mcliolls (1866) L. R. 2 Eq. 256 See In re Pardoe Kekewich J. [1906] 1 Ch. 256 Binsted, lure - [1893] 1 Q. B. 199 See In re Hallman - Fhillimore J. [1909] 2 K. B. 430 Birch T. Birch - - - [1902] P. 62 Reversed by C. A. [190S!] P. 130 Birch v. Joy - - - (1852) 3 H. L. C. 565 Principle of, followed by Buckley J. Fletcher v. Lancashire and York- shire Rt. Co. [1908] 1 Ch. 901 Birch V. Skerratt - (1867) L. R. 2 (!h. 644, 648 See In re HowARTH [1909] 1 Ch. 485 ; C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 19 Followed by C. A. In re Watkins' Settlement [1910] W. N. 232 Birchgrove Steel Co. v. Midland By. Co., (1887) 5 Ry. & Can. Cas. 229. Approved by C. A. PiCKFORDS, Ld. v. London and North Western Ry. Co. [1905] 1 K. B. 752 Bird V. Philpott - ■ [1900] 1 Ch. 822 Referred to by Wright J. In re Adie [1901] W. N. 98 Referred to by Kekewich J. London AND County Contracts, Ld. v. Tal- LACK - [1903] W. N. 68 Bird's Trusts, In re - - (1876) 3 Ch. D. 214 Referred to by Joyce J. In re Tring- HAM's Trusts - [1904] 2 Ch. 487 Birhett, In re ■ (1878) 9 Ch. D. 576 Followed by Joyce J. In re Rogerson [1901] 1 Ch. 715 Birkley v. Presgrave, (1801) 1 East, 220, at p. 228 ; 6 R. R. 256, at p. 263. Explained by Gorell Barnes J. The "Leitrim" [1902] p. 256 Birmingham, Dudley and lybstrict Banldng Co. v. Ro.HS, (1888) 38 Ch. D. 295. Followed and applied by FarweU J. Burrows v. Lang [1901] 2 Ch. 502 Followed and applied by Byrne J. Brazier v. Glasspool [1901] W. N. 237 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 162 Applied and followed by Joyce J. Godwin v. Sohwbppes, Ld. [1903] 1 Ch. 926 Discussed by Kekewich J. Frederick Betts, Ld. v. Pickfoeds, Ld. [1906] 8 Ch. 87 BirmingMm Small Arms Co.'s Ariplication, In re, [1907] 2 Ch. 396. See In re United States Playing Card Co.'s Application Swinfen Eady J. [1908] 1 Ch. 197 Bischoff's Trustee v. Franh, (1903) 89 L. T. 189 Followed by C. A. Chaplin & Co. v. Brammall [1908] 1 K. B. 233 Bisgood V. Nile Valley Co. [1906] 1 Ch. 747 Approved by C. A. BiSGOOD «. Henderson's Transvaal Estates, Ld. - [1908] ICh. 748 Bishoj) v. Balhis Consolidated Co., (1S90) 25 Q. B. D. 512, 519,520. See Longman v. Bath Electric Tramways, Ld. C. A. [1905] 1 Ch. 646 Bishoj} V. Elliott - - (1855) 11 Ex. 113 Followed by C. A. Lamboubne v. McLellan [1903] 8 Ch. 268 Bvihop V. Smyrna and Cassaha Ry. Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 265. Considered and distinguished by C. A. In re Crichton's Oil Co. [1902] 2 Ch. 86 Bishop Aiicldand Industrial Co-operatire Society, Ld. V Butterknoiole Colliery Co., [19041 2 Ch. 419. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sui nom. Buttbrknowle Colliery Co. v. Bishop Auckland Industrial Co- operative Co. [1906] A. C. 305 Biss, In re - [1903] 2 Ch. 40 See In re MANSER Neville J. [1910] W. N. 61 Black V. Williams [1895] 1 Ch. 408. 421 Api lied by Swinfen Eady J. Barclay & Co. V. Poole - [i907] 2 Ch. 284 Blacltett V. Blackett and Frail [1902] W. N. 70 Affirmed by C. A. [1902] P. 170 Blackmail v. Fysh - - [1892] 3 Ch. 209 Referred to by Eve J. In re Canney's Trusts [1910] W. N. 45 Blackmore v. White - [1899] 1 Q. B. 293 Distinguished by Bigham J. Gal- BRAITH v. Poynton [1905] 2 K. B. 258 Blaehnore v. Yates - (1867) L. B. 2 Ex. 225 Approved by C. A. Stagg c. Medway (Upper) Navigation Co. [1903] 1 Ch. 169 See Reeve v. Mbdway (Upper) Navigation Co. Joyce J. [1905] W. N. 75 Blachjiool and Fleetwood Tramroad Co. v. Thornton Urlan CouncAl, [1907] 1 K. B. 568. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) suh nom. Thornton Urban Council r. Blackpool and Fleetwood Team- road Co. [1909] A. C. 264 Blackwell v. Pennant (1852) 9 Hare, 551 Followed byC. A. In re Eavens- WOETH - - .- [1905] 2 Ch. 1 Blackwood v. Beg. (1883) 8 App. Cas. 82 Followed by P. C. Woodruff v. Att.-Gen. foe Ontario [1908] A. C. 508 OCCXXXVl TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEKRULED, &o., Blair v. Vuncan, (1900) 3 F. 274 ; 38 S. L. E. 209. Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1902] A. C. 37 SlaU V. Slahe - (1880) 15 Ch. D. 481 Explained by Farwell J. In re Dow- SBTT - - [1901] 1 Ch. 398 Referred to by C. A. In re MOSBS [1901] W. N. 241 ; H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. 13 Blake T. Smm ■ (1832) Younge, 594 Followed by Eve J. Pomeet r. POMBEY [1909] -W. N. 188 Blaker v. Tillstone. - [1894] 1 Q. B. 345 Followed by C. A. HoBBS v. Win- chester COEPOEATION [1910] 2 K. B. 471 Blaksley's Trua.^, In re (1883) 23 Ch. D. 549 See In the Matter of the Couet of CHANCERT, 1841, AND PiKF, Byrne J. [1902] W. N. 42 Blanchard, In re. (1861) 3 De G. F. & J. 131, 137. Referred to by Kekewlch J. Memo- RAironM AS TO Practice [1901] W. N. 85 Blasmn v. Blassoii (1864) 2 D. J. & S. 655 Questioned by G. A. ViLLAR p. Gilbey [1906] 1 Ch. 583 Blight V. Hartmll (1883) 23 Ch. D. 218 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re Sinclair [1903] W. N. 113 Blociaeij, In re - ■ (1S8.5) 29 Ch. D. 250 Considered by C. A. In re ScOTT [1902] W. N. 206 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 1 Blood V. Blood ■ - [1902] P. 78 Affirmed by C. A. [1902] P. 190 Bloomer v. Spittle (1872) L. R. 13 Eq. 427 Questioned by Neville J. Bealb v. Kyte [1907] 1 Ch. 564 Blomit V. HijiUm, (1834) 7 Sim. 43 ; 40 R. R. 74. Distinguished by Buckley J. In re Banks [1905] 1 Ch. 647 Blomtt V. layard - [1891] 2 Ch. 681, n. Referred to by H. L. (E.) SIMPSON r. Att.-Gbn. [1904] A. C. 476, 493 Bloye's Irusts, In re - (1850) 1 M. & G. 488 Followed by Joyce J. HoDSON v. Deans [1903] 2 Ch. 647 Bluoh, Ex parte - - (1887) 4 Morr. 273 Discussed by Phillimore J. In ;r Benoist - [1909] 2 K. B. 784 " Blue Bell," rJie - [1895] P. 242 Referred to by Gorell Barnes, Pres. The " Clutha Boat 147 " [1909] P. 36 Blundell v. Cattei-all, (1821) 5 B. & Aid. 268 ; 24 R. R. 353. Followed by C. A. Beinckmajst v. Matlby - - - [1904] 2 Ch. 313 Referred to by Parker J. Loed FITZHAKDINGB r. PCECBLL [1908] 2 Ch. 139, 163 Blyt/i, Be - - - 10 Q. B. D. 207 See In re Db Nicols Kekewioh J. [1906] W. N. 192 Blyth V. Yoii/ng, In re (1880) 13 Ch. D. 416 Applied by C. A. In re Walker and Oakshott's Contract [1902] W. N. 147 Blytlis V. BiHley - [1909] W. N. 252 Affirmed by C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 228 Referred to by C. A. MoGladb r. Royal London Mutual Insukawcb Society, Ld. [1910] 2 Ch. 169 Referred to. In re RoYAL London Mutual Insurance Society, Ld. Eve J. [1910] W. N. 226 Blythe v. Granville (1842) 13 Sim. 190, 198 Dictum of Shadwell V.-C. in, dissented from by Kekewich J. In re Bland's Settlement [1905] 1 Ch. 4 Board v. Board ■ ■ (1873) L. R. 9 Q. B. 48 Distinguished by Buckley J. In re Andbeson [1905] 2 Ch. 70 Board of Trade v. Bmployei-s' Liability Assur- ance Corporation, [1910] 1 K. B. 401. Reversed by C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 649 Board of Trade v. Guarantee Society, [1910] 1 K. B. 408, n. Followed on one point by Phillimore J. Boaed of Trade v. Employees' Liability Assueance Coeporation, Ld. [1910] 1 K. B. 401 The decision of PhiUimore J., [1910] 1 K. B. 401, was reversed by C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 649 Board of Trade v. Sailinq Ship " Glenparh" Ld., [1903] 2 K. B.'324. Affirmed by C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 682 Bohhett V. South Eastern By. Co., (1882) 9 Q.B. D. 424. Considered by Bj'rne J. Midland Ry. Co. c. Weight [1901] 1 Ch. 738 Boddinyton, hi re - (1884) 25 Ch. D. 685 Applied by Eve J. In re Joseph [1808] 1 Ch. 890 Referred to by C. A. In re JlASON [1910] 1 Ch. 695 Boddington v. M'oodley (1842) 5 Beav. 555 Followed by C. A. Kydd t-. Liver- pool Watch CoMiuiTiEE [1908] W. N. 26 Referred to by Eve J. In re Atkins' Trusts [1909] 1 Ch. 471 Boden, In re [1907] 1 Ch. 132 Discussed by C. A. In re HowAETH [1909] 2 Ch. 19, 22 Referred to by C. A. In re Watkins' Settlement [1910] W. N. 232 Boileau's Birorre - 77 Lords' Journals, 96 See ToEEENs' Divorce Bill H. L. (Ir.) [1909]W. N. 72 Bolchow V. Fvsher - - (1882) 10 Q. B. D. 161 See The " Bernard " C. A. (Adm.) [1906] W. N. 73 Bolland, Ex parte (1873) L. E. 17 Eq. 115 Overruled by C. A, In re Ebis [1804] 2 K. B. 769 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. CCCSXXVll ■Bolland v. Young - - [1904] 2 K. B. 824 Followed by Kekewich J. Ideal Bedding Co. v. Holland [1907] 2 Ch. 157 Bolton, In re - - (1886) 31 Ch. D. 542 Referred to by Joyce J. In re Dxs BOCHET - [1901] 2 Cli. 441 Solton V. London School Board, (1878) 7 Ch. D. 766. Distinguished and disapproved of by Swinfen Eady J. In re "Wallis and GBOtJT's Contract [1906] 2 Oh. 206 Bolton Estates, In re. EussBLL r. Meybick, [1902] W. N. 214. Reversed by C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 461 Bolton PartTwrs v. Lambert, (1889) 41 Ch. D. 295. Distinguished by Div. Ct. In re Glotjcestee Mtjnicipal Election Petition, 1900 [1901] 1 K. B. 683 I Lease, Re (1870) L. R. 5 Ex. 82 Referred to by C. A. British Elec- tric Traction Co. t'. Inland Reventte COMMES. [1902] 1 K. B. 441, 453, 456 T. Barrow Hamatite Steel Co., [1902] 1 Ch. 353, 362. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re AOGRINGTON CORPORATION STEAM Tramways Co. [1909] 2 Ch. 40 Bonham, v. Neweomb (1684) 1 Ver. 232 Distinguished by Warrington J. In re Caeshalton Park Estate, Ld. [1908] 2 Ch. 62 Bonnard v. Dott - [1905] W. N. 84 Aflirmed by C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 740 See Victorian Daylbspobd Syndi- cate, Ld. v. Dott C. A. [1906] W. N. 90 Bonne]' v. Great Western Rii. Co., (1883) 24 Ch. D. 1. Followed by FarweU J. Greenhalgh v. Brindlet . [1901] 2 Ch. 324 Boord V. African Consolidated Land and Trading Co., [1898] 1 Ch. 596. Overruled by C. A. In re BalaghAt Gold Mining Co. ■ V. Whiglit Applied by Div. Ct. BoltorCi Bond [1901] 2K. B.665 [1900] 1 Ch. 122 Mabb v. Connor [1909] 1 K. B. 515 Booth V. Alcock (1873) L. R. 8 Ch. 663 Referred to by C. A. Davis «. Town Pbopbetibs Investment Corpora- tion, Ld. - [1903] 1 Ch. 797 Booth V. Coulton (1870) L. R. 5 Ch. 684 iSe.s i?j ?■« HowAETH - C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 19, 20 Booth V. SmUh - (1884) 14 Q. B. D. 318, 321 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. Price v. John . [1905] 1 Ch. 744 Bootle (^Overseers of) v. Liverpool Wa/rehouse Co. (1901) 85 L. T. 45. Distinguished by 0. A. Rex v. Mella- DBW . . . [1907] 1 K. B. 192 D.D. Bootle Cold Stm-age and Ice Co., In re, [1901] W. N. 54. See In re TiNGEl Tea Co. Byrne J. [1901] W. N. 165 Bm-aai Co., In re. Foster v. Borax Co., [1899] 2 Ch. 130. Disapproved by C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 326 Bm-thwicli V. EldersUe Steamship Co., [1904] 1 K. B. 319 ; [1905] A. C. 93. See BoRTHWiCK v. Bldbrslib Steam- ship Co. (No. 2) C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 616 Boss, Ex paHe. In re Wlialley, (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 375. Referred to by Div. Ct. See In re Gentry, a Debtor (No. 31 of 1909) [1910] W. N. 29 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 79 : [1910] 1 K. B. 826 Boston Beep Sea Fishing and Ice Co. v. Ansell, (1888) 39 Ch. D. 339, 365. Referred to by C. A. General Bill- posting Co. V. Atkinson [1908] 1 Ch. 537 Boston Fruit Co. v. British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co., [1905] 1 K. B. 637. Aifirmed by H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 336 Boswell, In re. MerrUt v. Boswell, [1906] 2 Ch. 359. On appeal, settlement arrived at C. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 339 Boswell V. Coals (1894) 6 R. 167 Referred to by C. A. Birch v. Birch [1902] P. 130, 137 Followed by C. A. In re Page [1910] 1 Ch. 481 Bosworth and Gh'avesend Corporation, In re, [1905] 1 K. B. 403. Affirmed by C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 426 Bet field ;— Walcot v. (1854) Kay, 534 See In re WEIGHT Kekewich J. [1907] 1 Ch. 231 Boucas V. Coohe ■ - [1903] 2 K. B. 227 Referred to by FarweU J. Stacke- MANN V. Baton [1906] 1 Ch. 774 Bouch V. Sproule ■ (1887) 12 App. Cas. 385 Referred to by Neville J. In re Piebcy [1907] 1 Ch. 289 Boughton v. Knight (1873) L. R. 3 P. & M. 64 Distinguished by Gorell Barnes J. Twist v. Tye [1902] P. 92 Bourne, In re. Bourne v. Bourne, [1906] 1 Ch. 113. Affirmed by C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 427 Bourne, In re. Bavey v. Bourne, [1906] W. N. 68 Affirmed by C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 697 Bov/rne v. Marylelone Corpoo'otion, [1908] W. N. 52. Reversed by C. A. [1909] W. N. 14 Bourne v. Swan ^ Edgar, Ld. [1902] W. N. 214 Referred to by FarweU J. Todd v. North Eastern By. Co. [1903] W. N. 9 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 30 y CCOXXXTIU TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEREULED, &C., Bouverie, In t/ie 2'etition, of, (1862) 2 Sw. & Tr. 548. See Sackville-'West v. Att.-Gbn. Bigham, Pres. [1909] W. N. 220 SoiVY.SaH - - [190i] 2 K. B. 693 Eeversed by C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 592 JBowden's [E. 31) Patetit Syndicate, LA. v. Herlert Smith S,- Co., [190i] W. N. 106 ; [190i] 2 Ch. 86. Affifmed by C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 122 Bower t. Smith - (1871) L. R. 11 Eq. 279 Referred to by Kekewich .J. In re O'COKNBLL [1903] 2 Ch. 674 Commented upon by Eve J. Tebmayne V. Eashlbigh [1908] 1 Ch. 681 Boioes V. Bute {Marg/uis of), (1879) 27 W. E. 750. See Hills v. Archer Farwell J. [1904] W. N. 113 Bowes V. Hope Life Insurance and Guarantee Co., (1865) 11 H. L. C. 389, 402. Eeferred to by Buckley J. In re Crigglbstonb Coal Co. [1906] W. N. 120 ; C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 327 BowUy, In re [1904] 2 Ch. 685, 712 Referred to by Eve J. In re ABRA- HAMS [1910] W. N. 237 Bowles, In re - - [1905] 1 Ch. 371 Followed by 0. A. In re Da VIES AJTD Kent's Contract [1910] 2 Ch. 36 Bowles T. Baker - [1910] W. N. 24 Affirmed by C. A. - [1910] 2 E. B. 636 Bowman, In re (1889) 41 Ch. D. 525, 531 The third rule in, dissented from by Cozens-Hardy J. HARRISON v. HARRI- SON [1901] 2 Ch. 136 Dissented from by C. A. Inderwick 77. Tatchbll [1901] 2 Ch. 738 Bowman v. Hyland (1878) 8 Ch. D. 588 Discussed and explained by C. A. In re Jackson and Haydon's Contract [1906] 1 Ch. 412 Bowm-er, In re - ■ (1859) 3 De G. & J. 658 Eeferred to by C.A. In re A. [1904] 2 Ch. 218, 336 Bown, In re - (1884) 27 Ch. D. 411 Referred to by Buckley J. In re Banks. Reynolds v. Ellis - [1902] 2 Ch. 333 Boxsius V. GoUet Freres [1894] 1 Q. B. 842 Followed by C. A. Bdmundson v. Birch & Co. ksti Hoener [1907] 1 K. B. 371 Boyce.Inre - (1864) 4 D. J. & S. 205, 209 Eeferred to by C. A. In re A. [1904] 2 Ch. 327, 337 Boyo» T. EdbrooUe - [1903] 1 Ch. 836 Followed by Warrington J. ELLIS v. Kbeb - [1910] 1 Ch. 629 Boyce t. Paddington Borough Council, [1903] 2 Ch. 556. Reversed by H. L. (E.) suh nam. Paddington Corporation v. Att.- Gen. [1906] A. C. 1 Boyd V. Boyd (1867) L. E. i Eq. 305 Considered by C. A. In re Scott [1902] W. N. 206 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 1 Boyle {or Walsh) v. Wilson - (1905) 7 F. 1009 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1907] A. C. 45 Boyse v. Rossiorough (1856) 6 H. L. C. 2 Approved by P. C. Baddains «. Richardson - [190B] A. C. 169 Bozson V. Altrincham JJrlan Covmcil, [1903] 1 K. B. 547. See In re MarCHANT. C. A. [1908] 1 E. B. 998 Bracken, Inre - ■ [1903] 1 Ch. 265 Distinguished by Joyce J. In re Beothbrton's Estate [1907] W. N. 230 ; 0. A. [1908] W. N. 56 Bradford v. Bastiourne Corporation, [1896] 2 Q. B. 205. Approved of by C. A. Thompson ». EccLES Corporation. Haedickb v. Friern Barnbt Urban Council [1904] W. N. 189 ; [1905] 1 E. B. 110 Bradford and District Tramway Co., Ex parte, [1893] 3 Ch. 463. Considered by Neville J. In re ToE- rington and Okehampton Railway Bill, 1895 [1907] 1 Ch. 186 Bradlaugh v. Newdegate - (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 1 Followed by Div. Ct. Holdbn v. Thompson - [1907] 2 K. B. 489 Bradlaugh v. Reg. - (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 607 See Rex r. Bareaclotjgh. C. C. K. [1906] 1E.B. 201 Bradley v.Carritt - [1903] A. C. 253 Referred to by Joyce J. Moegak v. Jbffeeys [1910] 1 Ch. 620 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. Beitish South Africa Co. r. De Beebs Consolidated Mines, Ld. C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 602 Bradsliaw, In re - [1902] 1 Ch. 436 Not followed by Farwell J. In re Olivee's Settlement [1904] W. N. 194 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 191 Not followed by Warrington J. In re Bealb's Settlement [1905] 1 Ch. 256 Not followed by Buckley J. In re Weight [1906] 2 Ch. 288 Overruled by C. A. i« re Nash [1910] 1 Ch. 1 Bradshaw v. Jachman, (1887) 21 L. R. Ir. 12. Principle in, followed by Byrne J. In re Claeke [1901] 2 Ch. 110 BradslMzv v. WiddHngton [1901] W. N. 148 Affirmed by C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 430 Discussed by C. A. In re Lacby [1907] 1 Ch. 330 Brandt's ( Wm^ Sons 4' Co. v. Bunlop Rubber Co., [1904] 1 K. B. 387. Reversed by H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 454 Brangan v. Gorges - (1844) 7 Ir. Eq. 221, 225 Followed by Eve J. PoMEEY r. POMBEY [1909] W. N. 168 DUEINa THE YEAES 1901—1910. Sranhelow Steamship Co. v. Ccmton Insuratice Office, [1899] 2 Q. B. 178. Affirmed by H. L. (B.) sub nom. Williams & Co. and The Beankb- Low Steamship Co. v. Canton Insue- ANCB Office, Ld. [1901] A. C. 462 Srankelow Steamship Co. v. Lamport cund Holt, [1907] 1 K. B. 787. Approved of by 0. A. Nblsos & Sons, Ld. ■». Nelson Line. (Liver- pool), Ld. In re The Same [1907] 2 K. B. 706 Brass v. MaitlanA - (1856) 6 E. &; B. 470 Discussed by C. A. Bamfield v. GrOOLB AND SHEFFIELD TEANSPOBT Co. [1910] 2 K. B. 94 Bray v. Ford - - - - [1896] A. C. 44 Discussed by C. A. Hamilton i-. Seal [1904] 2 K. B. 262, 263 Brazien- v. Glasspool - [1901] W. N. 237 Affirmed by C. A. [1902] W. N. 162 Breckenridge's Case (1865) 2 H. & M. 642 Applied by 0. A. In re Sussex Brick Co. - [1904] 1 Ch. 698 Breeoh-loading ArmAxry Co., In re, (1867) L. E. 4 Eq. 453. See In re WALKER - Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 104 Brennan v. Limerich Guardians, (1878) 2 L. E. Ir. 42. Considered by Div. Ct. TozBLAND v. West Ham Union [1906] 1 K. B. 638 FoUovred by C. A. Tozeland v. West Ham Union [1907] 1 K. B. 920 Brereton v. Tuoliey (1858) 8 Ir. C. L. Eep. 190 Followed by Farwell J. Muller v. Trapfoed [1901] 1 Ch. 64 BreU V. Sogers - - - [1897] 1 Q. B. 525 Eeferred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re Waeeinbe [1903] 2 Ch. 367 Brewer v. Dew - ■ (1843) 11 M. & W. 625 Eeferred to by 0. A. EosE v. Bxjckett [1901] 2 K. B. 449 Brewer and Hanhins^s Contract, In re. (1899) 80 L. T. (N.S.) 127. Distinguished by C. A. In re Puckett AND Smith's Contract [1902] 2 Ch. 258 Briant v. Bennell - (1859) 4 Drew. 550 See Catteeson v. Clark Kekewieh J. [1906] W. N. 173 Brice v. Edioard Lloyd, Ld., [1909] 2 K. B. 804. Eeferred to by C. A. Barnes v. Nunnery Colliery Co. [1910] W. N. 248 Bridges v. Potts - (1864) 17 C. B. (N.S.) 314 Followed by Div. Ct. SoAmes v. Nicholson - [1902] 1 K. B. 167, 169 Bridgewater Navigation Co., In re, [1891] 1 Ch. 155 ; C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 317. . Considered and distinguished by C. A. In re Ceichton's Oil Co. [1902] 2 Ch. 86 Bridgman v. Daw - (1891) 40 W. E. 253 Eeferred to by Farwell J. Dodson v. Downey - [1901] 2 Ch. 620 Bridgman v. Oj-een - (1755) 2 Ves. Sen. 627 Eeferred to by P. C. Turnbull & Co. V. Duval - [1902] A. C. 429, 436 " Brigella," The - [1893] P. 189 Disapproved of by C. A. Montgomery & Go. r. Indemnity Mutual Marine Go. [1902] 1 K. B. 734 Bright v. Campbell ■ (1880) 41 Ch. D. 388 Discussed and distinguished by War- rington J. Wei&ley v. Gill [1906] 1 Ch. 241 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 148 Distinguished by C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 166 Bright v. Waller, (1834) 1 C. M. & E. 211 ; 40 E. E. 536 ; Preface, vi. Eeferred to by Joyce J. Dampee v. Bassbtt [1901] 2 Ch. 350, 364 Bright-Smith, In re (1886) 31 Ch. D. 314 See In re Steel Swinfen Eady J. [1902] W. N. 202 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 135, 136 Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Co., In re, [1897] W. N. 12. Followed by Neville J. In re Silbbe- hutte Supply Co. [1910] W. N. 81 Brinchman v. Matley ■ [1904] 2 Gh. 313 Eeferred to by Parker J. Lord Fitz- Hardinge v. Puecell [1908] 2 Ch. 139, 163 Brintons, Ld. v. Turvey ■ [1905] A. C. 230 Discussed by C. A. Beodeeick v. London County Council [1908] 2 K. B. 807 Explained by C. A. Eke v. Haet- Dykb - [1910]2K. B. 677 Bristol Gas Co. and the Bristol Iramways and Carriage Co., In re, [1909] 2 E. B. 297 Partly affirmed and partly dissented from by G. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 114 Bristowe v. Needham - (1847) 2 Pli. 190 Distinguished by G. A. In re DUNN [1904] 1 Ch. 648 Britain v. Hossiter (1879) 11 Q. B. D. 123 Dicta in, approved of and followed by Div. Ct. Smith v. Gold Coast and ASHANTi Explorers, Ld. [1903] 1 K. B. 286 Briiamnic Merthyr Coal Co. v. David, [1909] 2 K. B. 146. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 74 British and American Trustee and Finance Cor- pm-ationy. Couper, [1894] A. C. 399,414. Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re Development Company of Cen- tral AND West Afeica [1902] 1 Ch. 547 Referred to by C. A. Belleeby v. EOWLAND and MARWOOD'S STEAM- SHIP Co. [1902] 2 Ch. 14 ccoxl TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c.. Srttish and American Trustee and Finance Cor- poration V. Couper, [1894] A. 0. 399, 414. Referred to by C. A. In re CREDIT ASSTJEANCB K&Vl G0AEANTEB COE- POEATION, Ld. [1902] a Ch. 601 Distinguished by Buckley J. In re Auglo-Febnoh Explosation Co. [1902] 2 Ch. 845 Applied by Eve J. In re JEWISH Colonial Teust (Jubdische Colo- NIALBANK), Ld. ■ [1908] 2 Ch. 287 British Asbestos Co. v. Boyd [1903] 2 Ch. 439 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. Bos- CHOBK PEOPEIBTAEY Co. V. FUKE [1906] 1 Ch. 148 British Motor Car Syndicate, Ld. v. Taylor S; Son, [1900] 1 Ch. 577. Affirmed by C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 122 British Mutual Investment Co. v. Smart, (1875) L. E. 10 Ch. 567. Examined and applied by 0. A. In re Atkinson [1908] 2 Ch. 307 British Power Traction and Lighting Co., In re, [1906] 1 Ch. 497 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 528. See In re Beitish Powee Teaction AND Lighting Co. - Swinfen Eady, J. [1910] W. N. 194 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 470 British South Africa Co. r. Be Beers Consoli- dated Mines, Ld. [1910] 1 Ch. 354. Affirmed by C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 502 BrUtlelanh t. Goodwin (1868) L. E. 5 Eq. 550 Eeferred to by Kekewioh J. Mackat t'. Gould - [1905] W. N. 169 Broad, In re - - [1901] 2 Ch. 86 Not followed by Warrington J. In re Baenbtt - [1908] 1 Ch. 402 Broad t. Selfe - - (1863) 11 W. E. 1036 Discussed by C. A. Cakeitt ■». Bead- ley [1901] 2 K. B. 650, 558 Broad's Patent Night Light Co., In re, [1892] W. N. 5. See In re SAUL Moss & SONS, Ld. Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 142 Broch T. Bradley (1864) 33 BeaT. 670 See In re SeAELB Joyce J. [1905] W. N. 86 BrocMesty v. Temperance Permanent Building Society, [1895] A. C. 173, 182. See Xhuestan f. Nottingham Pee- MANENT Benefit Building Society C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 1, 14 Brochman, In re, [1909] W.N. 17 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 354. Eeversed by C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 170 Broderich v. London Courdy Council, [1908] 2 K. B. 807. Explained by C. A. Eke v. Haet- Dykb - [1910] 2 K. B. 677 Bromley v. Brunton - (1868) L. E. 6 Eq. 275 Eeferred to by Buckley J. In re Beaumont [1^02] 1 Ch. 884 Bromley Rural Council t. Croydon Corpm-ation, [1907] 2 K. B. 39. BeTersed by C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 353 BrooJi V. BrooJd - (1839) 1 Beav. 531 Referred to by Farwell J. In re Dick- inson's Teusts [1902] W. N. 100 BrooJi v. BrooJi (1861) 9 H. L. C. 193, 233 Eeferred to by Swinfen Eady J. Iii re BozzELLi's Settlement [1902] 1 Ch. 781, 753 BrooJi T. Emerson - (1906) 95 L. T. 821 Followed by C. A. In re Gentet, a Debtoe (No. 31 of 1909) - [1910] 1 K. B. 825 BrooJi V. MeltJiam Url)an Council, [1908] 2 K. B. 780. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 438 BrooJie v. Brooke - - (1881), 17 Ch. D. 833 Discussed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Davibs - [1909] W. N. 212 BrooJie and Fremliris Contract, In re, [1898] 1 Ch. 647. Followed by Farwell J. In re West AND HAEDY'S CONTEAOT [1904] 1 Ch. 145 BrooJiing v. Maudslay, Son ^- Field, (1888) 38 Ch. D. 636. Followed by Bucknill J. The "Manae" [1903] p. 95 BrooJis V. BrooJis' Trustees (1902) 4 F. 1014 See Huntly (Maechioness of) x. Gaskell H. 1. (Sc.) [1906] A. C. 56 BrooJtsbanJi v. SmitJi, (1836) 2 T. & C. Ex. 58 Explained by Hamilton J. Bakbe v. Courage & Co. [1910] 1 K. B. 56 Broome v. SipeaJi [1902] W. N. 96 Affirmed by C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 586 Decision of C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 586, 620 ; affirmed by H. L. (E.) sui nam. Shep- hbaed v. Become [1904] A. C. 342 Referred to in Hoole v. Speak Kekewich J. [1904] 2 Ch. 732 Observations of Collins, M. R., in, dis- cussed and explained by C. A. Nash V. Calthoepe [1905] 2 Ch. 237 Referred to by Warrington J. Shep- HBED r. Bray [1906] 2 Ch. 235 Broomjwld v. WilUams - - [1897] 1 Ch. 602 Applied by Kekewich J. PoLLAED «. Gaee [1901] 1 Ch. 834 Followed by Kekewich J. Quickb v. Chapman [1902] W. N. 163 : C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 659 Eeferred to by Joyce J. Mappin Beothees r. Liberty & Co. [1902] W. N. 209 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 118 Brotherton Estate, In re. BrotJwrton v. BrotJierton. In re MarJtJiam's SeUlement - [1907] W. N. 230 Appeal allowed by C. A. - [1908] W. N. 56 Brown, In re (1890) B9 L. J. (Ch.) 530 See In re Gaseleb [ 1901] 1 Ch. 923, 980 Brown, In re - (1867) L. E. 4 Eq. 464 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Cohen & Cohen [1905] 1 Ch. 345 ; C. A. [1905] 2 Ch. 137 DURING THE YEAfiS 1901—1910. ccoxli Srawn v. Adams - - (1869) L. E. 4 Oh. 764 Overruled by In. re Hallktt's Estate, (1880) 13 Ch. D. 696. See In re Oatwat. Joyce J. [1903] 2 Ch. 856 Brawn v. Boorman [1844] 11 CI. & F. 1 See Edwahds v. Mallam - C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 1002 Brown v. Braum (1864) 33 L. J. (P. & M.) 203 See Vallentine v. Vallentine [1901] P. 283 Brown v. BunstaMe Corporation, [1899] 2 Ch. 378, 388. Applied by C. A. East Baeket Valley Ubbait Council v. Stallaed [1909] 2 Ch. 666 Bromn v. Feeney - [1906] 1 K. B. 563 Applied by C. A. Mapwell v. Vis- cottnt Wolselet [1907] 1 K. B. 274 Brown v. FUher - (1890) 68 L. T. 465 Applied by Walton J. Wilson v. Bassil - [1903] P. 239 Brown v. Gellatly (1867) L. R. 2 Ch. 751 Principle of, applied by Kekewich J. In re Woods - [1904] 2 Ch. 4 Disoiissed by C. A. In re Davy [1908] 1 Ch. 61 Brown ^ Gregm-y, Ld., In re, [1904] 1 Ch. 627 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 448. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Rhodesia Goldfiblds, Ld. [1910] 1 Ch. 239 Brown v. Houston [1901] 2 K. B. 855 Inapplicable. In re Weight, Ceossley & Co. C. a. [1902] W. N. 64 Brown v. Perkms - (1843) 2 Hare, 540, 541 Applied by C. A. Bevan v. Webb C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 69 Brown's Trust, In re ■ (1855) 1 K. & J. 522 Explained and distinguished by C. A. In re MASON. Ogdkn v. Mason [1901] ICh. 619 ; H.I.(E.) [1903] A.C. 1 Brown ^ Ch-egory, Ld., In re, [1904] W. N. 55 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 627. Affirmed by C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 448 Browne, In re [1894] 3 Ch. 412 Discussed and applied by C. A. In re Spueling - [1909] 1 Ch. 199 Browne v. Sam/mond, (1858) Johns. 210, 212, n. Referred to by Eve J. In re Canney's Teusts - [1910] W. M-. 48 Browne v. La Trinidad - (1887) 37 Oh. D. 1 Referred to by Wright J. In re State of Wyoming Syndicate [1901] 2 Ch. 431, 436 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. Bos- CHOEK PeOPEIETAEY CO. V. FUKB [1906] 1 Ch. 148 Broumey.Ryan- - [1901] 2 I. R. 653 Referred to by C. A. Jaeeah Timbee AiroWooD Paving Coepoeation. Ld V. Samuel - [1903] 2 Ch. 1 Principle of, applied by H. L. (E.) Beadley v. Cabeitt [1903] A. C. 253 Browne v. Savage - (1859) 4 Drew. 635 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. Lloyd's Bank v. Peaeson - [1901] 1 Ch. 868 Referred to by C. A. In re Dallas [1904] 2 Ch. 385 Brownt v. Stmighton - - (1846) 14 Sim. 369 Followed by Warrington J. In re Eael of Stamfoed and Wareington [1910] W. N. 277 Browne v. Warner; (1807) 14 Ves. 156, 409 ; 9 R. R. 259. Followed by C. A. Zimblee v. Abba- hams - [1903] 1 K. B. 677 Browne's Policy, In re [1903] 1 Ch. 188 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Paekee's Policies [1906] 1 Ch. 636 Brownlie v. Campbell (1880) 5 App. Gas. 925 Applied by Joyce J. Sbddon r. Noeth Eastben Salt Co. - [1906] 1 Ch. 326 Bruce v. Aileshuvy {Marquess of), [1892] A. C. 356, 365. Referred to by C. A. In re Aldam's Settlement [1902] 2 Ch. 46 Bruce, In re. Lawford t. Bruce, [1908] W. N. 99 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 850. Reversed by C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 682 Bruce, Inre - - [1891] 2 Ch. 671 Principle of, applied by Buckley J. In re Salvin - [1906] 2 Ch. 459 BryoM V. Mansion (1857) 3 Jar. (N.S.) 473 Principle in, applied by Div. Ct. Att.- Gen. v. Bruce [1901] 2 K. B. 391, 397 Bryant v. Hancock 4- Co. - [1898] 1 Q. B. 716 Distinguished by Byrne J. Hollow AY Bbothees,Ld.i).Hill [1902] 2 Ch.612 Distinguished by C. A. Palethoepe V. Home Beeweey Co. [1906] 2K. B.6 Bryant v. Herbert (1878) 3 C. P. D. 389 See Bdwaeds r. Mallam - C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 1002 Bryamt v. Beading (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 128 Referred to by C. A. Haebottle v. Bobeets [1905] 1 K. B. 673 Bryant and Bwrningham's Contract, In re, (1890) 44 Ch. D. 218. Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re Bakee and Selmon's Contract [1907] 1 Ch. 238 Bryce, In re - - [1891] 2 Ch. 671 Applied by Buckley J. In re Salvin [1906] 2 Ch. 469 Bryce v. Ehrmann - [1904] 42 Sc. L. B. 23 Distinguished by Bray J. Weinbe v. Gill [1908] 2 K. B. 172 Bulb v. Padwick ■ - (1880) 13 Ch. D. 517 Not followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Gouldbe - [1906] 2 Ch. 100 Bubb V. Yelvertmi - (1870) L. R. 9 Eq. 471 Referred to by C. A. GooDSON v. Geieeson [1908] 1 K. B. 761 Biiccleuch (Duhe of). The - (1891) A. C. 310 Discussed by C. A. The " Corin- thian " [1909] P. 260 cooxlli TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c., Bncli-an (Earl of) v. Lord Adrocate, (1907) S. C. 849. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1909] A. C. 166 BucliUifs Trusts, In re (1883) 22 Ch. D. 583 Referred to by Buckley J. In re ScOTT [1902] 1 Ch. 918, 925 Buchs County Council and Herts County Cou/icii [1899] 1 Q. B. 51.5. Overruled on one point by H. L. (E.). Catebham Ubban Council r. God- stone RnEAL Council [1904] A. C. 171 Bucliwell Ji' Berkeley, In re [1902] W. N. 137 Reversed by C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 696 Principle of, not applicable. In re Geant, Bulceaig & Co. Farwell J. [1906] 1 Ch. 124 See In re Blaie & GlHLiNG C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 131 B^tdd's Case - (1861) 3 D. F. & J. 297 Discussed and explained by C. A. In re Discovbeees Finance Coepokation, Ld. Lindlae's Cabb [1910] 1 Ch. 812 Bulheley v. Stephens (1863) 3 Nevr Rep. 105 Dissented from by Warrington J. In re Chattoe [1906] 1 Ch. 233 Bulkeley v. Stephens [1896] 2 Ch. 241 Distinguished by Warrington J. In re Sir Robbet Peel's Settled Estates [1910] 1 Ch. 389 Bull V. Hvtchens (1863) 32 Beav. 615 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re HiGHBTT AND BlED'S CONTRACT [1902] 2 Ch. 214 Bullocli V. Downes (1860) 9 H. L. C. 1 Principle of, applied by C. A. In re Wilson. Wilson r. Batchbloe [1907] 2 Ch. 672 Rule of construction established by, considered by Neville J. In re Night- ingale - [1909] 1 Ch. 386 Bullock V. London General Omnibus Co., [1907] 1 K. B. 264. Followed by G. A. Compania San- SINENA DE CaENES CONQBLADAS I'. HouLDBE Brothers & Co. [1910] 2 K. B. 854 Bulwer Lytton's Will, In re, (1888) 38 Ch. D. 20. Principle of, adopted by Warrington J. In re Earl op Egmont's Settled Estates [1908] W. N. 176 Bumiey v. Poyntz (1833) 4 B. & Ad. 668 Is inconsistent with, if not expressly overruled by Gunn v. Bolckow, Vaughan 4- fo.,(1875)L.R. lOCh.491. See In re J. Depeies & Sons, Ld. Warrington J. [1909] 2 Ch. 423 Burchell v. Clarh - (1876) 2 C. P. D. 88 Applied by Parker J. Matthews v. Smallwood [1910] 1 Ch. 777 Burdiok v. Garriclt, (1870) L. R. 5 Ch. 233 Followed by Kekewich J. NOETH Ambeican Land and Timbee Co. v. Watkins - [1904] 1 Ch. 242 Buryess v. Booth, [1908] W. N. 83; [1908] 1 Ch. 880. Reversed by C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 648 Burland v. Broxburn Oil Co., (1889) 42 Ch. D. 274. Referred to by C. A. In re Fauldbe & Co.'s Teade-maek [1902] 1 Ch. 125 Burland v. Barle - [1902] A. G. 83, 93 Referred to by Kekewich J. Nor- mandy V. IND, GOOPB & Go. [1908] 1 Ch. 84 Burnand, In re. Mx parte Wilson, [1904] W. N. 73. Reversed by C. A. sub nom. In re BuENANB. Ex parte Bakbe, Sutton & Co. [1904] W. N. 77 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 68 Burnham v. Bennett (1845) 2 Coa 254 Considered and applied by Eve J. In re Illingworth - [1909] 2 Ch. 297 Bui-rell ^ Sons v. Bead, (1894) 11 Times L. R. 63. See Maeshall v. James [1906] ICh. 432 Burrowes v.Molloy, (1845) 2 J. & Lat. 521, 526 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. Williams r. Moegan [1906] 1 Ch. 804 Burrows v. Lang - - [1901] 2 Ch. 502 Distinguished by Eve J. Whitmoees (Edenbeidge), Ld. v. Stanpoed [1909] 1 Ch, 427 Burrows "v. Matabele Gold Reef s and Estates Co., [1901] 2 Ch. 23. Followed by C. A. Dextbe v. United Gold Coast Mining Peopeeties. Ld. [1901] W. N. 182 ; C. A. [1901] W. N. 167 In effect, overruled by H. L. (E.) HiLDBE V. Dextbe [1902] A. 0. 474 Burt, Boulton Jj* Hayward v. Bull, [1895] 1 Q. B. 276. Considered by C. A. Plumpton ;■. BuEKiNSHAW [1908] 2 K. B. 672 Burton, In re - [1887] W. N. 160 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re Slauohtee [1907] W. N. 197 Burton v. St. Giles' and St. George's Assessmeni Committee, [1900] 1 Q. B. 389. See Burton v. Bloomsbubt Vestby [1901] 1 K. B. 660 Button, In re. Ex parte Ilariside, [1907] 1 K. B. 397. Reversed by C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 180 Bury V. Famatbia Development Corporation, Ld., [1909] 1 Ch. 754. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Famatina Development Corpoea- tion, Ld. !'. BuET [1910] A. C. 439 Bushell, In the Goods of - [1887] 13 P. D. 7 Disapproved by Jeune, P. In the Goods of Sohott [1901] P. 190 Bushell V. Hammond - [1904] 2 K. B. 663 Distinguished by C. A. Smith v. Poetsmouth Justices [1906] 2 E. B. 229 DUEING THE YEAES 1901—1910. cocxliii Butler, In re - - - [1894] 3 Ch. 250 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re EOBBRTS [1902] 2 Ch. 834, 836 Butlei- {or Black) v. Mfe Coal Co., (1909) S. C. 152. Remitted to the Court below by H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 194 BuUerhnowle Colliery Co. v. Bishop AucMand Industrial Co-operative Co., [1906] A. C. 305, 318. Discussed by Swiufen Eady J. Makk- HAM V. Paget [1908] 1 Ch. 697 Distinguished by C. A. Buttkklby Co. V. New Huoknall Colliery Co. [1909] 1 Ch. 37 BuUerley Co. v. New Huclcnall Colliery Co., [1909] 1 Ch. 37. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) -• [1910] A. C. 381 Bwllfa and Mertkyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891J and Pontypridd Waterworks Co., In re, [1901] 2 K. B. 798. Reversed by C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 135 Decision of C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 135 reversed by H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. 426 Byng's Settled Estates, In re - [1892] 2 Ch. 219 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re CoTTLL's Settled Estates [1905] ICh. 712, 722 C. A. Van Eijck and Zoon v. Somermlle, (1905) 7 F. 739. . Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1908] A. C. 489 Cackett v. KemAak - [1901] W. N. 159 Affirmed by C. A. - [1902] 2 Ch. 466 See also Batey v. Keswick [1901] W. N. 167 Eeferred to by C. A. Watts v. Buck- NALL - - [1903] 1 Ch. 766 Referred to by C. A. Nash v. Cal- THOSPE [1905] 2 Ch. 237 Caddick v. Highton, (1899) 68 L. J. (Q.B.) 281 ; 80 L. T. 527 ; 47 W. E. 668 ; 15 I'lmes L. R. 182 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 476, n. Followed by Kekewich J. In re Red- man - [1901] 2 Ch. 471 Overruled on one point by C. A. In re Geifpin [1902] 1 Ch. 135 " Cadiz'' andthe '• Boyne," Tlie, (1876) 3 Asp. M. L. C. 332. See The " Cayo Bonito " Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 310 Cad/man v. Cadman (1886) 33 Ch. D. 397 Followed by "Warrington J. In re Hambhough's Estate [1909] 2 Ch. 620 €aine v. Palace Steam Shipping Co., [1907] 1 K. B. 670. Affirmed by C. A. [1907] A. C. 386 Caird V. Slme - - (1887) 12 A. C. 326 Discussed by C. A. Mansell ■». VALLEY Peinting Co. - [1908] 2 Ch. 441 Cairn Line of Steamships, Ld. v. Trinity House Corporation, [1907] 1 K. B. 604. Affirmed by C. A. - [1908] 1 K. B. 528 Gale V. James - [1897] 1 Q. B. 418 Followed by Piokford J. Cobbett v. Wood [1908] IK.B. 590 Caledonian By. Co. v. Carniichael, (1870) L. R. 2 H. L. (So.) 56. Distinguished by Buckley J. Flktoheb V. LANCASHIKE Al^D YOEKSHIKB EY. Co. - [1902] ICh. 901 Caledonian, My. Co. v. City of Glasgow Corpora- tion and Msiet, (1905) 7 F. 1020. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1907] A. C. 160 Caledonian By. Co. v. Bat-idson, (1899) 37 Sco. L. R. 150, 406. Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1903] A. C. 22 Caledonian By. Co. v. Glasgow (City of) Cor- poration, (1906) 8 F. 735 ; (1908) S. G. 244. Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1909] A. C. 138 Caledonian By . Co. v. Gree?iocJi and Wemyss Bay By. Co., (1874) L. R. 2 H. L., (Sc.) 347 Considered by C. A. Joseph Gbosfield & Sons, Ld. v. Manohestbe Ship Canal Co. [ 1904] 2 Ch. 123 Calgary and Edmonton Land Co., In re, [1906] 1 Ch. 141. . Not followed by Swinfen Bady J. In re Lees Beook Spinning Co. [1906] 2 Ch. 394 See also In re Anglo-Italian Bank, Ld. and Reduced Warrington J. [1906] W. N. 202 Not followed by Parker J. In re General Industrial Develop- ment Syndicate, Ld. [1907] W. N. 23 California Fig Syrup Co., In re, [1909] 2 Ch. 99. Reversed by C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 130 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Aktiebolaget B. a. F. HjorTh & Co.'s Trade Mark "Primus" [1910] 2 Ch. 64 Callander^. Smith - - (1900) 2 F. 1140 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) sui nom. Smith r. Callander - [1901] A. C. 297 CalUcott, In the Goods of [1899] P. 189 See In the Goods op Jackson Gorell Barnes J. [1902] W. N. 215 Approved and followed by Jeune Pros. In the Goods op Chapman [1903] P. 192 Callou) V. Totmg ■ (1886) 55 L. T. 544 Eeferred to by Warrington J. In re Launder [1908] W. N. 49 Cambrian Mining Co., In re, (1881) 20 Ch. D. 376 See In re WALKER Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 104 oooxliv TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &C., " Camellia," The (1883) 3 P. D. 27 Principle of, applied by Bucknill J. The "August Koepf" [1903] P. 166 Cameron v. Young - (1907) S. C. 475 AfBrmed by H. L. (So.) [1908] A. C. 176 " Campania:' The - [190] ] P. 289 See Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. ■V. Wateefoed Steamship Co. H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 66 Campbell t. Campbell (1887) 2 Myl. & K. 25 30. Referred to by Eve .1. Steeden r. Walden [1910] 2 Ch. 393 Campbell v. Holylard, (1877) 7 Ch. D. 166, 168 Order in, followed by Warrington J. In re Paebola, Ld. - [1909] 2 Ch. 437 Campbell v. Spottiswoode, (1863) 3 B. & S. 769 ; 32 L. J. (Q. B.) 185. Followed by C. A. Jotnt v. Cycle Teade Publishing Co. [1904] 2 K. B. 292 Discussed by G. A. Thomas v. Bbad- BUEY, AONEW & Co. [1906] 2 K. B. 627 Campbell's Case - (1873) L. R. 9 Ch. 1, 22 Followed by Eve J. Moseley (.] KorPYFONTBIN MINES, Ld. [1910] 2 Ch. 382 But this case was reversed by C. A. [1910] W. N. 231 Campden Charities, In re, (1881) 18 Ch. D. 310 Explained by C. A. In re Weie Hos- pital [1910] 2 Ch. 134 Campsill, In re (1910) 128 L. T. Jour. 548 Not followed by Parker J. In re Baeeance ■ [1910] 2 Ch. 419 Caimans. Abingdon {Earl of) [1900] 2 Q. B. 66 Considered by C. A. Simpsons. Teign- MOUTH AND ShALDON [1903] 1 K. B. 405 Cannon v. Johnson, (1870) L. R. 11 Eq. 90 See Hills r. Aeohee Farwell J. [1904] W. N. 113 Cannon v. ViUars - (1878) 8 Ch. D. 415, 420 Referred to by Kekewich J. Milnbe's Safe Co. r. Geeat Noethben & City Ry. Co. - [1906] W. N. 163 ; C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 208 Cant, In re - (1859) 8 W. R. 105 Referred to by Neville J. In re HoOD and In re WEST Ham Coepoeation Act, 1902 [1910] W. N. 80 Oanterbiiry Corporation v. Wyburn, [1895] A. C. 89, 96. Applied by Swinfeu Eady J. In re HOYLBS [1910] 2 Ch. 333 Cape Breton Co., In re, (1884) 26 Ch. D. 221, and (1885) 29 Ch. D. 795. Applied by Wright J. Ill re LADY FOEEEST (MUKCHISON) GoLD MINE, Ld. [1901] 1 Ch. 882 Approved by P. C. Bubland v. Eaele [1902] A. C. 83 Cajiel V. Buszard, (1829) 6 Bing. 150 ; 32 R. R. 361. See Peeeing & Co. v. Bmeeson Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 1 Capital Fire Insurance Association, In re, (1883) 24 Ch. D. 408. Referred to by NeviUe J. In re Rapid Road Teansit Co. [1909] 1 Ch. 96 Capital and CovMies Bank, Ld. v. Rliodes, [1902] W. N. 94. Reversed by C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 631 Cardiff Corporation v. Cardiff Waterworks Co., (1859) 5 Jur. (N. S.) 953 ; 4 De G. & J. 596. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. Maeeiott !'. East Geinstead Gas and Watee Co. [1909] 1 Ch. 70 Cardigan v. Curzon Howe, (1885) 30 Ch. D. 531 See Lady Caedigan c. Cuezon Howe [1901] 2 Ch. 479, 480 Cardigan v. Carzon-Howe (1888) 40 Ch. D. 338, 342. Explained and applied by Swinfeu Eady J. In re Dickin and Kelsall's CONTEACT [1908] 1 Ch.213 Cardigan v. Curzon-Sowe, (1889) 41 Ch. D. 375 Applied by Warrington J. In re SlE ROBBET Peel's Settled Estates [1910] 1 Ch. 389 Cardigan {Countess of) v. Curzon Howe, (1893) 9 Times L. R. 244. Followed by Buckley J. In re Paet- INGTON - [1902] 1 Ch. 711 Cargo ex the " Capella," (1867) L. R. 1 A. & E. 356. Followed by Gorell Barnes J. The " Due D'AUMALE " (No. 2) [1904] P. 60 Cargo ex tlw " Port Victor,'' [1901] W. N. 73 Affirmed by C. A. [1901] P. 243 Carisbrook Co. {SS.) v. London and ProvinciJil Marine and General Assiirance Co. [1901] 2 K. B. 861. Affirmed by C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 681 Carling's Case - (1875) 1 Ch. D. 115 Applicable. In re Inxes & Co. C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 254 Carlisle Rural Council v. Carlisle Corporation, [1909] 1 K. B. 471. Referred to by G. A. Rbigatb Rueal Council r. Sutton Disteict Watee Co. [1909] W.N. 28 Carmichael v. Evans - [1904] W. N. 28 ; [1904[ 1 Ch. 486. Order by consent C. A. [1904] W. N.47 Carmichael v. Qreenoch Harbour Trustees, (1908) S. C. 944. Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1910] A. C. 274 Carne v. Long - (1860) 2 D. F. & J. 75 Distinguished by Byrne J In re Claekb [1901] 2 Ch. 110 Carne's Settled Estates, In re [1899] 1 Ch. 324 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Baeoness Llanovee's Will [1902] 2 Ch. 679, 682; C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 16 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. cccxlv Caroli V. Hiixt (1883) 31 W. R. 839 See Cooper-Dean v. Badham Eve J. [1908] W. N. 100 Carr v. Anderson, [1902] W. N. 201 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 90. Affirmed by C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 279 Carr Sj Co. v. Bath Oas Light and Cohe Co., [1900] W. N. 265. See Dean and Chapter op Chester c. Smbltinu Corpoeation, Ld. Farwell J. [1901] W. K. 179 Carri7igtons, Ld. Y. Smith ■ [1906] 1 K. B. 79 Referred to by Coleridge J. Fibldings V. Pawson - [1907] W. N. 231 Car7-itt V. Bradley - - [1901] 2 K. B. 550 Reversed bv H. L (E.) sut nom. Bradley?;. Carritt [1903] A. C. 253 Distinguished by C. A. Jarrah Timber and Wood Paving Corporation, Ld. ■u. Samuel [1903] 2 Ch. 1 Carntt v. Godson [1899] 2 Q. B. 193 Referred to by C. A. Dickseb r. HOSKINS [1901] 2 K. B. 660 Carritt v. Beal and Pei'sonal Advance Co. (1889) 42 Ch. D. 263. Referred to by Farwell J. Rimmbr ■». Webster - [1902] 2 Ch. 163 Carter v. Carter - (1869) L. R. 8 Eq. 551 Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re Ellis's Settlement [1909] 1 Ch. 618 Carter v. Cartm- - - [1910] P. 10 AflBrmed by C. A. mb nom. King's Peoctor •». Carter - [1910] P. 161 Considered by Bigham, Pres. HOWB c. Howe and Howe [1910] W. N. SO Cartel- v. Roherts, [1903] W.N. 95 ; [1903] 2Ch. 312. See also Carter v. Roberts (No. 2) [1903] W. N. Ill Diatinguished by Warrington J. In re Launder [1908] W. N. 49 CaHivright, In re (1873) L. R. 16 Bq. 469 See In re HUDSON Kekewich J. [1904] W. N. 32 Cai-twriyld v. Cartivright (1853) 3 D. M. & G. 982 Distinguished by C. A. LILT, DuGHESS OF Marlborough v. Duke op Marl- borough [1901] 1 Ch. 166 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re Hope Johnstone [1904] 1 Ch. 470 Casborne v. Scarfe - (1737) 1 Atk. 603 Referred to by Kekewich J. Cope- stake V. HOPER [1907] 1 Ch. 366 Cash (J. and J.) Ld. y. Cash [1901] W. N. 46 Order varied by C. A. [1902] W.N. 32 Cassy.Butle,- - - [1900] 1 Q. B. 777 Overruled by H. L. (E.). Cooper & CEANB V. Wright [ 1902] A. C. 302 Cassaioglou v. Gibis - (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 220 ; (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 797. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc). Salvesen & Co. V. Nordstjernan [1906] A. C. 302 " Cassiopeia." The (1879) 4 P. D. 188 Discussed and explained by C. A. Jamaica Rt. Co. v. Colonial Bank [1905] 1 Ch. 677 Castell Si Brown, Ld., In re - [1898] 1 Ch. 315 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Valletort Sanitary Steam Laun- dry Co. [1903] 2 Ch. 664 Castellain v. Preston - (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 380 Principles laid down by Brett L.J. and Bowen L.J. in, applied by Pickford J. in ASSIOUEAZIONI GENEHALI DE TRIESTE V. Empress Assurance Coepohation, Ld. [1907] 2K. B. 814 Castle, In re - - (1887) 36 Ch. D. 194 See III re JOHNSTON Farwell J. [1903] 1 Ch, 132 Castrique, Ex parte (1864) 10 L. T. (N.S.) 757 See In re X. Y. C. A, [1902] 1 K. B. 98, 103 Castrique v. Behrens (1861) 80 L. J. (Q.B.) 163 Approved by C. A. Bater c. Bater [1906] P. 209 Caterham Urban Council v. Codstone Rural Council, [1904] A. C. 171. Referred to by Warrington J. HoLS- vroRTHT Urban Council v. Hols- worthy Rural Council [1907] 2 Ch. 62 Reasoning of, adopted and applied by H. L. (E.). West Hartlepool Corporation v. Durham County Council - [1907] A. C. 246 Cathcart, In re [1893] 1 Ch. 466 See In re CATHCART C. A. [1902] W.N. 80 Caton V. Caton - ■ (1866) L, R. 1 Ch. 137 Dictum in, considered by Kekewich J. Dickinson v. Bareow [1904] 2 Ch. 339 Catt V. Tourle - (1869) L. R. 4 Ch. 654 Followed by Backley J. Metropolitan Electric Supply Go. v. Ginder [1901] 2 Ch. 799 Form of order in, as stated in Seton on Judgments (6th ed.), vol. i., p. 534, not followed by Neville J. Courage & Co. ■u. Carpenter [1910] 1 Ch. 262 Catty. Wood - - [1908] 2 K. B. 458 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 404 Catton V. Banhs ■ [1893] 2 Gh. 221 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. In re VASE [1901] W. N. 124 Followed by Joyce J. Caeeoll c. Harrison [1910] W. N. 104 Caulfield v. J/aguire (1845) 2 J. & Lat. 141 Referred to by Byrne J. Honywood V. Honywood - - [1902] 1 Ch. 347 Cavalier v. Pope - - [1905] 2 K. B. 757 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 428 Followed by H. L. (Sc). Cameron v. Young - [1908] A. C. 176 dcoxlvi TABLE OF OASES FOLLOWED, OVERBULED, &c., Cave Y. Cave (1856) 8 D. M. & G. 131 Considered and applied by Eve J. In re Illin&worth [1909] 2 Ch. 297 Cavendish v. Cavendish - (1866) 15 W. R. 182 See GoEDON v. GoEDON C. A. [1904] P. 163, 168 Cawthm-ne v. Cordreij (1863) 13 C. B. (N. S.) 406 Dicta in, approTed of and followed by Div. Ct. Smith: v. Gold Coast and ASHANTI EXPLOEBBS, LD. [1903] 1 K. B. 885 " Cayo Bonito," The [1902] P. 216 Affirmed by C. A. [1903] P. 203 Cellular Clothing Co. v. Maxton and Murray, [1899] A. 0. 326, 346. Principles laid down by Lord Dayey in, applied to by Parker J. Beitish Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. New Vacuum Cleanee Co. [1907] 2 Ch. 312 '' Celtio King r The - [1894] P. 175 Discussed by C. A. LAW Guarantee AND Teust Society v. Russian Bank FOR Foreign Trade [1905] 1 K. B. 816 " Cetor The - (1889) 14 App. Cas. 670, 679 Followed by C. A. The " London " [1906] P. 162 " Challenge'' and ^^ Due d'Aumale," The, [1904] P. 41 Affirmed by G. A. [1906] P. 198 See The " Due d'Aumale " (No. 2) Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 60 Challis V. London and South Western My., [1905] 2 K. B. 154. Applied bv C. A. NiSBET v. Rayne & Burn " [1910] 2 K. B. 689 Challoner v. Rolinson - [1907] W. N. 199 Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 49 Chalmers t. Chalmei-s, (1893) 1 R. 504 ; 68 L. T. (N.S.) 28. Approved by C. A. Hubbard r. Hubbard [1901] P. 167 Chamherlain, E.r parte - (1880) 14 Ch. D. 323 Applied by Eve J. In re Harris [1909] W. N. 181 Chumlierlain v. Xapier, (18S0) 15 Ch. D. 614, 631 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. British South Africa Go. v. De Beers Con- solidated Mines, Ld. C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 502 Chamherlain, In the Goods of, (1867) L. R. 1 P. & M. 316. See Thorn v. Dickens Gorell Barnes (Pres.) [1906] W. N. 54 Chamierlain's Wharf, Id. v. Smith, [1900] 2 Ch. 605. Distinguished by C. A. HOWDEN v. Toekshiee Miners' Association [1903] 1 K. B. 308, 326 Chamherlayne t. Brochett, (1872) L. R. 8 Ch. 206, 211. Principle of, applied by G. A. In re Swain [1905] 1 Ch. 669 Referred to by Joyce J. In re Univee- siTY OF London Medical Sciences Institute Fund [1908] W. N. 182 ; C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 1 Chaiibhers V. Mngham (1878) 10 Ch. D. 748 Approved by C. A. Capital & Counties Bank, Ld. v. Rhodes [1903] 1 Ch. 631 Chamjnon, In re ■ - - [1893] 1 Ch. 101 Followed by Farwell J. In re Rayeb [1903] 1 Ch. 686 Cliampion, In re - [1906] P. 86 See In re Prior Ct. of Faculties [1908] W. N. 193 Champney v. Davy - (1879) 11 Ch. D. 949 Referred to by Kekewich J. De Quettevillb v. De Quettevillb [1905] -W. N. 85 ; C. A. [1905] W. N. 130 Chaneellm; In re ■ (1884) 26 Ch. D. 42 Followed by Eve J. In re Elfoed [1910] 1 Ch. 814 Chant, In re. Bird r. Godfrey, [1905] 2 Ch. 225. Commented on by C. A. In re Lacby [1907] 1 Ch. 330 Chapel Souse Colliery Co.. In re, (1883) 24 Ch. D. 259. Discussed by C. A. In re Ceiggle- STONE Coal Co. [1906] 2 Ch. 327 Chaplin, In the Matter of tlie Petition of, (1867) L. R. 1 P. & M. 328. Discussed by Gorell Barnes J. Evans V. Evans [1904] P. 274 Chapman, In re. Perldns v. Chapman, [1904] W. N". 52 ; [1904] 1 Oh. 431. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sui nom. Chapman v. Perkins [1906] A. C. 14 Chapman v. Michaelson [1908] 2 Ch. 612 Affirmed by C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 283 Chapman v. Snirthurst [1909] 1 K. B. 73 Reversed by C. A. - [1909] 1 K. B. 927 Charles v. Burlte ■ (1888) 43 Ch. D. 223, n. Principle of, applied by Buckley J. In re Salvin [1906] 2 Ch. 459 Charles v. Jones, (1886) 33 Ch. D. 80 ; (1887) 35 Ch. D. 544, 548. Discussed by Eve J. Heath r. Chinn [1908] W. N. 120 Charleswmth v. Watson [1905] 1 K. B. 74 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 14 Charlton v. Charlton - (1883) 31 W. R. 237 Referred to by Wright J. In re Dillon [1903] W. N. 49 Charrington J)- Co.,Ld.\. Camp, [1902] 1 Ch.386 Form of order in, discussed and modi- fied by C. A. Leney & Sons, Ld. o. Oallingham and Thompson [1908] 1 K. B. 79 Chartered Mercantile Banh of India v. Xether- lands India Steam Navigation Co., (188,3) 10 Q. B. D. 521, 540. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. British South Africa Co. v. De Beers Con- solidated Mines, Ld. C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 603 DURINa THE YEARS 1901—1910. cocxlvii Charterland Stores and Trading Co., In re [1900] 2 Ct. 870. Dissented from by Wairington J. In re African Fabms, Ld. [1906] 1 Ch. 640 Chaston, In re - (1881) 18 Gh. D. 218 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re GouLDEK - [190S] 2 Ch. 100 Chauncy v. Graydon ■ (1743) 2 Atk. 616, 619 Considered by C. A. In re Lewis [1904] 2 Ch. 656 Chawner v. Oummings - (1846) 8 Q. B. 311 Followed by C. A. Williams v. North's Navigation Collibsies (1889), Ld. [1904] 2 K. B. 44 Chaytm; In re - [1905] 1 Ch. 233 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re Wilson - [1907] 1 Ch. 394 Cherry v. Thompson (1872) L. R. 7 Q. B. 573 Followed by C. A. Holland r. Bennett - [1902] 1 K. B. 867, 869 Chesham (Lord), In re - (1886) 31 Ch. D. 466 Adopted by C. A. In re LoBD Chbs- ham's Settlement - [1909] 2 Ch. 329 Distinguished by Parker J. In re Paekek - [1910] 1 Ch. 581 Cheshire Lines Committee v. Lewis, (1880) 50 L. J. (Q.B.) 121. Considered by C. A. Zimblee v. Abhahams [1903] 1 K. B. 577 Cliester (Dean and Chapter of") t. Smelting Cm-- poration, [1901] W. N. 179. See also Chester (Dean and Chapter op) v. Smelting Coepoeation Farwell J. [1902] W. N. 5 Cltester Waterworks Co. v. Chester Union, (1907) 96 L. T. 566 ; (1908) 98 L. T. 701. Discussed and followed by Eve J. FEEDEEICK r. BOGNOE WATBE CO. [1909] 1 Ch. 149 Cliesterfield [Earl of) v. FountaiMe, [1908] 1 Ch. 243, n. See LoED Chesterfield v. Harris C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 397 Chesterfield (Lord) v. ffarris, [1908] 1 Ch. 230 Reversed by C. A. - [1908] 2 Ch. 397 Chesterfield's (Earl of) Trusts, In re, (1883) 24 Ch. D. 643. Discussed by Kekewich J. In re Woods [1904] 2 Ch. 4 Discussed by C. A. In re Davy [1908] 1 Ch. 61 Chetwynd v. Chetwynd, (1865) L. R. 1 P. & M. 39 Considered and applied by C. A. CoN- stantinidi v. Constantinidi [1905] P. 253 Chichester (Lord) y. Coventry, (1867) L. R. 2 H. L. 71, 92, 95. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Bltjndell [1906] 2 Oh. 822 Chidley v. West Ham Churchwa/rdens, (1874) 32 L. T. 486. Commented upon by C. A. Rbtnolds I . Ashbt & Son, Ld. [ 1903] 1 K. B. 87 Chilcott, In the Goods of ■ - [1897] P. 223 Distinguished by Gorell Barnes J. In THE Goods of Reade [1902] P. 75 Child V. Stenning [1879] 11 Ch. D. 82, 87 Referred to by C. A. Sanderson v. Blyth Theatre Co. [1903] 2 K. B. 533 Childers v. WooUer - - (1859) 2 E. & E. 287 Referred to by C. A. Sheffield Cor- poration V. Barclay [1903] 2 K. B. 680 Ching v. Surrey County Council, [1909] 2 K. B. 762. Affirmed by C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 736 Followed by C. A. Moeeis r. Cae- NAEVON County Council [1910] 1 K. B. 840 Chislett V. Macieth ^ Co. [1910] 2 K. B. 811 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) suh novi. Macbeth & Co. v. Chislett [1910] A. C. 280 Chivers S; Sons t. Chimrs 3,- Co., 17 R. P. C. 420 Referred to by Parker J. British Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. New Vacuum Cleaner Co. [1907] 2 Ch. 312 Christopher v. Croll - (1885) 16 Q. B. D. 66 Followed by Bigham J. In re Taylor [1909] 1 K. B. 103 Christy t. Tipper, [1904] W. N. 33 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 696. Affirmed by C. A. [1905] 1 Ch. 1 Chuch T. Cremer, (1846) 1 Coop. temp. Cott. 205 See Gordon v. Gordon C. A. [1904] P. 163, 171, 173 Church v. Brown, (1808) 15 Ves. 258, 265 ; 10 R. R. 74. Dictum of Lord Eldon in. Followed by Joyce J. Grove v. Portal [1908] 1 Ch. 727 Church Army, In re, [1906] W. N. 73 ; 94 L. T. 559. Followed by Joyce J. In re Wbslbyan Methodist Chapel in South Street, Wandsworth [1909] 1 Ch. 464 Church Army, In re. Att.-Gen. v. Church Army - - [1905] W. N. 127 Affirmed by C. A. [1906] W. N. 73 Church Patronage Trust, In re. f^aurie t. Att.- Gen., [1904] 1 Ch. 41. Affirmed by C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 643 Church's Trustee v. Montague, Hiihard ^^- Co., [1902] W. N. 160. Reversed by C. A. sub nom. Church's Trustee v. Hibbaed [1902] W. N. 192 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 784 Churchyard v. Johnson - (1889) 54 J. P. 326 See Boyd, Ld. <■. Bilham - Channell J. [1908] W. N. 806 City and County Bank, In re, (1875) L. R. 10 Ch. 470. See In re London and Peovincial PuEB Ice Manufacturing Co. Buckley J. [1904] W. N. 136 cccxlviii TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c., City a/nd South London Ry. Co. v. United Parishes of St. Mary Woolnoth and St. Mary Woolohurch Haw, [1903] 2 K. B. 728. Aflarmed by H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 1 City of London Brewery Co. t. Inland Revenue Commrs., [1898] 1 Q. B. 408 ; [1899] 1 Q. B. 121. Referred to by Channell J. Mount Lyell Mining and Ry. Co. v. Inland Revenue Commes. [1904] 1 K. B. 757, 761 ; C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 161 City of London Brewery Co. v. Tennant, (1878) L. R. 9 Ch. 212. Discussed by C. A. Kine ■!). JoLLT [1906] 1 Ch. 480 City of London Electric liighting Co. v. London Corporation, [1900] W. N". 116. Reversed by G. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 602 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. 434 " City of Manchester;' The - (1880) 5 P. D. 221 Followed by G. A. Poebes-Smith r. Forbes-Smith [1901] P. 268 Civil Service Co-operative Society v. General Steam Navigation Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 756. Followed by C. A. KlNO & Co. v- GiLLAED & Co. [1906] 8 Ch. 7 Clare v. Joseph - [1906] 2 K. B. 592 Reversed by G. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 369 Followed by 0. A. G-undet v. Sains- BUEY - [1910] 1 K. B. 646 Claridge v. South Staffordshire Tramway Co., [1892] 1 Q. B. 422. Overruled by G. A. The " Winkpield " [1902] P. 42 Clarh, In re - (1885) 31 Ch. D. 72 Explained and distinguished by Swinf en Eady J. APLIN v. Stone [1904] 1 Ch. 643 Clai'h, In re [1908] 1 Ch. 615 See III re Lynn and Fakenham Rail- way (Extension) Act, 1880 Parker J. [1909] Mf. N. 24 Clarh, In re [1898] 1 Q. B. 20 See In re Hallman Phillimore J. [1909] 2 K, B. 430 Clarh V. Adie - (1877) 2 App. Gas. 315, 321 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. SiKDAK Rubbee Go. v. Wallington, Weston & Go. [1905] 1 Ch. 461 Clark V. Syson - (1882) 26 S. J. 731 Referred to by Gorell Barnes J. Ayees V. Ayees [1901] W. N. 204 Clarh V. Sonnenschein, (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 226, 464. Referred to by C. A. Wynnb-Finch w. Chaytok - [1903] 2 Ch. 475 Clarh V. Taylor - ■ (1853) 1 Drew. 642 Referred to by Buckley J. In re Davis [1902] 1 Ch. 876 Clarh's Trust, In re - (1875) 1 Oh. D. 497 Distinguished by Byrne J. In re Clarke [1901] 2 Ch. 110 Clarhe, Bx parte (1892) 67 L. T. 232 Definition of " inadvertence " given in, adopted by G. A. In re Safety Explo- sives, Ld. [1904] 1 Ch. 226 Clarhe^r.' Colls - (1861) 9 H. L. C. 601, 612 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Smith's Settlement [1903] 1 Ch. 373 Clarhe v. Oroioder (1869) L. R. 4 G. P. 638 See Stowe r. Benstead Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 416 Clarhe v. Cuohfield Union, (1852) 21 L. J. (Q.B.) 349. Approved by C. A. Lawpoed t . BlL- leeicat Rueal Council [1903] 1 K. B. 772 Followed by Ridley J. Bourne u. Maeylebone Coepoeation [1908] W. N. 52 Clarhe v. Franhlin (1858) 4 K. & J. 257 Distinguished by C. A. In re Lord Geimthoepe [1908] 8 Ch. 676 Clarhe v. Hayne (1889) 42 Ch. D. 529 Followed by Byrne J. In re Pieeson's Settlement - [1903] W. N. 100 Clarlie v. London and County Banhing Co., [1897] 1 Q. B. 552. Referred to by H. L. (E.). Geeat Westeen Ry. Go. v. London and County Banking Co. [1901] A. C. 414, 425 Clarhe v. Millwall Boch Co., (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 494. Referred to by G. A. Ghalloner r. Robinson [1908] 1 Ch. 49 Clarhe v. Thornton (1887) 35 Oh. D. 307 Distinguished by Buckley J. In re Partington [1902] 1 Ch. 711 Clarhe's Settlement, In re [1902] 2 Gh. 327 Approved by C. A. In re Blageave's Settled Estates - [1903] 1 Ch. 560 Clayton v. Corhy (1843) 5 Q. B. 415 Principle of, applied by C. A. LoED Chesteefield v. Haeeis [1908] 2 Ch. 397 Clayton v. lllingworth - (1853) 10 Hare, 451 Considered by Byrne J. Lbube r. Kofflee [1901] 1 Ch. 643 Clayton ^ Barclay's Contract, In re, [1895] 2 Ch. 212. Referred to by Kekewich J. London AND County Conteacts, Ld. v. Tallaok - [1903] W. N. 8 Discussed by Neville J. Official Receivee r. Cooke [1906] 2 Ch. 661 Clayton's Case (1816) 1 Mer. 572 Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. Ascherson v. Teedegae Dey Dock AND Wharf Co. [1909] 2 Ch. 401 Discussed by C. A. Deeley v. Lloyds Bank . [1910] 1 Ch. 648 DUKING THE YEAKS 1901—1910 cccxlix Claytor v. Clarhc Referred to Walden (1861) 7 Jur. (N.S.) 562 by Eve J. Stbbdbn ii. [1910] 2 Ch. 393 Clegg v. Bands (1890) 44 Ch. D. 503 Followed by FarweU J. Mauchesteb Brewbet Co. c. Coombs [1901] 2 Ch. 608 Clegg. Parkinson Ji- Co. v. Earhy Gas Co., [1896] 1 Q. B. 592. Distinguished by Ridley J. Bourne r. Martlbbone Corporation [1908] W. N. 62 Clegg t. Rowland - (1866) L. R. 2 Eq. 160 Opinion of Kindersley Y.-C. in, followed by Joyce J. In re Baskervillb [1910] 2 Ch. 329 Clement t. Cheesman (1884) 27 Ch. D. 631 Referred to by Bucliley J. In re Bbatjmont [1902] 1 Ch. 889 Clement S; Cie.'s Trade-marlt, In re, [1900] 1 Ch- 114. Approved of and distinguished by C. A. In re Fatildbr & Co.'s Trade Mark [1902] 1 Ch. 125 Clements, In re - - [1901] 1 K. B. 260, 263 Referred to by C. A. In re Baglbt [1910] W. N. 224 Clemoio, In re - [1900] 2 Ch. 182 Inapplicable. In re Sharman Kekewioh J. [1901] 2 Ch. 280 Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re Feaensidbs [1903] 1 Ch. 250 " Cleopatra," The (1878) 3 P. D. 145, 150 See The " Hohbnzollern " Bargrave Deane J. [1906] P. 839 Clephane v. Lord Provost of Edinburgh, (1869) L. R. 1 H. L. (Sc.) 417, 421. ' Referred to by Eve J. In re Queen's School, Chester [1910] 1 Ch. 796 Clergite, Hx parte - - [1903] A. C. 521 Followed by P. C. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. f. Blain [1904] A. C. 453 Clergue v. Murray - [1903] A. C. 521 Followed by P. C. Victoria Rail- way Commissioners v. Brown [1906] A. C. 381 Clergy Orphan Corporation, In re, [1894] 3 Ch. 145. Referred to by C. A. In re CHURCH Army [1906] W. N. 73 Explained and distinguished by C. A. Attoeney-Gbnbral v. Mathibson [1907] 2 Ch. 386 Followed by Neville J. In re Society FOR Training Teachers op the Deaf and Whittle's Contract [1907] 2 Ch. 483 Followed by Joyce J. In re Wbsleyan Methodist Chapel in South Street, "Wandsworth [1909] 1 Ch. 454 Clergy Society, In re - (1856) 2 K. & J. 615 Referred to by BucHey J. In re Davis [1902] 1 Ch. 876 Clerical, Medical and General lAfe Assuramce Society v. CaHer, (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 444. Referred to by Ct. of Sess. (Sc). Scot- tish Widows' Fund AND Life Assur- ance Society v. Allan, (1900) 3 Fraser, 129. See [1901] W. N. 188, 188 Clerhemoell Vestry v. Edmondson ^ Son, [1901] 1 K. B. 264. Affirmed by C. A. - [1902] 1 K. B. 336 Cleve V. Financial Corporation (1873) L. R, 16 Bq. 363. Approved by C. A. Thomson v. Henderson's Transvaal Estates, Ld. [1908] 1 Ch. 766 Cleveland's (Buke of) Settled Estates, In re [1893] 3Ch. 249. JKeferred to by Farwell J. In re Gos- Selin [1906] 1 Ch. 120 Clifford V. Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Co., [1908] 1 Q. B. 314.' See Handley v. London, Edinburgh AND Glasgow Assurance Co. [1902] 1 K. B. 360 Clifford Y. Timms ■ - [1907] 1 Ch. 420 Decision of C. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 236, affirmed by H. L. (E.), sui nom. Clifford v. Timms. Clifford v. Phillips [1908] A. C. 12—15 Clifton V. Ridsdale, (1876) 1 P. D. 316 ; (1877) 2 P. D. 276. See In re St. Ansblm's, Pinner [1901] P. 202 Clinton {Pelhani) v. Newcastle {Duke of), [1902] 1 Ch. 34. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. Ill Clinton's Trust, In re - (1872) L. R. 13 Eq. 295 Discussed by Kekewich J. In re Bland's Settlement [1906] 1 Ch. 4 Clippens Oil Co. v. Edimburgh amd District Water Trustees, (1900) 3 F. 156. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1904] A. C. 64 Clippens Oil Co. v. Edinburgh and District Water Trustees, (1906) 8 F. 731. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1907] A. C. 291 Clitheroe Estate, In re - (1885)31 Ch. D. 135 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re BARONESS Llanovbr [1907] 1 Ch. 635 aissold V. Cratchley - [19101 1 K. B. 374 Reversed by C. A. - [1910] 2 K. B. 244 aoutte V. Storey [1910] W. N. 163 Affirmed by G. A. [1910] W. N. 250 Clmer, Clayton S,' Co., Ld. v. Hughes, C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 798. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 242 Clutton V. AUenborough 4- Sons [1907] A. C. 90 Distinguished by Warrington J. ViNDEN V. Hughes [1905] 1 K. B. 795 Clydebank Engineering and Shipbiiilding Co. v. Don Jose Ramos Tzquierdo y Castaneda, (1903) 5 F. 1016 ; sequel to [1902] A. C. 524. Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1905] A. C. 6 cccl TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &C., CoarA t. HoUerness - (1855) 20 Beav. 147 Distinguished by Buckley J. Kieby- Smith v. Parnbll [1903] 1 Ch. 483 Coats V. Chadwick - - [1894] 1 Ch. 347 Not followed by Cozens-Hardy J. In re New Gold Coast Exploeation Go. [1901] 1 Ch. 860 Coats {or Coates) v. Clarence Ry. Co., (1830) 1 Russ. & My. 181 ; 32 R. R. 183 ; Pre- face V. Followed by Farwell J. Robbets v. Chaeing Ceoss, Euston and Hamp- STEAD Ry. Co. - [1903] W. N. 13 Coil T. CoU ■ [1900] P. 145 Referred to by Div. Ct. (P.). Baekek r, Baekbe [1905] W. N. 70 CoUett V. Wood- ■ [1908] 1 K. B. 590 Reversed by C. A, [1908] 2 K. B. 420 Cohurg Hotel n. London County Council, (1889) 81 L. T. 450 Referred to by Div. Gt. London County Council v. Schewzik [1905] 2 K. B. 695, 698, 701 Cochrane v. Mtiioistle ■ (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 116 Distinguished by C. A. SwANLEY Coal Co. v. Denton [1906] 2 K. B. 873 Cock, In re - - (1887) 20 Q. B. D. 343 Followed by C. A. In re Bakee [1901] 2 K. B. 628 CocUurn r. Edwards (1881) 18 Ch. D. 449 Discussed and distinguished by War- rington J. Weioley f. Gill [1905] 1 Ch. 241 Dictum of Cotton L.J. in, preferred to that of Jessel M.R. in the same case, 18 Ch. D. 456. See Weigley r. Gill C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 166 CocUurn of Lanqton's Case, (1747) Mor. Diet. 150 ; (1755) H. L. 1 Pat. App. 603. Commented on by H. L. (Sc). Wed- DERBUEN v. Lauderdale (Eael of) [1910] A. C. 348 Coclde T. Joyce (1877) 7 Ch. 56 See ASHTON r. Emanuel Farwell J. [1902] W. N. 231 Cools T. Manners (1871) L. R. 12 Eq. 574 Principle in, followed. In re Clarke Byrne J. [1901] 2 Ch. 110 Followed by FarwellJ. J« re Del Any [1902] 2 Ch. 642 Referred to by Joyce J. In re Swain [1908] W. N. 209 Cochs V. Masterman (1829), 9 B. & C. 902; 33 R. R. 356. Inapplicable. Impeeial Bank of Canada c Bank op Hamilton P. C. [1903] A. C. 49 Cocksedge v. Coclisedge - (1844) 14 Sim. 244 Distinguished by C. A. Lily, Duohess OP Maelboeough t. Duke of Marl- borough [1901] 1 Ch. 165 Codd V. Delap - - [1906] W. N. 57 Affirmed by C. A. [1906] W. N. 78 Coey V. Pascoe - (1899) 1 I. R. 125 Followed by Farwell J. Muller v. Teapfobd [1901] 1 Ch. 64 Coffin V. Cooper - (186.5) 2 Dr. & Sm. 365, 373 Referred to by C. A. In re A. [1904] 2 Ch. 328, 330 Referred to by Farwell, J. In re Rose [1904] 2 Ch. 348, 352 Cohen v. Bayley-Worthington, [1908] A. C. 97 See In re Baylby-Worthington AND Cohen's Contract Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. 648 Colien V. Mitchell - (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 262 Referred to by Kekewich J. London AND County Contracts, Ld. v. Tallack - [1903] W. N. 8 Discussed by Neville J. Official Recbivbe v. Cooke [1906] 2 Ch. 661 Applied by Bigham J. In re Bennett [1907] 1 K. B. 149 Doctrine of, applied by Neville J. In re Kent County Gas Light antj Coke Go. [1909] 2 Ch. 195 Cohen k Cohen, In re [1905] 1 Ch. 345 Affirmed by G. A. [1905] 2 Ch. 137 Colchester {Mayor of) v. Broohe (1845), 7 Q. B. 339. SeeTHE " SwiPT " [1901] P. 168, 171 Coldrick v. Partridge, Jones 4' Co., [1909] 1 K. B. 530. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 77 Cole V. Jealous - (1845) 5 Hare, 51 See In re London United Tramways Act 1900 Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 1 Ch. 634 Cole V. Sewell, (1843) 4 D. & War. 1 ; on appeal, (1848) 2 H. L. G. 186. Followed by Farwell J. In re Friend's Settlement [1906] 1 Ch. 47 Cole V. Wade, (1807) 16 Ves. 27, 44 ; 10 R. R. 129, 13.5. Principle laid down in, dissented from by Farwell J. In re Smith [1904] 1 Ch. 139 Coleman, In re - (1888) 39 Ch. D. 443 Followed by C. A. In re Fitzgerald [1904] 1 Ch. 573 Coleridge's {Lord) Settleme/a, In re, [1895] 2 Ch. 704. Joyce J. See In re Duke of Cleve- land's Settled Estates [1902] 2 Ch. 350 Distinguished by Farwell J. In re Hunt's Settled Estates [1905] 2 Ch. 418 Coles V. Coles - [1901] 1 Ch. 711 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re Ellis's Settlement [1909] 1 Ch. 618 Referred to by Eve J. In re Plump- tre's Maekiagb Settlement [1910] 1 Ch. 609 DUEING THE YEARS 1901—1910. cccli Coles and Ravenshear, In, re [1907] 1 K. B. 1 Approved and distinguished by C. A. Baker «. Fabbr [1908] W. N. 9 Followed by C. A. In re A Dbbtoe (No. 692 of 1910) [1910] W. N. 224 Collen V. Wright, (1857) 7 E. & B. 301 ; 8 E. & B. 647. Followed by Kekewich J. Halbot p. Lbns [1901] 1 Ch. 344 Considered by H. L. (K.). Starkey v. Bank op England - [1903] A. C, 114 Distinguished by H. L. (Sc). Salvbsen & Co. r. NOBDSTJBRNAN [1905] A. C. 302 Followed by C. A. Tonge v. Toykbbb [1910] 1 K. B. 216 Collett V. London and X»rth Western By. Co., (1851) 16 Q. B. 984. Explained by P. C. EAST INDIAN Ry. Co. V. Kalidas Mukeejee ([1901] A. C. 396 Collier, In re - - (1891) 8 Morr. 80, 83 Followed by C. A. In re 0. C. S. [1904] 2K. B. 161 Collingham v. Sloper - - [1901] 1 Ch. 769 EeTersed by H. L. (B.) svib nom. Saea- GOSSA AKD MeDITBEBANEAN EY. Co. ■c. Collingham [1904] A. C. 169 Collingham v. Sloper, [1893] 2 Ch. 96 ; C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 716. See Collingham r. Slopbe C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 769, 770 Collingwood v. Stunhojie, (1869) L. R. 4 H. L. 43 Explained by C. A. Shuttlbwoeth v. Murray - [1901] 1 Ch. 819 Observed upon by H. L. (E.). LAW Union and Ceown Insueancb Co. v. Hill [1902] A. C. 263, 266 Collins, Ex parte - ■ [1902] 1 K. B. 555 Distinguished by Farwell J. HART v. POETHGAIN HARBOUE CO. [1903] A. C. 690 Collins, In re ■ - (1886) 32 Ch. D. 229 See In re Walkbe [1901] 1 Ch. 879, 885 Collins V. Collins (1884) 9 App. Gas. 205, 242 See Grant v. Grant H. I. (Sc.) [1905] A. C. 466, 467 Collins V. Mans - - (1844) 5 Q. B. 820 Referred to by C. A. Sheffield Coe- POEATION V. Baeclay [ 1903] 2 E. B. 680 Collins V. Lampmt - (1864) 34 L. J. (Ch.) 196 Applied by C. A. The " Heatheb Bell " [1901] P. 372 Collim V. LaimpoH - (1864) 4 D. J. & S. 500 Followed by C. A. Law Guarantee AND Teust Society v. Russian Bank FOE FOEBIGN Teade [1905] 1 K. B. 815 Collim Co. V. Brown (1857) 3 K. & J. 423 Followed by Farwell J. La Societe ANONYMB DBS Anciens Etablisse- mbnts Panhaed et Lbvassoe v. Pan- hard Levassor Motoe Co. [1901] 2 Ch. 513 Collinsm v. Collinson - (1857) 24 Beav. 269 Explained by Farwell J. In re Dowsett [1901] 1 Ch. 398 Collison V. Warren [1901] W. N. 65 Affirmed by C. A. [1901] W. N. 65; [1901] 1 Ch.-812 Colls y. Home and Colonial Stores, Ld., [1904] A. C. 179. See Abbott v. Holloway Buckley J. [1904] W. N. 124 Discussed by Bray J. Ambleb v. Gor- don [1905] 1 K. B. 417 Discussed by Farwell J. Higgins v. Bbtts [1905] 2 Ch. 210 Referred to by S winf en Eady J. Andes- son V. Francis [1906] W. N. 160 Principle laid down in, applied by H. L. (E.). Jolly v. Kinb [1907] A. C. 1 Discussed by H. L. (E.). Morgan v. Feae [1907] A C. 425 Applied by C. A. Ankbeson v. Connelly [1907] 1 Ch. 678 Explained by Neville J. Andeews r. Waits [1907] 2 Ch. 500 Referred to by C. A. Hyman v. Van den Bbeoh [1907] W. N. 250; [1908] 1 Ch. 259 Colman v. Great Eastern Ry. Co., (1882) 4 Ey. & Can. Cas. 108. Approved by C. A. Pickfobds, Ld. v. London and Noeth Western Et. Co. [1906] 1 K. B. 762 Colquhmm, In re- - (1864) 5 D. M. & G. 35 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. Moet- GAGE INSUEANCE COEPOEATION, LD. ■0. Canadian Ageicultueal, Coal AND Colonization Co. [1901] 2 Ch. 377, 379 Collyer v. Isaacs - (1881) 19 Ch. D. 342 Distinguished by C. A. In re Reis [1904] 2 K. B. 769 Columbian Fireproofing Co., In re, [1910] W. N. 95. Affirmed by C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 180 Colvin V. Mwberry, (1832) 1 CI. & F. 283 ; 33 R. R. 437. Distinguished by P. C. TuENEE v. Haji Goolam Mahomed Azam [1904] A. C. 826 Colvine v. Anderson - - (1902) 5 F. 255 Considered by C. A. Gebbn f. Bbittbn & GiLSON - [1904] 1 K. B. 360 Comber v. Leyland - [1898] A. C. 524 Discussed by C. A. Charles Duval & Co. u. Gans [1904] 2 K. B. 686 Combined Weighing and Advertising Co., In re, (188'9) 43 Ch. D. 99. Followed by Warrington J. Noeton V. Yatbs [1906] 1 K. B. 112 Applied by Walton J. Cairnby r. Back [1906] 2 K. B. 746 Comfort V. Setts - - [1891] 1 Q. B. 737 Followed by C. A. Fitzeoy v. Cave [1905] 2 K. B. 364 ccclii TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &C., Commercial Hank of Tasmania v. Jones, [1893] A. 0. 313. Distinguished by C. A. Peeey v. National Peovincial Bank or England [1910] 1 ^^- 464 Commrs. for Special Purposes of Income Tax t. Pemsel, [1891] A. C. 531, 583, 591. Referred to by Joyce J. London County Council v. South Mbteo- POLITAN Gas Co. [1903] 8 Ch. 532 Referred to by Warrington J. In re Mansbe [1905] 1 Ch. 68 Applicable. Rex v. Commes. foe Special Pukposes op Income Tax C. A. [1909] W. N. 6,7 Commrs, of Charitable DoTiations and Bequests V. Cotter, (1811) 1 D. & War. 498 ; 58 R. R. 298. Discussed by Farwell, J. In re Hux- TABLB - [1902] ICh. 214; C. A. [1902] 8 Ch. 793 Not followed by Joyce J. In re Maundee [1902] 2 Ch. 875 Commrs. of Sewers v. Gellatly, (1876) 3 Ch. D. 615. Referred to by H. L. (E.). TAPE Vale Ry. Co. «.'. Amalgamated Society op Railway Seevants [1901] A. C. 426, 443 Campion (LorS) v. Oxenden, (1793) 2 Ves. Jun, 261 ; 4 Bro. C. C. 397. Followed by Swinfen Bady J. In re Feench-Beewstee's Settlements [1904] 1 Ch. 713 Applicable. In re Hole C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 673 Compton-Smith, Br (1857) 23 Beav. 284 Referred to by Byrne J. YAPP >■. Williams - [1901] W. N. 91 Coney, In re. Coney v. Bennett, (1885) 29 Ch. D. 993. Followed by Kekewich J. In re Pembeetox [1907] W, N. 118 Conolly V. Farrrll (1846) 10 Beav. 142 Followed by Byrne J. In re Peeeless [1901] W. N. 151 Consett Waterworks Co. v. Ritson, (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 318, 702; 64 L. J.(Ch.) 293,n. Considered by G. A. Bishop Auckland Industeial Co-opeeative Society, Ld. u. Butteeknowle Collieey Co., Ld. - [1904] 2 Ch. 419 Consolidated South Rand Mines Beep, Ld., In re, [1909] W. N. 35 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 491. On appeal, security for costs ordered. C. A. [1909] W. N. 66 " Constantine," Vie - (1879) 4 P. D. 156 Referred to by C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 701 Conxtantinidi v. Constant inid i [1903] P. 246 Reversed by C. A. - [1906] P. 263 Distinguished by BuckniU J. Wyke V. Wyke [1904] P. 149 Constantinidi v. Constantinidi, [1904] W. N. 142 ; [1904] P. 306. See Constantinidi v. Constantinidi C. A. [1908] P. 353 Contract and Agency Corporation, In re, [1887] W. N. 218. Inapplicable. In re Alabama Poet- land Cement Cc- Neville J. [1909] W. N. 157 Conivay v. Gray (1809) 10 Bast, 536 See Deiefontein Consolidatbd Gold Mines, Ld. v. jAifson C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 419, 435 Conway v. Wade ■ [1908] 2 K. B. 844, 848 Reversed by H. L. (B.) [1909] A. C. 506 Cook V. Hathway - - (1869) L. R. 8 Eq. 612 Distinguished by Wright J. In re United Seevicb Association [1901] 1 Ch. 97 Cook V. Ilaynes [1884] W. N. 75 See Coopbe-Dban v. Badham Eve J. [1908] W. N. 100 Cook V. Ipswich Local Board, (1871) L. B. 6 Q. B. 451. Referred to by Div. Ct. Hayles w. Sanbown UEBAif Council [1903] 1 K. B. 169, 17S Cook V. North Metropolitan Tramways Co., (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 683. Distinguished by Div. Ct. Smith i. Associated Omnibus Co. [1907] 1 K. B. 916 Cooke V. Crawford ■ ■ (1842) 13 Sim. 91 Referred to by Parker J. In re Ceunden and Meux's Conteact [1909] 1 Ch. 690 Cooke V. Midland Great Western Ry. of Ireland, [1908] 2 I. E. 242. Reversed by H. L. (Ir.) [1909] A. C. 229 Cookson T. Swire - ■ (1884) 9 App. Cas. 653 Applied by C. A. Antoniadi r. Smith [1901] 2 K. B. 689 Coope V. Cresswell (1866) L. E. 2 Ch. 112 Referred to by C. A. In re Lacby [1907] 1 Ch. 330 Dictum of Lord Chelmsford, L.C., in, explained and adopted by C. A. In re Atkinson [1908] 2 Ch. 307 Cooper V. Blakiston - [1907] 2 K. B. 688 AfBrmed by H. L. (E.) sub nam. Blakiston r. Coopee [1909] A. C. 104 Cooper V. Cooper - (1874) L. E. 7 fl. L. 53 Followed by P. C. Blake «. Bayne [1908] A. C. 371 Coojier X. Griffin [1892] 1 Q. B. 740, 750 Referred to by Bucldey, J. Sutton v. English and Colonial Peoduce Co. [1902] 2 Ch. 502 Cooper V. HuUock, (1862) 12 C. B. (N.S.) 456 Referred to by Parker J. Hyman v. Van den Beegh [1907] 2 Ch. 516 ; C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 167 Cooper V. Martin (1867) L. R. 3 Ch. 47, 56 Dicta of Lord Cairns at p. 56 approved of by C. A. In re Moses C. A. [1902] ICh. 100; H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. 13 DUKING THE YEARS 1901—1910. cccliii Coopei- V. WhUtingltam - (1880) 15 Ch. D. 501 Eeferred to by Buckley J. Att.-Gen. U. ASHBOBNE EECEBATION GBOUND CO. [1902] W. N. 208; [1903] 1 Ch. 101 Cooper and Allen to Harlech, In re, (1876) 4 Ch. D. 802. Overruled on one point by H. L. (E.) Duke of Noethumbeeland u. Att.- Gen. - [1906] A. C. 406 Coate v. Jeeks (1872) L. R. IS Eq. 567 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. Beitish South Afetca Co. v. De Beers Con- solidated Mines, Ld. C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 502 Cootes V. Gorham (1839) 1 Moo. & Mai. 395 Eeferred to by Neville J. Cable i. Betant [1907] W. N. 238; [1908] 1 Ch. 269 Cope, In re - - [1908] 2 Ch. 1 Distinguished by Joyce J. In re Metcalfe - - [1909] 1 Ch. 424 Cope V. Crossingham, [1908] W. N. 184 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 624. Affirmed by C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 148 Copestahe v. Hopei- [1907] 1 Oh. 366 Reversed by 0. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 10 Copiapo MiniTUi Co., In re, [1899] W. N. 25 ; 6 Manson, 320. Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re EUPHEATBS AKD TiGEIS STEAM NAVI- GATION Co. [1904] 1 Ch. 360 Copin v. Adamson, (1874) L. E. 9 Ex. 345 ; 1 Ex. D. 17. Applied by Channell J. Emanuel v. Symon - - [1907] 1 K. B. 236 Corbett v. Pearce ■ - [1904] 2 K. B. 422 Overruled by C. A. Chislett v. Mac- beth & Co. - - [1909] 2 K. B. 811 Curbett V. South Eastern and ClutiJiam Ry. Co.^s Managing Committee, [1905] 2 Ch. 280. Reversed by C. A. - [1906] 2 Ch. 12 ■' CoHolanus," The ■ (1890) 15 P. D. 103 Distinguished by Gorell Barnes J. The "Minneapolis " - [1902] P. 30 CmmbrooU Srewery Co. v. Law Debenture Corpo- ration, Ld., [1903] 2 Ch. 527. Affirmed by C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 108 Distinguished by Parker J. Beistol United Bebweeies, Ld. v. Abbot [1908] 1 Ch. 279 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. CuNABD Steamship Co. v. Hopwood [1908] 2 Ch. 664 Cornfoot v. Royal Excluin^e Assurance Corpora- tion, [1903] 2 K. B. 363. Affirmed by C. A. - [1904] 1 K. B. 40 Cornwallis-West and Mimro^s Contract, In re, [1903] 2 Ch. 150. Distinguished Iby Swinfen Eady J. In re LoBD Wimboenb and Beowne's CONTEACT [1904] 1 Ch. 637 Corsellis V. London Comity Council, [1907] W. N. 79 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 704. Appeal dismissed on one point and allowed on another by C. A. [1907] W. N. 227 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 13 d.d. Corser v. Cartuyright, (1875) L. E. 7 H. L. 731, 736. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Henson - [1908] 2 Ch. 356 Cory Brothers v. Stewart, (1886) 2 Times L. E. 508. The head-note o£, considered too wide by Jeune P. The " Heathbe Bell " [1901] P. 143, 146, 160, 162 Costa Rica Ry. Co. v. Forwood [1900] 1 Ch. 756 Affirmed by C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 746 Costello's Case - (1860) 2 D. F. & J. 302 Discussed and explained by C. A. In re Discovehees Finance Coepobation, Ld., Lindlae's Case [1910] 1 Ch. 312 Coster V. Headland - [1905] 1 K. B. 219 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 28b Cotton, In re - (1888) 40 Ch. D. 41 Followed by Buckley J. Inre Weston's Settlement - [1906] 2 Ch. 620 Cotton V. Imperial and Foreign Agency and In- vestment Corporation, [1892] 3 Ch. 454 Followed and explained by Buckley J. Doughty v. Lomagunda Reefs, Ld. [1902] 2 Ch. 837 Overruled by C. A. Bisgood v. Hendebson's Teansvaal Estates, Ld. - [1908] 1 Ch. 748 Cotton's Trustees and the School Board for London In re, (1882), 19 Ch. D. 624. Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re Jump. [1902] W. N. 202 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 129 Discussed and applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Hoensnaill [1909] ICh. 631 Cottlson V. Bisborough - [1894] 2 Q. B. 316 Commented on by 0. A. In re Enoch AND Zaeetzky, Bock & Co.'s Aebi- TEATION - [1910] 1 K. B. 327 fowlthard v. Conceit Iron Co., [1905] 2 K. B. 869. Followed by C. A. Keeling v. New Monckton Collieeies, Ld. [1910] W. N. 249 CoulthaH V. Clementson (1879) 5 Q. B. D. 42 Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. Ascheeson v. Teedbgab Dey Dock AND Wharf Co. [1909] 2 Ch. 401 Cowncell, In the goods o/, (1871) L. R. 2 P. & D. 314 Applicable. In re ALLEN'S Teusxs Neville J. [1909] W. N. 181 Cminty of Durham Electrical Power Distribution Co V. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [19091 W. N. 54 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 737 Affirmed by C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 604 County Theatres and Hotels, Ld. v. Knowles, [1902] W. N. 22 : [1902] 1 K. B. 480 FoUowed by Swinfen Eady J. Steven ■c. BUNCLE - - [1902] W. N. 44 Explained by Swinfen Eady, J. Eichaedson v. Le Maiteb. [1903] 2 Ch. 222 Followed by Warrington J. OcHS v. OCHS Beothees - [1909] 2 Ch. 121 cccliv TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OA'EERULED, &C., Cimp^ Co. V. Naddich - [1891] 2 Q. B. 413 Considered by C. A. Sandeeson v. Collins - - [1904] 1 K. B. 628 Courand v. Hanmer - - (1846) 9 Beav. 3 Distinguished by Byrne J. In re Duini [1904] 1 Ch. G48 Couiienay v. Courtenjiy, (1846) 3 J. & Lat. 519, 533. Followed by Farwell J. In re Chet- WYND's Settlement. [1902] 1 Ch. 692 Courtenay v. Williams - (1844) 3 Hare, 551 Eeferred to by 0. A. In re Lloyd ,[1903] 1 Ch. 385 Distinguished by C. A. In re Beuce [1908] 2 Ch. 682 Corerdale v. Charlton - (1878) 4 Q. B. D. 104 Eeferred to by C. A. Foley's Chaeity Teustees «. Dudley Coepoeation [1909] W. N. 250 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 317 Coirell T. Taylor - - (1885) 31 Ch. D. 34 Principle of, applied by C. A. In re Steand Wood Co. [1904] 2 Ch. 1 Cinvni V. Truefitt, Li. [1899] 2 Ch. 309, 311 Eeferred to by Joyce J. Andbeson v. Bbekeley- [1902] 1 Ch. 936, 940 Cuwley V. Cowley, C. A. [1900] P. 305 (reversing Gorell Barnes J., [1900] P. 118). Affirmed by H. L. (D.) [1901] A. C. 460 Cowley v. Newmarliet Local Board, [1892] A. C. 345. Followed by C. A. Maguieb !'. Ll VBE- pooL Coepoeation [1905] 1 K. B. 767 Cowper V. Smith (1838) 4 M. & W. 519 Followed by C. A. Pbkey r. National Peovincial Bank of England [1910] ICh. 464 Cox ?. Andrews - (1883) 12 Q. B. D. 126 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Stoddaet v. Hawkb [1902] 1 K. B. 353, 359 Co.r V. Bishojj - (1857) 8 De G. M. & G-. 815 Applicable. Bagot Pneumatic Tyee Co. V. Clippbe Pneumatic Tyee Co. C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 146 Co.rv. Blehies - - [1902] 1 K. B. 670 Explained by DIt. Ct. Mattinson v. BiNLEY - [1908] 2 K. B. 634 Cii.r V. Cox - (1869) L. E. 8 Eq. 343 Approved of by Farwell J. In re Bird [1901] 1 Ch. 916, 919 Cox V. Harper - [1909] W. N. 244 Affirmed by C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 480 Cox V. Sutton - (1856) 25 L. J. (Ch.) 845 Eeferred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re FOTHEEGILL'S ESTATE [1902] W. N. 216 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 149 Coxe V. Harden ■ - - (1803) 4 East, 211 Discussed by Eve J. BuEGOS e. Nasci- MENTO - [1908] W. N. 237 Cuxrii v. Rowland [1894] 1 Ch. 406 Approved by C. A. In re Maeten [1902] 1 Ch. 314 Craifj v. Dowding ■ [1907] W. N. 206 Eeversed by C. A. [1908] W. N. 22 Craigdallie v. Aihman (1813) 1 Dow, 1, 16 ; 2 Bli. 529 ; 21 E. E. 107. Principles laid down in, applied by H. L. (Sc). Geneeal Assembly of Feeb Chuech op Scotland v. Loed OVEETOUN [1904] A. C. 515, 613 " Craigellachie;- The ■ - [1909] P. 1 Disapproved by C. A. "The Geove- HUEST " - - [1910] p. 316 CraigieY. Marshall - (1850) 12 D. 523, 560 Eeferred to H. L. (Sc). G-endeal Assembly op Feeb Chuech of Scot- land V. Loed Ovbetoun. [1904] A. C. 515, 613 Craivford^.Forshaw - - ]1891] 2 Ch. 261 Followed by Farwell J. In re Smith [1904] 1 Ch. 139 Crawley v. Crawley, (1835) 7 Sim. 427 ; 40E.E. 170. Followed by Farwell J. In re PoPE [1901] 1 Ch. 64 Crawshay, In re, [1888] W. N. 246, 251 ; 60 L. T. (N.S) 357. Considered by C. A. In re New [1901] 2 Ch. 534 Ch'aythorne v. Sivinim-ne, (1807) 14 Ves. 160 ; 9 E. E. 264. Applied by C. A. In re Denton's Estate - [1904] 2 Ch. 178 Credit A^snrance and Guarantee Corporation Ld., In re, [1902] W. N. 104 ; [1902] 2 Oh 1 78 Eeversed by C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 601 Cresswell, In re (1883) 24 Ch. D. 102 Eeferred to by Parker J. In re Paekbb [1910] 1 Ch. 581 C'reio V. Cummings (1888) 21 Q. B. D. 420 Principle of, explained by Swinfen Eady J. In re Spibal Globe, Ld. [1902] 1 Ch. 396 Applicable. In re Abrahams & Sons, Ld. Buckley J. [1902] 1 Ch. 695, 699 CribI/ V. Kynoch, Ld. [1907] 2 K. B. 548 Approved by C. A. Young c. Hoff- man Manufacturing Go. [1907] 2 K. B. 646 Orichton's Oil Co., In re, [1901] W. N. 113 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 184. Affirmed by C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 86 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re W. J. Hall & Co. [1909] 1 Ch. 521 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re AccBiNGTON Corporation Steam Tramways Co. [1909] 2 Ch, 40 Criclett V. Dolly ■ (1795) 3 Ves. 10 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Bowlby [1904] 2 Ch. 685 Crii/glrstone Coiil Co., In re [1906] W. N. 120 Affirmed by C. A. [1906] W. N. 126 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 327 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. ccciv Orisp V. Cnsjf - (1872) L. R. 2 P. & M. 426 Discussed by C. A. Blood t;. Blood [1902] P. 190 Croft V, Ltimley - (1858) 6 H. L. C. 672 Referred to by C. A. Harman v. AiNSLlE [1904] 1 K. B. 698, 706, 710 Croft V. Riohnansworth Highway Board, (1888) 39 Ch. D. 272. See Att.-Gen. v. Copeland. [1901] 2 K. B. 101, 105 a-ooh V. Hill, (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. 311 ; (1873) L. R. 6 H. L. 265. Followed by Joyce J. In re Du BOCHET [1901] 2 Ch. 441 Crook V. Hill ■ (1876) 3 Ch. D. 773 Referred to by C. A. Ebbern v. Fowler - - [1909] 1 Ch. 578 Crook Y. Morley - - - [1901] A. C. 316 Referred to by H. L. (B.) Olough v. Samuel [1905] A. C. 442, 446 CrooMaren Mining Co., Inre, (1866) L. R. 3 Eq. 69. Discussed and applied by Warrington J. In re EASTERN INVESTMENT CO. [1905] 1 Ch. 352 Crosfield (Jbsep/i) Jj- Sons, Ld. t. Manchester S/Uj) Canal Co., [1904] 2 Ch. 123. AflSrmed upon one point and reversed upon one point by H. L (E.) [1905] A. C. 421 Cross, In re (1848) 4 De G. & Sm. 364, n. Followed by Div. Ct. In re Mybks [1908] 1 K. B. 941 Cross T. Cross - - (1845) 8 Bear. 455 Referred to by Joyce J. Stebdbn «. Walden [1910] 2 Ch. 393 Crossan v. Caledon Shipbuilding and JEfngiiieering Co., (1905) 12 Scots L. Times, 702, 855. Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 104 Crossfield ^ Sons v. Tanian - [1900] 2 Q. B. 629 Distinguished by C. A. Shakman v. HOLLIDAY & GEBENWOOD, Ld. [1904] 1 K. B. 235 Crowder v. Clowes (1794) 2 Ves. Jr. 449 Applied by Eve J. In re Joseph [1908] 1 Ch. 599 Reversed by C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 507 Crotve's Mwtgage, In re - (1871) L. R. 13 Eq. 26 Followed by FarweU J. In re Richaed Mills & Co. (Beieelt Hill), Ld. [1905] W. N. 36 Crown Bank, In re. In re O'Malley, (1890) 44 Ch. D. 649. NotfoUowed by Cozens-Hardy J. In re New Gold Coast Exploration Co. [1901] 1 Ch. 860 Crwitlier, Inre ■ - [1895] 2 Ch. 56 Followed by Eve J. In re Elford [1910] 1 Ch. 814 Oroijdon Corporation v. Croydon Rwal Cowncil. [1908] 2 Ch. 321. Followed by Neville J. Wolstanton United Urban District Council v. TuNSTALL Urban District Council [1910] a Ch. 347 rrump V. Lambert (1867) L. R. 3 Eq. 409 Considered and applied by C. A. RusH- MBR V. POLSUE & ALPIEEI, Ld. [1906] 1 Ch. 234 ; H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 121 Crusader, The - - [1907] P. 15 Affirmed by C. A. [1907] P. 196 CulUrne v. London and Surbiirban, J''C., BidldiTUj Society, (1890) 25 Q. B. D.'485. Followed by FarweU J. Young f. Naval,Militart, and Civil Sbevice Co-operative Society of South Africa, Ld. [1905] 1 K. B. 687 Cumming, In re (1852) 1 D. M. & G. 537 Applied by C. A. In re Gilchrist [1907] 1 Ch. 1 Canard Steamship Co., In re, [1908] W. N. 160 . See CuNARD Steamship Co v. Hop- wood. Swinfen Eady J. [1908] W. N. 182 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 564 Cunard Steamship Co. v. Marten, C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 624. Affirmed by C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 511 Cundy v. Le Cocq (1844) 13 Q. B. D. 207 Principles of, applied by C. A. Hobbs r. Winchester Corporation [1910] 2 K. B. 471 Currey, Re - (1887) 56 L. T. 80 See In re Blundell C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 221, 229 Currey, In re - (1886) 32 Ch. D. 361 Distinguished by Buckley J. In re Bankbs [1902] 2 Ch. 333 Currie, In re, (1888) 57 L. J. (Ch.) 743 ; 36 W. E. 752. Applied by Joyce J. In re Coxwell's Trusts [1910] 1 Ch. 63 CiiHice V. London City and Midland Bank, [1907] W. N. 146. ■ Reversed by C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 293 Curtis V. Old Monlila/nd Conservative Association, (1904) 6 F. 119. Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1906] A. C. 86 Cushing v. Biipuy - (1880) 5 App. Cas. 409 Distinguished by P. C. In re Wi Matua's Will [1908] A. C. 448 CiitHU V. Shropshire RuUways Co., [1891] W. N. 65. See Bebcham v. LastinghAM and RosEDALE Light Ry. Co. Kekewich J. [1907] W. N. 101 CuthbeH V. Roiarts, ImUocIi Sf Co., [1909] W. N. 11. Affirmed by C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 226 D. V. A. S- Co. ■ [1900] 1 Ch. 484, 486 Referred to by Warrington J. In re Launder [1908] W N. 49 Bacre's {Lady) Case, Journals of the House, July 4, 1661, p. 298. Referred to by H. L. (E.) Earl Cow- ley r. Countess Cowley [1901] A. C. 450, 456 «2 ccclvi TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c., Diidsivell V. Jacobs - - (1887) 34 Ch. D. 278 Referred to by C. A. Bbvan c. Webb C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 59 Bagluh v. BaHoa - ■ (1900) 1 Q. B. 28i Disapproved by C. A. Wynne-Finchd. Chaytoe Dugnall, In re Approved of by G Duintrey, In re . Applied by C. A. Duk/iyl V. Labouc/tere, H. K. B. 325, n. Applied by C. A. Newspaper Co. [1903] 2 Ch. 476 [1896] 2 Q. B. 407 A. In re WoESLEY [1901] 1 K. B. 309 [1900] 1 Q. B. 546 In re Tatlob [1910] 1 K. B. 562 L. (E.), [1908] 2 HnNT «-. Stae [1908] 2 K. B. 309 Vale 4" Perry v. Lolley, (1808) 2 Brown's Chan- cery Cases, 582 N. 5. Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. ASCHBKSON V. TKEDEGAE DEY DOCK AND Wharf Co. [1909] 2 Ch. 401 Dallmeyer, In re - - (1896) 1 Ch. 372 Followed by Buckley J. In re White- POED - [1903] 1 Ch. 889 D'Almai7ie v. Moseley - (1853) 1 Drew. 629 Applied by Bucldey J. Kieby-Smith V. Paenell ■ [1903] 1 Ch. 483 Dulton T. Angus (1881) 6 App. Cas. 740 Referred to by C. A. Union Lightee- AQE Co. v. London Geaving Dock Co. [1902] 2 Ch. 567 Dulton V. Fitzgerald - - [1897] 2 Ch. 86 Distinguished by Buckley J. In re Andeeson [1906] 2 Ch. 70 Duly v.Seckett ■ - (1857) 24 Beav. 114 Referred to by Joyce J. In re Baskee- VILLE - [1910] 2 Ch. 329 Damunt v. Hennell - (1886) 33 Ch. D. 224 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re Slaughter [1907] W. N. 197 Damerell v. Protheroe [1847] 10 Q. B. 20, 25 See Meettens c. Hill [1901] 1 Ch. 842, 867 Sangar's Trusts, In re, (1889) 41 Ch. D. 178, 186 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Williams' Settled Estates [1910] 2 Ch. 481 D'Angibam, In re - (1S80) 15 Ch. D. 228 Followed by Eve J. In re Plumptbe's Maeeiage Settlement [1910] 1 Ch. 609 Daniel v. Janes Considered by HUTCHINGS Darby v. Han-is - (1841) 1 Q. B. 895 Approved and followed by C. A Pkovinoial Bill Posting Co. v. Low Mooe Ieon Co. [1909] 2 E. B. 344 Darley v. Martin - - (1853) 13 C. B. 683 Followed by Joyce J. In re Venn [1904] 2 Ch. 52 Darley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell, (1886), 11 App. Cas. 127. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. TUNNI- clipp & Hampson, Ld. f. West Leigh Collibey Co. [1905] 2 Ch. 390 Darlimj v. Haeburn [1906] 1 K. B. 572 Affirmed by C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 846 Darlington v. Roscoe 4' Sons, [1907] 1 K. B. 219 Approved by H. L. (Sc). Uotted CoLLiEEiES, Ld. v. Simpson [1909] A. C. 383 Darnley {Earl of). In re [1907] 1 Ch. 159 Followed by Warrington J. In re Olivee - [1908] 2 Ch. 74 Dartmoath (Earl of) v. Sj)ittle, (1871) 24 L. T. 67 Referred to by Eve J. Glyn v. Howell [1909] 1 Ch. 666 Dashwood v. Bulleley {LorcC), (1804) 10 Ves. 280 ; 12 R. K. 128, n. Applied by Byrne J. In re Beown [1904] 1 Ch. 120 Followed by C. A. In re Whiting's Settlement [1906] 1 Ch. 96 Daun V. Simmins (1879) 41 L. T. 783 Distinguished by Div. Ct. KiNAHAN & Co. v. Paery ]1910] 2 K. B. 389 [1902] 1 Ch. 82 Buckley J. In re [1902] 2 Ch. 333 Daveron, In re Approved by C. A. Davenintrt v. MarsluiXl Referred to by Bankes Dacey v. Sinde [1893] 3 Ch. 421 In re APPLEBY [1903] 1 Ch. 565 [1901] P. 95 Daiisey v. Richardson Followed by C CoSGROVE Da iixun, In re (1877) 2 C. P. D. 351 Div. Ct. Miles i\ [1903] 2 K.B. 714 (1854) 3 E. & B. 144 A. Scarborough r. [1905] 2 K. B. 805 (1895) 13 The Reports, 633 Dictum of Chitty J. in, considered and questioned by Byrne J. In re Cluttee- buck - [1901] 2 Ch. 285 Da Prato v. PaHicli (Pnnvsf, ^-c, of), (1906) 8 F. 564. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1907] A, C. 153 Legal validity given to the decision of. See Davby v. Hinde [1903] P. 221 David V. Bntannic Merthyr Coal Co., [1909] 2 K. B. 146. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) sub mm. Beitas^-ic Meethyb Coal Co. «. David [1910] A. C. 74 Dacid V. Bees . [1904] 2 K. B. 435 Followed by Parker J. Bake r. Feench - [1907] 1 Ch. 428 David and Matthews, In re - [1899] 1 Ch. 378 Applied by Kekewich J. In re Leas Hotel Co. [1902] 1 Ch. 332 Davidson v. Smart - [1901] 4 F. 278 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) sub mrm. Dawson e. Smart [1908] A. C. 467 Davidson's Trustees v. Caledonian By. Co. (1899) 37 S. L. R. 150, 406. Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. Cale- donian Ry. Co. (■. Davidson [1903] A. C. 22 DUKING THE YEARS 1901—1910. ccclvii Davies v. Davies - ■ (1882) 30 W. R. 918 See In re SeAELB Joyce J. [1905] W. N. 86 Davis V. FUton - - (1842) 2 D. & "War. 225 Followed by Neville J. Thompson v. Hickman [1907J 1 Ch. 550 Davies v. Qas Liglit and Coke Co., [1909] 1 Ch. 248. Affirmed by C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 708 Davies v. Lowndes, (1835) 1 Ring. N. C. 597, 618. Referred to by H. L. (E.). Eakl Cow- let V. CotTNTESs Cowley [1901] A. C. 450, 460 Davies v. Parry - - [1899] 1 Ch. 602 Approved by C. A. Zn re Bblham [1901] 2 Ch. 52 Davi^ V. Seisdon Vnion [1907] 1 K.B. 630 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 316 Davies v. Huguenin (1863) 1 H. & M. 730 Overruled on one point by G. A. In re EVEBBD - [1910] 2 Ch. 147 Davies v. Thomas - [1900] 2 Ch. 462 Followed by C. A. In re Stctcley [1906] 1 Ch. 67 Davies Brotliers ^ Co. v. Davies, (1887) 56 L. J. Ch. 481. Not followed by Buckley J. RlviNdTON V. Gaedbn - [1901] 1 Ch. 661 Davies and KeTd's Contract, In re,'[1910] W. N. 61 Affirmed by C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 35 Davies' Trusts, In re - [1871] L. R. IS Eq. 163 Distinguished by C. A. In re Marten [1902] 1 Ch. 314 Referred to by Swinf en Eady J. In re Peacock's Settlement [1902] 1 Ch. 552 Referred to by Warrington J. In re Seabrook - [1910] W. N. 244 Davis, In re - - - [1891] 3 Ch. 119 Referred to by Kekewich J. Mackat V. Gould - [1906] 1 Ch. 26 See In re ADAMS. Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 220 Davis V. Foreman - - [1894] 3 Ch. 654 Followed by Eve J. Kiechnbr & Co. V. Gruban [1909] 1 Ch. 413 Davis V. James (1884) 26 Ch. D. 778 See Pledge v. Pompeet Joyce J. [1905] W. N. 66 Davis V. Marshall (1859) 1 Dr. & Sm. 557 Referred to by Neville J. Cable v. Beyant - [1908] 1 Ch. 259 Davis V. Petrie - - [1905] 2 K. B. 528 Affirmed by C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 786 Davis V. Tovm Properties Investm^'ot Corporation, Ld., [1902] W. N. 164 ; 2 Ch. 635. Affirmed by C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 797 Davis V. Wallis - [1908] 2 K. B. 134 Overruled by C. A. White and Hales v. Islington Coepoeation [1909] 1 K. B. 133 DavWs Case - - (1871) L. R. 12 Eq. 516 Overruled on one point by C. A. In re David Payne & Co. [1904] 2 Ch. 608 Dawes y. Hawkins, (1860) 8 0. B. (N.S.) 844, 858. Dictum of Byles J. in, adopted by Neville J. Coesellis v. London County Council [1907] 1 Ch. 704 ; on appeal, C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 13 Dawnay (_Arohibald D.) Ld. [1900] W. N. 152 Followed by Buckley J. In re Ebene- ZEE TiMMiNS & Sons, Ld. [1902] 1 Ch, 238 Dawson, In re • [1906] 2 Ch. 211 Not followed by Kekewich J. In re Henry - [1907] 1 Ch. 30 See In re THOMPSON Joyce J. [1908] W. N. 195 Followed by Parker J. In re Poysee. Landon v. Poyser ,- [1910] 2 Ch. 444 Dawson y. African Consolidated Land and Trading Co., [1898] 1 Ch. 6. Followed by Farwell J. British As- bestos Co. ■». Boyd [1903] 2 Ch. 439 See Patentwood Keg Syndicate, Ld. V. Peaece Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 164 Dawson v. Braime's Tadcastei' Breweries, Ld. . [1907] 2 Ch. 359. Followed by Warrington J. In re Bbntley's Yoek'shire Breweries, Ld. [1909] 2 Ch. 609 Dawson v. Great Northern and City Ry. Co. [1904] 1 K. B. 277. Reversed by C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 260 Dawson v. Hearn (1831) 1 Russ. & My. 606 Observed upon by C. A. In re Robbins [1907] 2Ch. 8 See In re Brunning Neville J. [1909] 1 Ch. 276 Dawson v. Small - (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 114 Followed by Joyce J. In re Rogeeson [1901] 1 Ch. 715 Dawson v. Sma/rt - - (1901) 4 F. 278 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1903] A. C. 457 Day V. Day ■ - (1845) 9 Jur. 785 Not followed by Farwell J. In re Wells - [1903] 1 Ch. 848 Day y. Singleton - - - [1899] 2 Ch. 320 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. Pease v. Courtney [1904] 2 Ch. 503 Day and Night Advertising Co., In re (1900) 48 W. R. 362. See In re Ceigglestone Coal Co. Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 1 Ch. 623 Deahin, In re - [1894] 3 Ch. 565, 573 Dictum of Stirling J. in, not followed by Kekewich J. In re Wood [1901] 2 Ch. 578 Dean v. Brown - - [1909] 2 K. B. 573 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Brown V. Dean - - [1910] A. C. 373 ccclviii TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &C., Dean v. Bulnier - [1905] P. 1 Referred to by Eekewich J. In re VICKEESTAFF [1906] 1 Ch. 762 Beany. Bean ■ - [1891] 3 Ch. 150 Approved and followed by C. A. In re Weightson [1904] 2 Ch. 95 Bearle v. Hall, (1828) 3 Euas. 1 ; 27 E. R. 1 ; Preface v. Principle of applied by Cozens-Hardy J. Lloyds Bank v. Peaeson [1901] 1 Ch. 865 Referred to by Wright J. In re LAKE [1903] 1 K. B. 151 Rule in, applied by C. A. In re Dallas [1904] 2 Oh. 385 Be Almeda, In re, Simrdis v. Keyser, [1901] W. N. 142. Affirmed by C. A. [1902] W. N. 55 Bebendra Nath Butt v. Ad/niinutratov-General of Bengal, (1908) L. R. 35 Ind. Ap. p. 109. Referred to by Neville .J. Ceastee v. Thomas - [1909] 2 Ch. 348, 360 Be Beers Consolidated Mines, Ld. v. Howe, [1905] 2 K. B. 612. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1906] A. 0. 455 Behtor (No. 31 of 1909), In re [1910] W. N. 29. Reversed by C. A. suh nom. In re Gentet [1910] W. N. 79; [1910] 1 K. B. 825 Be Brassac v. Martyn ■ (1863) 11 W. R. 1020 Considered by Bryne J. Levee v. Kofflbe - - [1901] 1 Ch. 543 Be Bussche v. Alt (1178) 8 Ch. D. 286 Followed by C. A. Powell & Thomas 7 . Evan Jones & Co. [1905] 1 K. B. 11 Be Vordni-d v. Be Cordorii, (1879) 4 App. Cas. 692. See In re Houghton Kekewich J. [1904] 1 Ch. 622 Beeleij v. Perl/es - [1896] A. 0. 496, 500 See In re Gbipel's Patent C. A. [1904] lCh.239 BeeUy's Patent, In re, (1894) 11 Rep. Pat. Cas. 72. Discussed by Kekewich J. WoOLFE v. Automatic Pictuee Gallbet, Ld. [1902] W. N. 137 ; C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 18 Be Falhe, In re, [1901] W. N. 32 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 523. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) suh nom. Leigh V. Tatloe - [1902] A. C. 157 Followed by Buckley J. In re De Falbe (No. 2) - [1901] W. N. 87 ; See also C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 523 Be Hart v. Compania Anoninui> de Seguros " Aurora," [1903] 1 K. B. 109. Affirmed by C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 503 B'lluart V. Harltness (1865) 34 Beav. 324 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re SCHOLBFIELD [1905] 2 Ch. 408 Be La Bere v. Pearson, Ld., [1907] 1 K. B. 483 Affirmed by C. A, [1908] 1 K. B. 280 Be La Farque, In the Goods of, (1862) 2 Sw. & Tr. 631. See In THE Goods of Paton [1901] P. 188, 189 Belany, In re - - [1902] 2 Ch. 642 . Referred to by .Joyce J. In re Gaeeaed [1907] 1 Ch. 382 Belaroque V. S. S. Oxenholnm ^ Co.. [1883] W. N. 227. Approved of by C. A. Baetlbtt v. HIGOINS [1901] 2 K. B. 230 Be la Warr (JEarl) v. Mile.i - (1881) 19 Ch. D.80 Applied by .Jetme P. The " Tueebt Couet" [1901] W. N. 62 " Belta," Hie (1876) 1 P. D. 393 Followed by Gorrell Barnes J. The " Challenge " and " Due d'Aumale " [1904] P. 41 ; C. A. [1905] P. 198 Be Lust's r rusts. In re (1879) 3 L. E. Ir. 232 Distinguished by C. A. In re Maetbn [1902] 1 Ch. 314 Be Mattos V. Giison, (1858) 4 De G. & J. 276, 282. Referred to by C. A. Foembt r. Baekeb [1903] 2 Ch. 539 Beimhy and Cadeby Main Collieries. Ld. v. Yorlishire Minm's' Association, [1906] A. C. 384. Distinguished by C. A. Smithies r. National Association op Opera- tive Plasteebes - [1909] 1 K. B. 310 Benly v. Emns - [1909] 2 K. B. 894 Affirmed by C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 263 Benton's Estate, In re ■ [1903] 2 Ch. 670 Eeversed by C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 178 Benyssen v. Mostert - (1872) L. R. 4 P. C. 236 Followed by P. C. Natal Bank, Ld. v. Rood [1910] A. C. 570 Be Quetterille Y.Be Quetteville, [1905] W.N. 85 Affirmed by C. A. [1905] W. N. 1 Berry v. Peek - - (1889) 14 App. Cas. 337 Referred to by C. A. Olivee r. Bank op England - [1902] 1 Ch. 610 Be Rutzen v. Lloyd - (1836) 5 A. & E. 456, 459 Applied by Swinf en Eady J. Gingbll, Son & FosKBTT, Ld. v. Stepnbt BOEOUGH Council [1906] 2 K. B. 468 B'Este's Settlement Trusts, In re, [1903] 1 Ch. 898. Followed by Kekewich J. In re SCHOLEFIELD - [1905] 2 Ch. 408 Discussed by Parker J. In re Bakee'S Settlement Thusts [1908] W. N. 161 Be Tastet v. Shaw - - (1818) 1 B. & Ad. 664 Followed by Warrington J. ELLIS v. Keee [1910] 1 Ch. 629 Be Tesseir's Settled B.state.'!. In re, [1893] 1 Ch. 153. Considered by Buckley J. Stanpoed r. ROBEETS [1901] 1 Ch. 440, 445 Rule in, approved of and applied by C. A. In re Willis - [1902] 1 Ch. 16 DUEING THE YEARS 1901—1910. ccolix Demerges v. Sandeman, Clark ^ Co., [1910] 1 Ch. I 70. Affirmed by C. A. - [1902] 1 Ch. 679 See In re Habrison & Ingram Bigham J. [1906] W. N. 143 Demnport Corporation v. To^er, [1902] W. N. 73 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 182. Affirmed by C. A. - [1903] 1 Oh. 759 See Att.-Gen. v. Ashboknb Eeorea- TioN Ground Co. [1903] 1 Ch. 101 Referred to by Farwell J. Att.-Gbn. (>. Wimbledon House Estate Co. [1904] 2 Ch. 84 Followed by Warrington J. Att.- Gen, v. Pontypridd Waterworks Co. - [1908] 1 Ch. 388 Bevom/dre (J)ule of^ v. Lodge, (1827) 7 B. & C. 36. Referred to by Parker J. Lord Fitz- HABDINOE v. PUBCELL [1908] 2 Ch. 189, 163 Dewar v. Goodman ■ [1907] 1 K. B. 612 Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 94 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 72 Dexter v. United Gold Coast Mining Properties, Ld., [1901] W. N. 152. Affirmed by C. A., [1901] W. N. 167. See alto HiLDEE V. Dexter - H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 474 D'EyncouH v. Gi-egory - (1866) L. R. 3 Eq. 382 Disapproved of by C. A. In re De False [1901] 1 Ch. 628 Diamond Fuel Co., In re ■ (1879) 13 Ch. D. 400 Referred to by C. A. In re Con- solidated South Rand Mines Deep, Ld. - C. A. [1909] W. N. 66 Dihb T. Walker - - [189B] 2 Ch. 429 Principles laid down in, applied by Warrington J. In re Chant [1906] 2 Ch. 226 Dilden v. Skirrow [1907] 1 Ch. 437 Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 41 Dioh T. Awdsley Affirmed by H. L. (Sc). (1907) S. C. 953 [1908] A. C. 347 (1907) S. C. 953 Dich V. Copland Affii-med by H. L. (So.). [1908] A. C. 347 Dioliens v. Shaw, reported in Hall on the Sea- shore, 2nd ed. Appx. p. xlv. Referred to by C. A. BrinCkman v. Matley - - [1904] 2 Ch. 313, 324 Dickin and KelsaWs Contract, In re, [1908] 1 Ch. 213. Followed by C. A. In re Davibs and Kent's Contract - [1910] 2 Ch. 36 Dickinson, Inre - - - [1888] W. N. 94 See In re John Clayton, Ld. Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 27, 30 Dickinson y. Dillwyn, (1869) L. R. 8 Eq. 546, 551 Referred to by Joyce J. Coles v. Coles - - [1901] 1 Ch. 711, 714 Discussed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Ellis's Settlement [1909].l Ch. 618 Dickinson v. Harhottle, (1873) 28 L. T. (N.S.) 186. Overruled by C. A. Waeren v. Brown [1902] 1 K. B. 18 Dickinson v. Teesdale, (1862) 1 D. G. J. & S. 52 Referred to by C. A. Inre Lacey [1907] 1 Ch. 330 Dicksee v. ffosUns • - [1901] 2 K. B. 122 Reversed by C. A. - [1901] 2 K. B. 660 Dickson, In re - - (1885) 29 Ch. D. 331 Referred to by Buckley J. In re Scott [1902] 1 Ch. 918, 920 Referred to by C. A. In re Bowlby [1904] 2 Ch. 680 Didiiheiin v. London and Westminster Bank, [1900] 2 Ch. 15. Considered by Cozens-Hardy J. New York Security and Teust Co. v. Kbyseb - - - [1901] 1 Ch. 666 Followed by Eve J. Pomeby r. POMBEY - [1909] W. N. 158 Dierken v. Philpot - [1901] 2 K. B. 380 Considered by C. A. Sneade v. Woth- BRTON BABYTBS AND LEAD MiNINQ Co. - [1904] 1 K. B. 295 Dill V. Watson, (1,836) 2 Jones Rep. (Ir. Ex.) 48,91. Referred to by H. L. Geneeai As- sembly OF Free Church of Soot- land V. LOBD OVEETOUN [1904] A. C. 615, 616 Dillet, In re - (1887) 12 App. Cas. 469 Followed by P. C. Tshingumuzi r. Att.-Gbn. OP Natal [1908] A. C. 248 Dillin, In re. Duffin v. Duffin, (1890) 44 Ch. D. 76. Referred to by Byrne J. In re Weston [1902] 1 Ch. 680, 685 Observed upon by Buckley J. In re Beaumont - [1902] 1 Ch. 889 Dillon V. O'Brien - - (1887) 16 Cox, 245 See In re Boeovsky & Weinbaum Wright J. [1902] 2 K. B. 312 Observed upon by Buckley J. In re Beaumont" - [1902] 1 Ch. 889 Dimes v. Petley ■ - - (1850) 15 Q. B. 276 Referred to by Neville J. Liverpool AND NoETH Wales Steamship Co. ». Mersey Trading Co., [1908] 2 K. B. 460, 473 ; affirmed by 0. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 209 Dingle v. Coppin - - [1899] 1 Ch. 726 Referred to by C. A. In re Lloyd [1903] 1 Ch. 835 Dinham v. Bradford (1869) L. R. 5 Ch. 519 Approved by P. C. Hobdben v. Hoedeen - [1910] A. C. 466 Direct Spanish Telegraph Co. v. Shepherd, (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 202. Followed by C. A. Bouenb & Tant v. Salmon & Gluckstein, Ld. [1907] 1 Ch. 616 cooix TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c.. Director of Public Prosecwti&ns v. A. B. and C. D. H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 233, 255 Reversed by H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 274 Discoverers' Finance Corporation, Ld., In re, [1908] 1 Gh. Ul. Settlement arrived at. C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 334 Overruled by C. A. In re DISCOVEREHS Finance Coepoeation, Ld., Lind- LAB's Case [1910] 1 Ch. 312 Discoverers' Finance Corporation, Ld., In re, Undlar's Case, [1909] W. N. 245 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 207. Affirmed by G. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 313 Ditcher v. Denison - (1857) 11 Moo. P. C. 324 Referred to by Div. Ct. Beaedsley r. aiDDiNGS [1904] 1 K. B. 847, 851 Dix V. Barf or A- (1854) 19 Beav. 409 See In re ADAMS Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 220 Dix V. Great Western By. Co., (1886) 34 W. R. 712. Distinguished by Buckley J. McGheamb v. Gyles (No. 2) [1902] 1 Ch. 911 Dlvon, In re- - - [1902] 2 Ch. 561 Followed by G. A. In re Deax [1903] 1 Ch. 781 Dixon, In re [1902] 1 Ch. 248, 251, 257 Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re Feaensidbs [1903] 1 Ch. 250, 267 Dixon, In re - ■ [1902] 1 Ch. 248 Followed by C. A. In re Hadley [1910] 1 Ch. 20 Dixon Y. Metropolitan Board of Worlis, (1881) 7 Q. B. D. 418. Distinguished by G. A. Peice's Patent Candle Co. c. London County Council - - [1908] 2 Ch. 626 Dixon V. Rowe [1876] W. N. 266 See In re PoLLAED Joyce J. [1902] W. N. 144 Dixon V. Wrench - (1869) L. R. 4 Ex. 154 Qu\2') 15 Bast, 293, 294. Referred to by Kekewich J. In re Jackson [1907] 2 Ch. 354 Dolierty v. Allman (1878) 3 App. Gas. 709 Followed and applied by P. C. McEachaen v. Golton [1902] A. C. 104 Eeferred to by C. A. Foemby v. Babker - - [1903] 2 Ch. 639 Dolan V. Macdermot, (1868) L. E. 5 Eq. 60 : 3 Ch. 676. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Allbn - [1905] 2 Ch. 400 Dolphin V. Layton - - (1879) 4 C. P. D. 130 Referred to by C. A. Spence r. Cole- man [1901] 2 K. B. 199 Don Jose Ramos Yzquierdo y Cnstaneda v. Clyd^- banh Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., (1901) 4 F. 319. Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1902] A. C. 524 Donaldsons v. Beehett - (1774) 4 Burr. 2408 Discussed by C. A. Mansell r. Valley Printing Co. [1908] 2 Ch. 441 Donellan v. Read - (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 899 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Reeve r. Jennings - [1910] 2 K. B. 522 Donnelly v. William Baird .<■ Co., (1908) 45 Sc. L. R. 394. Approved and adopted by G. A. Waencken r. R. Moeeland & Son, Ld. [1909] 1 K. B. 184 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. ccclxi Donovan v. Laing, Wharf on ^ Down Construction Syndicate, Ld., [1893] 1 Q. B. 629. Distinguished by C. A. Waldock v. WINFIBLD [1901] 2 K. B. S96, 601 DorMng Union v. St. Saviour's Union, [1898] 1 Q. B. 594. Referred to by H. L. (E.). West Ham Guardians v. Edmonton Guardians [1907] W. N. 235 Dormei- v. Ward Reversed by C. A. [1900] P. 130 [1901] P. 20 Dowgan's Trustee v. Dougan (1901) 3 F. 553 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. Dougan v. Macphebson [1903] A. C. 197 Doughty v. Bowman - - (1848) 11 Q. B. 444 Discussed by Div. Ct. Dewar v. Goodman - [1908] 1 K. B. 94 Douglity v. Lomagv/nda Reefs, Ld., [1902] 2 Gh. 837 ; [1902] W. N. 143. Affirmed by C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 678 Douglas v. Douglas and Trevor, (1898) 78 L. T. 88. Discussed by Gorell Barnes J. Evans V. Evans - [1904] P. 274 Douglas v. SmUh - [1907] 1 K. B. 126 Affirmed by C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. S68 Dover Coalfield Extension, Ld., In re, [1907] 2 Oh. 76. Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 1 Ct. 65 Referred to by Warrington J. In re Lewis - - [1910] W. N. 217 Dovey v. Cory - - [1901] A. G. 477 Applied by Farwell J. Bond c. Baeeow HEMATITE Steel Go. [1902] 1 Ch. 353 Followed by P. C. Peepontainb v. Gbeniee - - [1907] A. C. 101 Dowden 4- Fook, Ld. v. Pooh - [1904] 1 K. B. 45 Distinguished by C. A. Lamson Pneu- matic Tube Co. v. Phillips [1904] W. N. 134 Dowse y. Gorton - - - [1891] A. G. 190 Applied by Kekewich J. In re Feith [1902] 1 Ch. 342 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re Nevstland [1904] W. H. 181 DowseU, In re - - - [1901] 1 Gh. 398 Approved by H. L. (E.) Beddington c. Baumann [1903] A. C. 18 Doyle V. Blahe, (1804) 2 Sch. & Lef. 231 ; 9 R. R. 76. Approved of by Privy Council. National Trustees Company op Austealasia v. Genbbal Finance Company op Australasia [1906] A. C. 373 " DraupTier," Tlie - - - [1909] P. 219 Reversed by H. L. (B.) sub nom. OWNBES op S.S. " Dbaupner " V. Owners op Cargo of S.S. " Deaup- NEE.' ' The " Deaupnee " [1910] A. C. 450 Drew V. Norbury iEarl of}, (1846) 9 Ir. Eq. Eep. 171. 177 ; 3 J. & Lat. 267, 284 ; 72 R. R. 62. Explained and applied by Swinfen Eady J. Price v. John [1905] 1 Ch. 744 Drewett v. Edwards - (1877) 37 L. T. 622 See In re Oddt - C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 93 Driefontein Consolidated Gold Mines, Ld. v. Janson, [1900] 2 Q. B. 339. Affirmed by C. A. [1901] 2KB. 419 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Jan- son V. Deibfontbin Consolidated Mines, Ld. - [1902] A. C. 484 See Robinson Gold Mining Co. v. Alliance Insurance Co. [1901] 2 K. B. 919, 920, 927 Drogheda Steam Pachet Co., In re, (1903) 1 I. R. 512. Followed by Byrne J. In re ARTISANS' Land and Mortgage Coepobation [1904] 1 Ch. 796 Dronfield SiUtstone Coal Co., In re (1880) 17 Ch. D. 76. Applied by Kekewich J. Bellebby v. Rowland & Marwood's Steamship Co. [1901] 2 Ch. 265 Drucler, In re (iVo. 1). [1902] W. N. 103 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 55. Affirmed on appeal [1902] 2 K. B. 237 " Drumlanrig," The - - [1910] P. 249 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom.' Owners op Cabgo of S.S. " Ton- GAEIEO V. ASTEAL SHIPPING GO. [1910] W. N. 274 Lu Boulay v. Du Boulay, (1869) L. R. 2 P. C. 430. Referred to by H. L. (D.). Eael Cowley v. Countess Cowley [1901] A. C. 460, 460 Du Cane and KettlefoWs Contract, In re, [1898] 2 Gh. 96. Followed by Farwell J. In re CoRN- wallis-West and Munro's Con- tract - [1908] 2 Ch. 150 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Lord Wimboene and Browne's Con- tract [1904] 1 Ch. 537 Explained and applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re DlCKlN AND Kblsall'S Contract [1908] 1 Ch. 213 Due d'Aumale, The - [1903] P. 18 See The " Challenge " and " Due d'Aumale " C. A. [1905] P. 198 Duddell V. Simpson (1866) L. R. 2 Ch. 102, 108 Followed by Farwell J. In re Spind- lee and Meae's Conteact [1901] 1 Ch. 908 Referred to by C. A. In re Jackson AND HADEN'S CoNTBACT [1906] 1 Ch. 412 Dudgeon, In re, Truman v. Pope, (1896) 74 L. T 613. ITollowed by Parker J. In re Elliott [1910] W. N. 106 coclxii TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEREULED, &c. Builey Corporation, In re (1881) 8 Q. B. D. 80 Referred to by Parker J. Jaey < . Baensley Coepobation [1907] 2 Ch. 600 Dudley and Kingswinfm'd Tramways Co., In re, [1893] 63 L. J. (Ch.) 108; 69 L. T. (N.S.) 711. Disapproved of by C. A. Att.-Gen. v. BOUENEMOUTH COEPOEATION [1902] 2 Ch. 714 DuffieJd T. Elwes - (1827) 1 Bli. (N.S.) 497 Referred to by Buckley J. In re BEAU- MONT - [1902] 1 Ch. 889 Dugdale v. Lovering (1875) L. R. 10 C. P. 196. Considered by H. L. (E.) Sheffield COEPOEATION v. BAECLAT [1905] A. C. 392, 397, 399 Duguid v. Fraser - (1886) 31 Ch. D. 449 Followed by Joyce J. In re Walkee [1908] 1 Ch. S60 Dunbar v. Ardee Guardians - [1897] 2 I. R. 76 Followed by C. A. TozELAND v. West Ham Union- [1907] 1 K. B. 320 Duncan v. Dundee Shipping Co., (1878) 5 R. 742 Followed by C. A. The Caego ex " Port VicTOE "- [1901] P. 243 Duncan v. Lawson - (1889) 41 Ch. D. 394, 396 Extended by Swinfen Eady J. In re HOYLES [1910] 2 Ch. 333 Duncan, Fox 4~ Co. v. NoHh and' South Wales Bank, (1880) 6 App. Cas. 1, 11. Followed by C. A. NICHOLAS v. Ridley [1904] 1 Ch. 192 Duncan {Young's Trustee t. Blair (Young's Trustee), (1900) 3 F. 274 ; 38 S. G. L. 209. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) sub mm. Blaie r. Duncan [1902] A. C. 37 Dunham v. Clare - [1902] 2 K. B. 292 Discussed by C. A. Ysteadowen Colliery Co. v. Griffiths [1909] 2 K. B. 533, 636 Dnnlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. David Moseley S; Sons, Ltd., [1904] W. N. 11 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 164. Affirmed by C. A. - [1904] 1 Ch. 612 Discussed by Swinfen Eady J. Siedar RUBBBE Co. c. WALLINGTON, WESTON & Co. - [1905] 1 Ch. 461 Dunlop Piieumatic Tyre Co. v. Dunlop Motor Co. (1906) 8 F. 1146. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1907] A. C. 430 Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. A'ra^,[1899] 1 Ch. 807. Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. Sirdar Rubber Co. v. Wallington, Weston & Co. - [1905] 1 Ch. 461 Dunnage V. M'hite, (1820) 1 Jac. & W. 583 ; 21 R. R. 239. Distinguished by Buckley J. Kieby- Smith v. Pahnell - [1903] 1 Ch. 483 Dunning, In re - (1885) 54 L. J. (Ch.) 900 Discussed by Byrne J. Inre Hayward [1901] 1 Ch. 221 Dunuing v. Orosvenor Daries,Ld., [1900] W. N. 265. See Dean and Chaptbe op Chester V. Smelting Coepoeation, Ld. FarweU J. [1901] W. N. 179 Dumany's Settlement, In re - [1906] 1 Ch. 578 Applied by Eve J. In re Pearsb's Settlement [1909] 1 Ch. 804 Dnpout, Ld., In re - [1906] W. N. 14 See In re Cadogan and Hans Place Estate (No. 2), Ld. Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 112 Duruiit Si' Co. v. Robeiis and Keighley, Ma^xsted 4- Co. [1900] 1 Q. B. 629. Reversed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Keighley, Maxsted & Co. ■». Dueant [1901] A. C. 240 Durham Brothers v. Robert-ion, [1898] 1 Q. B. 765 See Jones v. Humphreys [1902] 1 K. B. 10, 14 Durliam County Council and West Sartlepoole County Boron^h, In re, [1906] 2 K. B. 186. Reversed by H. L. (E.), sub nom. West Hartlepool Corporation r. Durham County Council [1907] A. C. 246 Duttou, In re - (1878) 4 |Ex. D. 54 Distinguished by Byrne J. In re Clarke [1901] 2 Ch. 110 Button, Inre - - [1893] W. N. 65 Referred to by Joyce J. In re SHARP [1908] 1 Ch. 372, 378 ; C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 190 Dyer v. Dyer, (1788) 2 Cox, 92, 93 ; Watk. Copy, 216 ; 2 R. R. 14. See In re A Policy No. 6402 op the Scottish Equitable Life Assur- ance Society [1902] 1 Ch. 282, 284 Dyer v. London School Board [1902] 2 Ch. 768 See [1903] W. N. 83 The rule stated by Eyre C.B. in, applied by C. A. The " Venture " [1908] P. 218 Dymond v. Croft (1876) 3 Ch. D. 512 See Dykes v. Thomson Hamilton J. [1909] W. N. 104 E. A. B., In re - - [1902] 1 K. B. 457 Explained and distinguished by C. A. In re FILLING - [1903] 2 K. B. 50 Distinguished by C. A. In re Kbet [1905] 2 K. B. 666 Eardley v. Granville - (1876) 3 Ch. D. 826 Followed by Warrington J. Batten PooLL r. Kennedy - [1907] 1 Ch. 266 Earle v. Kingscote - [1900] 2 Ch. 585 Criticized by Fletcher Moulton L.J. in CuBNOD V. Leslie C. A. [1909] 1 E. B. 880 Earle's Shipbuilding and Engi-iieerimi Co., In re [1901] W. N. 78. See In re Klb in. E-r parte GOODWIN Bigham J. [1906] W. N. 148 DUKING THE YEARS 1901—1910, ccclxiii East Barnet Valley Xlriati Council v. Stallard, [1909] W. N. 189. Affirmed by C. A. [1909] W. N. 208 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 55S East London Waterworks Co. v. Cliarles, [1894] 2 Q. B. 730. See Elliott r. Kussbll [1902] 2 K. B. 748, 755 East London Waterwm-ks Co. v. Kyffin, [1895] 1 Q. B. 55. Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Elliott v. Etjssell - [1902] 2 K. B. 748, 754 East of England BanUng Co., (1868) L. E. i Ch. li. See In re Thomas Salt & Co. Neville J. [1908] W. N. 63 Eastgate, In re. Ex parte Ward, [1905] 1 K. B. 465. Followed by Hamilton J. Tilley v. Bowman, Ld. - [1910] 1 K. B. 745 Eastman Plwtographic Materials Co. v. Comp- troller-General, [1898] A. C. 571. Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. In re " Dnbeda " Teade-mabk [1901] 1 Ch. 550 Eastman's Settled Estates, In re, [1898] W. N. 170. See In re Baroness Llanovbk's Will C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 16 Eastwood Brothers, Ld. v. Sonley Urban District Cotmcil, [1900] 1 Ch. 781. Affirmed by C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 645 Eaton T. Watson - - [1904] W. N. 24 See Bailleau v. Victobian Society OF NOTAEIES Ct. of racnlties [1904] P. 180, 186 Ebbetts V. Conguest - [1895] 2 Ch. 377 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. Molyneux V. ElCHAED [1906] 1 Ch. 34 Dictum of Lindley, L.J. in, followed by Lord Coleridge J. Claee v. DOBSON - [1910] W. N. 227 Eccles Corporation v. South Lancashire Tram- ways Co., [1910] W. N. 28. Eeversed by C. A. - [1910] 2 Ch. 263 Edelsten v. Edelsten (1863) 1 D. J. & S. 185 Principle of, applied by Neville J. Slazengbe & Sons v. Spalding & Beothbes - [1910] 1 Ch. 267 Eden v. North Eastern By. Co., [1907] A. C. 400 Discussed by C. A. Ettgby Poetlaniv Cement Co. r. London and Nobth Westebn Ey. Co. - [1908] 2 K. B. 606 Edghaston Co. , In re - (1893) 68 L. T. 341 Eeferred to by Buckley J. In re Ceigglbstone Goal Co. [1906] W. N. 120 ; C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 327 Edge ^ Sons v. Gallon 4- Son, [1899] W. N. 137 Distinguished by Joyce J. Ashwoeth V. English Caed Clothing Co. (No. 2) .- [1904] 1 Ch. 704 Edgeworth v. Edgeuwth, (1869) L. K. 4 H. L. 35 Principle in, applied by Byrne J. In re Sampoeth's Will [1901] W. N. 152 Edinburgh Life Assurance Co. t. Lord Advocate, (1909) S. C. 847. Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1910] A. C. 143 Edinburgh Life As.surance Society v. Inland Revenue, (1875) 2 Eettie, 394. Referred to by Ct. of Sess. (Sc), Scottish Widows' Fund v. Alla2», (1900) 3 F. 129 See [1901] W. N. 185, 188 Ediiiburgh and District Water Trustees v. Clippens Oil Co., (1901) 3 F. 156. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1903] -W. N. 157 See also Clippens Oil Co. v. Edin- BUEGH AND DiSTEICT WATEE Teustees - - H. L. (Sc.) ri903] W. N. 204 ; [1804] A" C. 64 Edinburgh and District Water Trustees v. William Somerville ^ Son, (1905) 42 Sc. L. R. 410. Reversed by H. L. (So.) [1906] W. N. 162 Edmunds v. Waugh (1866) L. R. 1 Eq. 418 Referred to by C. A. In re Lloyd [1903] 1 Ch. 836 Edioardes v. Barrington - (1901) 85 L. T. 650 Followed by C. A. Feank Waeh & Co. V. London County Council [1904] 1 K. B. 713, 718, 720, 723' Edwards v. Dennis - - (1815) 30 Ch. D. 454 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re A. & A. Ceompton & Co.'s Teade- MAEK - [1902] 1 Ch. 758 Principle of, applied by Byrne J. In re Haet's Tbade-maek [19021 2 Ch. 621 Edwards v. Godfrey - - [1899] 2 Q. B. 333 Considered by Div. Ct. Isaacson r. New Geand (Clapham Junction), Ld. - - [1903] 1 K. B. 639 Applied by C. A. Ceibb v. Kynoch, Ld. (No. 2) [1908] 2 K. B. 661 Edwards v. James - ■ (1855) 1 K. & J. 534 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Emmett - - [1906] W. N. 201 Edwa/rds v. Marston [1891] 1 Q. B. 225 Discussed by C. A. Bosefield v. Peo- vincial Union Bank [19.10] 2K. B.781 Edwards v. MaHin - (1856) 25 L. J. (Ch.) 284 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. Williams v. Moegan [1906] lCh.804 Edwards v. Midland By. Co., (1880) 50 L. J. (Q.B.)28]. Principle of, followed by C. A. Lam- beet ■». Gkeai Eastben Ry. Co. [1909] 2 K. B. 776 EgbeH v. Short - [1907] 2 Ch. 205 Approved by C. A. In re Norton's Settlement - [1908] 1 Ch. 471 clxiv TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c., " Egyj>tian" The - - [1910] P. 38 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Grant V. Owners of S.S. " Egyptian." The " Egyptian" [1910] A. C. 400 Ehrmann Brothers, Ld., In re [1906] "W. N. 129 Reversed by C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 697 Eichiaii.m t. City of Chicago Grain Elevators, Ld., [1891] 3 Ch. 459. Referred to by C. A. Bbllerby v. Rowland and Marwood's Steam- ship Co. - [1902] 2 Ch. 14 Elcho (^Lord') v. Andrews. Dismissed by C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 706 Elderslie Steamship Co. v. Borthwiolt, [1904] 1 K. B. 319. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 93 Elementary Education Acts, 1870 and 1873, In re, [1908] 2 Ch. 503. Affirmed by C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 55 Elias, In re - (1851) 3 Mac. & G. 234 Followed by C. A. 7« re De Larragoiti [1907] 2 Ch. 14 Ellinger ^ Co.y. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, [1904] 1 K. B. 832. Affirmed by C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 31 Elliot T. Pilcher - [1901] 2 K. B. 817 Not followed by Div. Ct. Watts v. Stevens [1906] 2 K. B. 323 Elliott V. Crutchley ■ [1904] 1 K. B. 665 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 7 EllioU V. Dearsley - (1880) 16 Ch. D. 322 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Balls [1909] 1 Ch. 791 Elliott V. Garrett ■ [1902] 1 K. B. 870 Followed by C. A. White & Co. r. Credit Reform Association and Credit Index, Ld. [1905] 1 K. B. 653 Elliott V. I7ice - (1857) 7 D. M. & G. 475 Referred to by P. C. Daily Tele- graph Newspaper Co. v. McLaugh- lin [1904] A. C. 776, 780 Ellis T. Bedford {Duke of) - [1899] 1 Ch. 494 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Bed- ford (DrrKE op) v. Ellis [1901] A. C. 1 Ellis v. Ellis - - - [1905] 1 Ch. 613 Distinguished by Neville J. Gkaster V. Thomas [1909] 2 Ch. 348 Ellis V. Marshall (1895) 64 L. J. (Q.B.) 757 Referred to by Farwell J. Stacke- MANN 1). Paton - [1906] 1 Ch. 774 Ellis v. Selly, (1836) 1 My. & Cr. 292, disapprov- ing of Jemmit v. Verril, cited in Amb. 685, n. Not followed by Farwell J. In re Best [1904] W. N. 152 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 364 Ellis's Settlement, In re - [1909] 1 Ch. 618 Followed by Eve J. In re Plumptre's Marriage Settlement [1910] 1 Ch. 609 Elliston V. Beacher - - [1908] 2 Ch. 374 Affirmed by C. A. [ 1908 J 2 Ch. 665 Principle of, applied by 0. A. Reid v. BiCKEBSTAFP [1909] 2 Ch. 306 Eljihinstone v. Bedreechund, (1830) 1 Knapp, P. C. 316. Followed by P. C. Ex parte D. F. Marais [1902] A. C. 109 Elphin-itone {Lord') v. Monldand Iron and Coal Co., (1886) 11 App. Cas. 332, 342, 345. Referred to by H. L. (So.). Clyde- bank Engineering and Shipbuild- ing Co. v. Don Jose Ramos Tzquierdo T Castaneda [1905] A. C. 6, 15 Elwes v. 3Iaw (1802) 3 East, 38 ; 6 R. R. 523 Discussed by Cozens-Hardy 3. Meabs < . Callendbr- [1901] 2 Ch. 388 Emanuel v. Symon [1907] 1 K. B. 235 Reversed by C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 302 Bmbiricos v. Anglo-Austrian Banh, [1904] 2 K. B. 870. Affirmed by C. A. - [1905] 1 K. B. 677 Emmet's Estate, In re - (1880) 13 Ch. D. 484 Referred to by Eve J. In re Carney's Trusts - [1910] W. N. 45 Emmins v. Bradford - (1880) 13 Ch. D. 493 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Smith's Settlement [1903] 1 Ch. 373 Approved by C. A. In re Bkydone'S Settlement [1903] 2 Ch. 84 Emslie V. Faterson, (1897) 24 R. (Just. Cas.) 77 Approved by C. A. Bellbbby v. Heyworth [1909] 2 Ch. 23 " Enchantress," The (1860) Lush. 93 See The " Cayo Bonito " Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 310 Engelhart v. Farrant ^- Co., [1897] 1 Q. B. 240, 243. Rule in, applied by C. A. McDowALL V. Great Western Ry. Co. [1903] 2 K. B. 331 Engels -V . IIube7t Unchangeaile Eyelet Co., [1902] W. N. 32. Compromised on appeal. See C. A. [1902] W. N. 48 England v. Lavers - (1866) L. R. 3 Eq. 63 Explained and followed by Buckley J. In re Tanched's Settlement [1903] 1 Ch. 716 English and Colonial Produce Co., In re, [1906] 2 Ch. 435, 439. Overruled on one point by C. A. In re National Motor Mail-Coach Co. [1908] 2 Ch. 616 English and Scottish Mercantile Inre.ttment Co.-J. Brunton, [1892] 2 Q. B. 700. Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Vallbtort Sanitary Steam Laun- dry Co. [1903] 2 Ch. 664 " Englishman," The, and The'' Australia," [1894] P. 239 ; [1895] P. 212. Referred to by Jeune P. The " Frank- land " - [1901] P. 161, 167 Bnnis and West Clare By. Co., In re, (1879) 3 L. R. (Ir.) 94, 104. See McGlade r. The Royal London Mutual Insubance Society, Ld. C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 169 UUMKG THE YEARS 1901—1910. ccclxv Eno T. Dunn - (1890) 15 App. Gas. 252 Followed by Warrington J. In re COMPAftNIE INDUSTKIBLLB DBS Peteolbs' Application [1907] 2 Ch. 435 Ei'ichsen v. Last - (1881) 8 Q. B. D. 414 Distinguished by P. G. Commissionbe OF Taxes foe New Zealand v. Eastben Extension Austealasia AND China Telegraph Go. [1906] A. C. 526 E?'langer v. New Sombrero PhospJtate Co., (1878) 3 App. Gas. 1218, 1235. Referred to by Wright J. In re Lady FOEEBST (MUECHISON) GOLD MiNE [1901] 1 Ch. 682 Ermen, In re - [1903] 2 Ch. 156 See Pbicb v. Clinton Joyce J. [1906] 2 Ch. 487 Mtphrates and Tigres Steam Navigation Co., In re, [1904] 1 Ch. 360. Followed by Eve J. In re Teust and Agency Go. of Austealasia, Ld. [1908] W. N. 829 European Central Ry. Co., In re, (1876) 4 Gh. D. 33. Referred to by H. L. (Ir.). Economic Life Assueance Society ■». Usboene [1902] A. C. 147, 151 Evans v. Bear - (1874) L. R. 10 Ch. 76 See In re Ellis. Haedcastle v. Ellis Buckley J. [1906] W. K. 137 Evans v. Davis - - (1878) 10 Ch, D. 747 Followed by Warrington J. Mooeb v. Ullcoats Mining Co. [1908] 1 Ch. 575 Evans v. Mam - [1904] P. 274 See Evans v. Evans Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 378 Evans v. Jackson, (1836) 8 Sim. 217 ; 42 R. R 163. Referred to by Kekewioh J. In re Walkee and Oakshott's Gonteact [1901] 2 Ch. 383, 367 Evans v. Fichers, Sons ^ Maxim, Li., [1910] 1 K. B. 564. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. VicKEEs, Sons & Maxim, Ld. v. Evans [1910] A. C. 444 Everall v. Broum, [1905] W. N. 96 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 196. Affirmed by G. A. - [1906] 2 K. B. 884 Everard t. Kendall - (1870) L. R. 5 C. P. 428 Referred to by Div. Gt. The " NoE- MANDY " - [1904] p. 187, 195 Evers v. C/uiUis - (1859) 7 H. L. C. 531 Distinguished by G. A. In re Hancock [1901] 1 Ch. 482 Ewart T. Fryer - [1900] W. N. 82 Affirmed by G. A. - [1901] 1 Ch. 499 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) suj> nom. Feyee V. EWAET . [1902] A. C. 187 Ewart, In the Goods of (1859) 1 Sw. & Tr. 258 Followed by Barnes J. In the Goods of Beynon - - [1901] P. 141, 143 Eiving, In re ■ - (1881) 6 P. D. 23 Approved by P. C. Stamp Duties Commissioner v. Salting. [1907] A. C. 449 Exchange Drap&i-y Co., In re, (1888) 38 Ch. D. 171, 175. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re United Provident Assurance Co., Ld. [1910] 2 Ch. 477 Exchange and Hop Warehouses, Ld. v. Association of Land Financiers, (1887) 34 Gh. D. 195. Referred to by Farwell J. Stevens v. Theatres, Ld. [1903] 1 Ch. 857 F. V. P. {falsely called F.) (1896) 75 L. T. 192 Followed by Gorell Barnes J. B. «. B. [1901] P. 39 Failes v. Failes - - - [1906] P. 326 Overruled by C. A. Haeriman v. Harriman - - [1909] P, 123 Fairclongh v. Mancliester Ship Canal Co., [1897] W. N. 7. Referred to by Warrington J. Stan- comb c. Trowbridge Urban Dis- trict Council [1910] 2 Ch. 190 FairtloughY. Johnstons, (1865') 16 Ir. Ch. Rep. 442. Ratio decidendi of, explained and applied by Farwell J. In re Baeon Kensington [1902] 1 Ch. 203 Faithfull, Be ■ (1887) 57 L. T. (N. S.) 14 Distinguished by C. A. In re Benett [1906] 1 Ch. 216 Fancy Dress Balls Co., In re, [1899] W. N. 109 See In re Woeld Industeial Bank, Ld. Neville J. [1909] W. N. 148 Fane, Ex parte - ■ (1848) 16 Sim. 406 Followed by Buckley J. Elliot v. Noeth [1901] 1 Ch, 424 Fanny M. Carvill, The, (1888) 13 App. Gas. 455, n. Discussed by G. A. The Corinthian [1909] P. 260 Farebrother v. WoAehouse - (1856) 23 Beav. 18 Reluctantly followed by Byrne J. See Nicholas v. Ridley C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 192 Farlow^. Stevenson- [1900] 1 Ch. 128 Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re Waeeinee [1903] 2 Ch. 367 Farndale v. Dillon [1907] 2 K. B. 513 Referred to by Div. Ct. Jones v. Shebvington - [1908] 2 K. B. 339 Fariieham v. Athiiis - - (1682) 1 Sid. 446 Referred to by Div. Ct. Gadd v. Thompson - [1910] W. N. 262 Farnham v. llilward 4' Co., [1895] 2 Gh. 730, 735. See JmreLoED Townshbnd's Settle- ment Swinfen Eady J. [1908] 1 Ch. 201 Farquhar v. HaMen - (1871) L. R. 7 Gh. 1 Distinguished by Neville J. In re Holland - - - [1907] 2 Ch. 88 ooclxvi TABLK OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEULED, &o., Farquhar v, Newbury Rural Council, [1908] 2 Ch. 586. Affirmed by 0. A. - [1909] 1 Ch. 12 Farquliarson Brothers ^~ Co. t. King S; Co., [1901] 2 K. B. 697. Eeversed by H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 326 Farrar Y. Farrars, Li. - (1888) 40 Ch. D. 395 Followed by Joyce J. Hodson d. Deans [1903] 2 Ch. 647 FauUer's Trade-marl, In re [1901] "W. N. 3 Eeversed by C. A. sub nom. In re Fauldeb & Co.'s Teabe-maek [1901] 1 Ch. 126 Favard v. Favard - - ■ (1896) L. T. 664 ' Followed by Jeune Pres. Gokdon v. GOEDON - - [1903] P. 141 Fazakerly v. Ford, (1831) 4 Sim. 390; 33 E. R. 129. Followed by C. A. Shutxlewoeth v. MUEEAT [1901] 1 Ch. 819, 827 Fear v. Morgan - - [1906] 2 Ch. 406 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. MOEGAN V. Feae [1907] A. C. 425 Fearnsides, In re. Dairies v. Chadwick, [1903] 1 Ch. 250. Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Cebed - - [1908] W. N. 94 Followed by Neville J. In re Oelbbae [1908] 1 Ch. 136 Followed by C. A. In re Hadlet [1909] 1 Ch. 20 Fearony. Aylesford (^Fai-l of), (1884) 14 Q. B. D, 792. Considered by Div. Ct. Sweet t. Sweet [1895] 1 Q. B. 12, 14, 15 Referred to by C. A. Hunt «. Hunt [1897] 2 Q. B. 847, 849 Feast, In re- - - ■ (1887) 4 Morr. 37 Distinguished by C. A. In re H. B. [1904] 1 K. B. 94 Fe'llding,Fx parte - (1861) 25 J. P. 759 Eef erred to by Div. Ot. Beooks v. Bagshaw [1904] 2 K. B. 798, 801 Fendall v. 6oUsmid - (1877) 5 P. D. 263 Eeferred to by H. L. (D.). Bael CowLBT V. Countess Cowlbt [1901] A. C. 460, 459 Fenn v. SmaH - (1810) 12 East, 444, 448 Dicta of Bayley J. in, followed by Warrington J. MOOBE v. TJllcoATS Mining Co. [1908] 1 Ch. 675 Fenner v. Bnjilocli ■ (1854) 2 Biug. 10 Approved by C. A. Sbejeant v. Kash, Field & Co. [1903] 2 K. B. 304 Fenton v. Logan - - (1833) 9 Bing. 676 See Boyd, Ld. v. Bilham Channell J. [1909] 1 K. B. 14 Fenton v. Thorley S,- Co. [1903] A. C. 443 Test laid down in, applied by C. A. HiGGiNS V. Campbell & Haeeison, Ld. - [1904] 1 K. B. 328 Eeferred to by C. A. Beodbeick v. London County Council [1908] 2K. B. 807 See Hughes c Cloveb, Clayton & Co. - H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C.-242 ij, In re - [1902] W. N. 27 See Same Case sub nom. In re Fbene- LEY's Teusts - - [1902] 1 Ch. 843 Ferneley's Trusts, In re - [1902] 1 Ch. 543 Followed by Warrington J. In re Game [1907] 1 Ch. 276 Fewings, Ex parte (1883) 25 Ch. D. 338, 355 Eeferred to by H. L. (I.) ECONOMIC Life Assueancb Society v. Usboenb [1902] A. C. 147, 149, 152, 183 Fewster, In re. Serdman v. Fewster, [1901] 1 Ch. 447. Followed by Buckley J. In re Wilkins [1901] W. N. 202 Field V. Field - - (1889) U P. D. 26 Referred to by Jeune Pres. Elliott v. Elliott - [1901] W. N. 203 Fielden v. Ashworth - (1875) L. E. 20 Eq. 410 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re RiCHAEDS, DAVIBS V. EdWAEDS [1910] 2 Ch. 74 Finance Act, 1894, and Studdert, In re, (1900) 2 Ir. 281, 400. Affirmed by H. L. (Ir.) sub ?u)m. INLAND Revenue Commes. v. Peiestley [1901] A. C. 208 Fincli v. Bannister - [1908] 1 K. B. 485 Affirmed by C. A. - [1908] 2 K. B. 441 Finch V. Great Western By. Co., (1879) 5 Ex. D. 254. Discussed by C. A. as being a case on the border line. Haeeis v. Flowbe & Sons, Ld. [1904] W, N. 180 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. Tape Vale By. Co. v. Goedon Canning [1909] 2 Ch. 48 Finchley Flectric Light Co. v. Finchley Urban Council, [1902] 1 Ch. 866. Eeversed by C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 437 Eeferred to by C. A. Foley's Chaeity Teustbes r. Dudley Coepoeation [1909] W. N. 250; [1910] 1 K. B. 817 Finck V. London and South Western By., (1890) 44 Ch. D. 330. Principle of, applied by Farwell J. Caedife Ey, Co. r. Tafp Vale Ey. Co. [1905] 1 Ch. 289 Finlay v. Darling - - [1897] 1 Ch. 719 Followed by Buckley J. In re Clut- teebuck's Settlement [1905] 1 Ch. 200 Finley, In re (1888) 21 Q. B. D. 475 Eeferred to by C. A. Staoby v. Hill [1901] 1 K. B. 660, 663, 665 Followed by C. A. In re Bakee [1901] 2 K. B. 628 Finney v. Grice - - (1878) 10 Ch. D. 13 Considered by Buckley J. In re Seton- Smith - [1902] 1 Ch. 717, 720 FrbanJi's Executors v. Humphrey.'!, (1886) 18 Q. B. D. 54, 60. Eule in, adopted and applied by C. A. Olivee v. Bank of England [1902] 1 Ch. 610 ; H. L. (E.) sub mm. Staekey v. Bank of England [1903] A. C. 114 DUKING THE YEAKS 1901—1910. ccolxvii Firth, Ex parte - (1882) 19 Ch. D. 419, i27 Applied byTarwell J, Wales v. Gaee [1902] 1 Ch. 860 FiHh T. MePhail ■ [1905] 2 K. B. 300 Referred to by C. A. Hobbb v. Win- chester COEPOEATION [1910J 8 K. B. 471 Fish V. Att.-Gen. (1867) L. B. 4 Eq. 521 Referred to by Backley J. J»7'e Davis [1908] 1 Ch. 876 Fisher, Ex parte - (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. 636, 641 Principle of, applied by Buckley J. In re Jackson & Basseoed, Ld. [1906] 2 Ch. 467 Fisher, In re ... [1894] 1 Ch. 450 Referred to by C. A. In re Schmaee C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 326, 329 Fishei' V. Roterts (1890) 6 Times L. R. 354 Referred to by H. L. (E.). Geeat Westeen Rt. Co. V. London and County Banking Co. [1901] A. C. 414, 424 Fish V. Att.-Gen. - - (1867) L. R. 4 Eq. 521 Followed by Joyce J. In re Rooeeson [1901] 1 Ch. 715 FUch Y. Bermondsey Guardians, [1904] 2 K. B- 709. Affirmed by C. A.- [1906] 1 K. B. 524 Fitz V. nes - . ■ [1893] 1 Ob. 77 Considered by Byrne J. Hollowat Beothees, Ld. v. Hill [1902] 2 Ch. 612 Fitzgerald, In re, [1903] W. N. 69 ; [1903] 1 Ch- 933. Reversed by C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 573 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. Beitisa South Afeica Co. c. Db Beees Con- solidated Mines, Ld. C. A. [1910] 2 Ch, 502 Fitsgerald v. Champneys, (1861) 2 Jo. & H. 31, 54. Referred to by C. A. Rex v. Local Goveenment Boaed [1908] 2 K. B. 368 Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, (1869) L. R. 1 P. & M. 694. Referred to by C. A. SnfOE v. Synge [1901] P. 317 Fitzgerald v. FUzgerald [1902] 1 I. R. 477 Referred to by Joyce J. In re Teing- HAM's Teusts - [1904] 2 Ch. 487 Fitzgerald v. Tilling - - (1907) 96 L. T. 718 Referred to by Bargrave Deane J. The " Blanche " [1908] P. 259 Fitzjiatrich v. Ikans S,- Co. [1901] 1 K. B. 756 Affirmed by C. A. - [1902] 1 K. B. 505 Fitzsimmcms v. Mogtyn QLo7'd), [1904] A. C. 46 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re Batlis . - [1907] 2 Ch. 54 FitzwaterT. Waterhmse, (18SS) 52 L. J. (Ch.) 83 Followed by Neville J. Cheek v. Cheek - [1910] W. N, 87 Five Steel Barges, The (1890) 15 P. D. 142 Followed by C. A. The Caego ex " Poet Victoe " - [1901] P. 243 Fleetwood, In re - - (1880) 15 Ch. D. 594 See In re Huxtablb FarwellJ. [1902] ICh. 214; C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 793 Distinguished by Joyce J. In re Hetlby - - [1902] 2 Ch. 866 Fleming v. Buchanan, (1853) 3 D. M. & G. 976, 980. Followed by H. L. (E.) Beyfus v. Lawlby [1903] A. C. 411 Fleming) v. Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co., (1902) 4 Fraser, 890 ; [1903] W. N. 165. Followed by Ct. of Sess. (Sc). Camp- bell v. Fife Coal Co. [1903] W. N. 171 Fleming v. Loe - [1901] 2 Ch. 594 Reversed by C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 359 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Mackusic v. Fleming [1904] W. N. 44 Meming v. London County Council ; Metropolitan My. Co. T. London County Council {Consolidated Appeal), C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 317. Affirmed by H.L.(E.) [1910] W. N. 223 Fletcher v. Birkenhead Corporation, [1906] 1 K. B. 605. Affirmed by C. A. [1907] 1 K. 208 Fletcher v. Fletcher - - (1844) 4 Hare, 67 Distinguished by Eve J. In re Plump- tee's Maeeiage Settlement [1910] 1 Ch. 609 Fletcher v. Ryland, (1866) L. R. 1 Ex. 265 ; (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 330. Principle of, applied by C. A. West v. Beistol Teamways Co [1908] 2 K. B. 14 Flight V. Booth, (1834) 1 Bing. N. C. 370, 377 ; 41 R. R. 599, 604. Applied by C. A. In re PUCKBTT AND Smith's Conteact [1902] 2 Ch. 258 Flight V. Lahe (Lord) (1835) 2 Bing. N. C. 72 See In re Ethell and Mitchells and Butlee's Conteact [1901] 1 Ch. 945, 949 Flion 4- Sons (No. 2), Ex parte, [1899] 2 Q. B. 607. ' Discussed and approved by C. A. TowEE Justices v. Chambees [1904] 3 K. B. 903 Flifcroft's Case - (1882) 21 Ch. D. 519, 534, 535 Dictum in, followed by C. A. TowEES r. Afeican Tug Co. [1904] 1 Ch. 688 Flowers v. Chambers - [1899] 2 Q. B. 142 Disapproved of by H. L. (E.). Raine ■0. JOBSON & Co. . [1901] A. C. 404 Referred to by C. A. Catteemole v. Atlantic Teanspoet Co. [1902] 1 K. B. 204, 207 ; Babtell v. W. Geay & Co. C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 226, 229 Query whether ought still to be treated as overruled. Smith v. Standaed Steam Fishing Co. C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 276 ccolxviii TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEKULED, &0., Flureau v. Thornkill - - (1777) 2 W. Bl. 1078 Principle of, applied by Div. Gt. Morgan v. Eussell & Sons - [1909] 1 E. B. 357 Foley V. Burnell, (1783) 1 Bro. C. C. 274 ; (1785) 4 Bro. P. G. 319. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Fothergill's Estate [1903] 1 Ch. 149 Eeferred to by Parker J. In re Pakkbr [1910] 1 Ch. 681 Foley V. Fletcher, (1858) 3 H. & N. 769 ; 28 L. J. (Ex.) 100. Distinguislied by Phillimore J. Scoblb v. Secretary of State in Council FOR India [1902] 2 K. B. 413 Fortes v. Aspinall - - (1811) 13 East, 323 Discussed by Channel J. United States Shipping Co. v. Empress Assurance Corporation [1907] IK. B. 269 1 C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 116 Forles v. Moffatt, (1811) 18 Ves. 384, 390 ; 11 E. E. 222. Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re FrbncTec-Brewstee's Settlement [1904] 1 Ch. 713 Forles y. Peacock - (1846) 1 Ph. 717, 721 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Henson - [1908] 2 Ch. 356 Forbes /. Scottish Provident Institution, (1895) 23 E. 322 ; 3 Tax Cas. 443. Discussed by H. L. (E.). Ghesham LiPE Assurance Society r. Bishop [1902] A. C. 287, 293, 298 Followed by Ct. of Sees. (Sc.) Stan- dard Life Assurance Co. v. Allan [1902] W. N. 176 Furbes-Smith v. Forbes-Smith [1901] W. N. 116 Eeversed by 0. A. - [1901] P. 258 Ford, lit re. Ford v. Ford [1902] 1 Ch. 218 Affirmed by C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 606 See In re CuFFE - - Joyce J [1908] 2 Ch. 500, 601 Fordham v. Fordham (1864) 34 Beav. 59 Followed by Byrne J. In re Haevet [1901] 2 Ch. 290 Foreign and ColoniM Governmetit 'Irust Co., In re, [1891] 2 Ch. 395. Eeferred to by Parker J. See In re Egyptian Delta Land and Invest- ment Co. [1907] W. N. 16 Formby Bros. v. Formby - [1910] W. N. 48 See Erratum [1910] W. N. 67 Forrest Sf Barr v. Henderson J)- Co., (1869) 8 M. 187. Eeferred to by H. L. (Sc.) CLYDEBANK Engineering and Shipbuilding Co. 11. Don Jose Eamos Yzquierdo y Gastaneda [1906] A. C. 6, 17 Forrest r. Merry Ji" Cuni nr/hiime, Li., (1908) 45 Sc. L. E. 290. Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1909] A. C. 417 Forster v. Elvet CoUie7-y Co. Quin v. I'he Same, Seed V. The Sante. Morgan v. The Same, [1908] 1 K. B. 629. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Dyson V. Forstee. Dyson v. Seed, Quin, AND Morgan [1909] A. C. 98 Fm'ster v. Farquhar ■ - [1893] 1 Q. B. 564 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Dunn «. South Eastern and Chatham Ey. Co. [1903] 1 K. B. 338, 361 Forster r. Hophinson - (1874) L. E. 19 Eq. 74 Eeferred to by Buckley J. In re Beaumont [1902] 1 Ch. 889 Foster, In re - (1890) 45 Ch. D. 629 Commented on and distinguished by Farwell J. In re BIRD [1901] 1 Ch. 916, 919 Not followed by Cozens-Hardy J. Fleming v. Loe [1901] 2 Ch. 584 Principle of, not followed by Kekewich J. In re ALSTON [1901] 2 Ch. 584 Overruled by C. A. In re ATKINSON [1904] 2 Ch. 160 Foster v. Cockerell, (1835) 9 Bli. (N.S.) 332, 375 ; 39 B. E. 24. Eeferred to by Wright J. In re LAKE [1903] IK.B. 151, 153 Foster v. Coles [1906] W. N. 107 See Adair v. Old Bushmills Dis- tillery Co. Parker J. [1908] W. N. 24 Foster v. Fraser ■ [1893] 3 Ch. 158 Eeferred to by Buckley J. Boyce r. Paddington Borough Council [1903] 1 Ch. 109, 116 Foster v. Maekliinon - (1869) L. E. C. P. 704 Distinguished by Warrington J. HowATSON V. Webb • [1907] 1 Ch. 537 Fothergill .-—Bain v. (1874) L. E. 7 H. L. 158 Applied by Div. Ct. MORGAN v. EusSELL & Co. [1909] 1 K. B. 357 Foulger v. Ardinff [1901] 2 K. B. 151 Eeversed by C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 700 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Wareiner [1903] 2 Ch. 867 Foivhesv. Manchester and London Life Assurance and Loan Association, (1863) 8 B. & S. 917. Followed by Kekewich J. Hemmings ^\ ScBPTEB Life Association, Ld. [1905] 1 Ch. 366 Fowkes V. Pascoe - (1875) L. E. 10 Ch. 343, 351 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Heather - [1906] 2 Ch. 230 Fox V. Fox (18715) L. E. 19 Eq. 286 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re GossLiNG [1902] 1 Ch. 948 See In re WILLIAMS. Neville J. [1907J 1 Ch. 180 CUBING THE YBAES 1901—1910. coclxix Fox V. Garrett - ■ (1860) 28 Beav. 16 See In re Ridley Joyce J. [1904] 2 Ch. 774 Disapproved of by C. A. In re Bbnbtt [1906] 1 Ch 216 Frame v. Dawson, (1807) 14 Tes. 386 ; 9 E. R. 304. Referred to by Ketewioh J. Dickinson V. Barrow [1904] 2 Ch. 339, 344 Francis v. Turn^ Brotliers, [1900] 1 Q. B. 478 Approved of by H. L. (E.) Wriglet V. Whittaker & Sons [1902] A. 0. 299 Franlt, In re ■ - - [1894] 1 Q. B. 9 Discussed by C. A. Pearson v. WiLOOCK 1906] 2 K. B, 440 Frankenburg v. Great Horseless Carriage Co., [1900] 1 Q. B. 504. Followed by C. A. Compania San- SINBNA DE CARNES CONGBLADAS V. HouLDER Brothers & Co. [1910] 2 K. B. 364 Fraser, In re. Lowtlier t. Fraser, [1904] 1 Ch. 111. Affirmed by C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 726 Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re Taylor - [1909] W. N. 89 Fraser v. leaser - - [1904] 1 K. B. 56 Referred to by Div. Ct. Eraser v. Eraser [1904] 2 K. B, 245, 247 Referred to by Div. Ct. Blair v. Clark - [1908] 2 K. B. 648 Fraser y. Fraser, [1904] W. N. 89 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 245 Reversed by C. A. - [1908] 1 K. B. 368 Fraser v. Murdoch, (1881) 6 App. Cas. 855, 872. Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. Matthews v. Rtjgglbs-Brise [1910] W. N. 234 Fraser v. Tliompson (1859) 4 De G. & J. 659 See GoATLBY v. Jones - Neville J. [1907] W. N. 161 Fraser v. Whalley - - (1864) 2 H. & M. 10 Principle of, applied by Byrne J. Punt ■0. Symons & Co - [1903] 2 Ch. 506 Frazer, In re, Teates v. Frazer, (1888) 22 Ch. D. 827. Followed by Parker J. In re Elliott [1910] W. N. 106 Fraxery. Jones - (1846), 5 Hare, 475, 481 Referred to by C. A. In re W. Tasker & Sons, Ld. [1905] 2 Ch. 687 FreaWs Settlement, In re - [1902] 1 Ch. 97 Not followed by Buckley J. In re Clarke's Settlement [1902] 2 Ch. 327 Freeman, In re, Hope v. Freeman, [1910] W. N. 6 Affirmed by C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 681 Freeman v. Jeffries - (1869) L. E. 4 Ex. 189 Distinguished by Hamilton J. Bakbe V. OOURAGK & Co. - [1910] 1 K. B. 66 D.D. Freeman v. Laing - - [1899] 2 Ch. 355, 358 Followed by Kekewioh J. In re Phil- lips' Trusts [1902] 1 Ch. 183 Freei' v. Hesse • (1853) 4 De G. M. & G. 495 Followed by C. A. In re Habdman AND WiLOox's Contract [1902] 1 Ch. 699 Freke v. Carh&ry {Lord'), (1873) L. R. 16 Eq. 461 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Moses - [1908] 2 Ch. 235 Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re HOYLES - [1910] 2 Ch. 333 Freman v. WkUiread ■ (1865) L. E. 1 Eq. 266 Distinguished by "Warrington J. In re Sir Robert Peel's Settled Estates [1910] 1 Ch. 389 French v. Howie, [1905] W. N. 116 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 580. Reversed by C. A. - [1906] 2 K. B. 674 Frere and Staveley Taylor Sf Co., and North Shore Mill Co., In re, [1905] 1 K. B. 366. See In re Colman and Watson C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 47 FreshfieWs Trusts, In re (1879) 11 Ch. D. 198 Approved and followed by C. A. Montekorb v. Guedalla [1903] 2 Ch. 26 Frewen, In re - - (1888) 38 Ch. D. 383 Dicta in, considered and distinguished by Eve J. In re Duke op Manches- ter's Settlement [1910] 1 Ch. 106 Frewen v. Law Life Assurance Society, [1896] 2 Ch. 511. Ratio decidendi of, explained and ap- plied by FarweU J. In re Baron Kensington [1902] 1 Ch. 203 Referred to by Byrne J. Honywood v. HoNYWOOD [1902] 1 Ch. 347 Frewen v. Phillips, (1861) 11 C. B. (N. S.) 449 Doctrine applied in, not affected by Colls V. Home and Colonial Stores^ Ld., [1904] A. C. 179. See Morgan v. Fear H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 426 Frid V. Fenton - - (1900) 69 L. J. (Q.B.) 436 Followed by C. A. Plant v. Wright & Co. [1906] 1 K. B. 363 Friend, In re ■ - (1898) 78 L. T. 222 See In re Brunning - Neville J. [1909] 1 Ch. 276 Friend v. Toeing - - - [1897] 2 Ch. 421 Explained and distinguished by Keke- wioh J. North American Land and Timber Co. v. Watkins [1904] 1 Ch. 248 Fritz V. Hobson - - [1880] 14 Ch. D. 542 Referred to by 0. A. Chbssum & Sons V. Gordon - [1901] 1 K. B. 694, 699 Frixione v. Tagliaferro, (1856) 10 Moo. P. C. 175 Referred to by Bruce J. Halbronn v. International Horse Agency and Exchange, Ld. [1903] 1 K. B.270, 273 ccclxx TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c.. Fvy V. Chartered Mercantile Banh of India, (1866) L. R. 1 C. P. 689. Referred to by P. 0. Turner <■. Haji GrOOLAM Mahomed Azam [1904] A. C. 826, 836 Fryer y. Wiseman - (1876) 2i W. R. 205 Followed by Buckley J. PiGfGOTT v. TooGOOD [1904] W. N. 130 Fulham Parish v. Woolwich Union, [1907] A. C. 255. Followed by Div. Ct. KlNGSTON-TTPON- HtTLL InCOEPOBATION FOR THE POOE c. Hackney Gxtaedians [1910] W. N. 246 Fulham Vestry v. 31vnter [1901] 1 K. B. 501 Overruled by 0. A. London Couhty CoTTNCiL V. Wandsworth Boeotjoh Council [1903] 1 K. B. 797 Fuller, In re - - - [1900] 2 Ch. 551 Distinguished by C. A. In re Lang- DALE - - [1901] 1 Ch. 3 Fuller V. White Feather Reward, Ld., [1906] 1 Ch. 823. Overruled by C. A. BiSGOOD v. Hen- derson's Transvaal Estates, Ld. [1908] 1 Ch. 743 Fullerion v. Martin (1853) 22 L. J. (Ch.) 893 Applied by Buckley J. Kirby-Smith V. Parnell [1903] 1 Ch. 483 Fulton V. Andrew - (1875) L. R. 7 H. L. 448 Discussed by jeune Pres. Garnbtt- Botpield ■!>. Garnbtt-Botfibld [1901] P. 335 Applied by Walton J. Wilson v. Bassil [1903] P. 239 Furler, Ex parte - - [1893] 2 Q. B. 122 Principle of, explained by Swinfen Bady, J. In re Spiral Globe, Ld. [1902] 1 Ch. 398 Applicable. Buckley J. In re S. Abrahams & Sons, Ld. [1902] 1 Ch. 696 Furber, In re, (1898) L.J. (Notes of Cases) 303, 343. Inapplicable. In re DILLON Wright J. [1903] W. N. 49 Gadd, In re - - (1883) "23 Ch. D. 134 See In re Kbnsit - Neville J. [1908] W.N. 236 Gadd V. Provincial Union Banh, [1909] 2 K. B. 353. Reversed by H. L. (E.) sub nam. Kibk- wooD V. Gadd - [1910] A. C. 422 Galbraith v. Grimshaw and Baxter, [19101 1 K. B. 339. Aifirmed by H. L. (E.) mb noni. Gal- braith V. Gbimshaw [1910] A. C. 608 Gale V. Gale ■ - . (1856) 21 Beav. 349 Explained by Farwell J. In re Dow- sett [1901] 1 Ch. 398 Galloway HEarh of) v. Galloway {Dowager Countess\of), (1902) 5 F. 48. AfBrmediby H. L. (So.) 5*^-= [1904] A, C. 80 Garbutt v, Durham Joint Committee, [1904] 1 K. B. 522. Affirmed by C. A. - [1904] 2 K. B. 614 On one point reversed by H. L. (B.) [1906] A. C. 291 Gardiner v. Maefarlane - (1893) 20 R. 414 Distinguished by C. A. Jones, Ld. v. Green & Co. [1904] 2 K. B. 275 Gardner v. Hodgson's Kingston Breweries Co. [1900] 1 Ch. 592. Reversed by C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 199 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. 229 Gardner v. London, Chatham and Dover Ry. Co., (1867) L. R. 2 Ch. 201, 219. Referred to by C. A. Stagg v. Med- WAY (Upper) Navigation Co. [1903] 1 Ch. 169, 177, 179, 181 Gardner v. Trechmann (1884) 15 Q. B. D. 154 Referred to by P. C. Turner v. Haji GooLAM Mahomed Azam [1904] A. C. 826, 836 Distinguished by C. A. Redebiac- tibsblskabet "Superior" c. Dewae & Webb [1909] 2 K. B. 998 Garrard v. Lauderdale (1831) 2 Rnss. & My. 451 See In re Harden Star. Lavis and Sinclair Co. Joyce J. [1903] W. N. 64 Garvey v. Hibbert (1812) 19 Vea. 125 Principle of, applied by C. A. In re Sharp - [1908] 2Ch. 190 Gas Light and Cohe Co. v. Cannon Brewery Co., [1903] 1 K. B. 593. Reversed by H. L. (E.) sub nmn. Can- non Brewery Co. v. Gas Light and Coke Co. - - [1904] A. C. 331 Gas Light and Cohe Co. v. Mead, (1876) 45 L. J. M. C. 71. Approved by H. L. (E.) Cannon Bbewbry Co. I. Gas Light and Coke Co. [1904] A. C. 331 Gaskell and Walters' Contract, In re, [1906] W.N. 27; [1906] 1 Ch.440. Affirmed by C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 1 Gas Light and Cohe Co. v. South Metropolitan Gas Co., (1889) 62 L. T. 126. Applied by Neville J. Att.-Gen. v. West Gloucestershire Water Co. [1909] 1 Ch. 636 GasheU's Settled Estates, In re [1894] 1 Ch. 485 Referred to by Buckley J. In re Clarke's Settlement [1902] 2 Ch. 327 Approved by C. A. In re Blagravb's Settled Estates - [1903] 1 Ch. 660 Gattward v. Knee - - [1902] P. 99 Followed by Gorell Barnes J. May v. May - . [1902] P. 103, n. Gatty V. Meld - . (1846) 9 Q. B. 431 Referred to by Div. Ct. Hardwicke V. LANE ■ - [1904] 1 K. B. 204 Gaunt V. Taylor, (1843) 2 Hare, 413 ; 62 R. R. 164. Followed by Farwell J. In re Grif- fith [1904] 1 Ch. 807 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. ccclxxi Ganssen v. Whatman - (1905) 93 L. T. 101 Distinguished on one point and (_semble) followed on another point by Swinfen Eady J. In re Quicke's Trusts [1908] 1 Ch. 887 Gay V. Cadby - - - (1877) 2 C. P. D. 391 Considered and discussed by Div. Ct. Wkstminstee Cobpobation «. Gor- don Hotels, Ld. [1906] 2 K. B. 39 ; [1908] A. C. 142 Geddisv. Proiinetors of Bann Ueserroir, (1878) 3 App. Gas. 430, 438. Followed by P. C. Canadian Pacipio Rt. Co. r. Roy [1902] A. C. 220 Gedge v. Commis&imiers uf Her Majesty's M'lirJis and Public Buildings, [1891] 2 Gh. 630 See In re HARRIS Eve J. [1909] W. N. 181 Gedye, In re- (1852) 15 Beav. 254 See In re Fanshawb Buckley J. [1905] W. N. 64 Gee T. BeU - (1887) 35 Gh. D. 160 Discussed and explained by C. A. Jamaica Ry. Go. r. Colonial Bank [1905] 1 Ch. 677 See SouTHALL Development Syndi- cate, Ld. v. Dunsdon Kekewich J. [1907] W. N. 1 GeipeVs Palent, In re [1903] 2 Ch. 715 Affirmed by C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 239 Followed on one point by Neville J. In re KlABER AND STEINBERG'S Patent [1908] 1 Ch. 847 Geisse v. Taylor [1905] 2 K. B. 658 Referred to by Warrington J. Norton B. Yates - [1906] 1 K. B. 112 General Accident Asutiranee Corporation, In re, [1904] 1 Ch. 147. Not followed by Buckley J. I7i re Taylor's Agreement Trusts [1904] 2 Ch. 737 Followed by Farwell J. In re Richard Mills & Co. (Bbiebly Hill), Ld. [1905] W. S. 36 General Accident, Fire, and Life Assurance Corporation, Ld. v. McGowan, (1907) S. C. 1004. Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1908] A. C. 207 General Accident, Mre and Life Assura-nce Corporation v. Roheiison (or Hunter'), (1909) S. C. 344. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1909] A. C. 404 General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland v. Overto^m (Lord:). Macalister v. Young, (1902) 4 F. 1083. Reversed by H. L. (So.) [1904] A. C. 518 General Billposting Co. v. Atkinson, [1908] 1 Ch. 537. AfBimed by H. L. (E.) - [1909] A. C. 118 Principleof , applied by C. A. MEASURES Brothers, Ld. o. Measures [1910] 2 Ch. 248 Genei-al Credit Co., In re [1891] W. N. 153 Not followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Euphrates and Tisris Steam Navigation Co. ■ [1604] 1 Ch. S60 General Property Intestw,ent Co. v. Matheson's Trustees, (1888) 16 Rettie, 282. Referred to by C. A. BELLEEBY r. Rowland and Maewood's Steam- ship Co. - [1902] 2 Ch. 14 Gewry v. Fitzgerald ' (1822) Jac. 468 Considered and explained by Warring- ton J. In re OLIVER - [1908] 2 Ch. 74 Geneve, In re (1885) 16 Q, B. D. 700 Commented on by C. A. In re Cron- MIRE - [1901] 1 K. B. 480 Gentlli, In the Goods of, (1875) Ir. R. 9 Bq. 541 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re MosES [1908] 2 Ch. 235 Gentle V. Faulhner - (1900) 2 Q. B. 267 Referred to by G. A. In re MASTERS AND Great Western Ry. Go. [1901] 2K. B. 84, 89 Gentry, A Debtor, In re (No. 31 of 1909), Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 29. Overruled by C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 825 George, In re - (1877) 5 Gh. D. 837 Referred to by C. A. /;* re Bowlby [1904] 2 Ch. 686 Referred to by E ve J. In re Abrahams [1910] W. N. 237 George v. Glasgow Coal Oo. (1908) S. C. 846 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1909] A. C. 123 George Xeivman cS- Co., In re [1895] 1 Gh. 686 Referred to by Farwell J. Young v. Naval, Military, and Civil Ser- vice Co-operative Society of South Africa, Ld. [1905] 1 K. B, 687 George Routledge S,- Sons, Ld., In re, [1904] 2 Gh. 474. Approved by C. A. In re W. TASKEB & Sons, Ld. [1908] 2 Ch. 587 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Perth Electric Tramways, Ld. [1906] 2 Ch. 216 George WIdtechurch Ld. v. Cavaimgli, ' [1902] A. C. 117, 145. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. POETER V. MOORB [1904] 2 Ch. 367 Gej'ard, In re (1888) 58 L. T. 800 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re O'CONNBLL - [1903] 2 Ch. 574 Gerard (Lord), In re, (1888) 58 L. T. 800 ; [1888] W. N. 35. Commented upon by Eve J. TrbmAynb V. Rashleigh - [1908] 1 Ch. 681 Gerard's (LorS) Settled Estate, In re, [1893] 3 Gh. 252. Considered by Buckley J. Stanpoed V. Roberts - [1901] 1 Oh. 440, 448 German Date Coffee Co., In re, (1882) 20 Ch. D. 169. Followed by Swinfen Eady J. Ste- phens r. Mysore Reefs (Kangundy) Co. - - [1902] 1 Ch. 746 a a2 ccclxxii TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c.. Gestetner's Trade Mark, In rp. - [1907] 2 Ch. 478 Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. S13 OiUon V. Paddington Vestry, [1900] 2 Ch. 794 The ruling of Stirling J. in, discussed and applied by Neville J. Gkeen v. Hackney Coeporation [1910] 2 Ch, 105 GiUs V. J/mr;' - - [1891] A. C. 248 Distinguished by P. C. Assets Co. v. MERE RoiHl [1906] A. C. 176 Gibbs V. Bumsey, (1813) 2 V. & B. 294 ; 13 E. R. 88. Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. I7i re Sinclair - [1903] W. N. 113 Giblan V. Xational Amalgamated Labourers' Union, of Great Britain and Ii'elatul, [190.S] W. N. 172. Reversed by C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 600 Gibson, In. re - - - (1878) 8 Ch. D. 230 Principle of, applied by Buckley J. In re Jackson & Bassford, Ld. [1906] 2 Ch. 467 Gibson v. Bott - (1802) 7 Ves. 97 Referred to by Kekewich J. In, re Woods - [1904] 2 Ch. 4 Giffard v. Wittingtun - (Unreported) Followed by Farwell J. Robinson v. GirPARD . [1903] 1 Ch. 865 Gilbert v. End.ean, (1878) 9 Ch. D. 259, 266. | Referred to by C. A. TowNEND r. TOWNEND - [1905] W. N, 158, 163, 178 Referred to by Warrington J. In re [1908] W. N. 49 [1905] 2 K. B. 691 Parker r. Talbot [1905] 2 Ch. 643 (1865) 34 Beav. 354 by Buckley J. In re [1905] 1 Ch. 647 Gilchrist, Rr parte (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 521 Referred to by Neville J. Goatlet v. Jones - [1909] 1 Ch. 557 Giles V. Perkins ■ - - (1807) 9 East, 12 Referred to by Warrington J. Dawson !■. Isle [1906] 1 Ch. 633 Gillespie v. Biddell ■ ■ (1908) S. C. 628 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) - [1909] A. C. 130 Gingell, Son and FosTtett, Ld. v. Stepney Borough Council, [1906] 2 K. B. 468. Affirmed by C. A., subject to a slight variation of the declaration made by the order [1908] 1 K. B. 116 Ginger, In re - - [1897] 2 Q. B. 461 Applied by Wright J. In re Wbibking [1902] 1 K. B. 713 " Gi2)sy Queen," The. (1895) P. 176 Discussed by Div. Ct. The " Prince Llewellyn " [1904] P. 83 Not followed upon one point by C. A. The " ToscANA" [1905] P. 148 Gist, In re - (1877) 5 Ch. D. 881 Referred to by C. A. In re Gist [1904] 1 Ch. 398 Launder GilbeH V. Jones ■ Overruled by C. A. Gilbertson v. Gilbertsu Distinguished Banks Gl-^f, In re. Gist v. TimhriU [1906] 1 Ch. 58 Affirmed by C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 280 Gittins V. Steele (1818) 1 Swans. 199 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In. re West [1909) 2 Ch. 180 Given V. Mujssey (1892) 31 L. R. Jr. 126 Followed by Warrington J. In re Wilson [1908] 1 Ch. 839 Gladstone, In re [1900] 2 Ch. 101, 105 Referred to by C. A. In re Aldam's Settlement [1902] 2 Ch. 46 Gladstone v. PadwicTi - (1871) L. R. 6 Ex. 203 Referred to by Lawrence J. Johnson V. Pickering [1907] 2 K. B. 437 ; on appeal, C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 1 Glamorgan Coal Co. v. South Wales Miners Federation, [1903] 1 K. B. 118. Reversed by C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 545 Decision of C. A. [1903] 2 K. B, 545 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. South Wales Miners' Federation [1905] A. C. 239 Glamorgan County Asylum v. Cardiff Guardians, [1910] W. N. 172 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 547. Affirmed by C. A. [1910] W. N. 258 Glas-dir Copper Mines, Ld. In re, English Metallurgical Co. v. Gla.idir Copper Mines, Ld., [1905] W. N. 57. Affirmed by C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 365 Dictum of Cozens-Hardy L. J. in, followed by Warrington .L In re A. BoYNTON, Ld. - [1910] 1 Ch 519 Glasgow Corporation v. Inland Revenue, (1880) S. L. 1. Referred to by Channel! J. Smith r. Dauney [1904] 2 K. B. 186, 193, 197 Glasgow Corporation Water Commrs. v. Inland Revenue, (1886) 13 Rettie, 489. Referred to by Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) Harris r. Irvine Burgh Corporation [1901] W. N. 182, 183 Glasgow (JLord Provost and Magistrates of) v. Farie, (1888) 13 App. Oas. 657. Referred to by Buckley J. Great Western Ry. Co. v. Blades [1901] 2 Ch. 624 Distinguished by C. A, Great Western Ry. Co. v. Carpalla United China Clay Co. [1909] 1 Ch. 218 Glasgow Court Houses Commrs. v. Lanark County Council, (1900) 3 F. 103. Revei-sed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. Lanark County Council v. Glasgow Court Houses Commrs. [1902] W. N. 236 Glasgow Navigation Co. v. Iron Ore Co., (1909) S. 0. 1414. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1910] A. C. 293 JDUBINa THE YEAES 1901—1910. ooolxxiii Olasgow Parilion, LA. v. Motkei'well, (1903) 6 F. 116. Distinguished by 0. A. Meaes v. Westeen Canada Pulp and Paper Co. - [1905] 2 Ch. 363 Distinguished by Swinfen Bady J. Tn re National Motob Mail-Coach Co. [1908] 2 Ch. 228 Olasgow Watei- Commrs. v. Inland Revenue, (1875) 2 Kettie, 708. Followed by Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) Harris V. Irvine Burgh Corporation, (1900) 2 Fraser, 1080 See [1901] W. N. 182, 183 eiendevon, 2%e - - - - [1893] P. 269 Approved of by C. A. Nelson & Sons Ld. r. Nelson Line, Liverpool, Ld. In re The Same [1907] 2 K. B. 706 Distinguished by Bray J. In re Kotal Mail Steam Packet Co. and River Plate Steamship Co. [1910] 1 K. B. 600 Olenie v. Bruce SmUh - [1907] 2 K. B. 507 Affirmed by C. A. - [1908] 1 K. B. 263 " Qlenochiir The ■ - [1896] P. 10 Approved by C, A. EowsoN v. At- lantic Transport Co. [1903] 2 K. B. 666 Glory Paper Mills Co., In re, [1894] 3 Ch. 478 Applied by Eve J. Grundy ■». Beiggs [1910] 1 Ch. 444 Glover, In re [1899] 1 Ir. E. 337 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. In re Cowlet - [1901] 1 Ch. 38 Gluckstein v. Barms - - [1900] A. C. 240 Distinguished by Wright J. In re Ladt Forrest (Mueohison) Gold Mine, Ld. - [1901] 1 Ch. 582 Glukman, In re. Att.-Gen. v. Jefferys, [1907] 1 Ch. 171. Eeversed by C. A. - [1908] 1 Ch. 682 Decision of C. A. affirmed by H. L. (E.), sub noni. Att.-Gen. v. Jepperys [1908] A. C. 411 GoddarcL v. Jeffreys - - (1881) 30 W. R. 269 Eeferred to by Eekewich J. Van Praagh «. EVERIDGB [1902] 2 Ch. 266 Godden v. Hytlie Burial Board, [1906] W. N. 90 Affirmed by C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 270 Godstone Rural District Council and Caterham Urian District CoJtncil, In the Matter of, [1903] 1 K. B. 554. Eeversed by H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 171 Goff\. Great Korthern Ry. Co., (1861) 3 EUis & Ellis, 672. Principle of, followed by C. A. Lam- bert 1). Great Eastern Et. Co. [1909] 2 K. B. 776 Gold Co., In re - (1879) 11 Ch. D. 702 Followed by C. A. Aenot v. United African Lands, Ld. [1901] 1 Ch. 618 Considered by C. A. In re National Company poe the Distribution op Electricity by Secondary Genb- eatoes, Ld. - - [1902] 2 Ch. 34 Goldberg, Dx jjarte - [1893] 1 Q. B. 417 See Handford v. George Clarke, Ld. - 0. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 181 Goldberg, In re - (1905) 91 L. T. 664 See In re Brindley C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 377 GoldUll V. Clarhe ■ - (1893) 68 L. T. 414 Disapproved of by C. A. Solomon v. Mulliner [1901] 1 K. B. 76 Goldsmid v. Great JEastcrn Ry. Co., (1883) 25 Ch. D. 511. Considered by C. A. Wilcox v. Steel [1904] 1 Ch. 212 Goldsmith v. Slattery ■ (1890) 63 L. T. 273 Followed by Div. Ct. Gardner, Locket & Hinton, Ld. v. Doe [1906] 2 K, B. 171 Goldsmiths' Co. v Wyatt [1905] 2 K. B. 586 Eeversed by C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 96 Goldstein v. Hollingswurth [1904] 2 K. B. 578 Discussed by C. A. Hoenee v. Frank- lin - [1908] 1 K. B. 479 Discussed by C. A. Stuckey v. Hooke [1906] 2 K. B. 20 Goldstrom v. Tallei-man - (1886) 18 Q. B. D. 1 Discussed by C. A. Eosbfield v. Pro- vincial Union Bank [1910] 2 K. B. 781 Gonty and MaTichester, Sheffield, and Lincoln shire Ry. Co., In re, [1896] 2 Q. B. 439. Applied by C. A. SOUTH EASTERN Ey. Co. «!. Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900), Ld. [1910] 1 Ch. 12 Good, In re - . - [1905] 2 Ch. 60 Followed by Warrington J. In re Donald - [1909] 2 Ch. 410 Goods, Ex j)aHe. In re Armitage, (1877) 5 Ch. D' 46. Distinguished by C. A. In re E. W. A. [1901] 8 K. B. 642 Good S; Co. v. Isaacs - [1892] 2 Q. B. 555 See The " Arne" Div. Ct. [1904] P. 184, 187 Goodier v. Mmunds - - [1893] 3 Ch. 445 Dictum of Stirling J. in adopted by C. A. In re Applbby [1903] 1 Ch. 666 Gooding v. Read (1853) 4 D. M. & G. 510 Head-note to, corrected by Warring- ton J. In re Blew [1906] 1 Ch. 624 Not followed by Warrington J. In re Blew ■ [1906] 1 Ch. 634 Goodlad v. Burnett - (1855) 1 K. & J. 341 Applied by Joyce J. In re Slater [1S06] 2 Ch. 480 Goodloch V. Cousins - [1897] 1 Q. B. 348, 558 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Ceane & Sons v. Ormbrod [1903] 2 K. B. 37 Goodman v. Saltaih (Mayor of), (1882) 7 App' Cas. 63.=!, 639. Applied by Swinffn Bady J. In re Allen - - - [1906] 2 Ch. 400 ccclxxiv TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEREULEt), &(3., Gnoflmnii. v. Saltash (Mayur of ), (1882) 7 App. Cas. 633, 639. Keferred to by Neville J. LoED Chesterfield v. Haeeis [1907] W. N. 253 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 230 Reversed by C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 397 GoodsoH V. BichardsoH - (1874) L. E. 9 Ch. 221 Applied by Swinfen EadyJ. Maeeiott V. East Geinstead Gas and Watbe Co. [1909] 1 Ch. 70 6ordo7i V. Oordim [1903] P. 141, 143 See Goedon v. Goedon [1904] P. 163 Gofdon V. London City and Midland Banli, Ld. Gordon v. Caintal and Cmmtiex Banh, Ld., [1902] 1 K. B. 242. Affirmed in part and varied in part by H. L. (E.) sui nom. Capital and Counties Bank, Ld. r. Goedon. London Cixr and jMidland Bank, Ld. v. Goedon - [1903] A. C. 240 Gurdun v. St. Mary Aiiotts ( Vestry of), Eeiising- ton, [1894] 2 Q. B. 742, 754. Followed by Swinfen Eady J. Pescod , . Westminsteb Coepoeation [1905] 2 Ch. 476 Gnrdun v. Silber ■ (1890) 2.5 Q. B. D. 491 Followed by Div. Ct. Weight v. Andeeton [1908] W. N. 258 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 209 h'lirddin-Cammitii/ v. Iloiddsioorth, (1909) S. C. 1198. Reversed by H. L. (So.) [1910] A. C. 637 Goring v. Goring ■ - (1676) 8 Swans. 661 Eeferred to by Eve J. RlTSH r. LuOAS [1910] 1 Ch. 437 Gorringe, In re. Gorringe v. Gorringe, [1906] 2 Ch. 341. Eeversed by H. L. (E.) siih iiom. GOEEINGB V. MAHLSTEDT [1907] A. C. 226 Gorringe v. MahUtedt ■ - [1907] A. C. 225 Distinguished by Eve J. In re Lam- bert [1908] 2 Ch. 117 Referred to by C. A. In re Cope [1908] 2 Ch. 1 Gorringe v. Shoreditcli Bormigh Cnuncil. (1902) 86 L. T. 592. Distinguished by Channell J. Heavee •('. FULHAM BOBOnGH COUNCIL [1904] 2 K. B. 383 Giisfoi'd QUarl of) t. Irix/i Land Commission, [1899] A. 0. 435. Followed by H. L. (Ir.) Ebg. v. Bar- ton AND the Great Southbkn ajto Western Ey. Co. op Ireland [1902] A. C. 268 Coding v. Gn.s-Iing - (1859) Johns, 265 Applied by Joyce J. In re Couturier [1907] 1 Ch. 470 ao.-ilimis and Sharpe v. Blalte, (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 324. Distinguished by Warrington J. In. re Craven's IMortgage [1907] 2 Ch. 448 Gossefs Settlement, Be - (1854) 19 Beav. 529 Eeferred to by Byrne J. In re Fox [1904] 1 Ch. 480 Go.'^isij) v. Wright (1863) 32 L. J. (Ch.) 653 See Lister c. Eeevb C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 53, 74 Gosaling, In re. GossUng v. JSlcock. [1902] W. N. 73 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 945. Eeversed by C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 448 Gotig/iY.Wood 4- Co.- [1894] 1 Q. B. 713 Distinguished by C. A. REYNOLDS i). ASHBT & Son, Ld. - [1903] 1 K. B. 87 Distinguished by Parker J. In re Samuel Allen & Sons, Ld. [1907] 1 Ch. 676 Examined and distinguished by C. A. Ellis ■;'. Glovee & Hobson, Ld. [1908] 1 K. B. 388 Govqlt and Axpatria. Silloth and District Joint Water Board, In re [1903] 1 K.B. 574 Affirmed by C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 417 Gocernors of the Cor}>oratiun of the Sons of the Clergy aTid. Sliinner, In re, [1893] 1 Ch. 178. See In re Chuech Aemt and In re Premises at Edgwaee Road [1908] W. N. 127 Governs Case ■ ■ (1875) 1 Ch. D. 182 " Applied by Wright J. In re Lady FOEEBST (MUECHISON) GOLD MINE, Ld. - [1901] 1 Ch. 582 Gow v. Kennedy or Goto (1855) 17 D. 477 See Paton '('. Lewthwaite H. L. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 44 Gowe)' V. Tolitt - - (1891) 39 W. R. 193 Referred to by C. A. Feasee v. Frasee [1905] 1 E. B. 368 Goy <<■ Co., Inre - ■ [1900] 2 Ch. 149 Distinguished by Byrne J. Inre Beown & Gregory, Ld. [1904] 1 Ch. 627 ; On appeal, C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 448 Distinguished by Buckley J. In re Palmer's Dbcoeation aotj Fuenish- ING Co. - [1904] 8 Ch. 743 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Rhodesia Goldfiblds, Ld. [1910] 1 Ch. 239 Gozney v. Bristol Trade and Provident Society, [1909] 1 K. B. 901. Distinguished by C. A. Russell v. Amalgamated Society of Car- penters and Joiners [1910] 1 K. B. 606 Gi-ace, E-c parte (1799) 1 B. & P. 376 Distinguished by C. A. In re Biss [1903] 2 Ch. 40 Graham v. Smart - (1863) 9 Jur. (IST.S.) 387 Eeferred to by Ct. of Faculties. Bail- leau r. Victorian Society of Notaries [1904] P. 180, 183 Graham v. Wronghton. - [1901] W. N. 98 Affirmed by C. A. [1901] W. N. 123 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 451 Dictum of Byrne J. in, not followed by C.A. East Barnet Valley Urban Council r. Stallard [1909] 2 Ch. 686 DURING THE YEAES 1901—1910. ccclxxv Oraiimer, In i-e. JDawson v. Siagins, [1900] 2 Ch. 766. fieversed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. HiGGiNS V. Dawson - [1902] A. C. 1 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re BALLS [1909] 1 Ch. 791 Gramophone and Typewriter, LA. v. Stanley, [1906] 3 K. B. 856. Affirmed by C. A. - [1908] 2 K. B. 89 Grand Junction Canal Co. v. Shugar, (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. 483. Distinguished by Lord Alverstone C.J. English c. Metropolitan Water Board - [1907] 1 K. B. 588 Grand Junotion Waterworks Co. v. Hampton Urban Council, [1898] 2 Ch. 331. Followed by Eve J. Merrick d. Liverpool Corporation [1910] 2 Ch. 449 Grange, In re. Chadioiclt v. Grange, [1907] 1 Ch. 313. Affirmed by C. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 20 Grant, Ex parte. In re Plumbley, (1880) 13 Ch. D. 667. Considered by C. A. Levitt ■». Plumb- ley [1901] 2 S. B. S3, 61, 65, 69 Graia T. Coverdale - (1884) 9 App. Cas. 740 Distinguished by C. A. Jones, Ld. v. Green & Co. - [1904] 2 K. B. 275 Grant v. Ellis - ■ (1841) 9 M. & W. 113 Considered by Div. Ct. Skene v. Cook - - [1901] 2 K. B. 7, 13, 14 Grant v. Langston, (1898) 25 Eettie, 1040 ; (1900) 2 F. 49 ; [1900] A. C. 383 See Report at [1901] W. N. 185 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. Ilpord Park Estates, Ld. v. Jacobs [1903] 2 Ch. 522 Grant v. Norway - - (1851) 10 C. B. 665 Approved by H. L. (E.) George ■Whitechtirch. Ld. v. Cavanaoh [1902] A. C. 117 Grant v. United Kingdom SwitchbacTi Mys. Co., (1888) 40 Ch. D. 135. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. Boschoek Pkopeietabt Co. r. Fukb [1906] 1 Ch. 148 Chant's Case {Johnson v. GahrieV), (1587) Cro. Eliz. 122 ; 10 Co. Rep. 50 a. Followed by Swinfen-Eady J. In re Francis - [1905] 2 Ch. 296 Gray, In re - ■ . [1901] 1 Ch. 239 See In re Pettitt and Valentine Kekewich J. [1901] W. N. 112 Approved and adopted by C. A. In re LONGBOTHAM & SoNS [1904] 2 Ch. 152 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Cohen & Cohen [1905] 1 Ch. 345 ; C. A. [1905] 2 Ch. 137 Gray v. Carr - ■ (1871) L. E. 6. Q. B. 522 Not followed by Walton J. Kish v. Taylor - [1910] 2 K. B. 309 C:^ray v. Fmulw - - - (1847) 9 D. 811 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc). Euthbrglen Parish Council v. Glasgow Parish Council - [1902] A. C. 360 Gray v. Siggers - - (1880) 15 Ch. D. 74 Followed by Warrington J. In re Nicholson [1909] 2 Ch. Ill Graysbrook v. Fox (1564) 1 Plowd. 275 Examined and applied by Warrington J. Ellis v. Ellis [1905] 1 Ch. 613 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re West - [1909] 2 Ch. 180 Crrerit Central Ry. Co. v. Banbury Union, [1907] 1 K. B. 717. Reversed by H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 78 Great Central By. Co. v. SlieffieU Union, [1908] 1 K. B. 750. Reversed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Great Central Et. Co. ■». Banbury Union. Sheffield Union v. Great Central Ey. Co. - [1909] A. C. 78 Great Eastern Ry. Co. v. Haughley, (1866) L. E. 1 Q. B. 666. Not adopted by C. A. Great Central Ey. Co. v. Banbury Union [1907] 1 K. B. 717 On appeal H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 78 Great Northern Ry. v. Inland Revenue Commrs. [1899] 2 Q. B. 652. Affirmed by C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 416 Great Nm-thern Ry. Co. v. McAlister [1897] 1 I. R. 587. Approved and adopted by C. A. Great Western Ry. Co. ij. Talbot [1902] 2 Ch. 759 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. Taff Vale Ry. Co. v. Gordon Canning [1909] 2 Ch. 48 Great Westei-n Ry. Co. v. Bennett, (1867) L. E. 2 H. L. 27. Followed by Eve J. London and North Western Ey. Co. v. Howlbt Park Coal and Canal Co. [1910] W. N. 163 Great Western Ry. Co. v. Bliodes, [1901] 2 Ch. 624. Approved by C. A. In re Todd, BiRLESTON & Co. AND NORTH EASTERN Ry. Co. [1903] 1 K. B. 603 See Great Western Ry. Co. v. Carpalla United China Clay Co. H. I. (E.) [1910] A. C. 83 Great Western Ry. Co. v. Carpalla United China Clay Co., [1909] 1 Ch. 218. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) - [1910] A. C. 83 Great Western Ry. Co. v. London a/nd County Banhing Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 172 ; 0. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 464. Reversed by H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 414 Great Western Ry. Co. v. Midland Ry. Co., [1908] 2 Ch. 644. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Mid- land Ry. Co. v. Great Western Ry. Co. - - [1909] A. C. 445 ccclxxvi TABLE OK CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEBULED, &C., Great Western By. Co. v. Talhot, [1902] 2 Gh. 759. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. Tafp Vale Ey. Co. v. Gordon Canuino [1909] 2 Ch. 48 Greater London Property Co. v. Foot, [1899] 1 Q. B. 972. Distinguished by Channell J. Heavee v. FULHAM BOEOUGH COUNCIL [1904] 2 K. B. 383 Greaves v. Greenwood (1877) 2 Ex. D. 289, 293 Eeferred to by Eeliewich J. In re Jaokson [1907] 2 Ch. 354 Green, In re - ■ (1875) L. R. 10 Ch. 272 Eeferred to by Kekewioh J. Memo- KANDUM AS TO PEAOTICE [1901] W. N. 88 Green, In re. Ball y. Ellis - [1904] W. N. 78 Again mentioned to the Court as to the proper form of order [1904] W. N. 105 Green v. Belcher, - - ■ (1737) 1 Atls;. 506 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Bowlbt [1904] 2 Oh. 685 Green v. Britten and Gilson, [1904] 1 K. B. 350 Explained by C. A. MOEETON r. Eeeve [1907] 2 K. B. 401 Green v. Irish Independent Co., [1899] 1 Ir. E. 386. Disapproved of by C. A. Hildeshei- MEE r. W. F. Faulknee, Ld. [1901] 2 Ch, 862 Green v. Serin - (1879) 13 Ch. D. 589 Distinguished by Byrne J. Phillips ■r. Howell [1901] 2 Ch. 773 Green v. Irihe, (1878) 47 L. J. (Ch.) 783 ; 27 W. E. 39. Not followed by Cozens-Hardy J. In re Tayloe [1901] 2 Ch. 134 Followed by Buckley J. In re White- HOENE - [1906] 2 Ch. 121 Greene v. Greene, (1819) 4 Madd. U8 ; 20 R. E. 284. Distinguished by Banks Greener v. B. X/uin J\' Co. Discussed by C. A. Gregson's Estate, In re - (1864) 2 D. J. & S. 428 Eeferred to by Joyce J. In re Maun- DEE- [1902] 2 011.875 Buckley J. In re [1905] 1 Ch. 547 [1906] 2 K. B. 374 White r. Butt [1909] 1 K, B. 50 Greenocli Steamship Co. v. Maritime Insiinince Co., [1903] 1 K. B. 367. Affirmed by C. A. - [1903] 2 K. B. 667 Greenocli QTrvstees of Port and Harbour of) y. Greemch Magistrates, (1904) 41 S. L. E 658. Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 135 Greenshietd.i, Coivie J,' Co. v. Stephens Sf Sons [1908] 1 K. B. 51. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 431 Greemoood, In re. Goodhart v. Woodhead, [1902] W. N. 82 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 198. Eeversed by C. A. ■ [1903] 1 Ch. 749 Greenwood v. Leather Shod Wlieel Co., [1891] 1 Ch. 431. Eeferred to by FarweU J. Cackett c. Keswick [1901] W. N. 169 ; C. A, [1902] 2 Ch. 456 Grepe v. Loam - - (1887) 37 Cfa. D. 168 Applied by C. A. LOED Kinnaied v. Field ■ - [1906] 3 Ch, 306 Greaham Life Assurance Society, Ld. v. Bishop, [1901] 1 K. B. 153. Eeversed by H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 287 Disapproved of by Ot. of Sess. (Sc.) Standard Life Assueance Co. v. Allan - [1902] W. N. 176 Greta Holme, The - [1897] A. C. 596 Principle of, applied by H. L. (E.) Meesey Docks and Haeboue Boaed ('. Owners op S.S. Maepessa [1907] A. C. 241 Gretton v. Haward, (1819) 1 Swans. 409, 434 ; 18 E. E. 95. Eeferred to by Kekewioh J. In re Hancock [1906] 1 Ch. 16 Greville v. Browne - (1859) 7 H. L. C. 689 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Balls - [1909] 1 Ch. 791 Gfrewar v. Caledonian By. Co., (1902) 4 Fraser, 896 ; [1903] W. N. 167. Followed by Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) M'Cue V. Baeclay, Cuele & Co. [1903] W. N. 170 FoUowed by Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) Gibe v. Dunlop & Co. - [1903] W. N. 171 G)-eys Brewery Co., In re (1883) 25 Ch. D. 400 Referred to by Warrington J. In re AppLETON, French and Sceapton, Ld. - - [1905] 1 Ch. 749 See In re Walkee Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 104 Griendtoveen v. Hamlyn & Co., (1892) 8 Times L. E. 231. Followed by C. A. The " Cheapsidb " [1904] P. 339 Grieves v. Bawley - (1852) 10 Hare, 63 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Cozens - - [1903] 1 Ch. 138 Griffin, Ex parte. In re Adams, (1880) 14 Ch. D. 37. See In re Deummond Phillimore J. [1909] 2 K. B. 622 Griffin v. Houlder Line, Ld. [1904] 1 K B 510 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) sul) nom. Houldee Line, Ld. i . Geippin [1906] A. C. 220 Griffith V. Clarke ■ (1583) Sir F. Moore, 143 See Mbrttens ;■. Hill [1901] 1 Ch. 842, 869 Griffiths V. Vezey - - . [1906] 1 Ch. 796 Form of order in, observed upon by Joyce J. Shuttleworth r. Clews [1910] 1 Ch, 176 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. ccclxxvii Orimond (or Mclittyre) t. Grlmond, (1904) 6 F. 285. Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1906] A. C. 124 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re Pakdok. McLatjghlin v. Penny [1906] 2 Ch. 184 Orimthorpe (JLord), In re, Becltett t. Lord Grim- tlwrpe, [1908] W. N. 201 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 666. Differed witli on one point but affirmed in the result by C. A. - [1908] 2 Oh. 676 Gnmwood y. Moss - (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 360 Approved by C. A. Sehjbant v. Nash, Field & Co. [1903] 2 K. B. 304 Griggs v. Gibson - (1866) li W. R. 538 See In re Walker [1901] 1 Ch. 879, 886 Orissell, Ex parte - (1867) L. R. 2 Ch. 385 Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. Stasg ■K. Medway Upper Navigation Co. [1902] W. N. 69 Grissell's Case - - (1866) L. R. 1 Ch. 528 See In re G. E. B., A Debtok C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 340 Principle of, applied by Buckley J. In re West Coast Gold Mines, Ld. [1905] 1 Ch. 697 ; C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 1 Groh V. Hesketh - [1907] 2 K. B. 232 Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 664 Groswnor v. Grosvenor - (1885) 34 W. R. 140 Commented upon by Gorell Barnes J. Waudby v. Waudby [1902] P. 85 Graver v. Maper - (1856) 5 W. R. 134 Followed by Joyce J. In re Venn [1904] 2 Ch. 62 Grunnell v. Welch - [1905] 2 K. B. 650 Affirmed by C. A. - [1906] 2 K. B. 666 Guardhouse v. BlacUnrn, (1866) L. R. 1 P. & M. 109. The general rules in, discussed by Jeune P. Gaenett-Botfibld v. Gae- nbtt-Botpield [1901] P. 336 Guild ^ Co. v. Conrad [1894] 2 Q. B. 885, 896 Referred to by C. A. Haebubg, India Rubber Comb Co. «. Maetin [1902] 1 K. B. 778, 788 Guildhall, The - - [1908] P. 29 Reversed by H. L. (B.) sul nam. Owners of S.S. " Guildhall " v. Genbeal Steam Navigation Co. The "Guildhall" - [1908] A. C. 169 Gulliver v. Vaux ■ (1746) 8 D. M. & G. 167, n. See In re DixoN Swinfen Eady J. [1903] 2 Ch. 468 Gundry v. Saimbury, [1909] W. N. 213; [1910] 1 K. B. 99. Affirmed by C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 646 Gunn V. Bolchow, Vaughan ^ Co., (1875) L. R. 10 Ch. 491. Referred to by Warrington J. In re i. Depeibs & Sons, Ld. [1909] 2Ch. 423i " Gustaf," The - - - (1862) Lush. 506 Followed by Phillimore J. The " Tbk- GBSTB" - - [1903] P. 26 Guthrie ^- Co. v. Brechin Magistrates, (1888) 15 R. 385. Not followed by C. A. Brook v. Melt- ham Urban Council - - [1908] 2 K. B. 780 Gutta Percha Corporation, In re, [1900] 2 Ch. 665. Approved by C. A. In re National Company poe the Distribution op Electricity by Secondary Gbnbea- TOES, Ld. - [1902] 2 Ch. 34 " Guy Mannering," The (1882) 7 P. D. 52, 132 See The " Dallington" Bncknill J. [1903] P. 77 Gylbei-tY. Fletcher (1629) Cro. Car. 179 Discussed by Div. Ct. Gadd r. Thompson - - [1910] W. N. 262 H.B., B. V. W. ... (1857) 3 K. & J. 382 Distinguished by C. A. Lily, Duchess op Marlborough v. Duke op Marl- borough - [1901] 1 Ch. 166 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re Hope Johnstone [1904] 1 Ch. 470 In re - - [1904] 1 K. B. 94 Distinguished by C. A. In re G. J. C. A.[1906]2K. B. 678 Saddooh v. Humphrey [1900] 1 Q. B. 609 Distinguished by C." A. Kenny v. Harrison [1902] 2 K. B. 168 Hadleigh Castle Gold 3Hnes, In re, [1900] 2 Ch. 419. Approved of by C. A. Arnot r. United African Lands, Ld. [1901] 1 Ch. 618 Referred to by Buckley J. In re Caratal (New) Mines, Ld. [1902] 2 Ch. 498 Hadley v. M'Dougall, (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. 312. Referred to by Eve J. Rattenberry V. MONEO - [1910] W. N. 246 Haediche v. Friern Barnet Urban Council, [1904] 2 K. B. 807. Overruled by C. A. Thompson v. Ecolbs Corporation [1906] 1 K. B. 110 " Halda," Tlie - (1887) 6 Asp. M. L. C. 244 See The " Madeleine " and " Andrb Theodore " Oorell Barnes J. [1904] W. N. 14 V. Bannister - (1819) 4 Madd. 275 Discussed and not followed by Neville J. In re Cattell [1907] 1 Ch. 667 Halford v. Hardy - - [1899] W. N. 243 Distinguished by Warrington J. In re Launder [1908] W. N. 49 Hall, Inre - - - (1887) 35 Ch. D. 551 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re Kiddle - - [1905] W. N. 81 Hall, In re. Ex parte Official Meceiver, [1906] W. N. 229. Reversed by C. A. [1907] W. N. 63 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 876 cocls O'ABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c., Hall, III re. Foster v. Mcfeidfr:, [19U2] AV. N. 208. Reversed by C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 226 Hall V. City of London Brewery Co., (1862) 2 B.'& S. 737. Followed by Div. Ct. BuDD-ScoTT v. Danibll [1902] 2 K. B. 361 Hall V. Ewin - (1887) 37 Ch. D. 74, 82 Dictum of Lopes L.J., in, queried by C. A. Powell c. Hemsley [1909] 2 Ch. 252 Moll Y. Heward (1886) 32 Ch. D. 430 Discussed by Eve J. Heath v. Chiotst [1908] W. N. 120 Hall V. Hubner - (1897) 24 R. 875 Dissented from by H. L. (Sc). Cameeon V. Young [1908] A. C. 176 Hull V. Hurt - (1861) 2 J. & H. 76 Followed by Buckley J. Blaokbuene V. Hope-Edwaedes [1901] 1 Ch. 419 Hall V. Lees [1904] 2 K. B. 602 Referred to by C. A. Hilltee i'. GOVBRNOES OF ST. BAETHOLOMEW'S Hospital [1909] 2. K. B. 820 Hall v. May (1857) 3 K. & J. 585 Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re Waidanis [1908] 1 Ch. 123 Hall V. Michaelmore - - (1901) 86 L. T. 17 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Peaeoe r. Meeeiman [1904] 1 K. B. 80 Hall V. SnowdcH, Hulihard 4- Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 136. Impliedly overruled by Raine v. Jbbson S' Co., [1901] A. C. 404. See Bareett V. Kemp Brothers C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 617 Hall S- Barker, In re (1878) 9 Ch. D. 538 Principle of, applied by Kekewich J. In re HUDSON - [1904] W. N. 32 HalleWs Estate, In re (1880) 13 Ch. D. 696 Discussed by Joyce J. In re Oatway [1903] 2 Ch. 356 " Halley," The - (1868) L. E. 2 P. C. 193 iSfe The ■' Dallington" Buckuill J. [1903] P. 77 Halli nan's Trusts, In re (1904) Ir. Eep. 452 Referred to by Joyce J. Iti re Thomp- son - - [1906] 2 Ch. 199 Hallyhurton, In the Goods of, (1886) L. R. 1 P. & M. 90. Commented on and explained by Jeune Prcs. In the Goods op Vannini [1901] P. 330 Humhro v. Burnand - [1903] 2 K.' B. 399. Reversed by C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 10 Distinguished by C. A. Cuthbeet v. Robaets, Lubbock & Co. [1909] 2 Ch. 226 llnmilton. In re - (1885) 31 Ch. D. 291 Followed by Warrington J. In re Hambrough's Estate [1909] 2 Ch. 620 lldiiilton. In re [189,5] 2 Ch. 370 Followed b^' Joyce J. In re Conolly [1910] 1 Ch. 219 Hamilton v. Hamilton - [1892] 1 Ch. 396 Commented upon by Kekewich J. Haynes v. Foster [1901] 1 Ch. 361 Hamilton v. MacMe, (1889) 5 Times L. R. 677 Distinguished by Div. Ct. The " Portsmouth " [1910] P. 293 Hamilton {Diike of) v. Allan's Trustees, (1878) 5 R. 510. Approved by H. L. (Sc.) Eael op Home c . Lord Bblhaven and Sten- TON - [1903] A. C. 327 Hamilton {I)uhe of} v. Graham, (1871) L. E. 2 H. L.Sc. 166. Followed by Warrington J. Batten Pooll v. Kennedy ■ [1907] 1 Ch. 256 Hamilton, Young S; Co., In re. Ex parte Carter, [1905] W. N. 95 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 381. Affirmed by C. A. - [1905] 2 K. B. 772 Bamlyn 4- Co. v. Talisker Distillery [1894] A. C. 202. Followed by P. C. Spueeier v. La Cloche [1902] A. C. 446 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. BRITISH South Africa Co. v. Db Beers Con- solidated Mines. Ld. C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 602 Hammersmith By. Co. v. Brand, (1869) L. R. 4 H. L. 171, 216. Followed by P. C. Canadian Pacific Ey. v. Eoy - [1902] A. C. 220 Distinguished by C. A. Fletcher v. BlEKENHEAD CORPORATION - [1907] 1 K. B. 205 Hammersmith Vestry v. Lowenfeld, [1896] 2 Q. B. 278. Overruled by C. A. Blackbuen Coe- POEATION r. SANDERSON [1902] 1 K. B. 794 HamjisUire Land Co., In re - [1896] 2 Ch. 743 Compare . Deep Sea Fisheey Co.'s Claim [1902] 1 Ch. 507 Hampstead Corporation v. Midland Ry. Co.. [1904] 2 K. B. 802. Affirmed by C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 638 Hampton v. Holman (1877) 5 Ch. D. 183 Followed by Swinfen Eady J, In re Rising [1904] 1 Ch. 633 Hanbiiry,Inre - - - [1904] 1 Ch. 415 Reversed by H. L. (E.) sub num. COMIS- KEY r. Boweing-Hanbuey [1905] A. C. 84 Hance v. Hording - (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 733 Followed by Wright J. In re Paeey [1904] 1 K. B. 129 Hancock, In re (1888) 59 L. T. (,N.S.) 197 See In re Stucley C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 67 Hancoch, Inre. Watsony. Watson, [1901 llCh. 482. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Han- cock ('. Watson - [1902] A. C. 14 See In re Wood C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 642 JDURING THE TEARS 1901— 19in. clx Handcock's Trusts, In re (1889) 23 L. E. Ir. 31 Followed by Farwell J. I/ire Olivbk's Settlememt - [1906] 1 Ch. 191 Followed by Warrington J. Jw re Bealb's Settlement [1905] 1 Ch. 256 Handf(yrd \. Stm-ie, (1825) 2 S. & 8. 196; 34 E. E. 272, n. Considered by Kekewioh J. In re Alpha Co. - - [1903] 1 Ch. 203 Haiuis V. Andrews ■ - ■ [1893] 2 Ch. 1 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Edgcome. ExpaHe EDGCOME [1902] 2 Ch. 403 Handsworth Disb'ict Council v. Berr'mgton, [1897] 2 Ch. 438, 439. Distinguished on one point by Neville J. Stouebeidge Ueban Council v. BUTLEB AND GEO YE - [1909] 1 Ch. 87 Haiikey, In re - ■ [1899] 1 Ch. 541 Overruled by C. A. In re Samson [1906] 2 Ch. 584 Hanrahan v. Leigh-on-Sea Urian Council, [1909] 1 K. B. 263. Affirmed by G. A. - [1909] 2 K. B. 257 Hansen v. Sarrold Brothers [1894] 1 Q. B. 612 Eeferred to by P. C. Tuenee c. Haji GooLAM Mahomed Azam [1904] A. C. 826, 837 Hanson v. GraliMm., - (1801) 6 Ves. 249 Eeferred to by C. A. lu re Bowlbt [1904] 2 Ch. 685 Hanworth v. Williams (1903) 67 J. P. 315 Dictum in, dissented from by Div. Ct. MooEE r. Lewis [1906] 1 K. B. 27 Harlen v. PUllips (1883) 23 Ch. D. 14. See Maeshall's Valve Geae Co. ;.. Maotting, Waedlb & Co. Neville J. [1909] 1 Ch. 267 Harding v. Metropolitan By. Co., (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. 154 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Caet-Elwes' Conteact [1906] 2 Ch. 143 Harding v. Queensland Stamp Commrs., [1898] A. C. 769, 775. Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re LOVELL AND COLLAED'S CONTEACT [1907] 1 Ch. 249 Hardoon v. Belilios [1901] A. C. 118, 123 Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. Matthews i. Etjggles-Beisb [1910] W. N. 234 Hardy v. Fothergill - (1888) 13 App. Cas. 351 Distinguished by C. A. In re Eeis [1904] 2 K. B. 769 Hardy's Crown Brewery, Ld., and St. Phillip's Tavern, Manchester, Inre, [1910] W. N. 76. On appeal, [1910] W. N. 103 ; C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 267 Hare \. Dims [1893] 1 Q. B. 604 Discussed by Swinfen Eady J. HUM- PHEEYS r. Moeten [1905] 1 Ch. 739 Hargrures and I'hompson's Contract, In re, (1886) 32 Ch. D. 454. See In re FuENBAUX AND Aied's Con- teact - - KekewichJ. [1906] W. N. 215 Hargreaces, In re - (1902) 86 L. T. 43 Dissented from by Buckley J. In re Whitepoed [1903] 1 Ch.889 Hargreaves, In re (1903) 88 L. T. (N.S.) 100 Followed by Neville J. In re Gilbeet [1908] W. N. 63 Explained and distinguished by War- rington J. In re POTSEE [1908] 1 Ch. 828 Hargreaves, In re. Hargreaves v. Hargreaves, [1902] W. N. 18. On appeal C. A. [1903] W. N. 24 ; (Corrigendum) 28 Harkness and Allsop's Contract, In re, [1896] 2 Ch. 358. See In re West and Haedt's Con- tract Farwell J. [1904] 1 Ch. 146 Harlock v. Ashlerry (1882) 19 Ch. D. 539 See Beads'haw r. Widdeington C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 430 Harman, In re ■ [1894] 3 Ch. 607 Eeferred to by Eekewich J. In re Scholefield [1905] 2 Ch. 408 Harman v. Ainslie [1903] 2 K. B. 241 Reversed by 0. A. [1904] 1 X. B. 698 " Sarmonides," The - [1903] P. 1 Principle adopted ^iu and applied by Bargrave Deane J. ' THE " HOHENZOL- lben" [1908] p. 339 Harold v. Smith (1860) 5 H. & N. 381, 385 Referred to by C. A. Gundey v. Sains- BUKT [1910] 1 K. B. 645 Harrington v. Ramage - [1907] W. N. 137 See In reLOED TowNSHEND's Settle- ment Swinfen Eady J. [1907] W. K. 62 Harris v. De Pinna (1885-6) 33 Ch. D. 238 Dictum in, overruled by 0. A. Kilgotje V. Gaddes C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 467 Harris v. Mower 4- Sons, Id., [1904] W. N. 106 Reversed by C. A. [1904] W. N. 180 Harris v. Jenkins - (1883) 22 Ch. D. 481 See Pledge ■!•. Pompeet Joyce J. [1906] W. N. 66 Harris v. May - - (1883) 12 Q. B. D. 97 Not followed by Div. Ct. Elliot v. PiLCHEE [1901] 2 K. B. 817 Followed by Div. Ct. Watts r. Stevens [1906] 2 K. B. 323 Harris v. Scaramanga - (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 481 Rule in, applied by C. A. Db Haet f. CompaSia Anonima de Segueos " Atjeoea " [1903] 2 K. B. 603 Harris' Trust, In re (1854) 2 W. R. 689 Referred to by P. C. Amyot -v. DWAEEIS - [1904] A. C. 268, 271 Harrison, In re - (1889) 43 Ch. D. 55, 61 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Peekins [1907] 2 Ch. 596 ccclxxx TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &C., Harrison v. Buslo (1855) 5 E. & B. 344 See Bbown i). Houston C. A. [1901] 2 K, B. 855, 857 Harrisony. Curnwall Minerals Hy. Co., (1884) 32 W. R. 748 ; 53 L. J. (Ch. 596). Dictum of Kay J. in, followed by Farwell J. In re HoENB & SONS, Ld. [1906] 1 Ch. 271 Harrison v. Harrison [1901] 2 Ch. 136 Approved by C. A. Indeewick r. Tatchell [1901] 2 Ch. 738 Harrison t. Southwarh and Vauxhall Wat»r Co., [1891] 2 Ch.409. Principle laid down in, applied by Joyce J. GoLWBLL v. St. Pangeas BoEOUGH Council [1904] 1 Ch. 707 Harrison, Ainslie S, Co. v. Barrow-in-Furn£ss Corporation, (1891) 63 L. T. 834. Unless distinguishable on other grounds, OTerruled by C. A. WiLLMOTT v. London Road Cae Co. [1910] 2 Ch. 625 Harrogate Estates, Ld., In re, [1903] 1 Ch. 498 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. CuNAED Steamship Co. v. Hopwood [1908] 2 Ch. 564 Harse T. Pearl Life As.mrance Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 92. Reversed by C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 658 Hart V. Frontiiio, ^c, Co., (1870) L. R. 5 Ex. 111. Referred to by C. A. Sheffield Coe- poeation v. Baeolay [1903] 2 K. B. 580 Hart V. Lanarli County Council, (1902) 40 S. L. R. 117. Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1904] A. C. 236 Hart V. Wi?idsor (1843) 12 M. & W. 68 Discussed by Swinfen Eady J. Maek- HAM r. Paget [1908] 1 Ch. 697 Harte v. Meredith (1884) 13 L. R. Ir. 341 Followed by C. A. In re FOED [1902] 2 Ch. 605 Harter v. Coll nan (1882) 19 Ch. D. 630 Referred to by Kekewich J. Hughes V. Britannia Peemanent Benefit Building society [1906] 2 Ch. 607 Hartley, In re - [1891] 2 Ch. 121 Discussed and explained by C. A. Jamaica Ry. Co. v. Colonial Bank [1906] 1 Ch. 677 Hartley, In the Goods of - [1899] P 40 See In the Goods of Ball [1902] W. N. 226 HartnaU v. Ryde Commrs. ■ (1863) 4 B. & S. 361 Overruled on one point by C. A. jyiAGUIEB (.. LIVEEPOOL COEPOEA- TION . [1905] 1 K. B. 767 Hartshorne v. Watson, (1838) 4 Bing.N". C. 178 ; 44 R. R. 693. Referred to by Wright J. Bloee v. GlULlNl - [1903] 1 K. B. 366, 358 " Harvest Home," The - [1904] P. 409 Appeal allowed in part C. A. [1906] P. 177 Harrey v. Fairnie - - (1882) 8 App. Cas. 4g Applied by C. A. Bateb v. Batee [1906] P. 209 Harvey v. Hex - - [1901] A. C. 601 Referred to by Warrington J. Clif- - [1907] 1 Ch. 420 ; C. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 236 (1887) 35 Ch. D. 470 A. In re A. [1904] 2 Ch. 328, 331 (1882) 20 Ch. D. 536 FOED (. TiMMS Harwuod, In re Referred to by C. Harwood, In re Approved by C. A. In re Dehaynin [1910] 1 Ch. 233 Haslam Co. v. Hall, (1887) 5 Rep. Pat. Cas. 1,27 (see also ibid. 114). Not followed by Buckley J, Acbtt- LENB Illuminating Co. r. United Alkali Co. [1902] 1 Ch. 494 Haslam Foundry and Unqiiieering Co. v. Hall, (1888) 20 Q. B. D.'491 ; 5 Rep. Pat. Cas. 144. See Acetylene Illuminating Co. v. United Alkali Co. [1902] 1 Ch. 494, 506, n. Haslucli V. Clarh [1899] 1 Q. B. 699 Referred to by Wright J. In re National United Investment Coe- POEATION - [1901] 1 Ch. 950, 963 HassellY. Stanley - - - [1896] 1 Ch. 607 Followed by C. A. David v. Bees [1904] 2 K. B. 438 Hastie [John) Sj Co. v. Andrew Setts, Brown and Brown Bros. 3,- Co., (1904) 6 & 7F., pp. 1001 and 97 respectively. Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 72 Hastie's Trusts, In re - (1887) 35 Ch. D. 728 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Loveland [1906] 1 Ch. 642 Hastings, In re - - (1892) 9 Mor. 234 Approved and followed by C. A. I71 re PoLLAED - - [1903] 2K. B.41 [1893] 1 Q. B. 62 A. Weinee v. [1910] 1 K. B. 285 [1893] 1 Q. B. 62 Weines v. Haekis [1910] 1 K. B. 285 Hatch V. Hatch - (1804) 9 Ves. 292 ; 7 R. R. 195 Followed by C. A. Weight v. Caetee [1903] 1 Ch. 27 Mansfield <|- Co. v. Weim/ott, (1906) 22 Times L. R. 366. Followed by Pickford J. Assicu- EAZIONI GeNEEALI DE TEIESTE V. Empeess Assueancb Coepoeation, Ld. . [1907] 2 K. B. 814 Hauxwell, Ex parte (1883) 23 Ch. D. 626 Distinguished by Buckley J. In re Jackson & Basspoed, Ld. [1906] 2Ch. 467 Hawhes,Inre - - . [1898] 2 Ch. 1 Referred to by Joyce J . In re Jones AND Kobbets [1906] 2 Ch. 219 Hawthorn, In re - (1883) 23 Ch. D. 743 Followed by Parker J. Deschamps v. Miller - [1908] 1 Ch. 886 Hastings v. Pearson Overruled Haeeis by C. Hastings, Ld. v. Pearso7i Overruled by C. A. ■ Hatch, DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. ccclxxxi Haiotkorn v. Slwddaii, (1856) 3 Sm. & Giff. 293. Followed by Warrington J. In re Sbabrook. - [1910] W. N. 244 Haycraft Gold Reduction and Mining Co., In re [1900] 2 Ch. 230. Followed by Wright J. In re State op WYOMiNa Syndicate [1901] 2 Ch. 431 Approved by 0. A. In re National Company for the Distkibtition op Elbcteicity by Secondary Genera- tors, Ld. - C. A. [1902] 2 Oh. 34 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. BoscHOEK Proprietary Co. r. Fukb [1906] 1 Ch. 148 Haydon v. CaHwright [1902] W. N. 163 See In re MARCHAiTT C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 998 Hayes, In re. TurnbuU v. Hayes, [1900] 2 Ch. 332. Affirmed by C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 629 Hayn v. CuUiford - (1879) 4 C. P. D. 182 See Dunn v. Bucknall Brothers C.A. [1902] 2K. B. 614, 617 Haynes, In re - - (1887) 37 Ch. D. 306 Followed by Buckley J. In re Tren- chard - [1902] 1 Ch. 378 Haynes v. Haynes (1861) 1 Dr. & Sm. 426 See Mercer c. Liverpool,St. Helen's AND South Lancashire Ry. Co. C.A. [1903] IK. B. 652, 661 Followed by Eve J. Wild v. Wool- wich Borough Council [1909] 2 Ch. 287 ; C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 35 Hazeldiiie's Trusts, In re - [1907] 1 Ch. 686 Reversed by C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 34 Head's Trustees and Macdonald, In re, (1890) 45 Ch. D. 310. Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re Baker and Selmon's Contract ■ [1907] 1 Ch. 238 Heath, In re - [1907] 2 Ch. 270 Referred to by Neville J. In re Majtsbr [1910] W. N. 61 Heath v. Pugh - (1881) 6 Q. B. D. 345, 360 ^ Discussed by Swinfen Eady J. In re ' LOVELL AND COLLARD'S CONTRACT [1907] 1 Ch. 249 Referred to by Kekewich J. Cope- stake V. HOPER [1907] 1 Ch. 366 "Heatlier Hell," Tlie - [1901] P. 143 Affirmed by C. A. [1901] P. 272 Heaton v. Goldney. Reversed by C. A. - [1910] 1 K. B. 764 Hecltscher v. Crosley - [1891] 1 Q. B. 224 Followed by C. A. Rickaby v. ElCKABY - [1901] P. 134 See In re An Arbitration between Harwood and Abrahams C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 304 Disapproved of by C. A. Wightwick V. Pope - [1902] 2 K. B. 99 Heola Foundry Co. v. Walker, Hunter ^ Co., (1889) 14 App. Cas. 550, 555, 567. Referred to by C. A. Werner Motors, Ld. v. a. W. Gamage, Ld. [1904] 2 Ch. 680 Hedges y. Preston - - (1899) 80 L. T. 847 Dictum by Vaughan Williams L.J. in, explained and distinguished by C. A. In re Saumarbz [1907] 2 K. B. 170 Hedgeley, In re - ■ (1886) 34 Ch. D. 379 Examined and applied by C. A. In re Atkinson - [1908] 2 Ch. 307 Hedley v. Webb - - [1901] 2 Ch. 126 Referred to by Div. Ct. Humphrey V. Young- - [1903] 1 K. B. 44, 46 Hellawell v. Eastwood • - (1851) 6 Ex. 295 Referred to by H. L. (E.) Reynolds V. ASHBY & Son [1904] A. C. 466, 472 Not followed by Div. Ct. Crosslby Brothers, Ld. v. Lee [1908] 1 K. B. 86 Helsby, In re - - - [1894] 1 Q. B. 742 Followed by C. A. In re Coles and Ravbnshear - [1907] 1 K. B. 1 Helsby, In re - (1893) 1 Mans. 12 Considered by C. A. In re Simon [1909] 1 K. B. 201 Henderson v. Arthur - [1907] 1 K. B. 10, 13 Dictum of Farwell J. in, followed by Warrington J. In re J. Dbpribs & Sons, Ld. - [1909] 2 Ch. 423 Hendej'son v. Xennicot - (1848) 2 D. & S. 492 Referred to by Joyce J. In re Maun- DER - - [1902] 2 Ch. 876 Henderson v. Underwriting wnd Agency Associa- tion, [1891] 1 Q. B. 557 Questioned by C. A. Harding v. BussELL - [1905] 2 K. B. 83 Henderson 4' Co. v. Williams, [1895] 1 Q. B.521 Referred tobyH. L. (E.) Fabquhah- soN Brothers & Co. v. King & Co. [1902] A. C. 828, 331 Hendy v. Stephenson - (1808) 10 East, 55 Not followed by Swinfen Eady J. Palmer v. Guadagni [1906] 2 Ch. 494 Henfrey v. Henfrey (1843) 4 Moo. P. C. 29 Followed by Gorell Barnes Pres. Thorn v. Dickens [1906] W. N. 64 Henley, In re - - - (1896) 75 L. T. 307 Not followed by Farwell J. In re Whitaker [1904] 1 Ch. 299 Hennan S; Co. v. Ducltworth, (1904) 20 Times L. R. 436. Followed by C. A. Seymour v. Pickett [1905] 1 K. B. 716 Henry, In re - ■ - [1907] 1 Ch. 30 Not followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Perkins - - [1907] 2 Ch. 596 Referred to by Parker J. In re Poysbr. Landon v. Poyseb - [1910] 2 Ch. 444 See In re Thompson Joyce J, [1908] W. N. 195 coclxxxii TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c., Henry Leetham ^ Sons, Ld. t. Johmtone- Wliite, [1906] W. K 227 ; [1907] 1 Oh. 189. Reversed by C. A. - [1907] 1 Ch. 322 Hoviey v. White - [1900] 1 Q. B. 481 Overruled bv H. L. (B.) Fbnton v. Thoelet & Co. [1903] A. C. 443 Henthorn v. Fraser - - [1892] 2 Ch. 27 Applied by Farwell J. Beunee v. MOOEE [1904] 1 Ch. 305 Herhage Rents, Greemcich, la re, [1896] 2 Ch. 811. Referred to by 0. A. Foley's Chaeity Teustees r. Dudley Coepokation [1909] W. K. 850 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 317 Herlert y. McQuade - [1901] 2 K. B. 761 Reversed by C, A. [1902] 2 K. B. 631 Herbert v. Sayer - (18-14) 5 Q. B. 965 Applied by Bigham J. In re Benotstt [1907] 1 K. B. 149 HerheH v. Webster - ■ (1880) 15 Ch. D. 610 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Feknelby's Teusts [1903] 1 Ch. 543 Followed' by "Warrington J. In, re Game [1907] 1 Ch. 276 Herbert Reeves de Video Gas Co., (1880) 5 Q. B. D. 556. Considered by C. A. White r. Spap- FOED & Co. - [1901] 8 K. B. 241 Principle of, applied by C. A. Kent Coal Concession's, Ld. r. Duguid [1910] 1 K. B, 904 Jones V. Ocean Coal Co. [1899] 2 Q. B. 124 FoUowed by C. A. G-ILBS r. Bblfobd, Smith & Go. [1903] 1 K. B. 843 Jones V. Ricliards (1899) 15 Times L. R. 398 See Hamilton «. Seal C. A. [1904] 2 E. B. 262 Jones Y. Seliy - - - (1710) Prec. Ch. 300 Considered by Warrington J. Hudson V. Spencbe [1910] 2 Ch. 285 Jones Y. Smith - . (1841) 1 Hare, 43, 56 See In re ALMS CoEN Chabitt StlrUng J. [1901] 2 Ch. 780, 762 Applied by Kekewich J. DAVIS v. Htjtohings [1907] 1 Ch. 356 Jones V. Watt - - (1890) 43 Ch. D. 574 See In re Beotheeton's Estate C. A. [1908] W. N. 56 Jones V. Westcomhe (1711) 1 Eq. C. Ab. 245 See In re Seaele Boyce J. [1905] W. N. 86 Jones V. Westcomhe - 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 245 Followed by C. A. In re Mason [1910] 1 Ch. 695 Jones Y. Wllmms (1857) 24 Beav. 47 See In re Alms Coen Charity Stirling J. [1901] 2 Ch. 750, 762 Jojjlhi Brewery Co., In re, [1901] W. N. 216 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 79. Referred to by Buckley J. In re S. Abeahams & Sons - [1902] 1 Ch, 695 Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re Spieal Globe, Ld. [1903] 1 Ch. 396, 399 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re I. C. Johnson & Co. C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 101 JopKn Brewery Co., In re [1902] 1 Ch. 79 Referred to by Buckley J. In re Anglo-Oriental Caepbt Manufac- TUEING Co. [1903] 1 Ch. 914 Joselyne, In re - (1878) 8 Ch. D. 327, 330 Dictum of James L.J. in, commented upon by Warrington J. NOETON r. Tatbs - - [1906] 1 K. B. 112 Jo.^eph, In re, Pain v. Joseph, [1908] 1 Ch. 599 Reversed by C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 607 Joseph V. Joseph (1897) 76 L. T. 236 Approved by C. A. Kemp-Welch v. Kemp- Welch and Cetmes [1910] P. 233 Joseph Orosfield ^- Sons, Ld. v. ilanchesten- Ship Canal Co.. [1904] 2 Ch. 123. Affirmed upon one point and revereed upon one point by H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 421 Joseph Crosfield S' Sons, Ld., In re, [1910] 1 Ch. 118. Affirmed by C. A., [1910] 1 Ch. 130 ; and followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Aktibbolaoet B. A. F. Hjoeth & Co.'s Trade Mark " Primus " [1910] 2 Ch. 64 Followed by C. A. In re LEOPOLD Cassella & Co., Gesellschapt Mit BESCHRANKTEB ilAFTDNO [1910] 2 Ch. 240 Joseph Thorley, Ld. v. Orchis Steamship Co., [1907] 1 K. B. 660. Distinguished by Div. Ct. The " EUROPA " [1908] P. 84 Considered and applied by Pickford J. Internationale Gtjano en Sdpee- phosphaatwebken r. Robebt Mac- andeew & Co. [1909] 2 K. B. 360 Josolyne v. Meeson ■ , (1885) 53 L. T. 319 Followed by Div. Ct. MoSES v. Maes- LAND [1901] 1 K. B. 668, 671 Joyner v. Weehs - - - [1891] 2 Q. B. 31 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. Lewis v. Bakee - [1905] 1 Ch. 46 Jude's Musical Compositions, In re, [1906] 2 Ch. 595. Aifii-med by C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 651 Jull V. Jacobs - ■ (1876) 3 Ch. D. 703 Explained and distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. Aplin v. Stone [1904] 1 Ch. 543 Juj-on Y. Tlwrnhill ■ - (1629) Cro. Car. 132 Referred to by H. L. (E.). Simpson r. Att.-Gen. [1904] A. C. 476, 481 "Kaiser Willwlmder Grosse," The - [1907] P. 36 Affirmed by C. A. [1907] P. 259 Earhe)-g's Case [1892] 3 Ch. 1 Distinguished by Buckley J. In re Metal Constituents, Ld. [1902] 1 Ch. 707 EaM V. Kane - - - (1880) 16 Ch. D. 207 Followed by Parker J. Lloyd r. Peichaed [1908] 1 Ch. 268 " Kate," The - [1899] P. 165 Approved by C. A. The " Racink " [1906] P. 278 " Kate," The - - [1906] P. 317 Affirmed by C, A. [1907] P. 296 Kaufman v. Gerson ■ [1903] 2 K. B. 114 Reversed by C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 891 Karanagh v. Worhingman's Benefit Building Society, [1896] 1 I. R. 66. Approved by Neville J. Bath c. Standard Land Co. [1910 I 2 Ch. 408 DURING THE YEAES 1901—1910. Kaije V. Oroijdoti Trumwaijs Co., [1899J 1 Ch. 8(U. Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. TOEBOCK C. LOBD WbSTBUEY [1902] 2 Ch. 871, 878 Keane v. Keam (1873) L. E. 3 P. & D. 52 Followed by C. A. Kemp-Welch v. Kemp-Welch and Ceymes [1910] P. 233 Kearsley v. Phillips, (1882) 10 Q. B. D. 36, 37 ; affirmed on appeal, 10 Q. B. D. 456. Beferred to by Eve J. Eattbnbbeet V. MONBO - [1910] W. N. 245 Keates v, Lexms Merthyr Coiisolidated Collieries, Ld., [1910] 1 K. B. 386. Affirmed by C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 446 Keates v. Injon - (1869) L. E. i Ch. 218 Principle of, applied by C. A. Eeid V. BiCKERSTAFP [1909] 2 Ch. 306 Keates^. Woodward - ■ [1902] 1 K. B. 532 Eeferred to by C. A. Du Pasquiek r. Cabbuey, Jones & Co. [1903] 1 K. B. 104, 108, 109 KeatUij, Ejt parte - (1890) 25 L. E. Ir. 265 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re London United Team ways Act, 1900 [1906] 1 Ch. 634 Keech y. Sandford, (1726) Sel. Cas. 61 ; 2 W. & T., 7th ed. p. 693. Principles of, applied by Parker J. Griffith v. Owen [1907] 1 Ch. 196 Keen and Keen, In re - - [1902] 1 K. B. 555 Distinguished by Farwell J. Haet ?■. POETHGAIN HABBOUE Co. [1903] 1 Ch. 690 KeigMey, Muxted ^ Co. and Bryan Dnrant ^ Co., In re, [1893] 1 Q. B. 405. Explained by C. A. In re ENOCH AND Zaeetzky, Bock & Co.'s Aebitea- TION [1910] 1 K. B. 327 Keheunch v. Manning (1851) 1 D. M. & G. 176 Considered by Buckley J. In re Bllen- BOBOUGH [1903] 1 Ch. 697 KelU V. Pearson - (1871) L. E. 6 Ch. 809 Approved of and followed by C. A. Waebbn v. Beown [1902] 1 K. B. 16 Kelly, In re - - [1895] 1 Q. B. 180 Approved and followed by Div. Ct. In re Btteton and Blinkhoen [1903] 2 K. B. 300 Kelly T. Kelly - (1863) 32 L. J. (P. & M.) 181 Not followed by Bargrave Deane J. Leslie r. Leslie [1908] P. 99 Kelly V. Metropolitan By. Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 944. See Edwaeds v. Mallam C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 1002 Kelly T. Solari - - (1841) 9 M. & W. 54 Approved by P. C. Imperial Bank OF Canada r. Bank of Hamilton [1903] A. C. 49 Kelly's Direetories, Ld. v. Gavin and Lloyds, [1901] W. N. 22 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 374. Affirmed by 0. A. - [1902] 1 Ch. 361 See, as to costs, Kelly's Dibectobies, Ld. I.. Gavin and Lloyds [1901] 2 Ch. 763 Kelncr v. Ba-eter (1866) L. E. 2 C. P. 174 Approved by P. C. Natal Land and Colonization Co. v. Pauline Col- liery and Duvelopment Syndicate, Ld. [1904] A. C. 120 KeUey v. Dodd - - (1881) 52 L. J. (Ch.) 37 Discussed and distinguished by C. A. Foestee v. Elvet Collieet Co. [1908] 1 K. B. 629 This case was affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Dyson v. Foestp;e [1909] A. C. 98 Kemp V. Bird ■ - (1877) 5 Ch. D. 549, 974 Considered by Byi-ne J. Holloway Beothees, Ld. i: Hill [1902] 2 Ch. 612 Kemp V. Derrett, (1814) 3 Camp. 510 ; 14 E. R. 820. See SoAMBS 11. Nicholson Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 157 Kemp's Settled Estates, In re, (1883) 24 Ch. D. 485. Discussed by Byrne J. /« re Hammond Spencee's Settled Estates [1903] 1 Ch. 75 Kempster, In re - [1906] 1 Ch. 446, 449 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In. re Balls [1909] 1 Ch. 791 Kennedy v. Panama, New Zealand and Australian Boyal Mail Co., (1867) L. E. 2 Q. B. 580. Applied by Joyce J. Seddon (. Noeth Eastern Salt Co. [1905] 1 Ch. 326 Kent V. Fittall (No. 2) [1908] 2 K. B. 933 See Kent b. Fittall (No. 3) Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 216, 221, 227 Kent V. Stoney - (1859) 9 Ir. Ch. Eep. 249 Followed by Farwell J. Mullee v. Traffoed [1901] 1 Ch. 64 Kent Coal Concessions, Ld. r. Dnquid, [1910] 1 K. B. 904. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 462 Kent County Council v. Folkestone Corporation, [1905] W. N. 30. Followed by Warrin gtou J. T. Tilling, Ld. I,. Dick Kerb & Co. [1906] 1 K. B. 562 Eeferred to by C. A. Lancaster EuEAL Council i. Fisher and Le FANU [1907] 2 K. B. 616 Kenworthy v. Bate, (1802) 6 Ves. 793 ; 6 E. E. 46 Eule in, applied by Buckley J. In re Ebdqatb [1903] 1 Ch. 356 Ker V. Ker ■ ■ ■ (1869) Ir. E. 4 Eq. 15 Explained and distinguished by War- rington J. In re Darby's Estate [1907] 2 Ch. 465 KerJtam, Re - (1886) 80 L. T. 322 Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. Pearce v. Ba stable's Trustee in Bankruptcy [1901] 2 Ch. 122, 124 Kerly, Son ^- Verden, In re [1900] W. N. 274 Affirmed by C. A. - [1901] 1 Ch. 467 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEREULED, &c., Kershaw v. TayUr [1895] 2 Q. B. 208, 471 Referred to by Cozens-Hardy J. Hbdley v. Webb [1901] 2 Ch. 126 Kettlewell t. Befugp, Assurance Co., [1908] 1 K. B. 5i5. Affirmed by H. L. (B.) sub noni. Refuge Assueance Co. v. Kettle- well [1909] A. C. 243 Kewiw.y t. Attrill (1886) 34 Ch. D. 345 Followed by Joyce J. Eidd v. Thokne [1902] 2 Ch. 344 Kmie V. Fairthm'ne [1895] 1 Ch. 219 Discussed by Warrington J. In re Hazeldiu-e's Trusts - - [1907 1 Ch. 686 ; on appeal, C. A. [1908 1 Ch. 34 Kidman v. Kidman, (1871), 40 L.J. (Gh.)359, 360 Observations of Malins V.-C. in, dis- approval of by C. A. In re Edwards [1906] 1 Ch. 570 Kilford V. Blaney (1885) 31 Ch. D. 56 Distinguished by Buckley J. In re Banks - [1905] 1 Ch. 547 Killich V. Priee (1895) 12 Times L. R. 264 Referred to by C. A. Foembt Bros. r. FOBMBY [1910] W. N. 48 " Kilmah-o," The - (1900) 16 Times L. E. 155 Followed by Div. Ct. The "Prince Llewellyn" [1904] P. 83 Kilmalcolm Parish Council v. Glasgow Parish Council, (1904) 6 F. 457. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1906] A. C. 344 Kilner, Ex parte - ■ (1879) 13 Ch. D. 245 Principle of, applied by Buckley J. In re Jackson & Bassford, Ld. [1906] 2 Oh. 467 Kimher v. Admam [1900] 1 Ch. 412 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. ILFOED Park Estates, Ld. v. Jacobs [1903] 2 Ch. 522 Kine v. Jolly ; ■ [1905] 1 Ch. 480 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) svJ) nam. Jolly r. Kine [1907] A. C. 1 King, In re, [1898] 1 I. R. 91 ; [1899] 1 I. R.30. Not followed by Swinfen Eadv J. Inre INMAN - [1903]'lCh. 241 King, In re - - - [1904] 1 Ch. 363 Distinguished by Farwell J. In re Pimm [1904] 2 Ch. 345, 347 King v. Dillington, (1689) Freem. 494 ; sub nom. King v. I)illiUon, 1 Show. 83. Referred to by Channell J. Att.-Gen. f. Sandovbr - [1904] 1 K. B. 689, 697 King v. England - - (1864) 4 B. & S. 782 Dictum of Blackburn J. in, affirmed by C. A. MooRK, Nettlkfold & Co. V. Singer Manufacturing Go. [1904] 1 K. B. 880 King v. Kemp - - (1863) 8 L. T. 255 Not followed by C. A. MOULIS v. Owen [1907] 1 K. B. 748 King v. Maleott - - (1852) 9 Hare, 692 Discussed by Neville J. In re KING [1906] W. N. 194 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 72 King's Case (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. 196 Principle of, applied by Parker J. In re National Bank of Wales, Ld. Massby and Giffin's Case [1907] 1 Ch. 582 King's Settlement, In re, Gibson v. 'bright, (1889) 60 L. T. 745. Followed by Byrne J. In re Peirson's Settlement - [1903] W. H. 100 Kingan v. Matier - [1905] 1 I. E. 272 Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re Ellis's Settlement [1909] 1 Ch. 618 Kingdon ^ Wilson, In re [1902] W. N. 65 Reversed by C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 243 See also In re Buckwbll & Berkeley [1902] 2 Ch. 596 See In re Blaib & Girling C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 131 ; [1907] A. C. 124 Kingsbury v. Walter - - [1899] 2 Ch. 314 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 187 Kingston-upon-Hull DocTi Co. v. Browne, (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 43. Discussed and distinguished by C. A AssHETON Smith v. Owen [1906] 1 Ch. 179 Kinloch v. Secretary of State for India in Council, (1882) 7 App. Cas. 625. Referred to by P. 0. Te Teiea Te Paea !!. Te Roera Taeeha ' [1902] A. C. 56 Mmiaird {Lm-d) v. Field [1905] W. N. 88 Affirmed by C. A. [1905] 2 Ch. 306 Kinson Pottery Co. v. Poole Corporation, [1899] 2 Q. B. 41. Followed by C. A. Graham r. Weoughton - [1901] 2 K. B. 461 Considered and distinguished by C. A. Wilkinson v. Llaitoaff and Dinas Powis Rural Council [1903] 2 Ch. 696 Kirkcaldy and District Ry. Co.y. Caledoni-anBy. Co., (1900) 37 Sc. L. R. 820. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.> sub nom,. Caledonian Ry. Co. r. Kirkcaldy AND District Ry. Co. [1901] W. N. 102 Kirkheaton Local Board v. AinUv, [18921 2 Q. B. 274. '^ '- -' Reasoning in, approved upon one point by H. L. (E.) Butterworth ». West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Board [1909] A. C. 45 Kirkintilloch Parish CouhcUtt. Eastwood Parish Council, (1902) 5 F. 274. Approved by H. L. (Sc.) Kilmalcolm Parish Council i-. Glasgow Parish Council - [1906] A. C. 344 Kirhwood v. Smith - [1896] 1 Q. B. 582 Overruled by C. A. Kirkwood «. Carroll - - [1903] 1 K. B. 581 Kitten v. Hewitt [1904] W. N. 21 See Fuhneaux and Aie&'s" Con- tract, In re. Kekewioh J, [1906] W.N. 216 DUEING THE YEARS 1901—1910. Klahei- and Steinberg's Patent, In re, Neville J. [1908] W. N. 5U. This case came on again. [1908] W. N. 87, 89. Reported [1908] 1 Ch. 847 KndtcKbull v. Fowle - (1876) 1 Ch. 60i Followed by Buckley J. Pigoott v. TOOGOOD - - [1904] W. N. 130 KnatcUulVs Settled Estate, In re (1884), 27 Ch. D. 3i9 [affirmed on appeal (1885), 29 Ch. D. 588]. Dicta in, discussed by Eve J. In re Duke of Manchester's Settlement [1910] 1 Ch. 106 Kiiight V. Bowyer, (1857) 23 Beav. 609 ; (1868) 2 De G. & J. 421. Followed bv Farwell J. Hunt v. Luck [1901] 1 Ch. 45 Knight V. CubUt <$• Co. . [1902] 1 K. B. 31 Distinguished by C. A. Bush r. Hawes [1902] 1 K. B. 216 Knight v. Simmonds, [1896] 1 Ch. 653 ; 2 Ch. 294. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. Eowell V. Satchell [1903] 2 Ch. 212 Knott End Railway Company's Act, 1898, In re, [1901] W. N. 24. Reversed by C. A. - [1901] 2 Ch. 8 KnowlesY. Scott - - [1891] 1 Ch. 717 Distinguished by Farwell J. Pulsfokd 1). Devenish ■ - [1903] 2 Ch. 265 Kodah, Ld. v. aarli - - [1902] 2 K. B. 450 Affirmed by C. A. - [1903] 1 K. B. 505 Korten v. West Sussex County Council, (1903) 72 L. J. (K.B.) 514. Followed by Div. Ct. Laied v. Dobell [1906] 1 K. B. 131 Krasnapolshy Restaurant and Winter' Garden Co., In re, [1892] 3 Ch. 174. Referred to by Buctley J. In re Crigglestonb Coal Co. [1906] W. N. 120 ; C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 327 Krell V. Senry - [1903] 2 K. B. 740 See Geimsdick v. Sweetman DiT. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 740 Kydd V. Liverpool Watch Committee, [1907] 2 K. B. 591. Reversed by H. L. (B.) [1908] A. C. 327 Kydd V. Liverpool Watch Committee, (1908) 24 Times L. R. 257. Principle of, applied by Eve J. In re Atkin's Trusts [1909] 1. Ch 471 Lacave v. Credit Lyonnais - [1897] 1 Q. B. 148 Distinguished by C. A. Embiricos v. Anglo-Austrian Bank [1905] 1 K. B. 677 Lacey, In re. Ex parte Taylor, (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 128. Discussed by C. A. In re Button [1905] 1 K. B. 602 Lacey, In re. Howard v. Liglvtfoot, [1906] W. N, 213. Reversed by C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 330 Lacey ^- Son, In re - - (1883) 25 Ch. D. 301 Referred to by Buckley J. In re ROMAIN . - [1903] 1 Ch. 702 La Citi de Montrial v. Les Eoclisiastiques du Seminaire de St. Sulpice de Montreal, (1888) 14 App. Cas. 660, 662. Referred toby P. C. Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co. v. McLaughlin [1904] A. C. 776, 778 Lacon, In re [1891] 2 Ch. 482, 497, 498 Approved of by C. A. In re Scott [1902] W. N. 206; [1903] 1 Oh. 1 Ladies' Dre's Association v. Pulbroolt, [1900] 2 Q. B. 376. Followed by Byrne J. In re Walker & Smith, Ld. - - [1903] "W. N. 82 Ladyman v. Grave - (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. 763 Referred to by Joyce J. Damper r. Basset [1901] 2 Ch. 350 Principle of, not to be extended in one direction. Htman r. Van den Bbrgh Parker J. [1907] 2 Ch. 516 ; on appeal, C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 167 Ladyiuell Mining Co. v. Rrookes, (1887) 35 Ch. D. 400. Applied by Wright J. In re Lady Forrest (Murchison) Gold Mine, Ld. - - [1901] 1 Ch. 582 Lagunas Nitrate Co. v. Lagunas Syndicate,\l%99'] 2 Ch. 392. Referred to by C. A. Merchants' Fire Office v. Armstrong [1901] W. N. 163 Laidlaw v. Wilson - - [1894] 1 Q. B. 74 Followed by Div. Ct. Elliot v. PiLCHER - [1901] 2 K.B. 817 Followed by Div. Ct. Watts v. Stevens - - [1906] 2 K. B. 323 LaJte, In re. Ex parte Dyer [1901] W. N. 26 Reversed by C. A. [1901] W.N. 43 1 [1901] 1 K. B. 710 Lake View Extended Gold Mines (^Western Australia), Ld., In re, [1900] W. N. 44. See BiSGOOD V. HENDERSON'S TRANS- VAAL Estates, Ld. C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 743 La/mJ), In re - - (1887) 4 Morr. 25 Referred to by H. L. (B.) Clough v. Samuel - [1905] A. C. 442, 446 Lamb, In re - - (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 5 Overruled by C. A. In re Kingdon & Wilson - - - [1902] 2 Ch. 342 Lamhy. Eeam - [1893] 1 Ch. 218 Followed by '&. L. (E.). Lawrence &; Bullbn, Ld. v. Aflalo and Cook [1903] A. C. IT Lamh V. Waller, (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 389, over- ruled by barley Main Colliery Co. r. Mitchell, (1886) 11 App. Cas. 127. See Tunnicliffe & Hampson, Ld. v. West Leigh Colliery Co. Swinfen £ady J. [1905] 2 Ch. 380 OOCXOVl TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEBULED, &C., Lamheii, In re ■ [1897] 2 Ch. 169 Discussed by Joyce J. In re Hae- GREAVES [1902] W. N. 18; C. A, [1903] W. N. 24, 28 Followed by Buckley J. In re "White- l-OED [1903] 1 Ch. 889 Lamieii, In re [1908] 2 Ch. 117 Followed by Joyce J. Inre Metcalfe [1909] 1 Ch. 424 Lamlert v. Xnrthern My. of Buenos Ayres Co., (1869) 18 W. E. 180. Distinguished by Wright J. In re London and ISToethben Bank [1901] 1 Ch. 728 Zamhet/i Overseers v. london County Council, [1897] A. C. 625. Discussed by C. A. Livbeeool Coe- POEATioN 1'. West Deebt Assess- ment Committee - [1908] 3 K. B. 647 Zamdouym.JI'Lellan, [1903] W.N. 58 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 806. Eeversed by C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 268 Lamplough v. Cumpan)/ of Proprietors of the Kent Waterworlis. [1903] 1 Ch. 575. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) - [1904] A. C. 27 Lamson Pneumatic Tuhe Co. v. Phillips, [1904] W. N. 56 (Erratum, 122). Eeversed by C. A. [1904] "W. N. 134 Lami rlishire (JJistrivt Committee of lower Ward of} V. Rutherglen Magistrate,-!, (1901) 38 Sc. L. E. 457. Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) svh mm. LOWEE Ward of County Lanaek v. Euthbr- GLEN Magistrates [1902] W, N. 157 Lancashire and, Cheshire Cool Association v. Loiirhm and KoHh-Western Ry. Co. and Lancashire a,ndYorTishi re Ri/.Co., [1906] 1 K. B. 577. Affirmed by C. A. on different grounds [1907] W. N. 167 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 902 Lancashire Brick and Terra Cotta Co. v. Lanca- shire and YorVxldre Ry. Co., [1902] 1 K. B. 381. Eeversed by C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 651 Lancaster^. Eve, (1859) 5 C, B. (N.S.) 715, 723, 72.5. Approved and followed by 0. A. Phil- pot r. Bath [1905] W. N. 114 Lancaster Rural District Council v. Fisher and Le Fanu, [1907] 2 K. B. 516. Explained and applied by C. A. Car- lisle EuRAL Council v. Carlisle Coepoeation [1909] 1 K. B. 471 Eeferred to by C. A. Ebigatb Eueal Council e. Sutton District Water Co. [1909] W. N. 28 Lanrey.Aglionby • (1859) 27 Beav. 65 Distinguished by Buckley J. In re Banks [1905] 1 Ch. 647 Lane v. Goodwin - (1843) 4 Q. B. 361 Applied by Svvinfen Eady J. In re EUTTER [1907] 2 Ch. 692 Lanfranchi v. Mavlienzie, (1867) L. E. 4 Eq. 421 Overruled by G. A. Waeren r. BROWN [1902] 1 K. B. 16 Lang v. Spicer, (1836) 1 M. & W. 129 ; 5 L. J. (M.C.) 60 ; 46 E. E. 290. Eeferred to by Div. Gt. Plymouth Guardians c. G-ibbs [1903] 1 K. B. 177, 183 Langmead^s Trusts, In re, (1855) 20 Beav. 20, affirmed on appeal, 7 De M. & G. 353. Principle of, applied by C. A. In re Bourne [1906] 2 Ch. 427 Langridge v. HoUs [1901] 1 K. B. 497 See Pooley v. Foedham Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 345 LangstonY. Grant, (1898) 25 Eettie, 1040 ; (1900) 2 Fraser, 49 ; [1900] A. C. 383. See Eeport at [1901] W. N. 185 Lantshery v. Collier - (1856) 2 K. & J. 709 Discussed and applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re HOESNAILL [1909] 1 Ch. 631 Lursen v. Sylvester - ■ [1908] A. C. 293 Distinguished by Hamilton J. Thoe- MAN r. DOWOATE STEAMSHIP CO. [1910] 1 K. B. 410 Lassence v. Tierney - (1849) 1 Mac. & G. 551 Distinguished by C. A. In re Hancock [1901] 1 Ch. 482 Applied by Joyce J. In re CuRElE's Settlement [1910] 1 Ch. 329 Latham v. Latham [1889] W. N. 171 See In re Blundell C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 221, 223, n. Lavell V. Richings ■ - [1906] 1 K. B. 480 See Boyd, Ld. r. Bilham Channell J. [1909] 1 K. B. 14 Law V. Garratf (1878) 8 Ch. D. 26 iSee Austrian Lloyd Steamship Co. 1!. Gresham Life Assurance Society, Ld. C. a. [1903] 1 K. B. 249 Law V. Law ■ - [1904] W. X. 152 Not followed by Neville J. Main- WARING- v. CLAEINA (LOED) [1910] W. N. 14 Laiv Guarantee and Tru.st Society, Ld. v. Mit- cliam and Cheam Brewery Co., [1906] 2 Ch. 98. Followed by Neville J. XoAKES r. NOAKES & Co. [1907] 1 Ch. 64 Explained by Kekewich J. DAWSON r. Braimb's Tadcaster Breweries, Ld. [1907] 2 Ch. 359 Considered by Eve J. Bent's Brewery Co. >: Dykes [1909] W. N. 51 Law Society of the United Kingdom v. Waterlow Brothers anil Layton, (1883) 8 App. Cas. 407. See In re Panton. Jeuae, Pres. [1901] P. 239, 240 Lawcs, In re - - - (1881) 20 Ch. D. 81 Considered by C. A. In re JAQUES [1903] 1 Ch. 267 Lawford v. Billcricau Rural Council, [1903] 1 K. B. 772. Followed by Eidley J. Bourne r, Marylebone Coeporation I [1908] W. N. 52 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. Lawfonl and, Lawrence, Inre [1902] 2 K. B. 445 Overruled by C. A. Ponspokd, Baker & Co. r. UuiON OP London and Smith's Bank, Ld. [1906] 8 Ch. 444 Lawley, In re. Zaiser v. Lawley, [1902] 2 Ch. 673. Affirmed by C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 799 Decision of C. A., [1902] 2 Cii. 799, affirmed by H. L. (B.) sud nom. Bbtpus v. Lawley - [1903] A. C. 411 Laicley, In re. Zaiser v. Perltin-s, [1902] W. N. 154. Affirmed by C. A. s^Cb nom. In re Lawley. Zaisee r. Lawley [1902] W. N. 195 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 799 Decision of C. A., [1902] 2 Ch. 799, affirmed by H.' L. (E.) sid> nom. Bbtpus v. Lawley [1903] A. C. 411 Laiorence v. Fletcher - (1879) 12 Ch. D. 858 Referred to by Joyce J. In re Jones & RoBEKTS [1905] 2 Ch. 219 lawne v. BanUs - (1857) 4 K. & J. 142 Referred to by Byrne J. In re Fox [1904] 1 Ch. 480 Lawrie v. Lees (1881) 7 App. Gas.. 19 Distinguished by Swinfen Bady J. In re Highett and Bird's Conteact [1902] 2 Ch. 214 Laxm 4- Co., In re - - [1892] 2 Ch. 555 Referred to by Eve J. In re Royal Naval School [1910] 1 Ch. 806 Leach v. Jay - - (1878) 9 Ch. D. 42 Referred to by Kekewich J. Copestake V. HOPEE [1907] 1 Ch. 366 LeadUtter, In re (1878) 10 Ch. D. 388 Explained by Buckley J. In re Jones & EVBEETT [1904] 2 Ch. 363 Learij v. Lloyd - - (1860) 3 E. & B. 178 Discussed by Div. Ct. Poll v. Dambe [1901] 2 K. B. 579, 584 Leatltem v. Craig ■ - [1899] 2 I. R. 667 Affirmed by H. L. (Ir.) sub nxym. QniNN ■V. Leathem [1901] A. C. 495 Lebel v. Tucher (1867) L. R. 3 Q. B. 77, 83 Referred to by C. A. Embieicos u. Anglo-Austeian Bank [1905] 1 K. B. 677 Lechme)'e and Lloyd, In re, -(1881) 18 Ch. D. 524 Approved and followed by C. A. In re Whightson - [1904] 2 Ch, 95 Lecouturier y. Rey - C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 715 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 262 Le Warrant v. Spencer - (1748) 1 Ves. Sen. 96 Distinguished by Buckley J. In re Seton-Smith - [1902] 1 Ch. 717, 721 Lee v. Bangar [1892] 2 Q. B. 337 Discussed by C. A. Ex -parte Smith [1902] 2 K. B. 26a Lee T. Faqg, (1873) L. R. 4 A. & E. 135 ; (1874) L.R.6P.C. 38. Followed. Noble v. Beast Consist. Ct. of York [1904] P. 34 gate, Ld. Leggott v. Western Followed by Mbueice - Lee v.- Xruchatel Asjjhalte Co., (1889)41 Ch. D. 1 Explained by Farwell J. Bond f. Baerow Hematite Steel Co. [1902] 1 Ch. 353 Leech v. Schweder (1874) L. R. 9 Ch. 463, 474 See Davis v. Town Properties Invest- ment Corporation, Ld. C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 797 Lees Bruol Spinning Co., In re, [1906] 1 Ch. 394 Followed by Warrington J. See In re Anglo-Italian Bank, Ld. and Re- duced [1906] -W.N. 202 Followed by Parker J. In re General Industrial Development Syndi- [1907] •W. N. 23 (1884) 12 Q. B. D. 287 C. A. KOLCHMANN V. [1903] 1 K. B. 534 Le .Vesi/rier v. Le Mesarier [1895] A. C. 517 Applied by C. A. Batee c. Batee [1906] P. 209 See Muephy-Grimshaw's Divorce (Validation) Bill H. L. [1907] -W. N. 134 In re ■ (1888) 40 Ch. D. 290, 294 Dictum of Cotton L.J. in, applied by Warrington J. In re H.'s Settle- ment [1909] 2 Ch. 260 Leigh v. Taylor - - - [1902] A. C. 157 Discussed by C. A. Reynolds v. Ashbt & Son, Ld. - • [1903] 1 K. B. 87 ; H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 466 Distinguished by Neville J. In re Whaley [1908] 1 Ch. 615 Leitrim {Lord) v. Enery, (1844) 6 Ir. Eq. 357, 369. Followed by C. A. In re Gist [1904] 1 Ch. 398 Adopted and followed by Farwell J. In re Hole [1905] 2 Ch. 384 Lemage v. Goodban, (1865) L. R. 1 P. & M. 57, 62 Referred to by C. A. Townsend v. Moore Leigh, Leng, In re Followed by C. A, - [1905] P. 66 - [1895] 1 Ch. 652 In re Amblee [1905] 1 Ch. 697 V. Rank, Ld., [1907] 1 Leonis Steamship Co. K. B. 344. Reversed by C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 499 Leroux v. Brown (1852) 12 C. B. 801 Referred to by Bigham J. Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation V. Sjorporsakeings Aktibbolaget Vega [1901] 2 K. B. 567, 575 ; C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 384 Leslie v. Leslie - (1835) LI. & G. t. Sugden, 1 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re Crane [1908] 1 Ch. 379 Referred to by Warrington J. In re Churchill [1909] 2 Ch. 431 Lecene v. Gardner - (1909) 25 Times L. R. 711 See In re A Debtor (No. 2 of 1910) Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 70 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c., Lever, In re - - - - [1897] 1 Ch. 32 See In re FABNHAM'S SETTLEMENT C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 561 Leoeridge, In re - ■ [1901] 2 Ch. 830 Referred to by FarweUJ. 7« re Finn [1904] 2 Ch. 346, 347 Levlngdon v. Lurgan Guardia?is, (1868) I. R. 2 C. L. 202. Distinguished by 0. A. Tozblajto v. West Ham Union [1907] 1 K. B. 920 Levy V. Aiercorris Slate and Slab Co., (1887) 37 Ch. D. 260, 261. Applied by Swiufen Eady J. In re Perth Electeic Teamways, Ld. [1906] 2 Ch. 216 Lewin t. End - [1905] 1 K. B. 669 Reversed by H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 299 Leiois, Inre - - - ■ [1900] 2 Ch. 176 Distinguished by Swinf en Eady J. In re Catlet - [1904] 2 Ch. 781 Lewis, Inre - - - [1904] 2 Ch. 656 Referred to by Kekewich J. Mackay V. Gould [1906] 1 Ch. 25 Lewis T. BaUr - - [1905] 2 K. B. 576 Aifirmed by C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 699 Leiois V. MadocTts, (1803) 8 Ves. 150 ; 7 R. R. 10 Followed by C. A. In re Reis [1904] 2 K. B. 769 ; H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 442 Leyton and Walthamstow Cycle Co.,Inre, [1901] W. N. 225. See In re WoELD Industrial Bank, Ld. NevUle J. [1909] W. N. 148 LMford {Lord) t. Att.-Gen., (1867) L. R. 2 H. L. 63. Referred to by C. A. In re Gaskell AND Walters' Conteact [1906] 2 Ch. 1 Lilleii, In re - [1892] 1 Q. B. 759 &e 7» re A Solioitoe [1903] W.N. 74 ; C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 206 Lillivairs Settlement Trusts, In re [1882] W. N. 6 See In re Blundell C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 221, 223, n. Limjins V. London General Onuiiins Co., (1862) 1 H. & C. 526. Principles of, applied by C. A. GiBLAN V. National Amalgamated Labourers' Union of Great Britain AND Ireland - [1903] 2 K. B. 600 Line v. Hall (1873) 43 L. J. (Ch.) 107, 108 Dictum of Jessel M.R. in, considered and applied by Kekewich J. In, re 'Finch and Chew's Contract [1903] 2 Ch. 486 Lin/oat Y. Poclett - - [1895] 2 Ch. 835 Discussed by C. A. ROSBFIELD v. Provincial Union Bank [1910] 2 K. B. 781 Linoleum Manvfacturin^i Co. v. Nairn, (1878)t 7 Ch. D. 834. Distinguished by C. A. In re Chese- BHOUOH's Trade Mark " Vaseline " [1902] 2 Ch. 1 Lhlieard Tfnion v. Liskeard Waterworks Co., (1881) 7 Q. B. D. 505. Followed by Buckley J. BARNARD Castle Urban Council r. Wilson [1901] 2 Ch. 813 ; C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 746 Lisle V. Eeeve - - [1900] W. N. 264 Affirmed by C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 63 Decision of C. A., [1902] 1 Ch. 53, aiBimed by H. L. (E.) sui nom. Reete V. Lisle - [1902] A. C. 461 List T. Tharp - - [1897] 1 Ch. 260 Discussed by NeviUe J. Crosby Alhambea Co. Lister V. Latie Ji- Nesham Applied by C. A. Lister Js' Co. v. Stuibs Followed by C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 296 • [1893] 2 Q. B. 212 Weight v. Lawson [1902] W. N. 108 (1890) 45 Ch. D. 1 Powell & Thomas Evan Jones & Co. [1905] 1 K. B. 11 Little, In re - (1889) 40 Ch. D. 418, 422 Referred to by C. A. In re A. [1904] 2 Ch. 328, 331 Little V. MacLellan, Ld. - (1900) 2 F. 387 Distinguished by C. A. Oliver v. Nautilus Steam Shipping Co. [1903] 2 K. B. 639 Littledale v. Liverpool College, [1900] 1 Ch. 19, 23. Approved and followed by C. A. Philpot v. Bath [1908] W. N. 114 Lirerpool and Xorth IVales Steamship Co. v. Jlersey Trading Co., [1908] 2 Ch. 460. Affirmed by C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 209 Liverpool Corporation v. Chorley Wute^-works Co., (1852) 2 D. M. & G. 852, 860. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. Marriott r. East Geinstead Gas and Water Co. - [1909] 1 Ch. 70 Liverpool Corporation v. Llanfyllin A.^sessment Committee, [1899] 2 Q. B. 14. Distinguished by Div. Ct. New River Co. V. Heetpoed Union [1901] 2 K. B. 620 ; C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 897 Liverpool Corporation v. Petei- Malker .<■ Son, Ld., [1908] 1 K. B. 28. Reversed by C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 33 Liverpool Improvement Act, In re, (1868) L. R. 5 Eq. 282. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re London United Teamways Act, 1900 [1906] 1 Ch. 584 Llandudno Urban Council t. ]roods, [1899] 2 Ch. 705. See Beinckman c. Matley C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 818, 317 Llangattock (_Lord) y. Watney, Combe, Beid 4' Co., [1909] 2 K. B. 884. Reversed by C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 238 Decision of C. A., [1910] 1 K. B. 236, affirmed by H. L. nom. Westminster Corporation r London and North Western Ry. Co. - [1905] A. C. 426 London and Nortltern Bank, In re, Archer's Case, [1901] W. N. 236. Affirmed by C. A. - [1901] W. N. 247 London and Nmiliern Bank, Ld., In re, Had-, dock's Case, [1902] W. N. 55. Affirmed by C. A. - [1902] 8 Ch. 73 See In re WALKER Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 104 cd TABLE OP CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEULED, kt., London and So%ith- Western By. Co. v. Gumm, (1882) 20 Ch. D. 526, 583 Referred to by C. A. Foemby v. Baekbe [1903] 2 Cli. 539 Eeferred to by Warrington J. Woodall 1'. Clifton [1904] W. N. 205; C. A. [1905] 2 Ch. 257 Eeferred to by C. A. In re. NiSBET AND Potts' Contract [1906] 1 Ch. 386 Approved on one point by H. L. (E.) Edwaeds v. Edwaeds [1909] A. C. 275 Explained and distinguished by C. A. South Easteen Et. Co. v. Asso- ciated Portland Cement Manu- PACTUKBES (1900), Ld. [1910] 1 Ch. 12 London, Chatham and Lover My. Co. t. Sonth Eastern Ry. Co., (1888) 40 Ch. D. 100. Considered by C. A. Joseph Ceos- FiELD & Sons, Ld. r. Manchestee Ship Canal Co. - [1904] 2 Ch. 123 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 421 London, Chatham and Dover By. Co. v. &ndh EastemBy. Co., [189.S] A. C. 429 Eeterred to by P. G. Johnson r. Eex [1904] A. C. 817, 821 Distinguished by C. A. NOEWICH COEPOEATION ('. NOEWICH ELECTEIC Tramways Co. [1906] 2 K. B. 119 London Corporation, Ex parte, [1878] W. N. 238 See In re Beettingham Farwell J, [1904] W. N. 168 London Corporation and Tilths'' Contract, In re, [1894] 2 Ch. 524. Eeferred to by C. A. Bennktt v. Stone [1903] 1 Ch. 509 London County Council v. Aft.-Gen., [1902] A. C. 165. Applied by C. A. Att.-Gbn. r. Meesey Ry. Co. [1907] 1 Ch. 81 ; hnt the decision of the C. A. was reversed by H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 415 London County Council y . Illuminated Advertise- ments Co., [1904] 2 K. B. 886. Referred to by Div. Ct. London County Council v. Schbwzik [1905] 2 K. B. 69S, 698, 701 Followed by DiY. Ct. London County Council v. Hancock and James [1907] 2 K. B. 46 London County Council v. Metropolitan By. Co., [1909] 1 K. B. 116. EeTersed by 0. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 317 London County Council v. South Metropolitan Gas Co., [1903] 2 Ch. 532. Affirmed by C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 76 London County Council v. West Sam Church- wardens, [1892] 2 Q. B. 173. Not followed by C A. Eex v. Wood- house - - [1906] 2 K. B. 501 ; hut the decision of the C. A. was reversed by H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 196 ; [1907] A. C. 420 London General Omnibus Co. v. Lavcll, [1901] 1 Ch. 135. Commented on by Farwell J. BoUBNB ■!). Swan&Edgae, Ld. [1903] ICh. 211 London QMayor o/) and Tuhhs'' Contract, In re, [1894] 2 Ch. 524. Eeferred to by Buckley J. Benhett r. Stone - [1901] W. N. 225 ; 0. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 609 London Pressed Hinge Co., In re, [1905] 1 Ch. 576. Eeferred to by Buckley J. In re Alfeed Melson & Co. [1906] 1 Ch. 841 London Scottish Betwfit Society v. Charley, (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 872. Eeferred to by Div. Ct. H. Tolputt & Co., Ld. <■. Mole [1910] W. N. 262 London Steam Ityeiiig Co. v. Ei^iy, (1888) 36 W. E. 497. See Coopee-Dean r. Badham Ere J. [1908] W. N. 100 London United Tramways Act, 1900, In re, [1906] 1 Ch. 534. Overruled on-one point by C. A. Ei re Thames Tunnel (Eotheehithe AND Eatclipf) Act, 19G0 [1908] 1 Ch. 493 Long V. Blachall, (1797) 7 T. E. 100 ; 4 E. E. 73 Discussed by C. A. In re Wilmbe's Trusts [1903] 2 Ch. 411 Long y. Great NortJiern and City Bij. Co., [1902] 1 K. B. 813. Followed by C. A. In re Fkeee and STAVELEY TAYLOE & Co. AND NOETH Shoee Mill Co. [1908] 1 K. B. 366 Lotwj V. Loiig and Johnson (1890) 15 P. D. 218 Doubted by Jeune, Pres. Hyman v. Hyman ■ [1904] P. 403 Longbottom Jj- Sons, In re [1904] W. N. 78 Affirmed by C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 162 Followed by C. A. In re Cohen & Cohen - [1905] 2 Ch. 137 " Longford;' The (1889) 14 P. D. 34 Followed by C. A. The Buens [1907] P. 137 Longhead y. Phelps - ■ (1770) 2 W. Bl. 704 Principle of, applied by Farwell J. In re Bowles - [1905] 1 Ch. 371 Longley v. Lonyley - (1871) L. E. 13 Eq. 133 Distinguished by Buckley J. Kibby- Smith v. Paenell [1903] 1 Ch. 483 Longton v. Wilshy - (1897) 76 L. T. 770 Explained and followed by Warring- ton J. Bevan I'. Webb [1906] 1 Ch. 620 Loonies v. Stotherd, (1S23) 1 S. & S. 458 ; 1 L. J. (O.S.) (Ch.) 220 ; 24 E. E. 209. Overruled on one point. See In re PlAYWAED - Byrne J. [1901] 1 Ch. 221 Lord V. Fo.i- - - - [1892] 1 Q. B. 199 Referred to by Div. Ct. Goodeich v. Geeat Grimsby (Town Clbek) [1902] 1 E. B. 301, 304, 306 DUEING THE YEAES 1901—1910. cdi Lord Adcoi-ate v. Miller's Trustees, (1884) 21 Sco. L. E. 709. Followed by Farwell J. M re Turn- bull [1905] 1 Ch. 726 LwA Advocate v. Moray (^Countess of), (1904) 6 F. 347. Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1905] A. C. 531 Lord Advocate Y. Satcers, (1897) 35 So. L. E. 190 ; 3 Tax Cases, 617. Not followed on one point by C. A. Att.-Gen v. Till [1909] 1 K. B. 694 Lord Advocate v. Stewart (Sprott's IVustees') (1901) 3 F. 440. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1902] A. C. 344 " Lord Sanger," The - - [1896] P. 28 Distinguished by Gorell Barnes J. The " Challenge "and " Due d'Aumale" [1904] P. 41 ; C. A. [1905] P. 198 Lm-d Provost of Glasgow v. Farie, (1888) 13 App. Cas. 657. Explained by C. A. In re Todd, BiRLBSTONife Co. and NOETH EASTEEN By. Co. [1903] 1 K. B. 603 Lord's Trustee v. Gheat Eastern Ry. Co., [1908] 2 K. B. 54. Eeversed by H. L. (E.) sul) mm. Gebat Western Ey. Co. v. Lord's Teustee . [1909] A. C. 109 Loriru/ \. Thomas (1861) 1 Dr. & Sm. 497 Discussed by C. A. In re Goeeinoe [1906] 2 Ch. 341 Followed by Eve J. In re Lambbet [1908] 2 Ch. 117 Discussed by C. A. In re Cope [1908] 2 Ch. 1 Followed by Joyce J. In re Metcalfe [1909] 1 Ch. 424 Losconibe v. Wintnngham - (1850) 13 Beav. 87 Eeferred to by Buckley J. In re Davis [1902] 1 Ch. 876 Love T. Love - (1881) 7 L. E. I. 306 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Feancis- - [1905] 2 Ch. 298 LovegroveY. Nelson, (1834) 3 My. & K. 1, 20 ; 41 R. E. 1, 2. Considered by C. A. Byene v. Eeid [1902] 2 Ch. 735 Lovejoy v. Cole - - [1894] 2 Q, B. 861 Followed by C. A. Solomon v. MULLINBE - [1901] 1 K. B. 76 Lovell, Me parte . - - [1901] 2 K. B. 16 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re Cotgeave [ 1903] 2 Ch. 705 Loveridge, In re. Drayton v. Loveridge, [1902] 2 Ch. 859. See In re Loveeidge. Buckley J. [1904] 1 Ch. 618 Loxetty.Lovetb - - [1898] 1 Ch. 82 Followed by Joyce J. In re Maddy s Estate [1901] 2 Ch. 920 D.D. Low, In re- - [1900] 1 Q. B. 147 See In re 0. C. S. C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 161 Applied by C. A. In re A Debtoe [1907] W. N. 4 Low V. Bouverie - - - [1891] 3 Ch. 82 Discussed by C. A. Olivee v. Bank of England [1902] 1 Ch. 610 ; H. L. (E.) sui nom. Staeley v. Bank OF England [1903] A. C. 114 Low V. Bouverie ■ [1891] 3 Ch. 82, 113 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. Poetbe V. MooEE - [1904] 2 Ch. 367 Low V. General Steam Fishing Co., [1909] A. C. 523. Eeferred to by C. A. Hewitt !■. Owners of Ship " Duchess" [1910] 1 K. B. 772 Low V. Guthrie - - - (1907) S. C. 1240 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1909] A. C. 278 Low (or JacUsorC) v. General Steam Fishing Co., (1909) S. C. 63. Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1909] A, C.'523 Lowe, Be ... (1890) 7 Mor. 25 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. In re Gentry, A Debtoe (No. 31 of 1909) [1909] W. N. 29 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 79 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 825 Lowe V. Barling ^ Son, [1905] W. N. Ill ; [1905] 2 K. B. 501. Affirmed by C. A. - [1906] 2 K. B. 772 Lowe V. Lowrie (1902) 18 Times L. E. 553 Observed on by Buckley J. Bead- field V. Cheltenham Guardians [1906] 2 Ch. 371 Lowe V. Pearson - - [1899] 1 Q. B. 261 Distinguished by C. A. Whitehead V. Eeader [1901] 2 K. B. 48 Uwenfeld v. Lowenfeld - [1903] W. N. 90 Affirmed by C. A. [1903] P. 177 Lower Ward of County Lanarh v. Butherglen Magistrates, (1901) 38 Sco. L. E. 457. Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 167 Lowery v. Mallard (1905) 22 Times L. R. 186 See Suckling v. Parker Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 527 Lowery v. WalUr - [1910] 1 K. B. 173 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 241 Lowry v. Williams - (1895) 1 I. R. 274 Eeferred to by H. L. (I.) Economic Life Assurance Society'!). Usboenb [1902] A. C. 147, 151, 153 Lowther v. Caledonian By. Co., [1892] 1 Ch. 734 82, 83, 85. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. Lord Lbconfibld v. London and North Western Rt. Co. [1907] 1 Ch. 38 iMcas V. Brandreth - (1860) 28 Beav. 274 Reviewed by Joyce J. In re Teing- HAM's Trusts [1894] 2 Ch. 487 cdii TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEULED, &C., Iakiis and Chestm-^elA Gas and Water Board,, Jn »•(!, [1908] 1 E. B. 671. On appeal, the award remitted to umpire - C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 16 iMcena v. iMcena (1877) 7 Ch. D. 255, 270 Approved and followed by Joyce J. In re BiLHAM - [1901] 2 Ch. 169 Discussed by Farwell J. In re Fbiend'S Settlemes-t [1906] 1 Ch. 47 Lumley v. Wagner - (1852) 1 D. M. & G. 60. Applied by C. A. Mauchestee Ship Canal Co. v. Manchesteb Eace- couESE Co. [1901] 2 Ch. 37 lund's Case - - - (1859) 27 Beav. 464 Overruled by C. A. In re Discoveeibs Finance Coepoeation, Ld., Linb- LAE's Case [1910] 1 Ch. 312 Lundie v. Falliirlt (^Magistrates of), (1890) 18 E. 60. Affirmed by H. L. (So.) Boyle {or Walsh) v. Wilson - [1907] A. C. 48 lynts Regis {Mayor, ^*c., o/) v. Henley, (1834) 2 CI. & F. 331 ; 37 E. E. 125. Referred to by H. L. (E.) Simpson r. Att.-Gen. [1904] A. C. 476, 491 Lynch Blosse, In re - [1899] W. N. 27 (8) Followed by Kekewich J. In re Woods [1904] 2 Ch. 4 I/yne's Trusts, In re (1869) L. R. 8 Eq. 65 Not followed by Joyce J. In re Gkiffith's Policy [1903] 1 Ch. 739 Disapproved by 0. A. In re COLEY [1903] 2 Ch. 102 Lyon v. Ktwwles (1863) 3 B. & S. 556 Followed by Byrne J. Kelly's Dieec- TOEiES, Ld. v. Gavin and Lloyds [1901] 1 Ch. 374; C. A. [1902] 1 Ch.631 Lyon V. London City and Midland Bank, [1903] 2 K. B. 135. Eeferred to by H. L. (E.). Eeynolds r. ASHBY & Son - [1904] A. C. 466,472 Bynn V. Mitchell - - ■ [1899] W. N. 27 Approved by C. A. In re ATKINSON [1904] 2 Ch. 160 Lyons ^- Sons v. WiXkins ■ [1899] 1 Ch. 255 See Tape Vale Ey. Co. v. Amal- gamated Society op Eailway Servants H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 426, 432 Lysught v. Edwards - - (1876) 2 Ch. D. 499 Referred to by Kekewich J. Plews v. Samuel - [1904] 1 Ch. 464 Lysons v. Andrew Knowles <^' Sons, Ld. Stuart V. mwonand Bruce, [1900] 1 Q. B. 780 ; [1900] 2 Q. B. 95. Reversed by H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 79 See Factory and Workshop Act, 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. 22), s. 104. Lysons v. Andrew Knowles & Sons, Ld., [1901] A. C. 79. See Ayebs r. BnciCBRIDG-E C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 67, 62 Bartlett v. Tutton & Sons C. A. [1902] IK. B. 72, 74 j Lysons v. Xiwwles Sj- Sons - [1901] A. C. 79 Referred to by G. A. Giles v. Bel- POED, Smith & Co. [1903] 1 K. B. 848 Followed by Ct. of Sess. (Sc). Fleming V. Lochgelly Iron aud Coal Co. [1903] W. K. 165 M. y. B. - - - (1885) 10 P. D. 175 Not followed by Bargrave Deane J. S. V. S. [1907] P. 224 Macassey v. Thompson - (1902) 36 Ir. L. T. 162 Followed by Joyce J. In re BoLTON Estates [1902] W. N. 214 : C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 461 M'Caie v. Bank of Ireland, (1889) 14 App. Cas. 413. Distinguished by Wright J. In re United Service Association [1901] 1 Ch. 97 McCabe v. Jopling [1904] 1 K. B. 222 Followed [by C. A. Plant v. Wright & Co. [1905] 1 K. B. 353 Macbeth v. Worth and South Wales Banh, [1906] 2 K. B. 718. Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 13 Decision of C. A., [1908] 1 K. B. 13 ; affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Noeth AND South Wales Baitk «. Mac- beth. North asd South Wales Bank, Ld. v. Irvine [1908] A. C. 137 Macbeth A- Co. v. C'lislett, G. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 811. Decision of C. A. affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 220 McClieane v. Gyles - [1902] 1 Ch. 287 Referred to. McCheane v. Gyles (No. 2) [1902] 1 Ch. 911 McCormich v. Gray - (1861) 7 H. & N. 25, 39 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. Ddnlop Pneumatic Tyre Go. v. David Mose- LEY & Sons, Ld. [1904] 1 Ch. 164 ; C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 612 Affii-med by C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 612 MacciiUoch V. Anderson (M'CuUoch's Trustees'), (1900) 2 F. 749. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1904] A. C. 56 M'CretgM v. M'Creight (1849) 13 Ir. Eq. 314 Followed by Byrne J. In re Long [1901] W. N. 166 McDermott v. " Tintoretto " {Owners of the Steamship), [1909] 2 K. B. 704. Reversed by H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 274 McDonald v. Banana (Ownei-s of Steainship), [1908] 2 K. B. 926. Followed by C. A. Moobe v. Man- chester Liners, Ld. - [1909] 1 K. B. 417 ; but the decision of the C. A. was reversed by H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 220 During tAe yeaks i901— i9io. cdiii McDoHgall ^ BvHiikroiL t^d. v. LoAdoft and India Docks Go. Page, Sojl ]§ Mid, Ld. V. The Sanm, [1908] 2 K; B. ItS. Reversed by H. ti. (^0 *"* '"""• iJONDoS kSts India Docks Co. r. MeDOUGALL & BONTHRON, LD. LON- boN AND India Docks Co. r. Page, Son & East, Ld. [1909] A. C. 25 McDowall \. Great Western Ry. Co. [1902] 1 K. B. 618. Rerersed by C. A. - [1903] 2 K. B. 881 Mace V. Philcox - (1861) 15 C. B. (N.S.) 600 Referred to by Buckley J. Beinckman V. Matley X1904] 2 Ch. 318, 317 Macfadyen, In re. Ex parte Vizianagaeam Mining Co. [1908] W. N. 161. Reversed by C. A. [1908] W. IT. 198 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 8l7 Mc Glade v. Royal London Mutual Insurance Society, Ld. [1910] W. N. 75 Affirmed by C. A. [1910] W. N, 130 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 169 Referred to In re Royal London Mutual Insurance Society, Ld. Eve J. [1910] W.N. 326 MoGowiell V. Murray (1869) Ir. Rep. 3 Eq. i60 Distinguished on one point by Byrne J. In re Weston - [1902] 1 Ch. 680 MacGvwan, In re ■ - [1891] 1 Ch. 105, 115 Referred to by Buckley J. In re RoMAiN [1908] 1 Ch. 702 Mllwraith v. Green (1884) 14 Q. B. D. 766 Applied by Farwell J. Smith v. North- leach Rural District Council [1902] 1 Ch. 197 Mcintosh V. SimpUns [1901] 1 K. B. 487 See Aldeeson v. Palliser Div. Ct. [1901] 2K.B.833 Macintosh and Dixon, In re [1903] W. N. 95 Reversed by C. A., sub nom. In re Mackintosh and Thomas [1903] W. H. 117 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 394 Melntyre Brothers v. McGavin, [1893] A. C. 268, 275. Explained by H. L. (Sc). MoNT- GOMBEiE & Co. v. Wallace James [1904] A. C. 73 Mclver &• Co. v. Tate Steamers, Ld., [1902] 2 K. B. 184. Followed by Farvifell J. In re Eemen [1903] 2 Ch. 156 Mclrer S; Co. v. Tate Steamers, Ld., [1902] 2 K. B. 184. See Price v. Clinton Joyce J. [1906] 2 Oh. 487 Machenzi£ v. Allardes - - (1902) 5 F. 191 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1905] A. C. 286 M'Kenzie -9. British Linen Co., (1881) 8 App. Cas. 82,101. - Referred to by P. C. William Swing & Co. V. Dominion Bank [X904] A. C. 806, 808 Mackemie v. Chimrs (1889) 43 Ch, D; ^68 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. RoWBtt ■t. Satchbll [1903] 2 Ch. 212 Macheiixie v. Mackenzie [1895] A. C. 384, 416 See Grant v. Geant H. L. (Sc.) [1905] A. C. 466, 467 Miichintosh v. Wingroce lud. L, R. 4 Calc. 137 See Wilton & Co. v. Osbobn [1901] 2 K. B. 110, 114, n. Machison v. Dundee (Magistrates of), (1909) S C. 971. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1910] A. C. 229 McLean v. Fleming, (1871) L. R. 2 H. L. (So.) 128. Followed by Walton J. KisSh h. TayLOS [1910] 2 S. B. 309 McUan V. Moss Bay Co. - [1909] 2 K. B. 521 Overruled by H. L. (B.). Hodgson v. West Stanley Colliery [1910] A. C. 239 MacLeod v. Att.-Oen. for New South Wales, [1891] A. 0. 455. See The Trial of Earl Russell [1901] A. C. 446, 448 McMams v. Coohe ■ • (1887) 35 Ch. D. 681 Referred to by Kekewich J. DlCKllfsoN 41. BaeEoW [1904] 2 Ch. 389, 343 Macinillan Jl' Co. v. Dent [1906] 1 Ch. 101 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1907] 1 Ch. 107 McMurdo, In re. Penjield Y.McMurdo, [1902] W. N. 87. ■ Reversed by C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 684 Macuun v. Ersltine, Oxenford ^ Cw.,C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 493. See Erskine, Oxenford & Co. v. Sachs C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 504, 611, 513 Macpherson v. Dougan - (1901) 3 F. 553 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. Dougan v. Macpherson [1902] A. C. 197 McQuire v. Western Mm'nin.g News Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 100. Commented on and distinguished by C. A. JoYNT -0. Cycle Trade Pub- lishing Co. [1904] 2 K. B. 292 McRaa, In re - (1886) 32 Ch. D. 613 Referred to by 0. A. In re New Zealand Midland Ry. Co. [1901] 2 Ch. 367, 870 Mtiddeford v. Austwich, (1826) 1 Sim. 89 ; 27 B. R. 167. Referred to by C. A. Law v. Law [1906] 1 Ch. 140 Madditon v. Chapman, (1858) 4 K. & J. 709, 719 Principle in, applied by Byrne J. In re Sanfoeth's Will [1901] W. N. 162 Applied by Farwell J. In re Shuck- buegh's Settlement [1901] 2 Ch. 794 Maddook, Inre - - [1901] 2 Ch. 372 Followed by Byrne J. In re Power [1901] 2 Ch. 669 Overruled on one point by C. A. In're Hadlby . - - [1909] 1 Ch. 20 cc2 ctliv TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c.. Maddock, In re - [1901] 2 Ch. 372 Referred to by Byrne J. J« re Feakn- SIDES [1903] 1 Ch. 250, 257 Maddooliflnre, lilewellyny. Washington, [1901] W.N. 118; [1901] 2 Ch. 372. Reversed by C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 220 Magdalen Hosjntal v. Knatts, (1879) 4 App, Cas. 324, 333. Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. RioKAED (\ Graham [1910] 1 Ch. 772 31aijee v. Lavell - (1874) L. R. 9 C. P. 107, 111 Discussed by Bigham J. Pye v. British Atttomobile Commercial Syndicate, Ld. [1906] 1 K. B. 435 Mafjgl, In i Disapproved by C. A. (1882) 20 Ch. D. 645 In re Whitakbe [1901] 1 Ch. 9 magnolia Metal Cu.'s Trade. Marks, Inre. [1897] 2 Ch. 371. FoUovped by C. A. In re Gestetner's Trade Mark [1908] 1 Ch. 513 Magnus, In re. Ex parte Salaman, [1910] W. N. 190. Affirmed by C. A.- [1910] W. N. 205 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 1049 Maguire, In re (1870) L. R. 9 Eq. 632 Referred to by Buckley J. In re Davis [1902] 1 Ch. 876 Main Cdliery Co., Ld. v. DavifS, [1900] A. C. 358. Followed by C. A. Hall c. Tam- WORTH Colliery Co. [1910] W. N. 268 Mai re, In re - (1905) 49 Sol. Jo. 383 Followed by Neville J. In re BuRKB [1908] 2 Ch. 248, 250 Maitland v. Chalie - (1822) Madd. 243 Referred to by Joyce J. Barkwoeth V. Baekwoeth [1906] W. N. 171 - (1837) 2 Keen, 25 by Kekewich J. Van EVBEIDGf-E [1902] 2 Ch. 266 Mallet V. Great Eastern By. Co., [1899] 1 Q. B. 309. Distinguished by C. A. FOSTER r. Geeat Western Ry. Co. [1904] 2 K. B. 806 Mallinson v. Carr [1891] 1 Q. B. 48 Referred to by C. A. HoBBS r. Win- chester Corporation [1910] 2 K. B. 471 Malone's Divorce (Validation) Bill, [1905] A. C. 314. See Muephy-Grimshaw's Divoecb (Validation) Bill H. I. [1907] W. N. 134 Manchester and Mil ford Ry. Co.,In re, (1880) 14 Ch. D. 645; 651. Explained by C. A. In re Knott End Railway Company's Act, 1898 [1901] 2 Ch. 8 Malins r. Freeman Considered Praagh Mani-he.it<'r Corporation v. .?^'ew Moss Colliery. Ed., [1906] 2 Ch. 564. Affirmed by H. L. (S.), .mi nom. New Moss Colliery, Ld. v. Maschestbe COEPOEATION- [1908] A. C. 117 Manrliester Economic Building Society, In re, (1883) 24 Ch. D. 488, 499. Referred to by C. A. In re Beadshaw [1906] W. H. 86 Manrliester, Middleton and Dlitriet Tramways Co., Re, [1893] 2 Ch. 638. See In re The Toebington and Oke- hampton Ry. Bill, 1895 Neville J. [1907] 1 Ch. 186 Jfanc/iester Overseers v. Ormsltirlt, Union, (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 678. Not foUowed by Div. Ct. West Ham Union r. Holbeach Union [1903] 2 K. B. 627 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 450 Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire By. Co. v. Doncaster Guardians, [1897] 1 Q. B. 117. FoUowed by Farwell J. Shaepington V. FuLHAM Guardians [1904] 2 Ch. 449 Mam-hexter Ship Canal Co. v. Manchester Race- course Co., [1899] 2 Ch. 352. Affirmed by C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 37 Manders v. Manders - - [1897] 1 Q. B. 474 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Ruthke c. Ruthee [1903] 2 K. B. 270 Mandlelerg v. Morley, [1895] W. N. 9 ; 12 Rep. Pat. Cas. 35. Followed by Buckley J. ACETYLENE Illumination Co. ;•. United Alkali Co. [1902] 1 Ch. 494 Followed by Farwell J. Ameeican Steel and Wire Co. r. Glover & Co. [1902] W. N. 17 Mangena v. Edward Lloyd, Ld., (1908) 98 L. T. 640. Followed by Phillimore J. MANGENA /■■Weight" [1909] 2 K. B. 968 Mann v. Fuller. (1854) Kay, 624 See In re HoWE Eve J. [1910] W. N. 190 Manners v. St. Dai-id\-< Gold and Caliper Mines. Ld., [1904] W. N. 147. Affirmed by C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 593 Applied by Kekewich J. Bisgood c. Nile Valley Co. [1906] 1 Ch. 747 Manning v. Purcell, (1855) 7 De G. M. & G. 55 Distinguished by Buckley J. In re Seton-Smith [1902] 1 Ch. 717, 721 See In re BoOEEE. Parker J. [1908] W. N. 189 [1908] 1 K. B. 160 [1908] 1 K. B. 947 Co., [1908] 1 Ch. Maimell v. Griffin Affirmed by C. A. - Mansell v. Vallei/ Printing 567. Affirmed by C. A. Manser, In re - Referred to by Pardoe - [1908] 2 Ch. 441 - [1905] 1 Ch. 68 Kekewich J. In re . [1906] 2 Ch. 184 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. cdv Manser v. Back - - (1848) 6 Hare, 4i3 Followed by Joj'oe J. In re Hare and O'Mobe's Conthact [1901] 1 Ch. 93 Mansfield v. Eelf - ■ [1908] 1 K. B, 71 Discussed and distinguished by C. A. Salaman c, Holfoed [1909] 2 Ch. 602 Maple S( Co. (JParis), Ld. v. Inland Bevemie Commissionen, [1906] 2 K. B. 834. Reversed by H. L. (E.), snb iiom. Inland Rbvbnoe Commissionbes c Maple & Co. (Pabis), Ld. [1908] A. C. 22 March v. March and Palunibo, (1867) L. R. 1 P. & M. 440. Considered and applied by C. A. CoN- STANTINIDI I-. CONSTANTINIDI [1905] P. 253 Mare, In re [1902] 2 Ch. 112 Not followed on one point by Swinfen Eady J. In re Smith's Settlement [1903] 1 Ch. 373 " Marechal Suchet," The [1896] P. 233 Referred to by Jeune P. The "ASSUKTA" - [1902] p. 150 " Margaret, ' ' The {Cayzer v. Carron Co.'), (1884) 9 App. Cas. 873. Distinguished by C. A. The " Oving- DBAN Grange" [1902] P. 208 MarVeij v. Tolwmih Joint Isolation Hospital District Board, [1900] 2 Q. B. 454. See Kent County Council v. Folke- stone COEPOEATION C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 620 Ma rlborough's {Ihihe of) Settlement, In re, (1885) 30 Ch. D. 127 ; (1886) 32 Ch. D. 1. Distinguished by Warrington J. In re LoED Staffoed's Settlement and Will [1904] 2 Ch. 72 " 3Iarpessa," Ilie - - [1891] P. 403 Considered by C. A. The "Minne- tonka " [1905] P. 206 " Marpessa,'' The - - [1906] P. 95 Affirmed by H. L. (E.), sub noni. Meesey Docks and Harbour Board v. Owners op Steamship "Mar- PESSA." The " Marpessa " [1907] A. 0. 241 Marqiiand v. Banner - (1856) 6 E. & B. 232 Distinguished by Wehner i. Dene Steam Shipping Co. [1905] 2 K. B. 92 Marriott v. Abell - - (1869) L. R. 7 Eq. 478 Referred to by Joyce J. In re Maun- der ■ [1902] 2 Ch. 875 Marriott v. Cobbett - (1894) 88 Sol. J. 620 Not followed by Buckley J. Riving- TON r. Garden [1901] 1 Ch. 561 Marrow v. Mimby and Broughton Moor Coal and Fire Brick Co., [1898] 2 Q. B. 588. Si'r FiTZPATRicK r. Evans & Co. [1901] IK. B. 766, 760; C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 505 Marsden v. Lancashire and I'orhshire Ri/. Co., (1881) 7 Q. B. D. 641. Followed by C. A. Koebes-Smith r. Forbes-Smith [1901] P. 268 Marseilles Extension Bailicaij and Land Co., In re, (1885) 30 Ch. D. 598. Referred to by C. A. Embieicos e. Anglo-Austeian Bank [1905] 1 K. B. 677 Marsh v. Bstcourt - (1889) 24 Q. B. D. 147 See Dover c. Peossbe Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 84 Marsh v. Joseph - [1897] 1 Ch. 213 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re Williams' Settled Estates [1910] 2 Ch. 481 Marsh v. Keating, (1834) 1 Bing. N. C. 198 ;• 37 R. R. 75. Discussed by C. A. Jacobs r. MOERIS [1902] 1 Ch. 816 Marshall v. National Provincial Banh of Eng- land, [1892] 61 L. J. (Ch.) 465. Followed by Kekewich J. Levi v. Taylor- - [1903] W. N. 183 Marshall v. Owners of SS. " Wild Mose," [1909] 2 K. B. 46. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 486 Followed by C. A. Gilbert r. OwNEEs of Steam Trawler " Nizam " [1910] 2 K. B. 556, 559 Marshall v. Smith - (1865) 5 GifE. 37 Overruled on one point by C. A. Williams r. Thomas [1909] 1 Ch. 718 Marshjield, In re - (1887) 34 Ch. D. 721 Referred to by C. A. In re Lloyd [1903] 1 Ch. 836 MarteVi v. Holloway (1872) L. R. 5 H. L. 532 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re FOTHBROILL'S ESTATE [1903] 1 Ch. 149 Martin v. Holgate (1866) L. R. 1 H. L. 175 Followed by Joyce J. In re Woolley [1903] 2 Ch. 206 Martin v. Lee (1860) 14 Moo. P. C. 142 See Galliers v. Eyceoft P. C. [1901] A. C, 130, 131, 140 Martin v. Martin- - (1866) L. R. 2 Eq. 404 Not followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Gouldee [1905] 2 Ch. 100 Martin V. Maugham - (1844) 14 Sim. 230 Principle of, applied by C. A. In re Swain - [1905] 1 Ch. 669, 676 Mrrtin's Divorce Bill - (1847) 1 H. L. C. 79 See ToREENS' DivoECE Bill H. L. (Jr.) [1909] W. N. 72 Mfirtison v. Clowes, (1882) 21 Ch. D. 857 ; on appeal [1885] W. N. 41. Followed by Joyce J. Hodson v. Deans [1903] 2 Ch. 647 Miirtgn v. Blahe (1842) 3 Dr. & War. 125 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re HISCOE - [1902] W. N. 49, 54 odvi TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEKULED, &c., .Vanjon WiJsuiCs Settled Estates, In re [19011 1 Ch. 934. Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. Ill re Leveson - GowBE's Settled Estates [1905] 2 Ch. 96 Maskelyne and Coolie v. Smith [1902] 2 K. B. 158 Affirmed by C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 671 Mason, In re (1878) 8 Ch. 411, 414 See In re HOWAETH - - [1909] 1 Ch. 485 ; C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 19 Mason, In re. Mason v. Mason, [1891] 3 Ch. 467 Referred to by Buckley J. In re Gaedinee [1901] 1 Ch. 697 Mason, In re. Ogden v. Mason, [1900] 2 Ch. 196 Reversed by C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 619 Decision of C. A. - [1901] 1 Ch. 619 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) siib iwm. Mason r. Ogden [1903] A. C. 1 Mason v. Cowdary - [1900] 2 Q. B. 419 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Smith r. Savage - [1905] 2 K. B. 88 Ma.son v. Stohes Bay Pier and, By. Co., (1862) 32 L. J. (Ch.) no. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Cakt-Elwes' Contract [1906] 2 Ch. 143 Mason's Orphanage and London and North Western By. Co., In re, [1896] 1 Ch. 596. -^ 'I i Applied by Kekewich J. Att.-Gen. ■!'. National Hospital fob the Belief and Cube of the Para- lysed AND Epileptic [1904] 2 Ch. 252 Musson, TemjilierJ,- Co. y. Be Fries, C.A. [1909] 2 K. B. 831. See upon another point, Masson, Templiee & Co. o. De Fbies C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 535 Master v. Fnisei; (1901) 85 L. T. 611. See Boyd, Ld. c Bilham. ChannellJ. [1909] 1 K. B. 14 Masters aitd Great Western By, Co.,Inre, [1900] 2 Q. B. 677. Affirmed by C. A. - [1901] 2 K. B. 84 Masterson, In re. Trevanion v. Duntas,\\W\'\ W. N. 172. Affirmed by C. A. [1902] W. N. 192 Mather v. Fraser - (1856) 2 K. & J. 536 Referred to by H. L. (E.) [1904] A, C. 466, 471 Mathews v. Saiirin - (1893) 31 L. E. Ir. 181 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. ASCHBRSON V. TEEDEGAB DEY DOCK andWhabfGo. [1909] 2 Ch. 401 Matson v. Dennis ■ (1864) 4 De G. J. & S. 345 Followed by Farwell J. Powell r. Bkodhurst [1901] 2 Ch. 160 Mutfhie.ol-itan District By. Co. and Cosli, In re (1880) 13 Ch. D. 607. Considered by Byrne J. Midland Ry. Co. v. Weight [1901] 1 Ch. 738 Mettojiolitan Ry. Co. v. Wright, (1886) 11 App. Cas. 152. Followed by P. C. Cox v. English, Scottish, and Australian Bank, Ld. - - [1905] A. C. 168 MetrvjioVttan Water Board v. Brooks, [1910] 2 K. B. 134. Affirmed by C. A. [1910] W. N. 268 Metropolitan Water Board v. London, Brighton and South Coast By. Co., [1910] 1 K. B. 804. Affirmed by C. A. - [1910] 2 K. B. 890 Meu.r V. Great Eastern By. Co., [1895] 2 Q. B, 387, 394. See The " Winkpield " C. A. [1902] P. 42 Meux V. Malthy ■ ■ - (1818) 2 Sw. 277 Referred to by H. L. (E.). Tapp Vale Et. Co. ?'. Amalgamated Society op Railway Servants [1901] A. C. 426, 443 Me-yrich's Charity, In re, (1855) 25 L. T. (O.S.) 92 ; 1 Jur. (N.S.) 438. Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re Dod's Charity [1906] 1 Ch. 442 Michael v. 3aH 3; Co. [1901] 2 K. B. 867 On appeal C. A. - [1902] 1 K. B. 482 Michael's Trusts, In re, (1877) 46 L. J. (Ch.) 651 Not followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Ferjtbley's Trusts [1902] 1 Ch. 643 Michell's Trusts, In re ■ (1878) 9 Ch. D. 5 Considered by Parker J. Lloyd r. Pbiohard - [1908] 1 Ch. 268 Middlcfon, In re (1882) 19 Ch. D. 552 Followed by Buckley J. In re Jones [1902] 1 Ch. 92 Middleton v. Chichester - (1871) L. E. 6 Ch. 152 Referred to by C. A. In re Edqcome. »• parte Edgco_me [1902] 2 Ch. 403 Middleton v. Pollock - - (1876) 2 Ch. D. 104 Referred to by C. A. Taylor c. I/ON- DON AND County Banking Co. [1901] 2 Ch. 231 Middleton, In the Goods of - [1888] 14 P. D. 23 Distinguished by Bargrave Deane J. In the Estate of Fbost [1905] P. 140 Midland By. Co., E.c parte - [1894] AV. N. 38 Referred to by Kekewich J. B.v parte Midland Ry. Co. [1903] W. N. 99 Reversed by C. A. [1903] W. N.201 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 61 Midland By. Co. y. Edmonton Guardians, [1895] A. C. 485. Followed by Farwell J. Shaepington ('. Fulham Guardians [1904] 2 Ch. 449 Midland By. Co. v. Myers, Bose A' Co.. [1908] 2 K. B. 356. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) - [1909] A. C. 13 Midland Ry. Co. v. ]\lthington District Local Board, (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 788, 794. Referred to by C. A. Lyles r. South- end-on-Sea Goepoeation [1905] 2 K. B. 114 Midlothian County Council v. Oakiank Oil Co., (1903) 5 F. 700. Followed by C. A. West Riding or Yoekshiee Rivers Board r. Eobin- SON Bros. - - [1907] 1 K. B. 413 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. cdix " Milan;' The - - - (1861) Lush. 388 Doubted by Jeune P. The " Pbank- LAM)"- - [1901] P. 161, 167 Rule in, is in force in the Court of Admiralty. The " Deumlaij-rig-," C. A. [1910] P. 249 Milium & Co. y.' Jamaica Fruit and Trading Company of London, [1900] 2 Q. B.540. See The " Caego ex Poet Tictoe " [1901] P. 243, 245 Miles V. Jan-is - ■ (1883) 24 Ch. D. 633 Approved and followed by C. A. In re Weightson - [1904] 2 Ch. 95 Milford V. Peile, (1854) 17 Beav. 602 ; 2 W. R. 181. Referred to by Cozens-Hardy J. In re ♦ Van Steaubenzbe [1901] 2 Ch. 779 " Milford;' The - - (1858) Sw. 362 Discussed by Phillimore J. The " Tagus " - [1903] P. 44 Millar t. Taylor (1769) 4 Burr. 2303, 2396 Discussed and applied by Swinfen Eady J. Mansell v. Valley Feint- ing Co. - [1908] 1 Ch. 667 Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 441 Miller, Inre ■ - [1893] 1 Q. B. 327 Followed by Phillimore J. /rt re ElLBECK [1909] W. N. 246 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 136 Followed by Phillimore J. In re ElLBECK - [1910] 1 K. B. 136 MxUer t. Hancock - [1893] 2 Q. B. 177 Discussed and distinguished by C. A. HUGGETT r. MIEES [1908] 2 K. B. 278 Miller v. Huddlestone (1882) 22 Ch. D. 333 See In re Pollaed Joyce J. [1903] W. N. 144 Miller T. Law Accident Insurance Co., [1903] 1 K. B. 712. See YuiLL & Co. v. Soott Robson C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 270, 276 Miller v. Miller - (1872) L. R. 13 Eq. 263 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re NOETH - [1909] W. N. 68 Miller v. Parnell - (1815) 6 Taunt. 370 Followed by C. A. Ex parte Smith [1902] 2 K. B. 260 Miller i; Co. v. Solomon - [1906] 2 K. B. 91 See Newstjm, Sons & Co. v. Jambs Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 384 ^filler's Ti"U.stees v. Miller - (1890) 18 R. 301 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc). Macculloch V. Andeeson . [1904] A. C. 55 Mills, In re- - - - - (1888) 5 Moit. 55 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. In re The Stbnottpee, Ld. [1901] 1 Ch. 250, 255 Mills V. Milward - - (1889) 15 P. D. 20 Dictum of Butt J. in, approved by Bargrave Deane J. Gill v. Gill [1909] P. 167 " Mill mall," The - - ■ [1901] W. N. 169 Affirmed by C. A. [1906] TV. N. 51 ; [1906] P. 165 Milne V. Milne - - - (1885) 13 E. 304 See Paton r. Lbwthwaitb H. L. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 44 Milne, The Case of, (1880) 1 Natal Law Rep. 88 ; (1882) 3 N. L. R. Jan. p. 56. See Gallieks v. Eyceopt P. C. [1901] A. C. 130, 131, 137 Milner v. Milner (1748) 1 Ves. 106 Considered by Joyce J. Inre Sbgelcke [1906] 2 Ch. 301 Milner's Safe Co. v. Great Nm'thern and City Ry. Co., [1906] W. N. 213. On Appeal, order agreed upon C. A. [1006] 1 Ch. 208 Miner v. Gilmour (1858) 12 Moo. P. C. 131, 156 Followed by C. A. Bailey & Co. i). Claeke, Son and Moeland [1902] 1 Ch. 649 '' Minneapolis;' The - [1902] P. 30 Followed by Gorell Barnes J. The " Dunottae Castle" [1902] W, N. 70 ■• Minnetonha," The [1904] P. 202 Reversed by C. A. [1905] P. 206 Minors v. Battison, (1876) 1 App. Cas. 428, 437, 443, 446, 452. Observations in, not followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Gouldee [1906] 2 Ch. 100 Minter v. Williams, (1835) 4 Ad. & E. 251 ; 1 Web. Pat. Cas. 135. Considered by 0. A. Beitish Motor Syndicate, Ld. v. Taylor & Son [1901] 1 Ch. 122 Missouri SS. Co., In re, (1880) 42 Ch. D. 321. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. British South Africa Co. r. Db Bbees Consolidated Mines, Ld. C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 602 Mitchell V. Cantrill (1887) 37 Ch. D. 56 Doctrine applied in, not affected by Colls V. Home and Colonial Stores, Ld., [1904] A. C. 179. See Morgan v. Feae, H. L. (B.) [1907] A. C. 425 Mitchell V. Mitchell, (1820) 5 Madd. 69 ; 21 E. R. 280. Distinguished by Buckley J. In re Banks [1906] 1 Ch. 647 Moel Tryran Ship Co. v. Krnger A' Co., [1906] 2 K. B. 792. Affirmed by C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 809 Decision of C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 809 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sui no.n. Keugee & Co. r. MoBL Teyvan Ship Co. - [1907] A. G. 272 Mogg V. Mogg - - (1811) 1 Mer. 645 Discussed by Eve J. In re Nash [1909] 2 Ch. 460; C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 1 dx TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c.. Mogi/ridc/e v. ThacJnveU, (1803) 7 Ves. 36 ; 6 ■r. R. 76. Applied by Byrne J. In i-ft Pynb [1903] 1 Ch. 83 Mogul SS. Co. V. McGregor (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 598. Referred to by C. A. GlAMOBGAN Coal Co. v. South Wales Miners Federation - [1903] 2 K. B. 545 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 239 Moipa SS. Co. V. McGregor, Gow ,?• Co., [1892] A. C. 26. See Blliman, Sons & Co. v. Carring- TON & Son, Ld. Kekewich J. [1901] 2 Ch. 275 Considered by C. A. GiBLAN r. NA- TIONAL Amalgamated Labourers' Union of Great Britain and Ireland [1903] 2 K. B. 600 Moir, I,, re. Warner y. Moh; (1884) 25 Ch. D. 605, 610. ■ Referred to by Kekewich J. In re Wright [1907] 1 Ch. 231 Mulijnriix and White, In re, (1884) 13 L. R. Jr. 382 ; 15 L. R. Ir. 383. See In re Vehrell's Contract [1903] 1 Ch. 65, 70 " J/o//«." The - ■ - [1894] P. 265 Referred to by Jeune P. The " Chil- tonford" [1901] W.N. 48 Money KyrUs Settlement, In re, [1900] 2 Ch. 839 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re Baroness Llanover [1907] 1 Ch. 635 See In re Paddon ■Warrington J. [1909] W. N. 162 Moneypenny v. Moneypenny, (1861) H. L. C. 112 Head-note corrected. North British AND Mercantile Insurance Co. v. Clifford Kekewich J. [1903] W. N. 77 Monl V. Arnold [1902] 1 K. B. 761, 767 Observations of Channel! J. in, approved by C. A. HORNEK r. Franklin [1905] 1 K. B. 479 Moiuen V. Ifacfarlane [1895] 2 Q. B, 562 Followed by Hamilton J. Thohman r. Dowgatb Steamship Co. [1910] 1 K. B. 410 Monson\-i Settled Estates, In re [1898] 1 Ch. 427 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re Coull's Settled Estates [1905] 1 Ch. 712, 722 Montejiore v. Behrens (186.5) L. R. 1 Eq. 171 Distinguished by Farwell J. In re Holland [1901] 2 Ch. 145 Montejiore v. Gvedalla, (1859) 1 D. F. & J. 93, 100. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Heather [1906] 2 Ch. 230 Montejiore v. Gucdalla, [1903] 2 Ch. 723. Considered by Kekewich J. In re Sampson - [1906] 1 Ch. 435 Montgonierie A'- Co. v. Haddington {Prorost and Magkirates of), (1908) S. C. 127. Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1908] A. C. 170 Montgomerie ^ Co. v. Wallace- Jameg, (1899) 2 F. 107 ; (1902) 4 F. 771. Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1904] A. C. 73 Moniip>m.erie S; Co. v. Wallace-James, (1899) 2 F. 107 ; (1902) i F. 771 ; [1904] A. C. 73. See Montgomerie & Co. v. Wallace- James H. L. (Sc.) [1904] A. C. 214 Montqomerg v. Foy, Morgan ^- Co., [1895] 2 Q.B. 321. Distinguished by Buckley J. McChbane V. Gyles (No. 2) [1902] 1 Ch. 911 Montgomery Si Co. Y.DeBulmes, [1898] 2 Q.B. 420 See Woodham Smith v. Edwards C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 899 See In re Mitchell ^ PhilUmore J. [1910] W. N. 24 Moiitr/iimery ^- Co. v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Insurance Co., [1901] 1 K. B. 147. Affirmed by C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 734 Monti V. Barnes [1901] 1 Q. B. 205 DistingTiished by Buckley J. In re De Falbb (No. 2) [1901] W. W. 87 Monypenny v. Bering (1852) 2 D. M. & G. 145 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Rising [1904] 1 Ch. 533 Principle of, applied by Farwell J. In re Bowles - [1905] 1 Ch. 371 Referred to by C. A. In re MORTIMER [1905] 2 Ch. 502 Followed by C. A. In re Nash [1910] 1 Ch. 1 Moody, In re - - - [1895] 1 Ch. 101 Followed by Eve J. In re ABRAHAMS [1910] W. N. 237 " Moorcock,'' The - (1889) 14 P. D. 64 Applied by C. A. The " Bearn " [1906] P. 48 Moore, In re, (1885) 54 L. J. (Ch.) 432 ; 33 W. R. 447. Commented on and distinguished by Farwell J. In re Bird. [1901] 1 Ch. 916, 919 Principle of, preferred to that of In re Foster, (1890) 45 Ch. D. 629. In re Alston Kekewich J. [1901] 2 Ch. 684 Followed by G. A. In re ATKINSON [1904] 2 Ch. 160 Moore, In re [1901] 1 Ch. 691 Dissented from by Kekewich J. In re Maddock [1901] 2 Ch. 372 Dissented from bv Byrne J. In re Power - "[1901] 2 Ch. 669 Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re Fearnsides [1903] 1 Ch. 250, 267 Followed by Neville J. In re Orle- BAR ■ [1908] 1 Ch. 136 Followed by C. A, In re Hadley [1909] 1 Ch. 20 DURING THE YEARS 1901— iniO. cdxi Muure v. Dixon - - (1880) 15 Ch. D. 566 Followed by Kekewioh J. In re Chis- HOLM - [1903] 1 Ch. 457, 464 Mowe V. Ganjee (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 244 See Aldbrson r. Pallisek Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 833 Iloore V. Manchester Liners, LiJ., [1909] 1 K. B. 417. Reversed by H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 498 Referred to by C. A. Hewitt v. Owners op Ship " Duchess " [1910] 1 K. B. 772 Mom-e V. North Western Sanli [1891] 2 Ch. 599 Followed by Joyce J. Ireland v. Hart [1902] 1 Ch. 522 3Iom-e V. Peacliey - - [1891] 2 Q. B. 707 Considered by Kekewich J. Paedt's Mozambique Syndicate, Ld. v. Alex- ander [1903] 1 Ch. 191 Moore v. Peacliey ■ (1892) 66 L. T. 198 Followed by Joyce J. Marshall r. James [1905] 1 Ch. 432 MooreM. Ullcoats Mining Co., [1907] W. N. 231 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 575. On appeal, settled on terms. C. A. [1908] W. N. 35, 40 Moore, Nettlefold A Co. t. Siiu/er Mannfn.ctitrinxj Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 168. Affirmed by C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 820 Moran v. Place - - [1896] P. 214 Referred to by Div. Ct. NuNN & Co. X. Tyson [1901] 2 K. B. 487, 490 Moi-ecruft, Re (1885) 25 Sol. Jo. 471 See In re Lonsbotham & Sons C.A. [1904] 2Ch. 162 Morel Brothers Y. Westmorland QJSarl of), [1904] A. C. 11. Referred to by C. A. French r. Howie [1906] 2K. B. 674 Morgan., In re (1889) 22 Q. B. 592 Followed by G. A. In re Baker [1901] 2 K. B. 628 Morgan, In re - - - [1900] 2 Ch. 474 Referred to by Bryne J. In re Shef- field Corporation and Trustees OP St. William's Roman Catholic Chapel and Schools, Sheffield [1903] ICh. 208,210 Morgan v. Morgan and Porter, (1869) L. B. 1 P. & M. 644. Commented upon by Gorell Barnes J. Waudby r. Waudby - [1902] P. 85 Morgan v. Morgan - (1869) L. R. 1 P. & M. 644 Referred to by Bucknill J. Wyke r. Wyke [1904] P. 149, 151 Morgan v. SteMe (1872) L. R. 7 Q. B. 611 Referred to by C. A. Rose v. Buckbtt [1901] 2K. B.449 Morgan's Case - - (1884) 28 Ch. D. 620 Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re British Building Stone Co. [1908] 2 Ch. 460 Morisnit v. Gray - (1824) 2 Bing. 260 Discussed by Eve J. BuRaos v. Nasoi- mento - [1908] W. N. 237 Morif: v.Stejihan (18S8) 36 AV.R. 779 See Kolohmann v. Meurioe C.A. [1903] IK. B. 534 Morley, In re - - (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 17 Applied by C. A. In re Peterson [1909] 2 Ch. 398 Morrice v. Aylmer (1875) L. R. 7 H. L. 717 Followed by Joyce J. In re Hereincj [1908] 2 Ch. 493 Morris 4' Bastert, Ld. v. Louglhhorough Corpora- tion, [1908] 1 K. B. 205. Followed by Ridley J. Bourne r. Marylebone Corporation [1908] W, N. 62 Morris v. Seal - ■ - [1904] 2 K. B. 585 Discussed by C. A. Hobnbr v. Frank- lin [1905] IK. B. 479 Discussed by C. A. Stuckby v. Hooke [1906] 2 K. B. 20 Morris v. Carnarvon Countg Council, [1910] 1 K. B. 159. Affirmed by C. A. - [1910] 1 K. B. 840 Morris v. Davis, (1857) 6 G. & F. 163, 223 ; 47 R. R. 50. See SCHWEPPBS, Ld. v. Gibbens Warrington J. [1905] ■W.N.28 Morris v. Morris (1861) 31 L. J. (P. &M.) 33 See Kirk v. Kirk [1902] P. 145, 146 Morrison, In re - [1901] 1 Ch. 701 Considered by C. A. In re New [1901] 2 Ch. 534 Morrison Inre - - [1901] 1 Ch. 701 Discussed by Kekewich J. In re Tollemache - [1903] 1 Ch. 457 Morritt, In re ■ (1886) 18 Q. B. D. 222, 233 Referred to by C. A. De VERGES v. Sandeman, Clark & Co. [1902] 1 Ch. 679, 593 Morrow v. M'Conville, (1883) 11 L. K. Ir. 236, principle in. Followed by Byrne J. In re Clarke [1901] 2 Ch. 110 Morse V. Martin - (1865) 24 Beav. 500 Followed by Joyce J. In re Walker [1908] 1 Ch. 660 Mortgage Insurance Corporation, Ld.^. Canadian Agricultural, Coal and Coloni:ation Co., [1901] 2 Ch. 377. Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. In, re Clayton Engineering AND Electri- cal Construction Co. [1904] W. N. 28 Moiiimer, In re. Gi'ay v. Crray, [1905] W. N. 47. Affirmed by C. A. [1905] 2 Ch. 502 Mortimer v. Ireland - (1847) 11 Jur. 721 Referred to by Parker J. In re Grun- DEN AND MeUX'S CONTRACT [1909] 1 Ch. 690 cdxii TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEULED, &o., Mill-timer v. West, (1828) 2 Sim. 274 ; 211 E. K. 104. Distinguished and commented on by Buckley J. In re Kichakdson [1904] 1 Ch. 332 Morton and Hallett - (1880) 15 Ch. D. 143 See In re RonTLBDOE Neville J. [1909] 1 Ch. 280 Keferred to by Parker J. In re Ceun- DENAND MeUX'S CoNTEACT [1909] 1 Ch. 690 Moseley v. Koffi/fontein Mines, Ld., [1910] W. N. 176 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 382. Eeversed by C. A. [1910] W. N. 231 Muses, In re. Beddington y.Beidington, [1902] 1 Ch. 100. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) siCb noin. Bed- dington r. Baumann [1903] A. C. 13 Moss, In re. Kingslury v. Walter, [1899] 2 Ch. 314. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) stib noni. Kings- bury V. "Walter - [1901] A. C. 187 Eeferred to by Joyce J. In re Venn [1904] 2 Ch. 62 Moss, Be ■ - (1853) 17 Beav. 59 Followed by Buckley J. In ie Fan- SHAWE [1905] W. N. 64 Moss V. MjihicJi [1910] 1 K. B. 465 Affirmed by C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 846 Mosfyn. {lord) v. Fit:simmons, [1902] 1 K. B. 512 Eeversed by C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 349 Decision of C. A. - [1903J 1 K. B. 349 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 46 Moidis V. Owen - ■ [1907] 1 K. B. 746 Discussed by C. A, Saxby r. Fulton [1909] 2 K. B. 208 Mount Lyell Mining and By. Co. v. Inland Bevenue Commrs., [1904] 1 K. B. 757 Affirmed by C. A. - [1905] 1 K. B. 161 Mountain v. Parr - ■ [1899] 1 Q. B. 805 Applied by C. A. Sutton r. Great Northern Ry. Co. [1909] 2 K-. B. 791 Mountoashell v. More-Smyth [1896] A. G. 158 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re INMAN - [1903] 1 Ch. 241 Mozleii V. Walker-, (1827) 7 B. & C. 40 ; 31 E. E. 146. Considered by C. A. Wilcox v. Strel [1904] 1 Ch. 212 Miiat y. Shaw Steioart (1890) 17 Eettie, 371 Distinguished by Ct. of Sess. (Sc). Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society v. Allan, (1900) 3 Fraser, 129 [1901] W. N. 185 Muller V. Irafford [1901] 1 Ch. 54,61 Referred to by Warrington J. Woodall r, Clifton - - [1904] W. N. 205 ; C. A. [1905] 2Ch.257 Miiller ^ Co.'s Margarine, Ltd. v. Inland B,cfcnne Commrs., [1900] 1 Q. B. 310. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) suhnom. Inland Eevenue Commrs. r. Muller c& Co.'s Margarine, Ld. [1901] A. C. 217 Mnllinerv. Midland By. Co., (1879)11 Ch. D. 611. Referred to by C. A. Great Western Ey. Co. v. Talbot - [1902] 2 Ch. 759 Mundy and Boper's Contract, In re, [1899] 1 Ch. 275. Referred to by C. A. In re Campbell [1902] 1 K. B. 113, 119, 123 Observations of Chitty L.J. at p. 296 in, considered by Swinten Eady .J. In re Barlow's Contract [1903] 1 Ch. 382 Followed by Farwell J. In re Cokn- wallis-West and Muneo's Con- tract - [1903] 2 Ch. 150 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. Ii re Lord Wimborne and Brownis's Con- tract [1904] 1 Ch. 537 Followed by Farwell J. In re Philli- more's Estate [1904] 2 Ch. 460 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. 7>j re Marshall's Settlement [1905] 2 Ch. 325 Explained and applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re DiCKiN AKD Kblsall's Contract [1908] 1 Ch. 213 Referred to by C. A. In re Davies AND Kent's Contract [1910] 2 Ch. 35 Miindy's Settled Estates, In re [1891] 1 Ch. 339 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re CouLL's Settled Estates [1905] 1 Ch. 712, 721 Munford, v. Stohwasser (1874) L. R. 18 Bq. 556 Dictum of Jessel M.E. at p. 562 dis- approved of by C. A. Hunt v. Luck [1902] 1 Ch, 428 Eef erred to by Wright J. In re Lake [1903] 1 K. B. 161, 153 Inapplicable. In re Lake Wright J. [1903] 1 K. B. 151 Municijial Council of Sydney v. Bourhe, [1895] A. C. 433. Explained by Lord Alveratone C.J. Lambert v. Lowestoft Corpora- tion [1901] 1 K. B. 690 Munic>2>al Permanent Investment Building Society v. Smith, (1888) 22 Q. B. D. 70. Observations of Fry L.J. at p. 72 applied by Warrington J. EOBBINS r. Whyte . [1906] 1 K. B. 128 Mnnster v. Lami - (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 5SS Referred to by C. A. Law i: Llewellyn [1906] 1 K. B. 487 Murphy v. Bury (1895] 24 Can. S. C. 668 Doubted by P. C. Bank of Toronto r. St. Lawrence Fihe Insurance Co. [1903] A. C. 69 Murray v. Dunn - - (1906) 8 F. 1109 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc) [1907] A. C. 883 Murray v. Jones, (1813) 2 Yes. & B. 313; 13 E. R. 104. See In re Searle Joyce J. [1905] "W. N. 86 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. cdxiii Murray v. WatUm (1880) 62 L. T. 796. Followed by Buckley J. Gaenbe v. WiNDGBOVE - - [1905] 2 Ch. 233 Murry v. Sitwell - • [1902] W. N. 119 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Bbeet [1903] W. N. 126 Murtagh v. Barry - (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 632 Approved and followed by C. A. Dean *. Brown - [1909] 2 K. B. 573 Musselburgh Real Estate Co. v. Musselburgh Magistrates, (1903) 5 F. 387. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1905] A. C. 491 Mutter V. Eastern and Midlands By. Co., (1888) 38 Ch. D. 92. Applied by Warrington J. DA vies v. Gas Light and Coke Co. [1909] 1 Oh. 248 Mutual Life Assurance Society y. Langley, (1886) 32 Ch. D. 460. Referred to by Gozens-Hardy J. Lloyd's Bauk v. Pearson [1901] 1 Ch. 865 "Mystery," The - ■ - [1902] P. 115 Followed by Buoknill J. The " Hopper, No. 21 " [1903] W. N. 114 Nairn v. Unicers-ity of St. Andrews. (1908) S. C. 113. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1909] A. C. 147 JValder v. Hawkins (1833) 2 Myl. & K. 243, 247- Referred to by Etc J. Stebdbn v- Walden - [1910] 2 Oh. 393 Nash, Inre - - - - (1894) 71 L. T. 5 Followed by Parker J. In re Winn [1910] 1 Ch. 278 Nash, In re. Cooh v. FrederioTi, [1909] 2 Ch. 450. Affirmed by C. A. - [1910] 1 Ch. 1 Nash V. Calthorpe ■ [1905] 2 Ch. 237, 246, 251 ' Referred to by Warrington J. Mar- shall V. Morrison - [1907] W. N. 29 Nation, Re. Nation y. Hamilton ■ 57 L. T. 648 See In re De Nicols Kekewich J. [1906] W, N. 192 National Rank of Wales, Ld., In re, [1899] 2 Ch. 629. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Dovby AND THE Metropolitan Bank (of England and Wales), IiD. v. Cort [1901] A. C. 477 Followed by C. A. Merchants' Fire Office, Ld. v. Armstrong [1901] W. N. 163 See Inre Crichton's Oil Co. Wright J. [1901] 2 Ch. 184 Applied by Farwell J. Bond v. Bab- row HEMATITE Steel Co. [1902] 1 Ch. 363 National Bank of Wales (Taylor, Phillips and Richard's Cases') In re [1897] 1 Ch. 298 See In re National Bank of Wales, Ld. Masset and Giffin's Case Parker J. [1907] 1 Ch. 582 National Beienture and Assets Corporation, In re, [1891] 2 Ch. 505. Referred to by Byrne J. In re Walker & Smith, Ld. [1903] W. N. 82 National Motor Mail- Coach Co., In re. Clinton's Claim, [1908] W. N. 130. Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 515 Natio)ial Phonograph Co. v. Edison-Bell Con- solidated Phonograph Co., [1907] W. N. 6. Reversed by C. A. - [1908] 1 Ch. 335 National Provincial Bank of England v. Jackson, (1886) 33 Ch. D. 1. Followed by Warrington J. HowATSON V. Webb - - [1907] 1 Ch. 537 Natiotial Savinqs Bank Association, In re, (1866) L. R. i Ch. 547. Referred to by C. A. In re Con- solidated South Rand Mines Deep, Ld. [1909] 1 Ch. 491 ; [1909] W. N. 66 National Starch Company's Application, In re, [1908] 2 Ch. 698. Distinguished by Warrington J. In re California Fig Syrup Company's Application foe a Trade Mark [1909] 2 Ch. 99 National Telephone Co. v. Baker, [1893] 2 Ch. 186. Discussed by P. C. Eastern and South African Telegraph Co. v. Cape Town Tramway Cos. [1902] A. C. 381, 394 Nation's Case - (1866) L. R. 3 Bq. 77 Applied by C. A. In re Sussex Brick Co. - [1904] 1 Ch. 598 Naval, Military and Civil Service Co-operative Society of South Africa, Ld., In re, [1903] W. N. 120. See In re Samuel Allsopp & Sons, Ld. C. A. [1903] W. N. 132 Neale v. Lady Gordon Lennox, [1902] 1 K. B. 838. Reversed by H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 465 Neaxerson v. Peterborough Rural District Council, [1901] 1 Ch. 22. Reversed by C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 667 Ned's Po-int Battery, In re - [1903] 2 I. R. 192 Approved and followed by Ridley J. Blundbll v. Rex - [1906] 1 K. B. 616 Needham v. Needliam - - (1842) 1 Hare, 633 Referred to by C. A, Townbnd v. Townend [1906] W. N. 168, 163, 178 Neeld v. Sendon Urban Council, (1899) 81 L. T. (N.S.) 405, 409. Principles in, applied by Cozens-Hardy J. Belmohb (Countess op) v. Kent County Council [1901] 1 Ch. 873, 878 Distinguished by Joyce J. Haevey v. Truro Rural District Council [1903]^2 Ch. 638 cdxiv TABLE OF GASES FOLLOWED, OVERBDLED, &C., ^^effvs, Iji re - - - [1895] 1 Ch. 73 Applied by Cozens-Hardy J. In re Ghat [1901] 1 Cli. 239 See In re Longbotham & Sons C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 162 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Cohen & Cohen [1905] 1 Ch. 346 Nell V. Lont/lottom [1894] 1 Q. B. 767 Followed by Div. Ct. BLAND ?■. Buchanan [1901] 2 K. B. 76 Nelson, In re (1880) 14 Ch. D. 41 See In re Pollard Joyce J. [1902] W. N. 144 Nelson v. Dahl - (1879) 12 Ch. D. 568 Explained and followed by C. A. Lbonis Steamship Co. c. Rank, Ld. [1908] 1 K. B. 499 Nelson ^~ Sons, Ld. v. Nelson Line (LiveiyooT) Ld. [1907] 1 K. B. 788. Affirmed by C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 706 Reversed by H. L. (E.) suT> nom. Jambs Nblson &. Sons, Ld. r. Nelson Line (Liverpool) Ld. [1908] A. C. 108 Distinguished by Bray J. In re ROYAL Mail Steam Packet Co. and River Plate Steamship Co. [1910] 1 K. B. 600 Nelson Line (^Liver2>ool), Ld. v. lames Nelson S; Sons, Ld., [1908] A. C. 16. See James Nelson & Sons, Ld. r. Nelson Line (Liverpool), Ld., H. L. (E.) - - - [1908] A. C. 108 " Never Bespair," Tlie (1884) 9 P. D. 34 Considered by Jeune P. The " Mer- sey" [1901] P. 369 Nevxll, In re - - (1885) 31 Ch. D. 161 Referred to by G. A. In re A. [1904] 2 Ch. 328, 331, 338 Neville v. Fine Art, ^c. Insurance Co., [1897] A. C. 68. Referred to by C. A. Weiser r. Segar [1904] W. N. 93 Nevinson v. Lady Lennard, (1865) 34 Beav. 487 See In re BOORER Parker J. [1908] W. N. 189 New, In re - . - [1901] 2 Ch. 534 Explained by C. A. In re ToLLBMACHE [1903] 1 Ch. 986 New & Dale Steamship Co. and British South American Steam- ship Co., In re [1903] 1 K. B. 262 See In re MAC PAD YEN PhUlimore J. [1908] W. N. 13 New Salliis Eersteling, Ld. v. Bandt Gold Mining Co., [1904] A. G. 165. See In re Randt Gold Mining Co. Buckley J. [1904] 2Ch.468 Referred to by C. A. In re West Coast Gold Fields, Ld. [1906] 1 Ch. 1 New Land Development AssociaVwn and Gray In re, [1892] 2 Ch. 138. Referred to by Kekewich J. London AND County Contracts, Ld. v. Tallack [1903] W. N. 8 Discussed by Neville J. Opficlal Receiver r. Cooke [1906] 2 Ch. 661 New Moss Colliery, Ld. v. Manchester Corpora- tion, [1908] A.G. 117. Discussed by Eve J. London and North- Western Ry. Co. r. Howley Park Goal aot) Cannel Co. [1910] W. N. 163 New, Prance S; Garrard's Trustee v. Hunting, [1897] 2 Q. B. 19. Affirmed ««J nom. Sharp r. .Jackson [1899] A. C. 419 Referred to by C. A. Taylor i. Lon- don AND County Banking Co. [1901] 2 Ch. 231 See In re Greaves Bigham J. [1904] 2 K. B. 493 New River Co. v. Hertford Union, [1901] 2 K. B. 620. Reversed by C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 697 Neip Sharlston Collieries Co. v. Westinorland iEarl of), noted at [1904] 2 Ch. 443. Referred to by C. A. Bishop Auck- land Industrial Go-operative Society, Ld. r. Butterknowle Colliery Co. [1904] 2 Ch. 419, 436, 443 New Windsor {Mayor of) v. Stovell, (1884) 27 Gh. D. 665, 672. Referred to by Kekewich J. Milner's Safe Co. v. Great Northern and City Ry. Go. - [1906] W. N. 163 : C. A. [1907] lCh.208 New Yorh Life Insnrajice Co. v. Styles, (1889) 14 App. Gas. .381. Distinguished by Ct. of Sess. (Sc). Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society r. Allan, (1900) 3 Fraser, 129 See - [1901] W. N. 188 Xetu Zealand Jlidland Ry. Co., In re. Smith v. Lubbock, [1901] W. N. 105. Reversed by G. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 267 Newbegin's Estate, In re (1887) 36 Ch. D. 477 Dictum of Chitty J., in, not followed by Farwell J. In re Clabbon [1904] 2 Ch. 468 Distinguished by FarweU J. Wands- worth Union v. Woethington [1906] 1 K. B. 420 Newbolt V. Bingham - (1895) 72 L. T. 852 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. Humphreys v. Morten [1908] 1 Ch. 739 Nmoen, In re. Newen v. Hames, [1894] 2 Ch. 297 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re Sampson - [1906] 1 Ch. 486 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. cdxv Newman (George) ^ Co., In re, [1895] 1 Ch. 686. Referred to by Farwell J. Young v. Naval, Military, and Civil Ser- vice, Co-operative Society op South Africa, Ld. - [1905] 1 K. B. 687 Mionlmm's Estate, In re (1881) W. N. 69 Distinguished by C. A. In re Lawley [1902] 2 Ch. 799 Xewport Union v. Stead. Xewpoit Union y. Green, [1907] 2 K. B. 460. Reversed by H. L. (E.) sui nam. Green v. Kewport Union. Stead v. Newport Union [1909] A. C. 35 Neicton t. Chorlton - - (1853) 10 Hare, 646 Followed by C. A. Nicholas v. Ridley [1904] 1 Ch. 198 Mboyet v. MUyet - (1878) 4 P. D. 1 Referred to by Jeune P. Roberts v. Brennan [1902] P. 143, 144 Xicholl V. Xicholl (1777) 2 W. Bl. 1159 Commented on by C. A. In re Mor- timer [1905] 2 Ch. 502 MchoUon, In re - - (1861) 3 D. F. & J. 93 See In re Hudson Kekewich J. [1904] W. N. 32 XiclwUon V. Booth, (1888) 16 Cox, C. C. 373 ; 57 L. J. (M.C.) 43. Distinguished by Div. Ct. PiCKBRlNa V. WlLLOUGHBY [1907] 2 K. B. 296 MclwUon V. Bower - - (1858) 1 B. & E. 172 Discussed by Bigham J. Taylor t. Great Eastern Ry. Co. [1901] 1 K. B. 774 Xicholson v. Bradfield Union, (1866) L. R. 1 Q. B. 620. Approved by C. A. Lawfoed r. BlL- LERiCAY Rural Council [1903] 1 K. B. 772 jVickvll 4' Knight v. Ashton, Edridge ^ Co., [1900] 2 Q. B. 298. Affirmed by C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 126 Niger Patent Elastic Enamel Co., In re, [1904] W. N. 99. Further hearing of this case reported sub nom. /« re Taylor's Agreement Trusts Buckley J. [1904] 9 Ch. 737 Nightingale' v. Reynolds, [1902] W. N. 108 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 117. Affirmed by C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 236 Nisbet and Potts' Contract, In re, [1905] W. N. 32; [1905] 1 Ch. 391. Affirmed by C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 386 Nisbet V. Hamilton - - (1905) 7 F. 1034 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1907] A. C. 158 Nisbet V. Smith - (1785) 2 Bro. C. C. 579 Followed by Swinfeu Eady J. AscHEESON V'. Tredegar Dry Dock AND Wharf Co. [1909] 2 Ch. 401 Nitrophosphate and Odams Chemical Munnre Co., In re, [1893] W. N. 141. Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Euphrates and Tigris Steam Navi- gation Co. [1904] 1 Ch. 360 Noahes S- Co. v. Mice, [1902] A. C. 24 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 445, 457. Principle of, applied by C. A. Jarrah Timber and Wood Paving Coepoea- TiON, Ld. v. Samuel [1903] 2 Ch. 1 Referred to by H.L.(B.). Bradley r. Careitt [1903] A, C. 263 Referred to by Joyce J. Morgan v. Jeffreys - - [1910] 1 Ch. 620 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. British South Afeica Co. v. De Beees Consolidated Mines, Ld. C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 502 Noakes v. Noahes ^ Co., Ld. - [1907] 1 Ch. 64 Approved by Kelcewich J. DAwsoN ti. Beaime's Tadcaster Breweries, Ld. [1907] 2 Ch. 359 Referred to by Eve J. Bent's Bebwery Co. 1). Dykes [1909] W. N.61 Noel v. Bewley - - (1829) 3 Sim. 103, 116 Followed and applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Bridgwater's Settlement. Partridge v. Ward [1910] 2 Ch. 342 Noel V. Noel - - (1885) 10 P. D. 179 Distinguished by C . A. Constantinidi V. Constantinidi [1905] P. 253 Nordstjefrnany. Salvesen S( Co., (1903) 40 Sc. L. R. 305. Decision altered by H. L. (Sc.) sub nam,. Salvesen & Co. v. Noedstjeenan [1905] A. C. 302 Norman v. Richetts (1886) 3 Times L. R. 182 Followed by Div. Ct. ThAIRLWALL r. Great Northern Ry. Co. [1910] 2 K. B. 509 North V. Walthamstoto Urban Bistrict Council, (1898) 67 L. J. (Q. B.) 972. FoUowed by Channell J. Haedicke r. Frieen Baenet Urban District Council [1904] 2 K. B. 807 ; C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 110 North American Land and Timber Co. v. Wat- Uns, [1903] W. N. 206 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 242 Affirmed by C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 233 North Australian Territory Co., In re, (1890) 45 Ch. D. 87. See In re London and Noethebn Bank C. A [1901] W. N. 247 North British By. Co. v. Budhill Coal and Sandstone Co., (1909) S. C. 217. Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1910] A. C. 116 North Cheshire and Manchester Brewery Co. v. Manchestm' Brewery Co., [1899] A. C. 83. Considered by C. A. London General Omnibus Co. v. Lavell [1901] 1 Ch. 135 cdxvi TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &0., Nm-th-l. V. rnmJi - [1895] 1 Q. B. 265 Considered by C. A. Plumpton v. BUEKINSHAW [1908] 2 K. B. 572 Owen V. London and XoHh Western Ry. Co., (1867) L. R. 3 Q. B. 54. Discussed by DiT. Ct. Covington r. Metropolitan District Rt. Oo. [1903] 1 K. B. 231, 238, 243 Oxfo^i'd iBishop of^ \. Henly [1907] P. 88 /See Oxford (Bishop of) v. Henly (No. 2). Arches Court of Canterbury [1909] P. 319 "P. Caland," Owners of the, and Freight v. Glamorgan Steamship Co., [1893] A. C. 207, 215. Explained by H. L. (Sc). MoNT- GOMERiB & Co. c. Wallace-James [1904] A. C. 73 Padwick T. Stanley - . (1852) 9 Hare, 627 Suggested limitation in, not followed by Swinfen Eady J. ASCHBRSON r. Tredegar Dry Dock and Wharf Co. - [1909] 2 Ch. 401 Page v. Cox - (1851) 10 Hare, 163 Considered by G. A. Byeni; r. Reid [1902] 2 Cn. 735 See In re Harden Star, Lavis & Sin- clair Co. Joyce J. [1903] W. N. 64 Page v. Say ward (1705) 2 Sail;;. 570 See Pelham Clinton v. Dcke op Newcastle H.L.(E.) [1903] A.C.lll Page v. Vallis ■ (1903) 19 Times L. R. 393 O^'erruled by Div. Gt. LoWB r. DOR- LiNG & Son [1906] 2 K. B. 601 Paice v. Canterburg (^Arohbiskoji of"), (1807) 14 Ves. 364. Applied by Byrne J. In re Pyne [1903] 1 Ch. 83 Paine t. Jones ■ (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 320 Followed on one point by Buckley J. In re Anderson [1906] 2 Ch. 70 Painter, Ex 2>arte. In re Painter, [1895] 1 Q. B. R5. Distinguished by Div. Ct. In re Bbtts. Br parte OFFICIAL RECEIVER [1901] 2 K. B. 39 Palace Shipping Co. v. Caine, [1907] 1 K. B. 670 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 386 Palmer, Inre- - - - [1900] W. N. 9 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Shar- MAN [1901] 2 Ch. 280 Palmer, Inre - - [1893] 3 Ch. 369 Followed by G. A. In re Allan [1903] 1 Ch. 276 Adopted by Swinfen Eady J. In re WAST, [1907] 1 Ch. 391 Palmer v. Blachlurn - (1822) 1 Bing. 61 Rule established in, applied by Chan- nell J. United States Shipping Co. c. Empress Assurance Corpora- tion [1907] 1 K. B. 259 Palmer v. Bramley - - [1895] 2 Q. B. 405 Eeferred to by Warrington J. In re J. Dbfries & Sons, Ld. [1909] 2 Ch. 423 Palmer v. Butchinson - (1881) 6 App. Gas. 619 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Symons v. Batcek - [1905] 2 K. B. 723, 729 Palm^ T. LocTie (1880) 15 Gh. D. 294, 303 Referred to by C. A. In re A. [1904] 2 Ch. 828, 338 Palmer v. Mallet ■ (1887) 36 Ch. D. 411 Applied by Warrington J. Robertson V. WILLMOTT [1909] W. N. 155 Palmffi- V. Palmer - [1892] 1 Q. B. 319 See Pledge x. Pomfeet Joyce J. [1905] W. H. 56 Palmer v. Young (1684) 1 Yern. 276 Incorrectly reported : .see the f uU report in In re Biss C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 40, at p. 65, n. Panhhurst v. Howell ■ (1870) L. E. 6 Gh. 136 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re Smtthibs [1903] 1 Ch. 269 Pardoe,Inre. McLaughlin v. Penny, [1906] 1 Gh. 265. Appeal allowed by C. A. on the facts [1906] 2 Ch. 340 Parfit, In re - (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 40 Followed and approved by G. A. In re Wbighell [19ib9] 1 K. B. 92 ParJter,Inre (1SS.5) 15 Q. B. D. 196 Considered by C. A, In re COHES [1905] 2 K. B. 704 Pai-her, In re ■ - (1880) 16 Ch. D. 44 Eule laid down in, followed by Neville J. In re Williams [1907] 1 Ch. 180 Parhei; In re. Cash v. Parker, (1879) 12 Ch. D. 293. Followed by Warrington J. In re Clark [1910] W. N. 234 Parker v. Felgate - (1883) 8 P. D. 171 Approved of by P. G. Perera x: Perera ■ [1901] A. C. 364 Parker v. First Avenue Hotel Co.. (1883) 24 Ch. D. 282, 287. Eeferred to by G. A. Home and Colonial Stores, Ld. r. Colls [1902] 1 Ch. 302, 314 ; H. L. (E.)"|;i904] A, C. 179 DUEING THE YEARS 1901—1910. cdxix Parker v. London Comity Cotmcil, [1904] 2 K. B. 501. Followed by C. A. Lyles e. Southend- on-Sea Corporation [1905]2K. B. 1 Parker v. Lord Advocate (1902) i F. 698 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1904] A. C. 364 Parker v. MeKemia (1874) L. E. 10 Ch. 96, 125 Dictum of Mellish L.J. in, applied by Byrne J. Delves r. Gray [1902] 2 Ch. 608 Parker v. Smitk, (1832) 5 C. & P. 438 ; 38 E. E. 828. Followed by Farwell J. HieaiNS v. Bbtts [1905] 2 Ch. 210 Parkei- y. Taswell - (1858) 2 De G. & J. 559 Followed by G. A. Zimblbr o. Abra- hams [1903] 1 K. B. 677 Parker-Jervis, In re [1898] 3 Ch. 643 See De Quettbville v. De Qtiette- ville Kekewioh J. [1906] W. H. 86 Parkers, In re (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 84 Followed and approved by C. A. In re P. Macpadten - [1908] 2 K. B. 817 Parkin v. South JSetton Coal Co., [1907] W. N. 81. Affirmed by C. A. [1908] W. N. 7 " Parlement Beige," T/te - (1880) 5 P. D. 197 Followed by Gorell Barnes, Pres. The "Jasst" [1906] p. 270 Parmenter v. Webler, (1818) 8 Taunt. 593 ; 20 R. E. 575. Followed and applied by Swinfeu Eady J. Lewis v. Baker [1905] 1 Ch. 46 Parr's Banking Co. *. Yates, [1898] 2 Q. B. 460 Biferred to by Swinfen Eady J. AsoHERsoN c. Tredegar Dry Dock AOT) Wharp Co. [1909] 2 Ch. 401 Parsons, In re. JEm parte Fierier, [1893] 2 Q. B. 122. Discussed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Spiral Globe, Ld. [1902] 1 Ch. 396 Applicable. Buckley J. In re S. Abrahams & Sons [1902] 1 Ch. 696, 699 Parsons v. Jfew Zealand SMppimg Co., [1900] 1 Q. B. 714. Affirmed by C. A. - [1901] 1 K. B. 648 Partridge v. PaHridge - - [1894] 1 Ch. 351 Applied by Warrington J. In re Edwards [1910] 1 Ch. 541 Patching v. Barnett - (1881) 51 L. J. (Ch.) 74 Followed by Buckley J. In re Jokes [1901] W. N. 217 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 92 Discussed and followed by Kekewich J. In re Betts. DOTJGHTY ■». WALKER [1907] 2 Ch. 149 Paterson S; Son, Ld. v. Glasgow Corporation, (1900) 2 F. 1201. Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) Glasgow Corporation v. Paterson & Son, Ld. [1901] W. N. 162 Paton V. Lewthwaite (or Pato/i), (1902) Scots Law Times, 281. Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1903] W. N. 44 Patrick iSmith's Trustees') v. Smith, [1900] 37 Sco. L. E. 557. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1901] A. C. 282 Pawlett V Attorney -General, (1651) Hardres' Eep. 465. Followed by C. A. Dyson v. Attorney- General [1910] W. N. 276 Pascton V. Baird [1893] 1 Q. B. 139 See Southall Development Syndi- cate, Ld. v. Dunsdon Kekewich J. [1907] W. N. 16 Payne v. Cork Co. - [1900] 1 Ch. 308 Distinguished by Buckley J. Doughty V. Lomagunda Eeeps, Ld. [1902] 2 Ch. 837 ; C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 673 Payton S; Co. v. Snelling, Lampard ^ Co., (1899) 16 Eep. Pat. Cas. 283, reversed by C. A. (1900) 17 Eep. Pat. Cas. 48. C. A. affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 308 Peacock V. Niddrie and BenJiar Coal Co., (1902) 4 Fraser, 443 ; [1903] W. N. 162. Explained by Ot. of Sess. (Sc). Fleming v. Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co. [1903] W. N. 165 Followed by Ct. of Sess. (So.). M'CuB r. Barclay, Curlb & Co. [1903] W. N. 170 Peake's Settled Estates, In re [1894] 3 Ch. 520 Eeferred to by Farwell J. Dickinson's Trusts, In re [1902] W. N. 104 Pearoe v. Bullard, King 4' Co., [1908] 1 Ch. 780 Overruled on one point by C. A. In re Peabce's Trusts [1909] 2 Ch. 492 Pearce v. Piper (1809) 17 Ves. 1 ; 11 E. E. 1 Examined and applied by Warrington J. In re Lead Company's Workmen's Fund Society [1904] 2 Ch. 196 Pearce v. Watts - - (1875) L. E. 20 Eq. 492 Explained and distinguished by C. A. South Eastern Ey. Co. v. Asso- ciated Portland Cement Manu- facturers (1900), Ld. [1910] 1 Ch. 12 Pet,rce's Trusts, In re, C. A. [1909] W. N. 116 See In re Pearce C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 492 Pearks, Gunston ^ Tee, Ld. v. Tliompson, TaVniey S- Co., (1901) 18 Eep. Pat. Cas. 185. Followed by Swinfeu Eady J. H. E. Eandall, Ld. v. British and Ameri- can Shoe Co. - [1902] 2 Ch. 354 Pearson, In re- - - (1876) 3 Ch. D. 807 Overruled by C. A. In re Holland [1902] 2 Ch. 360 Pearson v. Dawson - (1858) E. B. & E. 448 Distingaished by Piokford J. MOR- DAUNT Bros. v. British Oil and Cake Mills, Ld. [1910] 2 K. B. 602 ddi cdxx TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERBULED, &C., Pearson t. Spencer - (1863) 3 B. & S. 761 Applied by Kekewich J. Milnee's Safe Co. v. Gbeat Nobthben and City Ry. Co. [1907] 1 Ch. 208 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 213 Pearson (erg v. Noiihumierland Building Society, (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 373. Distinguished by G. A. OsBOENE r. Amalgamated Society op Railway Seevants [1909] 1 Ch. 163 Bossi T. Edinburgh (^Provost, Jf'c, o/), (1903) 5 F. 480. Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1906] A. C. 21 Bothwell V. Bavles, (1903) 19 Times L. R. 423 Explained and distinguished by C. A. Waencken v. R. Moeeland & Son, Ld. [1909] 1 K. B. 184 Bough's Case - (1779) 2 East, P. C. 607 Distinguished by C. G. E. Rex r. Stbide and Millaed [1908] 1 K. B. 617 Bourke v. White Moss Colliery Co., (1877) 2 0. P. D. 205. Distinguished by G. A. Waldock r. WiNPlELD [1901] 2 K. B. 696, 601 Bouse V. Dixon - [1904] 2 K. B. 628 Discussed and explained by C. A. Ceibb v. Kynoch, Ld. (No. 2) [1908] 2 K. B. 661 Bovth V. Webster - (1847) 10 Beav. 561 Followed by Byrne J. Waltee r. Ashton [1902] 2 Ch. 282 Routledge (George) J)- Sons, Ld., In re, [1904] 2 Ch. 474, 480. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Peeth Electeic Teamwats, Ld. [1906] 2 Ch. 216 Rome, In re (,1889) 68 L. J. (Ch.) 703 Referred to by Kekewich J. I^ackay v. Gould - . [1906] 1 Ch. 26 See In re Adams Kekewich J. [1906] W. H. 220 Rowe, In re. Ex parte Berenlnrq & Co., [1904] W. N. 64. Affirmed by C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 483 Rowe v. Gough - [1908] 1 I. R. 402 Reversed by H. L. (Ir.) sub miu: Rowe v. Gough. Gough r. Bolton [1909] A. C. 64 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. odxxxv Howe's Estate, In re [1907] 1 I. R. 380 Decision of Ross J. restored by H. L. (Ir.) suh IIOVI. ROWE V. GOUGH [1909] A. C. 64 Rowley v. Loncton and North Western My. Co., (1873) L. R. 8 Ex. 221. Adopted by C. A. Johnston v. Gkeat Westeen Rt. Go. - [1904] 2 K. B. 25 Rowlls T. Bebb - - [1900] 2 Ch, 107 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re Woods [1904] 2 Ch. 1 Rowson T. Atlantio Tratisport Co., [1902] W. N. 220 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 114. Affirmed by C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 666 Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation v. Sjor- forsahrings Ahtieboldget Vega, [1901] 2 K. B. 567. Affirmed by C. A. - [1902] 2 K. B. 384 See Finance Act, 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. 7), s. 11. Royal Worcester Corset Co.'s Application, In re, [1909] 1 Ch. 459. Distinguished by Warrington J. In re Calipoenia Fitt STRtrp Co.'s Appli- cation FOE A Trade Maek [1909] 2 Ch. 99 "Ruabon;'The - ■ [1900] A. C. 6 Applied by Jeune Pres. The "Acanthus" [1902] P. 17 Applied by 0. A, The " Haveesham Geanoe" [1905] p. 307 Ruben-^. Ch'eat Fingall Cmisolidated, Ld., [1904] 2 K. B. 712. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 439 Rudow V. 6freat Britain, ^c. Society, (1881) 17 Ch. D. 600, 607. Referred to by C. A. Sanderson r. Blyth Theateb Co. [1903] 2 K. B. 533 nes V. Alston - (1875) L. R. 19 Eq. 539 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Spaek's Teusts [1904] 1 Ch. 451 Rugby Portland Cement Co. v. London and North Western Ry. Co., [1908] 1 K. B. 925. Reversed by C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 606 Rumball t. Sclimidt (1882) 8 Q. B. D. 603 Discussed by Farwell J. MuLLls v. HuBBAED - [1903] 2 Ch. 431 Rummy and Smith, In re - [1897] 2 Ch. 351 Referred to by Parker J. In re CEtTNDEN AND MbUX'S CONTRACT [1909] 1 Ch. 690 Runeiman ^ Co. v. S-nvyth ^- Co., (1904) 20 Times L. R. 625. Overruled by C. A. Tempeeley Steam Shipping Co. v. Smyth & Co. [1906] 2 K. B. 791 See MOEEISTON TINPLATB Co. i). Beookbe, Doeb & Co. Sir. Ct. [1908] 1 K. B. 403 Rushmer v. Polsue ^ Alfieri, Ld., [1906] 1 Oh. 234. Affirmed upon the facts by H. L. (E.) sub nom. PoLSUE & Alfieei, Lu. v. Rttshmbe - - [1907] A. C. 121 Rttssel V. Buchaiian. (1836) 7 Sim. 628 ; 2 Or. & M. 561. Distinguished by C. A. In re Wright- SON - [1909] 2 Ch. 96 Russell, In re - - [1895] 2 Ch. 698 Applied by Warrington J. In re Game [1907] 1 Ch. 276 Russell V. Briant - (1849) 8 0. B. 836 Followed by Byrne J. Kelly's Dieec- toeies, Ld. I). Gavan and Lloyds [1901] ICh. 374; C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 631 Russell V. Inland Revenue Commrs., [1901] 2 K. B. 342. Affirmed by C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 142 Russell V. Kellett - - (1855) 3 Sm. & G. 264 Referred to by Buckley J. In re Davis [1902] 1 Ch. 876 Russell V. Town and County Bank, (1888) 13 App. Gas. 418. Discussed by P. 0. Oommes. of Taxa- tion V. Antill - [1902] A. C. 422, 428 Rust V. St. Batolph Churchwardens, (1906) 94 L. T. 575. Referred to by Div. Ct. Dickeson & Co. V. Maybs [1910] 1 K. B, 452 Rust T. Victoria Graving Booh Co., (1887) 36 Oh. D. 113. Distinguished by C. A. Tdnniclippe & Hampson, Ld. v. West Leigh COLLIEEY Co. [1906] 2 Ch. 22 Rutlierglen Parish Council v. Glasgow Parish Council, (1901) 3 F. 705. Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1902] A. C. 360 Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 330 Discussed by P. 0. Eastern and South African Telegraph Co. r. Cape Town Teamways Cos. [1902] A. C. 381 Rule in, considered by Eve J. Whit- mokes (Edenbbidge), Ld. v. Stan- FOED [1909] 1 Ch. 427 Rymer, In re - - - [1895] 1 Oh. 19 Referred to by Buckley J. In re Davis [1902] 1 Ch. 876 S. v. i. - - [1876] W. N. 220 Distinguished by Gorell Baraes J. Ayees v. Ayees [1901] W. N. 204 Saccharin Corpoi'atiun, Ld. v. Dawson (1902) 19 Rep. Pat. Gas. 169. Diatingaished by C. A. Saccharin OOEPORATION, Ld. v. WILD [1903] 1 Ch. 410 Saccharin Corporation-^. Reitmeyer ^ Co., [1900] 2 Oh. 659. Approved by C. A. Badische Anilin UND Soda Fabrik v. Hickson [1906] 2 Ch. 496 Saocharvn Corporation, Ld, v. Quincey, [1900] 2 Ch. 246 ; 17 Rep. Pat. Cas. 337. Distinguished by 0. A. SACCHARIN Corporation Ld. v. Wild [1903] 1 Ch. 410 ee2 cdxxxvi TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEREULED, &c., Saccharin Corporation, LA. v. Wild, [1903] 1 Ch. 410. See Saccharin Cokpoeation, Ld. v. White (R.) & Soifs, Ld. C. A, [1903] W. N. 120 Sao'is V. Hendresoii - [1902] 1 K. B. 612 See Edwabds c. Mallam C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 1002 Saclter, In re - (1888) 22 Q. B. D. 179 Discussed and explained by C. A. In re MACOnu [1904] 2 K. B. 700 SaddY. Griffin - [190S] 2 K. B. 510 Referred to by Joyce J. In re Massey [1909] W. N. 211 Sadler v. Great Western My. Co., [1896] A. 0. 450 Distinguished by C. A. BuLLOCK v. London Geneeal Omnibus Co. [1907] 1 K. B. 264 Discussed by C. A. COMPANIA San- SINENA DE CAENES CONGBLADAS V. HOULDEE BEOTHEES & CO. [1910] 2 K. B. 354 Sadler v. WhUeman [1910] 1 K. B. 868 ; (1910) 26 Times L. E. 255. Partly affirmed and partly reversed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Whitbman v. Sadlee [1910] A. C. 514 Referred to by Joyce J. I?i re Vagliano Antheacitb Collibeies, LD. [1910] W. N. 187 See also In re A Dbbtoe (No. 2 of 1910) Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 70 Referred to by Neville J. I/i re Robinson [1910] 2 Ch. 571 Safety Explosives, Ld., In re [1904] 1 Ch. 226 See In re EOWB Bigham J. [1904] 2 K. B. 489 Saffery, Ex parte - (1877) 5 Ch. D. 365 See In re Tayloe Bigham J. [1909] 1 K. B. 103 Saffery , Ex parte - [1899] 2 Q. B. 549 Discussed by C. A. In re Button [1905] 1 K. B. 602 Safron Walden Second Benefit Building Society V. Rayner, (1880) 14 Ch. D. 406. Referred to by Cozens - Hardy J. Lloyd's Bank v. Pearson [1901] 1 Ch. 866, 872 St. Catherines Milling Co. v. Beg., (1888) 14 App. Gas. 46. Followed by P. C. ONTARIO Mining Co. e. Seybold [1903] A. C. 73 Considered by P. C. Dominion of Cauada v. Province of Ontario [1910] A. C. 637 St. Giles, Ij-c, Volunteer Corps, In re, (1858) 25 Beav. 513. Followed by Farwell J. In re Shum's Teust [1904] W. N. 146 St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping, (1865) 11 H. L. C. 642. Considered and applied by C. A. Eushmee v. Polsue & Alpibri, Ld. [1906] 1 Ch. 834 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 121 St. John's College, Cambridge v. Pierrepont, (1891) 61 L. J. (Q.B.) 19. Overruled by C. A. Kbates v. Wood- ward [1902] 1 K. B. 532 St. Martin's Vestry v. Gordon, [1891] 1 Q. B. 61 Considered and discussed by Div. Ct. Wbstminstbe Corporation v. Gor- don Hotels, Ld. [1906] 2 K. B. 39 ; [1908] A. C. 142 " St. Paul," The - [1908] P. 320 Affirmed by C. A. [1909] P. 43 St. Thomas's Bod Co., In re, (1876) 2 Ch. D. 116 Referred to by Buckley J. In re St. Neot's Water Co. [1905] W. N. 183 Discussed by C. A. In re Crigglb- stone Coal Co. [1906] 2 Ch. 327 Salaman, In re. Be Pass v. Sonnentkal, [1907] 2 Ch. 46. Reversed oh one point by C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 4 Salaman v. Holford - [1909] 2 Ch. 64 Affirmed by C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 602 Salaman v. Warner [1891] 1 Q. B. 734 See In re Herbert Reeves & Co. C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 29, 33 See BozsoN ii. Altrincham Urban Council C. A. [1893] 1 K. B. 647 Salisbury (^Marquis of) and London and Xorth Western By. Co., In re, (1879) [1892] 1 Ch. 75, n. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. Lord Leoonfibld v. London and North Western Ry. Co. [1907] 1 Ch. 38 Principle laid down in, followed by Phillimore J. In re DuKB OP North- umberland AND TYNBMOUTH COE- POEATION [1909] 2 K. B. 374 Salmon, In re - ■ (1889) 42 Ch. D. 351 Dictum of Kekewich J. in, applied by Wright J. In re LAKE [1903] 1 K. B. 439 Salmon v. Quin S,- Axtens, Ld., [1909] 1 Ch. 311 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Quin & Axtens, Ld. v. Salmon [1909] A. C. 442 Salomons v. Pender - (1865) 3 H. & C. 639 See Stubbs v. Slater [1910] 1 Ch. 195 ; C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 632 Salt, In re - - [1895] 2 Ch. 203 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Roberts [1902] 2 Ch. 834 Salt, In re - - [1896] 1 Ch. 117 Discussed by C. A. In re A. [1904] 2 Ch. 218, 333 ■ Discussed by C. A. In re S. S. B. [1906] 1 Ch. 712 Saltan v. Kew Beeston Cycle Co., [1899] 1 Ch. 775. Approved of by C. A. Inman v. Ack- KOYD & Best, Ld. [1901] 1 K. B. 613 Saltesen (Chr.) Jj- Co. v. Rederi Aktiebolaget Km-dstjernan, (1903) 41 Sc. L. R. 305. Varied by H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 72 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. cdxxxvii Salmiqe v. TvMon - - (1869) 20 L. T. 300 Followed by Farwell J. Blamet v. Blamet - [1902] W. N. 138 Salmn, In re ■ - [1906] 2 Ch. 459 Distinguished by Parlier J. In re Wil- kinson [1910] 2 Oh. 211 Referred to by Joyce J. In re Vag- LiANO Anthracite Collieries, Ld. [1910] W. N. 187 Sampson y. Hastei-iy, (1829) 9 B. & C. 505 ; (1830) 6 Bing. 644. Distinguished by C. A. Dewae v. GooDMAif- [1908] 1 K. B. 94 Samuel v. Jarrah Timber and Wood Paving Corporation, [1904] A. C. 323. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. British South Africa Co. r. De Beers Con- solidated Mines, Ld. C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 802 Samuel v. Newlold - - [1906] A. C. 461 Referred to by Coleridge J. Pield- INGS V. Pawson [1907] W. N. 231 Samuel Brothers, Ld. v. W>iet!ierly, [1907] 1 K. B. 709. Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 184 Sandei- v. Heathfield (1874) L. E. 19 Eq. 21 See In re Ridley JoycB J. [1904] 2 Ch. 774 Distinguished by C. A. In re Benbtt [1906] 1 Ch. 216 Sanders v. Jenkins, [1897] 1 Q. B. 93 ; 2 Com. Cas. 12. Discussed and explained by Channell J. Leonis Steamship Co. v. Rank, Ld. [1907] 1 K. B. 344 Sanderson y. JBlyth Theatre Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 533. Applied by C. A. Bollock v. London General Omnibus Co. [1907] 1 K. B. 264 Sanderson v. CocTtermovth amd Workington Ry. Co., (1849) 11 Beav. 497; (1850) 2 H. & T. 327, 331. Applied by C. A. South Eastern Ry. Co. 'v. Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900), Ld. [1910] 1 Ch. 12 Sanderson's Trust, In re, (1857) 3 K. & J. 497, 503. Referred to by Kekewich J. In re Andrew - - - [1905] W. N. 86 Referred to by Kelsewich J. In re Unite - [1906] W. N. 26 Sandgate Urban District Council t. Kent Comity Council, (1904) 79 L. T. 425. Followed by Joyce J. Att.-Gen. v. Staffordshire County Council [1906] 1 Ch. 336 Sandwich {Uarl of) v. 6h'eat Nortliern Ry. Co., (1878) 10 Ch. D. 707. Overruled. McCartney v. London- derry AND Lough Swilly Ry. Co. H. L. (Ir.) [1904] A. C. 301 h's Will, In re - [1901] W. N. 152 See In re Shuckburgh'8 Settlement [1901]i2 Ch. 794 Santley v. Wilde - - [1899] 2 Oh. 474 Commented on by H. L. (E.) Noakes & Co. c. Rice [1902] A. C. 24 Commented on by H. L. (E.) Bradley V. Carritt [1903] A. C. 253 Sagui ^ Lawrence v. Stearns, [1910] W. N. 147 Affirmed by C. A. [1910] W. N. 257 Sarpy v. Holland . [1908] 1 Ch. 443 Reversed on one point by G. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 198 Sastry Velaider Aronegary v. Sembecutty Vaiga- lie, (1881) 6 App. Cas. 364. Applied by Kekewich J. In re Shep- HARD [1904] 1 Ch. 466 Saumarez v. Saumarez, (1839) 4 My. & Or. 331 ; 48 R. R. 116. Applied by Buckley J. KiRBY- Smith V. Pahnell [1903] 1 Ch. 483 Saunders, In re - - [1898] 1 Ch. 17, 23 Applied by Kekewich J. In re Chis- HOLM - [1908] 1 Ch. 457 Applied by Joyce J. In re Coxwell's Trusts - - [1910] 1 Ch. 63 Applied by Joyce J. J?i re Coxwell's Trusts - [1910] 1 Ch. 63 Saunders v. NewboU - [1905] 1 Ch. 260 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Samuel v. Newbold [1906] A. C. 461 Saunders v. PUfield ■ (1888) 58 L. T. 108 Followed by Div. Ct. Waters v. Phillips [1910] 2 K. B. 465 Saunders v. WhUe ■ [1901] 1 K. B. 70 Affirmed by C. A. - [1902] 1 K. B. 472 Sawnders'' Case - (1599) 5 Rep. 12a Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re West [1909] 2 Ch. 180 Savill Bros. v. Bethell - [1892] 2 Ch. 523 Explained and distinguished by 0. A. South Eastern Ey. Co. v. Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers 0900), LD. - [1910] 1 Ch. 12 Saxby's Patent - - (1870) L. R. 3 P. C. 292 Followed by P. C. In re Henderson's Patent [1901] A. C. 616 Soarisbrich v. Lofd Slielmersdale, (1840) 4 Y. & C. Ex. 78. Referred to by C. A. Shuttlewokth V. Murray [1901] 1 Ch. 819, 831, 832 " ScarsdaU," The - - [1906] P. 103 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Board of Trade u. Baxter. The " SCARSDALE " [1907] A. C. 373 Scarsdale iLord) v. Curzon, (1860) 1 J. & H. 40 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re FOTHBRGILL'S ESTATE [1903] 1 Ch. 149 Scharrer, In re. Ex parte Tilly, (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 518. See In re Walker - - Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 104 Schnadhorst, In re. Sandhuhl v. Schnadhorst, [1901] W. N. 99 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 338. Affirmed by C. A. - [1902] 2 Ch. 234 cdxxxviii TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c., Sehofield, Ex parte - (1879) 12 Oh. D. 337 Referred to by Warrington J. DAWSON v. Isle [1906] 1 Ch. 633 SohofieU V. Orrell Colliery Co., [1909] 1 K. B. 178. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Oeebll Colliery Co. v. Schofield [1909] A. C. 433 Scholefield, In re, Scholefield v. St. John, [1906] 2 Ch. 408. Settlement agreed upon C. A. [1907] 1 cai. 664 Discussed by Parker J. In re Baker's Settlement Trusts [1908] W. N. 161 ScholefieU v. Redfern - (1863) 2 Dr. & Sm. 173 Distinguished by Warrington J. In re Sir Robert Peel's Settled Estates [1910] 1 Ch. 398 Scholey v. Pech - [1893] 1 Cb. 709 Applied by Joyce J. Eidd v. Thornb [1902] 2 Ch. 344 Scholfield V. Londesioo-ough {Earl of), [1896] A. C. 614. Followed by P. C. Imperial Bank OP Canada v. Bank oi? Hamilton [1903] A. C. 49 Followed by P. C. Colonial Bank op Australasia, Ld. )■. Marshall [1906] A. C. 659 Scholjield v. Spooner - - (1884) 26 Ch. 94 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re DowDiNG's Settlement Trusts [1904] 1 Ch. 441 Schwan, The - - [1908] P. 356 Reversed by C. A. [1909] P. 93 The decision of the C. A., [1909] P. 93, reversed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Abram Ltle & Sons v. Owners op Steam- ship " Schwan." The " Schwan " [1909] A. C. 460 SchwerzerJiof V. WilUns ■ [1898] 1 Q. B. 640 See Factory and Workshop Act, 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. 22), s. 101. ScoMe V. Secretary of State in Council for India, [1902] 2 K. B. 413. Reversed by C. A, - [1903] 1 K. B. 494 0. A. affirmed by H. L. (E.) svh nom. Secretary op State in Council poe India «. Scoble [1903] A. C. 299 ScoU,Inre . [1900] 1 Q. B. 372 Affiimed by 0. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 228 Scott, In re - [1902] 1 Ch. 918 Disapproved by C. A. In re BowLBY [1904] 2 Ch. 685 Scott. In re - [1896] 1 Q. B. 619 Referred to by C. A. In re Reis [1904] 2K. B. 769; H. 1. (E.) [1905] A. C. 442 Scott V. Avery - (1866) 5 H. L. C. 811 Followed by P. C. SPURRIER r. LA Cloche [1902] A. C. 446 Scott V. Coulson - ■ [1903] 1 Ch. 463 Affirmed by C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 249 Scott V. Morley (1887) 20 Q. B. D. 120 See In re Bbauchamp C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 572 Scott V. Pape - - (1886) 31 Ch. D. 554 Followed by Neville J. Andrews v. Waite [1907] 2 Ch. 500 Scott V. Sampson (1882) 8 Q. B. D. 491 The common law as laid down in, not altered by Order xxxvi., r. 37, of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883. Per Phillimore J. Mangena r. Wright [1909] 2 K. B. 958, 979 Scott V. Scott - (1882) 9 L. R. Ir. 367 Disapproved by C. A. Burgess v. Booth [1908] 2 Ch. 648 Scott V. Tyler, (1787) 2 Bro. C. C. 431 ; 1 W. & T. (7th ed.) 534. Followed by C. A. In re Whiting's Settlement [1905] 1 Ch. 96 Scott's Patent, In re, (1903) 20 Rep. Pat. Cas. 604. Observed on by Buckley J. In re Clipton's Patent [1904] 2 Ch. 357 Scottish Economic Life Assurance Society, In re, (1890) 45 Ch. D. 220. Distinguished by Warrington J. In re Popular Life Assurance Co. [1909] 1 Ch. 80 Followed by Eve J. In re Life and Health Assurance Association, Ld. (In Liquidation) [1910] 1 Ch. 458 Scottish Fluid Beef Co., In re, (1898) 25 R. 1056 Followed by Warrington J. In re Eastern Investment Co. [1905] 1 Ch. 352 Scottish Mortgage Co. of JVew Me.cico v. Inland, Revenne, (1886) 14 R. 98 ; 2 Tax Cas. 165. Discussed by H. L. (E.) Gresham Life Assurance Society, Ld. r. Bishop [1902] A. C. 287, 293, 294, 295 Distinguished by Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) Standard Life Assurance Co. r. Allan [1902] W. N. 176 Scottish Petroleum Co., In re, (1883) 23 Ch. D. 413. Followed by C. A. In re BANK OP Syria [1901] 1 Ch. 115 See In re National Motor Mail- CoACH Co. Swinfen Eady J. [1908] 2 Ch. 228 Scottish Procident Institution v. Allan, [19011 3 F. 874. "- -' Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1903] A. C. 129 Scottish Union and National Insurance Co. v. Inland Bevenue, (_18S9) 16 R. 461. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) General Accident, Fire, and Life Insurance Corporation, Ld. v. McGowan [1908] A. C. 207 Screw Collier Co. v. WeUler or Kerr, (1909) S. C. 5(il. AfKrmed by H. L. (So.) [1910] A. C. 166 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. cdxxxix Scrope Y. Offley - (1736) 1 Bro. P. C. 276 Distinguished by C. A. Nottidgb ii. Dbsing [1910] 1 Ch. 297 Scully V. Mum - (1893) 14 N. S. W. R. 289 Overruled by P. C. Falkees Gold Mining Co. v. McKinnbky [1901] A. C. 681 Seaman, In re - [1896] 1 Q. B. 412 See In re Dunkley & Son Bigham J. [1906] 2 K. B. 683 Searle,Inre - - - [1900] 5 Ch. 829 Followed by Kekewich J. In re. Eabl op Dabnlbt [1907] ISb.. 159 Followed by Warrington J. In re Olivee [1900] 2 Ch. 74 Seath 4' Co. v. Moore - (1886) 11 App. Cas. 350 Followed by H. L. (So.) Reid v. Mac- beth AND Geat [1904] A. C. 223 SeatoH Y. Bm-nand [1900] A. C. 135, 148 Referred to by C. A. Weisee i\ Segae [1904] W. N. 93 Seaward v. Willoclt - (1804) 5 East, 198 Referred to by C. A. In re Moktimee [1906] 2 Ch. 502 SebrigM's Settled Estates, In re, (1886) 33 Ch. D. 429, 438. Not followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re DiCKiN AND Kblsall's Con- TEACT [1908] 1 Ch. 213 Secretary of State in Cowncil of India v. Kamachee Boye Saliaba, (1859) 7 Moo. Ind. App. 476 ; 13 Moo. P. C. C. 22. Followed by C. A. Salaman v. Seceb- TAEY OP State nsr Council op India [1906] 1 K. B. 613 Secretary of State in Council of India v. Scoble, [1903] A. C. 299. Followed by C. A. East Indian Ey. Co. v. Seceetaey op State in Council op India [1905] 2 K. B. 413 Seed V. Bradley - - [1894] 1 Q. B. 319 Followed by C. A. Coates v. Mooee [1903] 2 K. B. 140 Seliy V. Alston, (1797) 3 Ves. Jun. 338 ; 4 E. E. 10. Followed and extended by FarweU J. In re Selous [1901] 1 Ch. 921 Selsey iL(n-d) v. LaTie {LorcC), (1839) 1 BeaT. 146, 151. Referred to by Joyce J. In re Shaep [1908] 1 Ch. 872, 378; C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 190 Selwyn v. Garfii - - (1888) 38 Ch. D. 273 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. Baekee v. Illingwoeth [1908] 2 Ch. 20 Semenza, In re - - [1894] 1 Q. B. 15 Referred to by Buckley J. In re Peb- TOEIA, PiBTBESBUKG Ey. CO. (No. 2) [1904] 2 Ch. 369, 362 Referred to by Bigham J. In re PlLLUfG - '- [1906] W. N. 99 Semet and Solvay's Patent, Inre, [1895] A. C. 78 Followed by P. C. In re Hbndeeson's Patent [1901] A. C. 616 Senior v. Fountains 4- Burnley, Id., [1907] 2 K. B. 563. Applied by C. A. iMcLEAN r. Moss Bay Ieon and Steel Co. [1909] 2K. B. 521 Overruled by H. L. (E.) Hodgson v. West Stanley Gollibey [1910] A. C. 229 Sei-jeant v. Bare - - (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 558 Followed by Div. Ct. H. Tolputt & Co. v. Mole [1910] W. N. 252 Sefrle v. Fardell (1890) 44 Ch. D. 299 Not followed by C. A. Wynne-Finch )'. Chaytoe [1903] 2 Ch. 478 SerolM Y. Katteribuni - (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 177 Criticized by Fletcher Moulton L.J. in CuBNOD r. Leslie C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 880 Seventh Hast Central Building Society, In re, (1884) 51 L. T. 109. See In re Steand Wood Co. C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 1' Seward y. '• Vera Cni.:," (1884) 10 App. Cas. 59, 68. Bef erred to by C. A. Rbx i. Local GOVEENMENT BoAED [1908] 2 K. B. 368 Sewell V. BurdtcJi - (1885) 10 App. Cas. 74 Referred to by Eve J. BuEGOS v. Nascimbnto - [1908] W. N. 237 Seymour v. Vernon - (1852) 16 Jur. 189 Distinguished on one point and Qsemble') followed on another point by Swinfen Eady J. In re QuiCKB's Teusts [1908] 1 Ch. 887 Seijton, In re (1887) 34 Ch. D. 511 Followed by Joyce J. In re Gbippith's Policy - - [1903] 1 Ch. 739 Shaftesliury {Earl of) v. Marlhorough (JDulte of), (1835) 7 Sim. 237. Applied by Eve J. In re JOSEPH [1908] 1 Ch. 599 Reversed on appeal C. A. [1908] 2Ch. 507 Shavman, In re - - [1901] 2 Oh. 280 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Spencbe Coopee [1908] 1 Ch. 180 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Spencbe Coopee [1908] 1 Ch. 130 Sharman v. Salliday S; Greenwood, Ld., [1904] 1 K. B. 235. Applied by C. A. Radclippb v. Pacipic Steam Navigation Co. [1910] 1 K. B. 686 Sharman v. Mason [1899] 2 Q. B. 679 Explained and distinguished by C. A. In re WILLIAM WATSON & Co. C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 753 Sharp, In re. Maddison v. Gill, [1908] W. N. 10 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 372. AfiBrmed by C. A. - [19081 2 Ch. 190 cdxl TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEERULED, &C., Sharp V. Dawes - (1876) 2 Q. B. 26 Eefen'ed to by Warrington J. EAST v. Bennett Bbothehs, Ld. [1910] W. N. 260 Sharp V, Jackson - - [1899] A. C. 419 Dictum at p. 426 in, questioned by C. A. Injre Lake. Mx parte Dtee [1901] 1 K. B. 710 Eeferred to by C. A. Tatloe t. London and County Banking Co. [1901] 2 Ch. 231 Sharpe, In re [1892] 1 Ch. 154, 168 Referred to by Joyce J. Beooks v. Muckleston [1909] 2 Ch. 619 Sharpe v. Midland By. Co. [1903] 2 K. B. 26 AfBrmed by' H. L. (E.) sub imm. MlD- lAOT) By. Co. - [1904] A. C. 349 Sharpington v. Ful/tam Guardians, [1904] 2 Ch. 449. EefeiTcd to by C. A. Ltlbs v. South- end-on-Sea Coepoeation [1905] 2 K. B. 1 Shaio, In re - [1894] 2 Ch. 573 Overruled by C. A. Ebbeen v. Fowler - - [1909] 1 Ch. 578 Sliaw, Inre - - - - [1895] 1 Ch. 343 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Ghis- HOLM [1902] 1 Ch. 457, 464 Shaw, Inre - - [1894] 3 Ch. 615 Considered by Kekewich J. In re ViCKEESTArr - [1906] 1 Ch. 762 Shaw T. Fostei' (1872) L. R. 5 H. L. 321 See ElDOUT V. FOWLEE C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 93 Shaw V. Gould ■ (1868) L. E. 3 H. L. 55, 97 Eeferred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re Stieling [1908] 2 Ch. 344 Shaw V. MMahon - - 4 Dr. & War. 431 Eeferred to by Neville J. In re Dunstee [1909] 1 Ch. 103 Shaio V. Fort Philip Gold Mining Co., (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 103. Discussed and explained by C. A. BuBEN I: Geeat Fingall Consoli- dated [1904] K. B. 712 Discussed by H. L. (E.) BuBEN v. Geeat Fingall Consolidated [1906] A. C. 439 Shears v. Goddard ■ [1896] 1 Q. B. 406 Inapplicable. Wright J. In re JuKBS [1902] 2 K. B. 58 Sheffield Corporations. Barclay, [1903] 1 K. B. 1 Eeversed by C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 580 Decision of C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 580 BeversedbyH.L.(E.) [1905] A. C. 392 Applied by C. A. Att.-Gen. v. Odell [1906] 2 Ch. 47 Sheldon, In re. Nixon v. Sheldon, (1888) 39 Ch. D. 50. Followed by Kekewich J. In re Bates [1907] 1 Ch. 22 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Wilson. Mooee v. Wilson [1907] 1 Ch. 394 Discussed by Warrington J. In re Nicholson - - [1909] 2 Ch. 1X1 Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Co., [1895] 1 Ch. 287, 383. See CowPEE V. Laidlee Buckley J. [1903] 2 Ch. 337 Not overruled by Colls v. Home and Colonial Stores, [1904] A. C. 179. See HiGGiNS ■». Betts Farwell J. [1905] 2 Ch. 210 Shelley's Case - - 0581) 1 Eep. 93b Eule in, applied by Joyce J. In re YouMANs' Will [1901] 1 Ch. 720 See Pelham Ciinton r. Newcastle (DnKE OF) H. L. (E.) [1003] A. C. Ill Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re BuCKTON - [1907] 2 Ch. 406 Shenstone . 227 Distinguished by 0. A. Blackett r. Blackett and Trail [1902] P. 170 Smith V. Southampton Corporation, [1902] 2 K. B. 244. Followed by Farwell J. Att.-Gen. v. Db Winton [1906] 2 Ch. 106 Smith V. Thorne - (1852) 18 Q. B. 134 Distinguished by C. A. COOPEE v. Kendall [1909] 1 K. B. 408 Smith's Pock Co. v. Tynemouth Corporation, [1908] 1 K. B. 315. Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 948 Smith's Estate, In re - (1887) .So Ch. D. 589 Inapplicable. In re DOUGLAS Kekewich J. [1905] 1 Ch. 279 Smith's Settled Estates, In re, [1906] 1 Oh. 689 Referred to by Neville J. See In re Pizzi [1907] 1 Ch. 67 Smith's Settlement, In re [1903] 1 Ch. 373 Approved by C. A. In re Bhtdone's Settlement [1903] 2 Ch. 84 Smolisless Powder Co.'s Trade-marh, In re, [1892] 1 Ch. 590. Approved of and distinguished by C. A. In re Faulder & Co.'s Teade-mark [1902] 1 Ch. 126 Smowt V. Ilbery (1842) 10 M. & W. 11 Proposition in, negatived by Collen v. Wright, (1857) 7 B. & B. 301 ; 8 E. & B. 647. See Halbot v. Lens Kekewich J. [1901] 1 Ch. 344 Questioned by (!. A. Yongb v. Totnbbb [1910] 1 K. B. 216 - [1894] A. C. 494 Jeune Pres. The [1902] P. 180, 158 Followed by 0. A. BuLLOOKi'. London Genee.'^l Omnibus Co. [1907] 1 K. B. 264 Considered by C. A. Llotd x. Great Western Dairies Co. [1907] 2 K. B. 727 Discussed by C. A. CoMrANiA San- SINENA DB CAKNES CONGELADAS V. HouLDER Brothers & Co. [1910] 2 K. B. 354 SnclUng v. Snelling - (1890) 63 L. T. 263 Followed by Gorell Barnes J. Gordon r. Gordon - [1905] P. 96 Snyder, In re - • (1891) 8 Morr. 127 Referred to by Wright J. In re Dbucker. Ex parte Basden (No. 1) [1902] 2 K. B. 86 ; C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 237 Soar V. Ashwell - - [1893] 2 Q. B. 390 Followed by Kekewich J. North American Land and Timber Co. v. Watkins [1904] 1 Ch. 242 Soci^ti Generale de Pari Cas. 606. Referred to by Joyce J. Pearce v. BuBLARD, King & Co. [1908] 1 Ch. 780 Soci^te Generale de Paris v. App. Cas. 20. Followed by Joyce J. I v. Geen, (1883) 8 App. Walker, (1885) 11 Smm'thwaite v. Hannaij Distinguished by " ASSUNTA " - Ireland /■. Hart [1902] 1 Ch. 522 Sociiti Maritime et Commercial v. Venus Steam Shipping Co., (1904) 9 Com. Cas. 289 Followed by Eve J. Chapman v. MiCHAELSON [1908] 3 Ch. 612 Affirmed by C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 238 Society of Accountants and Auditors v. Goodway, [1907] 1 Ch. 489. ' Queried to by Joyce J. Society op ABCHITBCTS 11. Kendrick [1910] W. N. 113 Society of Accountants in Ediniurgh v. Cor- poration of Accountants, Ld., (1893) 20 R. 750. Followed by Warrington J. Society OF Accountants and Auditoss v. Goodway and London Association OF Accountants, Ld. [1907] 1 Ch. 489 Solicitm; In re A, [1903] W. N. 74 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 857. Affirmed by C. A. - [1903] 2 K. B. 205 ' Solicitor, In re a; Ex parte Hales, [1907] 2 K. B. 539. Dictum of A. T. Lawrence J. in, not followed by Hamilton J. United Mining Airo Finance Cobpoeation, Ld. v. Bbcher [1910] 2 K. B. 296 Solicitor-General v. Law Reversionary Interest Society, (1873) L. R. Ex. 233. Considered by H. L. (E.). NOETH- UMBEBLAND (DUKE OF) r. ATT.-GeN. [1905] A. C. 406, 410, 419, 420 Solicitors Act, 1843, In re An Application v/iider the, (1899) 80 L. T. 720. Disapproved of by C. A. In re A Solicitor - [1902] 1 K. B. 128 Solomons, In re. Ex parte Solomons, [1904] W. N. 169 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 760. Affirmed by C. A. - [1904] 2 K. B. 917 Solomons v. Pender - (1865) 3 H. & C. 639 Principle of, applied by Neville J. Stubbs v. Slater [1910] 1 Ch. 198 cdxliv TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEULED, &c., Soot/till Upper Urhan District Council v. Wa%e- jield Rural District Council. [1904] W. N. 200 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 53. BeTersed in part and affirmed in part by 0. A. [1806] 1 Ch. 816 Sottomaior, In re - - (1874) L. E. 9 Ch. 677 Applicable. In re BUBBIDGE C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 426 Sottomayor v. De Barros - (1877) 3 P. D. 1, 5 Eeferred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re BozzELLi's Settlement [1902] 1 Ch. 761, 766 Sottomayor t. De Barros (1879) 5 P. D. 94 Followed by C. A. Ogden r. Ogden [1908] P. 46 Soach V. Strawiridge - - (1846) 2 C. B. 808 Beferred to by Div. Ct. Eeevb r. Jennings [1910] 2 K. B. 822 South T. Bloxam ■ - (1865) 2 H. & M. 457 E.xplained by Cozens-Hardy J. DixoN -.Steel- [1901] 2 Ch. 602 South Eastern My. Co. t. Dorking, (1854) 3 E. & B. 491. Adopted by C. A. Gbeat Central Et. Co. v. Banbttbt Union [1907] 1 K. B. 717 Eeferred to by C. A. Great Central By. Co. r. Sheffield Union, [1908] 1 K. B. 780 ; but the latter case was reversed by H. L. (B.) s^iit norri. Shef- field Union i-. Great Central Et. Co. [1909] A. C. 78 South Eastern By. Co. v. National Telephone Co., [1908] 2 Ch. 50. Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 614 South Eastern By, and Wiffin's Contract, In re. Discussed by C. A. Stourclippe Estates Co. v. Bournemouth Cor- poration - [1910] 2 Ch. 12 South Hetton Coal Co., Ld. t. North Eastern News Association, Ld. [1893] 1 Q. B. 853. Beferred to by C. A. WiLMOTT r. London Egad Cab Co., Ld. [1910] 2 Ch. 825 South Kensington Co-operatiee Stores, In re, (1881) 17 Ch. D. 161, 165. Followed by Swinfen Eady J. BISHOP OP Eochesteb v. Le Fanu [1906] 2 Ch. 813 South Wales Miners' Federation t. Glamorgan Coal Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 545. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 239 South Western Loan and Discount Co. v. Bobertson, (1881) 8 Q. B. D. 17. Followed by Kekewich J. Ideal Bedding Co. r. Holland [1907] 2 Ch. 167 Southern Coumties Dejjosit Bank y. i? We?', (189.5) 73 L. T. 374. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. BOSCHOEK Proprietary Co. v. Fukb [1906] 1 Ch. 148 Southport and West Lancashire Banking Co. v. Thomjjson, (1887) 37 Ch. D. 64. Eeferred to by H. L. (E.) Bbynolds t. ASHBY & Son [1904] A. C. 466, 473 Spaight v. Farnworth - (1880) 5 Q. B, D. 115 Approved of by C. A. Mediterranean AND New York Steamship Co. i: A. F. & D. Mackay [1903] 1 K. B. 297 Spark's Lease, In re - [1905] 1 Ch. 456 Eeferred to by Eve J. Evans r. Levy [1910] 1 Ch. 482 Spark's Trusts, In re, [1904] W. N. 31 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 451. Compromised on appeal [1904] 2 Ch. 121 Spari'ow, In re (1870) L. B. 5 Ch. 662 Beferred to by C. A. In re A. [1904] 2 Ch. 328, 336 Sparrow and James' Contract, In re. Eeferred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re Sansom and Narbeth's Contract [1910] 1 Ch. 741 Speight v. Gawnt (188.3) 8 App. Cas. 1 Applied by Farwell J. Shepherd c. Harris [1908] 2 Ch. 310 Spencer v. Clarke (1878) 9 Ch. D. 137 Followed by Parker J. Inre Wbni gee's Policy [1910] 2 Ch. 291 Spencer v. ]Uidland By. Co., (1895) 11 Times L. B. 408, 542. Followed by Phillimore J. Lord r. Great Eastern By. Co. [1908] 1 K. B. 196 Spencej- v. Begistrar of Titles, [1906] A. C. 503. See Spenceb r. Eegistbae op Titles P. C. [1908] A. C. 236 Spencer y. Topham (1856) 22 Beav. 573 Applied by Joyce J. Powell v. Browne - [1907] W. N. 182 ; on appeal, C. A. [1907] "W. N. 228 Spencer's Case - - (1583) 5 Eep. 16a Eeferred to by C. A. Davis r. Town Peopbeties Investment Corpora- tion, Ld. [1903] 1 Ch. 797 Applied by Neville J. Eicketts v. Enfield Churchwardens [1909] 1 Ch. 844 Sjtencer's Settled Estates, In re - [1903] 1 Ch. 75 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re Spearman Settled Estates [1906] 2 Ch. 802 Spenoe)''s Trade-marlts, (1886) 3 Bep. Pat. Cas. 73 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re A. A. Crompton cJc Co.'s Trade- mark [1902] 1 Ch. 788 Speyer Brothers v. Inland Bcrcmte Commis- sicners, [1907] 1 K. B. 246. Affirmed by H. L. (K.) [1908] A. C. 92 Spicer v. Jllartin (1888) 14 App. Cas. 12 Principle of, applied by Parker J. Elliston r. Eeachbr [1908] 2 Ch. 374 Principle of, applied bylC. A. Ebid v. Biokerstapf- ,nt- [1909] 2 Ch. 305 DURING THE YEAES 1901—1910. odxlv Spicltcrnell v. Hotham (185i) Kay, 669 Followed by Eve J. In re Plumpteb's Marbiagb Settlement [1910] 1 Ch. 609 S/iillers <^ Saliers, Ld. v. Great Western Ry. Co., [1910] 1 K. B. 778. Affirmed by C. A. [1910] W. N. 260 Spincer v. Watts - (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 350, 352 Referred to by Warrington J. iVickees, Sons & Maxim, Ld. v. Coventet Oednanob Works, Ld. [1908] W. N. 12 Spiral Globe, Ld,., In re - [1902] 1 Ch. 396 See In re Spieal Globe, Ld. (No. 2) [1902] 2 Ch. 209, 211 Spiral Globe, Ld. [No. 2), In re, [1902] 2 Ch. 209. Followed by Neville J. In re New London and Suboeban Omnibus Co. [1908] 1 Ch. 621 Spohes T. Grosverwr Hotel Co., [1897] 2 Q. B. 124 See CoDD r. Delap Farwell J. [1906] W. N. 57 ; C. A. [1906] W. N. 78 Spoor V. 6i-een ■ - (1874) L. R. 9 Ex. 99 Followed by Joyce J. Tuenee v. Moon - [1901] 2 Ch. 826 Spi-igg V. Sigcau ■ ■ [1897] A. C. 238 Distinguished by C. A. Rbx v. Eael op Ceewb [1910] 2 K. B. 876 Springett v. Jenings (1871) L. E. 6 Ch. 333 Referred to by H. L. (E.) Mason v. Ogden [1903] A. C. 1, 3, 5 (1860) 2 Gifi. 473 A. COLLISON V. [1901] 1 Ch. 812 Stafford's Settlement and Will, In re, [1904] 2 Ch. 72. Followed by Kekewioh J. Inre Cotjll's Settled Estates [1906] 1 Ch. 712 Stagg v. Medway (^Upper) Navigation Co., [1902] W. N. 69. AtKrmed by C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 169 Stagg v. Medway TJppei- Navigation Co., [1903] 1 Ch. 169. Followed by Joyce J. Reeve v. Med- way (Uppee) Navigation Co. [1906] W. N. 76 Stahlschmidt v. Lett - (1861) 9 W. R. 830 Referred to by Faswell J. In re SAL- MOND [1906] W. N. 6 Stamford (Harl of). In re [1896] 1 Ch. 288 Discussed by Byrne J. In re Ham- mond Spencee's Settled Estates [1903] 1 Ch. 75 Stamford's (Lord) Settled Estates, In re, (1889) 43 Ch. D. 84. Distinguished by Buckley J. In re Paetington - [1902] 1 Ch. 711 Stamiriers v. UlUoU ■ (1868) L. R. 3 Ch. 195 Explained and distinguished by C. A. In re West Coast Gold Fields, Ld. [1906] 1 Ch. 1 Spurgin v. White Followed by C. Waeeen - Standard Dlsconnt Co. v. La Grange, (1877) 3 0. P. D. 67. See In re A Dbbtoe C. A. [1903] W. N. 6 Standard Life Assurance Co. v. Allan, [1901] 3 F. 805 ; [1902] W. N. 176. Approved by H. L. (E.) Geesham Life AssuEANCE Society ■;', Bishop [1902] A. C. 287, 298 Standard Manufacturing Co., In re, [1891] 1 Ch. 627, 641. Referred to by Wright J. Simulta- neous COLOUE PEINTING SYNDICATE V. FOWERAKEE [1901] 1 K. B. 771, 774 Standard Rotary Machine Co., In re, (1906) 95 L. T. 829, 834. Referred to by Eve J. Wilson v. Kelland - [1910] 2 Ch. 306 Standley's Estate, In re, (1868) L. R. 5 Eq. 303 Overruled by C. A. In re Wood [1902] 2 Ch. 642 Stanhope v. Manners - (1763) 2 Eden, 197 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. Williams v. Morgan [1906] 1 Ch. 804 Stanhope Silkstone Colliei'ies Co., In re, (1879) 11 Ch. D. 160. Considered by Wright J. In re National United Investment' Cor- poration [1901] 1 Ch. 960 Staniar v. Evans - (1886) B4 Ch. D. 470 Referred to by Farwell J. In re Carroll [1902] 2 Ch. 176 Staples V. Eastman Photographic Materials Co., [1906] 2 Ch. 303. Distinguished by Joyce J. FOSTER v. Coles & M. B. Fostee & Sons, Ld. [1906] W. N. 107 See Adaie v. Old Bushmills Dis- tilleet Co. Parker J. [1908] W. N. 42 StawelVs Trusts, In re. Poole v. Biversdale, [1909] W. N. 36 ; [1909] 1 Oh. 534. Reversed by 0. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 239 Steamship Balmm'al Co. 9. Marten, [1900] 2 Q. B. 748. Affirmed by C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 896 Steamship Carisbrooh Co. v. London and Pro- vincial Marine and Gene^'al Insurance Co. Affirmed by C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 681 Steed V. Preece - - (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 192 Applied by C. A. Buegess v. Booth [1908] 2 Ch. 648 Steeds v. Steeds - ■ (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 537 Explained by Farwell J. Powell v. Beodhurst [1901] 2 Ch. 160 Steel V. Cammell, Laird ^ Co., [1905] 2 K. B. 222. Referred to by C. A. Beodbrick v. London County Council [1908] 2 K. B, 807 Steel T. Houghton (1788) 1 H. Bl. at p. 60 Referred to by H. L. (E.) Simpson V. Att.-Gbn. [1904] A. C. 476, 491 cdxlvi TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &C., Steel V. State Line. Steamship Co., (1877) 3 App. Gas. 72, 86. Referred to by 0. A. Eathbone Brothers & Co. v. D. MacIvbr, Sons & Co. - [1903] 8 K. B. 378 Steele v. South Wales Minei-s' Federation, [1907] 1 K. B. 361. Overruled on one point by C. A. Osborne v. Amalgamated Society OF Railway Servants [1909] 1 Ch. 163 Stelges v. Ingram (1903) 19 Times L. R. 53 See Edwards v. Mallam C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 1002 Stephens, In re - - - (1889) 43 Ch. D. 39 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Balls [1909] 1 Ch. 791 Stephens T. Mysore Reefs (^Eangundy') Mining Co., [1902] 1 Ch. 745. Discussed and distinguished by War- rington J. Pedlar v. Road Block Gold Mines op India, Ld. [1905] 2 Ch. 427 Stephenson, In re - [1897] 1 Ch. 75, 81 Referred to by C. A. In re Sharp [1908] 2 Ch. 190 Stephenson, In the Goods of, (1866) L. R. 1 P. & M. 287. See In the Estate op Jones Jeune Pres. [1905] W. N. 106 Stepney Cmpo^'ation v. Gingell, Son ^ Foshett, Id., [1909] 1 K. B. 115. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 245 Stevens, In re - - (1888)!W. N. 110, 116 Applied by Warrington J. DAWSON r. Isle [1906] 1 Ch. 633 Stevens, In the Goods of [1898] P. 126 Followed by Bargrave Deane J. In THE Estate op Wallas [1906] P. 326 Stevens v. Adamson - (1818) 2 Stark. 422 Followed by Joyce J. Carlish i\ Salt [1906] 1 Ch. 335 Stevens v. Benning, (1854) 1 K. & J. 168 ; (1855) 6 D. M. & G. 223. Followed by Kekewich J. In re Jude's Musical Compositions [1906] 2 Ch. 596 Stevenson's Estate, In re [1902]!. R. 23 Reversed by H. L. (Ir.) sub nom. FuLLBE- TON V. Provincial Bank op Ireland [1903] A. C. 309 Steward t. Poppleton (1877) W. N. 29 Followed by Keltewioh J. In re O'CONNELL [1903] 2 Ch. 574 Not followed by Eve J. Tremaynb t\ RASHLEIGH - [1908] 1 Ch. 681 Stewart, In re - [1908] 2 Ch. 251 Discussed by Parker J. In re Innes [1910] 1 Ch. 188 Stewart t. Breadalbane (Marquess of), (1903) 5 F. 359. Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1904] A. C. 217 Stewa7-t V. Kingsale - [1902] 1 I. E. 496 Approved of by C. A. In re Atkinson [1904] 2 Ch. 160 Stewart v. Royds (1904) 118 L. T. Jo. 176 Followed by 0. A. In re Page [1910] 1 Ch. 489 Stewart v. Williamson, First Div. Ct. of Sess. (1909) S. C. 1254. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1910] A. C. 456 Stirling v. Forrester (1821) 3 Bli. 675, 596 Discussed by H. L. (E.) RuABON Steamship Co. v. London Assurance [1900] A. C. 6, 11 Stirling -Maxwell v. M'Farlane - (1901) 3 F. 933 Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. M'Farlane v. Maxwell [1902] W. N. 206 Stirling v. Sillmrn ^' Pyman, [1910] 1 E. B. 67 Not followed by Bray J. SADLER r. COBB & Co. [1910] W. N. 29 Stock V. Mealdn - - ■ [1900] 1 Ch. 683 Followed by C. A. Suetees v. Wood- house C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 396 Applied by C. A. In re ALLEN AJn) Deisooll's Contract [1904] 2 Ch. 226 Stoehdale v. Ascherberg [1903] 1 K. B. 873 Affirmed by C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 447 See In re Warriner Swinfen Eady J. [1903] 2 Ch. 367 Stockport Ragged, Industrial and Refm'matory Schools, In re, [1898] 2 Ch. 687, 697. The difficulty suggested by Lindley M.R. in, discussed by Neville J. In re Society for Training Teachers op THE Deaf and Whittle's Contract [1907] 2 Ch. 486 Stockport Union {Assessmeoit Committee of) v. London and North Western Ry. Co., (1898) 78 L. T. 180. See Great Northern Ry. Co. <■. Edmonton Union Channell J. [1905] W. N. 115 Stockton and Darlington Ry. Co.-v. Brown, (1860) 9 H. L. C. 246. See London and North Western Ry. Co. r. Westminster Corporation C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 769 Stoddart v. Argus Printiny Co., [1901] 2 K. B. 470. Dissented from by Div. Ct. Hawke %\ Mackenzie (Nos. 1 & 2) [1902] 2 K. B. 225 Stoddart v. IlaiDkc [1902] 1 K. B. 353 Approved by C. A. Lknnox v. Stod- dart [1902] 2 K. B. 21 Stoddart v. Saville - [1894] 1 Ch. 480 Not followed on one point by Swinfen Eady J. In re Smith's Settlement [1903] 1 Ch. 373 Sfoddert v. Gro.ivenur - (1886) 33 Ch. D. 528 See Peel v. London and North- western Ry. Co. C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 6 i DUEING THE YEARS 1901—1910. cdxlvii Sfogdm, In re ■ [1895] 2 Q. B. 534 Commented on by C. A. In re Beatt- CHAMP [1904] 1 K. B. 872 St0)tes, In re - - (1892) 67 L. T. 223 Followed by Kekewioh J. In re Roberts - - [1902] 2 Ch. 834 StoJies T. Trumper - (1855) 2 K. & J. 232 .See In re Hudson Kekewioh J. [1904] W. N, 32 St(me V. Liverpool Marine Society, (1894) 6 L. J. (Q.B.) 471. Applied by Warrington J. Cox r. HUTCHINSOJT [1910] 1 fch. 613 Stone. T. Smith - (1887) 35 Ch. D. 188 Discussed by Warrington J. Cooper V. Morgan [1909] 1 Ch. 261 Stone y. Stone - ■ (1869) L. R. 5 Ch. 74 Referred to by Eve J. In re Plumptre's Marriage Settlement [1910] 1 Ch. 809 Stone 4- Co. t. Midland Ry. Co., [1903] 1 K. B. 741. Aifirmed by C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 669 StoveU y. Hughes - (1811) 14 East, 308 Distinguished by Pickford J. MoH- DAUNT Brothers v. British Oil and Cake Mills, Ld. [1910] 2 K. B. 502 Strand Music Hall Co., In re, (1865) 3 D. J. & S. 147. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Perth Electric Tramwats, Ld. [1906] 2 Ch. 216 Strapp Y. Bull, Sons ^ Co. [1895] 2 Ch. 1 Discussed and distinguished by C. A. In re Glasdir Copper Mines, Ld. [1906] 1 Ch. 366 Stratton v. Grymes - (1698) 2 Vern. 357 Followed^ by C. A. In re Whiting's Settlement - [1905] 1 Ch. 96 Stray, Ex parte - - (1867) L. K. 2 Ch. 374 Followed by C. A. In re Brindley [1906] 1 K. B. 377 Dictum of Lord Cairns L.J. in, at p. 381, adopted by C. A. In re Mills [1906] 1 K. B. 389 Streatfield v. StreatfieU, (1735) Oas. t. Talb. p. 188. Referred to by Kekewioh J. In re Hancock - [1908] 1 Ch. 16 StricTiland t. Hayes [1896] 1 Q. B. 290 Considered by Div. Ct. Gentbl v. Rapps - [1902] 1 K. B. 160, 163, 164 Stroms BruTis Ahtie Bolag v. John and Peter Hutchison, (1904) 6 F. 486. Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1905] A. C. 816 Strong v. Bird - (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 315 The principle laid down by Jessel M.R. in, applied by Neville J. In re Stewart [1908] 2 Ch. 261 Discussed by Parker J. In re Innes [1910] 1 Ch. 188 Strong Jj' Company of Itomsey, Ld. v. Womli field, [1905] 2 K. B. 350. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 448 Strother, In re ■ - (1857) 3 K. & J. 518 Referred to by C. A. In the Matter OP Baker, Lees & Co. [1903] 1 K. B. 189, 196, 199 Stroud V. Gwyer (1860) 28 Beav. 130 Followed and approved by C. A. Slade i). Chainb - [1908] 1 Ch. 622 Stroughill v. Anstey, (1832) 1 D. M. & G. 635, 653. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Henson [1908] 2 Ch. 366 Stroujiherg v. Sanders - (1889) 38 W. R. 117 Referred to by Wright J. In re Dillon [1903] W. N. 49 Stuart, In re. Smith v. Stuart, (1896) 74 L. T. 546. Followed by Kekewioh J. J?i re New- land [1904] W. N. 181 Stuart V. Lord Bute - (1841) 11 Sim. 442 Referred to by Eve J. Eattenbbrry f. Mtjnro - [1910] W. N. 245 Stuart V. Nixon 4- Bruce ■ [1900] 2 Q. B. 95 Reversed by H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 79 StiMs V. Slater - [1910] 1 Ch. 195 Reversed in part and affirmed in part by C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 632 Studdert, In re Finance Act, 18U,and, [1900] 2 1. E. 281, 400. Affirmed by H. L. (Ir.) sub nom. INLAND Revenue "CoMMRS. v. Priestley [1901] A. C. 209 Studdert v. Grosvenor (1886) 33 Ch. D. 528 Overruled on one point by C. A. Peel f. London and North Western By. Co. [1907] 1 Ch. 8 Stumore v. Camplell [1892] 1 Q. B. 314 See In re Harden Star, Lavis and Sinclair Co. - Joyce J. [1903] W.N. 64 Sturge and Great Western By. Co., (1881) 19 Ch. D. 444. Distinguished by Parker J. In re Wilson. Wilson v. Batchelor [1907] 1 Ch. 480 Followed by Joyce J. In re McFeb [1910] W. N. 186 Sturges r. Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch. D. 852 Considered and applied by C. A. RUSH- MER V. POLSUE & ALFIERI, LD. [1906] 1 Ch. 234 ; H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 121 Sturla V. Freccia (1880) 5 App. Cas. 623, 643 Discussed and explained by C. A. Mercer r. Denne [1905] 2 Ch. 638 Sudeley (Lord) and Baines 4' Co., In re, [1894] 1 Ch. 334. Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re Jump [1903] 1 Ch. 129, 134 Discussed and applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Horsnaill [1909] 1 Ch. 631 cdxlviii TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVBERULED, ,&0., Sudlow, Tn re - - (1849) 11 Beav. 400 Referred to by 0. A. IK THE Mattee OP Bakee, Lees & Co. [1903] 1 K. B. 189, 196, 199 SuffieU V. Brown - - (1864) 4 D. J. & S. 185 Bef erred to by G. A. Union Liohtee- AGE Co. V. London Geaving Dock Co. [1902] 2 Ch. 857 Suffollt County Lunatic Asylum, v. Stow Union, (1897) 76 L. T. 494. Dictum of Wright J. in, explained by Div. Ct. Committee op Visitoes op Glamoegan County Asylum «. Cae- DIPP GUAKDIANS [1910] 2 K. B. 547 Overruled by C. A. - [1910] W. N. 258 Sullitan v. Mitoalfe - (1880) 5 C. P. D. 455, 464 Dictnm of Baggallay L.J. in, approved by C. A. Beoome «. Speak [1903] 1 Ch. 286 ; H. 1. (E.) [1904] A. C. 342 Sumatra Tohacco Plantation Co., In re, [1898] W. N. 80. See In re Monmouthshiee Steel AND TiNPLATE CO. Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 128 Surman v. Barley (1845) 14 M. & W. 181 Followed by C. A. Lewin v. End [1906] 1 K. B. 669 Sutcliffe V. Booth - (1863) 32 L. J. (Q.B.) 136 Followed by C. A. Baily & Co. r. Claek, Son and Moeland [1902] 1 Ch. 649 Sutherland v. Thompson - (1902) 4 F. 957 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1906] A. C. 51 Sutherland (^Dowager Buchess of) v. Sutherland (JBiihe oj--), [1893] 3 Ch. 169. Followed by Swinfen Eady J. Pease V. Couetney [1904] 2 Ch. 603 Distirguished by Kekewich J. GiLBBY ■0. EUSH [1906] 1 Ch. 11 Sutton, In re (1885) 28 Ch. D. 464 Followed by Farwell J. In re Best [1904] W. N. 162 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 364 Sutton V. English and Colonial Produce Co., [1902] 2 Ch. 502. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. BOSOHOBK Peopeietaky Co. v. Fukb [1906] 1 Ch. 148 Sidton, CardenSi- Co. v. e^oudric/t, (1899) 80 L. T. (N.S.) 765. Followed by Farwell J. In re Gebbn- WOOD [1901] 1 Ch. 887 Sutton Coldjield Grammar School, In re, (1881) 7 App. Cas. 91, 93. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Betton'b Chaeity [1908] 1 Ch. 208 Sutton's Hospital Case - (1612) 10 Rep. la, 30b Applied by Swinfen Eady J. Beitish South Apeica Co. v. Db Beebs Con- solidated Mines, Ld. C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. .602 Svensden v. Wallace, (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 69; (1885) 10 App. Cas. 404. Diaouased by Lord Alverstone C.J. Hamel v. Pbninsulak and Oeibntal Steam Navigation Co. [1908] 2 K. B. 298 Stoaiey v. Port Barwin Gold Mining Co., (1889) 1 Megone, Comp. Cas. 785. Distinguished by C. A. INMAN v. AcKEOYD & Best, Ld. [1901] 1 K. B. 613 Su)aley v. Swaley (1846, 1848) 15 Sim. 109, 502 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Fhench-Beewstbb's Settlements [1904] 1 Ch. 713 Swaine v. Wilson - (1889) 24 Q. B. D. 252 Consideied by Div. Ct. Bueke v. Amalgamated Society op Dybes [1906] 2 K. B. 883 Distinguished by C. A. Russell v. Amalgamated Society op Cae- pentbes and joinebs [1910] 1 KB. 506 Swale v. Milner - - (1834) 6 Sim. 572 Not followed by Farwell J. In re Geippith [1904] 1 Ch. 807 Swan V. North British Australasian Co., (1863) 7 H. & N. 603 ; 2 H. & C. 175, 182. Referred to by C. A. BELL r. Maesh [1903] 1 Ch. 528 Swansea Banh v. Thomas (1879) 4 Ex. D. 94 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. Bishop OP ROCHESTEE V. LE FANU [1906] 2 Ch. 513 Swanston v. Zishman - (1881) 45 L. T. 360 Followed by Eve J. Eattbnbbbet V. MUNEO [1910] W. N. 245 Sweeney v. Coote - - [1906] 1 I. R. 51 Affirmed by H. L. (It.) [1907] A. C. 221 Sweet V. Benning - (1855) 16 C. B. 459 Followed by H. L. (E.) Laweence & BuLLEN, Ld. v. Aplalo [1904] A. C. 17 Sweetapple v. Horlocl (1879) 11 Ch. D. 745 Followed by Joyce J. In re Maddy's Estate [1901] 2 Ch. 920 Swift V. Jewslury (1874) L. E. 9 Q. B. 301 Followed by C. A. Hiest v. West Riding Union Banking Co. [1901] 2 K. B. 560 Swinburne, In re - (1884) 27 Ch. D. 696 Followed by Farwell J. In re Mayhew [1901] 1 Ch. 677 Swire, In re - - (1882) 21 Ch. D. 647 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re Ross [1907] 1 Ch. 482 Syer v. Gladstone - - (1885) 30 Ch. D. 614 Ratio decidendi of, explained and applied by Farwell J. In re Baeon Kensington [1902] 1 Ch. 203 A supplementary note to this report. See ib. p. 211, n. Syhes v. Howarth ■ (1879) 12 Ch. D. 826, 833 Distinguished by C. A. Dunlop Pneu- matic Tyee Co. r. David Moselby & Sons, Ld. [1904] 1 Ch. 612 Symons, In re - - (1882) 21 Ch. D. 757 Distinguished by Warrington J. In re Weightson [1908] 1 Ch. 789 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. cdxlix Syiitojis V. Symmis - Discussed fcy Barnes BUEDON - - Synge v. Syngn . - - AtHrmed by C. A. . Carrntliprs Distinguished Best - [1897] P. 167 J. BURDON ■». [1901] P. 52 [1900 I P. 180 X1901] P. 317 (1858) E. B. & E. 469 by Div. Ct. Foss !', [1906] 2 K. B. 105 Tabirr v. Prentice - Distin>i;ui8hed Whitehobn Tait V. Macleay - (1884) 32 W. R. 872 by Buoklev J. In re [1906] 2 Ch. 121 Taddy ^ Co. t. Sterwiis and London Dock Company's Contract,In re Kekewich J. [1905] W. H. 85 ; (Erratum) at p. 92 Tarling v. O'Riordan - (1878) 2 L. R. Ir. 82 Followed by 0. A. Jackson v. Rotax Motoe and Cycle Co. [1910] 2 E. B. 937 iar>i,Inre - - - [1893] 2 Ch. 280 Followed by C. A. Van Laun & Co. Baring Beothees & Co. [1903] 2 K. B. 877 P.D, TasJier ( W.) ^ Sons, Ld., In re, [1905] 1 Ch. 283 Affirmed by C. A. - [1905] 2 Ch. 687 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Pbeth Electric Tramways, Ld. [1906] 2 Ch. 216 Followed by C. A. In re Russian Peteoledm and Liquii" Fuel Co. [1907] 2 Ch. 640 Taslier v. Taslter - ■ - [1895] P. 1 Observations of Sir F. Jeune, P., on paraphernalia disapproved by C. A. Masson, Templier & Co. V. De Fries [1909] 2 K. B. 831 Tatam v. Reeve - - [1893] 1 Q. B. 44 Approved of by C. A. Sappeby r. MAYER - [1901] 1 K. B. 11 Tatham v. Vernon - - (1861) 29 Beav. 604 Reviewed by Joyce j. In re Teing- HAM's TRUSTS [1904] 2 Ch. 487 Tawnton v. Royal Insurance Co., (1864) 2 H. & M. 135, 141. Principles stated in, discussed and applied by Swinfen Eady J. Cyclists' Touring Club v. Hopkinson [1910] 1 Ch. 179 Taurine Co.. In re (1883) 25 Ch. D. 118, 138, Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re Russell Hunting Record Co. [1910] 2 Ch. 78 Taylor, Ex parte. In re Lacey, (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 128. Discussed by C. A. In re Button [1905] 1 K. B. 602 Taylor, In re - (1886) 18 Q. B. D. 295, 299 Referred to by C. A. Jm rn Lake [1901] 1 K. B. 710, 718 Taylor, In re - - [1909] 1 K. B. 103 Applied by Phillimore J. In re Smith. Ex parte VALENTINE [1910] W. H. 23 Referred to in In re A Debtor (No. 692 of 1910) C. A. [1910] W. N. 284 Taylm- v. Blaheloch (1886) 32 Ch. D. 560 Referred to by C. A. Tayloe «. London aito County Banking Co. [1901] a Ch. 231 Taylor v. Caldwell - - (1863) 3 B. & S. 826 Followed by C. A. Nickoll and Knight v. Ashton, Edridge & Co. [1901] 2 K. B. 126 Discussed and applied by C. A. Keell „. Heney - - [1903] 2 K. B. 740 Discussed and applied by Div. Ct. BLAKELEY 1). MULLBE & CO. [1903] 2 K. B. 760, n. Referred to by C. A. In re Hall and Lady Meux's Arbitration [1906] 1 E. B. 588 See Grimsdick «. Swebtman Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 740 Taylor v. Sayga/rth ■ - (1844) 14 Sim. 8 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re BOND - - - [1901] 1 Ch. 16 cdl TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEKRULED, &c., Twjlm- V. Manchester, 4-0., By. Co., [1895] 1 Q.B. 134. Applied by C. A. Ltles i'. Southekd- on-Sba Coepoeation [1906] 2 K. B. 1, 19 See Edwabds v. Mallam C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 1002 Taylm- v. Mostyn - (1884) 25 Ch. D. 48 Referred to by Farwell J. Stevens r. Theatebs, Ld. [1903] 1 Ch. 867 Taylm- v. Roe [1893] W. N. 14 See Dean aud Chapteb of Chestee V. Smeltikg Coepoeatiou, Ld. [1902] W. N. 6 Taylor v. Rimdell - - ' (1840) 11 Sim. 391 Referred to by Eve J. Rattenbbeey v. Mtineo -' [1910] W. N. 245 Taylor v. Russell - [1892] A. C. 244, 262 Referred to by 0. A. Taylor v. London aud County Bajtking Go. [1901] 2 Ch. 231 Taylor v. Taylor ■ - (1849) 8 Hare, 120 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re HiscoE [1902] W. N. 49, 64 Taylor v. Taylor - (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 155 Approved of by C. A. In re Scott [1903] 1 Ch. 1 Taylm-' s Agreement Trusts, In re, [1904] 2 Ch. 737 Not followed by Farwell J. In re RiCHAED Mills & Co. (BeieelyHill), Ld. - [1908] W. N. 36 Distinguished by Warrington J. In re No. 9, BoMOEE Road [1906] 1 Ch. 859 Taylor's Estate, In re, (1881) 22 Ch. D. 495, 500 (Class 2). Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Kelsky - [1906] 8 Ch. 465 Teape's Trusts, In re - (1873) L. R. 16 Eq. 442 Followed by Farwell J. In re Mayhew [1901] 1 Ch. 677 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re Laot! - [1908] 2 Ch. 681 TeasdaWs Case - (1873) L. R. 9 Ch. 54 Overruled by C. A. Bellebby v. Eowlajtd aot) Maew^ood's Steam- ship Co. [1902] 2 Ch. 14 Tehh v. Cave - - [1900] 1 Ch. 642 Doubted by 0. A. Davis r. Town Peopeeties Investment Coepoea- TION, LD. - [1903] 1 Ch. 797 Teevan v. Smith - - (1882) 20 Ch. D. 724 Referred to by Joyce J. Moegan v. Jbffeeys - [1910] 1 Ch. 620 Temjirrton v. Russell - [^1893] 1 Q. B. 435, 715 Reflected on by H. L. (E.). Bbdfoed (Duke of) v. Ellis [1901] A. C. 1 See Tapp Vale Ry. Co. v. Amalga- mated Society of Railway Seevants [1901] A, C. 426, 439 Not overruled by Allen v. Flood, [1898] A. C. 1. See QuiNN c. Leathem 5. 1. (Ir.) [1901] A. C. 496 Teniy Corporation v. Mason, [1907] W. N. 251 Affirmed by C. A. ■ [1908] 1 Ch. 457 Teuliere v. St. Mary Abbotts, .Kensington (Vegtry of), (1885) 30 Ch. D. 642, 648. Followed by Swinfen Eady J. Pescod v. Westminstee Coepoeation [1905] 2 Ch. 476 " Teutonic," The (1872) L. R. 4 P. C. 171 Referred to by Phillimore J. The " Eeeza " [1902] W. N. 234 Tewart v. Zawson (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 490 Followed' by Swinfen Eady J. la re Heathcote - [1904] 1 Ch. 826 Thames Tunnel (Ratliei-hithe and Rateliff) Act, 1900, In. re, [1908] 1 Ch. 498. Discussed by C. A. In re Elementaey Education Acts. 1870 and 1873 [1909] 1 Ch. 66 Theaker's Settled Estates, In re, Wolstenholme's Conveyancing and Settled Land Acts, 9th ed. p. 332. Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Pollock - [1906] 1 Ch. 146 Th'ebei-ge v. Laudry - (1876) 2 App. Gas. 102 Distinguished by P. C. In re Wl MATtJA's Will [1908] A. C. 448 Tliellusson -f . FaZ^jiia (Fwcoani), [1906] 1 Ch. 480. Affirmed by C. A. - [1907]2Ch.l Thomas, In re. Weatherall v. Thomas, [1900] 1 Ch. 319. See In re McCluee's Trusts Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 200 Thomas, In re - [1891] 3 Ch. 482 See In re Wilson Swinfen Eady J. [1907] 1 Ch. 394 Ihomas v. Daw - - (1866) L. R. 2 Gh. 1, 7 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. Pescod V. Westminster Coepoeation [1905] 2 Ch. 476 Judgment of Kindersley V.-C. in, ob- served upon by Buckley J. Thompson V. Hammeesmith Coepoeation [1908] 1 Ch. 299 Tliomas v. JoTies - - (1860) 1 Dr. & Sm. 134 Principle in, applied by C. A. In re New Zealand Midland Ry. Co. [1901] 2 Ch. 367 Thomas v. Lulham - ■ [1895] 2 Q. B. 400 See RiCKETT -v. Geeen Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 263 Thomas v. Roberta - - [1898] 1 Q. B. 657 Followed by C. A. Coates v. Moore [1903] 2 K. B. 140 Tlwinas v. Sorrell - - (1674) Vaugh. 351 Referred to by C. A. Frank Ware & Co. V. London County Council [1904] 1 K. B. 718, 721 T/umas v. Sylvester (1873) L. R. 8 Q. B. 368 Referred to by C. A. Foley's Chaeity Teustees r. Dudley Coepoeation [1909] W. N. 260 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 317 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. cdli Ihomasset v. Thmiasset - - [1894] P. 295 Distinguished by C. A. Staek v. Staek and Hitchins - [1910] P. 190 Thompson, Hx parte - (1884) 28 Sol. J. 274 See In re Blundbll C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 221, 223, n. pson, Inre - - - (1845) 8 Beav. 237 Observations of Lord Langdale M.R. in, not followed by C. A. In re HiEST & Capes - - [1908] 1 K. B. 982 nompson. In re - - [1908] W. N. 195 Followed by Parker J. In re Potsbe. Landon v. Potsee [1910] 2 Ch. 444 Tlumpson v. City Glass Bottle Co., [1901] 2 K. B. 483. Reversed by C. A. - [1902] 1 K. B. 233 IJiompson V. Ecoles Corporation, [1904] 2 K. B. 1 Overruled by C. A. Thompson v. ECCLES CORPOEATION [1905] 1 K. B. 110 nompson V. F. ^ W. Sinclair [1906] 2 K. B. 275. Indistinguishable. Haeeison v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 420 Thompson v. mchman - [1907] 1 Ch. 550 Referredtoby Eve J. Gltn«. Howell [1909] 1 Ch. 666 Thompson v. Hudsmi • (1870) L. R. 10 Eq. 497 Explained by Warrington J. Weiglet «. Gill -. - [1905] 2 Ch. 241 Discussed by Joyce J. Ainswoeth v. Wilding - - [1905] 1 Ch. 435 Thompson v. Leach, (1690) 3 Mod. 301 ; Carth. 435 Referred to by P.O. Daily Telegeaph Newspapbe Co. -o. McLaughlin [1904] A. C. 776, 780 Thomson v. Eastwood - (1877) 2 App. Gas. 236 Dictum of Lord Cairns in, approved by H. L. (Sc.) DOUGAN V. Macphbeson [1902] A. C. 197 Ilu>mson V. S/uikespear, (1860) 1 D. F. & J. 399 Distinguished by Byrne J. In re Claekb - - - [1901] 2 Ch. 110 Thomson's Dstate, Inre ■ [1907] 1 I. R. 311 Reversed by H. L. (Ir.) sub nom. Evelyn Viscountess Db Vebci r. O'Connell - [1908] A. C. 298 nornber v. Wilson - (1855) 3 Dr. 245 ; (1858) 4 Dr. 350. Referred to by Joyce J. In re Gaeeaed [1907] 1 Ch. 382 Tlun-ndihe v. Himt - (1859) 3 De G. & J. 563 Referred to by 0. A. Tayloe v. Lon- don AND County Banking Co. [1901] 2 Ch. 231 Thwrso New Gas Co., In re, (1889) 42 Ch. D. 486 Distinguished by Buckley J. In re Wenboen & Co. - [1906] 1 Ch. 413 Thurstan v. Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building Society, [1901] 1 Ch. 88. Judgment discharged by C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 1 Decision of C. A. affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building Society v. Thue- STAN . - - [1903] A. C. 6 TiChhorne v. Tichborne, (1869) 38 L. J. (P. & M). 70. Followed by Gorell Barnes P. In the Estate op Clbavee [1905] P. 319 Uohle v. Broion - - (1836) 4 Ad. & E. 369 Discussed by C. A. Gardner t. Hodg- son's Kingston Beewbey Co. [1901] 2 Ch. 198 ndswell V. WhUwm-th, (1867) L. R. 2 0. P. 326 See Gebaves v. Whitmaesh, Watson & Co. - Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 340 niling, Ld. v. Blytlie - [1899] 1 Q. B. 557 Discussed and explained by C. A. Jamaica Ry. Co. v. Colonial Bank [1908] 1 Ch. 677 Tillmamis if Co. v. Steamship " Jvimtsford," Ld., [1908] 1 K. B. 185. Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 385 Affirmed by H. L. (E.). sub mom. Steamship " Knutsfoed," Ld. v. TiLLMANNS & Co. [1908] A. C. 406 Unison V. Ramsbottom - (1837) 2 Keen, 35 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Phillips' Trusts [1903] 1 Ch. 183 Tiverton and NoHh Devon Ry. Co. v. Loosemoore, (1884) 9 App. Cas. 480. Explained and followed by Warring- ton J. Great Western Ry. Co. v. Midland Ry. Co. [1908] 2 Ch. 455 But on appeal see C. A; [1908] 2W. N. 198; [1908] 2 Ch. 644. loal V. North British Ry. Co. - (1908) S. C. 48 Reversed by H. L. (Sc). [1908] A. C. 352 Tod ^. Tod . . (1827) 2 W. & S. 542 See Caledonian Ry. Co. v. Barrie H. L. (Sc.) [1903] A. C. 126 lodd V. Bielby - (1859) 27 Beav, 353 Followed by Farwell J. In re Metcalp [1903] 2 Ch. 424 Todd V. North Eastern Ry. Co. - [1903] W. N. 9 Affirmed by 0. A. [1903] W. H. 30 lolhurst V. Associated Portland Cement Manu- facturers (1900), Ld. Tolhurst v. Asso- ciated Pm-tland Cement Manufacturers (1900) and Imperial Portlawi Cement Co., [1901] 2 K. B. 811. Reversed by C. A. - [1902] 2 K. B. 660 Decision of C. A. affirmed by H. L. (E.), except on the question of joining the Imperial Company - -[1903] A. C. 414 Distinguished by C. A. Kemp v. Baersblman - [1906] 2 K. B. 604 Referred to by C. A. Bennett v. White - [1910] 2 K. B. 643 'IvlUmache, In re - - [1903] 1 Ch. 457 Affirmed by C. A. - [1903] 1 Ch. 966 Tollemadte v. Coventry (.Earl of), (1834) 2 01. & F.611. Applicable. In re Hill. C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 807 loller V. Spiers ^ Pond, Ld. [1903] 1 Ch. 362 Followed by Div. Ct. Beass v. London County Council - [1904] 2 K. B. 336 //2 cdlii TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, kc, Tomlim V. Latimer - - [1909] W. N. 39 Reversed by C. A. sub nom. In re Barton. Tomlins v. Latimer [1909] 2 K. B. 841 To2)lu V. Gratie, (1839) 5 Bing. N. C. 636, 650. Referred to by 0. A. Sheffield Cor- poration V. Barclay [1903] 2 K. B, 580 ; H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 392 '"Im-lryan," Tlie - - - [1903] P. 35 Affirmed by C. A. [1903] P. 194 TorUngtm v. Magee - [1902] 2 K. B. 427 Reversed by C. A. - [1903] 1 K. B. 644 Toronto Corporation v. Toronto By. Co., [1907] A. C. 315. Judgment in, held by P. C. to be per- fectly clear, and that the Order in Council thereon was unaffected by Ontario Act 8 Edw. 7, c. 112, s. 1. Toronto Cobpobation v. Toronto Rt. Co. - - [1910] A. C. 312 lorrance v. Bolton, (1872) L. R. 14 Eq. 124 ; 8 Ch. 118. Distinguished by Warrington J. Blai- BERG V. Keeves - [1906] 2 Ch. 178 Torre v. Browne - (1855) 5 H. L. C. 555, 577 Referred to by Keliewich J. In re HiscoE - [1902] W. H. 49, 54 Tottenham Local Board v. Botvell, (1876) 1 Ex. D. 514. Distinguished by C. A. Blackbdrn Corporation ». Sanderson [1902] 1 K. B. 794 Towers v. African Ing Co. - [1904] 1 Oh. 558 Distinguished by C. A. MOSBLY «. KOPFYFONTBIN MINES, Ld. [1910] W. N. 231 loionend v. 'lownend - C. A. [1905] W. N. 158 This appeal was by the direction of the Court placed again in the paper C. A. [1905] W. N. 178 See also next report. Toionend v. Toimend - - [1907] P. 239, n. Discussed by Gorell Barnes P. In THE Estate op Harvey [1907] P. 239 Townsend t. Haworth, (1875) 12 Ch. D. 831, n. ; 48 L. J. (Ch.) 77, n. Followed by C. A. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. David Moseley & Sons, Ld. - - - [1904] 1 Ch. 812 Townsend'x Estate, In re (1866) 34 Ch. D. 357 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. Aplin V. Stone - [1904] 1 Ch. 643 Town-thend v. Ilarrowby, (1858) 4 Jur. (N.S.) 353 ; 27 L. J. (Ch.) 553. Considered by Parker J. Lloyd r. Prichabd - [1908] 1 Ch. 265 Followed by Eve J. Tbemayne v. Rashleibh - [1908] 1 Ch. 681 FoHowed by Swinfen Eady J. Vetch v. Elder - - [1908] w. N. 137 Townshend v. Harrmvly, (1858) 27 L. J. (Ch.) 553; 4 Jur. (N.S.) 353. Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re O'CoNNBLL - [1903] 2 Ch. 674 Townshend [Lord:) v. Ilarrowby, (1858) 4 Jur. (N.S.) 353. Followed by Kekewich J. In re Dow- ding's Settlement Trusts [1904] 1 Ch. 441 Tozeland v. West Sam Guardiam, [1906] 1 K. B. 538. Reversed by C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 920 Distinguished by Bucknill J. Ching •v. Surrey County Council [1909] 1 K. B. 762 Tracy v. Hereford (_ViMountess of), (1786) 2 Bro. C. C. 128. Referred to by Byrne J. Hontwood c. HoNYWOOD - [1902] 1 Ch. 347 Train v. Clapperton - - (1907) S. C. 517 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc). [1908] A.C. 342 Trappes V. Harter - (1833) 2 C. & M. 163 Referred to by H. L. (E.). Reynolds V. Ashby & Son - [1904] A. C. 466, 472 Trash v. Wood - ■ (1839) 4 My. & Cr. 324 Applied by Eve J. In re Hudson [1908] 1 Ch. 655 Travis v. Xlttley - - [1894] 1 Q. B. 233 Referred to by Cozens-Hardy J. Hed- LEY 4). Webb - ]1901] 2 Ch. 126 See Humphrey v. Young [1903] 1 K. B. 44 Treasure, In re. Wild v. Stanham, [1900] 2 Ch. 648. Not followed on one point by Buckley J. In re MooRE . [1901] 1 Ch. 691 Followed by Byrne J. In re Power [1901] 2 Ch. 659 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re Sharman - [1901] 2 Ch. 280, 283 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Mad- DOCK - - [1901] 2 Ch. 372 Referred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re Fbarnsides - [1903] 1 Ch. 260, 267 Dissented from by Neville J. In re Oblebar - [1908] 1 Ch. 136 Overruled on one point by C. A. In re Hadley - - - [1909] 1 Ch. 20 Trifond, In the Goods of - - [1899] P. 247 Commented on and explained bv Jeune P. In the Goods of Vannini [1901] P. 880 Trego v. Hunt .... [1896] A. C. 7 Applied by Farwell J. Curl Brothers, Ld. v. Webster - [1904] 1 Ch. 686 Referred to by Warrington J. Hill r. Fearis - . [1906] 1 Ch. 466 Tremayne v. Raskleigh - . [1908] W. N. 31 See Tbemayne v. Rashleigh (TSTo. 2) Eve J. [1908] W. N. 42 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 681 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. Vetch <■• Elder . . [1908] W. H. 137 DURING THE YEAR8 1901— lOlO. cUiil Trencluird, In re - - - [1905] 1 Ch. 82 Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re Spjbncbr Cooper - [1908] 1 Ch. 130 Trent (mi Mumber Ship Building Co., In re, (1869) L. R. 8 Eq. 94. See In re DUNN Byrne J. [1902] W. N. 76 Iress V. Treii - - - (1887) 12 P. D. 128 Commented on by Gorell Barnes P. Kennedy v. Kennedy - [1907] P. 49 Trevm- v. WhitwirHh - (1887) 12 App. Gas. i09 Referred to by C. A. Bellerby v. Rowland and Marwood's Steam- ship Co. - - - [1902] 2 Ch. 14 Tringham's Trusts, In re. Tringham v. Greenhill, [1904] 2 Ch. 487. Followed by Farwell J. In re Oliver's Settlement - - [1905] 1 Ch. 191 Referred to by C. A. In re Thursby's Settlement Trusts - - [1910] 2 Ch. 181 Trinity College, Cambridge y. Browne, (1686) 1 Ves. 441. Referred to by Kekewich J. COPE- stakb v. Hopeb - [1907] 1 Ch. 366 Tromans v. Hodkimon - - [1903] 1 K. B. 30 Followed by C. C. R. Rex ■». Deayillb [1903] 1 E. B. 468 Trowell v. Shenion - - (1878) 8 Ch. D. 318 Referred to by Farwell J. In re Hol- land - . [1901] 2 Ch. 146 Irowm- V. Butts - - (1823) 1 S. & S. 181 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re Salaman - - - [1907] 2 Ch. 46 Trower t. Knightley - - (1821) 6 Madd. 134 Discussed and applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Hoesnaill [1909] 1 Ch. 631 Trmnan v. London,- Brighton and South Coast By. Co., (1885) 11 App. Cas. 45. Referred to by H. L. (E.). West- MiNSTBE Corporation v. London AND North Western Ry. Co. [1906] A. C. 426, 427 Truro Corporation v. Bowe [1901] 2 K. B. 870 Judgment varied by C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 709 Ti~ustees, Executors, and Agency Co. v. Short, (1888) 13 App. Cas. 793. Explained by Parker J. Samuel Johnson & Sons, Ld. v. Brock [1907] 2 Ch. 633 Tubbs V. Wynne - - - [1897] 1 Q. B. 74 Distinguished by C. A. In re ALLEN AND Driscoll's Contract [1904] 2 Ch. 226 Iueh,Inre - . - . [1906] 1 Ch. 692 Referred to by Warrington J. In re Launder - . [1908] W. N. 49 Tuch T. Fyson - - - (1829) 6 Bing. 321 Referred to by C. A. Stacet v. Hill [1901] 1 K. B. 660, 666 'Inch ,)'• Sum V. Pr'icstei- (1S87) 19 Q. B. D. C29 Approved by P. C. Henry Graves & Co. ®. Gorhie - - [1903] A. C. 496 Tuoli^- V. Wilson, (1714) 1 P. Wms. 261 ; 5 Bro. P. C. 193. Referred to by C. A. Deverges v. Sandbman, Clark & Co. [1902] 1 Ch. 579, 589 Tner's Will Trusts, M re - (1886) 32 Ch. D. 39 See In re Barker's Trusts Joyce J. [1904] W. N. 13 Iwlk i: Moxhay - (1848) 2 Ph. 774 Principle of, not applied by C. A. Foemby v. Barker [1903] 2 Ch. 530 Applied by C. A. In re Nisbbt and Potts' Contract - [1906] 1 Ch. 386 Thinh-idge v. Matt/iews ■ [1903] W. N. 158 See Bailleau v. Victohian Society of Notaries Ct. of Faculties [1904] P. 180, 186 Tunbridge Wells Corpoi'ation v. Baird, [1896] A. C. 434. Referred to by C. A. Foley's Charity Trustees v. Dudley Coeporation [1909] W. N. 260 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 317 icliffe ^ Hampson, Ld. v. West Colli&ry Co., [1906] 2 Ch. 22. Reversed by H. L. (B.), sub nom. West Leigh Colliery Co. v. Tunniolippb & Hampson, Ld. - [1908] A. C. 27 TurnbuU v. West Riding Athletic Club, (1894) 70 L. T. 92. Distinguished by Farwell J. In re Bodega Co. - ~ [1904] 1 Ch. 276 Turnbull S)- Co. v. Buxal - [1902] A. C. 429 Followed by C. A. Chaplin & Co. v. Brammall [1908] 1 K. B. 233 Turner, & paHe, (ISU-) 24 L. J. (Ch.) 71 ; S. C. sub nam. In re Boyle, 5 D. M. & G. 540. Explained by Bigham J. In re VAN Laun. E,r parte Pattullo [1907] 1 K. B. 165 ; C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 23 Turnm; la re - - - [1897] 1 Ch. 536 Applied by Warrington J. In re LlNS- ley - - - [1904] 2 Ch. 785 Turner, In re (1895) 43 W. R. 153 ; 13 R. 132 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. Williams v. Morgan [1906] 1 Ch. 804 Turner, In re. Wood v. Turnei; [1906] W. N. 226. Affirmed by G. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 126 lurner. In re. Wood v. Turner, [1907] 2 Ch, 126. The order in this action was ultimately entered. See In re Turner. Wood v. Turner - C. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 539 Turner v. Brittain - - (1863) 3 N. R. 21 Referred to by Joyce J. Anderson v. Berkeley - - [1902] 1 Ch. 936 cdliv TABLE OF GASES EOLLOWED, OVEEHULED, kc, Turner v. Oiu-uii - (1888) 22 Q. B. D. 150 Eeferred to by C. A. Heebeet v. McQtTADE [1902] 2 K. B. 631, 648 Turnej- t. Ecam (1852) 2 De G. M. & G. 7i0, 745. Referred to by Eve J. Woodbkidge & Sons v. Bellamy [1910] W. N. 269 Turner r. Gosset - - (1865) 34 Beav. 593 Followed by Joyce J. In re Maundee [1902] 2 Ch. 875 ; C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 461 Turner v. Marriott (1867) L. K. 3 Eq. 744 See Kitten e. Hewitt Kekewich J. [1904] W. N. 21 See In re F0ENBAUX AND AlED'S Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 215 Turner t. Mom - - [1901] 2 Ch. 825 Followed by Buckley J. Geeat Wes- TBEN Et. Co. v. Fisher [1905] 1 Ch. 316 Ttmier v. Hooies - (1839) 10 Ad. & E. 47 ; 50 E. E. 320. Principle of, no longer applicable. In re WiNGFIELD AND BLEW C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 665 I^irner v. Sawdon ^- Co. - [1901] 2 K. B. 653 Eeferred to by Warrington J. Midland Counties Disteict Bank, Ld. r. Attwood - - [1905] 1 Ch. 357 Turner v. Stallihrass - [1898] 1 Q. B. 56 See Edwabds v. Mallam C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 1002 Twnei- V. Turner - (1852) 21 L. J. Ch. 843 Followed by Parker J. In re JACOB [1907] 1 Ch. 445 Turney, In re. Turney v. Turiwy, [1899] 2 Ch. 739. Eeferred to by Swinfen Eady J. In re GOSSLING - [1902] 1 Ch. 945, 949 Turquand v. Board of Trade, (1886) 11 App. Gas. 286. Considered by G, A. In re Cohen [1906] 8 K. B. 704 Turvey t. Brintons, Ld. Higgim t. Campbell awl Harrison, Ld., [1904] 1 K. B. 328. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) suh nom. Bein- TONS, Ld. v. Tuevey - [^1906] W. N. 72 Timaud v. Tussaud (1890) 44 Ch. D. 678 Observed upon by Joyce J. Fine Cotton Spinnees' and Doublees' Association, Ld., and John Gash & Sons, Ld. v. Haewood Cash & Co. [1907] 2 Ch. 184 Tweddle v. Atlimon ■ (1861) 1 B. & S. 393 Eeferred to by C. A. McGeuthee r. Pitcher [1904] 2 Ch. 306, 308 Eeferred to by Joyce J. National Phonogeaph Go. v. Edison-Bell Consolidated Phonograph Co. [1907] W. N. 6 Tweddle {John') S; Co., In re [1910] 2 K. B. 67 lieversed by C. A. [1910] 2 K. B 697 Tweedie and Miles, In. re (1844) 27 Ch. D. 315 DiscnsBftd and applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Hobsnaill [1909] 1 Ch. 631 Tweedie' s Taxation, In re - [1908] W. N. 257 See In re Tweedie Eve J. [1909] W. K. 110 " Tweed.idale;' The ■ - (1889) 14 P. D. 164 Followed by Bargrave Deane J. The " CJPTON Castle " - [1906] P. 147 Held not applicable by Bncknill J. The " Cbaigbllachie " - [1909] P. 1 Followed by Bigham P. The " Gladys " - [1910] P. 13 The reasoning in, so far as applicable, followed by C. A. "The Geove- HUBST" - - [1910] p. 316 Twirjg's Estate, In re - ■ [1892] 1 Ch. 579 Discussed by Joyce J. In re Guffe [1908] 2 Ch. 600 Tiaycj-oss v. Grant - (1871) 2 G. P. D. 469, 483 Eeferred to by Farwell J. Batey v. Keswick - - [1901] W. H. 167 See Watts v. Bucknall C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 766 See Tait i: MacLeay [1904] 2 Ch. 631 See Shepheaed r. Become H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 342 Eeferred to by Warrington J. Mab- SHALL V. MOBEISON - [1907] W. H. 29 Tyneirwuth Corporation v. Att.-Gen., [1899] A. C. 299. Eeferred to by Farwell J. Att.-Gen. ■,:. De Winton [1906] 2 Ch. 106 Tynte, Ex parte - - (1880) 15 Ch. D. 125 Eeferred to by C. A. Ei parte Men- delssohn - [1903] 1 K. B. 216, 221 Tyler, Inre - - - [1906] W. N. 202 Affirmed by C. A. - [1907] 1 K. B. 865 lyler v. Lake - - - (1831) 4 Sim. 351 Followed by Neville J. In re Gibbon [1909] 1 Ch. 367 Tyrrell v. Painton ■ ■ [1894] P. 151 Applied by Walton J. Wilson c. Bassil - - [1908] P. 239 Tyrrell v. Painton •- - [1895] 1 Q. B. 202 Followed by Kekewich J. Ideal Bedding Co. r. Holland [1907] 2 Ch. 157 Underground Electric Bi/s. Co. of LoniUm, Ld. v. Inland Beivnne Commi-ssiimers, [1905] 1 K. B. 174. Affii-med by H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 21 " Uneeda," Trade Mark, In re' [lOOl] 1 Ch. 550 Affirmed by C. A. - [1902] 1 Ch. 783 Union Bank of London v. Imram, (1880) 16 Gh. D. 53. Distinguished by C. A. Weigley v. Gill . . [I906] 1 Ch. 166 DttEING THE YSAES l90l— l9i0. cdlv Ilni-on Snnh of Luiulun v. Kent, (^1888) 39 (Jh. D. 238. Referred to by C. A. Taylor v. Lok- DON AND County Banking Co. [1901] 2 Ch. 231 Union Barik of Manohester y. Beech, (1865) 3 H. & C. 672. Followed by 0. A. Pbbey v. National Pbovinoial Bank of England [1910] 1 Ch. 464 Vnion lAgMerage Co. v. London GraviTig Docli Co., [1901] W. N. 92 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 300 Affirmed by C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 657 Union Lighterage Co. v. London Graving Bock Co., [1902] 2 Ch. 557. Principle of, applied by Kekewich J. Ray v. Hazeldine - [1904] 2 Ch. 17 United Collieries, Ld. v. Simpson (or Hendry), (1908) S. C. 1215. Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1908] A. C. 383 United Land Co. v. QreaA Eastern Ry. Co., (1875) L. R. 10 Ch. 586. Referred to by C. A. Great Western Ry. Co. ■». Talbot - [1902] 2 Ch. 769 Distinguished' by Swinfen Bady J. Tafe Vale Ry. Co. ■». Canning Gordon - [1909] 2 Ch. 48 United States Shippiwj Co. v. Empre-'^s Assur- ance Corporation, [1907] 1 K. B. 259. Affirmed by C. A. - [1908] 1 K. B. 118 United Teleplwne Co. v. Bale, (1884) 25 Ch. D. 778, 782. Distinguished by C. A. DUNLOP PNEU- MATIC Tyee Co. V. David Moseley & Sons, Ld. [1904] 1 Ch. 612 Uniaet'S-ity College of North Wales and Univer- sity of Wales V. Taylor, [1907] P. 228. Reversed by C. A. gub nam. IIniveb- siTY College of North Wales ?■. Taylor - - [1908] P. 140 Univer.nty of London Medical Sciences Institute Fund, In re. Fowlei' v. Att.-Gen., [1908] W. N. 182. Affirmed by C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 1 Upper Forrest and Western Steel and Tinplate Co. T. Thomas, [1909] 2 K. B. 631. Followed by C. A. Charing Cross, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTBAD RY. CO. T. Boots - - [1909] 2 K. B. 640 Upperton v. Ridley - - [1900] 1 Q. B. 680 Affirmed by C. A. - [1901] 1 K. B. 384 Decision of C. A. affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. 281 Upton V. Brown - ■ (1879) 12 Ch. D. 872 Not followed on one point by Swinfen Eady J. In re Smith's Settlement [1903] 1 Ch. 373 Disapproved by C. A. In re Brydone's Settlement - - [1903] 2 Ch. 84 " Upton Castte," The - - [1906] P. 147 Distinguished by Bargrave Deane J. The " Cockatrice" - [1908] P. 182 C'riii;tuii. V. Whitelegg Brothers, (1890) 63 L. T. (N.S.) 455. See Elliman, Sons & Co. v. Caering- ton & Son, Ld. Kekewich J. [1901] 2 Ch. 275 Usbm-ne v. Limerick Market Trustees, [1900] 1 . I. R. 85. Reversed on one point by H. L. (Ir.) sub nam. Economic Life Assurance Society v. Usbornb [1902] A. C. 147 " Ushmoor," Tlie - [1902] P. 250 See The " Minnetonka '*" BucknUl J. [1904] P 202. 204 ; C. A. [1905] P. 206 Approved by C. A. The " Anselm " [1907] P. 151 Uzielli y. Boston 3Iarine Insurance Co., (1884) 15Q. B. D. 11. Discussed by Bigham J. Western Assurance Co. op Toronto ■/•. Poole [1903] 1 K. B. 376 Vadiell V. Jeffereys - (1701) Prec. Ch. 170 Examined and followed by C. A. In re EOBY [1908] 1 Ch. 71 Valletort Sanitary Steam Laundry Co., In re, [1903] 2 Ch. 654. Followed by Farwell J. In re BoUENB [1906] 1 Ch. 113 ; C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 427 Valpy V. St. Leonards Whaif Co., (1903) 1 L. G. R. 305. Distinguished by Wright J. Stock- dale V. ASCHERBEEG [1903] 1 K. B. 873 Followed by Wright J. Harris v. Hickman - [1904] 1 K. B. 13 Van BrocMorff v. Malcolm, (1885) 30 Ch. D. 172 Approved of by Joyce J. In re Thompson [1906] 2 Ch. 199 Van Mjch and Zoon {Owners of Cargo of S.S. " Anglia ") v. Somerville and Gibson {Owners of the S.S. " Anglia "), (1905) 7 F. 739. Reversed by H. L. (So.) [1906] A. C. 489 Van Grutten v..Fo.vwell - [1897] A. C. 658 Followed by Kekewich J. In re BucKTON - -■ [1907] 2 Ch. 406 Van Laun, In re. Mx parte Pattvllo, [1907] 1 K. B. 155. Affirmed by C. A. sui nom. In re Yan Laun. Ex parte Chatterton [1907] 2 K. B. 23 See In re Ellis and Ellis Neville J. [1908] W. N. 215 Van Luan 8; Co. v. Baring Brotliers ^' Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 277. See Harbottle v. Robeets C, A. [1905] 1 K. B. 573 Van Praagh v. Everidge,. [1902] W. N. 108 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 266. Reversed by 0. A. - [1903] 1 Ch. 434 ally TABLE OP CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c., " Vancouver;- Ihc - (1880) 11 App. Gas. 573 Applied by 0. A. The " Haversham Grange" [1905] P. 307 " Vandyck," The, (1881) 7 P. D. 42 ; affirmed (1882) 5 Asp. M. L. C. 17. Principle of, applied by Bucknill J. The " Emilie Galline " [1903] P. 106 Varlo V. Faden, (1859) 27 Beav. 255 ; 1 D. F. & J. 211. Followed by Warrington J. In re HuRLBATT - [1910] 2 Ch. 568 Vase, Inre - - - (1901) 84 L. T. 761 Followed by Joyce J. Careoll v. Harrison - - [1910] W. N. 104 Vautin, Inre - - [1899] 2 Q. B. 549 Discussed by C. A. In re Button [1905] 1 K. B. 602 Veal V. Veal - - - (1859) 27 Beav. 303 Referred to by Buckley J. In re Beau- mont - - - [1902] 1 Ch. 889 Venn and Furze's Contract, In re, [1894] 2 Ch. 101. Referred to by Kekewich J. In re Verrell's Contract [1903] 1 Ch. 65 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Henson - - [1908] 2 Ch. 356 " Vera Cruz;' The - (1884) 10 App. Cas. 69 See The " Swift " [1901] P. 168, 171 Verner v. General and Commercial Investment Trust, [1894] 2 Ch. 239. Explained by Farwell J. Bond v. Barrow Haematite Steel Co. [1902] 1 Ch. 353 Vei'non's Case - - - - 4 Rep. 1 a, 4 a Principle of, applied by C. A. In re Bolton Estates - [1903] 2 Ch, 461 Vestry of Hammersmith v. Loioenfeld, [1896] 2 Q. B. 278. Overruled by C. A. Blackburn Cor- poration d. Sanderson [1902] 1 K. B. 794 Yioars v. Wdcochs - 2 Sm. L. C, 11th ed., p. 521 Approved of by Bruce J. BOSTOCK & Co. v. Nicholson & Sons, Ld. [1904] 1 K. B. 726, 742 Vicliers, Inre- - (1888) 37 Ch. D. 525, 534 Observations of North J. in, dissented from by C. A. In re JAQUES [1903] 1 Ch. 267 Victorian Daylesford Syndicate, Ld. v. Dutt, [1906] 2 Ch. 624. Affirmed by C. A. - [1906] W. N. 90 Followed and approved by C. A. BONNARD V. DOTT - [1906] 1 Ch. 740 Referred to by Farwell J. Litchfield V. Dreyfus - - [1906] 1 K. B 684 Victorian Bys. Commrs. v. CovMas, (1888) 13 App. Cas. 222. Not followed by Div. Ct. Dulieu v. White & Sons - [1001] 2 K. B. 669 VillurY. Gilhey - ■ - [1906] 1 Ch.. 583 Reversed by H. L.(B.) [1907] A. C. 139 Discussed by C. A. In re Salamau [1908] 1 Ch. 4 Rule in, applied by C. A. Williams V. Ocean Coal Co. [1907] 2 K. B. 422 Vimbos, Ld., Inre • - [1900] 1 Ch. 470 Followed by Warrington J. Robinson Printing Co. v. Chic, Ld. [1905] 2 Ch. 123 Vincent and Tomlinson v. Eyton • [1897] P. 1 Referred to by Consistory Court of London. In re St. Margaret's, West- minster - - - [1905] P. 286 Vinden v. Uuglies - [1905] 1 K. B. 795 Approved and followed by Bray J. Macbeth v. North and South Wales Bank - [1906] 2 K. B. 718 Approved by C. A. Macbeth v. North AUD South Wales Bajtk [1908] 1 K. B. 13 Vine y. Raleigh - - - [1891] 2 Ch. 13 Referred to by Buckley J. I7i re Gardiner - - [1901] 1 Ch. 697 Not followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re Jemmett and Guest's Contract [1907] 1 Ch. 629 Vizetelly v. Mudie's Select Library, Ld., [1900] 2 Q. B. 170. See Public Libraries Act, 1901 (1 Edw. 7, K^. 19). " Vortigern," The - - - [1899] P. 140 Applied by C. A. Greenock Steam- Ship Co. v. Maritime Insurance Co. C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 657 Vysey. Foster - (1872) L. R. 8 Ch. 309, 329 Followed by Farwell J. In re DAVIS [1902] 2 Ch. 314 Vysey. Foster - (1874) L. R. 7 H. L. 818 Approved by P. C. HoRDERN i: HoB- dern - - - [1910] A. C. 465 " IF". H. Xo. 1," Tlie, and « Ttie Knight Errant" [1910] P. 199. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nam. Owners of the Lightship " Comet " V. Owners op the Hopper Barge "W.H. No. 1" [1910] W. N. 274 W. Taslier S,- Sons, Ld., In re [1906] 1 Ch. 283 Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 587 Waddell, Ex- parte. In re Lvhscher, (1877) 6 Ch. 328. Referred to by Warrington J. In re Appleton, French & Scrafton, Ld. - [1905] 1 Ch. 749 Waddle v. Sunderland Union - [1906] 2 K. B. 899 Affirmed by C. A. - [1908] 1 K. B. 642 Wagstaff, In re. Wagsfnff v. Jalland, [1907] 2 Ch. 35. Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 162 DUEING THE VEAES 1901—1910. odlvii Wagdaffe v. SeiMey - . [1902] 1 K. B, 124 EefeiTed to by Div. Ct. DuNN v. South Eastbkn AMD Chatham Eyr Co. [1903] 1 E. B. 358, 360 Principle of, applied by C. A. Hubback V. Bkitish North Borneo Co. [1904] 2 K. B. 473 Waidanis, Inre - - [1908] 1 Ch. 123 . Co. v. WaTte- field Cm-poration, [1907] 2 K. B. 256. AfSimed by H. L. (E.) suh nom. Wake- field Corporation v. Wakefield AND District Light Ey. Co. [1908] A. C. 293 Wakefield Corim-atiun v. Coolie, [1902] 1 K. B. 188 Eeversed by C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 417 Decision of C. A. aifirmed by H. L. (E). [1904] A. C. 31 Waliefield Rolling Stock Co., In re, [1892] 3 Ch- 165, 174. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re United Provident Assurance Co., Ld. - - [1910] 2 Ch. 477 Walielin v. London and South Wedern Ry. Co., (1886) 12 App. Cas. 41. Considered and applied by C. A. PoMFRET V. Lancashire and York- shire By. Co. - [1903] 2 K. B. 718 Walcot V. Botfield - - - (1854) Kay, 534 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re Wright - - - [1907] 1 Ch. 231 Walker, In re - (1871) L. E. 7 Ch. 120 Eeferred to by Joyce J. In re Ben- jamin - - [1902] 1 Ch. 723, 726 Wallier, Inre - - - (1895) 2 Mans. 60 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Carter & Ellis - - - [1905] 1 K. B. 735 Walker v. Orydal Palace Didrict Gas Co., [1891] 2 Q. B. 300. See Dunning v. Gbosvenor Dairies, Ld. ... [1901] W. N. 218 Walkers. Jeffreys - - (1842) 1 Hare, 241 Followed by C. A. Watson v. Chableswoeth . [1905] 1 K. B. 74 ; H. L.(E.)[1906] A. C. 14 Walker v. Mower - - (1852) 16 Beav. 365 Approved of by C. A. In re Edwaeds [1906] 1 Ch. 570 Walker and Oaksluitfn Coixtract, lit re, [1901] 2 Ch. 383. Affirmed by C. A. [1902] W. N. 147 Overruled on one point by C. A. In re Judd and Poland and Skblchbe's Contract - - [1906] 1 Ch. 684 Wall V. Byrne - ■ (1845) 2 J. & Lat. 118 Not followed by Swinfen Bady J. In re INMAN . [1903] 1 Ch. 241 Wallace-James v. Montgomerie S; Co., (1899) 2 F. 107 ; (1902) 4 P. 771 ; [1904] A. C. 73. See Montgomerie & Co. v. Wallace- James - H. I. (Sc.) [1904] A. C. 214 Wallinger's Estate, Inre - [1898] 1 I. R. 139 Eeasoning of Fitzgibbon L. J. in, adopted and followed. Adopted by Buckley J. In re Salvin - [1906] 2 Ch. 459 Wallk V. Smith - (1882) 21 Ch. D. 243, 264 Discussed by Bighatu J. Pye c. British Automobile Commercial Syndicate, Ld. . [1906] 1 K. B. 425 Walsh V. Lonsdale - ■ (1882) 21 Ch. D. 9 Followed by Farwell J. Manchester Brewery Co. v. Coombs [1901] 2 Ch. 608 Eefen-ed to by Parker J. James Jones & .Sons, Ld. v. Tankerville (Earl of) - - [1909] 2 Ch. 440 WalslMV) V. Brighouse Corporation, [1899] 2 Q. B. 286. Followed by C. A. Hobbs v. Win- chester Corporation [1910] 2 K. B. 471 Walter V. King - (1897) 13 Times L. E. 270 Discussed by C. A. Macoun v. Ebskine, OXBNFORD & Co. [1901] 2 K..B. 493, 498, 499 Ebskine, Oxbnfobd & Co. r. Sachs [1901] 2 K. B. 504, 510 Walters, In re - - - (1845) 9 Beav. 299 Eeferred to by Farwell J. In re Grant, Bulcraig & Co. [1906] 1 Ch. 124 Walters v. Morgan - (1861) 3 D. F. & J. 724 Eeferred to by Joyce J. Seddon v. North Eastern Salt Co. [1905] 1 Ch. 326 Walters v. Woodbridge - (1878) 7 Ch. D. 504 Principle laid down by, applied by Byrne J. In re Dunn [1904] 1 Ch. 648 Walton's Estate, In re, (1856) 8 De G. M. & G. 173 Followed by Byrne J. In re Master. son . . [1901] W. N. 172 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 192 Wandsworth Board of Works v. United Tele- phone Co. (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 904. Distinguished by FarweU J. Finchley Electric Light Co. v. Finchley Urban Council . [1902] 1 Ch. 866 ; C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 437 Wariwg, Ex parte - (1883) 24 Ch. D. 364 See In re London County Council [1901] W. H. 7 cdlviii TABLE OP CASES FOLLOWED, OVEREtTLED, kc, Ward, J£x parte, (1882) 20 Ch. D. 356 ; 22 Ch. D. 132. Followed by C. A. Ex imrte Men- delssohn - - [1903] 1 K. B. 216 Referred to by H. L. (E."). Mendelssohn V. Ratclifp [1904] A. C. 466, 458 Ward, V. Booth • (1872) L. E. 14 Eq. 195 See In re Pollahd Joyce J. [1902] W. N. 144 Ward V. Duncomie - [1893] A. C. 369 Followed by Cozena-Hardy J. Lloyd's Bank v. Pbaeson [1901] 1 Ch. 866, 871 Applied by C. A. In re Dallas [1904] 2 Ch. 386 Ward V. Eyre - ■ (1880) 15 Ch. D. 130 Distinguished by Neville J. In re Wilde - [1910] 1 Ch. 100 Ward y. HeppU ■ - (1808) 15 Ves. 297 Referred to by Joyce J. In re Jones AND EOBEETS - - [1908] W. N. 67 Wa7-d V. Portsmouth Corporation, [1898] 2 Ch. 191. See In re BoswoBTH and Gbavesend COEPOKATION C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 426 Ware, In re ■ ■ - [1892] 1 Ch. 344 Followed by Joyce J. Scaeborough COEPOEATION t'.-COOPEE [1910] 1 Ch. 68 Waring v. Cose ■ - (1808) 1 Camp. 369 Discussed by Eve J. Bttegos r. Nasci- MENTO - - [1908] W. N. 237 Warhw v. Harrison (1859) 1 E. & E. 309 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Rainbow v. HowKiNS - [1904] 2 K. B. 322 Warnclien v. M. Mm-eland .?■ Son, Ld., [1908] 1 K. B. 184. Distinguished by C. A. TuTTON r. OwNEES OF Steamship " Majestic " [1909] 2 K. B. 64 Warren, In re - - - [1900] 2 Q. B. 138 Discussed by Buckley J. In re BLACK- POOL MOTOE Car Co. [1901] 1 Ch. 77 Warren y. Erown - - [1900] 2 Q. B. 722 Reversed by G. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 15 Decision of C. A., [1902] 1 K. B. 15, overruled by H. L. (E.). COLLS v. Home and Colonial Stoees, Ld. [1904] A. C. 179 Warren v. Warren - - (1895) 72 L. T. 628 Referred to by Kekewich J. Baeet v. Smaet - [1906] 1 Ch. 768 Warren's Trusts, In re - (1884) 26 Ch. D. 208 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re Beadshaw [1902] 1 Ch. 436 Followed by Farwell J. In re OLIVER'S Settlement [1905] 1 Ch. 191 Followed by Warrington J. In re Beale's Settlement [1905] 1 Ch. 256 Wartnahy v. Wartnahij (1821) Jac. 377 Followed by Eve J. Pombey v. POMBEY - . [1909] W. N. 168 Wanoich v. Queen's College, Oxford, (1870) L. H. 6 Ch. 716. Followed by Neville J. LOED Chesteb- FiELD V. Haeeis [1908] 1 Ch. 230 Reversed by G. A. - [1908] 2 Ch. 397 Warwicher v. Brettiall (1882) 23 Ch. D. 188 Distinguished on one point and (senible) followed on another point by Swinfen Eady J. In re QniCKE's Trusts [1908] 1 Ch. 887 Waterhouse, In re, (1907) 96 L. T. 688 ; 98L.T. 30. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Land - [1908] 2 Ch. 681 WatUm, Inre - - - [1896] 2 Gh. 336 Explained and distinguished by C. A. In re Whallet [1906] 1 Ch. 565 WatUns V. WatUm - [1896] P. 222 Considered and applied by C. A. Paquint; X. Snaey - [1909] IK. B. 688 Watson, In re - - - [1899] 1 Ch. 72 Distinguished by Farweli J. WANDS- WOETH Union i-. Woething-ton. [1906] 1 K. B. 420 Watson, In re. Cox v. Watson, [1902] W. K. 192. Not followed by Warrington J. In re Blew - [1906] 1 Ch. 624 Watson V. Charlesworth [1905] 1 K. B. 74 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nam. Chablbswoeth v. Watson [1906] A. C. 14 Watson V. Some - - (1827) 7. B. & C. 285 Followed by G. A. Mansfield v. Rblp - - [1908] 1 K. B. 71 Discussed and distinguished by G. A. Salaman v. Holfoed [1909] 2 Ch. 602 Watson V. Jones - (1904) 42 Sc. L. E. 213 Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1905] A. C. 480 Watson V. JfEwan. Watson v. Jones, (1904) So. L. R. 213. Reversed by H. L. (So.) [1906] A. C. 480 Watson V. Petts - - [1899] 1 Q. B. 54 Followed by C. A. In re Feeee AND Staveley Tayloe & Co. and North Shore Mill Co. [1906] 1 K. B. 366 Watson V. Woodman • (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 721 Explained and distijiguished by Keke- wich J. NoETH American Land and Timber Co. r. Watkins [1904] 1 Ch. 242 Watson V. Tontig - . (1885) 28 Ch. D. 436 Followed by Buckley J. In re Stephens [1904] 1 Ch. 322 See In re Cannet's Trusts - Eve J- [1910] W. N. 46 Watson (Jenny'), In the Goods of, (1858) 1 Sw. & Tr. 110. Followed by Gorell Barnes J. In the Goods op Baldwin - [1903] P. 61 Watson's Trusts, Ee _ . (1886) 55 L. T. 316 Not followed on one point by Swinfen Eady J. In re Smith's Settlement [1903] 1 Ch. 873 \ DUEING THE YEAES 1901—1910. cdlix Watt y. A.sset'i Co. Bain y. Assets Co., (1901) 6 F. 692, 754. Beversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1905] A. C. 317 Watteau v. Fenwick - [1893] 1 Q. B. 3i6 Followed by Div. Ct. Kinahan & Co. V. Parry - - [1910] 2 K. B. 389 Wafts V. JBeaman - - (1854) 9 Moo. P. C. 81 See Paton v. Lewthwaite H. L. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 44 Watts V. Bucknall, [1902] 2 Ch. 628 ; [1902] W. N. 163. Affirmed by C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 766 Watts V. KeUon - ■ (1871) L. E. 6 Ch. 166 Distinguished by Farwell J. Burrows ■V. Lang - - [1901] 2 Ch. 502 Waits V. Stevens -, - [1906] 2 K. B. 323 Distinguished by Div. Ct. EvAus v. Weatheritt [1907] 2 K. B. 80 Watu/h, In re. Waugh v. Criups Farwell, J. [1903] W. N. 32 ; (Corrigendum) 36 Waugh v. Cope ■ (1840) 6 U. & W. 824 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Bos- WELL. MERRITT v. BOSWELL [1906] 2 Ch. 359 Welb, In re - - - [1897] 1 Ch. 144, 149 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re Walker and Oakshott's Contract [1901] 2 Ch. 383, 386 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Judd and Poland and Skelcher's Contract [1906] 1 Ch. 684 WeUer v. Welher ■ (1823) 1 Sim. & St. 311 Considered by Kekewich J. In re Hall - - - [1902] W. N. 808 ; C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 226 Webster v. Myer - (1884) 14 Q. B. D. 231 Discussed and explained by C. A. Jamaica Et. Co. v. Colonial Bank [1905] 1 Ch. 677 See MoRisoN ■». Telper Swinfen Eady J. [1906] W. N. 31 Webster y. Sharp S,- Co. - [1904] 1 K. B. 218 Affirm^ by consent upon terms by H. L. (E.) - - [1905] A. C. 284 Webstei- and JoTtes' Contract, In re, C. A. [1902] W. N. 146. See Erratum - [1902] W. N, 152 Beported in Laio Reports, [1902] 2 Ch. 551 Webster^s Divorce Bill, (1851) 83 Lords' Jour- nals, 403-430. See ToRRENs' Divorce Bill H. 1. (Ir.) [1909] W. N. 72 Wedderbwrn v. Lauderdale {Marl of), (1905) 7 F. 1045; (1908) S. C..1237. Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) - [1910] A. C. 342 WeAnesbury Cm'poration v. Lodge Holes Colliery Co., [1907] 1 K. B. 78. Eeversed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. LoDSB Holes Colliery Co. v. Wednesbury Corporation - [1908] A. C. 323 Eeferred to by C. A. Foley's Charity Trustees v. Dudley Corporation [1909] W. N. 260 ; [1910] 1 K.B.317 Weiner v. ffiU. Weinei- v. Smith, [1905] 2 K. B. 172. Affirmed by C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 674 Explained and distinguished by C. A. Weiner v. Harris - [1910] 1 K. B. 283 Weir V. Ormn-Brown - - (1907) S. C. 185 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1908] A. C. 162 Weir Hospital, In re - Eeversed by C. A. Wellboi'n,e, Inre - Eeversed by C. A. [1910] W. N. 82 [1910] 2 Ch. 124 [19001 1 Ch. 857 [1901] 1 Ch. 312 Wellby V. Still - - - [1894] 3 Ch. 641 Followed by C. A. In re Webster AND Jones' Contract [1902] 2 Ch. 561 Wells, In re - - - (1889) 43 Ch. D. 281 Eeferred to bv Buckley J. In re Scott [1902] 1 Ch. 918, 925 Distinguished by C. A. In re Bowlby [1904] 2 Ch. 685 Wells y. Allott - - [1904] 2 K. B. 842 Explained and distinguished by C. A. Lazarus v. Smith [1908] 2 K. B. 266 Wells T. Wells - - (1874) L. E. 18 Eq. 504 Considered by Swinfen Eady J. In re Cozens - - - [1903] 1 Ch. 138 Weniger's Policy, In re [1910] 2 Ch. 291 See In re Weniger's Policy Warrington J. [1910] W. N. 278 Wenloch {Baroness') v. River Dee Co., (1883) 36 Ch. D. 675, n. See Att.-Gen. v. London County Council - C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 781, 797 ; H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 165 Applied by Swinfen Eady J. British South Africa Co. v. Db Beers Con- solidated Mines, Ld. C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 602 Wenman v. Lyon 4' Co., [1891] 1 Q. B. 634 ; [1891] 2 Q. B. 192. Eefen'ed to by C. A. In re Ebis [1904] 2 K. B. 769, 788 ; H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 442 WenmotKs Estate, In re - (1887) 37 Ch. D. 266 Commented on by Buckley J. In re Stephens - - [1904] 1 Ch. 322 Wentwm-thy. Wentworth, [1900] A. C. 163, 171 Dictum of Lord Macnaghten in, con- sidered and explained by Warrington J. In re Oliver - - [1908] 2 Ch. 74 cdlx TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERKL'LED, ic, Werdermaii v. Societe GenJrale S Electr'wUe, (1881) 19 Ch. D. 246. Explained and distinguished by C. A. Bagot Pneumatic Ttee Co. v. Clip- pee Pneumatic Ttee Co. [1902] 1 Ch. 146 Followed by Neville J. Dansk Eekylripfel Stndicat Aktiesel- SKAB V. Snbll [1908] 2 Ch. 127 Werner Motarn, Ld. t. A. W. Gamage, Ld., [1904] 1 Ch. 26i. Affirmed by 0. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 580 WesseUnyi (^Baroness) 7. Jamieson, (1907) S. C. 139. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1907] A. C. 440 West V. Lawday - (1865) 11 H. L. (E.) 375 Considered by Joyce J. In re Beocket [1908] 1 Ch. 185 West Y. Sacltville {Lord") Reversed by C. A. [1903] W.N. 91 [1903] 2 Ch. 378 Wed Coa-it Gold Fields, Ld., In re. Smw^s Truatee'-i Claim, [1905] 1 Ch. 597. Affirmed by C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 1 West Lancashire Rural Council v. Lancashire and Yorhshire By., [1903] 2 K. B. 394. Distinguished by Jelf J. Heetfoed- shiee County Council r. Geeat Easteen By. Co. - [1909] 1 K. B. 368 West Ham v. London County Council, [1893] A. C. 562. Discussed by C. A. YsTKADYFODWG AND PONTYPEIDD MAIN SEWEEAGE BOAED V. NEWPOET ASSESSJIKNT C03I- MITTEB [1901] 1 K. B. 406 West Ham Guardians v. St. Matthew, Bethnal Green (Churchwardens of), [1896] A. G. 477. Followed by Farwell J. Shaepington r. FULHAM GUAEDIANS [1904] 2 Ch. 449 West Ham Local Board v. Maddams, (1876) 40 J. P. 470. Distinguished by C. A. Blackbuen COEPOBATION V. SANDEESON [1902] 1 K. B. 794 West Ham Vnion v. Holbeach Union, [1904] 2 K. B. 121. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 450 Discussed by Div. Ct. Woolwich Union c. Fulham Guaedians [1905] 2 K. B. 203 Followed by Div. Ct. Kingston-upon- Hull Cokpoeation c. Hackney GuAEDlAifS - [1910] W. N. 246 West Ham Union v. London County Council, [1901] 1 K. B. 720. Affirmed by 0. A. - [1902] 1 K. B. 562 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 40 West uf Kiujland Bank v. Canton Insurance Co., (1877) 2 Ex. D. 472. Keferred to by C. A. Boulton v. HODLDEE BEOTHBES & CO. [1904] 1 K. B. 784, 791 West Rldiyig of Yorkshire Rivers Boards. Scarr Bnd Mill Co., (1901) 65 J. P. 776. Overruled by C. A. West Riding of YOEKSHIEB RIVEES BOAED r. KOBIN- SON Beothees [1907] 1 K. B. 431 Wester man v. Pantlin, cited in Seton on Decrees, 6th ed. vol. 1, iii. p. 2288. Followed by Farwell J. Olde v. Olde [1904] 1 Ch. 35 Western v. Kensin/fton Assessment Committee, [1907] 2 K. B. 323. Affirmed by C. A. - [1908] 1 K. B. 811 Western Suburban Building Society v. Ruck- lidge, [1905] 2 Ch. 472. See BONNELL V. Peeston C. A. [1908] W. N. 155 Westcott V. Westcott [1908] P. 250 Approved and followed by Bargrare Deane J. Caetee c. Caetee [1910] P. 4 Approved and followed by C. A. HlG- GiNs f. King's Peoctoe [1910] P. 151 Westei-n Counties Ry. Co. v. Windsor and Anna- jwli^ Ry. Co., (1882) 7 App. Cas. 178. Followed by P. C. Commissioitee of Public Woeks (Cape Colon'y) v. Logan [1903] A. C. 355 Western of Canada Oil, Lands and Worhs Co., In re, (1878) L. R. 17 Eq. 1, 6, 7. Referred to by Buckley J. In re Ceigglestone Coal Co. [1906] W. N. 120 ; C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 327 Western of Canada Oil, Lands ami U'iv/m Co., In re. Carling, He-->])eler and Walsh's Cases, (1875) 1 Ch. D. 115. Followed by C. A. In re INN'ES 4: Co. [1903] 2 Ch. 254 Westmiiister Corporation v. Gordon Hotels, Ld., [1907] 1 K. B. 910. Affirmed by H. L. (E.). [1908] A. C. 142 Distinguished by H. L. (E.). Kydd v. LtvBEPOOL Watch Committee [1908] A. C. 327 Applied by Div. Ct. J. Lyons & Co. r. London Coepoeation [1909] 2 K. B. 588 [Note. — Westminster Corporation v. Gordon Hotels, Ld., [1906] 2 K. B. 39, was affirmed on another point in the Court of Appeal, [1907] 1 K. B. 910, and in the House of Lords, [1908] A. C. 142.] \Ve.'!tmiH>iter Corjjoiafion v. St. Georges, Hanover ■ Square {fleetor ami Churehioardens of), [1909] 1 Ch. 592. Reversed by H. L. (E.) s^ih nom. St. Geoese's, Haijovee Squaeb (Hector AMD CHDECHWARDENS OP) V. WEST- MINSTER Corporation - [19101 A. C. 226 Weston, In re - - - [1902] 1 Ch. 680 Approved of by Kekewich J. In re Andrews - - [1902] 2 Ch. 394 Weston's Settlement, In re. Neeves v. Weston, [1906] 2 Ch. 620. Referred to by Gorell Barnes, Pres. WrIglex v. Lowndes [1908] P. 348 Wheatley v. Lane, (1668) 1 W. Saund. 216 a, 219 b. Principles stated in the notes to, applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Marvin [1906] 2 Ch. 490 [1906] 2 K. B. 321 [1907] 2 K. B. 684 [1893] 3 Ch. 48 Fear v. Morgan [1906] 2 Ch. 406 Wheeldon v. Burrows - (1879) 12 Ch. D. 31 Referred to by C. A. Union Lighter- age Co. V. London Graving Dock Co. - - - - [1902] 2 Ch. 887 Referred to by Kekewich J. Ray v. Hazeldine - - [1904] 2 Ch. 17 Wheeler, In re - - - [1904] 2 Ch. 66 Referred to by Warrington J. In re Abrahams - [1908] 2 Ch. 69 Mlieelei' v. Slieer - - (1730) Mos. 301 Examined and followed by C. A. In re ROBY - [1908] 1 Ch. 71 WIieAe^- V. United Telephone Co., (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 597. Referred to by Div. Ct. Dunn «. South Eastern and Chatham Ey. Co. [1903] 1 K. B. 388, 360 WhithreadJ- Co. v. ^]'hite Affirmed by C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 911 {1902] 1 Ch. 836 Wheatley v. Smithers Reversed by C. A. ■ niieaton v. Maple ^ Co. Discussed by C. A. Whelan v. Palmer ■ Oyerruled Shapto Whielier v. Hume ■ (1888) 39 Ch. D. 648 by C. A. Saunders v. ■ [1906] 1 Ch. 126 Whxthj V. MUohell - - (1890) 44 Ch. D. 85 See In re NASH C. A. [1909] W. N. 209, 226 White V. Boldkow, Taughan k Co., 25 L. J. N. C. 125. See In re De Nicols Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 192 White V. Briggs - - (1848) 22 Beav. 176, n. Followed by Kekewich J. In re DowDiNG's Settlement Trusts [1904] 1 Ch. 441 Wliite V. Bywater - (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 582 Followed by Div. Ct. Dickins v. Randerson - - [1901] 1 K. B. 437 White V. Fulham Vestry - (1896) 74 L. T. 425 Approved by 0. A. Property Ex- change, Ld. f. Wandsworth Board OP Works - C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 61 White V. Bedfern - (1879) 5 Q. B. D. 15 Referred to by Div. Ct. Ex parte Francis - [1903] 1 K. B. 278, 279 White ^' Co. V. Credit Beform Association and Ci'edit Index, Ld., [1905] 1 K. B. 653 See Edmondson v. Birch & Co. [1906] 2 K. B. 119 White (J. 4- M.-) V. Tf7wte(J.) ^ Sons, (1905) 42 Sc. L. R. 330. Reversed by H. L. (So.) [1906] A. C. 72 White's Charities, In re [1898] 1 Ch. 659 See London and i^oETH Westeen Ry. Co. 0. Wbstminstee Corporation [1902] 1 Ch. 269, 279 Whitechurch (_George'), Ld. v. Cavanagh, [1902] A. C. 117, 145. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. Porter V. Moore - [1904] 2 Ch. 367 White/ord, In re ■ See In re Davy (1858) 10 H. L. C. 124 Referred to by H. L. (E.). Winans v. Att.-Gen. - [1904] A. C. 287, 294 Whistler, In re - - (1887) 35 Ch. D. 561 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re Terrell's Contract [1903] 1 Ch. 68 Whiston's Settlement, In re [1894] 1 Ch. 661 Considered and distinguished by Joyce J. In re Teingham's Trusts [1904] 2 Ch. 487 WMtalier v. Palmer; [1900] - [1901] 1 Ch. 9 Whitaher, In re. 2 Ch. 676. Affirmed by C. A, See In re WhitAKEE Farwell J. [1904] 1 Ch. 299 - [1903] 1 Ch. 889 C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 61 Whitehead 4' Brothers, In re [1900] 1 Ch. 804 Distinguished by Buckley J. In re Ebenezee Timmins & Sons, Ld. [1902] 1 Ch. 238 White/umse v. Hngli Affirmed by C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 253 [1906] 2 Ch. 283 White-home v. R. 4" W. Pickett, (1908) S. C. 218 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1908] A. C. 387 WMteley v. Burns - - [1908] 1 K. B. 705 Discussed by Div. Ct. Marohant v. London County Council [1910] 2 K. B. 379 WMteley v. Edwards - - [1896] 2 Q. B. 48 Approved by H. L. (E.)*. Bolitho v. 1^^ Gidley .- -. --. - [1J906] A. C. 98 cdlxii TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c.. WMtemaii-v. Sadler ■ 0. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 868 Reversed by H. L. (E.) - [1910] A.C.Sli Whiting'' s Settlement, In re. Whiting v. De Rvtzen, [1904] W. N. 118. Affirmed by C. A. - [1905] 1 Ch. 96 Whitley V. Challis - - - [1892] 1 Ch. 64 Followed by Byrne J. Faemeh v. Pitt [1902] 1 Ch. 954 Whitmore, In re. Walters v. Harri-wn, [1901] W. N. 146. Reversed by 0. A. - [1902] 2 Ch. 66 Whitmore v. Turquand (1861) 3 D. F. & J. 107 Referred to by C. A. Mv parte Men- delssohn - [1902] W. N. 219 ; tl903] 1 K. B. 216 WhUting v. WhiUing - (1908) 53 Sol. J. 100 Applied and followed by Eve J. In re Nash [1909] 2 Ch. 460 ; C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 1 Wi Parata v. Bishop of Wellington, 3 N. Z. J. R. (N.S.) S. C. 72. Considered by P. C. Niebah A. Tam aki V. Baker [1901] A. C. 661 li'iM V. Woolicich Borongh Council, [1909] W. N. 138 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 287. Affirmed by C. A. - [1910] 1 Ch. 35 Wild's Case - - - (1599) 6 Eep. 16b Discussed by Joyce J. In re Jones [1910] 1 Ch. 167 Wilde, In re - - [1910] W. N. 105 Reversed by 0. A. - [1910] W. N. 128 Wilde V. Gibson ■ (1848) 1 H. L. C. 605, 632 Applied by Joyce J. Sbddon v. North Eastern Salt Co. - [1906] 1 Ch. 326 Wilkins, Hx parte - (1895) 64 L. J. (M.C.) 221 Discussed by Div. Ct. Smith v. Moody [1903] 1 K. B. 66 Wilkins, In re - - (1881) 18 Ch. D. 634 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. I7i re GOULDEB [1905] 2 Ch. 100 Wilhinson, Ex parte, (1849) 3 De G. & Sm. 633 Followed by C. A. In re Hovtaeth [1909] 2 Ch. 19, 22 WilTiinson v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Eij. Co., [1906] 2 K. B. 619. Affirmed by C. A. - [1907] 2 K. B. 222 Wilkinson v. Malin • (1832) 2 Tyrw. 544, 571 Applied by Eve J. In re Whitbley [1910] 1 Ch. 600 Wilkinson's Trusts, In re, (1887) 19 L. R. Ir. 531 Principle in, followed by Byrne J. In re Clarke [1901] 2 Ch. 110 Willatts, Inre - - - [1905] 1 Ch. 378 Reversed by C. A. [1905] 2 Ch. 136 WilU V. St. John, [1909] W. N. 229 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 84. Affirmed by C. A. - [1910] 1 Ch. 325 See also Wille v. St. John [1910] 1 Ch. 701 Wllles V. GreeithiU, (1860) 29 Beav. 376, 387 ; and on appeal, (1861) 4 De G. F. & .T. 147. Referred to by Cozens-Hardy J. Lloyd's Bauk v. Peabsou [1001] 1 Ch. 865, 871 Wm. Bra-ndt's Sons ^ Co. v. Dunlop Ruhher Co., [1904] 1 K. B. 387. Reversed by H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 454 Williams, In re. Ex parte Love, (1891) 65 L. T. 68. See In re Xwbedie Eve J. [1909] W. H. 110 Williams, In re ■ [1897] 2 Ch. 12, 18, 29 Principles stated in, applied by C. A. In re Oldfibld - [1904] 1 Ch. 549 Williams v. Arkle - (1875) L. R. 7 H. L. 606 Applied by C. A. In re Roby [1908] 1 Ch. 71 Williams V. James - (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 577 Referred to by Kekewich J. Militer's Safe Co., Ld. v. Great Northern AND City Ry. "Co. [1906] W. K. 163 ; C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 208 Williams v. London Assurance Co., (1813) 1 M. & S. 318. Followed by Mathew J. Steamship Caeisbeook Co. r. London and Pro- vincial Marine and General In- surance Co. - [1901] 2 K. B. 861 ; C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 681 William.^ v. North's Navigation Collieries (1889), Ld., [1904] 2 K. B. 44. Reversed by H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 136 See North Eastern Marine En- gineering Co. r. Leeds Forge Co. Joyce J. [1906] 1 Ch. 324, 329 ; C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 498 Williams v. Oceun Coal Co., Ld., [1907] 2 K. B. 422. Principle of, applied by C. A. SOHO- PIBLD ii. Oreell Colliery Co. [1909] 1 K. B. 178 Followed by C. A. Keeling r. New Monokton" Collieries, I;D. [1910] W. N. 249 Williams v. Swansea Sarhour Trusted, (1863) 14 0. B. (N.S.) 845. Discussed by C. A. Bedb Steamship Co. v. River AVear Commrs. [1907] 1 K. B. 310 William v. Ware - (1888) 57 L. J. Ch. 497 See Edwards v. Grove Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 191 miliams V. Wilcox, (1838) 8 A. & E. 314, 333 Referred to by H. L. (E.) Simpson r. Att.-Gen. - [1904] A. C. 476, 487 Williamsonv. North Staffordshire Rij. Co., (1886) 32 Ch. D. 339. Followed by Buckley J. Rivington V. Garden [1901] 1 Ch. 661 Willie, Inre - ... [1902] 1 Ch. 15 See In re Legh's Settled Estate Kekewich J. [1902] 2 Ch. 274 DURING THE YEAES 1901—1910, cdlxiii Willis V. Hoive {_Earl) - - [1893] 2 Ch. 545 Referred to by Kekewich J. VnsrsoN V. Pbiob Fibee Consolidated, Ld. [1906] W. N. 209 Referred to by Parker J. Samuel Johnson & Sons, Ld. v. Beock [1907] 2 Ch. 633 Willis 4- Co. V. Baddeley - [1892] 2 Q. B. 32i Distinguished by C. A. Jambs Nel- son & Sons, Ld. v. Nelson Line (LivBBPOOL), Ld. [1906] 2 K. B. 217 Wilhnott V. London Road Car Co., [1910] W. N. 95 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 754. Revei'sed by 0. A. - [1910] 3 Ch. 525 Wilmer's Trusts, In re. Moore v. Wiligfield, [1903] 1 Ch. 874. Affirmed by C. A. - [1903] 2 Ch. 411 See In re Wilmee's Trusts. Wing- field 1'. MOOEB Parker J. [1910] 2 Ch. Ill WUson, In re - (1886) 31 Ch. D. 522 Referred to. Memobandum as to Peactice Kekewich J. [1901] W. N. 85 WiUon, Inre - - (1886) 54 L. T. 600 Applied by Kekewich J. in In re BAEEOW - in - FUENESS COEPOBATION AND EAWLINSON'S CONTEACT [1903] 1 Ch. 339 Wilson, In re - (1893) 62 L. J. (Q.B.) 628, 632 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. Bishop OF Rochestee v. Le Fanu [1906] 2 Ch. 513 Wilson. In re - - - [1907] 1 Ch. 394 Discussed by Warrington J. In re Nicholson - - [1909] 2 Ch. Ill Wilson, In re. Wilson v. Batchelor, [1907] 1 Ch. 450. Affirmed by C. A. - . [1907] 2 Ch. 572 Wilson V. Atkinson (1864) 4 De G. J. fe S. 455 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Maee [1902] 2 Ch. 112 Considered by Swinfen Eady J. In re Smith's Settlement [1903] 1 Ch. 373 Considered by C. A. In re Bbydone's Settlement - - [1903] 2 Ch. 84 WiUon T. Bassil - - - [190.3] P. 239 Commented on by Gorell Barnes P. Spiees v. English - [1907] P. 122 Wilson V. C?mrc/i - (1878) 9 Ch. D. 552 Referred to by Buckley J. McCheane V. Gyles - [1902] 1 Ch. 911, 918 Wilson V. Dunmlle (1879) L. E. Ir. 6 C. L. 210 Referred to by Bruce J. Bostock & Co. V. Nicholson & Sons, Ld. [1904] 1 K. B. 728, 737 Wilson V. MejTij (1868) L. R. 1 H. L. (Sc.) 332 Principle of, applied by C. A. Young V. Hoffman Mandpactueing Co. [1907] 2 E. B. 646 Wilson V. Metcalfe - ■ (1839) 1 Beav. 263 See In re Pollaed Joyce J. [1902] W. N. 144 WiUon V. Williams - (1892) 29 L. R. Ir. 176 Distinguished by Warrington J. Hill V. Fbaeis - - [1908] 1 Ch. 466 Wilson's Estate, J»»'e,(1862) 2 J. & H. 619, 623 ; (1863) 3 D. J. & S. 410, 417. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. Lord Lbconpield v. London and Noeth Westeen Rt. Co. - [1907] 1 Ch. 38 Wilson's {Maryon) Settled Estates, In re, [1901] 1 Ch. 934. Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re Levbson - GowEE's Settled Estate - - - [1908] 2 Ch. 95 Wilton 4- Co. V. Oslm'n ■ [1901] 2 K. B. 110 Disapproved of by C. A. In re A Debtor - - [1903] 1 K. B. 708 Wiltshire v. SdbhUs - - (1844) 14 Sim. 76 Referred to by C. A. Tayloe v. Lon- don County Banking Co. [1901] 2 Ch. 231 Wimbledon and Putney Commons Coiuervatm's v. Dixon, (1875) 1 Ch. D. 362, 368. Principle enunciated by James L.J. in, applied by Kekewich J. Milnbe'S Safe Co. ■». Geeat Noethben and City Ry. Co. - [1907] 1 Ch. 208 ; C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 208 Winarn t. Att.-0en. - - [1904] A. C. 287 See WiNANS ('. Att.-Gen. (No. 2) H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 27 Winans v. Bex - - [1908] 1 K. B. 1022 Affirmed by H. L. (B.) sub nom. WiNANS V. Att.-Gen. (No. 2) H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 27 Windram t. Bobertson - - (1905) 7 F. 665 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 140 Wingfield and Blew, In re - [1904] 2 Ch. 665 Considered by Gorell Barnes P. Sheppaed v. Sheppard [1905] P. 185 Winter's Case - - - (1572) 3 Dyer, 308 b Followed by Eve J. Piggott o. Middlesex County Council [1909] 1 Ch. 134 WinierioUom v. Wright, (1842) 10 M. & W. 109 Followed by C. A. Eael v. Lubbock [1905] 1 K. B. 253 Wintle, Inre - - (1870) L. R. 9 Eq. 373 Disapproved by Jeune P. In the Estate of Goodeich [1904] P. 138 Wintle, In re - - [1896] 2 Ch. 711 Doubted by Neville J. J» re Williams [1907] 1 Ch. 180 Witliall, Inre- - - - [1891] 3 Ch. 8 Referred to by Buckley J. In re ROMAIN - - - [1903] 1 Ch. 702 Withernsea Brieltworhs, In re, (1880) 16 Ch. D. 337. Referred to by Wright J. In re National United Investment Cor- poration - [1901] 1 Ch. 950, 953 cdlxiv TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &C., Withers y. Farkei; (1859) 28 L. J. (Ex.) 292 ; on appeal, (1860) 29 L. J. (Ex.) 320. Dicta in, approved and applied by Far- well J. In re Nbwen [1903] 1 Ch. 812 Withitigton Local Board of Health t. Manchester Corporation, [1893] 2 Ch. 19. See Isolation Hospitals Act, 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. 8), s. 1. Wise, In re. JacUson v. Parrott, [1896] 1 Ch. 281. Not followed by Warrington J. In re Blew - [1906] 1 Ch. 624 Wolfe V. Ifattheics - (1882) 21 Ch. D. 194 Discussed by C. A. Howden r. Yohk- SHIEB MiNEES' ASSOCIATION [1903] 1 E. B. 308, 325 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 256 WoUaston v. King - (1869) L. R. 8 Eq. 165 Followed by Farwell J. In re Olivee's Settlement [1905] 1 Ch. 191 Followed by Warrington J. In re Bbale's Settlement [1905] 1 Ch. 256 Referred to by C. A. In re Nash [1910] 1 Ch. 1 Wolmershausen, In re (1890) 62 L. T. 541 See In re Emmbtt Kekewioh J. [1906] W. N. 201 WoUtanton United Urian Cmmdl t. 'lunstall Urlan Council, [1910] W. N. 144; [1910] 2 Ch. 347. An order agreed upon. C. A. [1910] W. N. 232 WohtenJiolme, In re - - (1885) 2 Morr. 216 Referred to by H. L. (E.) Clough v. Samuel - [1905] A. C. 442, 446 Wulrerhampton and WaUall Rt,. Co. y. London and North-Western Ay. Co., (1873) L. R. 16 Eq. 433, 439. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Caey-Elwes' Gonteact [1906] 2 Ch. 143 Woherhampton Co7'poration v. Enmumx, [1901] 1 K. B. 515. Referred to by Kekewioh J. Molt- NBux r. RiCHABD - [1906] 1 Ch. 34 Wolverhampton J^ew WaterworJis Co. v. Sawlces- ford, (1859) 28 L. J. (C.P.) 242, 246. Referred to by FarweU J. Stevens r. Chown - - [1901] 1 Ch. 894, 903 Wolcei'hampton New Waterworks Co. v. Hawltes- ford, (1859) 6 C. B. (N.S.) 336. Referred to by Buckley J. Att.-Gen. V. ASHBOENE RECEBATION GROUND Co. [1902] W. N. 208 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 101 Wood, In re - (1886) 32 Ch. D. 517 (Class 1) Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re Kelsey - [1905] 2 Ch. 465 Wood, In re - [1894] 3 Ch. 381, 387 Referred to by Eve J. In re Bewick. Ryle r. Ryle - [1910] W. N. 261 Wood, In re. Wood v. Wood [19011 2 Ch. 578 Reversed by C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 542 Referred to by Kekewieh J. In re Kiddle - - - [1906] W. N. 81 Wood V. ITewett - - - (1846) 8 Q. B. 913 Referred to by C. A. Philpot v. Bath [1905] W. N. 114 Wood V. Odessa Waterworks Co., (1889) 42 Ch. D. 636. Followed by C. A. Salmon v. Qdin [1909] 1 Ch. 311 : H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 442 Wood V. Saunders - (1875) L. R. 10 Ch. 582 Referred to by Kekewieh J. Milnbe's Safe Co. r. Geeat Noethben and City Ry. Co. - [1906] W. H. 163 ; C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 208 Wood V. Walsh 4- Sons - [1899] 1 Q. B. 1009 No longer law. Deedge v. Conway, Jones & Co. C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 42 Woodall, In re - (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 479, 483 Referred to by C. A. In re Bagley [1910] W. N. 1^4 Woodall V. aifton - [1904] W. N. 205 Affirmed by C. A. - [1905] 2 Ch. 257 Wood Green Vrhan Cou7teil v. Joseph, [1907] 1 K. B. 182. Affirmed on other ground by H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 419 Woodliead, In re - - - [1884] W. N. 174 Referred to by Buckley J. In re Lote- EIDGB - - [1902] 2 Ch. 859, 865 Woodroff, III re (1897) 4 Mans. 46 See In re Beindley C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 377 Dictum of Vaughan Williams J. in, at p. 49, approved of by C. A. In re Mills - - [1906] 1 K. B. 389 Woods and Lewis' Contract, In re, [1898] 1 Ch. 433 ; [1898] 2 Ch. 211. Discussed by C. A. Bennf.tt r. Stone [1903] 1 Ch. 509 Woodwavd, In re - - (1886) 30 Sol. J. 753 Explained and distinguished by C. A. In re BouENE - [1906] 1 Ch. 697 Wooldridge v. Norris - (1868) L. R. 6 Eq. 410 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. ASCHEESON r. TEEDEGAE DEY DOCK AND Whaep Co. [1909] 2 Ch. 401 Woolfe V. Automatic Picture Gallery, Ld., [1902] W. N. 137. . Affirmed by C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 18 Woolfe V. Hm-ne - - (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 355 Discussed by Div. Ct. Rainbow v. HOWKINS - - [1904] 2 K. B. 822 Woolwich (^Mayor, cfc, of), i> parte, [1908] W. N. 56. Considered by C. A. Ei- parte Geeat Westeen Ry. Co. [1909] W. N. 202 Woolwich Union v. Fulham Union, [1906] 2 K. B. 240. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) *mJ nom. Fulham Pabish v. Woolwich Union [1907] A. C. 265 World Indv-itrial Sank, Ld., In re, [1909] W. N 148. Distinguished by Neville J. In re Industeial Insurance Association, Ld. - . . [1910] W. H. 846 DURING THE YBAES 1901—1910, cdlxV Woniiald V. Mu:een - - (1881) 17 Ch. D. 167 Was reversed by (J. A. [1881] W. N. 83 ; 60 L. J. (Ch.) 776 ; 46 I. T. (ir.S.) 116 ; 29 W. E. 798 Worms V. . Midland Ry. Co. [1905] 1 K. B. 638 WrigM ^Sir Benjamin'), Ex parte, (1683) 1 Vern. 155. Considered by C. A. In re Walker [1906] 1 Ch. 160 Wri^Mson, In re - - - [1904] 2 Cb. 95 Examined by Parker J. White v. Summers - - [1908] 2 Ch. 256 Wrigley v. Bayley and Wright and Whittaher ^• Sons, [1902] 1 K. B. 780. Affirmed by H. L. (E.), sub mm. Wrig- ley V. Whittaker & Sons [1902] A. C. 299 Referred to by C. A. Willmott v. Paton - - [1902] 1 K. B. 237, 240 Referred to by Ct. of Sess. (Sc), Dempster v. Hunter & Sons [1903] W. N. 163 Wrigley v. Gill ■ ■ [1905] 1 Ch. 241 Affirmed by C. A. - [1906] 1 Ch. 166 Followed by Joyce J, Ainswoeth v. Wilding - - [1905] 1 Ch. 436 D.D, Wyatt, III the Goods of - ■ [1898] P. 15 Discussed by Gorell Barnes P. In the Estate op Harvey - [1907] P. 239 Wye Valley My. Co. v. Mawe^, (1880) 16 Ch. D. 489. Commented upon by Joyce J. FuB- NESS, Withy & Co. v. Pickering [1908] 2 Ch. 224 Wyllie V. HarrUon, (1885) 23 S. L. E, 62 ; 13 E. 92. See The " Aenb " Div. Ct. [1904] P. 164, 157 Wyman v. Knight - • (1888) 39 Cb. D. 165 See Savage v. Bbntlby Farwell J. [1904] W. N. 89 Wynne v. Wynne - - (1898) 78 L. T. 796 Distinguished by Jeune P. Walpole „. Walpole - - [1901] P. 196 Wynne-Finch v. Cliaytor - [1903] 2 Ch. 475 Referred to by C. A. Eraser ■». Frasbb - [1906] IK. B. 368 Wyoming Syndicate, In re Estate of, [1901] 2 Ch. 431. Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. BoscHOEK Proprietary Co. v. Fuke [1906] 1 Ch. 148 Wytlien, In re. West v. Wytlwis, [1893] 2 Ch. 369. See In re Wythes' Settled Estates Eve J. [1908] 1 Ch. 593 See In re Paddon - 'Warringtou J. [1909] W. N. 162 X, In re - ■ - _ - [1894] 2 Ch. 415 Discussed by C. A. In re A. [1904] 2 Ch. 328, 337 Discussed by C. A. In re S. S. B. [1906] 1 Ch. 712 Yangtsze Insurance Aisociation v. Indemnity Mutual iVarine Assurance Co., [1908] 1 K. B. 910. Affirmed by C. A. - [1908] 2 K. B. 504 Yate Collieries and lAmeworhs Co., In re, [1883] W. N. 171. See In re World Industetal Bank, Ld. - Neville J. [1909] W. N. 148 Yates y. Evans - - (1892) L. J. (Q.B.) 446 Approved by C. A. KlEDWOOD v. Carroll - [1903] 1 K. B. 631 Yates V. Jach - (1865) L. R. 1 Ch. 295 Referred to by Farwell J. Higgins v. Betts - [1806] 2 Ch. 10 Yates V. Terry - - ■ [1901] 1 K. B. 102 Reversed by C. A. - [1902] 1 K. B. 627 Yates V. Yates ■ ■ (1860) 28 Beav. 637 Followed by Swinfen Eady J. In re DAWSON - - [1906] 2 Ch. 211 " Ydun," The ■ - [1899] P. 236 Followed by Ohannell J. Parker v. London County Council [1904] 2 K. B. 601 Followed by C. A. Lyles v. Southehd- on-Sea Corporation [1908] 2 K. B. 1 cells TABLE OF CASES EOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c. Yeap Cheali JVeo v. Oni/ Cheng Neo, (1875) L. R. 6 P. C. 381, 392. See In re SlNCLAIE Swinfea Eady J. [1903] W. N. 113 Yeioens v. Noakei - (1880) 50 L. J. (Q.B.) 132 Considered by C. A. London County Council r. South Metropolitan Gas Co. - - - - [1904] 1 Ch. 76 Yielding and Westirook, In re, (1886) 31 Ch. D. 34;4. See In re Furnkaux and Aied's Contract - Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 215 Yolland, Husaon Sj' Birliett, Ld., In re. Leicester T. Yolland, Hnsson <|" Sirliett, Ld., [1907] 2 Ch. 471. Affirmed by C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 162 Applied by Swinfeu Eady J. CuNARD Stkamship Co. r. Hopwood [1908] 2 Ch. 664 Yorkshire Miners' Association v. Hoioden, [1903] 1 K. B. 308. Affirmed (with a variation) by H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 266 See Cope c. Crosbingham C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 148, 160, 167 Yorkshire Provident Life Assurance Co. v. GiUert, [1895] 2 Q. B. 148. Discussed and followed by C. A. Arnold & Butler ». Bottomlby [1908] 2 K. B. 161 Yorkshire Railway Wagon Co.y. Maclwre, (1882) 21 Ch. D. 309, 3U. Applied by Swinfen Eady J. In re Liskbaed and Caeadon Ry. Co. [1903] 2 Ch. 681 Yorkshire (West Riding of) Rivers Board t. Scarr End Mill Co., (1901) 65 J. P. 776. Overruled by C. A. West Riding of YoEKSHiEB Rivers Boaed v. Robin- son Beos. - [1907] 1 K. B. 431 YouTig V. Ashley Gai'dens Properties, Ld., [1903] 2Ch. 112. Referred to by Eve J. Evans v. Levy [1910] 1 Ch. 462 Yonng v. Kingston-on-Thames, Sm-iiton, New Maiden, and Cooinbe Joint JBurials Committee, [1906] 1 K. B. 338. Affirmed, but on difierent grounds, by C. A. - [1907] 1 K. B. 416 Young v. Southviark and Vatij:hall Water Co., (1893) 69 L. T. 144. Referred to by Div. Ct. Grand Junction Waterworks Co. v. Rodo- CANACHi [1904] 2 K. B. 230, 239 Yomigy.Tlwmas ■ ■ [1892] 2 Ch. 134 Sf-e Dykes h. Thomson Hamilton J. [1909] W. N. 104 Yowng v. Turing (18*1) 2 Man. & G. .593 Dictum in, at p. 601, not followed by C. A. Angel v. Merchants' Marine Co. - - - [1903] 1 K. B. 811 YouTig and Sarston's Contract, In re, (1885) 31 Ch. D. 168, 174. Referred to by 0. A. Bennett «. Stone [1903] 1 Ch. 509 Discussed by Parker J. In re Bayley- Worthington and Cohen's Con- tract [1909] 1 Ch. 648 Young, Hamilton S; Co., In re. Ex parte Carter, [1905] W. JN. 95 ; [1905] 2 K.B. 381. Affirmed by C. A. mb nom. In re Hamilton, Toung & Co. Ex parte CASTER - - [1906] 2 K. B. 772 Young's Trustees y. Young's Trustees, (1900) 3 F. 274 ; 38 S. L. E. 209. Affirmed by H.L. (Sc.) sub nom. BlAlR V. Duncan [1902] A. C. 37 Ystradyfodwg and Pontypridd Main Sewerage Board y. Newpott Assessment Committee, [1900] 1 Q. B. 365. Affirmed by C. A. - [1901] 1 K. B. 406 See Ystradyfodwg and Pontypridd Main Sewerage Board v. Bensted Walton J. [1906] 1 K.B. 294 Ystradyfodwg and Pontypridd Main Sewerage ■ Board v. Bensted, [1906] 1 K. B. 294. Affirmed by C. A. - [1907] 1 K. B. 490 Decision of C. A. - [1907] 1 K. B. 490 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 264 Yuill * Co. V. Scott Robson - [1907] 1 K. B. 685 Affirmed by C. A. - [1908] 1 K. B. 270 Yuill's Trustee v. Tlwmson - (1902) 4 F. 815 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) Macculloch t\ Anderson - - [1904] A. C. 56 Yzquicrdo y Castaneda v. ClydebanJt, Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., (1901) 4 F. 319. Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 168 ; [1902] A. 0. 624 Yzquierdo y Castaneda v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., (1901) 5 F. 1016. Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. Clyde- bank Bngineeeing and Shipbuild- ing Co. v. Yzquibedo y Castaneda [1904] -W. N. 192 1 [1906] A. C. 6 " Zanzibar," The - - [1892] P. 233 Followed and applied by Gorell Barnes J. The " Cordilleras " [1904] P. 90 " Zeta," The - . . . [1893] A. C. 468 Referred to by Div. Ct. The " NoE- manby" - - [1904] P. 187, 196 Zick V. London United Tramways, Ld., [19081 1 K. B. 611. ■' '■ -' Affii-med by C. A. - [1908] 2 K. B. 126 ( cdlxvii ) STATUTES ENACTED DUEING THE YEAES 1901-1910. SESSION 1901—1 EDW. 7. Chap. TITLE. Date of Eoyal Assent. When Act to come into Operation. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 25 Cintsolidated Fitnd Act (J\"(i. 1), 1901 Army (Annued) Act, 1901 Purchase of Land (^Irelaiid) Act, 1901 Civil List Act, 1901 .... Demise oftlie Crown Act, 1901 . . . Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1901 Finance Act, 1901 ....;; Isolation Hospitals Act, 1901 .... Education, (Scotland) Act, 1901 Larceny Act, 1901 Education Act, 1901 ..... Loim Act, 1901 Agricultm'al Rates Act, 1896, Cowtimianoe Act, 1901. Militia and Yeomanry Act, 1901 . . . Royal Titles Act, 1901 National Gallery {Purclmse of Adjacent Land), Act, 1901. Lunacy (Ireland) Act, 1901 Patents Act, 1901 . Public lAhraries Act, 1901 Youthful Offenders Act, 1901 . Appropriation Act, 1901 . Factory and Worhshop Act, 1901 Marriages Legalization Act, 1901 Burgh Sewerage, Drainage, and Water Supply (Scotland) Act, 1901. East India Loan (Great Indian Peninsula Railway Debentures) Act, 1901. March 29 April 29 July 2 July 2 July 2 July 2 July 26 July 26 August 9 August 9 August 9 August 17 August 17 August 17 August 17 August 17 August 17 August 17 August 17 August 17 August 17 August 17 August 17 August 17 August 17 Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. As from last demise of the Crown. As from last demise of the Crown. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. January 1, 1902. Januaiy 1, 1902. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. January 1, 1902. Not specified. January 1, 1902. Not specified. January 1, 1902. Not specified. May 15, 1902, Not specified, Note. — An Act comes into operation from the commencement of the day on which it receives the Koyal Assent unless otherwise specified, except where there are conflicting rights between subject and subject, for the determination of which it is necessary to ascertain the actual priority : Tomlinson T. Bulloch, (1879) i Q. B. D. 230. Where an Act is expressed to come into operation on a particular day, the same shall be . construed as coming into operation immediately on the expiration of the preTions day : Interpretation Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63), s. 36 (2). ?? 2 cdlxviii STATUTES EKACTED Chap. TITLE. DateofEoyal Assent. Wlien Act to come into Operation. 26 Bii-tlis and Deaths Registration Act, 1901 August 17 Not specified. 27 Intoxicating Liqmrs (Sale to CMMreii) Act, 1901. August 17 January 1, 1902. 28 Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1901 . August 17 Not specified. 29 Colonial Acts Cvrifinnation Act, 1901 August 17 Not specified. 30 Purchase of Land (Ireland) (Xo. 2) Act, 1901 August 17 Not specified. 31 Pacific Cable Act, 1901 August 17 Not specified. 32 Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1901 August 17 Not specified. 33 Exjnring Laws Coniinuance Act, 1901 . August 17 Not specified. ■Si Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Act, 1901 August 17 Not specified. 35 PMic Works Loans Act, 1901 August 17 Not specified. 36 Liqht Railwag Commissioners (Salaries) Act, 1901. August 17 Not specified. 37 Valuation (Irelaibd) Act, 1901 August 17 Not specified. 38 Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1901 .... August 17 Not specified. 39 Katal Works Act, 1901 August 17 Not specified. 10 Military Works Act, 1901 .... August 17 Not specified. SESSION 1902—2 EDW. 7. 1 Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1902 Maroli 21 . Not specified. 2 Army (Annual) Act, 1902 .... April 28 . Not specified. 3 Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ire- land) Act, 1902. Juue 23 . Not specified. i Loan Act, 1902 June 23 . Not specified. 6 Rogal SVaval Reserve Act, 1902 July 22 . Not specified. 6 Wild Birds Protection Act, 1902 . July 22 . Not specified. 7 Finance Act, 1902 .... July 22 . Not specified. 8 Cremation Act, 1902 July 22 . April 1, 1903. 9 Prison Officers (Pensions) Act, 1902 July 22 . Not specified. 10 Police Reserr-ists Act, 1902 . July 22 . Not specified. 11 Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902 July 22 . Not specified. 12 British Museum Act, 1902 July 22 . Not specified. 13 Labour Bureaux (London) Act, 1902 July 22 . Not specified. 14 University of Wales Act, V:02. July 22 . Not specified. 15 Musical (Summary Proceedings) Copyright AH, 1902. July 22 . October 1, 1902. 16 Pauper Children (Ireland) Act, 1902 , July 22 . Not specified. 17 Midwifes Act, 1902 July 31 . April 1, 1903. 18 Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902 . . . . July 31 . Not specified. 19 Fducation Act, 1901 (Reneical) Act, 1902 July 31 . Not specified. 20 Public Libraries (Ireland) Act, 1902 August 8 . Not specified. 21 Shop Clubs Act, 1902 August S . January 1, 1903. 22 Public Wm-ks Loans Act, 1902 August 8 , Not specified. 23 Isle of Man (Customs) Act, VM2 . August 8 , Not specified. BDKrNG THK YEARS 1901—1910. rfllxix Chap. TITLE. Date of Royal Asseot. When Act to come into Operation. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 84 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Marine Wro2)riation Act, 1909 Public WorJis Loans Act, 1909 Labour Exchanges Act, 1909 . . . . Trawling in Prohibited Areas Precention Act, 1909. South Africa Act, 1909 Su2>erannuation Act, 1909 .... Judicature (Rule Committee') Act, 1909 . Marine Insurance (Qambliiui Policies) Act, 1909. Local Education Aiithmities (Medical Treat- ment) Act, 1909. Assistant Postmaster. General Act, W09 . Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1909 WorJtmot's Compensation (Anglo-French Con- vention) Act, 1900. Metrojwlitan Ambulances Act, \W9 . . Nacal Establishments in British Possessions Act, 1909. Colonial Naval Befence Act, 1909 . Telegraph (Arlntration) Act, 1909 . Irish Uandloom Weavers Act, 1909 . Trade Boards Act, 1909 . Board of Trade Act, 1909 Merc/ia>i.dise Marks (Ireland) Act, 1909 Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1909 . Biseases of Animals Act, 1909 . March 15 . March 30 . April 30 , May 25 , August 16 August 16 September 20 September 20 September 20 September 20 October 20 October 20 October 20 October 20 October 20 October 20 October 20 October 20 October 20 October 20 October 20 October 20 October 20 November 25 NoTember 25 November 25 Nut specified. Not specified. Not specified. On such date or dates as the Govemor- Geueral in Council, with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, may appoint. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. January 1, 1910. January 1, 1910. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. cdlxxix Ohap. TITLK. Date of Royal Assent. When Aot to come Operation, nto 27 Prisons {Scotland) Aot, 1909 .... November 25 . Not specified. 28 Summary Jurisdiction {ScotlanS) Aot, 1909 . November 25 . Not specified. 29 Education (Administrative JPromsions') Act, 1909. November 25 . Not specified. 30 Cinematograph Act, 1909 November 25 . January 1, 1910. 31 Weeds and Agricultural Seed (Ireland) Act, 1909. November 25 . January 1, 1910. 32 Health Resorts and Watering Places (Ireland) Act, 1909. November 25 . Not specified. 33 WUd Animals in Captivity Protection (Scat- land) Act, 1909. November 25 . Not specified. 34 Mectrio Lighting Act, 1909 .... November 25 . April 1, 1909. 35 Police (Liverpool Inquiry) Act, 1909 November 25 . Not specified. 36 Local Registration of Title (Ireland:) Act, 1909 November 25 . Not specified. 37 Motor Car (International Circulation) Act, 1909. November 25 . Not specified. 38 County Council Mortgages Act., 1909 November 25 . Not specified. 39 Oaths Act, 1909 November 25 . January 1, 1910. 40 Police Act, 1909 November 25 . Not specified. 41 Naval Discipline Act, 1909 .... November 25 . To come into force on such day or days not being later than January 1, 1911, as the Admiralty may appoint, and the Ad- miralty may appoint different days for different places and stations, and for different provisions of the Act. 42 Irish Land Act, 1909 ..... December 3 Not specified. 43 Revenue Act, 1909 . . December 3 Not specified. 44 Housing, Town Planning, ^'c. Act, 1909 December 3 Not specified. 45 Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1909 . . December 3 Not specified. 46 Expiring Laws Continuance Aot, 1909 . December 3 Not specified. 47 Pevelopment and Road Improvement Funds Aot, 1909. December 3 Not specified. 48 Asylums Officen-s' Superanimation Act, 1909 . December 3 April 1, 1910. 49 Assurance Companies Act, 1909 . . . December 3 July 1, 1910, e that as respects it shall come operation on the ing of the Aot, tcept s, 36 into pass- SESSION 1910—10 EDW. 7. Treasury (Temporary Borrowing) Act, 1910 War Loan (Redemption) Act, 1910 Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1910 Consolidated Fund (No, 1) Act, 1910 March 8 , March 8 . March 24 . March 24 . Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. cdlxxx STATUTES ENACTED DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910, Chap. TITLE. Date of Eoyal Assent. When Act to come into Operation. 5 6 7 8 9 East India Loam (Railways and Irngation) Act, 1910. Army (Annual) Act, 1910 Dereloptnent and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1910. Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910 .... Consolidated Fund (M. 2) Act, 1910 March 2i . April 29 . April 29 . April 29 . June 17 . Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. SESSION 1910—10 EDW. 7 & 1 GEO. 5. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Police (Scotland) Act (1890) Amendment Act, 1910. Census (Ireland) Act, 1910 Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1910 . Police Weekly Rest-Bay Act, 1910 . Appropriation Act, 1910 .... jHin£s Accidents (Rescue and Aid) Act, 1910 Buke of York's School (CJiapeT) Act, 1910 County Common Juries Act, 1910 . Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1910 . Municipal Corporations Amendment Act, 1910 Biseases of Animals Act, 1910 Public Works Loans Act, 1910 Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1910 . Companies (Cmirerted Societies) Act, 1910 Licencing (Consolidation) Act, 1910 CUldren Act (1908) Amendment Avt,\^\0 Regency Act, 1910 . . , , . Census (Great Bi-itain) Act, 1910 . Civil List Act, 1910 . . , , Accession Beclaration Act, 1910 Agiicultural Holdings (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1910. Jiiry Trials Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1910 Registration, of Births, BeatUs aiul Marriages (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1910. Hotels and Restaurants (Builin) Act, 1910 . Small Holdings Act, 1910 .... Finance Act, 1910 Ed-plring Laws Coidinnance Act, 1910 . Education (Choice of Employment) Act, 1910. Appropriation (No. 2) Act, 1910 . July 26 . January 1, 1911. July 26 . Not specified. July 26 . Not specified. July 26 . Not specified. July 26 . Not specified. August 3 . Not specified. August 3 . Not specified. August 3 . Not specified. August 3 . Not specified. August 3 . Not specified. August 3 . October 1, 1910. August 3 . Not specified. August 3 . Not specified. August 3 . Not specified. August 3 , January 1, 1911. August 3 . Not specified. August 3 ■ Not specified. August 3 . April 2, 1911. August 3 . Act to take effect as from last demise of the Crown. August 3 . Not specified. August 3 . Not specified. August 3 . Not specified. August 3 . On expiration of three months from passing. August 3 . Not specified. August 3 . Not specified. November 28 . Not specified. November 28 . Not specified. November 28 . Not specified. November 28 . Not specified. cdlxxxi ) TABLE OF STATUTES* JUDICIALLY CONSIDEEED DUKING THE YEARS 1901—1910. I. Imperial Statutes, p. cdlxxxi. II. Colonial Statutes, p. dlviii.. III. Foreign Statutes, p. dlxiv. I. IMPERIAL STATUTES. 1285. 13 Edw. 1, c. 1, Westminster II. Statute De Donis ConditionalibuB. Att.-Uen. v. Duke op Kichmond (No. 2) Bray J. [1907] 2 K. B. 940 1289—90. 18 Edw. 1, c. 1 (^Statute Quia Emptnres'), Meb- THENS V. Hill - Cozens-Hardy J. [1910] 1 Ch. 842 1455. Scots Act, 1455, 0. 44. Wbddbebuen v. Eabl of Lauderdale H. L. (So.) [1910] A. C. 342 1529. 21 Hen. 8, e. 5 (^Administration of Estates). In THE Estate of Fbost Bargrave Seane J. [1905] F. 140 1530. 22 Hen. 8, c. 5 (Bridges'). Campbell Davis V. Llojtd - C. A, [1901] 2 Ch. 618 Hebtfoedshiee County Council v. New Kivbe Co, - Swinfen Eady J. [1904] 2 Ch. 613 1633. 25 Hen. 8, o. 21 (Notaries), ss. 3, 4. In re Champion - . Ct. ol Faculties [1906] P. 86 1534. 25 Hen. 8, o. 20 (Ecclesiastical Law). Bex v. Abchbishop of Cantbbbubt SiT. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 503 25 Hen. 8, c. 21 (Notaries). Bailleau v. ViOTOEiAN Society of Notabibs (Mblbouenb Notaeies) Ct. of Faonltiee [1904] F. 180 1536. 27 Hen. 8, c. 10 (Statute of Uses), a. 1. Savill Beothbes. Ld. v. Bbthell C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 623 STATVT^S— continued. 1540. 32 Hen. 8, o. 1 (Statute of Devises). In re Bolton Estatks C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 461 32 Hen. 8, c. 34 (Covenants). Manchestbe Beewbey Co. v. Coombs Far well J. [1901] 2 Ch. 608 Woodall v. Clifton C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 267 as. 1, 2. MuLLEB V. Teafpoed FarwellJ. [1901] 1 Ch. 64 Stuet v. Joy C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 362 1542-3. 34 & 35 Hen. 8, c. 20 (Fines and Becoveries), s. 2. Eobinson v. Gippaed Farwell J. [1903] 1 Ch. 865 Att.-Gen. v. Duke of Biohmono (No. 2) - Bray J. [1907] 2 K. B. 940 1547. Bex ». DiBDiN C. A. [1910] F. 67 1548. 1. St. Paul, Bow Common AND CHUECHWABDBNS) », Inhabitants of the Same Consistory Court of London [1909] F. 245 1571. c. 5 (Fraudulent Conveyances). In re Holland C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 360 Maskblynb & Cooke v. Smith C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 671 In re Slobodinsky Wright J. [1903] 2 K. B. 617 In re Reis - C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 769 Edmunds v. Edmuitds Gorrell Barnes J. [1904] F. 362 1 Edw. 6, 0. 1, s. 8. 2 & 3 Edw. 6, c (VlCAB 13 Eliz. * Note. — Statutes in this Table are sometimes referred to in the Courts below, but not on Appeal, or in the Catch-words or Headnotes to a later Beport of the Case, as to which reference can be made to the Table of Cases to this Volume at page xy., ante. D.D. A * cdlxxxii TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED STATVT:ES—co>amiied. 13 Eliz. c. 5 (_Fraud'ulent Conveyances). Ideal Bedding Co. «. Holland Kekewioh J. [1907] 2 Ch. 167 13 Eliz. c. 10 (^Eleenwsynary Corporations), s. 3. PowBR I). Banks Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] 2 Ch. 487 1573. Soottisli Act, 1573, c. 55. Dawson v. Smart H. L. (Sc) [1903] A. C. 457 Scottish Act, 1573, c. 55, as amended by the Conjugal Eights (Scotland) Act, 1&61 (24 '& 25 Vict. c. 85), s. 11. CocJHEANB V. MOKEISON H. I. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 81 1601. 43 Eliz. 0. 2 {Poor Relief), b. 5. Ebx v. Deeby- SHiEB Justices - Dlv. Ct. [19091 1 E. B. 449 S. 7. PONTTPOOL GtJAEDIANS V. Buck Div. Ct. [1906] 8 K. B. 896 Cole ■». Beown- Div. Ct. [1907] 2 E. B. 301 43 Eliz. c. 4 {Charities). In re Good Farwell J. [1906] 2 Ch. 60 1605. 3 Jac. 1, c. 18 {New River Company). Hbet- foedshiee County Council v. New EiVEE Co. Swinfeu Eady J. [1904] 2 Ch. 613 1606. 4 Jac. 1, c. 12 {New River Company). Heet- poBDSHiEE County Council v. New Swinfen Eady J. [1904] 2 Ch. 613 1623. 21 Jac. 1, c. 16 {Statute of Limitations). Hamp- stbad Coepoeation v. Caunt Wright J. [1903] 2 K. B. 1 In re Chant ■Warrington J. [1906] 2 Ch. 225 In re Bmmbtt Kekewioh J. [1906] W. N. 201 0. 14. Embeson v. Maddison P. C. [1906] A. C. 669 c. 16, s. 3. Wandsworth Union v. WOETHINGTON Farwell J. [1906] 1 K. B. 420 c. 16. Cheese t>. Keen Neville J. [1908] lCh.246 Maeeeco v. Eichaedson C. A. [1908] 2 E. B. 684 s. 2. Cheese v. Keen Neville J. [1908] 1 Ch. 246 — — s. 3. In re Balls Swjnfen Eady J. [1909] 1 Ch.791 ilAIVTEiB— continued 1660. 12 Car. 2, c. 24 {Guardians), s. 9. In re Helyab Joyce J. [1902] 1 Ch. 391 12 Car. 2 {ParisTi of St. Paul, Covent Gardeii). Lewin v. End H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 299 1662. 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 12 {Poor Relief), ss. 1, 2. Bex v. Noepolk; Justices Div. Ct. [1909] 1 E. B. 463 1670. 22 & 23 Car. 2, c. 10 {Statute of Distribidions) s. 5. In re EOBY - C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 71 1671. 22 & 23 Car. 2, c. 13 {Statute of Distributions), s. 5. In re Foed C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 605 s. 6. In re GiST. C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 280 1677. 29 Car. 2, c. 3 {Statute of Frauds). HuMBEE & Co. 1!. John Geippiths Cycle Coepoeation. H. I. (E.) [1901] W. N. no Pickles v. Sutclippe Farwell J. [1902] W. N. 200 Van Peaagh v. Everidge C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 434 s. 4. Johnson v. Beagge Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] 1 Ch. 28 Levee v. Koppler Byrne J. [1901] 1 Ch. 643 Harbueg India Eubbee Comb Co. v. Martin C. A. [1902] 1 E. B. 778 In re HOLLAND C. A. [1902] 8 Ch. 360 Smith v. Gold Coast and Ashanti EXPLOEEES Ld. Div. Ct. [1903] 1 E. B. 638 Boston v. Boston C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 124 Eeevb v. Jennings Div. Ct. [1910] 2 E. B. 522 Humphries v. Humphries C. A. [1910] 2 E. B. 631 Peestid Minees Co. v. Gaenbe, Ld. C. A. [1910] W. N. 276 29 Car. 2, c. 7 {Sunday Observance). Eex v. Halkett - Div. Ct. [1910] 1 E. B. 50 s. 6. Milch v. Frankau & Co. Div. Ct. [1909] 2K.B. 100 1690. 2 WiU. & M. c. 5 {Distress), a. 2. British MUTOSCOPB AND BlOGRAPH CO. r. Homer Farwell J, [1901] 1 Ch. 671 MooEB, Nbttlbpold & Co. V. Singer Manupaoturing Co. C. A. [1904] 1 K, B. 820 DDRING THE YEARS 1901—1910. cdlxxxiii STATUTES— co»i(/me(i. 1706. 6 Anne (Ir.) c. 2 (Registry 'Act), ss. 3, 6. FULLEETON V. PROVINCIAL BANK OF Ireland - H. L. (Ir.) [1903] A. C. 309 1709. 8 Anne, c. viii. (^Liverpool Docks), s. 3. The " Mbbcedbs de Larinaga " Goiell Barnes J. [1904] F. 216 8 Anne, c. 18 (Zandlord and lenant) s. 1. Cox v. Harper - C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 480 1710. 9 Anne, c. 14 ^Gaming), s. 1. MouLis v. Owen C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 746 Htams v. Stuart King C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 696 1720. 6 Geo. 1, c. 29 (Aavigation of River Ouse). Simpson v. Att.-Gen. H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 476 1724. 11 Geo. 1, c. 26 (Rogue Money), s. 12. Lanark County Council v. Hart H. L. (Bo.) [1904] A. C. 235 1780. 4 Geo. 2, c. 28 (^Landlord and Tenant), s. 5. Lewis v. Baker Swinfen Eady J. [1905] 1 Ch. 46 1735. 9 Geo. 2, c. 36 (^CharitaMe Uses), s. 3. In re Delant - Farwell J. [1902] 2 Ch. 642 1736. 9 Geo. 2, 0. 36 (Mortmain). In re Hoyles Eow V. Jagg - C. A. [1910] W. N. 275 1743. 17 Geo. 2, c. 38 (Poor Relief), ». 4. London AND India Docks Co. «. Borough of Woolwich Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 750 Imperial and Grand Hotels Co. v. Christchuech Guardians C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 239 Eex v. Yorkshire (West Riding of) Justices - C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 635 1756. 30 Geo 2, 0. x. (Private), So. 34. Att.-Gkn. V. Duke of Richmond (No. 2) Bray J. [1907] 2 K. B. 940 1757. 31 Geo. 2, c. 32 (Inclosure Act). Bishop Auck- LAiro Industrial Co-operative So- ciety, Ld. v. Buttbrknowle Col- LIBBY Co. - C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 419 Btk.tM'i^i—contimi.ed. 1766. 7 Geo. 3, c. 87 (Local), s. 51. SlON College v. London Corporation C. A. 1901] 1 K. B. 617 Eex k. City of London Assessment Committee - C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 765 1774. 14 Geo. 3, c. 48 (Life Assurance). Att.-Gen. v. Murray - C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 164 ss. 1, 2. Harse v. Pearl Life In- surance Co. C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 558 1, 3. Griffiths v. Fleming C. A, [1909] 1 K. B. 805 14 Geo. 3, c. 78 (Fires Prevention — Metropolis), s. 83. In re Quicke's Trusts Swinfen Eady J. [1908] 1 Ch. 887 1776. 17 Geo. 3, c, 53 (Clergy Residence Repair), s. 4 and Sohed. Lidbetter v. Hatch Warrington J. [1907] 1 Ch. 404 1792. 32 Geo. 3, c. 56 (Servants Cliaracters), ss. 2, 3. Eex v. Costello and Bishop C. C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 28 33 Geo. 3, c. cxxiii. (Port of Carnarvon), Assheton Smith v. Owen H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 124 1796. 36 Geo, 3, c. 52 (Legacy Duty), s. 11. Att.- Gen. V. Wade Bray J. [1910] 1 K. B. 703 — '■ s. 14. Att.-Gen. v. Bruce Div. Ct. [1901[ 2 K. B. 391 1797. 38 Geo. 3, 0. 5 (Land Tax), a. 4. Westminster Corporation v. Johnson C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 737 Newton, Chambers & Co. ■». Hall Bray J. [1907] 2 K. B. 446 1798. 38 Geo. 3, o. 5 (Land Tax), s. 25. Govebnees OF St. Thomas', St. Bartholomew's AND Bridewell Hospitals v. Hud- gell Wills J. [1901] 1 K. B. 364 39 & 40 Geo. 3, o. 43 (Public). Att.-Gen. v. Duke of Richmond (No. 2) Bray J. [1907] 2K. B. 940 39 Geo. 3, c. Ixxxiv. (Pricate). Att.-Gen. v. Duke of Richmond (No. 2) Bray J. [1907] 2 K. B. 940 39 k 40 Geo. 3, c. ciii. (Local and Personal). Att,-Gbn. v. Duke of Richmond (No, 2) - Bray J. [1907] 2 K. B. 940 h/1,2 cdlxxxiv TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED BTAtVTES—oontinued. 1800. 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 9i (^Oriminal Lunatics), a. 2. Rex v. Govbenoe op His Majesty's Peison at Stapfoed - Div. Ct. [1909] 3 K. B. 81 39 & iO Geo. 3, c. 98 (Tliellusson Act). In re GAEDINEE Buckley J. [1901] 1 Ch. 697 In re HUGHES AUD LONDON AND NoBTH Westeen Rt. Act (1865). Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 2 Ch. 642 In re Cattell - - Neville J. [1907] 1 Ch. 667 S8. 1, 2. In re Huelbatt. HupL- BATT V. HtJELBATT Warrington J. [1910] 2 Ch. 653 B. 2. In re Heathcote. Swinfen Eady J. [1904] 1 Ch. 826 In re Stephens Buckley J. [1904] 1 Ch. 322 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. xxviii. (LoeaV). Smith v. Kyn- neeslet - C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 788 1801. 41 Geo. 3, c. 79 (Notaries), s. 10. In re Champion - - Ct. of Eaoulties [1906] P. 86 41 Geo. 3, c. 90 (Crown Debts), s. 6. In re Teyon - - C. A. [1901] "W. N. 176 41 Geo. 3, c. Ixxxvi. (Newcastle Pilot Act) s. 6. The " HoLAE " Gorell BamoB J. [1901] P. 7 1801-2. 42 Geo. 3, c. 116 (Land Tax Redemption), ss. 123, 125. Skene v. Cook C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 682 1802. 42 Geo. 3, c. 119 (Gaming), s. 2. Haedwick v. Lane - Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 204 Maetin ji. Benjamin Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K. B. 64 Willis ii. Young and Stembeidge Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K. B. 448 1803. 43 Geo. 3, c. 108 (Gifts for Churches), s. 1. In re Douglas Kekewich J. [1908] 1 Ch. 279 1808. 48 Geo, 3. c. 55 (House Tax), Sohed.B. Beowne r. FuETADO - C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 723 TuENBE V. Caelton - Channell J. [1909] 1 E. B. 932 NicHOLLS V. Malim - Walton J. [1906] 1 E. B. 272 Sohed. B. Case IV. Maey Claek Home (Tbustebs op) v. Andeeson Channell J. [1904] 2 K. B. 646 WtH^'iVlSLi— continued. 1809. 49 Geo. 3, c. xxiv. (Port of CarnartoTC). AssHETON Smith v. Owen H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 124 1810. 50 Geo. 3, 0. 122 (Union and, Ch'and Junction Canal). Att.-Gen. v. Gband Junc- tion Canal Co. - Joyce J. [1909] 2 Ch. 605 1811. 51 Geo. 3, c. cl. (Parish of St. Paul, Covent Garden), s. 2. Lewin v. End H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 299 1812. 52 Geo. 3, c. 49 (Rates), ss. 3, 5. London Coe- poeation v. Netherlands Steam- boat Co. H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 263 52 Geo. 3, c. 150 (Medicines Stamp Act), Sched. Faemee v. Glyn-Jones Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 6 B. 2. KIEBY v. TAYLOB Div. Ct. [1910] 1 E. B. 629 1814. 54 Geo. 3, c. 159 (Rariours), ss. 14, 28. BuE- TON V. Hudson - Div. Ct. [1909] 2 E. B. 564 1815. 55 Geo. 3, c. 137 (Poor Belief), s. 5. Mile End GuAEDiANS V. Sims Div. Ct. [1906] 2E. B.200 55 Geo. 3, c. 184 (Stamps), Sched., Part 111., r. 2. Att.-Gen. v. Wade Bray J. [1910] 1 K. B. 703 1817. 57 Geo. 3, c. 25 (Souse Duty), s. 1. Nicholls V. Malim - - . Walton J [1906] 1 E. B. 272 57 Geo. 3, c. 93 (Distress— Costs). EoBSON r. BiGGAE - C. A. [1908] 1 E. B. 672 6. 1. Hill r. Pannipee Div. Ct. [1904] 1 E. B. 811 s. 1. Costee v. Headland H. I. (E.) [1906] A. C. 286 ■ s. 1 ; Sched. Scott r. Denton Div. Ct. [1907] 1 E. B. 456 ss. 2, 4. Rex v. Philbeick Div. Ct. [1905] 2 E. B. 108 57 Geo. 3, c. xxix. (Michael Angela Taylor's Act), B. 52. Coesellis v. London County Council C. A. [1908] lCh.13 s. 80. Wild r. Woolwich Boeough Council - C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 35 Geeen r. Hackney Coepobation Neville J. [1910] 2 Ch.'106 ss. 80, 82. Thompson r. Hammee- SMITH OOBPOEATION Buckley J. [1906] 1 Ch. 464 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. cdlxxxv &XATVTSS— continued. 57 Geo. 3, o. xxix. (Mioliael Angela Taylor' t Act), ss. 80, 96. Pescod v. Wbstminstbk COKPOKATION Swinfen Eady J. [1905] 2 Ch. 475 ss. 80, 96. DewmAN (J. L.) & Co. V. Westminster Cohporation Buckley J. [1906] 1 Ch. 464 1818. 58 Geo. 3, c. 69 (Sturges Bourne's Acf), i. 3. Rex 0. Bishop op Salisbury C. A. [19011 2 K. B. 225 1819. 59 Geo. 3, c. cxvi. (Edinburgh Water'). Clippens Oil Co. v. Edinburgh aud District Water Trustees H. 1. (Sc.) [1904] A. 0. 64 1822. 3 Geo. 4, c. 126 (Turnpike Roads). FinCHLEY Electric Light Co. v. Fiiichley Urban Council Farwell J. [1902] 1 Ch. 866 3 Geo. i, c. cvi. (^London Bread Act), s. 4. Cox V. Bleines Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 670 s. 16. Rex v. Mead Siv. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 212 1823. 4 Geo. 4, 0. 60 (Lotteries), ss. 41, 67. Hawke .. E. Hulton & Co. - Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 93 4 Geo. 4, c. exTiii. Wagstapp v. City op London Common Council Swinfen Eady J. [1908] W. N. 202 1824. 6 Geo. 4, c. 83 (Vagrancy), s. 3. Poplar Guardians v. Martin Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 728 SB. 3, 4, 5. Rex v. Johnson C. C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 439 5 Geo, 4, c. 87 (Entail Provisions Act, 1824 (Aberdeen Act), a. 1. Earl op Galloway v. Dowager Countess op Galloway H. L. (Sc.) [1904] A. C. 50 5 Geo. 4, c. cxiv. (Local Act), a. 78. Simpson t'. Teignmouth and Shaldon Bridge Co. - - C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 405 1825. 6 Geo. 4, c. 81 (Excise Licence), s. 2. TiNWELL V. Mayhook Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B 790 6 Geo. 4, c. 120 (Judicature Act of Scotland), s. 40 Butler or Black v. Pipe Coal Co. H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 194 6 Goo. 4, c. 125 (Pilotage), s. 69. The " Cayo Bonito" - - C. A. [1903] P. 203 STATUTES— co/J<«««c(?. 1827. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 17 (Distress— Costs). Hill v. Panniper Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 811 Coster v. Headland H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 286 Scott v. Denton - Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K.B.466 1828. 9 Geo. 4, c. 14 (Statute of Frauds Amendment), a. 6. Hirst v. West Riding Union Banking Co. C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 560 s. 1, In re Emmbtt - Eekewicb J. [1906] W. N. 201 Mareeco v. Richardson C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 584 9 Geo. 4, 0. 61 (Alehouses). Bex v. Howard C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 363 s. 1. Leeds Corporation v. Ryder H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 420 B. 3. Eex v. Groom Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 167 . — ■ ss. 4, 14. Wilson v. Crewe Justices C. A. [1906] IK.B. 491 ■ s. 14. Eex v. London County Justices C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 19 Tower Justices v. Chambers C. A. [1904] 2 E. B. 903 ^ s. 15. Whittuck v. Withy Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 526 s. 27. Eex v. Bath (Recorder op). Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 570 s. 29. Eex v. Warwickshire Jus- tices - Div. Ct. [1908] 2 K. B. 101 Rex v. West Biding Justices Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K, B. 646 9 Geo. 4, c. 69 (Night Poaohing), ss, 1, 9. Rex V. Lines - C. C. K. [1902] 1 K. B. 199 1829. 10 Geo. 4, c. xlviii. (Local), s. 26. Att.-Gen. v. Oxford Canal Navigation C. A. [1903] W. N. 89 10 Geo. 4, c. 50 (Crown Lands), a. 73. Liver- POOL AND North Wales Steamship Co. V. Mersey Trading Co. C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 209 1830. 11 Geo. 4, 0. 4 (Inclosure), ss. 37, 66. In re Alms Corn Charity Stirling J. [1901] 2 Ch. 760 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 40 (Executors), a. 1. In re Eoby - C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 71 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 47 (Debts Recovery), ss. 6, 8. In re Atkinson C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 307 s. 3. Wobthington & Co. Ld. v, Abbott Eve J. [1911] 1 Ch. 668 cdlxxxri TABLE OJP STATUTES JUDICIALLY COKSIDEKED STATUTES —6'u«ii«tt«a!. 11 Geo. 4 & 1 WiU. 4, c. 65 {Infaiits' Bropford Div. Ct. [1908] 1 K. B. 368 • s. 67. Att.-Gbn. o. Copeland C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 690 — s. 72. Smith v. Perry Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 262 3. 85. Rex v. Surrey Justices Div. Ct. [1908] 1 K. B. 374 ss. 84, 85. Eex v. Kent Justices ; on appeal suh nam. Tonbeidge Urban District Council v. Tonbeidge Rueal Disteict Council - Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 349 ; C. A. [1904] W. N. 208 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 378 ■ s. 89. Walker v. Yoek Coepoea- TION Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 724 ss. 94, 95. Eex v. Moesb Div. Ct. [1904] W. N. 114 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 54 (Marriage), s. 2. In re Bozzelli's Settlement Swinfen Eady J. [1902] 1 Ch. 751 1836. 6 & 7 WiU. 4, 0. 82 (Building Societies). In re iLFEACOMBB PEBMANBNT MUTUAL Benefit Building Society Wright J. [1901] 1 Ch. 102 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 37 (BreadT), s. 4. Mattinson V. Binlby - Div. Ct. [1908] 8 K. B. 634 Bailey v. Baesey Div. Ct. [1909] 2 Ch. 610 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 86 (Birtlu and Deaths Regis- tration). In the Kstate of Goodrich Jeune Pros. [1904] P. 138 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 96 (Parochial Assessments), s. 1. Waddle <). Sunderland Union C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 642 Green v. Newport Union. Stead v. Newport Union H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 36 Great Gbntbal Ry. Co. r. Banbury Union. Sheffield Union v. Great Central Ry. Co. H. E. (E.) [1909] A. C. 78 s. 6. Rex v. Tewkbsbuey Justices Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 39 Eex v. Coenwall Justices Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 178 cdlxxxviii TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDEEED STATOTES—coidmued. 1837. 1 Viet. c. 26 iWilW), ss. 1, 9, 10. Inre Babnett ■Warrington J. [1908] 1 Ch. 402 s. 6. In re Inman Swinfen Eady J. [1903] 1 Ch. 241 s. 9. Pepin ». BetjgAbb C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 24 Brown v. Skibeow Oorell Barnes 3. [1902] F. 3 33. 9, 10, 27. In raD'BsTE'8 Settle MENT Trusts Buckley J. [1903] 1 Ch. 898 In re Scholefield C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 664 s. 10. In re Walker Joyce J. [1908] 1 Ch. 660 3. 11. In re Goods of Hiscock Jenne Pres. [1901] P. 78 Gatward v. Knee Jeune Pres. [1902] P. 99 In the Goods of Scott Jenne Pres. [1903] P. 243 B. 15. Aplin v. Stone Swinfen Eady J. [1904] 1 Ch. 643 B. 20. TOOMER v. SOBINSKA Bargrave Deane J. [1907] P. 106 3. 21. In re Hat Buckley J. [1904] 1 Ch. 317 3. 23. In re Dowsett Parwell J. [1901] 1 Ch. 398 3S. 23, 24, 27. Bbddinoton v. Bau- MAlfN - H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. 13 s. 24r. In re Baeoness Llanover Farwell J. [1903] 2 Ch. 330 In re Turnbull Farwell J. [1905] 1 Ch. 726 In re Slater C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 666 In re Jameson Eve J. [1908] 2 Ch. Ill In re GiLLlNS Warrington J. [1909] 1 Ch. 346 In re James Joyce J. [1910] 1 Ch. 167 In re Evans Joyce J. [1909] 1 Ch. 784 In re Alexander C. A. [1910] W. N. 94 s. 25. Mason n. Ogdbn H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. 1 3. 27. In re Marten C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 314 In re Jacob Parker J. [1907] 1 Ch. 446 In re Salvin. Marshall v. Wolse- LEY - Buckley J. [1806] 2 Ch. 469 In re WILKINSON. THOMAS v. Wil- kinson Parker J. [1910] 2 Ch. 216 STATUTES— co?*i!;n»e(^. 1 Vict, In re Baker's c. 26 {WilW), 3. 27. Settlement Trusts Parker J. [1908] W. K. 161 s. 33. In re Peerless Byrne J. [1901] W. N. 181 In re Scott C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 228 In re Allen's Trusts Neville J. [1909] W. N. 181 1 Vict. c. 28 (Real Property LimitatioTi). LuD- BEOOK V. LUDBROOK C. A. [1901] 2 E. B. 96 1838. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 23 (Parsonages). Lidbetter v. Hatch - Warrington J. [1907] lCh.404 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106 (^Pluralities'), s. 59. KiCKAED V. Geaham Swinfen Eady J. [1910] 1 Ch. 722 s. 77. Baeeatt v. Keaens C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 604 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110 (Judgments), s. 11. AsHWOETH V. English Cahd Clothing Co. (No. 2) Joyce J. [1904] 1 Ch. 704 3. 12. Johnson o. Pickering C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 1 s. 13. Eidout v. Fowler C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 93 3. 14. Sutton r. English and Colonial Produce Co. Buckley J. [1902] 2 Ch. 602 Sbllar v. Charles Bright & Co. C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 446 BoLLAND V. Young C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 824 Ideal Bedding Co. r. Holland Kekewich J. [1907] 2 Ch. 167 S3. 14, 15. Kolchmaun v. Meurice C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 834 s. 17. AsHwoETH I'. English Card Clothing Co. (No. 2) Joyce J. [1904] 1 Ch. 704 1 & 2 Vict. xxxiv. (Private). Att.-Gen. v. Duke op Richmond (No. 2) Bray J. [1907] 2 K. B. 940 1839. 2 & 3 Vict. c. 11 (Judgments), 3. 14. MaechIO- NESS OP Huntley ii. Gaskell C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 666 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47 (Metropolitan Police), s. 48. Gordon v. Chief Commissioner op Metropolitan Police C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 1080 2 & 3 Vict. c. 71 (Metropolian Police Courts), 3. 34. Hawkb v. Mackenzie (No. 3) Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 234 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. cdlxxxix STAJVTZS— continued. 1840. 3 & 4 Vict. c. 9 (^Parliamentary Papers'), s. 3. Mangbna ■». Weiuht Fhillimore J. [1909] 2 K. B. 9S8 3 & 4 Vict. 0. 61 (Beerltouse), a. 1. Leeds COEPORATION V. RYDEB H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 420 Eex v. Walsall Justices Slv. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 210 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65 (Admiralty Court), s. 6. MOKAN, Galloway & Co. v. Dziblli Walton J. [1905] 2 K. B. 5S6 3 & 4 Vict. c. 82 (Judgiitentg), a. 1. Bollahd v. Young - C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 824 3 & 4 Vict. c. 86 (Church Discipline). Nesbitt V. Wallace - Conrt of Archee, Canterbury [1901] P. 854 Banistee v. Thompson Arches Ct. of Canterbury [1908] F. 362 3. 3. Bowman «. Lax Chancery Ct. of York [1910] 2 K. B. 300 s. 13. Bishop of St. Albans v. Fil- LINGHAM Arches Ct. of Canterbury [1906] P. 163 Bishop op Oxford v. Hbnlt Arches Ct. of Canterbury [1907] P. 88 Oxford (Bishop of) v. Hbnlt (Ko. 2) Arches Ct. of Canterbury [1909] P. 319 3 & 4 Vict. c. Ixxiii. (Musselburgh Sariour), 68. 2, 49, 76. Musselburgh Real Estate Co. ■». Musselburoh Magis- trates - H. L. (8c.) [1905] A. C. 491 3 Vict. c. IxxxTi. (Royal Mi/val Sclmol), s. 3. In re RoYAL Naval School. Sey- mour V. EoYAL Naval School. Eve J. [1910] 1 Ch. 806 1841. 4 & 5 Vict. o. 38 (School Sites), s. 2. Att.-Gen. V. Shadwbll Warrington J. [1910] 1 Ch. 92 1842. 5 Vict. c. 5 (Court of Chancery), s. 4. In re Court of Chancery Act, 1841, and Pike - Byrne J. [1902] W. N. 42 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35 (Income Tax), ss. 40, 43, Sched. D. Glamorgan Quarter Sessions v. Wilson - Bray J. [1910] 1 K. B. 725 ss. 40, 54, 60. Sched. A. No. III., r. 3. Ashton Gas Co. v. Att.-Gen. H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 10 ss. 40, 163, 168, 192. Curtis v. Old Monkland Consbevativb Associa- tion - H. 1. (Sc.) [1906] A. C. 86 S3. 52, 55. Att.-Gen. v. Till H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 50 B. 60, Sched, A, rr. 1, 3. Ysteadypodwg AND Pontypridd Main Sewerage Board v. Bensted H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 264 STA.TVT'ES— continued. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35 (Income Tax), s. 60, Sched. A, No. IV., r. 9. Hancock v. Gillaed Bigham J. [1907] 1 K. B. 47 s. 60, No. 4, r. 10. Att.-Gen. v. London County Council H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 131 3. 60, Rule No. 1. Turner v. Caelton Channell J. [1909] 1 K. B. 932 3. 61, r. 6. Mary Claek Home (Trustees op) v. Anderson Channell J. [1904] 2 K. B. 646 a. 61, r. 6 ; s. 88, r. 3 ; s. 105. Rex v. Commissioners for Special Pur- poses op Income Tax C. A. [1909] W. N. 57 s. 100 ; Cases 1 and 2, r. 1 ; Sched. D. Smith v. Lion Brewery Co. C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 912 Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds, Ld. V. Fowler - Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 713 Sched. D, Case 1, r. 1. Merchiston Steamship Co., Ld. ■». Turner Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 923 3. 100. Sched. D. Southwell v. Savill Brothers, Ld. Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 349 Sched. D. s. 102. Edinburgh Life Assurance' Co. ■». Lord Advocate H. L. (So.) [1910] A. C. 143 B. 100, Sched. D., Fourth Case. Gees- ham Life Assurance Society, Ld. v. Bishop - H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 287 Standard Life Assueance Co. v. Allan - (1901) Ct. of Sesi. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 176 a. 100, Sched. D., Case 4. Scottish Provident Institution v. Allan H. L. (Sc.) [1901] Ct. of Sesi. (So.) [1902] W. N. 182 ; [1903] A. C. 129 Sched. D., J'irst Case, r. 1. Strong & Co. of Romsey, Ld. v. Woodifield H. L. (B.) [1906] A. C. 448 Sched. D., First Case, r. 3, s. 159. Alianza Co. «. Bell H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 18 First and Second Cases, r. 4 ; First Case, r. 1. Bell v. National Pro- vincial Bank of Ek gland Ridley J. [1903] 2 K. B. 249 . First and Second Cases, r. 4. Bell 1). National Provincial Bank of England, Ld. C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 149 s. 102. Chadwick ■». Pearl Life Insurance Co. Walton J. [1905] 2 K. B. 607 ss. 102, 103. In re Baeey's Trusts. C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 368 ss. 106, 108, 111—117. Rex v. General Commes. of Taxes foe the Disteict op Clebkenwell C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 879 cdxc TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED STATUTES— coiiiinued. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35 (^Income Tax), s. 146. Gbant ■0. LANGSTON Ct. of SesB. (Sc.) [1901] W. N. 186 HUBBET v. MCQUADE C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 631 Sched. E. Hudson v. Ghibble C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 617 Sched. E, rr. 1 — 4. Blakiston «. COOPEK - H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 104 8. 163. Mtlam v. Maeket Hae- BOEOITGH ADVBETISEE CO. C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 708 Scheds. C. and D. Seceetaet op State in Council foe India v. Scoblb H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. 299 Kodak, Ld. ®. Clabk C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 605 East India Ky. Co. v. Seceetaet of State in Council op India 0. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 413 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45 {Copyrighf). TATE ii. FuLL- BEOOK - ■ C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 821 '■ s. 2. Davis v. Benjamin Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 2 Ch. 491 ss. 2, 13, 14. In re Jude's Musical Compositions - C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 651 ■ ss. 2, 3, 18. Laweence & Bullen, Ld. 1). Aflalo H. 1. (E.) [1904] A. C. 17 Bs. 2, 18. Waed, Lock & Co. v. Long Kekewich J. [1906] 2 Ch. 550 ■ s. 3. Macmillan v. Dent C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 107 ss. 11, 20. Saepy v. Holland Neville J. [1908] 1 Ch. 443 ; C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 198 ■ s. 15. Kelly's Dieectoeibs, Ld. ». Gavin and Lloyds C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 631 5 & 6 Vict. c. 47 {Cudoms), s. 59. Goldsmith's Go. 1). Wyatt - C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 95 5 & 6 Vict. c. 55 (^Bailicai/s Regalathni), s. 12. Lakcashiee Beick and Teeea Cotta Co. V. Lancashieb and Yoekshieb Ry. Co. C, a. [1902] 1 K. B. 658 5 & 6 Vict. c. 94 {Defence), s, 19. Blundbll v. Rex - Ridley J. [1905] 1 K. B. 516 1843. 6 & 7 Vict. u. 18 {Parliamentary SegixtratUm), ss. 38, 39. Majoe «i. Shbbwsbuky Town Clbek Div. Ct, [1909] 1 K. B. 348 s. 65. Stoeey v. Beemondsby Town Clbek - C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 203 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73 {Sulicitorii), s. 2 In re AlNS- woeth Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 103 ss. 23, 24. In re A SOLICITOE C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 128 s. 32. In re BUETON AND BLINKHOEN Div. ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 300 STATUTES— cff/rfiwiie^. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 78 {SolioUors). s. 37. In the Mattbe op Baker, Lees & Co. C. A. [190S] 1 K. B, 189 In re FanshAWB Buckley J. [1908] W. N. 64 In re Geant, Bulceaig & Co. Farwell J. [1906] W. N. 174 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 124 LUMSDEN V, Shipcotb Land Co. C. A. [1906] 2 K, B. 433 In re Blaie and Gieling C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 131 Cobbett v. "Wood C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 420 Sadd v. Geippin C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 510 In re Beockman C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 170 In re Wilde NevUle J. [1910] 1 Ch. 100 In re Stead - C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 713 SB. 37, 38. In re Meecantile Lighterage Co. ■Warrington J. [1906] 1 Ch, 491 ss. 37, 38, 39. In re Kinodon and Wilson C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 242 ss. 37 — 41. In re Welboene C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 312 In re Van Laun Bigham J. [1907] 1 K. B. 165 s. 38. In re Geat Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] 1 Ch. 239 In re Longbotham & Sons C. A, [1904] 2 Ch, 152 In re Cohen & Cohen C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 137 HiEST & Capes v. Fox H. 1,. (E.) [1908] A. C. 416 ss. 38, 41. In re Collybe-Beistow & Co. C. a. [1901] 2 K. B, 839 s. 39. In re Milbb Swinfen-Eady J. [1903] 2 Ch. 518 In re Jones & Eveeett Buckley J. [1904] 2 Ch. 363 ss. 39, 41. Ill re Hudson Kekewich J. [1904] "W. N. 32 s. 41. In re TWEBDIE, SOLICITOES Eve J. [1909] W. N. 110 In re Massey Joyce J. [1909] W. N. 211 6 & 7 Vict. c. 86 {Louflon Hackney Carriages), ss. 2, 28, 35. Gates v. R. Bill & Son C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 38 s. 29. Willingdalb v. Noeeis Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 57 6 & 7 Vict. c. 90 {Public Xotaries), 6. 9. In re Champion Ct. of Faculties [1906] P. 86 DURING I'fiE YEAllS 1901—1910. odxci STAIVTES—coittimied. 6 & 7 Vict. c. Ixxxix. (Edinhurgh Water Co.). Clippens Oil Co. v. Edinburgh and District Water Trustees H. L. (Sc.) [1904] A. C. 64 1844. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12 (^Interiiational Coj)yri^iht'), ss. 5, 6. Sakpy v. Holland Neville J. [1908] 1 Ch. 443 ; C. A. [1908] 2 Cli. 198 7 &: 8 Vict. c. 96 (Execution), ». 61. Woodham Smith v. Edwards C. A. [1908] 2. K. B. 899 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101 iPom- Law), s. 35. Kex. ■». Carson Roberts C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 407 ss. 42, 43, 45. MORTON v. BANK OP England Farrell J. [1904] 1 Ch. 664 s. 64. Local Government Board ■0. South Stoneham Union H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 57 1845. 8 & 9 Vict. c. IC (Companies Clauses Consolida- tion), s. 10. Davies v. Gas Light AND Coke Co. . C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 708 s. 90. Thairlwall ■». Great Northern Ry. Co. Liv. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 809 s. 120. In re Accrington Corpora- tion Steam Tramways Co. Swinfen Eady J. [1909] 2 Ch. 40 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18 [Lands Clauses), s. 7. Tn re Babrow-in-Furness Corporation AND RAWLINSON'S CONTRACT Kekewich J. [1903] 1 Ch. 339 In re S. S. B. - C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 712 13, 127, 128. In re SOUTH-EASTERN Ry. Co. and Wifpin's Contract Neville J. [1907] 2 Ch. 366 s. 18. ZicK V. London United Tramways, Ld. C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 126 ss. 18, 68. EscoTT V. Newport Corporation Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 369 Mekcee 11. Liverpool, St. Helens AND South Lancashire Ry. Co. H. I. (E.) [1904] A. C. 461 ss. 18, 92. AsHTON Vale Iron Co. v. Bristol Corporation C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 591 s. 34. London ajto North Western Ry. Co. v. Walker H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. 289 Fisher v. Great Western Ey. Co. Phillimore J. [1910] 2 K. B. 262 ss. 38, 51. Rex v. High Bailiff of Westminster Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 189 STATUTES— co?j«rmerf. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18 (Lands Clauses), s. 52. Coving- ton V. Metropolitan District Ry. Co. Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 231 s. 63. City and South London Ry- Co. r. United Parishes of St. Maey WOOLNOTH AND St. MABY WOOL- church Haw - H. L. (K.) [1905] A. C. 1 s. 68. In re Masters and Great Western Ey. Co. C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 84 Long Eatcw Recreation Ground Co. v. Midland Ry. Co. C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 874 Frank Ware & Co. v. London County Council C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 713 Dawson v. Great Northern and City Ry. Co. - C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 260 Piggott v. Middlesex County Council - Eve J. [1909] 1 Ch. 134 s. 69. In re Sheffield Corpora- tion AND Trustees of St. William's Roman Catholic Chapel and Schools, Sheffield Byrne J. [1903] 1 Ch. 208 Ex parte WooLWicH Corporation Warrington J. [1908] W. N. 56 E.e parte Great Western Ry. Co. C. A. [1909] W. N. 202 ss. 69, 76, 80. In re Leeds Grammar School Cozens-Hardy Z. [1901] 1 Ch. 228 ss. 69, 80. In re Magdalen Col- lege, Oxford Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] 2 Ch. 786 ss. 70, 80. In re GaseLee Buckley J. [1901] 1 Ch, 923 s. 73. In re Saunderton Glebe Lands - Farwell J. [1903] 1 Ch. 480 ss. 75, 81, 82. In re Caey-Elwes' Oo^TR. A OX Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 2 Ch. 143 ■ ss. 76, 80. In re Jacobs Warrington J. [1908] 2 Ch. 691 s. 79. In re Harris Joyce J. [1901] 1 Ch. 931 In re Haeeis Eve J. [1909] W. N. 181 s. 80. Ex parte Teustees of Thavib's Estate Earwell J. [1905] 1 Ch. 403 In re Glark Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 1 Ch. 616 In re Wood Green Gospel Hall Charity Warrington J. [1909] 1 Ch. 263 In re Lynn and Pakenham Railway (Extension) Act, 1880 Parker J. [1909] W. N. 24 In re Hood and In re West Ham Corporation Act, 1902 Neville J. [1910] W. N. 80 cJxcii TABLE OF STATUTES JL'DICIALLY COXSIDERED aiAIVTES— continued. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18 (Lands Clauses'), a. 82. In re London United Tramways Act, 1900 Swinfea Xady J. [1906] 1 Ch. 534 In re Elbmbntasy EDUCATION Acts, 1870 Airo 1873 C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 85 ss. 82, 83. In re Thames Tunnel (EOTHEEHITHE AND RATCLIPP) ACT, 1900 - - C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 493 In re County of Middlesex Light Railways Order, 1903 Swinfen Eady J. [1908] W. K. 167 s. 85. River Roden Co. v. Barking Town URBAir District Council C. A. [1902] W. ». 103 S3. 85, 86, 87, 184. Ex parte MID- LAND Ey. Co. C. a. [1904] 1 Ch. 61 ss. 95, 96, 97. LORD Lbconfield c London and North Western Rr. Co. Swinfen Eady J. [1907] 1 K. B. 38 In re DuKB op Northumberland and Tynkmouth Corporation Phillimore J. [1909] 2 K. B. 374 ss. 102, 103. Salmon r. Edwards Warrington J. [1910] 1 Ch. 553 s. 104. Richards v. Db Winton C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 507 ■ s. 121. Great Northern and City Ry. Co. ■!>. Tillett Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K B. 874 s. 133. Islington Borough Coun- cil !•. London School Board C. A. [1903] 2 E. B. 364 8 & 9 Vict. c. 19 {Lands Clauses — Scotland), ss. 117, 119. Caledonian Ry. Co. v. Davidson - H. L. (Sc.) [1903] A. C. 22 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20 {Railways Clauses'), ss. 6, 16, 77 — 79. Thompson v. Hickmau NeviUe J. [1907] 1 Ch. 550 . s. 15. Cardiff Ry. Co. i'. Taff Vale Ry. Co. Farwell J. [1906] 2 Ch. 289 s. 16. West Lancashire Rural Council v. Lancashire and York- shire Ry. Co. ■Wright J. [1903] 2 K. B. 394 ss. 16, 45. Lewis and Solome v. Charing Cross, Euston and Hamp- STEAD Ry. Co. Warrington J. [1906] 1 Ch. 608 ss. 16, 68—76. Great Western Ry. Co. D. Talbot - C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 759 s. 45. In re SOUTH EASTERN Ry. Co. AND WippiN's Contract Neville J. [1907] 2 Ch. 366 ■ s. 47. Parkinson r. Garstang and Knott End Ry. Co. Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 615 ss. 60, 51. Ehondda Urban Coun- cil !'. Taff Vale Ry. Co. H. 1. CE.) [1909] A. C. 263 STATUTES— ci/rtiifttterf. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20 {Railways Clauses), s. 68. Tapf Vale Ry. Co. v. Gordon Cabining Swinfen Eady J. [1909] 2 Ch. 48 s. 71. South Eastern Ry. Co. r. Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900), Ld. 0. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 12 — s. 76. Lancashire Brick and Terra COTTA Co. r. Lancashire A^'D York- shire Ry. Co. - C. A. [1902] 1 K.B.661 ss. 77, 78. Great Western By. Co. f. Blades - Buckley J. [1901] 2Ch.624 Great Western Ry. Co. r. Carpalla United China Clay Co. H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 83 North British Ry. Co. v. Budhill Coal and Sandstone Co. H. L. (Sc.) [1910] A. C. 116 ss. 77, 78, 79. In re TODD, BlBLE- STON & Co. ANT) XOETH EASTERN Ry. Co. - - [1903] 1 X. B. 603 9s. 77 to 85. London and North Western Ry. Co. v. Howley Park Coal and Cannel Co. - Eve J. [1910] W. S. 163 • s. 78. In re Richard and Great Western Rt. Co. Eden v. North Eastern Ry. Co. H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 400 Rugby Poetlant) Cement Co. v. LoNDo:& AND North Western Ry. Bray J. [1908] 1K.B.925 ss. 78, 79. Great Northern Et. Co. V. Inland Revenue Commrs. C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 416 s. 87. Great Western Ry. Co. v. Barry Ry. Co. C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 670 s. 90. Anderson v. Midland Et. Co. - Buckley J. [1902] 1 Ch. 369 Stone k. Co. i. Midlan-d Rt. Co. C. A. [1904] 1 S. B. 669 Taylor v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 55 ss. 98, 99. Babe, Moering & Co. v. L0NT50N AND NORTH WESTERN RY. CO. Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 118 B. 114. LoNT)ON County Council i. Great Eastern Ry. Co. Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 312 s. 140. Rex c. Hutton Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 578 ss. 14u, 14.">, Blackburn Coepora- TioN r. Sanderson C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 794 8 & 9 Vict. c. 33 {Railways Clauses Conwlida- fion — Scotland:), s. 39. CALEDONIAN Ry. Co. c-. Glasgow Corporation H. L. (Sc.) [1909] A. C. 188 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. cdxoiii STATUTES— eo«««aed. 8 & 9 Viot. 0. 33 [Mailways Clauses Oonsolida- tion — Scotland), ss. 70, 71. North Bbitish Rt. Co. v. Bitdhill Coal AND Sandstone Co. H. L. (Sc.) [1910] A. C. 116 8 & 9 Viot. c. 76 (Revenue), s. 4. Att.-Gen. v. Wade - Bray J. [1910] 1 K. B. 703 8 & 9 Vict. 0. 106 (jReal Property), s. 5. FOBSTBB V. ELVET COLLIEEY CO. C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 629 Dyson ■». Foestee ; Dyson v. Seed, QniNN, MOEGAN, &C. H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 98 8 & 9 Viot. c. 109 i Gaming). Saffbey v. Mayee C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 11 s. 18. Hyams ■». Stuaet Kino C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 696 8 & 9 Vict. c. 117 (Poor Removal), s. 2. Local GOVEENMBNT BOAED OF lEELAND 1J. Blackbden Guabdians Siv. Ct. [1909] 1 E. B. 464 8 & 9 Vict. c. 118 (Inolosure), s. 68. Ebyuolds ■!). Babnes - Parker J. [1909] 2Ch. 361 1846. 9 & 10 Vict. u. 20 (Parliamemtary Deposits), s. 3. M re TOEBINGTON AUD Okehampton Ry. Bill - Neville J. [1907] 1 Ch. 186 B. 5. In re Cbntbal London Rail- way Bill (1901) - Byrne J. [1901] W. N. 177 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66 (Poor Retmval), s. 1. Oems- KiBK Union v. Choblton Union C. A. [190S] 2 K. B. 498 Tevtxesbuet Union v. Biemingham Union - Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 896 ss. 1, 3. FULHAM PABISH V. WOOL- wiCH Union . H. I. (E.) [1907] A C. 266 Kingston - upon - Hull Incoepoba TION FOE the PoOE V. HACKNEY Guabdians - Div. Ct. [1910] W. 11.246 9 & 10 Viot. 0. 93 (Fatal Accidents). Davidsson V. Hill Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 606 Claek v. London Genbeal Omnibus Co. - - C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 648 s. 1. Williams v. Mbbsby Docks AND HABBOUE BOAED 0. A. [1906] 1 E. B. 804 — ■- s. 3. The " Alma." Jenne Fres. [1903] F. 66 1847. 10 & 11 Vict. c. 15 (Gasworks Clauses), ss. 6 — 12, 13, 14, 18 — 20, Att.-Gen«. Leicestee COBPOEATION - Neville J. [1910] 2 Ch. 359 s. 16. Cannon Beeweby Co. ■». Gas Light and Coke Co. H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 331 STATUTES— oo« . Dick Kerr & Co. Warrington J. [1905] 1 K. B. 562 s. 28. Dublin United Tramways Co. I'. Fitzgerald H. L. (Ir.) [1903] A. C. 99 Acton Disteict Couxcil t: Loxtjon United Tramways Div. Ct. [1908] W. N. 216 ; [1909] 1 E. B. 68 ss. 28, 29. Barnbtt v. Poplar Coe- poeation Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 319 s. 30, sub-s. 1. Hastings Tramways Co. v. Hastings and St. Leonards Gas Co. C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 578 — sub-ss. 2, 5. In re Bristol Gas Co. AND Bristol Tramways and Car- riage Co. C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 114 s. 33. Norwich Corporation r. Norwich Electeic Teamways Co. C. A. [1906] 2K. B. 119 sa. 34, 35, 54. ECCLES COEPOEA- TION r. South Lancashire Tram- ways Co. - C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 263 s. 43. London, Deptpord and Greenwich Tramways Co. r. London County Council Bray J. [1906] 1 K. B. 316 DUEING THE YEARS 1901—1910. dvii STATUTES— co«!' t n iied. 33 & 34:i Vict. c. 78 (Tramways), s. 43. Man- chester Caeeiage and Teamwats Go. C. SWINTON AND PENDLEBUEY Urban Council H. L. CE.) [1906] A. C. 277 s. 46. Gbntel v. Raaps Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 160 33 & 34 Vict. c. 93 {Married Women's Property'), s. 10. In re Geifpith's Policy Joyce J. [1903] 1 Ch. 739 Caetweight v. Caetweight C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 306 In re Paekee's Policies Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 1 Ch. 526 33 & 34 Vict. c. 104 (JoiDt Stock Compames Arrangement). In re COOPBE, GoOPBE & JOHKSON, Ld. Byrne J. [1902] W. N. 199 s. 2. In re Tea Corpoeation, Ld. C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 12 1871. 34 & 35 Vict.c. 31 {Trade Unions). Tapf Vale Ey. Co. 1). Amalgamated Society op Railway Servants H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 426 ss. 3, 4. Russell v. Amalgamated Society op Caepentees and JoiNBES • C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 806 ■ s. 4. YoEKSHiEE Miners' Asso- ciation V. HOWDEN H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 256 sub-s. 3. BuEKE V. Amalgamated Society op Dyers - Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 683 GozNBY V. Bristol, &c., Trade and Provident Society C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 901 s. 4, sub-s. 3 (a) ; s. 8. CoPE «. Ceossingham - C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 148 s. 4, sub-s. 3 (a) ; ss. 13, 23. Amalgamated Society op Railway Sbevants v. Osboene H. I. (E.) [1910] A. C. 87 ss. 9, 12. Madden ». Rhodes Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 534 s. 14 ; Sched. I., clause 6. Noeey v. Keep Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. 561 34 & 35 Vict. c. 41 (Gasworlis Clauses), ss. 38 — 41, 45, 46. Att.-Gen. ». Leicester CoEPOEATioN - Neville J. [1910] 2 Ch. 359 34 & 35 Vict. c. 56 (J)ogi), s. 2. Williams v. Richards Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 88 34 & 35 Vict. c. 78 {Regulation of Hallways), s. 6. Scott v. Midland Ry. Co. Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 317 34 & 35 Vict. c. 79 (Lodgers' Goods Protection), s. 1. godlonton v. fulham and Hampstbad Peopbety Co. Div. ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 431 STATUTES- 34 & 35 Vict. 0. 79 (Lodgers' Goods Protection), s. 2. Lowe v. Doeling & Son Div. Ct. [1906] 2 Z. B. 501 Lowe v. Doeling & Son C. A. [1906] 2K. B.,772 34 & 35 Vict. u. 87 (Sunday Observation Prosecu- tion), s. 1. Eex v. Mead Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 212 ss. 1 and 2 and. Sched. Ebx v. Halkbtt - Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 50 34 & 35 Vict. c. 98 (Vaccination), Mooeb ?;. Kbyte Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 768 s. 11. Langridgb v. Hobbs Div. Ct. [1901] IQ. B. 497 34 & 35 Vict. c. 112 (Prevention of Chimes), ss. 7, 9. Rex v. Pbnpold C. C. B. [1902] 1 K. B. 547 s. 18. Commissioner op Police v. Donovan Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 895 Martin v. White Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 665 s. 19. Rex v. Rowland C. C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 458 34 & 35 Vict. c. 113 (Metropolis— Water), ss. 27, 28, 29, 32. Geand Junction Watee- WOEKS Co. V. Rodocanaohi Div. Ct. [1904] 2K. B. 230 34 & 35 Vict. c. clixxiv. (Liverpool Improve- ment and Waterworks), s. 52. LlVEE- POOL COEPOEATION V. WEST DEEBY Assessment Committee C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 647 1872. 35 & 36 Vict. c. 15 (Parks Regulation), Rules 3 and 4 of the rules made by the Com- missioners of Works and Public Build- ings. Eex v. Maesham. Ex paHe Chamberlain Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 638 35 & 36 Vict. 0. 33 (Ballot Act), Sched. II. pontakdawb rueal district Council Election Petition Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 313 35 & 36 Vict. c. 41 (Idfe Assurance Companies, s. 7. In re Life and Health AssuEANCE Association, Ld. Eve J. [1910] 1 Ch. 458 35 & 36 Vict. c. 44 [Court of Chancery— Funds), s. 5. Bath ■». Bath Kekewich J. [1901] 1 Ch. 460 ss. 5, 6, 14. In re WILLIAMS' Settled Estates Swinfen Eady J. [1910] 2 Ch. 481 35 & 36 Vict. c. 65 (Bastardy), s. 3. Jones v. Davies Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 118 s. 4. In re Haeeington Warrington J. [1908] 2 Ch. 687 35 & 36 Vict. c. 77 (Metalliferous Mines Regula- tion), ss. 13, 41. Knuckby v. Redeuth Rural Council Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 382 dviii TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED 81ATXIT'ES—co?itimied. 35 & 36 Vict. c. 91 {jMunicijial Corporations — Borough Funds), s. i. Rex v. Dovbb (Mayoe of) Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 668 s. 8. Brooks, Jenkins & Co. v. TOEQUAY Corporation and Newton Abbott Rural Council Walton J. [1902] 1 K. B. 601 35 & 36 Vict. c. 93 (Pawnirohers}, s. 30. Leicester & Co. v. Chekeyman Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 101 s. 31. Allwoethy and Walker v. Clayton Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 685 S. 33. PiCKPOBD V. COEST Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 212 s. 39. Rex v. Inland Revenue Commissioners Div. Ct. [1906] W. N. 216 Rex v. Inland Revenue Com- missioners. Ji.r parte Silvester Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K. B. 108 35 & 36 Viet. c. 94 (Licensmg'), a. 3. Davies r. Baenett Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 666 Boyle v. Smith Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 432 DiCKBSON & Co. V. Mayes Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 452 ss. 3, 17. M'DoNALD V. Hughes Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 94 3. 8. Pennington v. Pincock Div. Ct. [1908] 2 K. B. 244 s. 13. Thompson v. McKenzie Div. Ct. [1908] 1 K. B. 906 Lawson c. Bdminson Div. Ct. [1908] 2 K. B. 962 S. 17. LOCKWOOD V. COOPEE Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 428 — ?. 18. Sealby r. Tandy Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 296 s. 25. Jones v. Jones Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 262 s. 26. Rex v. Johnson Div. Ct. [1906] 2K. B. 69 S. 29. GrEOH V. HBSKETH C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 664 ss. 38, 43. Rex «. Sunderland Justices C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 367 s. 42. Rex v. Howard C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 363 Rex v. Tolhurst Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 478 S. 45. IGOE V. Shakst H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. 320 s. 49. Davies v. Harrison Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 104 3. 50. Eex v. Deinkwatee Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 469 35 & 36 Vict. c. cxiv. (^Caledonian Railway — Additional Powers), s3. 4, 26. Cale- donian Ry. Co. v. Glasgow Cor- poration - H. L. (So.) [1909] A.C. 138 St&.'iVt'E.n— continued. 35 & 36 Vict. c. cxxiii {6as Light and Colie Company Act), s. 18. Caiwon Beeweey Co. v. Gas Light and Coke Co. H. I. (E.) [1904] A. C. 331 1873. 36 & 37 Vict. 0. 9 (^Bastardy), s. 5. Plymouth Guardians v. Gibbs Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 177 36 & 37 Vict. c. 48 (^Regulation of Railways), 3. 3. London and India Docks Co. v. Geeat Eastern Ry. Co. and Midland Ry. Co. C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 668 3. 8. Albxandea (Nbwpoet and South Wales) Docks and Ry. Co. V. Tafp Tale Ry. Co. C. A. [1907] 1 K, B. 386 Geeat Western Ry. Co. v. Baeey Ry. Co. C. a. [1909] 2 K. B. 670 3. 14. PiCKFOBDS, Ld. V. LONDON AND North Western Ry. Co. C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 782 36 & 87 Vict. c. 60 {Extradition), 3. 5. Rex v. Daye Div. Ct. [1908] 2 K. B. 333 36 i^ 37 Vict. c. 66 {Judicature), s. 18, sub-s. 5. In re Cathcakt C. A. [1902] W. N. 80 33. 16, 23. In re Hailstone C. A. [1909] P. 118 s. 19. Wynnb-FiNch v. Chaytoe C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 476 3. 24. Kolchmann r. Medeice C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 634 Bankes r. Jaevis Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 649 s. 24, sub-3. 3. McChbanb v. Gyles C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 287 s. 24, sub-s. 5. Williams v. Htjnt C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 618 3. 24, sub-s3. 5, 7.' The " Jaues Westoll " C. A. [1905] P. 47 3. 25. Dawson i\ Geeat Noetheen AND City Ry. Co. C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 260 In re Beiggs & Co. E.c parte Weight Bigham J. [1906] 2 K. B. 209 s. 25, 3ub-ss. 4, 11. Capital and Counties Bank, Ld. c. Rhodes C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 631 3. 25, sub-s. 5. TuBNEE V. Walsh C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 484 3. 25, sub-s. 6. Manchestee Brewery Co. v. Coombs Farwell J. [1901] 2 Ch. 608 Jones v. Humphreys Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 10 Hughes r. Pump House Hotel Co. C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 190 Torkington c. Magee C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 644 Bateman v. Hunt C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 880 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. dix ST&TVT'ES—coiiHnued. 36 & 37 Viot. c. 66 (Judioature), s. 25, sub-s. 6. FiTZEOY V. Cave C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 364 Wm. Bbaot)t's Sons & Co. v. Dunlop Rdbbbb Co. H. I. (E.) [1905] A. C. 484 Skippbe & Tucker v. Holloway & Howard Darling J. [ 1910] 2 K. B. 630 ; 0. A. [1910] W. N. 74 Foster v. Baker C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 636 • S. 25, 3Ub-3. 8. GOLDSCHMIDT V. Obeerheinische Metallweeke C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 373 Leuey & Rons, Ld. v. Callingham AND Thompson C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 79 Edwards & Co. v. Picaed C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 903 s. 25, sub-s. 9. The " De0MLANEIG " C. A. [1910] P. 249 S. 47. ROBSON V. BiGGAE C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 672 Rex v. Goveenoe op Beixton Peison. Ex ])arte Savaekae C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 1056 s. i9. Minister & Co. v. Appeely Div. Ct. [1902]1K. B. 643 s. 89. Stiles v. Ecclbstone Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 644 Rex v. Sblpe Div. Ct. [1908] 2 K. B. 121 S. 100. LOED KiNNAIED V. FIELD C. A. [1905] 2 Ch. 361 s. 245, sub-s. 6. SKIPPBB & TuCKEB u. Holloway & Howaed C. A. [1910] W. N. 74 Bowles ■». Baker C. A. [1910] W. N. 110 Bennett v. White 0. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 643 36 & 37 Vict. 0. 71 {Salmon Fishery), s. 13. Rex v. Vasey C. C. E. [1906] 2 K. B. 748 s. 36, sub-B. 3. Taylor v. Peitohard Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 320 s. 39, sub-s. 3. Clayton d. Pbihsb Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 424 36 & 37 Viot. 0. 86 (JSlemerdary Education). Reg. V. COCKBRTON C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 726 36 & 37 Viot. c. 94 {lAeensmg), s. 3. Dunning 11. Owen Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 237 s. 29. Geoh v. Hesketh Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 232 36 & 37 Viot. c. clxvii. {Bradford Improvement'), s. 21. Smith v. Greenwood Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 386 %'iKTMT&%— continued. 1874. 37 & 38 Vict. c. 15 {Betting), s. 3. Stoddaet u Argus Printing Co. Div. Ct. [1901]2K.B.470 s. 3, sub-s. 1. Hawkb v. Mackenzie (Nos. 1 & 2) Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 226 37 & 38 Vict. 0. 42 {Building Societies), s. 38 Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building Society v. TnuRSTAif H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. 6 s. 40. In re Ilpracombe Permanent Benefit Building Society Wright J. [1901] 1 Ch. 102 s. 42. Ceosbie-Hill v. Sayee Parker J. [1908] 1 Ch. 866 37 & 38 Vict. 0. 49 {Licensing), ss. 1, 2. In re Wallis and Grout's Contract Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 2 Ch. 206 s. 3. Davies v. Harbison Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 104 s. 9. Commissioner of Police v. Roberts - Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 369 NOBLETT 11. HOPKINSON Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 214 s. 10. Jones v. Jones Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 146 s. 16. TowEB Justices v. Chambees C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 903 s. 22. Rex v. Deinkwatee Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 469 Rex v. Johnstone Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 228 s. 26. Rex v. Howard C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 363 37 & 38 Vict. c. 54 {Rating), s. 6. Alton Ueban Council v. Spicer Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 678 37 & 38 Vict. 0. 57 {Real Property Limitation), s. 1. In re McCuLLUM C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 143 Garner v. Wingrove Buckley J. [1905] 2 Ch. 233 Thompson r. Hickman Neville J. [1907] 1 Ch. 650 Glyn r. Howell Eve J. [1909] 1 Ch. 666 Williams v. Thomas C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 713 Shaw v. Crompton Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 370 ss. 1, 2. Samuel Johnson & Sons, Ld. v. Brock Parker J. [1907] 2 Ch. 833 ss. 1, 8. Skene v. Cook 0. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 682 ss. 1, 9. In re Nisbet and Potts' Contract C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 386 s. 2. Walter v. Yalden Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 304 dx; TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED STAT VT^S—contmued. 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57 {Real Property Idmitation), ti. 3, 5. HotmsELL V. Dunning Joyce J. [1902] 1 Ch. 612 s. 7. In, re LoVEEIDGE BTiokley J. [1904] 1 Ch. S18 s. 8. Taylor v. Hollaed Jelf J. [1902] 1 K. B. 676 Beadshaw v. "Widdkington C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 430 In re TiMMES Kekewich J. [1902] 1 Ch. 176 KlEKLAND V. PBATFIBLD Wright J. [1903] 1 K. B. 786 Maokay v. Gould Kekewich J. [1906] 1 Ch. 25 In re Lacby C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 330 In re Hazeldine's Teusts C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 34 In re Balls Swinfen Eady J. [1909] 1 Ch. 791 37 & 38 Vict. c. 62 (^Infants' Relief), s. 1. Nottingham Peemanent Benefit Building Society ■». Thdestan H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. 6 37 & 38 Vict. o. 75 (Vaccination'). MoOKE v. Kbyte Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 768 37 & 38 Vict. c. 78 (Vendor and Purcftaser'). In re Wehstbe and Jones' Conteact C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 651 s. 9. l»?'e Walker and Oakshott's Conteact C. A. [1902] W. H. 147 37 & 38 Vict. c. 96 (^Statute law Reridon (Xo. 2)), s. 1 ; Schedule. Willinqalb V. NoEEis Dlv. ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 67 1875. 38 & 39 Vict. c. 2i (Falsification of Accounts'), s. 1. Rex «. Oliphant C. C. B. [1906] 2 K. B. 67 Rbx v. Palin C. C. B. [1906] W. N. 162 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 7 Rex v. Solomons C. C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 980 38 & 39 Viet. c. 55 (Puilic Health), s. i. HuMPHEBY V. Young Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 44 Williamson v. Dueham Rural Coun- cil Dlv. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 66 • ss. 4, 13. Hedley v. Webb Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] 8 Ch. 126 ss. i, 13, 16. TURNBB «. HANDS- woETH Ueban Council Neville J. [1909] 1 Ch. 381 ss. 4, 13, 41. Pbmsbl AND Wilson ». TXTPTf PR. Warrington J. [1907] 2 Ch. 191 ss. 4, 15, 16, 27. King's College, Cambeidgb v. Uxbeidge Rural Council Byrne J. [1901] 2 Ch. 768 STATUTES- 38 & 39 Vict. 0. 55 (PubHc Health), ss. 4, 19, 21. Wilkinson v. Llandapp and Dinas Powis Rueal Council C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 695 ss. 4, 21. Graham v. Weoughton C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 451 es. 4, 41. Thompson r. Eccles Coe- poeation C. a. [1905] 1 K. B. 110 Jackson v. Wimbledon Ueban Dis- trict Council C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 27 Wood Geben Ueban District Coun- cil V. Joseph Div. Ct. [1905] W. N. 144 ; H. L. (E) [1908] A. C. 419 ss. 4, 94, 95. WiNCANTON Rueal DiSTEiCT Council v. Paesons Kennedy J. [1905] 2 K. B. 34 ss. 4, 94, 95, 96, 98, 104. Beoadbent V. Shepherd Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 874 ss. 4, 160, 257. 7ft re Smith's Settled Estates Buckley J. [1901] 1 Ch. 689 ss. 4, 157. Att.-Gen. r. Gibb Parker J. [1909] 2 Ch. 265 ss. 6, 189, 198, 209, 210, 233—237, 245—247, 265. Att.-Gen. v. Db Winton Farweil J. [1906] 2 Ch. 106 SB. 15, 16, 175, 176, 308. Jaey ■„. Baensley Coepoeation Parker J. [1907] 2 Ch. 600 SS. 15, 17, 19, 299. Eael of Hae- EINGTON i-. DeEBY CoEPOEATION Buckley J. [1905] 1 Ch. 205 ss. 16, 27. King's College, Cam- beidgb T. Uxbeidge Rueal Council Byrne J. [1901] 8 Ch. 768 s. 17. Att.-Gbn. v. Bibmingham, Tame, and Rea District Drainage Board - c. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 48 ss. 17, 19, 299. Eael of Hareing- ton v. Derby Coepoeation Buckley J. [1905] 1 Ch. 205 ss. 19, 27. Foster r. Waeblington Urban Council C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 618 s. 21. Eastwood Beothers, Ld. v. HoNLEY Urban Council C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 645 s. 21. Wood c. Ealing Tenants Ld. Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 390 ss. 21, 22. East Baenet Valley Ueban Council v. Stallaed C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 665 s. 25. Matthews v. Steachan Div. Ct. [1901] 8 K. B. 540 ss. 28, 229, 230. Croydon Coe- poeation r, Ceoydon Rueal Council C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 321 DUEINa THE YEARS 1901—1910. dxi STATUTES— 00 «tM«erf. 38 & 39 Viot. c. 55 (^Public Health), b. 38. Teacet v. Pretty & Sons Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 444 s. 41. Jackson v. Wimbledon Ueban Council Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 869 Bromley Corporation v. Cheshire Div. Ct. [1908] 1 K. B. 680 s. 42. Stainland and Holywell Green Industrial Coen and Pro- vision Society v. Stainland with Old Lindlby Urban District Coun- cil Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 333 _ ss. 42, 43. Pesg & Jones, Ld. v. Derby Corporation Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B, 611 ss. 51, 56, 57. Barnard Castle Urban Council ■». Wilson C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 746 ss. 56, 57, 256. Elliott «. Eussbll Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 748 ss. 61, 174, sub-s. 2. Soothill Upper Urban Council v. Wakefield Rural Council C. A. [1905] 2 Ch. 816 s. 64. Enuckey v. Redruth Rural Council Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 382 s. 96. Wing v. Epsom Urban Coun- cil Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 798 ss. 102, 306. Consbtt Urban Coun- cil V. Crawford Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 183 ss. 116, 117. FiETH V. McPhail Div. ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 300 . ss. 116, 117, 308. HOBBS V. Win- chester COEPOEATION C. A. [1910] W. N. 168 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 471 ss. 124, 131, 132. Evans v. Liver- pool Corporation Walton J. [1906] 1 K. B. 160 . s. 149. Finchley Electric Light Co. v. Finchley Urban Council C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 437 Lodge Holes Colliery Co. v. Wednesbuet Corporation H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 823 s. 150. Property Exchange, Ld. v. Wandsworth Board op Works C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 61 HoRNSEY Urban Council v. Hewnell Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 73 HoENSEY Corporation v. Birkbbck Freehold Land Society Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 621 Blooe 'V: Beckenham Urban Council Div. Ct. [1908] 2 K. B. 671 ss. 150, 257. In re Allen and Driscoll's Contract C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 226 STATVTES—coTiiinued. 38 & 39 Viot. 0. 55 (^Pitblic Health), as. 150, 257. Millard v. Balby-with-Hexthoepe Urban Council C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 60 East Ham Urban Council v. Aylett Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B, 60 ss. 150, 257, 317 ; Sched. IV., Form G. Stourbridge Urban Council V. Butler and Geovb Neville J. [1909] 1 Ch. 87 ■ s. 156. MuLLis V. Hubbard Earwell J. [1903] 2 Ch. 431 • 3. 157. Salt v. Scott Hall Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 845 ss. 157, 158. Att.-Gen. r. WIMBLE- DON House Estate Co. rarwell J. [1904] 2 Ch. 34 S3. 157, 158, 183, 251, 253. Att.- Gen. v. Ashbornb Recreation Ground Co. Buckley J. [1903] 1 Ch. 101 s. 158. AiREY V. Smith Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 273 s. 164. Stourclipfe Estates Co. v. Bournemouth Corporation C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 18 ss. 174, 297, 298. Beooks, Jenkins & Co. V. Torquay Cohporation and Newton Abbot Rural Council Walton J. [1908] 1 K. B. 601 s. 175. Att.-Gbn. v. Pontypridd Urban Council C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 257 s. 199 ; Sohed. I., rr. 3, 5. Rbx v. Rowlands. JSx parte Beesley Div.Ct. [1910] 3 K, B. 930 s. 210. Wolstanton United Urban Council v. Tunstall Urban Council C. A. [1910] W. N. 232 ss. 210, 218, 260. Smith v. Southamp- ton Corporation Div. Ct. [1908] 8 K. B. 244 s. 211. Alton Ueban Council v. Spiobe Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 678 s. 211, sub-s. 1 (i). Smith's Dock Co. v. Tynemouth Coepoeation C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 948 Wakefield Coepoeation v. Wake- field AND DiSTEICT LIGHT RAILWAY Co. H. 1. (E.) [1908] A. C. 893 Thoenton Ueban Council v. Black- pool AND Fleetwood Tkameoad Co. H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 864 ss. 229, 230. Plumpton St. Mary Rural Council v. Reynolds Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 768 -■ — s. 233. Rex v. Locke Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 201 s. 247. Bex v. Carson Roberts C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 407 dxii TABLB OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDBEEU ■ s. 257. -s. 267. Cabtee - s. 308. STATVTES—coitthuied. 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55 (PuUic Sealth), s. 256 Blackpool aotd Fleetwood Team- eoad co. v. bispham with norbebck UEBAN DISTEICT COTJlfGIL Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 892 In re Pizzi Neville J. [1907] 1 Cli. 67 WiEBAL fiUEAL COUNCIL V. Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 646 HOETOM" V. COLWTN BAY AHD GOLWYM" UEBAN COUNCIL C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 327 Sohed. III., r. 6. Bex v. Doveb (Mayoe or) Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 668 38 & 39 Vict. u. 57 (jReal Property Limitatioii), s. 8. In re Hazeldine's Teusts C. A. [1908] 1 Ck 34 38 & 39 Vict. c. 60 {Friendly Societies'), s. 15 Til re Eedmau Kekewich J. [1901] 2 Ch. 471 Caddick v. Highton Phillimore J. [1901] 2 Ch. 467, n. In re Geippin C. A. [1903] 1 Cli. 135 s. 22. Cox V. Hutchinson" Warrington J. [1910] 1 Ch. 513 38 & 39 Vict. c. 63 {Sale of Food and Drugs). Eex v. Otto Monsted, Ld. Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 456 ss. 3, 6. GouLDEE V. Rook Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 290 S. 6. DiCKINS V. Eandeeson Div. ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 437 GuNSTON & Tee, Ld. v. Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 826 GuNSTON & Tee, Ld. v. Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 1 Smithies v. Beidge Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 13 Dawes v. Wilkinson Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K. B. 278 ss. 6, 8. Peaeks, Gunston & Tee, Ld. & Houghton Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 889 ss. 9, U, 21. Suckling v. Paekbb Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. S27 s. 14. Loweey v. Hallaed Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 398 Smith v. Savage Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 88 38 & 39 Vict. c. 63 (^Sale of Food and Brur/s), s. 18. Sneth v. Tayloe Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 376 s. 18; Form in Schedule. Foot v. Findlay Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 1 s. 20. Whittakbe v. PoMpebt Beothees Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B.661 s. 25. Elliot v. Pilchee Div.Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 817 Peaeks, Knight Peaeks, Ward STATUTES— (.■OMiiwMef^. 38 & 39 Vict. c. 63 {Sale of Food arid Drugs), s. 25. Watts v. Stevens Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 323 Kelly v. Lonsdale & Co. Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 486 Evans v. Weathbeett Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 80 ss. 25, 27. Manners ■». Tylbe Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 901 38 & 39 Vict. c. 77 (Judicature), s. 10. In re National United Seevicb In re WhittAKBB C. A. [1901] 1 CIi. 9 In re McMuEDO C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 684 l7i re Whittakbe Farwell J. [1904] 1 Ch. 299 In re Amblee C. A. [1905] 1 Ch. 697 In re Gbdney Warrington J. [1908] 1 Ch. 804 s. 18. In re Hailstone C. A. [1909] P. 118 38 & 39 Vict. 0. 83 (Local Loans). In re Tatteesall. Topham v. Abmitage Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 2 Ch. 399 38 & 39 Vict. c. 86 (Conspiracy and Protection of Property), ss. 3, 7. QuiNN r. Lbathem H. L. (Ir.) [1901] A. C. 495 s. 7. Smith v. Moody Div. Ct. [1903] 1K.B.66 38 & 39 Vict. c. 87 (Land Tramfer). Att.- Gen. v. Odell C. a. [1906] 2 Ch. 47 In re Wesleyan Methodist Chapel IN South Steeet, Wandsworth Joyce J. [1909] 1 Ch. 464 ss. 22—28, 29, 32, 49, 93—96. Capital AND Counties Bank, Ld. v. Rhodes C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 631 s. 84. Ground Rent Development Co. v. West Kekewich J. [1903] 1 Ch. 674 Wille v. St. John Warrington J. [1910] 1 Ch. 84 Wille v. St. John C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 325 s. 95. Weymouth v. Davis Swinfen Eady J. [1908] 2 Ch. 169 38 & 39 Vict. c. 90 (Employers and Wm'Ttmen), s. 3, sub-s. 1 ; s. 4. Keatbs v. Lewis Meethye Consolidated Collikriks, Ld. C. a. [1910] 2 K. B. 446 s. 10. Fitzpateiok v. Evans & Co. C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 606 Squire v. Midland Lace Co. Div. Ct. [1908] 2 K. B. 440 Smith v. Associated Omnibus Co. Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K. B. 916 s. 13. Coebett v. Pbaeoe Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 422 Macbeth & Co. v. Chislett H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 220 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. dxiii aTATVT:ES—contirmed. 38 & 39 Viot. c. 91 QTi'ade Marks Jtegistration), s. 3. Slazengeb & Sons v. SPALDiua & Brothers - Neville J. [1910] 1 Ch. 267 s. 10. Chbbsbeough's Teabe- Maek "Vaseline " C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 1 1876. 39 & 40 Vict. c. 22 (_Trade Unions). Taff Vale Rt. Co. r. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 426 Cope v. Ceossingham C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 148 Gozney i: Bristol, &c., Teade and Provident Society C. A. [1909] IK. B. 901 s. 16. Amalgamated Society op Railway Servants v. Osborne H. I. (E.) [1910] A. C. 87 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36 (Ciistoins Consolidation). Rex v. Otto Monsted, Ld. Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 466 39 & 40 Viot. c. 59 {Appellate Jurisdiction), s. 3, 12. Reg. I'. Barton AJTD Great Southern and Westbbn Ry. Co. op Ireland H. I. (Ir.) [1902] A. C. 268 39 & 40 Vict. c. 61 {Bivided Parislies and Pom- Law Amendment). West Ham Union V. London County Council H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 40 West Ham Union v. Edmonton Union - H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 1 B. 11. Local Government Board V. South Stoneham Union H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 67 ss. 34, 35. Tewkesbury Union v. Birmingham Union Biv. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 396 Woolwich Union v. Fulham Guar- dians Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 203 West Ham Union v. Holbeach Union H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 460 Fulham Parish v. Woolwich Union H. I. (E.) [1907] A. C. 268 Kingston-upon-Hull Incorpora- tion foe the Poor v. Hackney Guardians Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 246 39 & 40 Vict. c. 75 {Rivers Pollution Prevention). AiEDEiE Magistrates v. Lanark County Council. Coatbeidge Magistrates r. Lanaek County Council - H. 1. (Be.) [1910] A. C. 286 ss. 4, 6, 13. West Riding of York- shire Rivers Board «. Robinson Brothers - C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 431 S3. 4, 7. Butterwoeth v. West Riding of Yoekshiee Rivees Boaed H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 46 8. 7. Eastwood Beothees, Ld. V. Honley Ueban^ Council C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 646 D.D. STATUTES— cow!!iTO«e(?. 39 & 40 Vict. c. 75 (Rivers Pollution Prevention), s. 7. Brook «. Meltham Urban Council H. L, (E.) [1909] A. C. 438 39 & 40 Vict. c. 79 {Elementary Education). Reg. v. Cockeeton C. A [1901] 1 K. B. 726 S3. 11, 12, 48. Kex v. West Riding op Yorkshire Justices, Ex parte Beoadbbnt - Div. Ct. [1910] 2 E. B. 192 1877. 40 & 41 Viot. c. 18 {Settled Estates). Boyce v. Edbrooke FarwellJ. [1903] ICh. 836 S3. 10, 13. In re Chbsshire's Settled Estates Parker J. [1908] W. N. 76 3. 16. /»j re ToNGB's Settled Estate Kekewioh J. [1902] W. N. 72 40 & 41 Viot. c. 21 {Prisons), s. 5. GORTON Local Board v. Prison Com- missioners Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 166, n. 40 & 41 Viot. 0. 26 {Companies), s. 3. In re Barrow H.ffiMATiTE Steel Co. C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 746 In re Anglo-French Exploration Co. Buckley J. [1902] 2 Ch. 846 In re Welsbach Incandescent Gas Light Co. C. A, [1904] 1 Ch. 87 In re Artizans' Land and Mort- gage Corporation Byrne J. [1904] 1 Ch. 796 In re Chelmsford Land Co. Buckley J. [1904] W. N. 106 In re HoAEE & Co., Ld. AND Reduced C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 208 In re Calgary and Edmonton Land Co. - Buckley J. [1906] 1 Ch. 141 In re General Industrials De- velopment Syndicate, Ld. Parker J. [1907] W. N. 23 In re Louisiana and Southern States Real Estate and Mort- gage Co. Neville J. [1909] 2 Ch. 652 ss. 3, 4. In re Lees Brook Spin- ning Co. Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 2 Ch. 394 In re Anglo-Italian Bank, Ld., and Reduced Warrington J. [1908] W. N. 202 ss. 3, 5. Ill re MIDLAND RAILWAY Carriage aito Wagon Co., Ld., and Reduced Warrington J. [1907] W. N. 176 40 & 41 Vict. c. 34 {Real Estate Charges — Loclie King's Amendment Act). In re Baron Kensington Farwell J. [1902] 1 Ch. 203 In re FeASKR C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 726 In re Bowerman C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 340 B. 1. In re Chantrell Parker J. [1907] W. N. 213 dxiv TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDEEED 40 & il Vict. ture STATUTES— co«i;i«!/(3(Z. 40 & 41 Vict. 0. 35 (^Metroi?olitan Open Spaces). S. 1. FULHAM VESTEY V. MiNTEE Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 501 Paddingxon Corpoeation v. Att.- Gen. H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 1 40 & 41 Vict. c. 43 (Justices Clerks), s. 5. Hun- tingdon CoEPOEATioN V. Hunting- don County Council Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 257 ■ s. 6. Gboegb v. Thomas Sorutton J. [1910] 2 K. B. 961 s. 8. Whittuck v. Withy Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 526 c. 57 (Supreme Court of Judica- — Ireland), s. 86. Reg. i\ Baeton, AND GEEAT SOUTHEEN AUD WESTEEN Ky. Co. op Ieelajtd H. L. (Ir.) [1902] A. C. 268 1878. 41 & 42 Vict. c. 15 (Customs and Inland Revenue), s. 12. John Hall, Junioe, & Co. v. Rickman Walton J. [1906] 1 K. B. 311 s. 12, s. 13, sub-s. 2. Nicholls v. Malim Walton J. [1906] 1 K. B. 272 s. 13. Geant v. Langston [1900] A. C. 383 ; Ct. of Sees. (So.) [1901] W. N. 5 Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assueaicce ■;;. Allau Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1901] W. N. 185 s. 13, sub-ss. 1, 2. Union Bank op Scotland v. Inland Revenue (1901) Ct. of Sees. (So.) [1902] W. N. 174 s. 22, sub-3. 2. Johnson v. Wilson Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 497 41 & 42 Vict. c. 16 (Factories wnd Workshops), s. 4. Teacey 11. Peetty & Sons Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 444 — s. 36. HoAEE V. Ritchie k Son Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 434 S. 93. FULLEES, Ld. v. Squiee Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 209 Wilmott v. Paton C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 237 s. 98, sub-s. 3. Geoege v. Macdonald (1901) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 169 MOONEY V. EdINBUEGH AND DiSTEICT Teamway Co. (1901) ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 161 41 & 42 Vict. c. 19 (Matrimonial Causes), s. 2. Westcott v. Westcott Gorell Barnes, Pros. [1908] P. 250 s. 2. Howe v. Howe Bigham, Pies. [1910] W. N. 30 Higgins r. Kino's Peoctoe. King's Peoctoe v. Caetee C. a. [1910] P. 151 ■ s. 3. Doemee r. Waed C. A. [1901] P. 20 STATUTES— OT«f;«?(crf. 41 & 42 Vict. c. 19 (Matriuimiial Causes), s. 3. CONSTANTINIDI V. CONSTAifTINIDI C. A. [1905] P. 253 Chuechwaed i: Chuechwaed Samuel Evans Pres. [1910] P. 195 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26 (Parliamentary and Muni- cipal Registration), s. 5. Kent r. FiTTALL C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 60 s. 5 ; s. 28, sub-ss. 10, 11. DoUGLAS V. Smith C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 568 s. 22 ; s. 28, sub-ss. 9, 10, 11. Caet- WEIGHT r. Sheewsbuey Town Cleek Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 169 s. 23. Majoe 1-. Sheewsbuey Town Cleek Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 348 ss. 23, 28, sub-ss. 10, 11. Jenkins r. Geocott - Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 374 ss. 24, 28. Geeen r. Wastklyn Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 394 s. 24. GooDEicH I . Gebat Gbimsby (Town Cleek) Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 301 . s. 28, sub-s. 10. Kent v. Fittall (No. 3) Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 215 41 & 42 Vict. c. 31 (Bills of Sale). Claekt. Balm, Hill & Co. Phillimore J. [1908] 1 K. B. 667 s. 4. Melloe (Teustee op) r. Maas C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 226 ; H. 1. (E.) [1905] A. C. 102 In re Eeis - C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 769 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 442 In re Hamilton Young & Co. C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 772 Gebat Eastben Ey. Co. v. Loed's Teustee - H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 109 ss. 4, 8. 11. Antoniadi r. Smith C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 589 s. 10, sub-s. 2. CoATBS r. IlIOOBE C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 140 B. 10, sub-s. 3. Pettit r. Lodge and Haepee C. a. [1908] 1 K. B. 744 Smith v. Whitehead C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 437 41 & 42 Vict. c. 32 (Metropolis Management aid Building), s. 11. St. James's Hall Co. V. London County Council ChanneU J. [1901] 2 K. B. 250 41 & 42 Vict. c. 33 (Dentists), s. 3. Belleeby I. Heywoeth H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 377 Baenes c. Beown - Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 38 [but this case was overruled by Belleeby i: Heywoeth [1910] A. C. 377 Att.-Gen. r. Geoege C. Smith, Ld. Swinfeu Eady J. [1909] 2 Ch. 624 ss. 3, 5. Seymoue r. Pickett C, A. [1906] 1 K. B. 716 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. dxv BTAtVt^S— continued. 41 & 42 Vict. c. .?3 {Dentists), ss. 13, 14, 15. Clifford t. Timms H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 12 Cliffoed 1). Phillips H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 15 41 & 42 Vict. c. 39 {Freshwater Fisheries'), ss. 6, 7. Stead i: Nicholas Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 163 MOSBS V. IGGO Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 516 41 & 42 Vict. c. 43 {Bills of Sale), s. 9. Rose- field V. Provincial Union Bank C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 781 41 & 42 Vict. c. 49 {Weights and Measures), s. 2,5. London County Council r. Patne & Co. Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 194 London Countt Council r. Payne & Co. (No. 2) - Div. Ct. [1905] 1 K. B. 410 Ang-lo-American Oil Co. v. Manning Div. Ct. [1908] 1 K. B. 636 s. 26. Stone v. Tyler Div. Ct. [1905] 1 K. B. 290 41 & 42 Vict. c. 51 {Roads and Bridges — Scot- land^. Bernard & Co. v. Haddington Magistrates H. L. (Sc.) [1901] W. S. 246 41 & 42 Vict. i;. 54 {BeUm-s). In re Wilkins Buckley J. [1901] W. H. 202 In re Fewstee Joyce J. [1901] 1 Ch. 447 41 & 42 Vict. c. 76 {Telegraph), s. 11. Bain- BEiDGE i>. Postmaster-General C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 178 41 & 42 Vict. c. 77 {Highways and Locomotives), a. 10. Rex v. Morse Div. Ct. [1904] W. N. 114 ss. 10, 27. Lodge Holes Colliery Co. ■». Wbdnesbury Corporation H. I. (E.) [1908] A. C. 323 s. 23. Egham Rural Council Gordon Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 120 Kent County Council h. Folke. stone Corporation [1905] 1 K. B. 620 Lancaster Rural Council v. Fisher AND Lb Fanu - C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 516 Rex 1). Judge Jambs and Midland Ry. Div. Ct. [1908] 1 K. B. 968 Carlisle Rural Council v. Carlisle Corporation - C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 471 Reigatb Rural Council ». Sutton District Water Co. C. A. [1909] W. N. 28 Geirionydd Rural Council v. Green - C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 845 41 & 42 Vict. c. 95 {Court of Frdbate), b. 16. In re Bouchbrett Joyce J. [1908] 1 Ch. 180 STATUTES— co«rt«wen!. 1879. 42 & 43 Vict. c. 11 {Bankers' Boohs Evidence), ss. 7, 10. Rex v. Kinghorn Div. Ct. [1908] 2 K. B. 949 42 & 43 Vict. c. 19 {Habitual Brunkards), a. 3 Eaton v. Best Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 632 42 &. 43 Vict. c. 30 {Sale of Food and Drugs), s. 3. McNair v. Cave Div. Cli [1903] 1 K. B. 24 s. 6. Dawbs v. Wilkinson Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K. B. 278 s. 10. Whitakbk v. Pomfret Bro- thers Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 661 42 & 43 Vict. c. 49 {Summary Jurisdiction), ss. 5, 49. Ex parte Novis Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 456 s. 12. Rex v. Dickinson. Ex parte Davis Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 469 s. 16. Barnard v. Barton Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 357 Att.-Gen. v. Clark Channell J. [1909] 2 K. B. 7 s. 17. Rex ». Goldberg Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 866 Commissioner of Police v. Donovan Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 895 Rex v. Beesby Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 849 s. 23. Stokes v. Mitcheson Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 857 Haqmaier v. Willesden Overseers Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 316 s. 33. Foss r. Best Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 105 Westminster Corporation v. Gor- don Hotels, Ld. H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 142 s. 39, sub-s. 1. Smith v. Moody Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 56 s. 40. Horner v. Stepney Assess- ment Committee Div. Ct. [1908] W. N. 101 s. 53. Thomas v. Pritchard Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 209 42 & 43 Vict. c. 54 {Poor Law). West Ham Union v. London County Council H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 40 42 & 43 Vict. u. cxoviii. {MetrojJolis Manage- ment — Thames River Frevention of Floods), o. 23. London County Council v. London, Brighton and South Coast Ry. Co. Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 72 1880. 43 & 44 Vict. c. 16 {Merchant Seamen — Pay- ment of Wages and Rating), ss. 5, 6. Rex v. Abrahams Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 859 Jth2 dxvi TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED SIATVT^S—coHtiimed. 43 & 44 Vict. c. 19 (Companies'). In re Chaco (Pakaguay) Land Co. Kekewieh J. [1901] W. N. 124 as. 3, 4, 5. In re PlEEOT Neville J. [1909] 1 Ch. 289 s. 7. In re Johannesburg Mining ASD General Syndicate Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. W. 46 43 & 44 Vict. c. 23 (Elementarij Education), s. 4. Stevenson v. Goldstraw • Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 298 43 & 44 Vict. c. 35 {Wild Birds Protection), ». 3. HoLLis V. Young Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 629 S3. 3, 8. Flower v. Watts Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 327 43 & 44 Vict. c. 39 (Taxe., Management), s. 69 Manchester Corporation v. Sugden C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 171 43 & 44 Vict. c. 42 (Emiiloxjers' LiaUlity). Isaacson v. New Grand (Clapham Junction), Ld. Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 639 Taylor v. Hampstbad Colliery Co. C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 838 Haiwah v. Hunter H. 1. (So.) [1904] A. C. 379 EousB f. Dixon Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 628 s. 1, sub-s. 1. Thompson v. City Glass Bottle Co. C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 233 s. 1, sub-s. 1 ; s. 2, sub-s. 1. BiDDLE V. Hart C. A. [1907] W. N. 34 : [1907] 1 K. B. 649 s. 8. FiTZPATEiCK V. Evans & Co. C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 505 Corbett v. Pearce Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 422 Smith -v. Associated Omnibus Co. Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K. B. 916 Macbeth & Co. v. Chislett H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 220 43 & 44 Vict. c. 47 {Ground Game) s. 6. May 1). Waters Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 431 Waters v. Phillips Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 466 43 & 44 Vict. c. olxx. {GreenocTt Harbour), s. 70. Andrew Caemichabl (Judi- cial Factor) v. Greenock Harbour Trustees - H. I. (So.) [1910] A. C. 274 43 & 44 Vict. c. clxxxi. (Gaslight and CoTie and other Gas Companies), s. 7. London County Council v. South Metro- politan Gab Co. - C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 76 1881. 44 & 45 Vict. c. 21 {31arried Women's Property —Scotland), ss. 7, 8. Mackenzie v. Allardes - H. L. (So.) [1906] A. C. 286 STATUTES— co»i. Fisher Buckley J. [1908] 1 Ch. 316 s. 10. Turner v. Walsh C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 484 Eickett v. Green Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 253 ss. 10, 58. Manchester Beewery Co. v. Coombes Farwell J. [1901] 2 Ch. 608 s. 11. Davis v. Town Properties Investment Coepoeation, Ld. C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 797 ' s. 14. Chaerinoton & Co. «. Camp Joyce J. [1908] 1 Ch. 386 PiGGOTT V. Middlesex County Coun- cil - Eve J. [1909] 1 Ch. 134 Dendy v. Evans C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 268 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. dxvii ST&JVTSS—ooTdinued. 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41 {Conveyancing and Law of Property), s. 14. Matthbws v. Smallwood Parker J. [1910] 1 Ch. 777 • s. 14, sub-ss. 1, 2, 6. In re RiGGS Wright J. [1901] 8 K. B. 16 B. 14, sub-s. 8. Gkat v. Bonsall C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 601 — s. 17. Farmer v. Pitt Byrne J. [1902] 1 Ch. 954 In re SALMON Wright J. [1903] 1 K. B. 147 Hughes v. Beitauuia Permanent Benefit Building Society Kekewich J. [1906] 2 Ch. 607 s. 18. King v. Bird. Buckuill J. [1909] 1 K. B. 837 S. 18, S\lb-S3. 1, 11. ROBBINS V. Whyte Warrington J. [1906] 1 K. B. 125 ss. 19, 20. Dbveeges v. Sandemann, Clark & Co. C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 579 Barker v. Illingwoeth Swinfen Eady J. [1908] 2 Ch. 20 ss. 19, 24, sub-s. 8 (iii.). White v. Metcalf Kekewich J. [1903] 2 Ch. 667 s. 21, sub-s. 4. In re DowSON AND Jenkins' Contract C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 219 — S3. 27, 63 ; Sched. III., Part II., Form (A.). In re Beachey C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 67 a. 30. Waidanis Swiafen Eady J. [1908] 1 Ch. 123 In re Crundenand Medx's Contract Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. 690 snb-s. 1 . In re Routledge's Trusts NeviUe J [1909] 1 Ch. 280 ss. 31, 71. /« re Boucherett Joyce J. [1908] 1 Ch. 180 s. 39, eub-s. 1. In re Blundell C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 221 s. 42. In re Helyar Joyce J. [1902] 1 Ch. 391 In re QuiCKE's Trusts Swinfen Eady J. [1908] 1 Ch. 887 s. 42, sab-s. 1. In re COWLBY Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] 1 Ch. 28 s. 43. In re Long Byrne J. [1901] W. N. 166 In re Adams. Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 220 s. 43, sub-s. 2. In re ScOTT Buckley J. [1902] 1 Ch. 918 In re Bowlby C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 685 s. 44. Lewis v. Baker Swinfen Eady J. [1905] 1 Ch. 46 . s. 51. In re Ethel and Mitchells AND Butler's Contract Joyce J. [1901] 1 Ch. 945 STATUTES— co?jii?iMerf. 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41 (^Conveyancing and Law of Projjerhj'), s. 52. In re Chisholm's Settlement Stirling J. [1901] 2 Ch. 82 In re Rose. C. a, [1905] 1 Ch, 94 • ss. 54 (1), 55 (1). Capbll r. Winter Parker J. [1907] 2 Ch. 376 s. 55. RiMMEE r. Webstbe Parwell J. [1902] 2 Ch. 163 ^ s. 58, sub-s. 1. Dyson c. Foestbe ; Dyson v. Seed, Quinn, Moegan, &c. H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 98 B. 65. Blaibeeg v. Kebvbs Warrington J. [1906] 2Ch. 175 r s. 70. In re Whitham Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 86 In re Haerowby AND Paine's Con- tract Farwell J. [1902] W. N. 137 44 & 45 Vict. u. 44 (Solicitors^ Remuneration'), General Order under, r. 2 (ft), (c), Sched. I., Part II. In re Baylis Kekewich J. [1907] 2 Ch. 64 r. 6. In re EVANS Farwell J. [1905] 1 Ch. 290 clause 6. In re SlE Robert Peel's Settled Estates Warrington J. [1910] 1 Ch. 389 s. 4 ; General Order, Sched. I., Part I. 1-. 8. In re Simmons' Conteact Parker J. [1908] 1 Ch. 452 B. 18, sub-s. 1. ROBBINS V. Whytb Warrington J. [1906] 1 K. B. 126 Sched I. In re Gaeneb. Ex parte Bigham J. [1906] 2 K. B. 213 Sched. I., Part I. In re 'Webster AND Jones' Conteact C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 551 Sched. I., Part I., r. 11. In reNoEEis Swinfen Eady J. [1902] 1 Ch. 741 In re Romain Buckley J. [1903] 1 Ch. 702 44 & 45 Vict. c. 51 (Wild Birds Protectioti), s 1. Flower v. Watts - Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 327 . s. 2. HoLLis V. Young Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 629 44 & 45 Vict. c. 58 (Army), s. 141. JoNES & Co. V. Coventry Div. Ct. [X909] 2 K. B. 1029 44 k 45 Vict. c. 62 (Veterinary Surgeons), B. 17. Att.-Gen. v. Churchill's Vetbeinaey Sanatorium, Ld. Neville J. [1910] 2 Ch. 401 s. 17, sub-s. 1. Royal College of Veterinary Sueoeons v. Collinson Div. Ct. [1908] 2 K. B. 248 44 & 45 Vict. c. 68 (Judicature), s. 9. Butchart u. Butchart and Hill ' fH^i H. L. (D.) [1901] A. C. 276 dxviii TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED STATUTES— coMimiierf. 44 & 45 Vict. .;. 69 (Fvi/itim Offenders), s. 9. Ebx v. Goveenoe of Beixton Peison. Ex parte Peecival Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K. B. 696 s. 10. Ebx v. Goveenoe of Beixton Peison. Ex parte Savaekae C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 1056 1883. 46 & 46 Vict. c. 15 (^CommoTiahle Bights Com- pensation). SALMON v. Bdwaeds Warrington J. [1910] 1 Ch. 562 45 & 46 Vict. c. 38 (Settled Zand). BOYCB v. Edbeooke Farwell J. [1903] 1 Ch. 836 ss. 1, 2, sub-s. 1, 5 ; ss. 5, 58, sub- s. 1 (ii.) In re Maeshall's Settle- ment Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 2 Ch. 325 ■ s. 2, sub-s. 1. In re Campbell 0. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 113 s. 2, sub-ss. 1, 4, 5 ; s. 50. In re LoED WlMBOBNB AND BeOWN'S CONTEACT Swinfen Eady J. [1904] 1 Ch. 537 s. 2, sub-ss. 1, 8. la re Speaemas Settled Estates Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 2 Ch. 502 ■ ■ s. 2, sub-ss. 1,8; s. 38. In re Ham- mond Spbncek's Settled Estates Byrne J. [1903] 1 Ch. 75 s. 2, sub-ss. 1, 8 ; s. 45, sub-s. 1. Inre CouLL's Settled Estates KeVewich J. [1905] W. N. 73 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 712 s. 2, sub-s. 1; s. 56, sub-s. 1, 2. Talbot r. Scaeisbeick Warrington J. [1908] 1 Ch. 812 s. 2, sub-s. 2 ; s. 20, sub-s. 1 ; s. 58 sub-s. 1 (v.) ("vi.). In re Hunter and Hewlett's Conteact Swinfen Eady J. [1907] 1 Ch. 46 ■ s. 2, sub-s. 2 ; s. 22, sub-s. 5. In re Bond Kekewioh J. [1901] 1 Ch. 15 ss. 2 (sub-ss. 3, 10), 21, 23, 33. In re Gueney's Maeeiage Settlement, Sullivan v. Gueney Neville J. [1907] 2 Ch. 496 s. 2, sub-s. 5. In reBABONESS Llan- OVEE'S Will C. A. [1903] 2Ch. 16 s. 2, .sub-s. 5 ; o. 51, sub-s. 1 ; s. 58, sub-s. 1 (ii.). In re RiCHAEDSON Joyce J. [1904] 2 Ch. 777 s. 2, sub-s. (1) ; ss. 38, 58, sub-s. 1, cl. ix. ; s. 68. In re Childs' Settle- ment Kekewich J. [1907] 2 Ch. 348 • s. 2, sub-s. 2; s. 58, sub-s. 1, els. vi., ix. In ?-eBAEONBSSLLANOVEE Swinfen Eady J. [1907] 1 Ch. 636 STATUTES— C(7«(;wi««(?. 45 & 46 Vict. 0. 38 {Settled Land), s. 2, sub-sa. 5, 6 ; s. 58, sub-s. 1 (ix.). In re BENlfET Kekewich J. [1903] 2 Ch. 136 s. 2, sub-ss. 5, 7 ; 8. 58, sub-s. 1 (vi). In re POLLOCK Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 1 Ch. 146 s. 2, Bub-s. 8. In re JACKSON'S Settled Estate Buckley J. [1902] 1 Ch. 258 s. 2, sub-s. 8 ; s. 20, sub-s. 2, els. (i.) and (ii.) ; s. 50. In re Davies AND Kent's Conteact C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 35 s. 2, sub-s. 10 (iv.) ; s. 6 ; s. 7, sub-ss. 2, 3. SiTWBLL V. EAEL of LONDES- BOEOUGH Warrington J. [1905] 1 Ch. 460 ss. 2 (9), 21, 22. In re NoETON AND Las Casas' Conteact Neville J. [1909] 2 Ch. 59 ss. 2, 20, 38, 40, 50. In re CoEN- wallis-West and Munbo's Conteact Farwell J. [1903] 2 Ch. 150 s. 3, sub-ss. (i), (iii.) ; s. 21, sub-s. (viii.). In re Beothbeton's Estate C. A. [1908] W. N. 56 ss. 3, 62. In re S. S. B. C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 712 s. 4, sub-s. 1 ; ss. 53, 54. Hueebllu Littlejohn Joyce J. [1904] 1 Ch. 689 ss. 6, 7, sub-s. 1 (i., ii.) ; s. 17, sub-ss. 1, 53. In re Aldam's Settled Estates C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 46 ss. 6, 10. In re FoEEEST Parker J. [1910] W. N. 201 ss. 6, 13. 53. In re EoDBS Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. 815 ss. 6, 53. GiLBBY f. EUSH Kekewich J. [1906] 1 Ch. 11 ss. 7, sub-s. 2 ; s. 54. In re Handmann AND Wilcox's Conteact C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 699 ss. 18, 21 (vi.), 59, 60. In re Beuce Kekewich J. [1905] 2 Ch. 372 s. 20, sub-s. 2 ; s. 50. In re DiCKIN AND Kblsall's Conteact Swinfen Eady J. [1908] 1 Ch. 213 s. 21, sub-s. 2. In ?•« "DuKB OF Manchbstbe's Settlement Eve J. [1910] 1 Ch. 106 — s. 21, sub-s. (ii.) ; s. 25. In j'eLEGH'S Settled Estate Kekewich J. [1902] 2 Ch. 274 s. 21, sub-s. (iii.) ; ss. 25, 26. StAN- FOED c. ROBEKTS 3 o3&a8 Buckley J. [1901] 1 Ch. 440 DURING THE YBAES 1901—1910. dxix STATOTES—contimed. 45 & 46 Vict. c. 38 (^Settled Land), s. 21, sub-s. 9 ; s. 33. In re Toeey Hill Estate Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. 468 s. 21, sub-s. 10. In re Maeyok Wil- son's Settled Estates Joyce J. [1901] 1 Oh. 934 M re Lbveson - Gower's Settled Estate Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 2 Ch. 95 ss. 21, 22. In re HOTHAM C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 675 s. 21 ; a. 22, sub-s. 5 ; s. 24, sub-s. 3. In re Walkbe Warringfton J. [1908] 2 Ch. 706 ss. 21, 22, aub-s. 2 ; a. 53. In re HuifT's Settled Estates C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 11 ss. 21, 22, 50, sub-s. 3 ; s. 53. In re Sis Robeet Peel's Settled Estates Warrington J. [1910] 1 Ch. 389 s. 22, sub-s. 2 ; s. 31. In re DuKB or Cleveland's Settled Estates Joyce J. [1902] 2 Ch. 350 s. 22, sub-s. 5. Bbddinqton BAUMAmsr - H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. 13 s. 25. In re Febake's Settlement Joyce J. [1902] 1 Ch. 97 In re Claekb's Settlement Buckley J. [1902] 2 Ch. 327 In re Blaoeave's Settled Estates C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 660 s. 25, sub-sa. (vi.), (xiii.), (xx.). In re Earl of Duneaven's Settled Es- tates Kekewich J. [1907] 2 Ch. 417 s. 25, aub-ss. 10, 11. In re Eael of Lisbuene's Settled Estates Kekewich J. [1901] W. N. 91 s. 25, sub-sa. 10, 20. In re CALVEELEr's Settled Estates Farwell J. [1904] 1 Ch. 150 s. 25, aub-s. (xii.). In re LoED Leconpield's Settled Estates Kekewich J. [1907] 2 Ch. 340 s. 25, sub-ss. X., XX. In re GALVBE- LBY's Settled Estates Farwell J. [1904] 1 Ch. 150 ss. 25, 26, 53. In re Eael of Egmont's Settled Estates Warrington J. [1908] W. N. 176; [1906] 2 Ch. 161 a. 26. In re Paetington Buckley J. [1902] 1 Ch. 711 In re Keok's Settlement Farwell J. [1904] 2 Ch. 22 45 & 46 Vict. 0. 39 {Convey anovng), s. 8. Hunt ■0. Luck C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 428 S. 3, sub-s. 1. MOLYNEUX D.-HAWTEBY C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 487 STATUTES- 45 & 46 Vict. c. 39 {Conveyancing), a. 3, sub-a. 1 (i.) and (ii.). Tayloe v. London and County Banking Co. C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 231 a. 3, sub-s. 1 (ii.). In re Alms Coen Charity Stirling J. [1901] 2 Ch. 750 s. 10. In re Sheubb Swinfen Eady J. [1910] W. N. 143 ss. 26, 59, 60. In re Geeys Couet Estate Farwell J. [1901] W. N. 60 aa. 37, sub-as. 1, 2 ; s. 2, sub-s. 9 ; s. 21, cl. (ii.) ; s. 53. In re LoED Straf- foed's Settlement and Will Warrington J. [1904] 2 Ch. 78 s. 40. In re Barlow's Contract Swinfen Eady J. [1903] 1 Ch. 382 s. 50, sub-s. 1 ; o. 51, sub-s. 1. In re Peenchaed Buckley J. [1902] 1 Ch, 378 a. 53. MiDDLBMAs V. Stevens Joyce J. [1901] 1 Ch. 574 GiLBEY V. Rush Kekewich J. [1905] W. N. 153 s. 53 ; a. 56, sub.-s. 2. In re Db MOLEYNS' AND HARRIS'S CONTEACT Joyce J. [1908] 1 Ch. 110 a. 56, aub-a. 2. In re GsBOENE AND Beight's, Ld. Kekewich J. [1902] 1 Ch. 335 s. 58. In re Bolton Estates Act, 1863 Joyce J. [1904] 2 Ch, 289 a. 58, sub-s. I, cl. v. Jbmmbtt and Guest's Conteact Swinfen Eady J. [1907] 1 Ch. 629 s. 60. In re Helyae Joyce J. [1902] 1 Ch. 391 s. 63. In re Wormald's Settled Estate Warrington J, [1908] W. N. 214 In re Goodall's Settlement Swinfen Eady J. [1909] 1 Ch. 440 In re Wagstapf's Settled Estates Neville J, [1909] 2 Ch, 201 45 & 46 Viot. c. 40 {Copyright — Musisal Com- poHtions), ss. 1, 2. Saepy v. HOLLAND C, A. [1908] 2 Ch. 198 45 & 46 Vict. c. 43 {Bills of Sale). Antoniadi V. Smith C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 689 ss. 3, 9. Melloe (Teustee op) v. Maas C. a. [1903] 1 K. B. 226 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 102 ss. 4, 6, 9. CoATES V. Moore C. A. [1903] 2 K. B, 140 s. 8. In re Reis C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 769 ; H. L. (K.) [1906] A. C, 442 Pbttit v. Lodge and Harper C. A. [1908] W. N. 45 ss. 8 9. Smith v. Whiteman C. A, [1909] 2 K. B. 437 dxx TABLE OF STATDTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED STATU TE S—continiied. 45 & 46 Vict. c. 43 (Sills of Sale), s. 9. BOSEFIELD V. PKOVINCIAL UNION BANK C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 781 S. 9. MOTJEMAND V. LE CLAIE Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 216 • s. 9, Sched. Saunders v. White C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 472 s. 17. Clabk c. Balm, Hill & Co. PMUimore J. [1908] 1 K. B. 667 45 & 46 Vict. c. 50 (3Iuniei2Ml Cm-porations). Att.-Gen. r. Manchbstejj Coepoka- TION Farwell J. [1906] 1 Ch. 643 Tenby Corpoeation v. Mason C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 467 s. 9, sub-s. 2, ((?), (e). ASH v. NiCHOLL Div. ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 139 ■ s. 10, sub-s. 1. Att.-Gbn. c. London County Council C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 781 s. 12, sub-s. 1 (c). In re Gloucestbk Municipal Election Petition, 1900 (TupPLET Ward) Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 683 ss. 12, 87. Bex v. Beee Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 693 ss. 18, 21, 25—28, 106, 119, 139—144, 240, Sched. V., Part 1., Sched. VIII. Att.-Gen. v. De Winton rarwell J. [1906] 2 Ch. 106 ss. 23, 24. EOBiNSON V. Gregory Div. Ct. [1905] 1 K. B. 634 3. 42, sub-s. 1 ; s. 61, sub-s. 4 ; s. 87, sub-s. 1 (d) ; s. 102. Bland ;-. Bu- chanan - Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 75 s, 56, sub-s. 2. HoBBS v. MoEEY [1904] 1 K. B. 74 ss. 108, 1 09. SOAEBOEOUGH COEPOEA- TioN v. Cooper Joyce J. [1910] 1 Ch. 68 s. 140 ; Sched. V., Part II. ; Gbobgb ■!'. Thomas Scrutton J. [1910] 2 K. B. 961 ss. 154, 155, 158. Lawson v. Rey- nolds Farwell J. [1904] 1 Ch. 718 ss. 154—159. Huntingdon Coepoea- TiON i: Huntingdon County Council Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 267 s. 233 ; Sched. II., r. 5. Tenby Cor- poration V. Mason C. A, [1908] 1 Ch. 457 s. 250. Truro Corporation v. Rowe C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 709 45 k 46 Vict. c. 56 (Electric Lightingy MlD- wooD & Co. ■ii. Manchestbe Corpora- tion C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 697 ■ ss. 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 18, 24, 25, 32. Att.- Gen. v. Leicbstee Corpoeation Neville J. [1910] 2 Ch. 369 s. 10. Att.-Gbn. w. Pontypeidd Ueban Council C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 267 BTbJVI'&S— continued. 45 & 46 Vict. c. 56 (Electric Zighting), s. 11. SuDBUEY Corpoeation v. Empibe Elbcteio Light and Powee Co. Warrington J. [1908] 2 Ch. 104 S3. 12, 13. Corporation op London V. County of London Electric Supply Co. Parker J. [1910] 2 Ch. 208 — ss. 19, 20. Metropolitan Electric Supply Co. t. Gindee Buckley J. [1901] 2 Ch. 799 ss. 19, 21. HusEY V. London i Elec- tric Supply Corporation C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 411 45 & 46 Vict. c. 58 (Divided Parislies and Poor Law) s. 12. Smith ii. Leigh Union C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 484 45 cS: 46 Vict. c. 61 (Sills of Exchange), s. 7, 3ub-s. 8. Vinden r. Hughes Warrington J. [1906] 1 K. B. 796 North and South Wales Bank, Ld. V. Macbeth H. L. (E.) [1908] A.C.137 s. 20. Hbbdman v. Wheeler Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 361 Lloyds Bank, Ld. o. Cooke C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 794 Glenie r. Bruce Smith C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 263 s. 24. Embbeicos <■. Anglo-Aus- trian Bank Walton J. [1904] 2 K. B. 870 .ss. 24, 72. Embericos v. Anglo- Austrian Bank C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 677 ss. 48, 49, sub-s. 12 ; s. 50, sub-s. 1. The " Elmville " Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 319 ss. 48, 49, 50, sub-s. 2 (h). In re Fenwick, Stobart & Co. Buckley J. [1902] 1 Ch. 507 ss. 49, 50. The " Elmville " [1904] P. 319 3. 75, sub-s. 1. Curtice r. London City and Midland Bank, Ld. C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 293 S3. 81, 82. Great Western Ey. Co. •('. LoiJDON AND County Banking Co. H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C.414 s. 82. Capital and Counties Bank Ld. i\ Gordon H.I, (E.) [1903] A.C.240 Akrokbrri (Ashanti) Mines, Ld. r. Economic Bank Bigham J. [1904] 2 K. B. 466 s. 83. KiRKWooD V. Caeeoll C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 631 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75 (Married Women's Property). Kex r. Payne Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 97 Masson, Templiee & Co. r. De Feies C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 831 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. dxxi STATVT'ES—coniinited. 45 & 46 Viot. c. 75 {Married Women's Property), B. 1, sub-s. 1 ; s. 5. In re Haeeis Parker J. [1909] 2 Ch. 206 s. 1, sub-s. 2. PoNTTPOOL Guardians I. Buck Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 896 GuENOD V. Leslie C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 880 GOATLEY ■!;. JONIiS (NO. 1). GOATLBY r. Jones (No. 2) NevUle J. [1909] 1 Ch. 687 s. 1, sub-ss. 3, 4 : s. 4. In re Field- wick — s. 1, sub-s. 5. — s. 1, sub-s. 5. s. 12, 17. C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 1 M re WoESLEY C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 309 In re Simon C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 201 — SS. 1, 19. BOLITHO & Co. V. GiDLEY H. I. (E.) [1905] A. C. 98 — s. 3. In re Ceonmiee C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 480 In re Amblee C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 697 — s. 5. In re BACON Swinfen Eady J. [1907] 1 Ch. 478 — s. 11. In re Beownb's Policy Kekewich J. [1903] 1 Ch. 188 Geippiths v. Fleming C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 805 — SS. 12, 16. Rex v. James and John- son C. C. R. [1902] 1 K. B. 840 Rex v. Payne C. C. E. [1906] 1 E. B. 97 Laenee v. Laenee Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 839 s. 19. blemxngham excelsioe Money Society v. Lane C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 38 45 & 46 Vict. c. ecxiii. {Pecltham, and East Dulioich Tramways'), ss. 4, 6, 7, 36. In re East Dulwich and Ceystal Palace Teamways Bill Neville J. [1909] W. N. 180 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 840 45 & 46 Vict. c. ccxliii. (^Blackburn Improvement Act). Blackbuen Coeporation v. Sandeeson C. a. [1902] 1 K. B. 794 45 & 46 Vict. c. ccli. (^Alexandra {NewpoH and South Wales) Dochs and Eailway Act). Anglo-Algbeian Steamship Go. V. HOULDER LiNB, LD. Walton J, [1908] 1 K. B. 659 1883. 46 & 47 Vict. 0. 29 (^Supreme Court of Judicature {Funds, ^•c.) ), SS. 1, 2, 3. In re Williams' Settled Estates Swinfen Eady J. [1910] 2 Ch. 481 46 & 47 Vict. u. 37 {Public Health — Support of Sewers), ss. 2, 3, 4, 5. Jary v. Baenslby Corporation Parker J. [1907] 2 Ch. 600 STATUTE S- 46 & 47 Vict. c. 38 {Trial of Lunatics), s. 2, sub-ss. 1, 2. Rex v. Iebland C. C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 664 46 & 47 Vict. i;. 51 {Corrupt and Illegal Pracficex Prevention), s. 6, sub-s. 3 {a) ; s. 38, sub-s. 6. MOEEIS u. Shebwsbuey Town Cleek Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 342 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52 {Bankruptcy). In re CoT- GEAVE Kekewich J. [1903] 8 Ch. 708 s. 4, sub-s. 1 {a), (A) ; s. 6, sub-s. 1 {d). CooKB V. Chaeles a. Vogelbe Co. H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C, 102 s. 4, sub-s. 1 {b) ; ss. 43, 44, 49. In re Slobodinsky Wright J. [1903] 2 K. B. 817 s. 4, sub-s. 1 {d). In re WoESLEY C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 309 s. 4, sub-s. 1 C^). In re Clements Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 260 Ex parte Smith C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 260 In re Smith C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 33 In re A Debtoe C. A. [1903] W. N. 6 In re H. B. C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 94 In re G. J. C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 678 In re A Bankruptcy Notice C. A. [1907] W. N . 4 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 478 In re A Debtoe C. A. [1907] W. N. 4 In re A Debtoe. Ex parte The Debtoe C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 344 In re A Judgment Debtoe (530 of 1908) C. A. [1908] 2 KB. 474 In re A Debtoe (478 of 1908) C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 684 In re A Debtor (484 of 1908) C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 693 s. 4, sub-s. 1 (A) ; s. 6, sub-s. 1 {b). Jm?'eMiLLEE C.A. [1901]1K.B.81 (H.) ; s. 43 ; s. 47, sub-s. 2. In re Reis - C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 769 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 442 In re Beindley C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 377 s. 4, sub-s. \{ci)\ s. 38. In re G. E. B., A Debtoe C. A. [1903] S K. B. 340 s. 4, sub-s. \ {g); s. 143. In re 0. C. S. (A Debtor) C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 161 s. 4, sub-s. 1 {h). Clough v. Samuel H. L. (E.)[1906] A.C. 442 ss. 4, 43, 44, 54. Stein v. Pope C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 695 ss. 4, 49. In re JUKBS Wright J. [1902] 2 K. B. 88 s. 6. In re Macoun C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 700 s. 6, sub-s. 1 {d). Ex parte Beight C. A. [1903] W. N. 17 dxxii TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED STATVT'ES—cotithmed. 46 & 47 Vict. t>. 52 (Bankruptcy'), s. 6, sub-s. 2 ; o. 7, siib-3. 3. In re BUTTON C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 602 s. 7, sub-s. 3. In re Beatj- CHAMP - C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 672 s. 7, sub-s. 3 ; s. 38. In re A Debtor, E.i' parte Peak Hill Goldpiblds, Ld. C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 430 s. 7, sub-s. 5. In re GtENTRT C. A, [1910] 1 K. B. 826 6. 9, sub-s. 2 ; ss. 43, 49. Ponsfoed, Baker & Co. t. Ukion of Londok KSD Smith's Bank, Ld. C. A. [1906] 2Cli. 444 ss. 9 — 44. In re GuEDALLA ■Warrington J. [1906] 2 Ch. 331 ss. 9, 45. In re PoLLARD C. A. [1903] 2 K, B. 41 s. 9, sub-s. 2 ; ss. 43, 49. Ponsfoed, Baker & Co. c. Union op London & Smith's Bank, Ld. C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 444 s. 10, sub-s. 2. /ft re JAMES Ed&COME C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 403 s. 12 ; s. 102, sub-s. 5. In re Jones PMllimore J. [1908] 1 K. B. 204 ss. 18, 19, BO. In re Sewbll Parker J. [1009] 1 Ch. 806 s. 20, sub-s. 1. In re Ponsfoed C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 704 s. 21, sub-ss. 1, 4, 6 ; s. 54, sub-s. 1 ; s. 55, sub-s. 1. In re Cohen C. A. [1906] 8 K. B. 704 ss. 23, 32. In re Beer C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 628 s. 26. In re Gordon Wright J. [1903] 2 K. B. 164 s. 27. In re Walker Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 104 ss. 27, 168. In re DaucKEE (No. 2) Wright J. [1902] 2 K. B. 210 ss. 28 (repealed), 48. In re Steno- TYPER, Ld. CozenB-Hardy J. [1901] 1 Ch. 250 s. 31. Ebx 1-. Turner C. C. K. [1904] 1 K. B. 181 S3. 31, 163, 164, 166. In re Dunn C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 107 s. 32. Rex v. Beer Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 693 s. 35. In re Adib Wright J. [1901] W. N. 98 In re Keet C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 666 s. 35, sub-s. 1. In re Taylor Div. Ct. [1901] 1K.B.744 ss. 35, 104. In re Aytown Wright J. [1901] W. N. 166 ss. 37, 44. Governors op St. Thomas's Hospital v. Richardson C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 271 STATUTES- 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52 (Banh-uptcy), ss. 37, 38. In re Tayloe C. a. [1910] 1 K. B. 662 s. 37 ; s. 48, sub-s. 1. In re BLACK- POOL Motor Car Go. Buckley J. [1901] 1 Ch. 77 s. 37, sub-ss. 3, 8 ; s. 44 (iii.). In re Button C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 180 In re Gednby Warrington J. [1908] 1 Ch. 804 ss. 38, 43, 44. Tillby r. Bowman, Ld. Hamilton J. [1910] 1 K. B. 745 ss. 38, 47. Lister v. Hooson C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 174 s. 40, sub-s. 4. In re Whitakbe C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 9 B. 40, sub-ss. 4, 5. In re Whitakbr Farwell J. [1904] 1 Ch. 299 • ss. 42, 43. In re BuMPUS Bigham J. [1908] 2 E. B. 330 ss. 43, 44, 54. Montefiore r. GuEDALLA Buckley J. [1901] 1 Ch. 435 ss. 43, 49. Davis v. Petrib C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 786 s. 44. In re Druckbr (No. 1) C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 237 In, re Weibking Wright J. [1902] 1 K. B. 713 Jennings r. Mathbe C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 1 Bailey v. Thurston & Co. C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 137 In re ROSE C. A. [1905] 1 Ch. 94 In re "William Watson & Co. C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 753 In re Hamilton Young & Co. C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 753 ss. 44, 64. London and County Contracts, Ld. c. Tallack Kekewich J. [1903] W. N. 8 Official Receivbe c. Cooke Neville J. [1906] 2 Ch. 661 In re Kent County Gas Light and Coke Co. - Neville J. [1909] 8 Ch. 196 ss. 44, 54, 168. RoSB c. Buckett C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 449 s. 45. In re National United In- vestment Corporation Wright J. [1901] 1 Ch. 950 s. 47. In re PASEY Wright J. [1904] 1 K. B. 129 In re Pope C. A. [1908] 8 K. B. 169 Shragbr !■. March P. C. [1908] A. C. 402 s. 47, sab-s. 2. In re Magnus, E.v parte Salaman C. A. [1910] 2 E. B. 1049 s. 48. In re Lake \ C. A. [1901] IK. B. 710 DUEING THE YEARS 1901—1910. dxxiii STATVT'ES— continued. 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52 {Banh-uptcy'), s. 49. In re Lawfoed & Laweenob Wright J. [1902] 2 K. B. 445 In re DuNKLBY & Son Bigham J. [1905] 2 K. B. 683 s. 55. In re Bastable C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 518 Peaece r. Bastablb's Teustees in Bankeuptoy Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] 2 Ch. 122 ■ s. 55, sub-ss. 1, 2, 6. In re Caetee & Ellis C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 735 a. 55, sub-s. 2. Stacey ;•. Hill C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 660 ■ s. 55, snb-s. 6. In re Bakek C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 628 In re HOLMES Div. Ct. [1908] 2 K. B. 812 BS. 55, 125. In re Mellison DiY. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 68 s. 57. In re Beight Wright J. [1903] 1 K. B. 735 ■ s. 57, sub-s. 3 ; s. 166. Jenotngs (!. Mathee C. a. [1902] 1 K. B. 1 s. 57, sub-s. 6 ; s. 89, sub-s. 3. In re PlLLHTG. Ex parte SALAMA2f Bigham J. [1906] 2 K. B. 644 • s. 57, sub-ss. 7, 8. ; s. 102, sub-s. 1. In re Macfadyek" [1908] W. N. 13 ss. 57, 73. Ml- parte 'Svys.oWuS Wright J. [1902] W. N. 114 s. 58. In re Mayitb Bigham J. [1907] 2 K. B. 899 s. 73. In re Lawkancb & PoETEE Phillimore J. [1910] W. N. 270 s. 73, sub-s. 3. In re Smith. Expaite Wilson Phillimore J. [1910] 2 E. B. 346 ■ s. 74, sub-ss. 3, 6 ; s. 76. In re SiMS Bigham J. [1907] 2 K. B. 36 s. 74, sub-s. 6. BoAED of Teadb v. Employees' Liability Assdeanoe ooepoeation c. a. [1910] 2 k. b. 649 s. 80. In re Solomons C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 917 s. 102, sub-s. 1. Lea v. Thuesby Swiufen Eady J. [1904] 2 Ch. 57 . s. 103, sub-s. 6. In re A Debtob Div. Ct. [1905] 1 K. B. 374 In re Hallman Phillimore J. [1909] 2 E. B. 430 s. 104. In re SuMMBES Bigham J. [1907] 2 K. B. 166 Sched. II., r. 22. In re VAN Laun C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 23 3. 105, sub-s. 1. In re A Debtoe CNo. 1103 of 1909) C. A. [1910] 1 E. B. 313 STATUTES— cfCftiMtwe^. 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52 {Banhruptcy), ss. 105 (4), 139 ; Sched. I., r. 14. In re Smith: Ex parte VALBNTINB Phillimore J. [1910] W. N. 23 s. 105 ; Sched. II., i. 25. In re Pilling Phillimore J. [1909] 2 E. B. 788 ss. 106, 108, 112, 125. In re GeeAVBS Bigham J. [1904] 2 E. B. 493 s. 117. In re Dobson Wright J. [1903] W. N. 155 Galbbaith v. Geimshaw H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 508 s. 121. In re Weighell C. A. [1909] 1 E. B. 92 s. 122. Bradfield v. Cheltenham GUABDIANS Buckley J. [1906] 2 Ch. 371 Pbaeson v. Wiloook C. a. [1906] 2 E. B. 440 s. 125. In re Kbnwaed Eekewioh J. [1906] W. N. 16 — Sched. II., r. 22. In re Van Laun C. A. [1907] 2 E. B. 23 Johnson v. Pickeeing C. A. [1908] 1 E. B. 1 3. 127. Ill re Speatley Bigham J. [1909] 1 E. B. 559 s. 148. In re J. G. Tomkins & Co. C. A. [1901] 1 E. B. 476 In re R. S. A. C. A. [1901] 2 E. B. 32 ■ ss. 159, 160, 161. In re Baeton C. A. [1909] 2 E. B. 841 s. 168. In re Wilkinson Bigham J. [1905] 2 E. B. 713 s. 168, and Sched. II., rr. 9—16. Inre Lake Wright J. [1903] 1 E. B. 439 Sched. L, r. 10 ; Sched. IL, rr. 13, 14. In re RowE Bigham J. [1904] 2 E. B. 489 Sched. II. In re McMnEDO C. A. [1902].2 Ch. 684 Sched. II., r. 13. In re Claek Wright J. [1901] 1 E. B. 655 In re Faitshaw Bigham J. [1906] 1 E. B. 170 Sched. II., r. 18. In re MacPadybn. Ex parte Vizianagakam Mining Co. C. A. [1908] 2 E. B. 817 Sched. II., r. 25. In re Bbnoist Phillimore J. [1909] 2 E. B. 784 46 & 47 Vict. 0. 55 (Jtevenue'), s. 17. Capital AND Counties Bank, Ld. ». Goedon H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. 240 46 & 47 Vict. c. 57 {Patents, Designs and, Trade Marls'), S3. 18, 47, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61,90. Weenbe Motors, Ld. v. A. W. Gam- age, Ld. - ,C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 680 dxxiv TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED STATUTES— OT?jiued. 54 & 55 A^ct. c. 76 (Public Healtli— London), s. 5, sub-s. 5 ; G. 24, sub-s. (i). Tough v. Hopkins Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 804 . — s. 24 (V). South London Elbcteic Supply Coepoeation «. Pbeein Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 186 McNair v. Bakbe Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 208 s. 30. Wandswoeth Coepoeation r. Baines Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 470 ss. 30, 39, 141. J. Lyons & Co. v. London Coepoeation Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 588 s. 33, sub-s. 2. Westministee Coe- poeation 1). GOEDON Hotels, Ld. H. 1. (E). [1908] A. C. 142 • r- S3. 37, 39. NoAKES V. Islington Coepoeation (No. 1). Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 610 s. 39, by-laws 5, 14. London and South Westeen Ky. Co. v. Hills Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 612 8. 44. Westminstee Coepoeation V. London and Noeth Westeen Ey. Co. - H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 436 ss. 44, 45. Westminstee Coepoea- tion V. Johnson C. A. [1904] 2K. B.737 ■ s. 47, sub-s. 2 ; s. 107, sub-s. 3 ; s. 123. GiEBLEE e. Manning Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 709 . s. 47, sub-s. 3. Geivell v. Malpas Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 32 3. 94. Wbatheeitt v. Cantlay Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 285 8. 94, sub-s. 1. (d). Stiles v. Ga- linshi Nokes v. Islington Coepoea- tion (No. 2) Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 616 s. 94, sub-s., 1 (e) ; s. 116. Aelidge V. Islington Coepoeation Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 127 54 & 55 Vict. c. xxvi. (^Metropolitan Commons — Mitchani). CoOK v. MiTCHAM Com- mon CONSEEVATOES Farwell J. [1901.] 1 Ch. 387 54 & 55 Vict. c. cxxi (London and KoHh Western JRy. Co. (Rates and Charges') Order Con- firmation), 3. 6. Chaeeington, Sells, Dale & Co. ■». London and Noeth Westeen Ey. Co. Ey. and Canal Comrs. [1906] 2 K. B. 437 54 & 55 Vict. c. cxxx. (City of Glasgow), s. 35. Caledonian Ey. Co. ■». Glasgow Coepoeation H. 1. (Sc.) [1909] A. C. 138 54 & 55 Vict. c. clxxxviii. (Bognor Water), ss. 60, 61. Feedekick v. Bognoe Watee Co. - Eve J. [1909] 1 Ch. 149 54 & 55 Vict. c. ccvii. (Manchester Corporation). JIUDSON V. Ceibble C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 617 S'Sk.TVT^i— continued. 5i & 55 Vict. c. ccxix. (Midland Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Order Confirmation). MIDLAND Ry. Co. r. Myees, Bose & Co. H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 13 54 & 55 Vict. c. ccxxii. (Great Westei'n Railway Company (Rates amd Cliarges) Order Confirmation). GebAT Westeen By. Co.u. Caswell & Bowden, Ld. Walton J. [1904] 2 K. B. 508 s. 6. Geeat Westeen By. Co. «. Phillips & Co. H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 101 Sched. I., s. 2 (I). SPILLEES k Bakees, Ld. v. Geeat Westeen By. Co. a. T. Lawrence J. [1910] 1 K. B. 778 1892. 55 ic 56 Vict, c Studd 4 (Infants), s. 3 Milton r. - Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 118 55 & 56 Viet. c. 6 (Colonial Probates). In tue Goods of Smith Bncknill J. [1904] 1 P. 114 55 & 56 Vict. c. 9 (Gaming), s. 1. Willis v. LoviCK Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 195 Safpeey I-. Mayeb C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 11 Lemeose c. Stoddaet C. A. [1902] 2 X. B. 21 55 & 56 A'^iot. e. 13' (Conveyancing and Law of Property), s. 2, sub-s. 2 ; s. 4. EwAET T. Feyek C. a. [1901] 1 Ch. 499 In re RiGGS Wright J. [1901] 2 K. B. 16 s. 3. Waite i: Jennings C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 11 Jenkins v. Peice C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 10 Andeew v. Beidgman C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 596 3. 4. GeAY !'. BONSALL C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 601 Matthews r. Smallwood Parker J. [1910] 1 Ch. 777 55 & 56 Vict. c. 27 (Parliamentary Deposits and Bonds), 3. 1. Inre Peckham, Dulwich and Ceystal Palace Teamways Bill C, A. [1910] 2 Ch. 1 3. 1, sub-ss. 1, 2, 3. In re TOERING- TON AND OKEHAMPTON EAILWAY BILL Neville J. [1907] 1 Ch. 186 In re Peckham, East Dulwich, and Crystal Palace Teamways Bill Neville J. [1909] 2 Ch. 540 55 & 56 Vict. c. 32 (Clergy Discipline). Lee r. Atheeton p. C. [1904] A. C. 806 Bowman r. Lax Chancery Court of York [1910] 2 K. B. 300 s. 1 . Sweet r. Bishop of Ely Joyce J. [1902] 2 Ch. 608 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910, Jxxxv STATUTES 55 & 56 Vict. c. 32 ^Clergy Bisoipline), s. 2. GlKT B. FlLLINGHAJVt Consistory Court of St. Albans [1901] P. 176 FiTZMAUEICE V. HbSKETH P. C. [1904] A. C. 266 MooKB V. Bishop of Oxpobd P. C. [1904] A. C. 283 ss. 2, 3, 12. Sweet «. Young Consistory Court of Bochester [1902] P. 37 ss. 2, 4, 9. Chesnby v. Newsholme. Newsholme v. Chesnby (2) Chancery Court of York [1903] P. 301 55 & 56 Vict. c. 39 (^National Debt — Stochholders' Relief), s. 4. Oldham Coepobation v. Bank of England C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 716 55 & 56 Viot. c. 43 (^Military Lands). HOBNSEY Ueban Codncil v. Hennell Biv. Ct. [1902] 3 K. B. 73 55 & 56 Vict. 0. 55 (Burgh Police — Scotland), S. 217. MONTGOMEEIB & CO. V. HAD- DINGTON (Peovost, &c., op) H. L. (So.) [1908] A. C. 170 ss. 316, 318, 380. Da Pbato v. Pae- TicK (Peovost, &o. of) H. L. (Sc.) [1907] A. C. 163 55 & 56 Vict. c. 57 (^Private Street Wm-kg), as. 5, 7. Cabby v. Bexhill Coepobation Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 142 s. 6. Heene Bay Ueban Council v. Payne & Wood DlT. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 180 ss. 6, 7, 8. Wakefield Coepobation 11. Cooke - H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 31 ss. 6, 12 ; Sched. Part. I. Wieeal RuEAL Council r. Caetee Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 646 ss. 7, 8. Peaece v. Maidenhead Coe POEATION Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 96 s. 12. Haylee v. Sandown Ueban Council Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 169 ss. 12, 14. Suetbbs v. Woodhouse C. A. [1903] 1 E. B. 396 s. 13. West Ham Coepobation t'. Shaep - Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K. B. 445 ss. 13, 17. In re PiZZI Neville J. [1907] 1 Ch. 67 55 & 56 Vict. c. 58 (Accuiwulaiions), a. 1. In re Baeoness Llanovee Swinfen Eady J. [1907] 1 Ch. 638 In re Glutteebuck Byrne J. [1901] 2 Ch. 288 In re Baeoness Llanovee Earwell J. [1903] 2 Ch. 330 55 & 56 Vict. c. 59 {Telegraph), s. 5. South Eastben Ry. Co. v. National Tele- phone Co. - C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 614 55 & 56 Vict. c. 62 {Shop Hours), ss. 4, 9. W. H Smith & Son v. Kyle Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 286 STATUTES— ci 55 & 56 Vict. 0. viii. (Railway Passengers' Assurance Company). Hodson v. Rail- way Passengers' Assurance Co. G. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 833 55 & 56 Vict. c. cviii. (Pontypridd Waterworhs) s. 4. Att.-Gen. v. Pontypeidd Watbe- WOEKS Co. Warrington J. [1908] 1 Ch. 388 1893. 56 & 57 Vict. c. 31 (Rivers Pollution Preven- tion), a. 1. AlEDEIB Magisteates v. Lanaek County Council. Coat- beidge Magisteates v. Lanark County Council H. L. (So.) [1910] A. C. 286 56 & 57 Vict. c. 37 (Liverpool Court of Passage), S. 10. COATES V. MOOEE C. A. [1903] 2K. B. 140 56 & 57 Vict. c. 39 (Industrial and Provident Societies), ss. 10, 34, 58, 60 ; Sched. II., clauses 7, 9. In re United Seevice Shabb Pubchase Society, Ld. Neville J. [1909] 2 Ch. 626 s. 23. Gwendolen Peeehold Land Society v. Wicks Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 822 s. 23, sub-s. 2. In re GWAWE-Y- Gweithye Industbial and Peovi- DENT Society, Ld. Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 477 s. 25, sub-as. 1, 2. In the Goods of "R Ayrp'R Gorrell Barnes J. [1903] P. 12 s. 49. Cox v. Hutchinson Warrington J. [1910] 1 Ch. 613 ss. 58, 61. In re Euddington Land Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. 701 56 & 57 Vict. c. 53 (Trustee). Peactice Note Kekewich J. [1901] W. N. 86 Marquis of Salisbury r. Keymee Warrington J. [1909] W. N. 31 s. 1. In re Bubke Neville J. [1908] 2 Ch. 248 8. 1 (g) ; s. 5, sub-s. 3 ; s. 50, In re Tatteesall. Topham v. Aemitage Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 2 Ch. 399 s. 1 (m). In re Dbuitt C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 446 8. 8. In re Dive Warrington J. [1909] 1 Ch. 328 ss. 8, 9. Shaw v. Gates Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch 389 s. 10. In re Boucheeett Joyce J. [1908] 1 Ch. 180 s. 10, sub-s. 1. In re Walker Farwell J. [1901] 1 Ch. 269 In re Sampson Kekewich J. [1906] 1 Ch. 435 ss. 10, 25. 7« re Routledge's Trusts Neville J. [1909] 1 Ch. 380 dxxxTi TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY COXSlDERED SlkTVI'Si— continued. 56 & 57 Viot. c. 63 (^Trustee), ss. 10, 25. In re ROUTLJSDGE'S TRUSTS Neville J. [1909] 1 Ch. 280 8. 1 3. In re JuDD AND Poland AND SkELCHBE'S CONTRACT C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 684 s. 16. In re Howgate and Osboen's CONTEAOT Kekewich J. [1902] 1 Ch. 451 s. 18. In re Eael of Egmont's Warrington J. [1908] 1 Ch. 821 In re Qdickb's Tehsts Swinfen Eady J. [1908] 1 Ch. 887 a. 21. In re HotJGHTON Kekewich J. [1904] 1 Ch. 622 s. 25. In re CHETWyifD's Settle- ment - Farwell J. [1902] 1 Ch. 692 In re Kbnsit NevUle J. [1908] W. N. 235 s. 25, sub-s. 1 ; s. 26. In re No. 9 BOMOEE KOAD Warrington J. [1906] 1 Ch. 359 . s. 25, sub-s. 1 ; s. 26 ; s. 35, sub-s. 1. In re Kuddington Land Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. 701 ss. 25, 35. In re Tatloe's Ageee- MBNT TEUSTS Buckley J. [1904] 2 Ch. 737 ss. 26, 35. In re RiCHASD Mills & Co. (Bbieelt Hill) Ld. Farwell J. [1905] W. N. 36 s. 26, sub-s. ii. (f) ; s. 35, sub-s. 1, cl. ii. (c), and s. 36. In re Gbneeal Accident Assurance "Coepoeation, Ld. Farwell J. [1904] 1 Ch. 147 ss. 26, 35, sub-s. 2. In re No. 12, Cable Egad, Hotlakb, Cheshiee Farwell J. [1904] W. N. 8 S3. 30, 33. In re Hambeough's Estate Warrington J. [1909] 2 Ch. 620 s. 35, sub-3. 1 (ii.) (a). In re De- HATNIN C A. [1910] 1 Ch. 223 s. 42. In re Salaman Kekewich J. [1907] 2 Ch. 46 6. 45. Fletcher r. Collis C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 24 56 & 57 Vict. c. 42 (^Elementary JBducation (Blind and Deaf Children) ), ss. 2, 9. SouTHWAEK Union r. London County Council [1910] 2 K. B. 559 56 & 57 Vict. 0. 53 (Trustee'), B. 35, sub-s. 1 (ii.) {a). In re Dehaynin (Infants) C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 223 56 & 57 Viot. c. 56 (Fertiliners and Feeding Stuffs), s. 3, sub-s. 1 (1)). Laied r. DOBELL Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 131 Slk'SMTSA— continued. 56 & 57 Vict. c. 61 (PMic Authorities Protec- tion). Shaepington v. Fulham GUABDIAIfS Farwell J. [1904] 2 Ch. 449 s. 1. Jeeemiah Amblee & Sons, Ld, t. Beadfoed Coepoeation C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. S86 POLLEY V. FOEDHAM Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 34S Paekbe v. London Countt Council Channel! J. [1904] 2 K. B. 501 Eael op Haeeington d. Deebt Coe- poeation Buckley J. [1904] W. N. 210 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 205 Kent County Council v. Folkestone Coepoeation C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 620 Lylks r. Souihend-on-Sea Coepoea- tion - - C. A. [1905]2K. B. 1 Oppin v. Rochpoed Rueal Council Warrington J. [1906] 1 Ch. 342 HoLSWOETHY UEBAN COUNCIL f. Holswoethy Rueal Council Warrington J. [1907] 2 Ch. 62 S. Pbaeson & Son, Ld. «. Dublin Coepoeation H. L. (It.) [1907] A. C. 361 s. 1 (a). Williams v. Meesey Docks and Haeboue Board C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 804 Mbeeick v. Liverpool Corporation. Eve J. [1910] 2 Ch. 449 — — s. 1, sub-s. (a). The " Burns " C. A. [1907] P. 137 s. 1 (V). T. Tilling, Ld. c. Dick Kere cfe Co. Warrington J. [1906] 1 K. B. 562 s. 1, sub-s. (b). The " Johannesbdeg Gorrell Barnes Prea. [1907] P. 65 3. 1 (c). Smith v. Noethleach Rural Council Farwell J. [1902] 1 Ch. 197 ss. 1, 2. Tory v. Doechester Cor- poration Bigham J. [1907] 1 K. B. 393 s. 2, sub-s. 1 ((f) : s. 3. Lethbeidgb V. Att.-Gen. H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 19 56 & 67 Vict. c. 63 (Married Women's Proj>ert)/), Paquin, Ld. v. Beaucleek H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 148 3. 1. Beown V. Dimbleby C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 28 In re Wheelee Warrington J. [1904] 2 Ch. 66 Spranobr r. Lee Neville J. [1908] 1 Ch. 424 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. dxxxTii STATUTES 56 & 57 Vict. c. 63 {Married Women's Property'), s. 2. Nmw & Co. V. Tyson Div. Ct. [1901J2K. B. 487 Cbiokitt v. Cbickitt C. A. [1902] P. 177 Gordon c. Gokdon C. A. [1904] P. 163 Deessel v. Ellis C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 574 Pawlet v. Pawley Buckley J. [1906] 1 Ch. 593 Makchioness op Hdntly v. Gaskell C. A. [1905] 2 Ch. 656 — s. 3. In re James Joyce J. [1910] 1 Oh. 167 56 & 57 Vict. c. 71 (_Sale of Goods), s. 2. NASH V. iNMAJf - C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 1 3. 4. Peested Minebs Co., Ld. v. Gaenee, Ld. - C. A. [1910] W. N. 276 s. 4, sub-s. 1. Tayloe ■(,. Gee AT Easteen Ry. Co. Bigham J. [1901] 1 K. B. 774 ss. 11, 18, 14, sub-s. 2, 53, sub-s. 2. BosTOCK & Co. v. Nicholson & Co. Bruce J. [1904] 1 K. B. 726 s. 14. Claeke v. Abmy>and Navy Co-oPEEATivE Society C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 156 Ween v. Holt C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 610 Peiest 0. Last C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 148 Jackson «. Rotax Motoe and Cycle Co. - C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 937 s. 14, sub-s. 1. Frost v. Aylesbury Dairy Co. - C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 608 • s. 14, sub-ss. 1, 2. Bristol Tram- ways, &c., Caeriagb Co., Ld. v. Fiat Motors, Ld. C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 831 ss. 15, 55. In re WALKER, WiNSER & Hamm AND Shaw, Son & Co. Channell J. [1904] 2 E. B. 162 s. 16, 17, 18. Rbid v. Macbeth & Gray - H. I. (So.) [1904] A. C. 223 ss. 16, 18, 62. Sib James Laing & Sons, Ld. v. Barclay, Cuelb & Co. H. L. (So.) [1908] A. C. 35 s. 18, r. 4. Weinbe v. Gill ; Same V. Smith - C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 574 ■ 3. 21. Faequhaeson Bbothers & Co. V. C. King & Co. H. L. (K.) [1902] A. C. 326 s. 26. Mtjhgateoyd v. Wright Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 333 Biestall Candle Co. v. Daniels Div. Ct. [1908] 2 K. B. 254 s. 47. Mordaunt Brothers v. British Oil and Cake Mills, Ld. Pickford J. [1910] 2 K. B. 602 . ss. 51, 62. Morgan v. Russell & Sons - Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K.B. 357 STATUTES— oora«irme. Eas Steam Shipping Co. C. A. [1906] 1X.B. 834 s. 236, sub-s. 1. Poll t. Dambb Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 579 ■ s. 376, sub-s. 1. Edgill v. 3. & G. Alward, Ld. - - Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 239 s. 418. The " Hare " Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 381 s. il9. Screw Collier Co. v. Webster or Kerb - H. L. (Sc.) [1910] A. C. 165 ■ ss. 419, 422. The " Pitgavenet" Evans, Pres. [1910] P. 215 s. 419, sub-s. 4. The " Devonian" Jeune.Pres. [1901] P. 221 The " Aristocrat " C. A. [1908] P. 9 s. 419, sub-s. 4 ; s. 424. The " KONING Willem !.■' BuokniU J. [1903] P. 114 s. 422. The "Sussex" Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 236 s. 422, sub-ss. 2, 3. The " Tryst " Bigham J. [1909] P. 333 ■ s. 434, sub-s. 2. The " Elswick Park" BuckniU J. [1904] P. 76 s. 470, sub-s. 1 (as) ; ss. 474, 475 The " Carlisle " - - Div. Ct. [1906] P. 301 s. 502. Grebnshields, Cowie & Co. v. Stephens & Sons, Ld. H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 431 s. 502, sub-s. 1. The " Diamond " Bargrave Deane J. [1906] P. 282 • ss. 503, 504. Van Eijck and Zoon ). EOBEET SOMERVILLE AND CAMP- BELL Gibson H. L. (So.) A. C. 489 The " Hopper," No. 66 C. A. [1907] P. 254 Sib John Jackson Ld. v. Owners of S.S. " Blanche " H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 126 s. 504. The " Alma " Jeune Pres. [1903] P. 55 ss. 591, 741. Stmons i;. Baker Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 723 - — ■ 3, 599. The " Bristol Ottt " Jeune Pres. [1902] P. 10 STATUTES— C0Mi!iw«e(Z. 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60 (^Merchartt Shipinng), s. 603. The " Cayo Bonito " C. A. [1903] P. 203 s. 605. The "Mercedes de Lar- RINGA " Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 215 ■ ss. 605, 622. The " Assaye " Bargrave Deane J. [1905] P. 289 s. 610, sub-8. 7. Rex v. Lewis Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 307 ss. 622, 633. The " OLE Bull " Gorell Barnes J. [1905] P. 52 s. 741. The " Etna " Bucknill J. [1908] P. 269 57 & 58 Vict. 0. 73 (^Loaal Go-cernmtKb'), s. 46, sub-s. 1 (c). Bbadfield r. Chelten- ham Guardians Buckley J. [1^06] 2 Ch. 371 57 & 58 Vict. u. clxxxvii. {Thames Comer- vancy), s. 77. The " Sea Spray." Bargrave Deane J. [1907] P. 133 The " Wallsbnd " Bargrave Deane J. [1907] P. 302 s. 94. Thames Conservators <•. Gravesend Corporation Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 442 s. 171. Gardner, Locket & HiNTON, Ld. v. Doe - Div. Ct.[1906] 2JK.B. 171 • s. 289. Stewart -v. Thames Cox- SERVATORS - Bray J. [1908] 1KB. 893 57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii. (London. — Bvildings), s. .i, sub-ss. 15, 16 ; s. 59, sub-s. 1. FREDERICK Betts, Ld. v. Pickfords, Ld. Kekewich J. [1906] 2 Cli. 87 s. 5, sub-ss. 15, 21 ; s. 49. Att.-Gen. r. MeTCALF AND GREIG C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 327 3. 5, sub-s. 27. MOSBR r. MAESLAND Div. ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 668 s. 5, sub-ss. 29, 32 ; sa. 90, 173. Crosby v. Alhambra Co., Ld. NevUle J. [1907] 1 Ch. 295 s. 5, sub-s. 31 ; s. 201, Part viii. Lewis & Solome c. Charing Cross, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD Ey. CO. Warrington J. [1906] 1 Ch. 508 • ss. 7, 213. Cambebwell Corpora- tion c. Dixon Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 424 ss. 9, 215, Property Exchange, Ld. f. Wandsworth Board of Works C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 61 ss, 22, 27, 216. Fleming r. London County Council. Metropolitan Ry. Co. r. London County Council Consolidation Appeals H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 228 • ss. 22, 182. LiLLEY V. London County Council H. L. (E ) 1 1910] A. C. 1 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. dxli STATUTES- cuidUiutd. 57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii. (Loudon — Buildings), s. 22 ; s. 200, sub-s. 3 (a). London County Council e. Hancock and James Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 45 — s. 22, sub-s. 1 ; s. 200. London County Council r. Illuminated Advertisements Co. Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K, B. 886 s. 22, sub-s. 1 ; s. 73, sub-s, 8 ; s. 161. London County Council v. schewzik Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 695 s. 31. South Eastern and Chat- ham By. Cos.' Managing Committee X. London County Council Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 91 s. 73, sub-s. 8. Hull v. London County Council Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 580 S. 74, Sub-S. 2. DiCKSEB o. Hoskins C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 660 s. 84. Council of the City op Westminstee 13. London County Council Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 326 "Westminster Corporation v. Wat- son - DiT. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 717 ss. 88, 89, 90, 91, 95. Leadbbttee r. Makylebone Coepoeation C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 893 ss. 88, 90, 91, 95. In re Stone and Hastie - C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 463 s. 88, sub-s. 6; s. 91, Adams c. Marylebone Borough Council C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 822 3. 90, sub-ss. 4, 7 ; s. 91. Lbad- BETTEE i). St. Maeylbbone Coepoea- tion - - C. A. [1905] 1 K- B. 661 90, 91, 98, 99. Caelish c. Salt Joyce J. [1906] 1 Ch, 335 s. 99. Mason v. Fulham Coe- poeation - Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 631 s. 122. Ellis v. London County Council i Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 283 ss. 138, 145, 154. MoRAN & Son, Ld. I'. Marsland Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 744 a. 145. London County Council V. Spink & Son, Ld. Div. Ct. [1908] 2 K. B. 447 ss. 145, 201. London County Coun- cil V. District Surveyors' Associa- tion AND Willis Div. Ct. [1909] 2K. B, 138 ss. 154, 157. CORBETT V. Badger Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 278 Part IX. In re Highett and Bird's Contract - C. A. [1903] 1 Ch, 287 STATUTES- cy«(!M«c«;. 1895. 58 Vict. c. 11 (Lands Clauses — Taxation of Costs). Covington c. Metropolitan District Ky. Co. Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 231 s. 1. In, re Cannings, Ld. and Middlesex County Council C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 61 58 & 69 Vict. c. 16 (Finance), s. 12, EAST. BOURNE Corporation v. Att.-Gbn. H. L. (E.) [1904) A. C 168 s. 12. In re Cary-Elwes' Contract Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 2 Ch. 143 Att.-Gbn. r. Felixstowe Gas Light Co. Bray J. [1907] 2 K. B. 984 58 & 59 Vict. c. 25 (^Mortgagees' Legal Costs), s. 2. In re NoRRlS Swinfen Eady J. [1902] 1 Ch. 741 58 & 59 Vict. c. 27 (Market Gardeners' Compen- sation Act), ss. 3, 4, 6. Meaes «. Callender Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] 2 Ch, 388 58 & 59 Vict. c. 37 (Factories and Workshops), ss. 3, 35. Tracey v. Pretty & Sons Div. Ct, [1901] 1 K. B. 444 s. 23, Stewart p. Daengavil Coal Co. - - (1902) Ct. of Sess. (Sc) [1903] W. N. 162 s. 23, sub-s. 1. Rainb v. Johnson & Co. H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 404 Cahrington v. Bannister & Go. C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 29 Merrill i>. Wilson, Sons & Co. C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 35 Ellis i: William Cory & Sons, Ld. C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 38 Bartell v. W. Gray & Co. C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 226 s. 23, sub-s. 1 (ii.), (a). Lyons v, Andrew Knowlbs & Son, Ld. H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 79 58 & 59 Vict. c. 39 (Summary Junsdiction Marmd Women). Nott v. Nott Div. Ct. [1901] P. 241 PlCKAVANCE r. PICKAVANCB Div. Ct. [1901] P. 60 PiPEE B. Piper Div. Ct. [1902] P. 198 Williams jj. Williams Div. Ct. [1904] P. 148 Barker v. Barker Div. Ct. (P.) [1905] W. N. 106 In the Estate of Jones Gorell Barnes, Pres. [1906] W. N. 70 s. 4. Hill. 'I!. Hill Div. Ct. [1902] P. 140 ss. 4, 5 (a). Feowd v. Feowd Div Ct. [1904] P. 177 ROYLE V. ROYLE Div. Ct. [1909]P.24 dxlii TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED STATUTES— continued, 58 & 59 Vict. c. 39 {Summary Jurisdiction — Harried Womeii), ss. 4, 5. Paquine ('. Snaey C. a. [1909] 1 K. B. 688 '— s. 5. Haekimau i: Haeriman C. A. [1909] P. 123 ss. 5, 9. Rex «. Richardson Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 851 ■ s. 5, sub-s. (a). Sheppard i: Shbp- PAHD Gorell Barnes J. [1905] P. 185 Smith r. Smith Bargrave Deane J. [1905] P. 249 DODD r. DODD Gorell Barnes, Pres. [1906] P. 189 ss. 7, 9, 11. RUTHER r. RUTHER Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 270 1896. 59 & 60 Vict. c. 8 (JPaymeJii into Courf), In re ■VVenigek's Policy Warrington J. [1910] W. N. 278 s. 3. Harrison e. Alliance As- surance Go. 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 184 59 & 60 Vict. 0. 25 {Friendly Societies'), a. 8, sub-s. 1 ; s. 70, sub-ss. 1, 2, 3 ; s. 71, sub-s. 1 ; s. 74. Blythb v. Bietlby C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 228 ss. 8, 71. McGlade v. Boyal London Mutual Insueancb Society, Ld. C. a. [1910] 2 Ch. 169 — — ss. 34, 35, 106. In re ElLBECK. Hx parte Teustees OF THE "Good Intent " Lodge, 'So. 987 of the Grand United Order of Odd Fellows Phillimore J. [1910] 1 K. B. 136 ss. 56, 57. In re Redman Kekewich J. [1901] 2 Ch. 471 CADDICK 'V. HiGHTON PMUhnore J. [1901] 2 Ch. 476, n. In re Geippin C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 135 • s. 68. Catt v. Wood H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 404 s. 68, sub-s. 1. Andeews v. Mitchell H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 78 69 & 60 Vict. c. 26 {Collecting Societies and Industrial Companies), ss. 1, 7. COW- LING V. Topping Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 466 s. 4, sub-s. 2 ; s. 14, sub-s. 1. PeAEL Life Assurance Co. c. Scottish Legal Life Assurance, Society, Ld. Div. Ct. [1901] 1 X. B. 528 59 k 60 Vict. c. 28 (Finance), ss. 14, 15, sub-s. 1. Att.-Gen. c. Glossop C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 163 s. 19. De Qubttkvillb v. Quettb- VILLB - C. A. [1905] W. BT. 130 — • s. 19, sub-s. 1. In re Cayley Swinfen Eady J. [1904] 1 Ch. 363 | B'lATVT'ES—contiiiiied. 59 & 60 Vict. c. 28 {Finance), s. 19. In re KiNG Swinfen Eady J. [1904] 2 Ch. 781 In re Tuenbull Farwell J. [1905] 1 Ch. 726 59 & 60 Vict. c. 35 {Judicial Trustees), s. 3 Chapman r. Browne C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 785 In re HoUGilTON Kekewich J. [1907] 1 Ch. 622 In re Dive Warrington J. [1909] 1 Ch. 328 Shaw r. Gates - - Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. 389 s. 8 (1). Davis v. Hutchings Kekewich J. [1907] 1 Ch. 356 59 & 60 Vict. c. 36 {Locomotioes on Siykways), s. 1, sub-s. 1 ; s. 6, sub-ss. 1,2; Schedule. Rex ■». Judge James and Midland Ry. Go. Div. Ct. [1908] 1 E. B. 958 s. 1, sub-3. 1 ; s. 6, sub-ss. 1, 2. EVANS V. NiCHOLL Div. Ct. 1909] 1 K. B. 778 — s. 6. Peovincial Motor Cab Co. r. Dunning ■ - Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 599 59 & 60 Vict. c. 43 {Coal Mines Regidaiion), s. 4. Stokes r. Hill Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 493 s. 6. Jones r. Robson Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 673 Britannic Mbethyr Coal Co. v. David H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 74 69 & 60 Vict. c. 44 {Tritcli:), s. 1. Squibb i\ Baybe & Go. Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 299 s. 2. Squire r. Midland By. Co. Div. Ct. [1905] 2K. B. 448 59 & 60 Vict. c. 47 Land Law {Ireland)). s. 33, sub-s. 4. Evelyn Viscountess De Vesci v. O'Coknell - H. L, (I.) [1908] A. C. 298 59 & 60 Vict. c. 48 {LiyUt Railways). York- shire OVooLLEN District) Electric Trajiways, Ld. ». Ellis Div. Ct. [1905] IK. B. 396 AtT.-(;eN. !■. YOEKSHIEE (WoOLLKN District) Electric Tramways, Ld. Bray J. [1907] 2 K. B. 991 ss. 2, 7, 10. In re Peterson C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 398 s. 12, sub-s. 2. Wakefield Cor- poration r. Wakefield and Dis- trict Light Railways Go. H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 293 — ss. 12, 13. In re Cannings, Ld. AND Middlesex County Council C, A, [1907] 1 K. B. 61 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. dxliii STAIVTES— continued. 59 & 60 Vict. 0. li. (^London County Tramways), SS. 2, 10. LONDOIT COtTNTY COUNCIL V. Att.-Gen. H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 166 59 & 60 Vict. c. clxxxii. (^Manchester Ship Canal), Joseph Ceospield & Sons, Ld. «. Mauchestbk Ship Canal Co. H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 421 59 & 60 Vict. c. clxzxix (London Tramway Company'), s. 31. Att.-Gen. u. London County Council C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 781 59 & 60 Vict. c. ccxi. (London Couiiiy Council — Vauxhall Bridge Tramways), 3. 21. Att.-Gen. v. London County Council C. A. [1901] ICh. 781 1897. 60 & 61 Vict. c. 19 (Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Amendment), ss. 2, 3. In re Mannesman Tube Co. Kekewich J. [1901] 2 Ch. 93 s. 3. Caieney v. Back Walton J. [1906] 2 K. B. 746 Johnson v. Maeshall Sons & Co. H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 409 60 & 61 Vict. c. 22 (Market Gardener's Com- pensation — Scotland), s. 4. Smith r. Callender H. L. (Sc.) [1901] A. C. 297 60 & 61 Vict. c. 37 (Wm-ltmen's Compensation). In re Haewood and Abrahams C.A. [1901] 2K. B. 304 Keates v. Woodwaed C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 632 Elliott ■». Liggens Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 84 Evans «. Cook C. A. [1904] W. N. 193 Ceossan «. Calbdon Shipbuilding AND Engineeeing Co. - H. L. (So.) [1906] W. N. 104 BiST V. London aud South Westeen By. Co. - H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 209 Nicholson v. Pipeb H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 216 s. 1 Whitehead «. Reader C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 48 Boaedman v. Scott and Whitwoeth C. A. [1902] 1 E. B. 43 Aemitage v. Lancashire and Yoek- sHiEE By. Co. C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 178 Field v. Longden & Sons C.A. [1902] 1K.B.47 Smith «. South Noemanton Collieey Co. - - C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 204 Isaacson v. New Grand (Clapham Junction), Ld. Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 639 Fenton v. Thoeley & Co. H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 443 STATUTES— cottii/iKfff?. 60 & 61 Vict. c. 37 (Worhiten's Compensation), s. 1. PoMFEET V. Lancashire and YOEKSHIEE Ry. Co. C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 718 Blovelt v. Sawyer C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 271 Benson ii. Lancashire aotj Yoek- SHIEB By. Co. C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 242 HiGGiNS V. Campbell aitd Haeeison, Ld. - - C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 328 Shaep v. Johnson & Co. C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 139 Challis v. London and South Wbsteen By. Co. C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 164 Beintons, Ld. v. Tuevey H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 230 Eeed 'V. Geeat Westeen By. Co. H. L. (E.) [1919] A. C. 31 s. 1, sub-s. 1. Andrew v. Fails- WOETH Industrial Society C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 32 Wilkes v. Dowkll & Co. C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 228 s. 1, si^b-s. 1 ; s. 7, sub-s. 2 ; lat Sched. (1) (a), (i.), (*). Lysons i\ Andrew Knowles and Sons, Ld. H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 79 s. 1, sub-s. 1 ; s. 7 ; Sched. I., s. 1 (a) Darlington v. Boscob & Sons C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 219 s. 1, sub-ss. 2, i. Neale v. Elec- tric AND Ordnance Aocessoeies Co. - - C. A. [1906] 2K.B. 558 s. 1, sub-ss. 2 (V), 4 : s. 2, sub-s. 1. Ceibb v. Kynoch, Ld. (No. 2) C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 551 s. 1 ; Sched. I., clause 1 (a). Dunham V. Claee C. a. [1902] 2 K. B. 292 — s. 1 (1), Sched. I. (1) (b). Geewae V. Caledonian By. Co. (1902) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 167 s. 1, sub-s. 1, and s. 1, sub-s. 2. Ellis i). Joseph Ellis & Co. C.A. [1905] IK. B. 324 s. 1, sub-s. 2 (b). Becklby r. Scott & Co. (1902) C. A. (Ir.) [1903] W. N. 173 Stephens •». Dudbridge Ironworks Co. - C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 225 Rouse ij. Dixon Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 628 s. 1, sub-s. 2 ; s. 3, sub-s. 1. Tayloe !i. Hampstead Collieey Co. C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 838 s. 1, sub-s. 3 ; s. 4. EvAUS v. CoOK C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 53 ss. 1, 2. Steel v. Cammell, Laird &Co. . - C. A. [1905]2K. B. 232- dxliv TABLE OP STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED STATVl^S—uoiUiittied. 60 & 61 Vict. c. 37 (^Worhtien''s Compensatioti), m. 1, i, 7. COOPEK AND CkAUE 1). Weight H. I. (E.) [1902] A. C. 302 s. 1, sub-s. 4 ; s. 7, sub-ss. 1, 2, Sched. II. (6). Cattbemole c. Atlantic Teanspoet Co. C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 204 — ■ ss. 1, 7. HoTJLDEE Line, Ld. -v. Geiffin H. I. (E.) [190S] A. C. 220 Smith v. Standaed Steam FisHiifG Go. - C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 276 ss. 1, 7, sub-ss. 1, 2. Hasdfoed v. Gboegb Claek & Go. C. A. [1907] 2K. B. 409 s. 2. Thompso:^ v. Goold & Co. H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 409 Lowe c. Myees & Sons C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 265 • s. 3. Moss o. Geeat Easteen By. Co. - C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 274 s. 4. Dempstee v. Huntee & Sons (1902) Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1903] W. N. 163 — ss. 4, 7. Knight v. Ctjbitt & Co. C. A. [1902] IK. B. 31 Bush t. Hawes C. A. [1902] IK. B. 216 M'GOVEEN V. COOPEE & Co. (1901) Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1903] W. N. 160 McCabb v. Jopling and Palmee's Teavblling Ceadle, Ld. C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 222 s. 5. Knivbton r. Noetheen Em- ployees' Mutual Indemnity Co. Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 880 . s. 5, Sched. II., clause 4. Leech r. Life and Health Assueance Asso- ciation - C. A, [1901] 1 K. B. 707 s. 6. Thompson & Sons v. Noeth Eastben Maeine Engineeeing Co. Kennedy J. [1903] 1 K. B. 428 Olivbe t. Nautilus Steam Shipping Co. - C. A, [1903] 2 K. B. 639 s. 7. Caeeington r. Bannistee & Co. - C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 20 McGeath r. Neill & Sons C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 211 Fletchee r. London United Team- ways, Ld. C. a. [1902] 2 K. B. 269 Kenny c. Haeeison C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 168 Weigley v. Whittakee & Sons H. L. (E.) [1902] A, 0. 299 Willmott v. Paton C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 237 Atkinson v. Lumb C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 861 Stevens v. Geneeal Steam Naviga- tion Co. C, a. [1903] 1 K. B. 890 STAIUTES ~coidl..u.cd. 60 & 61 Vict. c. 37 {Workmen's ComjjeTisation), S. 7. MOONBY V. EDINBUEGH AND DiSTEICT TEAMWAY CO. (1901) ct. of Sess. (So.) [1903] W. N. 161 Stbwaet v. Daengavil Coal Co. (1902) Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1903] W. N. 162 Owens c. Campbell, Ld. C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 60 O'Beien c. Dobbie & Son C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 346 Adams r. Shaddock C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 859 Coulthaed i: Consett Ieon Co. C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 869 Spacey c. Dowlais Gas and Coke Co. C. A, [1905] 2 K. B. 879 Back v. Dick, Kbee & Co. H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 388 s. 7, sub-s. 1. Fbeguson r. Gbebn C. A. [1901] IK. B. 25 HoDDiNOTT V. Newton, Chambees & Co. - H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 49 Debdge v. Conway, Jones & Co. C. A. [1901] S K. B. 42 Veazey v. Chattle C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 494 Mabshall r. Rudefoeth C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 175 Blvin v. Woodwaed & Co. C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 838 Ceowthee v. West Riding Window Cleaning Co. C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 232 Aylwaed r, Matthews C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 343 Plant v. Weight & Co. C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 383 Haetley r. Quick C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 369 EoGBES V. Cardiff Coepobation C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 832 s. 7, sub-ss. 1, 2. Rainb v. Jobson & Co. - H. I. (E.) [1901] A. C. 404 Meeeitt v. Wilsons, Sons & Co. C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 35 Baerett r. Kemp Brothees C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 817 s. 7, sub-s. 2. Nash d. Hollinbhead C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 700 Baetell v. W. Gray & Co. C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 226 Ellis v. William Gory & Son, Ld. C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 38 Vamplew v. Paekgate Ieon and Steel Co. - C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 851 Gboegb v. Macdonald (1901) Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1903] W. N. 159 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. dxlv STAIVT'Ba—ciMtmy.ed. 60 & 61 Vict. c. 37 ^Workmen's Compensation'), s. 7, sub-s. 2. Legget v. Burke (1902] Ct. of Sesa. (So.) [1903] W. N. 163 TULLOCK f. Waygood & Co. C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 261 Bagnall v. Levinstein, Ld. 0. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 531 MoEETOif V. Reeve C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 401 Williams v. Ocean" Coal Co. C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 422 ss. 7, (1). Bathgate v. Caledonian Ry. Co. (1901) Ot. of SOES. (So). [1903] W. N. 161 Campbell v. Fife Coal Co. (1902) Ct. of Se33. (So.) [1903] W. N. 171 s. 8. Blake v. Midland Ry. Co. Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 603 Sched. I. (1), (a). Houghton v. Sutton Heath and Lea Geben Collieries Co. C. A. [1901] 1 E. B. 98 ■ Sched. I., s. 1 (a), sub.-s. (i.). O'Kebfe V. LovATT - C. A. [1901] W. N. 223 Sched. I., cl. I. (a) (i.). Peyce v. Peneikybee Navigation Colliery Co. C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 221 Sched. I., s. I. (a) (i.) ; 3. 1 (S). Aybes r. Buckeeidgb C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 57 Sched. I., s. 1 (a), (ii.). BevAN v. Cbawshay Bhothees (Cypaethfa), Ld. - C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 25 Sched. I., s. 1 (a), (ii.). Abeam Coal Co. v. Southeen H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. 306 Peacock v. Niddeib and Benhae Coal Co. (1902) Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1903) W. H. 162 Sched. I., (a) (i). Midland Ry. Co. V. Shaepb H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 849 Sched. I., sub-s. 1 (J), (2), (12). James v. Ocean Coal Co. C. A. [1904] 2 E. B. 213 Sched. I. (1) (a) (i.). Gebat Noetheen Ry. Co. v. Dawson C. A. [1905] 1 E. B. 331 • Sched. I., s. 1 (a) (ii.). Osmond v. Campbell & Haeeison, Ld. C. A. [1905] 2 E. B. 862 Sched. I. (1), (J). Hathaway <;. Abgus Peinting Co. C. A. [1901] 1 E. B. 96 Baetlett v. Tutton & Sons C. A. [1902] 1 E. B. 72 ss. 1 (i), 12. Francis Moeton & Co. V. WoODWAED C. A. [1902] 2 E. B. 276 Giles v. Belfoed, Smith & Co. C. A. [1903] 1 E. B. 843 D.D. STATUTES— eowfejMefi. 60 & 61 Viot. G. 37 (JWorhmeii's Compensation), ss. 1 (*), 12. Fleming r. Lochgelly lEON AND Coal Co. (1902) Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1903] W. N. 165 M'CuE V. Baeolat, Cuele & Co. (1902) Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1903] W. N. 170 GiBBS V. DUNLOP & Co. (1902) Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1903] W. N. 171 Sched. I., Clause 1 (a), (i). Wil- liams V. Vauxhall Colliery Co. C. A. [1907] 2 E. B. 433 Sched. I., Clause 1 (a), (i.), (ii.). Sbnioe v. Fountains and Buenley, Ld. C. a. [1907] 2 E. B. 663 Sched. I., Clause 1 (b), 2. Webster ■i: Sharp & Co. H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 284 Sched. I., Clause 2 (a) (ii.). Rees c. Penrikybbe Navigation Colliery Co. C. A. [1903] 1 E. B. 269 Weavings v. Kiek & Randall C. A. [1904] 1 E. B. 213 Green v. Beitten & Gilson C. A. [1904] 1 E. B. 350 Dyer v. Swift Cycle Co. C. A. [1904] 2 E. B. 36 Simpson v. Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron and Coal Co. C. A. [1905] 1 E. B. 453 Sched. I. (2), (12). Pompheey v. SOUTHWAEK PEESS C. A. [1901] 1 E. B. 86 NOEMAN AND BUET V. WALDEE C. A. [1904] 2 E. B. 27 ■ Sched. I. (11). Neaqlb v. Nixon's Navigation Co. C. A. [1904] 1 E. B. 339 Sohed. I., (11), (12), and , Second Sched. (13). Fbeeiee v. Gouelay Beothees & Co. (1902) Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1903] W. N. 164 Sched. I. (12). Shaeman v. Holliday & Geeenwood, Ld. C. A. [1904] 1 E. B. 235 RiGBY & Co. v. Cox (No. 2) Div. Ct. [1904] 2 E. B. 208 _ Sched. I,, par. 12 ; Sched. II., par. 8 Uppee Foebst and Wbsteen Steel AND Tinplate Co. v. Thomas C. A. [1909] 2 E. B. 631 Sched. I., ol. 13. Castle Spinning Co. V. Atkinson C. A. [1905] IE. B.336 Sched. II. (2), (3), (4). Gibson v. WOEMALD & WALKEE, LD. C. A. [1904]2E. B.40 Sohed II. (4). Rigby & Co. v. Cox C. A. [1904] 1 E, B. 368 — - — Sched. II. (8). Bailey v. Plant C. A. [1901] 1 E. B. 31 Johnston v. Mew, Langton & Co. Div. Ct. [1907] W. N. 156 dxlvi TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED STATVT'ES— continued.. 60 & 61 Vict. c. 37 (Workmen's ComjjensatWTb), Sched II. cl. 9". Eex v. Owen Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 436 Sched. II., s. 14 (c). OSBOENE v. Bakclay, Cuele & Co. H. I. (So.) [1901] A. C. 269 60 & 61 Vict. c. 38 {Public HeaWi— Scotland:). Trustees op Poet aot) Haeboue op GEEENOCK 11. Geeenock Magisteates H. 1. (Sc.) [1905iW. N. 135 S. 103. MONTGOMEEIE & Co. V. Haddington (Pbovost, &c., op) H. L. (8c.) [1908] A. C. 170 — s. 183. INVEEAEITT r. FOEFAESHIEE County Council H. L. So. [1906] A. C. 354 60 & 61 Vict. c. 65 (Land, Transfer'). In re PULLEN. PAEKEE v. PULLBN Warrington J. [1910] 1 Ch. 664 — ■ s. 1. Jm re Shaeman Kekewich J. [1901] 2 Cli. 280 s. 1, sub-s. 1 ; s. 2, sub-ss. 1, 2, 3 ; s. 3, sub-s. 1. In re Betts. Doughty oi. Walkee Kekewich J. [1907] 2 Ch. 149 s. 1, sub-s. 1 ; s. 2, sub-s. 3. In re Kempstee Kekewich J. [1906] 1 Ch. 446 • s. 1, sub-ss. 1, 3 ; s. 2, sub-s. 3. In re VlCKEESTAFP Kekewich J. [1906] 1 Ch. 762 ss. 1, sub-s. 1, 2 sub-s. 3. In re JONBS Buckley J. [1902] 1 Ch. 92 ■ — — s. 1, sub-s. 1 ; s. 24, sub-s. 2. In re Peyse C. a. [1904] P. 301 ss. 1, 2, sub-s. 3. In re Williams Joyce J. [1904] 1 Ch. 52 s. 1, sub-s. 4. J7i re SOMEEVILLE AND TuENBE's Contract Kekewich J. [1903] 2 Ch. 583 ss. 1, 2. In re Haeeowby ANT) Paine's Conteact Farwell J. [1902] W. N. 137 In the Goods op Ball Gorell Barnes J. [1902] 226, 228 ss. 1, 2, sub-s 2 ; 24, sub-s. 2. In re Cohen's Exbcutoes and London County Council Byrne J. [1902] 1 Ch. 187 ss. 1, 2, sub-s. 3. In re WILLIAMS Joyce J. [1903] W. N. 199 a. 2, sub-s. 3 ; s. 3, sub-s. 1. In re Caey and Lott's Conteact Kekewich J. [1901 J 2 Ch. 463 s. 2, sub-s. 2. In re Walbeok Kekewich J. [1904] W. N. 204 s. 2, sub-a. 3. In re BALLS Swinfeu Eady J. [1909] 1 Ch. 791 s. 3. Kemp r. Inland Revenue COMMES. Fhillimore J. [1906] 1 K. B. 681 WiKTViTSS,— continued. 60 & 61 Vict. c. 65 (Land Transfer), s. 3, sub-ss. 1, 2. In re Pix Byrne J. [1901] W. N. 165 ■ s. 4, sub-s. 1. In re Beveely Buckley J. [1901] 1 Ch. 681 s. 7. Att.-Gen. r. Odbll C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 47 ■ s. 16, sub-s. 2. In re Voss AND Saundee's Conteact Warrington J. [1910] W. N. 217 s. 20. Capital and Counties Bank, Ld. r. Rhodes - C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 631 ■ — Part II. In re Wbsleyan Methodist Chapel in South Steeet, Wasds- woeth Joyce J. [1909] 1 Ch. 454 Sched. I. WiLLE r. St. John C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 325 1898. 61 & 62 Vict. c. 10 (Finance), s. 4, sub-s. 1. Robinson Beothees r. Dixon Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 701 S. 6. In re LOVELL AND COLLAED'S Conteact Swinfen Eady J. [1907] 1 Ch. 249 61 & 62 Vict. c. 21 (Poor Law— Scotland), s. 1. RUTHEEGLEN PAEISH .COUNCIL i: Glasgow Paeish Council H. L. (Sc.) [1902] A. C. 360 Kilmalcolm Paeish Council v. Glasgow Paeish Council H. L. (Sc.) [1906] A. C. 344 61 & 62 Vict. c. 26 (Companies), s. 1. In re BuENEY's New Cross Beeweey Co. C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 637 In re Ebenezee Timmins & Sons, Ld. Buckley J. [1902] 1 Ch. 238 61 & 62 Vict. c. 29 (Locomoti ces), s. .5, sub-ss. 1, 5 ; o. 17, sub-s. 2. EvANS i: NiCHOLL Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 778 s. 6. Att.-Gen. v. Scott C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 404 Att.-Gen. v. Scott C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 160 s. 9, sub-ss. 1, 9, S3. 10, 17. HODDELL V. Paekee Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 323 s. 12. Egham Rural Disteict Council r. Goedon Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 120 s. 12, sub-s. 1. Lancastee Rueal Council r. Fishbe and Le Fan"u C. A. [1907] 2K.B. 516 s. 12, sub-s. 1 (a). Chesteepield Rueal Council r. Newton C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 62 s. 12, sub-s. 1 (b), (c). , Kent County Council r. Folkestone Coepoeation C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 620 - — — — s. 12, sub-s. 1 (b). Beomley Rural Council r. Cboydon Coepoeation C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 363 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. dxlTii STATVrHS—confumed. 61 & 62 Vict. c. 29 {Locumotives), s. 12, sub-s. 1 )J). Carlisle Rural Council v. Carlisle Corporation C. A. [1909] IK. B. 471 Eeigatb Rural Council v. Sutton District Water Co. C. A. [1909] W. N. 28 Gbieionydd Rural Council r. Green C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 845 s. 12, svib-s. 1 ; s. 17, sub-s. 2. Rbx v. Judge James and Midland Ry. Co. Div. Ct. [1908] 1 K. B. 958 61 & 62 Viot. 0. 36 {Ch'iminal Evidence), s. 1 (e). Rex v. Rowland C. C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 458 s. 1 (/). Rex f. Ellis C. C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 746 s. 1, sub-s. (/) (ii.). Rex v. Preston C. C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 668 Rex II. Jones C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 218 Rex r. Chitson CCA. [1909] 2K. B. 946 Rex c. Rouse C C R. [1904] 1 K. B. 184 Rex t. Bridgwater C. C E. [1906] 1 K. B. 131 Rex v. Hadwen and Ingham C C. R. [1902] 1 K. B. 882 61 & 62 Vict. c. 37 (^Local Government — Ireland"), s. 115, sub-B. 18. Local Government Board for Ireland r. Rex H. L.CE.) [1903] A. C402 61 & 62 Vict. c. 44 (Merchant Shipping — Mer- cantile Marine Fund), s. 4. Board of Trade v. Sailing Ship " Glenpark," Ld. - C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 682 s. 5 ; Sched. II. Cairn Line op Steamships, Ld. v. Trinity House Corporation Bray J. [1907] 1 K. B. 604 61 & 62 Vict. c. 49 (Vaccination). Moore i>. Kbyte Div. Ct. [1908] 1 K. B. 768 s. 1. Langridge v. Hobbs Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 497 s. l,sub-s. 3. Pym «. WlLSHBK Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 806 61 & 62 Vict. c. 60 (Ineiriates), s. 2, sub-s. 1. Commissioner op Police v. Donovan Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 895 Rex r. Brigos C C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 381 Eaton v. Best Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 632 61 & 62 Vict. c. cxxxvii. (London Building), s. 74. London County Council v. Hancock AND James - Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 45 61 & 62 Vict. c. ccxxxv. (Metropolitan Electric Supply Company), ss. 2, 16. .Att-Gen. t: Metropolitan Electric Supply Co. - - C A. [1905] 1 Ch. 787 STATVT'ES—conti?med. 1899. 62 & 63 Vict. c. 9 (Finance), s. 7. In re Blair & Girling C. A. [1906] 2 X. B. 131 In re NATIONAL Motor Mail-Coach Co., Clinton's Claim C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 615 s. 8. London and India Docks Co. V. Att.-Gen. H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 7 Att.-Gen. v. Regent's Canal and Dock Co. C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 263 s. 8, sub-ss. 1, 2. Att.-Gen. v. Liver- pool Corporation PMUimore J. [1902] 1 K. B. 411 Taylor v. Poncia Cozena-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 87 62 & 63 Vict. c. 13 (Elementary Education), a. 1. Stevenson i\ Goldstraw Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 298 Strong t. Treisb Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 613 62 & 63 Vict. c. 14 (London Oovernment), ss. 4, 23. Rector and Churchwardens of St. George's, Hanover Square «. Westminster Corporation H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C 226 • s. 5, Sched. II., Part I. Council of THE City op Westminster v. London County Council Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 326 Westminster Corporation v. Wat- son Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 717 s. (6) 5. Ex parte Great Western Ry. Co. C. A. [1909] W. N. 202 s. 10, sub-s. 2. Islington Borough Council -o. London School Board C A. [1903] 8 K. B. 354 ss. 10, 19. London and India Docks Co. «. Borough of Woolwich Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 750 . s. 14. Rex v. Carson Roberts C A. [1908] 1 K. B. 407 s. 30. Rex v. Stepney Corporation Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 317 s. 30, sub-SB. 1, 2, 4. Livingstone v. Westminster Corporation Buckley J. [1904] 2 K. B. 109 62 & 63 Vict. c. 19 (Electric Lighting Clauses), a. 1. Schedule, clauses 2, 8. Att.-Gen. V. Pontypridd Urban Council C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 267 Schedule, s. 12. Corporation op London ■;;. County op London Elec- tric Supply Co. Parker J. [1910] 2 Ch. 208 Schedule, s. 18. Chepstow Electric Light and Power Co., Ld. v. Chep- stow Gas and Coke Consumers' Co., Ld. C. a. [1905] 1 K. B. 198 m m 2 dxlviii TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED STATVTE8— continued. 62 & 63 Vict. u. 20 (^Bodies Corporate— Joint Tenancy'). In re THOMPSON Settle- ments Trusts Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 1 Ch. 229 62 & 63 Vict. c. 29 {Baths and Washhouses), s. 2. Att.-Gbn. v. Walthamstow Uhban Distkiot Council Joyce J. [1910] 1 Ch. 347 62 & 63 Vict. c. 83 {Board of Education'). In re Bekkhamsted Geammak School Warrington J. [1908] 2 Ch. 26 Ching v. Surrey County Council BucknUl J. [1909] 2 K. B. 762 s. 2. In re Society poe Teaining Teachers op the Deaf and Whit- tle's Contract Neville J. [1907] 2 Ch. 486 s. 2, sub-s. 2. In re Betton's Chakitt Swinfen Eady J. [1908] 1 Ch. 206 62 & 63 Vict, c- 37 {Pom- Law), s. 1. Want- age Union v. Bristol Union Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K. B. 68 62 & 63 Vict. c. 51 {Sale of Food and Drugs), rs. 1. Foot «. Findlay Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 1 ss. 1, 20, sub-ss. 1, 2, 3. Kelly r. Lonsdale & Co. - [1906] 2 K. B. 486 s. 6. Williams r. Baker Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 280 s. 19, sub-s. 1. Beabdslet c. Gid- DINGS Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 847 Brooks v. Bagshaw Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 798 s. 19, sub-s. 2. McQueen r. Jackson Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 163 ss. 19, 20, sub-s. 6. Whitaker v. PoMPBBT Brothers Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 661 s. 20, Bub-ss. 5, 6. Manners v. Tyler Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B, 901 s. 21. Suckling v. Parker Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 627 s. 25. Bex v. Otto Monsted, Ld. Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 466 62 & 63 Vict. c. clviii. {West Gloucestershire Water), ss. 4, 12. Att.-Gen. v. West Gloucestershire Water Co. C. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 338 62 & 63 Vict. c. clxxii. {Mersey Bocks — Pilotage, 4'c.), ss. 3, i, 5. The " Mercedes de Lahringa " Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 216 62 & 63 Vict. c. cxcvii. {LougKborough Corpora- tion), ss. 62, 65. Morris & Bastert, Ld. !i. Loughborough Coepoeation C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 206 62 & 63 Vict. c. ccliv. {Manchester Corporation Tramways). Att.-Gen. o. Manches- TEE Corporation Farwell J. [1906] 1 Ch. 643 WihT:VTY.S— continued. 1900. 63 & 64 Vict. c. 12 {Australian Constitution Act), ss. 51, 90. Colonial Sugar Repining Co. r. Irving P. C. [1906] A. C. 360 63 & 64 Vict. c. 15 {Burial), s. 3. Williams v. Beiton Ferry Burial Board Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 665 s. 3, sub-s. 4 (i.). Young v. King- ston-on-Thames, SuEBiTON, New Malden, and Coombe Joint Bueials Committee - C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 416 Andeeson 1/-. Wandswoeth Boeough Council NevUle J. [1908] 2 Ch. 81 63 & 64 Vict. c. 22 {Workmen's Compensation), Smithees v. Wallis C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 200 Smith v. Coles C. A. [1906] 2K. B. 827 s. 1, sub-s. 3. Meally v. M'Gowan (1902) Ct. of SesB. (So.) [1903] W. N. 165 s. 7, sub-s. 1 {a) (ii.). Rogers r. Cardipp Coepoeation C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 832 63 & 64 Vict. c. 48 {Companies), s. 3, sub-s. 2. MoLiNEAux V. London, Birmingham AND Manchester Insurance Co. C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 589 s. 4. Evans r. Chapman" Joyce J. [1902] W. N. 78 s. 4, sub-ss. 1, 4 ; s. 5. RousSELL r. Buhnham - Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. 127 s. 4, sub-s. 4. Sheewell v. Com- bined Incandescent Mantles Syndi- cate, Ld. Warrington 3. [1907] W. S. 110 ss. 4, 5. Meaes r. Western Canada Pulp and Papbe Co. C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 363 BUETON V. BEVAN NevUle J. [1908] 2 Ch. 240 . In re National Motoe Mail-Coach Co. Swinfen Eady J. [1908] 2 Ch. 228 1- il — s. 4, sub-ss. Buenham 4, 10. In re s. 5. Roussell r. Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. 127 West Yoekshiee Darracq Agency, Ld. - Neville J. [1908] W. N. 236 — ss. 4, 5, 12. Finance and Issue, Ld. ('. Canadian Produce Corporation, Ld. Buckley J. [1906] 1 Ch. 37 — s. 6. In re " Otto " Electrical Manupactueing Co. (1905) Ld. Buckley J. [1906] 2 Ch. 390 — s. 7. In re X. Company Parker J. [1907] 2 Ch. 92 — s. 8. Burrows v. Matabele Gold Reefs and Estates Co. C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 23 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. dxlix STATUTES 63 & 64 Vict. 0. 48 (^Companies), s. 8. Evans ij. Chapman - Joyce J. [1902] W. N. 78 Keatinoe v. Pabinga Consolidated Mines, Ld. Kekewich J. [1902] W. N. 16 HiLDBR V. Dexter H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 474 Shorto v. Colwill Warrington J. [1909] W. N. 218 s. 8, sub-ss. 1, 2. Booth v. New Afrikander Gold Mining Co. C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 295 s. 8, sub-s. 2. Dexter v. United Gold Coast Mining Properties, Ld. C. A. [1901] W. H.. 167 s. 10, sub-s. 1 (/). Brookes v. Han- sen Joyce J. [1906] 2 Ch. 129 s. 13. In re State op Wyoming Syndicate Wright J. [1901] 2 Ch. 431 Patentwood Keg Syndicate, Ld. v. Pearse - Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 164 s. 14. CoRNBROOK Brewery Co. v. Law Debenture Coepokation, Ld. C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 103 In re JACKSON AND BASSFORD, LD. Buckley J. [1906] 2 Ch. 467 Bristol United Breweries, Ld. v. Abbot Parker J. [1908] 1 Ch. 279 In re Tolland, Husson and Biekett, Ld. - - C. A. Warrington J. [1907] W. N. 249 ; C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 152 In re New London and Suburban Omnibus Co. Neville J. [1908] 1 Ch. 621 CuNARD Steamship Co. v. Hopwood Swinfen Eady J. [1908] W. N. 160, 182 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 664 In re Kbnshaw & Co. - Neville J. [1908] W. N. 210 In re HERTS AND ESSEX Waterworks Co. - Swinfen Eady J. [1909] W. H. 48 Wilson v. Kblland Eve J. [1910] 2 Ch. 306 S. 14, sub-s. 1 ((Q. ILLINOWORTH V. HOULDSWOETH H. L. (B.) [1904] A. C. 356 In re YORKSHIRE WOOLCOMBERS' Association, Ld. C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 284 s. 14, sub-ss. 1,6. In re Dbpribs (N.) & Co. Buckley J. [1904] 1 Ch. 37 ss. 14, 15. In re Bootle Cold Storage and Ice Co. Farwell J. [1901] W. N. 64 In re Legal and General Invest- ment Co. Farwell J. [1901] W. N. 72 In re E. & F. Beattie, Ld. ^ Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 152 STATUTES— flo»iOT«e(Z. 63 & 64 Vict. c. 48 (^Companies), ss. 14, 15. In re Tingei Tea Co. Byrne J. [1901] W. N. 166 In re Joplin Brewery Co. Buckley J. [1902] 1 Ch. 79 In re SPIRAL Globe Co. Swinfen Eady J. [1902] 1 Ch. 396 In re I. C. JOHNSON & Co. .C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 101 In re Spiral Globe Co. (No. 2) Joyce J. [1902] 2 Ch. 209 In re The Harrogate Estates, Ld. Buckley J. [1903] 1 Ch. 498 In re Anglo-Oeiental Carpet Manufacturing Co. Buckley J. [1903] 1 Ch. 914 In re Ehrmann Brothers, Ld. C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 697 In re Cardiff Workmen's Cottages Co. Buckley J. [1906] 2 Ch. 627 In re CuNARD Steamship Co. Swinfen Eady J. [1908] W. N. 160, 182 ; [1908] 2 Ch. S64 ss. 21, 22, 23. Newton v. Birming- ham Small Arms Co. Buckley J. [1906] 2 Ch. 378 — ^ — — s. 24. In re Tea Corporation, Ld. C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 12 8. 25. Practice Note Wright J. [1901] W. N. 14 Pulsfoed v. Devbnish Farwell J. [1903] 2 Ch. 625 Cueeie v. Consolidated Kent Collieries Coeporation, Ld. C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 134 In re New De Kaap, Ld. Neville J. [1908] 1 Ch. 589 s. 26. In re Johannesburg Min- ing AND General Syndicate Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 46 In re Beutton & Buenby, Ll. C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 637 63 & 64 Vict. u. 50 {Agricultural Soldings), s. 1. In re HULL AND LADY Meux's Aebi- TEATION - C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 588 63 & 64 Vict. c. 51 (Money-lenders). LASiARUS V. Smith - C.A. [1908] 2KB. 266 s. 1. Wilton & Co. «. Osborn Eidley J. [1901] 2 K. B. 110 Wells ■». Allott C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 842 Samuel v. Nbwbold H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 461 PiELDiNGS V. Pawson - Coleridge J. [1907] W. N. 231 MiCHABLSON «. Nichols Pickford J. [1910] W. N. 69 S. 1, sub-s. 1. CABRINGTON'a, Ld. «. Smith - Channell J. [1906] 1 K. B. 79 dl TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED STATVT'ES— continued. 63 & 64 Vict. c. 51 (^Money-lenders), ss. 1, 2, sub-ss. 1 (a), (c), 2. VlCTOKIAN DAYLBS- POED Syhdicatb, Ld. r. DOTT C. A. 1 19061 W. N. 90 ss. 1, sub-s. 1,3. In re A Debtor C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 705 8. 1, sub-s. 3. In re Atteee Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 868 ss. 1 (5), 2, 3. In re RoBlNSON. CLABKSON ■». EOBINSON Neville J. [1910] 2 Ch. 671 8. 2. Lodge v. National Union Investment Co. - Parker J. [1907] 1 Ch. 300 Stirling v. Silbuen & Ptman Bucknill J. [1910] 1 K. B. 67 Sadler v. Cobb & Co. - Bray J. [1910] W. N. 29 3. 2, sub-s. 1 (a), (V), (c). Chapman V. MiCHABLSON C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 238 s. 2, sub-ss. 1 (a), (c), 2. BONNARD V. DOTT C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 740 8. 2, sub-s. 1 (V). Jackson v. Prick Darling J. [1910] 1 K. B. 143 In re A Debtok (No. 2 of 1910) Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. .70 In re Seed, Ex parte King Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 661 Hopkins v. Hills Div. Ct. [1910] 2 E. B. 29 KiBKWOOD V. GADD H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 422 Whiteuan v. Sadlee H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 814 — 8. 2, sub-s. 1 (*). Gadd v. Pro- vincial Union Bank C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 353 Jackson v. Peice Darling J. [1910] IK. B. 143 s. 2, sub-s. (1), (ft), (c). Stafford- shire Financial Co. v. Hunt A. T. Lawrence J. [1907] W. N. 258 Staffordshire Financial C. A. [1910] 2 KB. 233 Litchfield v. Farwell J. [1906] 1 K. B. 684 53 (Elementary Education), s. 6, 1. Strong v. Teeisb Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 613 83 & 64 Viot. c. xlii. (^Newport Corporation), s. 511. EscoTT v. Newport Corpora- tion, Ld. Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 369 68 & 64 Vict. 0. cxxxiii. (^Edinhurgh Corpora- tion), s, 80. Eossi V. Edinbuegh Corporation - - H. 1. (So.) [1906] A. C. 21 STATUTES— co?ttt»««(Z. 63 & 64 Vict. c. cl. (^Glasgow Building Segula- tions). Caledonian Ry. Co. v. Cor- poration OF City of Glasgow H. L. (So.) [1907] A. C. 160 NisBET V. Hamilton - H. L. (So.) [1907] A. C. 188 63 & 64 Vict. ij. ccxxxvii. (^London County Tramways — Electrical Power), s. 6. T. Tilling, Ld. v. Dick, Keee & Co. Warrington J. [1905] 1 K. B. 562 1 Edw. 7, c. 7 Pinch 1901. (^Finance), — 88. 2, 8. Co. e. Valentine — 8. 6, sub-s. Deetpus (d). 63 & 64 Vict. <. sub-s. 8. 9. McNicoL V. Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 352 1 Edw. 7, c. 18 (Ali^Tis). Att.-Gen. for Canada t. Cain. The Sajie r. Gilhula p. C. [1906] A. C. 842 1 Edw. 7, c. 22 (Factory and Workshop), ss. 10, 135, 186, 146. Res v. Taylor Div. Ct. [1908] 2 K. B. 237 ss. 10, 135, 146. Verney v. Mark Fletcher & Sons, Ld. Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 445 8. 14, sub-8s. 2, 8, 7 ; ss. 87, 149. ToLLBE V. Spiers & Pond, Ld. Buckley J. [1903] 1 Ch. 362 — ■ Bs. 14, 149. Brass v. London County Council Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 336 8. 49, Sched. II., clause 4. Smith v Sibeay, Hall & Co. Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 707 71. Stevenson v. Gold- Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 298 sub-ss. 2, 8. Stuckey r. - C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 20 - 8. 101, Bub-s. 8. Morris v. Beal Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 686 -8. 101, sub-ss. 28. Goldstein i. Hollingsworth Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 878 - s. 104. Stevens v. General Steam Navigation Co. C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 890 - s. 104. Smith v. Standard Steam Fishing Co., Ld. [1906] 2 K. B. 278 - s. 104. Weavings !'. Kirk & Randall C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 218 HouLDBE Line, Ld. v. Griffin H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 220 Handford r. George Claek & Co. C. A. [1907] 2K. B. 409 - s. 105, sub-s. 2 (J). Dyer i: Swift Cycle Co. C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 36 - s. 149. HoARB r. Robert Green, Ld. Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 818 - s. 149, sub-s. 1, Sched. 6, Part 1 (20). Mile End Guardians v. Hoaee [1903] 2 K. B. 483 — ss. 68, STRAW -8. 101, HOOKB DUEING THE YEARS 1901—1910. dU STATVTSS—co^ainued. 1 Edw. 7, c. 24 (^Burgh Sewerage, Drainage and Water Supply — Scotland'), s. 5. MONTGOMBEIB & CO. V. HADDINSTON (Provost, &c., of) H. L. (Sc.) [1908] A. C. 170 1 Edw. 7, c. 27 (^Intoxicating Liquors — Sale to Childre)(), s. 2. Beooks v. Masost Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 743 Mitchell ». Ckawshaw [1903] 1 K. B. 701 Emaby v. Nolloth Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 264 Faenbalb v. Dillon Div. Ct. [1907] 2K. B. 513 Jones v. Shbrvington Div. Ct. [1908] 2K. B. 539 1 Edw. 7, c. lolxxxiv. (Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation), s. 57. Rossi u. Edinbuegh Coepoeation H. L. (So.) [1905] A. C. 21 1 Edw. 7, c. cclxix. (Rugiy Water and Jm- provemeni). Att.-Gen. v. Geand Junction Canal Co. Joyce J. [1909] 2 Ch. 505 1902. 2 Edw, 7, u. 15 (Jfuxical — Summary — Copyright), s. 2. Mr parte Fkancis Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 275 In the Mattee of a Complaint by Day - Div. Ct. [1903] W. N. 10 ss. 2, 3. Mabe v. Connoe Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 515 2 Edw. 7, c. 28 (Licensing), s. i. THOMPSON v. McKenzib Div. Ct. [1908] 1 K. B, 905 S. 6, sub-s. 1. COMMISSIONEE OF Police v. Donovan Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 895 S. 11, sub-s. i. BUSHBLL V. HAMMOND C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 563 Rez v. Bath (Recoedee of) Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 570 Smith v. Poetsmouth Justices C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 229 s. 20. Rex v. West Riding Justices Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 545 s. 23. DiCKESON & Co. V. Mayes Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 452 s. 28, sub-s. 1 (/). Plaistow Working Men's Club v. Hareod Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 582 2 Edw. 7, c. 35 (Jfew South Wales), s. 24. Norton c. Tayloe P. C. [1906] A. C. 378 2 Edw. 7, c. 41 (Metropolis Water). In re Slater. Slater v. Slater Joyce J. [1906] 2 Ch. 480 s. 2 ; Sched. IV. In re Slatbe C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 665 s. 2, sub-s. 1 ; s. 24, sub-ss. 1 and 2 ; s. 37. Metropolitan Water Board I). Solomon Joyce J. [1908] 2 Ch. 214 STATUTES— coKiiMKfii. 2 Edw. 7, c. 42 (Education). Att.-Gen. r. West Riding of Yoekshiee County Council H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 29 Ching v. Suebby County Council Bucknill J. [1909] 2 K. B. 762 s. 1. In re Leeds Institute op Science, Aet, and Literature and Leeds City Council Swinfea Eady J. [1909] 1 Ch. 500 ss. 1, 5, 6, sub-s. 2, 7, sub-s. 1 (S), 13. In re Beard's Trusts Byrne J. [1904] 1 Ch. 270 ss. 5, 7. Ching v. Sueeby County Council C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 736 S3. 5, 26, Sched. II,, clause 1. Old- ham CoEPOEATioN V. Bank of England C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 716 — s. 7. Ceockbr v. Plymouth Coe- POEATION Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 494 Teowbeidgb Water Co. «. Wilts County Council Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 824 MoEEis V. Caenarvon County Council C. A. [1910] 8 K. B. 840 Rex v. Board of Education C. A. [1910] 2 K. B, 165 s. 7, sub-s. 1 (c). Jones v. Hughes C. A. [1905] 1 Ch. 180 s. 7, sub-ss. 1 (a), 8 ; s. 16. WiLPOED V. West Riding of Yoekshiee County Council Channell J. [1908] 1 K. B. 685 s. 7, sub-s. (3). Blencowb r, Northamptonshire County Council Warrington J. [1907] 1 Ch. 504 ss. 7, 13. In re Smallwood. Got- HARD V. Chapman Parker J. [1910] 1 Ch. 272 ■ ss. 7, 17 ; Sched. I., A (6). YoUNG V. CUTHBEET Buckley J. [1906] 1 Ch. 451 ss. 11, 13. In re Blunt's Teusts Buckley J. [1904] 2 Ch. 767 s. 17, sub-s. 1 ; s. 21, sub-s. 3. MlL- WAED V. Baeet Urban Council Buckley J. [1904] 2 Ch. 481 s. 18, sub-s. (1), (c). Rex v. Wraith. Ex parte Kent County Council Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 756 S8. 27, sub-s. 2, Sched. II., clauses, 1, 22. Hebbuen Urban District Council v. Hedworth, Monkton and jareow united disteict School Board Kekewioh J. [1904] W. N. 38 Sched. 11., clauses 1, 22. In re Wallsbnd Borough Council and NOETHUMBEELAiro CoUNTY COUNCIL Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 2 Ch. 506 —^ Sched. II., IT. 16, 21. Rex v. London County Council Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K, B. 346 (Uii TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED STATVTES—conHiiued. 2 Edw. 7, 0. clxxiii. (London County Covmcil — General Powers), Part IX. Gilbbet T. Jones Div. Ct. [ 1905] 2 K. B. 691 Paekee v. Talbot C. A. [1905] 2 Ch. 643 1903. 3 Edw. 7, c. 18 (Pistols), ss. 2, S. Betson v. Gamagb, Ld. Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 630 s. 3. Matthews v. Geay Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 89 3 Edw. 7, c. 25 (Licensin/f — Scotland), ss. 11, 19, 20, 103. Boyle (or Walsh) v. Wilson H. L. (Sc.) [1907] A. C. 45 3 Edw. 7, c. 33 (Burgh Police— Scotland), s. 82, sub-s. 2. DA Peato r. Paetick (Peovost, &c. op) - H. L. (So.) [1907] A. C. 163 3 Edw. 7, c. 36 (Motoi' Car), s. 1. Du Ceos r. Sambottene Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K. B. 40 s. 1, sub-s. 1. Elwes r. Hopkins Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 1 s. 1, sub-s. 3. Rex r. Hankey Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 687 ss. 3, 4, 9. Maetin r. White Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 656 s. i. Rex ti. Maesham. Mr parte Ghambeelain Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 638 Rex r. Plowden Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 269 Rex r. Yoekshiee (West Ridins) Justices. Ex parte Shacklbton Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 439 Bx parte Symes Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 219 ■ s. 7. Peovincial Motoe Cab Co. v. Dunning Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 699 s. 11. Ex parte 'SOYIS Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 466 s. 12, sub-s. 1 ; s. 20, sub-ss. 1, 3. Evans v. Nicoll Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 778 s. 12, sub-s. 1 ; s. 20, sub-s. 3. Rex r. Judge Jambs and Midland Ry. Co. Div, Ct. [1908] 1 K. B. 958 3 Edw. 7, c. 37 {Irish Land). In re Duke op Manchestbe's Settlement Eve J. [1910] 1 Ch. 106 3 Edw. 7, c. 4.5 (Employment of Children), s. 3, sub-s. 1 ; s. 5, sub-s. 1 ; s. 6, sub-s. 3. Robinson i: Hill Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 94 s. 48. Teemayub v. Rashleigh Eve J. [1908] 1 Ch. 681 3 Edw. 7, c. 46 (Revenue), s. 2. McNiCOL v. Pinch Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 362 s. 7. loed suppield v. inland Revenue Commissionees' Bray J, [1908] 1 K. B, 866 STATUTES— corafinocff. 3 Edw. 7, c. 46 (Revenue), s. 11, sub-s. 1 (a). London County Council v. Cook ■Walton J. [1906] 1 K. B. 278 3 Edw. 7, c. clxxxvii. (London County Council (General Powers)), ss. 53, 54. Bailey V. LOWMAN - Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 39 1904. 4 Edw. 7, i;. 15 (Prevention of Cruelty to Children), s. 1, sub-s. 1. Rex f. Connoe C. C. E. [1908] 2 K. B. 26 s. 16. Rex v. Hale C. C. H. [1906] 1 K. B. 126 s. 27. Rex i: Chandea Dhabma 0. C. E. [1905] 2 K. B. 335 4 Edw. 7, c. 23 (Licensing)., Rex r. Shann C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 418 s. 1. Rex r. TOLHUEST Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 478 MOEGAN r. AYLESFOED LICENSING Justices Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 487 Leeds Coepoeation r. Rydbe H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 420 Rex v. Wood house C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 601 s. 1, sub-s 2. Daetpoed Beewbey Co. r. County op London Quaetee ■ Sessions - Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 696 Sub-s. 2. Howe i. Newington Licensing Justices C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 260 ss. 1, 2. Biekin r. Smith C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 112 Rex !■. Walsall Justices Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 210 ss. 1, 3. Wat kin . Ebgisteae op Titles P. C. [1908] A. C. 286 Australian Commonwealth Constitution Act, 1900, s. 74. Att.-Gbn. foe New South Wales v. Colleotob of Customs foe New South Wales P. C. [1909] A. C. 346 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. dlix SIArVTES— continued Australian Customs Act, 1901, ss. 127, 192. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Go. v. Kingston P. C. [1903] A. C. 471 Constitution Act (63 & 64 Vict. (Imperial), c. 12), ss. 51, 90. Colonial Sugar Repining Co. v. Irving P. C. [1906] A. C. 860 Western Australia Land Transfer Act, 1874. Spencer v. Registrar of Titles P. C. [1906] A. C. 603 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12). Webb v. Outrim P. 0. [1907] A. C. 81 See also under New South Wales, Statutes OF ; and Victoria, Statutes of, below. South Australian Acts, 1901, No. 773; 1902, No. 784— Act 1905, No. 897, s. 5, sub-s. 2. McGrath «. Adelaide Licensing Justices P. C. [1908] A. C. 487 Queensland Local Authorities Act of 1902, ss. 192, 265. Att.-Gen. for Queens- land V. Brisbane City Council. P. C. [1909] A. C. 582 Commonwealth Acts, Nos. 11 and 14 of 1902. Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving P. C. [1906] A. C. 360 Australian Commonwealth Act, 1903, s. 39, sub-s. 2. Colonial Sugar Refining Co. V. Irving P. C. [1906] A. C. 369 WEST ATTSTKALIA PATENT ACT, 1888. 52 Vict. No. 6, ss. 23, 49. Australian Gold Recovery Co. v. Lake View Consols - P. C. [1901] A. C. 142 BEITISH COLUMBIA, STATUTES OF. See under Canada, Statutes op, below. BRITISH HONDUBAS, STATUTES OF. Consolidated Laws of British Honduras, Part VI., c. 13, s. 213. Emery v. Wells P. C. [1906] A. C. 516 CANADA, STATUTES OF. British Columbia Crown Procedure Act (R. S. B. C. c. 57), s. 4. Fulton v. Norton - P. C. [1908] A. C. 451 60 & 61 Vict. c. 67 (British Columlia Proiiin- cial Elections Act, 1897), s. 8. Cun- ningham V. Tomey Homma P. C. [1903] A. C. 181 British Columbia Assessment Act, 1897. Att.- Gen. OP British Columbia -d. Ostrum P. C. [1904] A. C. 144 Can. Cons. Stat. 1859, c. 26. Province of Quebec v. Province of Ontario P. C. [1910] A. C. 627 Province of Canada, 16 Vict. c. 3. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada v. Robert- son P. C. [1909] A. C. 326 STATUTES— roretMtiteii. Admiralty Court Act, 1861 {Imperial), s. 11. Bow, McLachlan & Co. v. Ship " Camosun " P. C. [1909] A. C. 597 Revised Statutes of Canada, 1866, o. 80, ss. 58, 59. St. John Pilot Commissioners V. Cumberland Rt. & Coal Co. P. C. [1910] A. C. 208 British North America Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 3), s. 51, sub-s. 4 ; ss. 3, 146. Att.-Gen. for the Province of Prince Edward Island v. Att.-Gen. for the Dominion of Canada P. C. [1906] A. C. 37 s. 91. Ontario Mining Co. v. Seybold p. C. [1903] A. 0. 73 s. 91, sub-s. 25 ; s. 32, sub-s. 1. Cunningham v. Tomby Homma P. C. [1903] A. C. 151 s. 91, sub-s. 27. Att.-Gen. for Ontario v. Hamilton Street Ry Co. - P. C. [1903] A. C. 524 ss. 91, 92, sub-s. 10 (a). Toronto Corporation v. Bkll Telephone Co. OP Canada P. C. [1905] A. C. 62 s. 92, sub-s. 10. McGregor v. ESQUIMALT AND NANAIMO Ry. CO. p. C. [1907] A. C. 462 ■ — • s. 92, sub-s. 13. Grand Trunk By. Co. op Canada v. Att.-Gbn. of Canada . P. C. [1907] A. 0. 65 ss. 91, 92, 108. Att.-Gen. for British Columbia v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. P. C. [1906] A. C. 204 ■ s. 92, sub-s. 2. Woodruff v. Att.- Gen. FOR Ontario P. C. [1908] A. C. 608 — 3. 92, sub-s. 16. Att.-Gen. of Mani- toba 11. Manitoba Licence-holders' Association p. c. [1902] A. C. 73 s. 91, sub-s. 29 ; s. 92, sub-s. 10 (a). Toronto Corporation -c. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. P. C. [1908] A. 0. 54 s. 101. Crown Grain Co. v. Day P. C. [1908] A. C. 504 ss. 108, 117. Att.-Gen. of British Columbia v. Att.-Gbn. of Canada P. C. [1906] A. C. 552 Civil Code, art. 762. Archambault et ViK t>. Archambault et Al P. C. [1902] A. C. 675 Civil Code, arts. 1570, 1571. Bank op Toronto u. St. Lawrence Fire In- surance Co. P. C. [1903] A. C. 59 Civil Code of Lower Canada, art. 356. Cana- dian Pacific Ry. Co. v. Roy P. C. [1902] A. C. 220 art. 1018. Montreal Street Ry. Co. V. Montreal City P. 0. [1906] A. C. 100 dlx TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED STATXTTE S—eo ntinued. Civil Code of Lower Canada, art. 1092. Ken- siNGTOK Land Co. v. Canada Indtjs- TBIAL Co. P. C. [1903] A. C. 213 art. 1301. Trust and Loan Co. of Canada v. Gauthiek P. C. [1904] A. C. 94 art. 2522. MoNTEEAL LlOHT, Heat, AND PowEE Co. 1). Sedgwick P. C. [1910] A. C. 598 Civil Procedure Code, ss. 516, 521. KENT v. La Gommunautb des Sceues db Charite de la Providence P. C. [1903] A. C. 280 Quebec Civil Code, art. 1056. DAilE Mary Miller v. Canada Gjiand Trunk Ry, Co. P. C. [1906] A. C. 187 arts. 2227, 2232, 2236. City OF Montreal V. Cantin p. C. [1906] A. C. 241 Revised Statutes of Canada, c. 61, s. 8. Domin- ion Cotton Mills Co. v. General Engineering Co. op Ontario P. C. [1902] A. C. 570 Revised Statutes of Canada, 1886, o. 135, s. 71. Clerqub v. Murray P. C. [1903] A. C. 621 27 & 28 Vict. 0. 23 (^Canadian Act, 1864). Barland v. Earle P. C. [1902] A. C. 83 Canadian Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act, 1875, s. 47. Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Co. r. Owners op SS. Cape Breton P. C. [1907] A. C. 112 Canada Copyright Act, 1875. GRAVES & Go. ■V. GOERIB P. C. [1903] A. C. 496 Ontario Act, 36 Vict, o. 102, s. 5. Sauuby v. London (Ontario) Watbe Commes. P. C. [1906] A. C. 110 Canadian R. S. c. 79— Art. 19, 22 and 23 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions. SS. Albano «. Allan Line Steam- ship Co. Union Dampps-chifps- ehbvbrel Actien-Gbsellschapt P. C. [1907] A. C. 193 Dominion Act, 1880 (43 Vict. c. 67). Toronto Corporation v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada P. C. [1906] A. C. 82 Dominion Act, 1881 (44 Vict. c. 1), s. 18 (a). Att.-Gbn. for British Columbia v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Go. P. C. [1906] A. C. 204 Ontario Act, 1882 (45 Vict. c. 71). TORONTO Coeporation v. Bkll Telephone Co. op Canada P. C. [1906] A. C. 62 Ontario Separate Schools Act, R. S. 0., c. 294, s. 36. Brothers of the Christian Schools v. Minister of Education foe Ontario P. C. [1907] A. C. 69 Dominion Act, 1883 (46 Vict. c. 24), fs. 14-16. Central Ontario Ry. «. Trusts and GUAEANTEE Co. P. C. [1906] A. C. 876 STATVT'ES—coniimied. Canadian Act, 1885 (48 & 49 Vict. c. 50), s. 1. Att.-Gbn. foe Manitoba v. Att.- Gbn. FOR Canada P. C. [1904] A. C. 799 Esquimau Waterworlfs Act, 1885, s. 10, and the Extension Act, 1892, s. 10. EsQUl- malt Wateewoeks Co. v. City of Victoria Coeporation P. C. [1907] A. C.499 Canadian Winding-up Act, 1886, ss. 15, 31. Kent v. La Coiimunaute des Sceues DB CHAEITE de la PROVIDENCE p. C. [1903] A. C. 230 Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act, R. S. C. 1886, c. 135, s. 26. James Bay Ey. Co. V. Armstrong P. C, [1909] A. C. 624 Interpretation Act (R. S. C, 1886, c. 1), s. 7, sub-s. 2. Toronto Coepoeation v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. P. C. [1908] A. C. 54 R. S. 0., 1887, c. 23, 38.20, 26. McConnbll«. Bbatty p. C. [1908] A. C. 82 R. S. 0., 1887, c. 193, =. 184. McConnell d. Bbatty P. C. [1908] A. C. 82 Canada Temperance Act, 1888 (51 Vict. c. 34). Townsend v. Cox P. C. [1907] A. C. 514 Quebec Act, 1889 (52 Vict. c. 79), ss. 120, 114, 231. City of Montreal v. Cantin P. C. [1906] A. C. 241 Dominion Railway Act, 1888 (51 Vict. c. 29'). Central Ontario Ry. v. Trusts and Guarantee Go. P. C. [1908] A. 0.578 ss. 92, 288. (Canadian Pacific Ey. Co. 1). Roy P. C. [1902] A. C. 220 s. 134. Blub & Dbschamps v. Red Mountain Ry. Go. P. C. [1909] A. C. 361 S3. 187 and 188, intra vires. TORONTO Corporation r. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. - P. C. [1908] A. C. 54 Dominion Lauds Act, (Revised Statutes of Canada, c. 54), s. 47. Chappellb v. Res p. c. [1904] A. C. 127 Mining Regulations of 1889, s. 17. Chappelle V. Rex p. C. [1904] A. C. 127 Canadian Act, 1890 (53 Vict. c. 4). Calgaet AND Edmonton Ey. Co. v. Rex P. C. [1904] A. C. 766 Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, s. 6. Richelieu and Ontario Navi&a- TioN Co. V. Owners op SS. Cape Breton . p. C. [1907] A. C. 112 British Columbia Companies Acts, 1890, 1892. Jones v. North Vancouver Land AND Improvement Co., Limited Liability p. C. [1910] A. C. 317 British Columbia Families Compensation Act. White r. Victoria Lumber and Manupacturing Co., Ld. P. C. [1910] A. C. 606 DURING THE YEARS ] 901— 1910. dlxi STATTITES- Ontario Act (Si Vict. c. 2). Pbovinoe of QUEBEO V. PBOVINi'B OP ONTARIO p. C [1910] A C. 627 Quebec Act (54 Vict. c. 4). Province op Quebec v. Pkovince op Oni ario P. C. [1910 J A. C. 627 Canada Act (54 & 55 Vict. c. 6). Province op Quebec v. Province of Ontario P. C. [1910] A. C. 627 Ontario Act (55 Vict. c. 99). Toronto Cob- POBATION 1). TOEONTO RY. CO. p. C. [1907] A. C. 318 55 & 56 Vict. c. 24 (1892), s. 1. Dominion Cotton Mills Co. v. Genebal En- gineebinq Co. op Ontario P. C. [1902] A. C. 670 Quebec Succession Duty Act, 1892. Lambe «. Manuel - P. C. [1903] A. C. 68 Quebec Act, 1895 (58 Vict. c. 69). Hull Elec- TEic Co. v. Ottawa Electbic Co. AND Corporation up the Cut of Hull - - P, C. [1902] A. C. 237 Canadian Canal Regulations of May 1, 1895, 8. 19 (d). Richelieu and Ontabio Navigation Co. ■». Taylor P. C. [1910] A. C. 170 Canadian Customs Tariff Act, 1897, s. 4. Al- GOMA Central Ry. Co. v. Rex P. C. [1903] A. C. 478 Quebec Act, 1897 (60 Vict. o. 78), ss. 7 (c), 27. Hanson ii. Coepobation op the Village op Gband Mbbe P. C. [1904] A. C. 789 Dominion Act (60 & 61 Vict. c. 72). La Compagnie Htdraulique de St. Fbancois v. Continental Heat and Light Co. - P. C. [1909] A. C. 194 Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict, c. 48), s. 1. E. W. GiLLETT & Co. «. LUMBDEN - P. 0. [1905] A. C. 601 Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1897, c. 246. Att.-Gen. fob Ontario v. Hamilton Street Ry. Co. P. C. [1903] A. C. 624 Revised Statutes of Ontario, c. 224, s. 39, sub-s. 2. Toeonto Ry. Co. ■». Toeonto Corporation - P. C. [1904] A. C. 809 Limitation Act (R. S. 0., 1897, c. 133), ss. 4, 22. McViTT V. Tbanouth P. C. [1908] A. C. 60 Manitoban Mechanics' and Wage Earners' Lien Act (R. S. M. 0. 110), s. 36. Crown Grain Co. r. Day P. C. [1908] A. C. 804 Ontario Succession Duty Act (R. S. 0., 1897, c. 24). WooDEUPP V. Att.-Gen. fob Ontario - P. C. [1908] A. C. 608 Ontario Sale of Lands under Assessment Act, 1897, s. 184, sub-s. 3. Toronto Cor POEATioN V. Russell P. C. [1908] A. C. 49J STATVIEB—oontiniied. Domiuion Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 11 (Alifin Labour), s. 6, amt-nded by 1 Edw. 7, c. 13, s. 13). Att.-Gen. kob Canada v. Cain. The 8ame v. Gil- hula - P. C. [1906 J A. C. 842 British Columbia Watei- Clauses Consolidation .Act, 1897, ss. 2, 4. ESQUIMAULT Watebwoeks Co. v. City op Vic- toria Coepobation P. C. [1907] A. C. 499 Ontario Judicature Act (Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1897, c. 51), s. 113. TORONTO Ry. Co. v. Toronto Corporation P. C. [1908] A. C. 117 Quebec Civil Procedure Act, 1898 (61 Vict. c. 46). Ross V. Beaudry P. C. [1908] A. C. 670 63 & 64 Vict. 0. 22 {Manitoba Liquor Act, 1900). Att.-Gen. op Manitoba v. Manitoba Licence-holders' Association P. C. [1902] A. C. 73 Yukon Territorial Act, 1899, s. 8. McDonald V. Belcher - P. C. [1904] A. C. 429 Quebec Act (1 Edw. 7, c. 66), s. 10. Dumphy V. Monteeal Light Heat and Power Co. - Railway Act, 1903, ss. Deschamps v. Co. Canada Railway Act, Bay By. Co. P. C. [1907] A. C. 464 128, 239. Blue and Red Mountain Ry. P. C. [1909] A. C. 361 1903, s. 168. James . V. Aemsteong P. C. [1909] A. C. 624 Canadian Statute (4 Edw. 7, c. 31). Gband Tbdnk Ry. Co. op Canada v. Att.- Gen. OF Canada P. C. [1907] A. C. 66 Quebec Act (4 Edw. 7, c. 84), s. 3. La Com- pagnie Hydbaulique de St. Francois v. Continental Heat and Light Co. - P. C. [1909] A. C. 194 Vancouver Island Settlers' Bights Act, 1904. McGregor v. Esquimault and Nan- aimo Rr. Co. - P. C. [1907] A. C. 462 Dominion Railway Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 42). Grand Teunk By. Co. op Canada ■u. ROBEETSON - P. C. [1909] A. C. 326 Ontario Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 112), s. 1. Toeonto Corporation v. Toronto Ry. Co. - P. C. [1910] A. C. 312 CAPE OF GOOD HOPE, PROCLAMATIONS OF, Proclamations of April 25, 1889, and Feb. 1, 1893. Vilandbe Concessions Syndi- cate V. Cape op Good Hope Govern- ment P. C. [1907] A. C. 186 58 & 59 Vict. c. 22 (1895 Act), s. 4. Eastern AND South African Telegraph Co. ■». Cape Town Tramways Cos. P. C. [1902] A. C. 381 59 & 60 Vict. c. 29 (1896 Act), s. 4. Eastern and South African Telegraph Co. V. Cape Town Tramways Cos. P. C. [1902] A. C. 381 nn dlxii TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDEEED STA.TVTES— continued. Cape Colony Act 36 of 1896. East LONDON Haeboue Boaed v. Caledonia Landing, Shipping, and Salvage Co. - P. C. [1908] A. C. 871 CETION, STATUTES OF. Ordinance No. 7 of 1840, s. 3. Pbeeea v. Peeeba p. C. [1901] A. C. 354 Ordinance 2 of 1889 (C. C. P.), ss. 676, 677, 685, 691. AlTKEN, SPENCB & Co. V. FEE- NANDO - P. C. [1903] A. C. 200 Ceylon Procedure Code, c. 12, s. 87. Haevey V. Eex - P. C. [1901] A. C. 601 Civil Procedure Code, s. 5i7. Ponnamma v. Oeumogam - P. C. [1905] A. C. 383 Ordinance No. 6 of 1847, s. 31. Babot ■». De SiLVA - - P. C. [1909] A. C. 376 CHINA AND COBEA, STATUTES OF. Admiralty Court Act, 1861, a. 5. FoONQ Tax & Co. V. BUCHHEISTEE & Co. P. C. [1908] A. C. 458 China and Corea Order in CouncE, 1904, s. 100. FooNG Tax & Co. v. Bttchheistee & Co. - - P. C. [1908] A. C. 458 HONG E0N8 OBDINANCES. No. 13 of 1864, 8. 8 ; No. 8 of 1860, s. 39 ; and No. 9 of 1870, s. 1. Chan Kit San v. Ho Fung Hang P. C. [1902] A. C. 257 Hong Kong Supreme Court Ordinance, 1873, 8. 31. Chang Hang Kit; v. Piggott P. 0. [1909] A. C. 312 INDIA, STATUTES OF. Indian Succession Act, 1865 (Act X. of 1865), ss. 2, 3, 5, 179, 180, 187, 188, 190, 191, 234, 242, 243, 260, 262, 269, 278. Ceastee v. Thomas Neville J. [1909] 2 Ch. 348 Indian Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s. 6. Seceetaey op State foe Foeeign Appaies v. Chaeleswoeth, Pilling & Co. - P. C. [1901] A. C. 573 ISLE OF MAN, STATUTES OF. Isle of Man Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1867, 63. 3, 5. Gill ■». Westlake P. C. [1910] A. C. 197 Manx Local GoTemment Act, 1886, s. 286. Laughton t. Poet Eein Commbs. P. 0. [1910] A. C. 566 MALTA, STATUTES OF. Code of Eohan, bk. 4, c. 2, ss. 3, 4. Steick- LAND V. StKICKLAND p. C. [1908] A. C. 661 NATAl, STATUTES OF. Natal Mines Act, 1899, s. 25. Dundee Coal Go. V. MiNISTEH of AGEIODLTUBE OF the Colony op Natal wj-m p. C. [1906] A. C..6U STATVT'E8—c. O'Keepb P. C. [1910] A. C. 186 New South Wales Crown Lands Alienation Act, 1861, ss. 13, 14. Baeton v. LEiiPElEHE - p. 0. [1910] A. C. 330 s. 21. Chippendall v. William Laidley & Co. P. C. [ 1909] A. C. 199 Lands Act Amendment Act, 1875, s. 8. Chippendall c William Laidley . & Co. - - P. C. [1909] A. C. 199 37 Vict. No. IB (Mining Act, 1874), ss. 13, 25. Cook «. Eicketson P. C. [1901] A. C. 588 s. 115. Falknees Gold Mnrora Co. ■». McKinneey P. C. [1901] A. C. 581 Sydney Corporation Act, 1879, s. 139. Muni- cipal Council op Sydney ». Austeal Feeezing Woeks, Ltd. P. C. [1905] A. C. 161 Sydney Municipal Council v. Tebey. P. 0. [1907] A. 0. 308 Civil Service Act, 1884, ss. 2, 48. Williams V. Machabg - P. C. [1910] A. C. 476 Crown Lands Act, 1884, ss. 20, 26. Ministee FOE Lands t. Wilson P. C. [1901] A. 0. 315 New South Wales Civil Service Act, 1884, 8. 48. Walkee t. Simpson P. C. [1903] A. C. 208 New South Wales Lands Acquisition Act (44 Vict. No. 16), s. 13. Pebbt «. Clissold p. C. [1907] A. C. 73 Crown Lands Act, 1889, ss. 5, 8, sub-s. 6. Ministee foe Lands r. Wilson P. C. [1901J A. C. 315 Moore Street Improvement Act, 1890. Sydney Municipal Council v. Teeey P. 0. [1907] A. C. 308 New South Wales Crown Lands Act, 1889, s. 33 ; of 1891, s. 3. O'Keefe «. Malonb P. C. [1903] A. C. 365 New South Wales Land and Income Tax Assessment Act, 1895. TAXATION COMMES. V. MOONEY p. 0. [1907] A. C. 342 59 Vict. No. 15 (^Land and Income Tax Astett- ment Act, 1896), s. 11, sub-s. 5. COMMBS. OP Taxation c. Tbustees op St. Mabk's Glebe P. C. [1902] A. C. 416 s. 28, sub-s. 1. CoMMES. of Taxa- tion r. Antill p. C. [1902] A. C. 428 60 Vict. No. 12 {Coal Mines MegulatUm Act, 1897), 8. 38, sub-s. 1. Humble v. Hum- Phbevs - P. C. [1902] A. C. 207 DUIiING THE YEARS 1901—1910. dlxiil STATUTES— I New South Wales Bankruptcy Act, 1898. New South Walks Taxation COMMES. V. Palmee P. C. [1907] A. C. 179 New South Wales Stamp Duties Act, 1898, s. 49, sub-s. 2 A (a). Comme. op Stamp Duties v. Stephen P. C. [1904] A. C. 137 Stamp Duties Commes. v. Salting P. C. [1907] A. C. 449 New South Wales Lunacy Act, 1898, s. 106, sub-s. 2 ; s. 110. In re McLaughlin P. C. [1905] A. C. 343 New South Wales Public Works Act (26 of 1900), ss. 96, 99. Minister of Public WoEKS «. Haet p. C. [1904] A. C. 269 Public Works Act, 1900, s. 116, sub-s. 2 (J). Pacific Co-opbeative Steam Coal Co. i>. Ry. Commes. op New South Wales - P. C. [1904] A. C. 798 Sydney Harbour Trust Act, 1900, s. 68. Lukey «. Stonet Haeboub Teust Commes. P. C. [1904] A. C. 382 Probate Duties (Amendment) Act, 1899. Stamp Duties Comme. v. Salting P. 0. [1907] A. 0. 449 Public Service Superannuation Act, 1899. Williams v. Machaeg P. C. [1910] A. C. 476 New South Wales Public Works Act, 1900, s. 131. Williams «. Peemanbnt Teustee Co. of New South Wales, Ld. - - P. C. [1906] A. C. 249 New South Wales Act (2 Edw. 7, No. 35), s. 24. NOETON V. Tatloe P. C. [1906] A. C. 378 New South Wales Life, &c. Insurance Act, 1902, s. 4. Att.-Gen. FOE New South Wales v. Cueatoe of Intestate Estates - - P. C. [1907] A. C. 519 Constitution Act of New South Wales, No. 32, 1902, s. 15. Haenett 4). Ckick P. C. [1908] A. C. 470 New South Wales Police Offences Act, 1901, s. 61. Kelly v. Haet P. C. [1910] A. C. 192 NEW ZEAIAND, STATUTES OF. New Zealand Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 112). RiDDiFOED V. Rex p. C. [1905] A. C. 147 29 Vict. No. 11 {JVative Rights Act, 1866), ss. 3, 4, 5. NiEEAHA Tamaki v. Bakbe P. 0. [1901] A. C. 661 Native Land Act, 1873. Assets Co. i>. Meeb EOIHI - - P. C. [1905] A. C. 176 New Zealand Deceased Persons' Estates Duties Act, 1881, s. 35. Minister of Stamps V. TOWNHND - P. C. [1909] A. C. 638 s. 36 ; of 1815, s. 18. JACKSON v. Commes. op Stamps P. C. [1903] A. C. 360 STATUTES— co« Native Lands Fraud Prevention Act, 1881, ss. 4, 6, 16. Assets Co. v. Mere Rothi P. 0. [1905] A. C. 176 Municipal Corporations Act, 1886 (50 Vict. No. 50), ss. 369, 370. Hamilton Gas Co. 0. Hamilton Corporation P. C. [1910] A. 0. 300 New Zealand Interpretation Act, 1888, No. 15, s. 5, sub-s. 7. Smith v. McAethue P. C. [1904] A. C. 389 52 & 53 Vict. No. 12 (^Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1889), ss. 89, 104. Comme. of Teadb and Customs v. R. Bell & Co. P. C. [1902] A. C. 663 56 Vict. No. 37 (Land Act, 1893), ss. 136, 137. NiEEAHA Tamaki v. Bakbe P. C. [1901] A. C. 561 New Zealand Magistrates' Courts Act, 1893, Bastings v. Callaghan P. C. [1905] A. C. 351 Public Works Act, 1894, s. 44. Heslop v. Minister pF Mines for New Zea- land P. C. [1904] A. C. 781 Native Land Court Act, 1894, ss. 59, 73. Assets Co. ii. Mere Eoihi P. C. [1905] A. C. 176 58 Vict. No. 42 (^Public Works Act, 1895), s. 44. Wellington Corporation v. John- ston - P. 0. [1902] A. C. 396 New Zealand Act, 58 Vict., No. 43, s. 93. Zn re Wi Matua's Will P. C. [1908] A. C. 448 New Zealand Hamilton Gas Works Act, 1895 (59 Vict. No. 1), s. 46. Hamilton Gas Co. ii. Hamilton Corporation P. C. [1910] A. C. 300 New Zealand Licensing Act, 1895, s. 3. Smith V. McArthue - P. C. [1904] A. C. 389 Alcoholic Liquors Sale Act, 1895. Bastings v. Callaghan P. C. [1906] A. C. 351 New Zealand Mining Act, 1898, ss. 232, 233. Heslop v. Minister of Mines foe New Zealand P. C. [1904] A. C. 781 New Zealand Land and Income Tax Assess- ment Act, 1900, s. 51. LOVBLL & Cheistmas, Ld. v. Comme. of Taxes P. C. [1908] A. C. 46 New Zealand Municipal Corporations Act, 1900, s. 219. Mayor of Wellington V. Mayor of Lowee Hutt P. C. [1904] A. C. 773 New Zealand Property Law Act, 1908, ss. 93, 94. Geeville v. Paeker P. 0. [1910] A. C. 335 New Zealand Land and Income Assessment Act, No. 49 of 1900, s. 59. COMMR. OP Taxes for New Zealand v. Eastern Extension Australasia and China Telegraph Co. P. C. [1906] A. C. 626 nn2 dlxiv TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDEBED SIATVT^S—cmtiniied. NEWFOUNDLAND, STATUTES OF. Consolidated Statutes of Newfoundland (2nd Series), c. 19, s. 51. Glenwood LuMBBR Co. t. Phillips P. C. [1904] A. C. 406 St. John's Street Eailway Act, 1896, s. 42. Shea v. Eead-Newtoundland Co. P. C. [1908] A. C. 520 Newfoundland Whaling Industry Act, 1902. Newfoundland Steam Whaling Co. v. goveenment of newfoundland P. C. [1904] A. C. 339 QUEENSLAND, STATUTES OP. See under Australia, Statutes op, Queensland Local Authorities Act, 1902, ss. 192, 265. Att.-Gen. for Queensland v. Brisbane City Council P. C. [1909] A. C. 582 STBAITS SETTLEMENTS, STATUTES OP. Straits Settlements Ordinances (1879) No. 8, ss. 1, 12 ; (1885) No. 5, s. 4 ; (1905) No. 5. s. 4 ; (1905) No. 7, Ss. 20, 23 ; (1905) No. 8, ss. 21, 32. The " Polt- NfciEN" - Bigham Pres. [1910] P. 28 Straits Settlements Bankruptcy Ordinance of 1888, s. 45. Shragbb v. March P. C. [1908] A. C. 402 Straits Settlements Opium Ordinance, 1906, s. 73. Bbuhn v. Rex P. C. [1909] A. C. 317 TEANSVAAL, STATUTES OF. See under Africa, Statutes op, supra. VICTOEIA, STATUTES OF. Power of the Victorian Legislature (18 & 19 Vict. 0. 55). Webb v. Outrim P. C. [1907] A. C. 81 Victorian Act No. 773 in 1883, s. 89. Rex r. Fisher. Rex v. Bull P. C. [1903] A. C. 158 Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Company's Act, 1883, ss. 22, 54. Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co. ■». Kidney P. C. [1806] A. C. 358 Law of Victoria, Act No. 1491, s. 8. Mel- bourne AND Metropolitan Board op Works v. Metropolitan Gas Co. P. C. [1905] A. C. 595 Victoria Administration and Probate Act, 1890 (54 Vict. No. 1060), ss. 102, 103. In re Brewster SwinfenEady J. [1908] 2 Ch, 366 Victoria Lunacy Act, 1890. Kv parte Gregory . P. C. [1901] A. C. 128 STATUTES—, Victorian Administration and Probate Act, 1890, No. 1060, s. 115. Patne v. Rex P. C. [1902] A. C. 552 54 Vict. No. 1105 (Justices Act, 1891), s. 139. Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co. V. Mayor, &c., of the City op FiTZKOY P. C. [1901] A. C. 163 54Vict.No. 1112{Zocal Government Act, 1891), s. 246. Melbouenb Tramway and Omnibus Co. v. Mayor, &c., op the City of Fitzboy P. C. [1901] A. C. 153 58 Vict. No. 1374 (Income Tax Act, 1895), ss. 5, 10. Scottish Provident Institu- tion v. CoMMR. OP Taxes P. 0. [1901] A. C. 340 Victorian Book Debts Act, 1896, s. 3. National Bank op Australasia v. J. Falkingham & Sons P. C. [1902] A. C. 685 Victorian Electric Light and Power Act, 1896, ss. 38, 39. Att.-Gen. foe Victoria v. Melbourne Corporation P. C. [1907] A. C. 469 59 Vict. No. 1401 (Ctt^toms and Excise Duties Act, 1896). Colonial Sugar Repin- ing Co. v. Att.-Gen. for Victoria P. C. [1901] A. C. 554 Victorian Trusts Act, 1901, s. 3. National Trustees Company of Australasia, Ld. v. General Finance Company op Australasia, Ld. P. C. [1905] A. C. 373 Electric Light and Power Act, 1901, s. 3. Att.-Gen for Victoria v. Mel- bourne Corporation P. C. [1907] A. 0. 469 YUKON TEBKITORLAL ACT, 1899, s. 8. McDonald v. Belcher P. C. [1904] A. C. 429 ZANZIBAB. Zanzibar Order in Council, 1884. Secretary op State for Foreign Affairs b. Charleswoeth, Pilling & Co. P. C. [1901] A. 0. 373 III. FOREIGN STATUTES. CODE NAPOLEON, § 513. In re Selot's Trust FarweU J. [1902] 1 Ch. 488 HARTES ACT (Act of Congress of U.S.A., 1893), ss. 1, 2, 3. RowsoN V. Atlantic Transport Co. C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 666 S. 4. COMPANIA NavIEEA VASCONZADA 11. Churchill and Sim Channell J. [1906] 1 K. B. 237 ( . Emanuel Parwell J. [1902] W. N. 231 Bakee v. Fabee - - C. A. [1908] W.N. 9 r. 7. Kaeno «. Spkatt C. A. [1909] W. N. 261 In re Beldam's Patent Parker J. [1910] "W. N. 225 r. 13. MoBisoN •». Tblfee Swinfen Eady J. [1906] W. N. 31 Order LXV. (^Cogti), r. 1. Civil Service Co - OPEEATIVE Society, Ld. v. General Steam Navigation Co. C.A. [1903] 2 K. B. 766 Minister & Co. «. Appeely Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 643 Sandeeson V, Blythe Theatre Co. C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 533 Civil Sbbvice Co-operative So- ciety, Ld. v. General Steam Navi- gation Co. C. a. [1903] 2 K. B. 768 King & Co «. Gillabd & Co. C. A. [1905] 2 Cli. 7 HOYES V. Tate - - C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 656 r. 2. Todd v. Noeth-Easteen By. Co. - - C. A. [1903] W. If. 30 Haskell Golf Ball Co. ■». Hutchison Warrington J. [1906] 1 Oh. 618 RULES OF SUPREME CQVB.T—conti'n'ued. Order LXV. {Costs), r. 6. Beown v. HAia Kekewich J. [1906] 2 Ch. 379 rr. 8, 27, sub-rr. 29, 37— App. N. No. 65 In re Ermen Farwell J. [1903] 2 Ch. 166 rr. 8, 27, sub-rr. 29, 38. Peel v. London & Noeth-Westeen By. Co. (No. 2) Parker J. [1907] 1 Ch. 607 r. 8 ; r. 27, sub-rr. 29, 48. Caven- dish V. Steutt Buckley J. [1904] 1 Ch. 524 rr. 8, 27 (29) Appendix Nos. 59, 60. Price v. Clinton - Joyce J. [1906] 2 Ch. 487 r.'9. RiVINGTON V. Gabden Buckley J. [1901] 1 Ch. 561 rr. 9, 27, sub-rr. 29, 38. Geeat Western By. Co. v. Caepalia United China Clay Co. (No. 2.) Eve J. [1909] 2 Ch. 471 r. 12. DuxBUEY V. Barlow C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 23 r. 13. Eady v. Elsdon C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 460 GoATLY V. Jones Neville J. [1907] W. N. 161 r. 14 ; r. 27, sub-r. 21. David v. Bees - - C. A. [1904] 3 K. B. 435 Bake v. Feench - Parker J. [1907]. 1 Ch. 428 . r. 14B. In re Vincent - Parker j; [1909] 1 Ch. 110 In re Whitakee. Dbnison-Pbndbe V. Evans - Neville J. [1910] W. N. 236 r. 14 (d). Dean i\ Bulmbe Jeune Pres. [1905] P. 1 In re Vickeestapf - Kekewich J. [1906] 1 Ch. 762 r. 19 (h), r. 27, eub-r. 38 (b). In re Mercantile. LiQHTBEA&B Co. Warrington J. [1906] 1 Ch. 491 r. 26a. In re Stead C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 713 rr. 27 (9). The Tuebet Couet Jeune Pres. [1901] W. N. 62 r. 27 (16) In re Bailey Eve J. [1909] W. N. 110 r. 27, sub-r. 18. Oemebod, Gribeson & Co. v. St. George's Ibonwoeks, Ld. C. A. [1905] 1 Ch. 505 r. 27, Bub-r. 20. Geen v. Heeeing C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 152 r. 27. sub-r. 23. Jmto Schwabachee Parker J. [1907] 1 Ch. 719 r. 27 (26). SILKSTONE V. Haigh Mooe Coal Co. r. Edby C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 662 r. 27, sub-r. 27. In re Salmond Farwell J. [1906] W. N. 6 tUxxii TABLE OF RULES AND ORDERS OF COURT JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED RULES OF SUPREME COURT Order LXV. iCods), r. 27 (29). Baetlett V. HiGGiNS - C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 230 Leeds Forge Co. v. Deighton's Patent Flue and Tube Co Farwell J. [1903] 1 Oh. 475 Manchester Corporation r. Sug- DEN C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 171 Bright's Trustee v. Sellar Swinfen Eady J. [1904] 1 Ch. 369 r. 27, reg. 29. Appendix N, No. 147. McIVER & Co. V. Tate Steamers, Ld. C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 184 r. 27, sub-r. 29 (R. S. C, Jan. 1902 r. 10). In re Bradshaw Kekewich J. [1902] 1 Ch. 436 r. 27, sub - rr. 38a, 39—41. In re Johnston Farwell J. [1904] 1 Ch. 132 r. 27, Bub-rr. 39 — 41. In re Dillon Wright J. [1903] W. K. 49 r. 27, Bub-r. 47. Cookson v. Catton Warrington J. [1910] 1 Ch. 410 r. 27 (48). Dunning t>. Grosvbnoe Dairies, Ld. - Joyce J. [1901] W. N. 218 ■ r. 27, Bub-r. 67. In re Mackintosh & Dixon - C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 394 Order IXVI. {Affidavits), r. 7. Colemaii V. Coleman Buckley J. [1905] W. N. 160 Order LXVII. {Sernce of Orders, ^-c), rr. 4, 5. Jamaica Ry. Co. v. Colonial Bank - C. A. [1905] 1 Ch. 677 Order IXVIII. {Application of Riileg in Crown, ^-c, Cases'), r. 1. IviMEY v. IviMBY - C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 260 r. 2. Manchester Corporation r. SUGDEN - C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 171 Order LXX. (^Effect of Non-compliance'), rr. 1, 2. The " Assunta " Jeune PreB. [1902] P. 160 Lloyd v. Great Western Dairies Co. C. a. [1907] 2 K. B. 727 r. 3. DuNLOP Pneumatic Tyre Co. D. Actien-Gesells-chaft Fur Motor UND Motorpahrzengbau Voem. CUDELL & Co. C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 342 Order IXXI. {Interpretation of Terms), B. 1. Lord Kinnaird r. Field C. A. [1905] 2 Ch. 361 r. 1. /« re Stead - C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 713 Appendix N. No. 65. In re Ermen Farwell J. [1903] 2 Ch. 166 Items 166, 172. Dyee v. London School Board Swinfen Eady J. [1903] W. N. 83 RULES OF SUPREME COM'RT—confinued . Order LXXII. (General Rules), r. 2, Appen- dix 0. (22). The " Ceaighall " C. A. [1910] P. 207 ARCHES COURT RULES, September, 1903. Markham v. Shihebeook Oversbees Consist. Ct. of Southwell [1906] P. 239 BANKRUPTCY RULES, 1886 to 1890, rr. 16, 285, 287, 292. In re Solomons C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 917 — rr. 27, 28, 190— 192a. In re Ponsford C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 704 rr. 27, 29, 230. In re Smith PhUlimore J. [1910] W. N. 23 rr. 66. In re Druckee (No. 2.) Wright J. [1902] 2 K. B. 210 r. 72. In re A Debtor (No. 7 of 1910) - C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 59 rr. 112 (1), 126, 147. In re Grant, Bulceaig & Co. Farwell J. [1906] 1 Ch. 124 Appendix, Part II. (Scale of Costs), Gen. Beg., r. 2. In re Garner Bigham J. [1906] 2 K. B. 213 r. 112, sub-ss. 1, 2, Appendix, Part II. {Scale of Solicitors' Costs). In re "Wbighell C. a. [1908] W. N. 232 In re Weighell - C. A. [1909] 1 X. B. 92 r. 119. In re ROGERS, Ex parte The Sheriff op Sussex - Phillimore J. [1910] W. N. 238 rr. 120, 122. In re Smith, JBx parte Wilson - - PhiUimore J. [1910] 2 E. B. 346 rr. 125, 183. In »•« Bright Wright J. [1903] 1 K. B. 735 r. 129. I/i re Eveeson Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 619 — r. 130. In re A Debtoe (No. 692 of 1910) C. A. [1910] W. N. 224 rr. 130, 131, 132, 134. In re Taylor Bigham J. [1909] 1 K. B. 103 r. 131. In re Gaeraed Div. Ct. [1905] W. N. 90 r. 134. In re A Debtor C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 354 r. 136 (4) ; Appendix, Form 6. In re A Debtor, 4S-t of 1908 C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 692 rr. 163, 165. In re Gentey C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 826 r. 183, sub-r. 1. In re A Debtoe (No. 1103 of 1909) C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 313 r. 190. In re RiGQS Wright J. [1901] 2 K. B. 16 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. (llxxii( BANKRUPTCY ZVLES—eoidinued. r. 233. Scale of Fees, 1900, Table A. In re SPKATLEY Bigham 3. [1909] 1 E. B. 659 — — r. 340. In re Gaskell C. A. [1904 J 2K. B. 478 rr. 240, 244a ; Appendix, Form 63a. Ill re Summers Eigham J. [1907] 2 K. B. 166 r. 244. Ill re Johu Roberts & Co. C. A. [1904] 2 E. B. 299 r. 344. In re Jones Fhillimore J. [1908] 1 E. B. 204 Appendix Form Ko. 6. In re Beau- champ C. A. [1904] 1 E. B. 672 BANEKUFTCT (ABMINISTBATION OBDEB) BOLES, 1902, r. 15. Pearson b. WiLCOCK - C. A. [1906] 2 E. B. 440 BEENE CONVENTION, 1887, Arts. 2, 7, 9. Sarpy v. Hollaito - - C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 198 BOABD OF EDUCATION (FOWEBS), Order in Council, 1902. In re Betton's Charity - Swinfen Eady J. [1908] 1 Ch. 205 1900—1902. In re Grammar School - Berkhamsted Warrington J. [1908] 2 Ch. 25 BOABD OF TBADE OBDEB, 1910, rr. 2, 4, 9. In re Royal Exchange Assurance CORPOEATION - - Neville J. [1910] W. N. 211 CHINA AND COBEA, Order in CouncU, 1904, S. 100. FOONG Tai & Co. V. BUCH- HEISTER & Co. P. C. [1908] A. C. 458 CLEBGY DISCIPLINE BULES, 1892, rr. 68, 69 Chesney v. Newsholme. News- holme V. Chesney (No. 2) - Chancery Court of York [1908] P. 301 COMPANIES WINDING-UP BULES, 1890, r. 36. In re Brandy Distillers' Co. C. A. [1901] W. N. 37 r. 68. In re Telescriptor Syndi- cate, Ld. Buckley J, [1903] 2 Ch. 174 COMPANIES WINDING-UP BULES, April, 1892, r. 17. In re National Bank of Wales Buckley J. [1902] 2 Ch. 412 r. 20. In re British Electric Street Tramways Buckley J. [1903] 1 Ch. 725 COMPANY WINDING-UP BULES, 1903, r. 1. In re Pretoria Pietbrsbueg Ry. Co. C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 170 In re Bryndu and Port Talbot Col- lieries, Ld. Buckley J. [1904] W. N. 136 • rr. 27 (3), 33, 200, Form 6. In re Saul Moss & Sons, Ld. - Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 142 rr. 27, 200 (1). Form 6. In re London and Provincial Pure Ice Manu- facturing Co. Buckley J. [1904] W. N. 136 r. 29. In re London and Hull Soap Works, Ld. - - - Parker J. [1907] W. N. 254 rr. 29, 200. In re African Farms, Ld. Warrington J. [1906] 1 Ch. 640 ■ r. 33, Form 11. In re Desooues, Parry & Co. - Swinfen Eady J. [1909] W. N. 50 r. 34. Practice— Direction. Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 127 r. 36. In re Vanguard Motor Bus Co. - - NeviUe J. [1908] W. N.99 ■ r. 42. Practice Note Warrington J. [1905] W. N. 128 rr. 53, 144. In re Lake George Mines, Ld. Byrne J. [1904] 1 Ch. 803 r. 186. In re Chic, Ld. Warrington J. [1905] 2 Ch. 345 r. 201. In re Pretoria Pietersbuhg Ry. Co. (No. 2) Buckley 3. [1904] 2 Ch. 359 COUNSEL— Bules as to Employing, 1892, r. 20. In re Harrisson - Parker J. [1908] 1 C^. 282 COUNTY COUBT BULES, 1889, Order IX., r. 12 ; Order LIII., r. 18. Aston Tube Works, Ld. v. Dumbell Div. Ct. [1904] 1 E. B. 535 Order X., rr. 10, 18 (a). Willis v. Lovick Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 196 Order XV. Rex r. Birmingham County Court Judge Div. Ct. [1902] 2 E. B. 283 rr. 13, 14 (a), Form 52 a. McIntosh (. SiMPKINS C. A. [1901] IE. B. 487 Aldehson v. Palliser C. A. [1901] 2 E. B. 833 rr. 13, 14 (a). Appendix H, Form 52a. McIntosh r. Simpkins C. A. [1901] 1 E. B. 487 r. 14 (b). Lumley v. Osborne Div. Ct. [1901] 1 E. B. 532 Order XXVII., rr. 1, 2, 4 (a). Ndnn & Co. V. Tyson Div. Ct. [1901] 2 E. B. 487 Order XXXIII., r. 1. Dierken v. Philpot Div. Ct. [1901] 2 E. B. 380 dlxxiv TABLE OF EULBS AND OEDEKS OF COUET JUDICIALLY OONSIDEEED COUNTY COURT KUIES, 1892, Order XXXIX. B, r. 80. The " Skudbnabs " Div. Ct. [1901] W. N. 142 COUNTY COUBT, 1901, Treasury Order, Feb. 22, 1901, r. 35. In re MORGAN ■Wright J. [1904] IK. B.78 COUNTY COUET RULES, 1903, Order VII., rr. 41 (e), 49. Chankbl Coaling Co. t>. EOSS - Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K. B. 145 Order XIV., r. 12. Wood v. Webee Div. Ct. [1908] W. N. 121 Order XXII., r. 3. Eex «. The Judge op THE Surrey County Court Div. Ct. [1910]2K.B. 410 Order XXV., rr. 57, 69. Htmas «. Ogdbn C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 246 — Order XXVII., r. 13. Miller & Co. v. Solomon Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 91 Order XXX., rr. 3, 4 ; Form 238. Lacons V. Warmoll C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 350 Order LIII., rr. 1, 11. Clinton v. Ben- nett - Div. Ct. [1908] 1 K. B. 109 COUNTY COUET RULES, 1903 and. 1904, Order XII., rr. 9, 11. Porter v. London and Manchester Insurance Co. - Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 30 1903 and 1904, Order XXIII., r. 2 ; Appendix, Form 161. In re A Debtor, 484 of 1908 - - - C. A. [1908] 2 E. B. 692 Order XXV., r. 31 (3a). Eex «. Snaggb C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 644 CRIMINAL APPEAL RULES, 1908, r. 9. Ebx ■!). Elliott - CCA. [1908] 2 E. B. 452 CROWN OFFICE RULES, 1906, r. 25. Hoenbe ti. Stbpnby Assessment Committee Div. Ct. [1908] W. N. 101 DIVORCE COURT RULES, 1865, r. 61. Lowen- PBLD v. LOWBNFBLD C. A. [1903] P. 177 DIVORCE COUET RULES, 1866, r. 2. Elliott V. Elliott Jeune Pres. [1901] W. N. 203 r. 97. In re Lord Vivian v. Lady Vivian - - C. A. [1909] P. 67 r. 168. Kbmp • Welch -o. KeIup- Weloh & Crymbs C. A. [1910] P. 233 DIVORCE COURT, Additional Rules and Regula- tions, 1869, r. 175. Elliott v. Elliott Jeune Pres. [1901] W. N. 203 DIVORCE RULE, 1905, r. 220. IN THE Matter OP Clark Bargrave Deane J. [190S] W. N. 180 DIVORCE RULES AND REGULATIONS, i. 133. BICKNELL «. BiCKNELL C. A. [1908] W. N. 97 EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY INSURANCE COM- PANIES (ADAPTATION OF ENACT- MENTS) ORDER, 1907. In re Irish Catholic Church Property Insur- ance Co. . Parker J. [1909] W. N. 89 EXTRADITION TREATY between United Kingdom and,Belgium of Oct. 29, 1910, arts. 9, 11. Eex v. The Governor op Brixton Prison. Ex parte Van dee Auwera - Div. Ct. [1907] 2 E. B. 176 GERMANY, Extradition Treaty, arts. 9, 12. In re Bluhm Div. Ct. [1901] 1 E. B. 764 HOUSE OF COMMONS, STANDING ORDERS 190. ToBRBNs' Divorce Bill (Second Eeading) H. L. (Ir.) [1909] W. N. 72 HOUSE OF LORDS, STANDING ORDERS, 177- ToRRBNs' Divorce Bill (Second Reading) H. L. (Ir.) [1909] "W. N. 72 LAND TRANSFER RULES, 1898, r. 92. See QniCKB f. Chapman C A. [1903] W. N. 47 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 669 rr. 106, 107, 110. Capital and Counties Bank, Ld. v. Rhodes C A. [1903] 1 Ch. 631 1903, rr. 29, 83, Sched. I., Form 13. Att. v. National Hospital poe the Ebliep and Cure op the Paralysed and Epileptic Kekewioh J. [1904] 2 Ch. 262 LICENSING RULES, 1904, r. 2, clause 1. Plaistow Working Men's Club v. Haerod Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 582 rr. 21-27. Biekin v. Smith C A. [1909] 2 E. B. 112 rr. 31, 41, 42, 43. Eex v. Justices op Walsall Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 210 rr. 41, 42. Malkin v. Eex Walton J. [1906] 2 K. B. 886 r. 60. Glamorgan Quarter Ses- sions V. Wilson Bray J. [1910] 1 E. B. 725 LOCAL GOVERNMENT— General Order of Local Government Board, Oct. 18, 1898, arts. 26, 27. Moore v. Kbyte Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 768 DURING THE YEAES 1901—1910. dlxxv LUNACY EULES, 1892, rr. 9, 67, 88 ; Schedule. Form 1. 1% re Purvis Vaughsn Williams L.J. [1904] 1 Ch. 373 MAYOR'S C0T7ET EULES, 1890, r. 13. In re James Beiggs & Sons C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 186 MEDWAY CONSEEVANCY BY-LAWS, arts. 43 (c), 48. The " Olutha Boat U7 " Gorell Barnes Pres. [1909] P. 36 MEESEY ETJLES, 1900, art. 4 (a). The " DBVONrAN " Jeune Pres. [1901] W. N. 34 ; C. A. [1901] P. 221 KOTOB— Heavy Motor Car Order, 1904, arts. 2, 3. Eex b. Judge Jambs and Midland Railway - Div. Ct. [1908] 1 K. B. 988 MOTOE CAR (HEAVY) OBDEE, 1904, arts. 2, 3. Evans v. Nicholl Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 778 MOTOE CAB (EEOISTEATION ANI) LICENS- ING) OEDEE, 1903, art. 11. Pbo- viNciAL Motor Cab Co. ■». Dunning Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 899 MOTOE CABS (USE AND CONSTEUCTION) OBDEE, 1904, arts. 1, 4 (3). Bubton ». Nicholson Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 397 B. 4. Rex «. Toekshiee (West Riding) Justices Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 439 PATENTS AND DESIGNS (UvXegoftlie Supreme Court), 1908, Order Lllla., rr. 3, 17. In re Johnson's Patent Parker J. [1908] 2 Ch. 487 PEOBATE CONTENTIOUS EULES, 1862, r. 100. In re Hailstone - C. A. [1909] P. 118 PEOBATE COURT EULES, 1862 iContentims Business), r. 6. Cbickitt v. Ceickitt C. A. [1902] P. 177 r. 41. TOMALIN V. Smaet Jeune Pres. [1904] P. 141 SETTLED LAND EULES, 1882, r. 2. In re ToEEY Hill Estate Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. 468 SHIPPING CASUALTIES EULES, 1898, rr. 11, 18, 13, 30 (i). " The Cablislb " Div. Ct. [1906] P. 301 SHIPPING— COLLISIONS AT SEA, BEGULA- TIONS FOE PEEVENTING, 1897, arts. 2, 9, 20. The " Upton Castle " Bargrave Deane J. [1906] P. 147 art. 3. The " Devonian " C. A. [1901] P. 221 Preliminary article, and arts. 3, 11. The " Romance " Gorell Barnes J. [1901] P. IS art. 4 (a) (c). The " Hawthoen- BANK " Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 120 arts. 9, 20. The " Csaioellachie " Bucknill J. [1909] P. art. 9 (1906), sub-as. (h), (d). The " Gockateicb " Bargrave Deane J. [1908] P. 182 arts. 9 (1906) (d) (1), 19, 21, 27. The " Gbovehuest " C. A. [1910] P. 316 art. 9 (1906), sub-s. (k), art. 20. The " Gladys " Bigham Pres. [1910] P. 13 art. 9 (1906) (d), aub-s. 3. The " Picton " Bigham Pres. [1910] P. 46 arts. 9 (b) (1906), 20, 21, 26, 27. The " PiTGAVENEY " Samuel Evans Pres. [1910] P. 218 art. 11. The " Turquoise " Div. Ct. [1908] P. 148 arts. 16, 16. The " St. Paul " C. A. [1909] P. 43 art. 15 (a). The " London" Jeune Pres. [1904] P. 386 ; C. A. [1908] P. 182 art. 16. The " Campania " C. A. [1901] P. 289 The " KoNiNG Willem I." Buckley J. [1903] P. 114 Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Watbbpoed Steamship Co. H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 66 The " Challenge " and " Due d'AumALB " - Gorell Barnes J. [1904J P. 41 ; C. A. [1906] P. 198 The " Bbitannia " Gorell Barnes J. [1908] P. 98 The " Aeas " Gorell Barnes Pres. [1907] P. 28 The " Chinkiang " P. C. [1908] A. C. 381 arts. 16, 30. The " Habb " Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 331 arts. 17 (b), 24. The " Annie " Bargrave Deane J, [1909] P. 116 art. 19. The " Sunlight " BuoknUl J. [1904] P. 100 arts. 19, 21, note. The ""Koning WiLLBM II." - C. A. [1908] P. 126 arts. 19, 21, 22, 23, 28. The " Ashton " Gorell Barnes J. [1906] P. 21 dlxxvi TABLE OF RULES AND ORDERS OF COURT JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED BSIPVISO— continued. arts. 19, 21, 22, 26, 27. The " Kaisbb Wilhelm dbr Grosse " C. A. [1907] P. 269 arts. 19, 21, 27. The " Etna." Buoknill J. [1908] P. 269 art. 21. The " P. C. Petersen " BuckniU J. [1903] "W. N. 34 The " ROAlfOKE " - C. A. [1908] P. 231 art. 25. The " Gustafsberg " Gorell Barnes J. [1905] P. 10 The " Glbng-arifp." Bargrave Deane J. [1905] P. 106 The " Prince Leopold de Bel- GIQUE " Gorell Barnes Pres. [1909] P. 103 The " Seymolicus " Bargrave Deane J. [1909] P. 109 Screw Collier Co. v. Webster or Kerb H. L. (Sc.) [1910] A. 0. 165 arts. 27, 28. The " Bellanoch " H. I. (E.) [1907] A. C. 269 art. 28. The " Mourne " Jeune Pres. [1901] P. 68 The " UsKMOOR " Jenne Pres. [1902] P. 250 See Shipping — Collision. The " Aris- tocrat " - 0. A. [1908] P. 9 The " Corinthian" C. A. [1909] P. 260 The " Frankfort " C. A. [1910] P. 60 The " Abebdoniau " Bargrave Deane J. [1910] P. 226 arts. 28, 30. The " Anselm " C. A. [1907] P. 151 art. 29. The " City of Berlin " C. A. [1908] P. 110 King's Regulations, Ch. xiv., 615 (6), (11). The " Etna " BucknUl J. [1908] P. 269 China Navigation Co. i). Asiatic Petroleum Co. and the Taku Tug AND Lighterage Co. P. C. [1910] A. C. 204 Fishing Vessels (Begulations of 1884 relat- ing to), art. 10 (G). The " London" Jeune Pres. [1904] P. 356 ; C. A. [1906] P. 152 French Vessels — Order in Council, May 5, 1873, relating to. The 'Cordil- leras " Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 90 Pilotage. Order in Council, Feb. 18, 1854. The " Cayo Bonito " C. A. [1903] P. 203 SHIPPING — PILOTAGE APPEAL RULES (STIPENDIARY AND METROPOLITAN POLICE MAGISTRATES), 1890, r. 1. Rex v. Lewis - Div. Ct. [1906] 2K.B. 307 (1908) SHORT CAUSE RULES. Watson and Parker v. Gregory. The " Cairo " Gorell Barnes Pres. [1908] W. N. 230 SOLICITORS' REMUNERATION ACT, 1881, General Order, Sched. I. In re Garner Bigham J. [1906] 2 E. B. 213 STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, 1904, REGULATIONS, No, 633. McNicoL v. Pinch - Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 352 SUEZ CANAL (^Regulations for the Navigation of), 1905, arts. 3, 8, sub-ss. 3, 7, 8, 10, and Night Signal 11. The " Clan Gumming " - C. A. [1907] P. 311 SUMMARY JURISDICTION RULES. 1886, r. 18. Rex v. 'Woodcock - Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 104 SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (OFFICERS) — Rules of January, 1902, pursuant to Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers) Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 78). Coving- ton V. Metropolitan District Ry. Co. - Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 231 TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES, Orders in Council of March 19 and April 9, 1908. In re DONALD - Warrington J. [1909] 2 Ch. 410 THAMES BY-LAWS, 1898, By-law 27. Gardner, Locket and Hinton, Ld. v. Doe Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 171 art. 47. The " Ovingdean Grange" C. A. [1902] P. 728 (Preliminary Article'). The " St. Aubin " Bargrave Deane J. [1907] P. 60 art. 46. Owners op SS. •' Guild- hall" V. General Steam Naviga- tion Co. H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 169 TRADE MARK RULES, 1906. rr. 12, 39. In re Royal Worcester Corset Co.'s Application to Register a Trade Mark Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. 469 r. 27. Sutton v. Great Northern Ry. Co. C. a. [1909] 2 K. B. 791 r. 39. In re National Starch Co.'s Application for the Regis- tration op a Trade Mark Warrington J, [1908] 2 Ch. 698 rr. 39, 41. In re Itala Fabbrica Di Automobili's Application Parker J. [1910] W. N. 170 TREASURY ORDER, Feb. 22, 1901, Sched. B., r. 36. In re Morgan Wright J. [1904] 1 K. B. 68 TREATY between Great Britain and Germany for the Mutual Surrender of Fugitive Criminals of May 14, 1872, arts. 4, 5. Rex v. Governor of Brixton Prison. -Er parte Calbeeta Div, Ct, [1907] 2 K. B. 861 DURING THE YEARS 1901—1910. dlxxvii TYNE BY-LAWS, 1884, arts. 21, 22. The " Skipsea " Gorell Barnes 3. [1906] F. 32 WILD BIRDS PROTECTION (ADMINISTRA- TIVE COTTNTY OF LONDON) ORDER. 1908, art. 4. Flower v. Watts Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 327 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION RTTLES. See Cases under "Table of Statutes judioially considered during the years 1901 — 1910," p. cdlxxxi., fflwfe. "Em- ployers AHD Workmen Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 90)— Employers' Liability Act, 1880 (43 & U Vict. 0. 45) — ^Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37) ; 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. o. 22)— Work- men's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58)— Workmen's Compensation (Anglo - French Convention) Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 16) — Factory and Workshop acts, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. u. 16); 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 75); 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 37) ; 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. 22)— And Truck Acts, 1831 (1 & 2 WiU. 4, c. 37) ; 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 44)— Employers' Liability Insurance Companies Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 46). WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION RULES, 1898— 1900, r. 16. Rex v. Owen Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 436 — r. 17. Lowe v. Myers & Sons C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 266 ■^ 1907, r. 28. Clayton v. Jones' Sewing Machine Co. C. A. [1908] W. N. 263 r. 56A, par. 4. Rhodes c Soothill Wood Colliery Co. C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 191 1907-1909, r. 67. Hosegood & Sons v. Wilson C. A. [1910] W. N. 248 1908, r. 4. Rhodes v. Soothill Wood Colliery Co. C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 191 r. 61 (1). Beadle ik "S. Nicholas " C. A. [1909] W. N. 227 YORK-ANTWERP RULES, 1890, r. 3. Gran- shields, CowiE & Co. V. Stephens & Sons - C. A. [1907] W. N. 224 Granshields, Cowie & Co. v. Stephens & Sons H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 431 P.D, .a,a DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. For table of all Cases reported in the Laiv Reports and Wei My Notes, see p. XV. : for list oj Cases affirmed, reversed, followed, overruled, ((c, see " Table of Cases " at p. cccxxiii. : for list of Statutes judicially considered, see " Table of Statutes " at p. cdlxxxi. : for list of Rules judicially con- sidered, see " Table of Rules " at p. dlxv. : for Statutes enacted, see p. cdlxvii. List of Abbreviations. — In this Digest the following abbreviations are used. A. C. . . . Appx. . . . Art Att.-Gen. . . Aug Bd c C. A CCA. . . C C R. . . . Ch Co col Commra. . , Ct. of Seas. Dec .Deft Dept. . . , Div. Ct. . , E , Eccles. . . , edit. . . . , Educ. . . , F Feb. ... H. L.. . . H. M. . . Ir. ... — J.. . . Jan. ... K. B. . . Ld L.J. . . . Log. Govt. . Lend. Gaz. . _Mar. . . . Meroh. Shipp. ' D.D, House of Lords and Privy Council Appeal Cases. Appendix. Article (or Articles). Attorney-General. Auguat. Board, chapter. Court of Appeal. Court of Criminal Appeal. Crown Case Reserved. Chancery. Company, column. Commissioners. Court of Session. December. Defendant. Department. Divisional Court. England, Ecclesiastical, edition. Education. Form (or Forms). February. House of Lords. His Majesty the King. Ireland. Mr. Justice — . January. King's Bench. Limited. Lord Justice. Local Government. The London Gazette. March. Merchant Shipping. C. Metrop. . Nov. 0. 0. in I Oct. P.. p. . P. C Pit. pp. pt. Pari. , Pres. , Publ. Q. B. R. . R S. C Reg. Rex . ry- • Sc. , s. . . ss. Sched. . Secy. . Sept. . St. 0. P. St. E. & 0. Treas. a. K. Vol. . W. N. Metropolis (or Metropolitan). November. Order. Order in Council. October. Probate. page. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Plaintiff, pages, part. Parliament (or Parliamentary). President. Publication. Queen's Bench. Rule (or Rules). Rules of the Supreme Court. The Queen. Regulations. The King, railway. Scotland, section, sections. Schedule. Secretary. September. Stationery OfBce Publication. Statutory Rules and Orders. iVote. — Theae annual volumes are published by authority. Treasury. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Volume. Weekly Notes. DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. Explanation of References to the Official and Parliamentary Publications. Xhe figures and numerals placed after the words " Pari. Paper " refer to the Session, to the Number at the foot of each Paper, and to the price at which it can be obtained of Publishers : thus, in " 1910 (375), Price \d." 1910 refers to the Session, and (375) to the number at the foot of the paper. Papers presented by Command are distinguished thus [C. 6606]. The F. — Record works are distinguished thus — 1910 (F. — Eecord Works). The House of Lords Papers are dis- tinguished by the letters H. L. : thus, 1910 (H. L. 150). The H.— Legal Oificial PuKications are distinguished thus— 1910 (H. — Legal) ; the I. — Statutes and Statutory Publications — Various thus — 1910 (I. — Statutes and Statutory Publications— Various) ; the K. — Home OflBce thus — 1910 (K.— Home Office) ; the R.— Local Government Board thus— 1910 (B.— Loc. Govt. Bd.) ; the T. — Miscellaneous are distinguished thus — 1910 (T. — Miscellaneous). The Eules and Orders issued under Statutory Powers are now officially published in a separate form under the Rules Publication Act, 1893.* They are cited as e.g. St. E. & 0. 1910, No. 1, the number following the year being that by which they have been registered by the King's Printer under this Act. The Orders specially affecting the Legal Profession are also numbered consecutively in a Legal Series, L. I. and so on ; all the Orders of the year in this Series can be obtained by ordering the " Legal Series." Copies can be obtained from Publishers at the prices stated by order- ing them by the Registered Number. The price of the Statutory Rules and Orders is one penny each, except when otherwise stated. ( 1 ) ABANDONED MOTION— Practice— Right to save motion. See Peactice— Motiong. 1. ABANDONMENT— Coal mine— Notice of Secre- tary of State— Neglect to send — OfEence — Limition of time. See Mines. 1. — Domicil of origin— Acquiring fresh domicil — Evidence — Onus of proof. See Domicil. 2. — Railway company — Parliamentary deposit — Cost of inquiries necessary for distribu- tion of deposit — Practice. See Railway— Deposit. 1. — Railway company — Parliamentary depoiit — Special Act — No abandonment Act. See Railway — Deposits. 3. — Ship — Collision — Removal of wreck — Liability for expenses — Thames Conservancy — Costs. See Shipping — Collision. 92. — Tramway — Sale of undertaking before works completed — Successors in title — Whether undertaking " abandoned " by company. See Tramways. 16. — Tramway company — Statutory undertaking- Parliamentary deposit — Non-comple- tion — Application of deposit fund, See Tramways. IS. — Voyage — Collision — Daraage-rClaim by cargo owner — Substituted expense. See Shipping — Colliiiou. 70. ABATEMENT— Action — Libel— Death of de- fendant — Application by defendant's executors for payment out of money. See Peaotice — Payment, &o. 3. ( 2 ) ABATEMENT — continued. — Action — Libel — Death of plaintiff — Payment out of money to plaintiff's executor. See Practice — Payment, &o. 3. — Nuisance — Notice to abata — Sewer or drain. See Sewers. 8. — Nuisance — Owner — Default — Jurisdiction of justices. See Nuisance. 1. — Nuisance — Trespass — Bridge ^ Liability to repair — Right to repair —Highway. See Bridge. 2. — Will — Construction. See under Will — Abatement. ABOBTION — Using instruments with intent to procure — Admissibility of evidence. See Criminal Law — Abortion. 1. ABBOAD — Workmen's compensation — Accident happening abroad — Jurisdiction. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 1. ABSCONDING BANKB0PT— Scotch bankruptcy — Warrant for arrest. See Bankruptcy— Sootoh Bankruptoy, 1. ABSCONDING DEBTOE— "His property." See Criminal Law — Debtors. 1. ABSENCE — Company — Director — Remunera- tion — Vacating office of director by absence for specified period— Time. See Company — Directors. 6. — Company — Winding-up — Petitioner. See Oompant — Winding-up — Prao. tioe. 1. * statutory Rules and Orders other than those of a Local, Personal, or Temporary Character, issued in the year 1908 ; with a list of Statutory Orders of a Local Character arranged In Classes, an Appendix of certain Orders in Council, &c., issued under tl^e Royal Prero^itive, and Index. Pricje 10s, ( 3 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( i ) AB8EKCE— mi^i! — Justices — Hearing of information — Advocacy by police officer — Absence of infor- mant — Offer of justices to adjourn — Refusal of offer. See Justices. 18. — Trustee — Appointment — Absence abroad. See Tecbtee: — Appointment. 1. ABSENT PEESONS— Power of Court to bind— Extent of jurisdiction. See under Compromise. " ABSENTING "—Married woman — " Carrying on " business separately from husband — Eeceiving order. See Bankruptcy — Act of Bankruptcy. 3. ABSOLUTE GIFT— Will— Construction. See under Will — Absolute Gift. ACCELEBATION — Company, Dissolution of — Lease — Reverter to lessor— Acceleration of reversion— Determination of term — Liability of sureties. See COEPORATION. 10. — " Eldest son '' — Accelerating period of distri- bution — Mortgage by younger son — Younger son after becoming eldest son. See Settlement. 27. — Reversion — ^Limited company lessees — ^Dissolu- tion of company. See Com PAST — Leases. 1. — Succession, Acceleration of — Propulsion of fee — Succession duty. See Eeventte — Succession Duty. 3. — Succession duty — New title under appoint. ment. See Eeventte — Succession Duty. 1. ACCEPTANCE —Surrender under mistake of fact induced by tenant — Liability of tenant for rent. See Landlokd and Tenant — Time for acceptance — Purchase-money and compensation — Offer by promoters. See Lands Clattsbs Acts. 33. — Written offer containing two alternatives- Verbal acceptance of one — Agreement to let from year to year. See Specific Pebfoemance. 3. ACCESS — Public right of— Public road — Dedica- tion — National monument. See Way, Eight of. 9. ACCESSION DECLAKATION ACT, 1910 (10 Edw. 7 ^- 1 Geo. 5, c. 29). See under Ceown. ACCIDENT. Notice of Accidents Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, ii. 53), amends the law relating to returns and 'notifications of accidents in mines, quarries, factories, and workshops, and wnderthe Notice of Accidents Act, 1894. Fatal Accidents ^Damages') Act, 190« (8 Edw. 7, c. 7), amends the law with respect to the assess- meat of damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts. ACCIDENT— cuHtiiiued. Alien— Compensation for death— Negligence of British subject — Cause of action arising on high seas. See NEGLiaKNCB. 1. Ambulances. See under Meteopolitan Ambu- lances Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 17). Disrepair — Liability of local authority for accident arising from — Negligence. See Sewees. 3. — Fatal accident— Cause of action — Negligence causing death — " Actio personalis moritur cum persona." See Mastee and Seevant — Fatal Accidents Act. 1. — Fatal accident — Compensation for death — Alien — Negligence of British subject — Cause of action arising on high seas. See Negligence. 1. — Fatal accident — Statute of Limitations — Deceased's right of action barred — Public authority. Action against. See Public Authoeities Protection. 1. — Highway — Neglect of duty — Corporation liable to indictment for non-repair of highway — Liability to action for acci- dent caused by non-repair. See Highway. 36. — Insurance. See under Insurance (Accident), — Master and servant. See under Mastee and Servant. — Mines. See under Mines. — Motor oars. See under MOTOE Caes. — Motor omnibus — Negligence — Doctrine of " res ipsa loquitur " — Nuisance. See MOTOE Omnibus. 1. — Policy — Construction — Death from heart failure brought on by physical exertion, 5ee INSUEANCE (Accident). 1. — Tramcar, Accident to. See under Tramways. — Unfurnished house — Defective premises — Promise by landlord to repair — Accident arising from defect — Personal injury to wife of tenant. See Landlord and Tenant. 89. — Workmen's compensation. See under Master and Servant. ACCOMMODATION— Seamen— Lascars. See Shipping— Seamen. 1. ACCOMMODATION WOBKS— Eailway. See under Bailway — Aooommodation Works. B 2 ( 5 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—19:0. ( C ) ACCOMPLICE— ETidence of— Absence of cor- roboration — Omission of judge to caution jury — Effect of on convictions See Criminal Law — Appeal. 6. ACCORD AND iKTlSYKCIlOTK— Judgment debt — Joint and nereral debt — Meceijit — Release to one co-debtor — Extinguishment of debt — Construction of release — Intention — /Surrounding circum- ttances. A. and B. became liable on a " joint and several " guarantee to a bank for a sum of 6000Z. Owing to the bant from a co. Subsequently the bank obtained judgment for that sum against A. and B. " jointly and severally." The judg- ment not being satisfied, the bank presented a bankruptcy petition against B. alone for the whole judgment debt, but the petition was with- drawn upon terms arranged between B. and the bank and embodied in a receipt given to B. by the bank for 3000Z. partly in cash and partly in bills paid and given by B. " in full discharge of all claims by the bank against B. in connection with the CO. and all guarantees given by him to the bank in connection with that co., and in settlement of any outstanding questions as to the amount due to the bank." The bank then pre- sented a bankruptcy petition against A. alone for 3000Z., the alleged •' balance " of the judgment debt of 6000?. :— Held, by Rigby and Collins L. JJ. (Eomer L.J. doubting), that the receipt amounted to an accord and satisfaction equivalent to a release of B. from the entire joint and several judgment debt, there being no surrounding circumstances qualifying its eiiect as an absolute release in terms, and consequently that by reason of the release of A.'s co-debtor there was no debt to support bankruptcy proceedings against A. £x parte Good, In re Armitage, (1877) 5 Ch. D. 46, distinguished. The rule of law that the release of one of two joint debtors under a joint and several obligation operates as a release of the other applies as much to a judgment debt as to any other obligation. In ?•« E. W. A., A Debtob C. A. [1901] W. N. 140 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 642 ACCOUNT AND ACCOTTNTS-Actiou for account — Principal and agent — Express trust. See Limitations, Statute of. 4. — Administration — Statute-barred debt owing to estate — Residuary legatee also residuary legatee of debtor's estate. See Administkation. 30. — Administration action — Adding accounts and inquiries after judgment — Breach of trust: — Practice. See Administsation. 31. — Appeal — Length of notice. See Appeal. 10. — Arbitration — Treatment of summons as sum- mons for account — Undertaking by defendants to furnish account. See Aebiteation— Practice. 1. — Audit of- accounts — Auditor — Powers and duties — Surcharge — Certiorari to quash — Jurisdiction of Court — London government. See Local Goveenment. 1. ACCOUNT AND &.(i(iOJ5THTi—contmued. — Audited accounts — Borough treasurer — His duty and liability. See COEPOEATION. i. — Authorized security — Loss — Period of account — Apportionment. See Settled Land — Apportionment. 2. — Bankruptcy — Special manager— Default in accounting — Four-day order — Juris- diction. See Banketjptct — Manager. 1. — Bringing into account — Statute-barred debt owing tfl estate — Residuary legatee of debtor's estate also a legatee of creditors estate. See Administeation. 30. — Closing account — Banker and customer — Mortgage — Power of sale. See Bankee. 7. — Company. See under CoMPANT — Acconnts. — Evidence — Admissibility — Entry of deceased person against interest. See Teustbb — Breach of Trust. 4. — Falsification of accounts. See under Ceiminal Law — Falsifica- tion. — Husband and wife — Action by wife against husband for account — Jurisdiction. See Husband and Wife — Practice. 1. — Lunatic — Committee and receiver — Default — Accounts — Death of lunatic — Subse- quent receipts — Surety — Liability. See Lunacy. 1. — Management of real estates — Limited com.. pany appointed agent — Articles of association. See Peincipal and Agent. 6. — Mines — Tenants in common — Working of part of mine by one co-owner — Adverse possession. See Mines. 14 See under MoETGAGE — Accounts. • Partner, Eight of, to inspection by agent — Books and accounts. See Paetnebship. 1. ■ Partnership — Dissolution — Losses and de- ficiencies of capital — Final settlement of accounts — Distribution of assets. See Paetneeship. 8. - Partnership— Mortgage of partner's interest — Eight of mortgagee to account — Arbitration clause. See Paetneeship. 7. - Patent — Prolongation — InsuflScienoy of accounts. See Patent— Prolongation. 3. - Principal and agent — Numerous trans- actions — Dishonesty in some — Eight to retain commission — Account of profits. See Peincipal and Agent. 13. ( ' ) DIGEST OF CASKS, 1901—1910. ( S ) ACCOUNT AND AGCOVSlS—coidmiwd. — Purchase by two partners without the know- ledge of the third — Suit for an account. See Transvaal. 3. — Eedemption action — Compound interest — Proviso for capitalization of interest in arrear. See MoETGAGE — Sedemption. 1. — Reopening closed and present transactions — Jurisdiction. See Monet-lender. 20. — Settled account — Default of purchaser — Reasonable conduct — Interest on pur- chase-money. See Vendor and Purchaser — Interest. 1. — Solicitor. See under Solicitor — Accounts. — Stock Exchange — Secret profit, Account for. See Stock Exchange. 1. — Subscription to charity — Voluntary school rate. See Trustee — Costs, &c. 1. — Trade union — Books — Right to employ agent to inspect. See Trade Union. 2. — Trustee. See under Trustee — Accounts. — Underwriter, Bankruptcy of — Right of trustee to books of account. See Bankruptcy — Books. 2. ACCOUNTANT— Books— Joint liquidators— Em- ployment of accountant by one liqui- dator — Coats. See Company — Books. 2. — Professional designation — ■ " Incorporated accountant " — Unauthorized use — Injunction. See Trade Name. 3. — Trade union — Books and accounts — In- spection — Eight to employ agent to inspect. See Trade Union. 2. ACCRETION— No right of— Gift to children- Conditions in restraint of alienation — Enjoyment of usufruct — Grandchildren conditionally substituted. See Canada— Will. 2. — To holding for benefit of lessor — Presumption — Leaseholds — Encroachment. See Limitations, Statute of. 11. — Trustees — Shares in company — Unauthorized investments — Income of capital. See Trustee — InreBtmeuts. 13. ACCUMUIATIONS — Contingent legacy by father to child — Contingent life interest — Settled legacy Sight to surpl'Ui income and accumulations — Infant — Maintenance — Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1S81 (44 ^ 45 Vict. o. 41), s. 43, sui-s. 2. A testator by his will, dated June 17, 1898, bequeathed to each of his daughters who should ACCUMULATIONS -tu«i(««e<;. attain twenty-one the sum of 50,000Z. ; provided that the legacy should not vest absolutely in her, but should be retained by his trustees and held by them upon trust to pay the income to the daughter for her life, and after her death upon trusts for her children and remoter issue. And the testator authorized his trustees to appropriate any part of his personal estate .in or towards satisfaction of any legacy given by his will. And trustees should take such steps as should be requisite to make his children who were then under twenty-one wards of Court, and that " not- withstanding anything hereinbefore contained, all powers, whether statutory or otherwise, as to the education, maintenance, or advancement " of his children or any of them should be exercised by his trustees only under the direction of the Court. The testator died on Nov. 4, 1902. He left four daughters, all of whom were at his death under twenty-one. On Jan. 6, 1903, the trustees appropriated in satisfaction of each of thu legacies of 5O,0O0Z. a sum of 53,527?. lOs. Sd. Consols. On Feb. 9, 1903, an order was made by Joyce J. that a sum of lOOOi. per annum_ should be allowed out of the income of the Consols ap- propriated to the legacy of the eldest daughter for her maintenance during her minority. She attained twenty-one on July 13, 1903. Upon a summons taken out by the trustees to determine who was then entitled to the unapplied income and the accumulations thereof : — Held, that the unapplied income and the accumulations thereof formed an accretion to the capital, and that the daughter was entitled only to the interest on them for her life. Decision of Joyce J., founded on that of Buckley J., in In. re Scott, [1902] 1 Ch. 918, reversed. In re Scott, [1902] 1 Ch. 918, disapproved. Sect. 43, suS-s. 2, of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, provides that the trustees of property held in trust for an Infant contingently on his attain- ing twenty-one shall hold the accumulations of the residue of the income (beyond that which is applied for the infant's maintenance) "for the benefit of the person who ultimately becomes entitled to the property from which the same arise" : — Held, that those words mean " the property the income arising from which has been accumu- lated," so that if the contingent legacy is settled the tenant for life is, on the happening of the contingency, entitled only to the interest during his life of the amount of the surplus income and accumulations thereof, that amount forming an accretion to the original legacy. According to the practice of the Court of Chancei'y, an infant child, who is under the will of his parent entitled to a legacy contingently on bis attaining twenty-one, is entitled to main- tenance during his minority out of the income of the legacy. But, though it has been said that the legacy in such a case bears interest from the testator's death, the legacy is not the less a contingent one, and the infant does not acquire an imme- diate vested interest in the income, and if he dies under twenty-one the surplus income not applied ( 9 -) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 10 ) ACCVKVLATIONS^ coidinued. for maintenance does not pass to the infant's representatives. And if the legacy is settled in trust for the infant for life, with remainders over, the surplus income forms an accretion to the capital, and the infant on attaining twentj'-one is entitled only to the income thereof during his lite. Per Cozens-Hardy L.J, : Until a fund has been appropriated by the trustees in satisfaction of the contingent legacy, s. 43, eub-s. 2, had strictly no application, because until then it could not be said that any " property " was held by the trustees in trust for the infant legatee, though she was entitled to maintenance out of the income during minority. In re BowLBY. BowLBT V. BOWLBT - C. A. [1904] W. N, 171 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 685 Note. Referred to by Eve J., In re Abrahams, [1910] W.N". 2.S7. See Infant— Interest. 1. — Covenant to settle after-acquired property — Property purchased with accumulations of income. See Settlement. 20. 2. — Devise of real estate in strict settlemeitt — Trust for accumulation — Person who sliall be "entitled to the possession and enjoyment" — " Under t/ie tiiists and limitations of this niy will" — Tenant in tail in possession — Disentailing deed — Right to accumulations — Will — Construc- tion. Testator devised his real estate to trustees to the use of his wife for life and after her decease to the use of the first and every other son of his son H. successively in tail male with divers remainders over, and he directed that during a certain period the trustees should accumulate the rents and profits of his real estate and hold the same and the accumulations thereof upon trust for the person or persons who at the expiration of the said period should " under the trusts and limitations of this my will be entitled to the possession and enjoyment " of his real estate. Upon the death of the testator's widow the first tenant in tail executed a disentailing assur- ance, and, although the period of accumulation had not expired, claimed to be entitled to the receipt of the rents and profits of the estate and to the accumulations : — Held, that before the disentailing deed the pit. was in possession and enjoyment of his estate tail under the limitations of the will subject to the trust for accumulation, and not- withstanding the disentailing deed he was still in possession under the limitations of the will although he had become owner in fee ; that upon the cesser of the period of accumulation he, his heirs or assigns, would be entitled under the limitations of the will, and no one else could be so entitled ; and that consequently the trust for accumulation could no longer be enforced, and he was entitled to be let into possession. In re TEEV ANION. TEEVANION V. LENNOX Joyce J. [1910] 3 Ch. 538 3. — Direction to accumulate — Purchase of real estate — " Fm- the purchase of land only " — Accumvlations Act, 1892 (55 A 66 ViH. c. 58)— ACCUMULATIONS -continued. " Land "—Interpretation Act, 1889 (52 4' 53 Viet. c. 63), s. 3. A direction to accumulate for the purchase of real estate is a direction to accumulate " for the purchase of land only " within the meaning of the Accumulations Act, 1892, and is consequently void. The definition of "land" in s. 3 of the Inter- pretation Act, 1889, is not confined to corporeal hereditaments. Dictum of Chitty J. in In re Damon, (1895) 13 The Reports, 633, considered and questioned. In re Cluttbrbuck. Fisllowbs r. Fbllowbs Byrne J. [1901] 2 Ch. 285 4. — Direction to accumulate income ieyond twenty-one years — Residue — Tenant for life — Construction of will. The testator, who died in 1865, by his will gave two freehold houses to trustees, and directed them to apply the income arising therefrom at their discretion for the benefit of his daughter F. for life, and after her death he gave the pre- mises, together with any surplus accumulation of rents that might not be applied for the benefit of F., upon trust for her children who should attain twenty-one, and in default of such children then over. He gave his residue upon trust for certain persons for life with remainders over. F. died in 1900, at which time the trustees had in their hands a considerable sum representing the accumulated surplus rents : — Held, that the accumulations beyond the period of twenty-one years from the testator's death were bad under the Thellusson Act, and fell into residue ; and that the tenant for life of the residue was not entitled to the surplus rents themselves, but only to the income arising from the investment thereof. Crawley v. CrawUy, (1835) 7 Sim. 427 ; 40 R. R. 170, and O'Neill v. Lucas, (1838) 2 Keen, 313, followed. In re Phillips, (1880) 49 L. J. (Oh.) 198, dis- approved. In re Pope. Sharp v. Marshall Farwell J. [1901] 1 Ch. 64 Discretionary trust for maintenance or^ Validity. See Will — Remoteness. 3. — Disentailing assurance — Protector of settle- ment — Legal estate in trustees — ^Void trust for accumulation. See Disentailing Assurance. 2. 5. — Leaseholds — Insurance — Accumulations Act, 1800 (^Thellusson Act (39 ^- 40 Geo. 3, u. 98)) — Construction of will. A direction in a will to apply a yearly sum out of the rents of leaseholds, held for a term of more than twenty-one years, from the testator's death, in effecting and keeping on foot a policy of insurance to secure the replacement at the end of the term of the capital that would be lost through not selling the leaseholds, is not a direc- tion to accumulate and does not fall within the Thellusson Act. In re Gardiner. Gardiner r. Smitf - Buckley J, [1901] W. N. 58 : [1901] 1 Ch. 697 ( It ) blGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910, ( 12 ) ACCVKVLATIOSS— colli inued. 6. — Leaseliolda - — Reserve fund to meet lidbilities imder leases — Validity — Will — Con- struction — Accutnulations Act, 1800 (Tliellusson Act) (39 4- 40 Geo. 3, u. 98), ss. 1, 2. The testatrix bequeathed leaseholds to trustees upou trust that they should yearly during the residue of the terms of years for which she held the property reserve one fourth part of the net rents and annual profits thereof, and upon further trust to pay the remaining three fourths to her four nieces and her nephew ; and she directed that the one fourth part therein- before directed to be reserved should once (or oftener if convenient) in every year be invested and that aU dividends and interests arising from the investments should be added thereto by way of accumulation, and that the same and all accumulations thereof should be held as a reserve fund to indemnify her executors and trustees from all claims for dilapidations which might arise in respect of the leaseholds ; and subject to such indemnity and claims upon trust for the equal benefit of her said four nieces and nephew in like manner as she had declared of the other three fourths of the rents and profits and to the end and intent that her said four nieces and nephew might have the benefit of an accumulated fund to meet the loss of income which would arise at the expiration of the leases of the property. The will also contained a residuary bequest. The testatrix died in 1879, so that the twenty- one years allowed by the TheUusson Act for accumulations terminated in 1900. The last of the leases expired in 1909. One fourth of the rents and profits had been duly accumulated and the dilapidations had been paid for out of the fund : — Seld, following Varlo v. Faden, (1859) 27 Beav. 255 ; 1 D. F. & J. 211, that the trust to accumulate until the end of the terms was valid and did not come within the TheUusson Act. In re HUBLBATT. HUBLBATT V. HUELBATT Warrington J. [1910] W. N. 225; [1910] 2 Ch. 553 — Life tenant — Subsisting accumulation trust for discharge of incumbrances^ Void trust for purchase of land. See Settled Land — Powers. 2. — Marriage contract — Conquest — Wife's acqui- renda — Accumulations of income — Legitim. See Scottish Law. 16. 7. — Payment of debts — Beits paid out of capital — Provision for recoupment — Accumula- tions Act, 1800 (TheUusson Act) (39 ^ 40 Geo. 3, c. 98), S.2. A provision for accumulating income to recoup capital applied in payment of debts is not a provision for payment of debts within s. 2 of the TheUusson Act. Tewart v. Lawson, (1874) L. B. 18 Eq. 490, followed. In re Heathcote. Hbathcote v. Trench - Swinfen Eady J. [1904] W. N. 79 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 826 8. — Remoteness— Accumulations of income — " Portions " — Gift to children as a class — Period ACCVUXS-LATlOTSS^cOKtinued. ofascertainmtnt — Will — Construction — Accumu- lations Act, 1800 (39 ^ 40 6'«o. 3, o. 98), s. 2. A testator, who died in Mar., 1888, directed that his trustees should out of the income of his residuary estate set apart a yearly sum of 2il., " while and so long as there shall be a child of my daughter S. A., the wife of H. B., for the time being under the age of twenty-one years, subject as hereinafter mentioned," invest the same and accumulate the income thereof, and should hold the aggregated and accumulated fund in trust for such of the children of his daughter S. as being sons should attain twenty- one, or being daughters should marry, in equal shares, the shares to be vested interests and to be paid and payable in the case of a son at twenty-one, and in the case of a daughter at twenty-one or marriage. Subject as aforesaid, the testator directed the trustees to pay the income of his residuary estate to S. for life, and after her death to her husband H. for life ; but he directed that if S. should survive H. the trustees should during the rest of her life pay her the whole income of his residuary estate, and should no longer set apart the annual sums (without prejudice to the sums already set apart and invested and the income thereof). S. and H. survived the testator and had five chiidren, three of whom were born in the testator's lifetime, and two after his death. The eldest child was born in 1882, and attained twenty-one in 1903, and the youngest was born in 1896, and would not attain twenty-one until 1917 :— Held, (1.) that the period prescribed for aggregation and accumulation (subject to earlier cesser by the death of H. in the lifetime of S., and to later cesser by the birth of other children) was, so long as there was a child of S. under twenty-one, whether it was born before or after its eldest brother or sister attained twenty-one — namely, until 1917. (2.) Following Seech v. I/ord St. Vincent, (1850) 3 De G. & Sm. 678, that the accumulated fund was a " portion " within the meaning of s. 2 of the TheUusson Act, and the direction to accumulate was valid. (8.) That the class of children to take was not closed when the eldest child attained twenty- one, but only at the end of the period for accumulation, and that the accumulated fund was not until then divisible. Watson V. Touiuf, (1885) 28 Ch. D. 436, followed. In re Wenmoth's Estate, (1887) 37 Ch. D. 266, commented on. In re Stephens. Kilbt v. Betts - - Buckley J. [1904J 1 Ch. 322 — Eight to accumulations — Infant — Mainten- ance — Contingent life interest. See Infant — Maintenance. 1. 9. — Will — Accumulations Act, 1800 (Tliellus- son Act) (39 4- 40 Geo. 3, o. 98), s. 1—" Minority of person who if of full age would be entitled to the rents and profits" — Person born after the testator's death. The fourth of the periods mentioned in the TheUusson Act during which accumulation is allowed, viz., " The minority or respective minorities only of any person or persons who, ( 13 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( u ■) ACC UKVLAIIOIIS— continued. under the .... trusts of the .... will .... directing such aocumiilations, would, for the time being, if of full age, be entitled unto the rents .... so directed to be accumulated," is not confined to the minority of persons born in the testator's lifetime. The dicta in Haley y. Bannister, (1819) 4 Madd. 275, and Jogger v. Jaggrr, (1883) 25 C I. D. 729, discussed and not followed. In re Cattbll. Cattell v. Cattbll Neville J. [1907] W. N. 67 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 567 — Will — Testator's children to talse equal shares in the residue at majority — Accumula- tions of income during minority of donee. See Canada— Will. 1. 10. — Will — Ti'ust to accumulate surplus rents to iuy land — Accumulations Act, 1892 (55 4" 66 Vict. c. 58), s, 1 — Will made before hut tailing effect after passing of the Act — Application of the Act— Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 24. The Accumulations Act, 1 892 — ^whieh provides that after the passing of the Act there shall not. under any disposition of property, be any accu- mulation of rents or income for the purchase of land only, for any period longer than the minority of any person who, if of age, would for the time being be entitled to such rents or income — applies to a will made before and coming into operation after the passing of the Act. In re Baroness Llano VEE. Hehbeet v. Feeshfield (No. 2) FarweUJ. [1903] W. N. Ill; [1903] 8 Ch. 330 Note. See also In re Baroness Llaiioxer, Herbert v. Freslifield, C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 16. Discussed by Swinfen Eady J., In re Baroness Llanover, Hei'hert v. Mam, [1907] 1 Ch. 635. Settled Land— Powers. 1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT— Bond, Action on— Lost ackn' iwledgmeut— Parol evidence. See Limitations, Statute of. 3. — Debt — Affidavit for probate — Admission. See Limitations, Statute of. 1. — Debt — Special promise to pay. See Limitations, Statute of. 5. — Husband and wife. See under Husbanb and Wife — Acknowledgment. — Innocent breach of trust — Appropriation by solicitor — Limitations, Statute of — Payment of interest to tenant for life — Entry of deceased person against interest — Admissibility. See Thusteb — Breach of Trust, i. — Light, Enjoyment of — Non-disclosure — Con- tract — Specific performance — Compen- sation — Costs. See Vendor and Pueohaseb — Contracts. 1. — IMarried woman. See under Husband and Wipe — Acknowledgment. — Mortgage — Assignment — Notice by executors uf assignee. See Assignment. 8. ACKNOWLEDGMENT— co/i^m?«(Z. — Mortgage — Payment of interest — Person " bound to pay." See Limitations, Statute op. 13. — Mortgage — Payment of interest by one devisee — Testator's general estate- Beal Property Limitation Act. See Administration. 28. — Mortgage debt — Judgment against executor — Payment of interest by devisee of mortgaged property. See Administration. 28. — Part payment by cheque — Implied promise to pay balance of debt — Date when promise implied. See Limitations, Statute op. 2. — ■ Probate — Unattached papers forming will — Idenlification — Execution — Acknow- ledgment and attestation. See Probate — Execution. 5. — Simple contract debt — Conditional or limited promise. See Limitations, Statute of. 24. — Simple contract debt — Payment on account by tenant for life — Administration of whole or real estate. See Limitations, Statute op. 6. — Specialty debt — Bond — Lost acknowledgment —Parol evidence — Onus of proof. See Limitations, Statute op. 3. ACQUIESCENCE— Articles of association. Adop- tion of — Registration of unsigned articles. See Hong Kong. 2. — Building scheme — Alteration of character of neighbourhood — Acquiescence in breaches — Covenant. See BuiLDlJNGS. 4. — Dividend out of capital — Ultra vires — Directors — Shareholders. See Company — Directors. 7. — Of purchase — Weighing machine — " False or unjust." See Weights and Measures. 10. — Way, Right of — Highway — User by public^ Dedication — Land in settlement — Possibility of dedication. See Wat, Right of. 1. — Wife's adultery — Passive acquiescence on husband's part — Refusal of decree. See DivoRCK — Practice. 22. ACT OF BANKRUPTCY. See under Bankruptcy. ACT OF PARLIAMENT. See under Statute and Statutes. ACT OF &'t&.'i'&— Annexation of native State- Confiscation of property of infant ruler — IHs- tincfion between hix private a7id State property — Assumption of guardianship by Oovernment — Jurisdiction of Municipal Courts. Where the East India Co., as representing the Crown, has done acts of such a nature, and ( 15 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 16 ) ACT OF STATE— coiainusd. under such circumstances, as to lead to the conclusion that" those acts were done in the exercise of supreme power, as acts of State, and to negative any intention to give thereby legal rights, whether contractual or otherwise, to an individual or individuals as against the co., the municipal Courts have no jui-isdiction to question the validity of those acts, or to entertain any claim in respect thereof by an individual against the Secretary of State for India, as the successor of the East India Co. So held bj the C.A. (Vaughan Williams L.J., Stirling L.J., and Fletcher Moulton L.J.). By Fletc er Moulton L.J. : Although an act of State cannot be challenged, controlled, or interfered with by municipal Courts, semble, its intention and effect may sometimes be to modify and create rights as between the Government and individuals who are, or who are about to become, subjects of the Government, and in such cases the rights arising therefrom may be capable of being adjudicated upon by the municipal Courts, The East India Co., as representing the Crown, annexed the territory of a native State, and confiscated the State property, granting to the Maharajah, the ruler of the State, who was then an infant, a pension for life. The co. also assumed the custody of his person during his minority, and took possession of his private property. An action having been brought after his death by the trustee in bankruptcy of his residuary legatee agiiinst the Secretary of State for India, as the successor of the East India Co., for arrears of the pension, and for an account of the private property, alleging that the co. had undertaken the legal obligations of guardians of and trustees for the Maharajah in respect thereof : — Held (Fletcher Moulton L.J. dissenting as to the claim in respect of the private property) that, under the circumstances, the acts done by the CO. as aforesaid were so clearly done by them as acts of State, in respect of which no action was maintainable, that the action should be summarily dismissed as frivolous and vexatious. Secretary of State in Council of India v. Kamachee Boye SaTiaba, (1859) 7 Moo.Ind. App. 476 ; 13 Moo. P. C. C. 22, followed. SALAMAiT t-. SeCRETAEY OF STATE IN Council of India - C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 613 ACT OH PETITIOK— Mode of trial— Jury— Discretion of Court. See DivoKCE— Practice. 1. ACTIO DOLI— Feaud. See Natal. 1. "ACTIO PEESONALIS MORITUE CUM PEK- SONA." See Master and Servant — Com- pensation. See Master and Servant— Fatal Accidents Act. 1. ACTION — Caw«e of action — Connpiracy —In- ducing a person to break his contract or not to deal with another or continue in his emplnyment — Intent to injure — Interference with trade- Trade union — Trade dispute between employers ACnOlif— continued. and worlivien — Ccnspir/icy and Protection of Property Act, 1875 (38 ^- 39 Viot. c. 86), ss. 3, 7. A combination of two or more, witliout justi- fication or excuse, to injure a man in his trade by inducing his customers or servants to break their contracts with him or not to deal with him or continue in his employment is, it it results in damage to him, actionable. The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, c. 86, s.'3, has nothing to do with civil remedies. The words "trade dispute between employers and workmen" in s. 3 of that Act do not include a dispute on trade union matters between work- men who are membeis of a trade union and an employer ot non-union workmen who refuses to employ members of a tiade union. Semble, the words are restricted to disputes between an employer and his own workmen. Temperton v. Russell, [189S] 1 Q. B. 715, is not overruled as to the decision by Allen v. Flood, [1898] A. C. 1, but the dicta and reasoning of Lord Bsher M.R. cannot be supported. Allen V. Flood explained and its real effect stated. The decision of the Irish Court of Appeal, Leathern v. Oraig, [1899] 2 I. K. 667, affirmed. QuiNN r. Leathem - - - H. L. (Ir.) [1901] W. N. 170 ; [1901] A. C. 495 Note. — Considered by C. A., Giblan v. National Amalgamated Lalouret s' Union of Great BrUain and Ireland, [1903] 2 K. B. 600. See Trade Union. 8. Referred to by C. A. Glamorgan Coal Co. v. South Wales Miners' Federation, [1903] 2 K. B. 5^15 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 239. See Contract. 23. The law as laid down by Lord Maonaghten in, applied by C. A., National Phonograph Co. v. £dison-Bell Consolidated Phonograph Co., [1908] 1 Ch. 335. See No. 3, below. — Cause of action — Cheque giving for racing bets — Forbearance to publish default — New consideration. See Gaming. 2. 2. — Cause of action — Inducing employer to break contract — Justification for interfertnce — Prior contract inconsistent with that of employer. The pit., who was a workman, entered into a contract by which he was apprenticed to his employers to learn certain work. A friendly society of workmen engaged in similar work pro- tested to the employers against the engagement of the pit. as an apprentice, on the ground that it was a breach of one ot the rules of the society which the employers had agreed to and signed, and they gave notice that, if the engagement was continued, they would call out the workmen who were working for the employers, and who were all members of the society. In consequence of this threat the employers refused to continue to teach the pit. under the terms of the deed of apprenticeship. In an action by him against the society and certain of the oificers : — Ueld, that the pit. had a good cause of action to which the previous agreement between the society and the employers was no answer. ( 17 ) DIGEST OJ" CASES, 1901-1910. ( 18 ) ACTION— contmued Order of Div. Ct., [1902] 2 K. B. 88, varied. Bead v. Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons of England, Ireland and Wales - - C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 732 Jfote. — Referred to by C. A., Glamorgan Coal Co. V. SoiUli, Wales Miners' Federation, [1903] 2 K. B. 515 ; H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 239. See Contract. 23. — Cause of action — Insolvency of debtor. See CAiTADA — Practice. 1. — Cause of action — Issue of writ — Company — Debenture — Floating security — Jeopardy — Receiver. See Company — Seceiver. 5. — Cause of action — Negligence causing death — " Actio personalis moritur cum persona " — Fatal Accidents Act. See Master and Servant — Fatal Accidents Act. 1. 3. — Cause of action — Special goods — Con- ditions of sale — Wholesale and retail dealers' agreements — Fixed 2)rices — JPrescrihed dealers — Inducing dealers to commit ireach of agreement — Fraud — Interference with contractual relation — Violation of legal right — Damage — Sale of goods. The pits., "Who were manufacturers, sold their goods wholesale to factors upon the terms of an agreement which provided tliat factors should only sell the pits.' goods to dealers who had signed a retailer's agreement in a form pro- vided by tlie pits. Both the factor's agreement and the retailer's agreement provided that the pits.' goods should not be sold at less than the specified current list prices applicable respec- tively to factors and retailers, or to dealers on the pits. ' suspended list. The deft, co., who dealt in goods of the kind manufactured by the pits,, and who had been placed on the pits.' suspended list, obtained the pits. ' goods from a dealer, who had signed the retailer's agreement, at less than the prescribed retail price. The deft. co. also employed H. and L., other defts., to obtain the pits.' goods from certain factors, who had signed the pits.' factor's agreement, by falsely repre- senting themselves as independent dealers and dealing in fictitious names. The deft. co. paid the prescribed price to the factors through H. and L. and in their assumed names. In con- sequence of the deft. co. having obtained the pits.' goods the pits, suffered damage in their business. In respect of both transactions the pits, claimed against the deft. co. for an injunc- tion and damages : — Held (affirming the decision of Joyce J.), that the transaction between the deft. co. and tlie retail dealer did not give the pits, any cause of action against the deft. co. ; but Held (reversing the decision of Joyce J.), that the pits, were entitled to an injunction and damages in respect of the transactions between the deft. co. and the factors on the ground that the deft, co., in having by fraud induced the factors to sell to them the pits ' goods contrary to the duty owed by the factors to the pits., had interfered without justification with the contractual relations existing between the pits. t-CnOTH— continued. and the factor.", thereby causing damage to the pits. The law as laid down by Lord Watson in Allen V. Flood, [1898] A. C. 1, 96, and by Lord Macnaghten in Quin v. Leathern, [1901] A. C. 495, 510, applied. National Phonogeaph Co. V. Edison-Bell Consolidated Phono- graph Co. C. A. [1908] W. N. 8 ; [1908] 1 Cli. 335 — Circuity of action — Indorsement by way of security. See Bill of Exchange. 4. — Company. See under Company — Practice. ~ Company — General meeting — Notice — Suf- ficiency — Ultra vires — Action by share- holder—Right to sue. See Company — Meetings. 1. — County courts. See under County Court. — Crown, Privilege of — Foreshore — Action between subjects involving rights of the Crown — Right of Crown to transfer action to Revenue side. See Crown. 7. — Damages — Death of plaintiff's wife through eating food sold to him — Death no part of cause of action. See Damage and Damages. 1. — Ecclesiastical law— Hearing of suit after pro- hibition quousque — Decree. See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 13, U. — Frivolous and vexatious action — Dismissal — Cause of action — Gambling debt — For- bearance to sue — -New consideration. See Practice — Frivolous, &c.. Action. 1 . — Gaming — Bet — Cause of action — Forbearance to publish default. See Gaming. 2. — Gaming — Cause of action — Gambling in foreign country— Money lent for pur- pose of gaming. See Gaming. 3. — Highway. See under Highway. — Inclosure Act— Award— Herbage on road- Right of action — Injury to limited section of public— Attorney-General. See Inclosure Act. 1. — International law — Street improvement — Contribution— Act of foreign Legisla- ture — Action in England. See Streets. 10. — Joinder of causes of action. See under Practice — Joinder. — Jurisdiction — Action relating to land in Crown Colony. -See Jurisdiction. 1. ( 19 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 20 ) ACnOS— continued. 4. — Zeis loci — Leas fori — Riglit of action in England for acts in foreign country — Territorial waters. To found an action in this country for a wrong committed abroad the wrong must be such that it would have been actionable if committed in this country, and the act must not have been justifiable by the law of the place where it was committed. British goods on board a British ship within the territorial waters of Muscat were seized by an oiBcer of the British Navy under the authority of a proclamation issued by the Sultan, the sovereign ruler of Muscat : — Held, that the seizure having been shewn to be lawful by the law of Muscat no action could be maintained in this country by the owner of the goods against the naval officer. Cark v. Fracis Times & Co. H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 176 — Limitation of action. See under Limitation op Action. — Limitations, Statute of. See under Limitations, Statute of. — Local government — Plans — Malicious refusal of local authority to approve. See Local Goveenment. 26. — Lunatic, Action by — Parties — Committee of estate — Inquisition. See Lunacy. 2. — Malicious prosecution, Action for — Onus probandi. See Ceylon. 2. — Money paid under a mistake of fact — Whether notice to defendant of mis- take is necessaiy to complete cause of action. ^ See Limitations, Statute op. 12. — Parties to action — Jomder of defendants — Joinder of different ca,usf s of action. See Practice — Parties. 3. — Public Health (Buildings in Streets) — Whether action for damages maintain- able. See Streets. 2. — EaUway — Demurrage of trucks — Eight of action for damages for detention — Jurisdiction. See Eailway— Trucks. 1. — Eepresentative action — ^Action by shippers of goods on a general ship on behalf of themselves and other shippers of goods in the same ship. See Practice— Representative Action. 5. — Right of action — Local government — Inclotnre Act — Award — Herbage on road — Property nested in parishioners — Damage — Right of action — District council or parish couneil—Injnry to limited section of public — Attorney- General— Right to join as plaintiff. By an award made in 1801 under an Inolosure Act the grass and herbage growing in a private road in a parish was to be let yearly by the surveyor of highways or by such other person as the parishioners in vestry assembled should appoint, and the money arising therefrom was ACllOHf— continued. to be expended in the repair of public and private roads in the parish. The defts. caused damage to the letting value of the grass and herbage by wrongfully permitting cattle to graze in the road , and an action was brought against them by the Att.-Gen., on the relation of the rural district council, and by the district council for an injunc- tion and damages : — Held, that the action failed, as regards the district council, because the right of property in the grass and herbage was vested in the parish council and not in the district council ; and as regards the Att.-Gen., because the right of pro- perty which had been injured was one enjoyed by only a limited section of the public, namely, the parishioners, and not by the public at large. Att.-Gen. and Spalding Eueal Council V. Garner - Channell J. [19071 2 K. B. 480 — Eight of action— Perpetuating testimony — Order for examination — Discretion of Court. See Legiximact. 1. — Eight of action — Prospectus — Misrepresenta- tion — Damages. See Company— Prospectus. 10. — Schools (Endowed) — Assistant master — Scheme — Wrongful dismissal — Action against governors. See Schools. 2. — Ship salved property of Crown — Action not maintainable. See Newfoundland, i. — Staying action — Abuse of process of Court — Cause of action arising out of juris- diction. See Practice- Staying Proceedings. 2. — Trade description — "Passing off" action — Essentials to constitute. See Trade Description. 1. — Trade union — Action for injunction by indi- vidual member of union. See Trade Union. 1. ACTION IN PERSONAM— Writ — Foreign co- defendant — Service out of jurisdiction. See Shipping— Practice. 12. ACTION IN EEM — Damage— Putting out to sea to avoid collision — Loss of anchor and chain. See Shipping- Collision. 1. — Oyster beds — Property in oysters — Jurisdic- tion — " Damage done by any ship " — Shipping. See Fishery. 4. — Pi-actice — Parties — Writ — " Co-partners " — " Owners " — Misdescription of plaintiff. See Shipping— Practice. 11. ACTION QUIA TIMET— Indemnity— Joint and several guarantee of overdraft at bank — No demand by bank for payment — Parties. See Principal and Surety. 2. ( 21 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 22 ) ACTRESS — Engaged at theatre — Common em- ployment — Negligence of fellow em- ployee — Construction of contract. See Master and Servant. Theatre. 1. ACTS OF PARIIAMEMT. See under Statute and Statutes. ADDITIONAL GIFT— Will— Construction. See under Will — Additional Gift. ADDRESS— Company — Transfer of shares — Kefusal to register — "Usual common form " — Address of transferor. See CoMPANr — Shares. 25. — Of creditor — Bankruptcy notice — Irregularity in judgment. See Bankruptcy. Notice. 2. ADDRESS BOOK — Company — Shareholders' address book — Eight of shareholder to copy — Motives. Ste Company. Books. 1. ADEMPTION— Bequest— " Money invested in" Lambeth Waterworks Company — Transfer of undertaking to Water Board. See Will — " Money Invested in." 1. — Construction of will. See under Will — Ademption. — Settled land — "Capital money "^Premiums — Change of investment. See Power of Appointment. 33. " ADJACENT "—Bridges— New Zealand Muni- cipal Corporations Act — Construction. See New Zealand. 2. ADJOURNED SUMMONSES— Costs— Practice. See Will — Shelley's Case. 3. ADJOURNMENTS— Licensing meeting— Power of justices to adjourn into October. See Licensing Acts. 1. ■ — Power of adjournment — Justices — Juris- diction — Equal division of opinion. See Justices. 1. ADJUDICATION— Bankruptcy. See under Bankruptcy — Adjudication. ■ — To take whole streets— Widening. See London — Streets. 13 — 15. ADMINISTRATION. See also under Executor. — Abatement — Annuities immediate and re- versionary — Deficient estate — Appor- tionment — Hotchpot. See Annuity. 1. — Administration bond— Duration of sureties' liability — Title of beneficiaries to the residue. See Australia. 1. 1. Administration of assets — Order of ad- VI inistration—Insiiffieient personal estate — Resi- duary bequest — Trust dehors the loill of specified part of residue. A testatrix devised her real estate and be- queathed the residue of her personal estate to ADMINISTRATION— t««i;i«//<(/. A., who was one of the executors of the will, and by a subsequent written memorandum (not attested as a will) the testatrix expressed her wish that a specified part of the residue should go to third persons whom she named. The memo- randum was communicated by the testatrix to A., and was assented to by her, and she admitted that it created a trust binding upon her. The residuary personal estate (other than that com- prised in the memorandum) was insuificient for the payment of the debts of the testatrix : — Meld, that the memorandum must be treated as if its contents had been contained in the will or a codicil, so that for the purpose of adminis- tration the trust of the specified part of the residue stood in the same position as a specific bequest of that part : Held, consequently, that the debts of the testatrix must be paid first out of that part of the residue which was not afiected by the trust, and that then the deficiency must be borne rateably by the specified part of the residue and the real estate. Decision of Kekewich J. [1901] W. N. 118 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 372, reversed. In re Maddock. Llewelyn r. Washington C. A. [1902] W. N. 102; [1902] 2 Ch. 220 — Administrator — Convict — Estate tail — Power to disentail — Forfeiture. See Felony. 2. — Administrator — Right to receive fund — Power — Execution — General power — Married woman — Appointment by will. See Power op Appointment. 23. — Administrator — Sale of convict's property — Bona fides — Costs. See Felony. 1. — Administrator— Suit or partition of in- testate's estate — Administrator not a party. See Ceylon. 1. — Annuity. ■ See under Annuity. — Appropriation — Liability to replace moneys — Evidence — Statute of Limitations. See Appropriation. 1. 2. Atfeiidance atj'rocecdings — Leave to attend — Creditor tiot a party to the action — Creditor's action— Practice — R. S. C. Order xri., rr. il-i7 ; Order LV., r. 42; 07-der XVI,., r. 27, sub-s. 23. An order had been made in a creditor's action for accounts and enquiries and the administration of the estate. A creditor whose debt had been admitted for 10,OOOZ. applied for leave to attend the proceedings at his own expense, or that he niiglit at his own expense be supplied by the detts.' solicitors with a copy of the list of claims lodged in the action and copies of affidavits relating thereto, and that the defts. might be directed to give him notice of all proceedings to be taken under the order in reference to claims against the estate. Meld, that there was no power under the rules to give leave ; that this was a matter for the discretion of the Court under the general ( 23 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1010. ( 21 ) ADMINISTEATION- power of the judge to manage the business in his own chambers ; that general leave to attend thf proceedings would impede the progress of business in chambers and ought not to be given ; that the applicant might, if he desired to do so, make a further application for leave to contest any particular claim ; and that he ought to be supplied by the defts. with copies of the affi- davits and the list of claims at his own expense. In re Schwabacher. Stern v. Schwa- BACHEK - - Parker J. [19071 W. N. 69; [1907] 1 Ch. 719 — Bankruptcy. See under Bankruptcy. — Charitable trust — Crown cannot as defendant impeach the trust — Cy-prfes. See New Zealand. 3. — Charity. See under Charity. — Colonial death duties — Incidence of duty — Victoria Administration and Probate Act, 1890. See Will — Colonial Duties. 1. 3. — Conc^irrent Actions — Cond%ict of Pro- ceedings — Practice. The general rule that where there are con- current actions for administration the conduct of proceedings under an order made in either action wiU be given to the pit. in the action first commenced does not apply where that pit. is a creditor whose claim is bona fide disputed. In re Eoss. Winqfibld v. Blair Swinfen Eady J. [1907] W ». 55 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 482 — Conduct of proceedings — Concurrent actions — Practice. See preceding Case. i. — Contingent future liabilities — Return of assets — Rights of future creditor — Distribution — Practice — Parties — R. S. C, Order lv., r. 3, sub-ss. (e), [g] ; r. 5. The executors of a testator whose estate com- prised shares of 101. each in : Ellis Kekewich J. [1904] W. W. 78 This case was again mentioned to the Court, and minutes of the order were approved by the Court : see [1904] W. N. 106 15. — Indian assets — Will — Executors in Eng- land — Letters of administration as on an intestacy oMained iy fraud in hidia — Sale of Indian assets hy fraudulent administrator — Purrhaser for value loithouf notice — Revocation of Indian letters of administration — Title of executors — Indian Succession Act, 1865 (^Act X. of 1865), ss. 2, 3, 5, 179, 180, 187, 188, 190, 191, 234, 242, 243, 2t;0, 262, 269, 278. In 1898 a testator, domiciled in England, died possessed of English and Indian a.ssets. The Indian assets comprised shares in tlie Bank of Beugal, and the share certificates were in the custody of C, the testator's agent at Calcutta. The executors in England remained in ignorance of the testator's Indian assets until 1903, when they discovered that in 1902 C. had by fraud obtained from the High Court at Calcutta the grant of letters of administration to the testator's Indian assets as on an intestacy, and acting as such administrator had sold the bank shares in the open market at Calcutta and had squandered the proceeds. Some of the shares C. so sold and transferred to T., who was a purchaser for value, without notice. C. wbs prosecuted for the fraud and convicted, and the grant of letters of administration to him was revoked, and fresh letters of administration with a copy of the testator's will annexed were granted to the Administrator-General of Bengal. In an action by the executors against T. and the Adminis- trator-General claiming to be entitled to the shares T, had purchased from C. on the ground UtniSlSi-B.lL'nO'S— continued. tha' the grant of Isttei-s of administration to the latter was void ab initio:— Held, that on the true construction of the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1865, the grant of letiers of admin'stration to C. was not void ab initio, but only void as from the date of t e order of revocation. Held, therefore, that the sale of the shares by C, qua administrator, to T. was valid and con- ferred on the latier a good title to the shares. Ellis V. Ellis, [1905] 1 Ch. 613, distinguished. CsASTEE V. Thomas - Neville J. [1909] W. N. 143 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 348 16. — Insolvent estate — Administration action — Unsecured deits — Mortgages hy testator — Assignment of debts and transfers of mortg-ges after death to same person — Surplus proceeds of sale of mortgaqed property - " Mutual dealings " Set -of— Judicature Art, 1875 (38 g; 39 Vict. 0. 77), s. \0—Banliruptcy Act, 1883 (46 ^- 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 38. A testator by his will, dated in 1890, devised and bequeathed all his real and personal estate to his widow and appointed her his sole execu- trix. He died in 1891 insolvent. The widow did not prove the wUl. In 1907 a judgment was given for the administration of his real and personal estate. Between the date of testator's death and the date of the judgment H. purchased and had assigned to him certain bond and simple contract debts due from the testator and also tonk trnnsfers of certain mortgages upon the testator's real estate. In exercise of the po« ers of sale contained in the mortgages H. sold the mortgaged properties, and after paying himself principal and inierest out of the proceeds there remained in his hands a balance which he claimed to set off in satisfaction pro tanto of the debts due to him from the testator's estate : — Hidd, that the purchase by H. after the testator's death of the debts and the transfers to him of the mortgages followed by a sale under the powers of sale were not " mutual dealings" between him and the testator's estate within s. 38 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and that he was not therefore entitled to the right of set-off he claimed. /Mj'eGEDNET. Smith r. Gkummitt Warrington J. [1908] 'W. N. 82 ; [1908] 1 Oh. 804 17. — Insolvent estate — Estate iiuolvent at date of judgment afterwards found sufficient to pay principal of debts — Interest — Judioaturt Act. 1875 (38 4' 39 Vict. c. 77), s. 10— Bank- ruptcy Act, 1883 (46 4- 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 40, suh-ss. 4, 5— i?. S. C, 1883, Order ir., rr. 62, 63. In the administration of an estate which is insolvent at the date of the judgment, but after- wards realizes enough to pay the principal of all the debts, but not the whole of the interest allowed by the Court, whether on debts which by law carry interest, or on debt-, which do not, the payment of interest must be governed by the rules of bankruptcy and not those of the Ch. Div. In re Henley (1896) 75 L. T. 307, discussed and not followed. iMr« Whitaker. Whitakee r. Palmer . Tarwell J. [1904] W. H. 22 ; [1904] 1 Ch, 299 ( 31 ) DIGEST OF GASES, 1901—19:0. ( 32 ) ADMimSTBATION — Interest — Arrears, Mortgagee's right to re- cover — Keal property limitation. See Mortgage — interest. 1. — Intestacy. See also under Intestacy. — Intestacy — Advancements to children — Hotch- pot. See DiSTBiBUTiONS, Statute of. 1, 18. — Intestacy — Devolution of real arid personal estate — Mortgage secured by a term — Mortgage in fee — Equities of redemption acquired by mortgagee subject to the mortgages — Declaration against merger — Charge created by mortgagee — Death of mortgagee intestate — Devolution of mortgage debts — Merger — Declara- tions against dower, Effect of — Dower Act, 1833 (3^4 Will. 4, c. lO.")), s. 6. In 1866 A. mortgaged freeholds to D. in fee. In 1867 D. charged his mortgage debt and created a term of 1000 years to secure the charge. In 1868 D. foreclosed A., and betvifeen 1870 and 1872 mortgaged the fee to G. to secure sums amounting to 5i\\l. In 1872 D. by his marriage settlement, also charged the fee with 5000Z., which sum, in the events which happened, became held in trust for him. In 1874 D.'s equity of redemption under his mortgages of 1870 to 1872 and his interest in the 5000Z. were conveyed to G. subject to all existing charges and with a declaration against merger. In 1900 G. took a transfer of the charge (then reduced to 9800Z.) and term of years created by the mortgage of 1867 with a declaration against merger, and in 1902 he deposited the deeds of 1866, 1867, and 1900 with a memorandum of deposit with M. by way of equitable mortgage. On G.'s death intestate the question arose between his real and personal representatives whether the above-mentioned three charges of 9800?., 541U., and 5000Z. or any of them had merged in the fee : — Held that, as M. was entitled under his memorandum of deposit to call for a legal mort- gage of the fee and also the term, the charge of 9800Z. and the term securing it had not merged in the inheritance, but remained part of G.'s personal estate. But held, following Tyler v. Lale, (1831) 4 Sim. 351, that the charges of 5411Z. and 5000Z. had merged in the fee, for that it would be a fraud on M. to keep them alive against him in favour of G.. his mortgagor. In 1872 A. became bankrupt. In 1873 G., under the power of sale in D.'s mortgage of 1870, sold part of the mortgaged property to H. Upon G. becoming possessed in 1874 of D.'s equity of redemption in the mortgaged property, he took out administration to D., who had died in 1872, and as D.'s administrator sought to prove in A.'s bankruptcy for the unsecured balance of the mortgage debt under the mortgage of 1866 . This involved reopening the foreclosure of 1868, and for this purpose G. obtained from H. on Dec. 30, 1875, a reconveyance of the property sold to him in 1873. This reconveyance contained a declaration by G. to bar dower. Subsequently the foreclosure was reopened, and A.'s trustee in bankruptcy declined to redeem ADMINISTBATION- the mortgage of 1866 and conveyed the equity of redemption thereunder to G. : — Held, that the declaration to bar dower operated to bar any right of G. 's widow to dower as regards the property comprised in the deed of Dec. 30, 1875. Where the owner of an equity of redemption takes a transfer of an existing mortgage with a declaration that the mortgage is kept on foot as a subsisting charge for the benefit of himself, his heirs and assigns, the mortgage will pass upon his death intestate as personal estate to his next of kin. The result is the same where in a con- veyance on sale by a mortgagor and mortgagee the mortgage is conveyed separately with a declaration that the mortgage is to be deemed to be a subsisting charge as a protection to the owner of the equity of redemption, his heirs and assigns, against subsequent incumbrances, but for no other purpose. A recital in a deed may operate as a suflScient declaration against dower under s. 6 of the Dower Act, 1833. In re Gibbon. Moobe r. Gibbon - Neville J. [1909] 1 Ch. 367 — Intestacy — Limited foreign grant — Assets in England — Full grant to foreign administrator. See Probate — Practice. 2. 19. — Intestate's estate — LimitatioiLS, Statute of —'■'• Present right to receive the same'' — Right to recover by action at law — Incapacity to sue co-executor at law — Suit in equity — Law of Property Amendment Act, 1860 (23 4' 24 Vict, c. 38), s. 13. In 1864, a trust fund, payable to E. M. P. as the administratrix of the intestate appointee of the fund, was paid to B. M. P. and to her husband, G. P., in her right. B, M. P. was beneficially entitled to one moiety of the fund, and the other moiety was payable to B. M. P., G. P., and J. C. 0. as the executors of M, G., in whose estate E. M. P. had a life interest. G. P. paid the money into his private banking account, and never accounted for or gave any acknow- ledgment in respect of it. G. P. died in 1884, J. C. C. in 1886, and E. M. P. in 1903. In an action by the administrator de bonis non of the appointee for a, declaration that G. P.'s estate was liable to make good the portion of the fund unaccounted for, the executor of G. P.'s residuary legatee pleaded the statutory bar under s. 13 of the Law of Property Amendment Act, 1860 : — Appeal from a decision of Kekewioh J., [1905] \V. N. 178 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 265, allowed on the facts. In re Paedoe. McLaughlin v. Penny C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 340 — Japanese subjects dying within H. M. dominions, except in the dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, and New Zealand, 0. in C. empowering consuls of Japan to administer. See under Japan. 20. — Lease — Death of lessee — Administrator ad colligenda bona^ Power to sell — Entry into possession — Rent — Liability de bonis propriis — Yearly value of premises. The lessee of certain premises died intestate on May 24. On Ju.ne 7 the deft, was appointed, ( 33 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 3i ) AHJS.ITSlSI'RA'nOTSI— continued. administrator ad colligenda bona with power to sell the lease, and on that date he entered into possession of the premises. On June 24 a quar- ter's rent became due, but was not paid. On Aug. 23 the pit., the lessor, commenced an action against the deft, for recovery of posses- sion of the premises on non-payment of rent, and for rent and mesne profits. Judgment for possession was obtained under Order xiv., and on Oct. 18 the deft, went out of possession. The rent of the premises under the lease was 450Z. a year. While the deft, was in possession he used reasonable diligence to find a purchaser of the lease or a tenant, but without success, and the only sum received by him in respect of the premises was 261. 5s., being rent from a sub-tenant of a part of the premises : — Held, that the deft., having entered into possession, was personally liable to the pit. for rent from June 7 to Aug. 23 at the rate of 460Z. a year, that being the yearly value of the premises, and for mesne profits at the same rate from the latter date to Oct. 18. Whitehead v. Palmer Chanuell J. [1908] 1 K. B. 151 — Leaseholds — Contingent future liabilities — Indemnity. See Executor — Indemnity. 1. — Leaseholds, Settled — No power of sale. See Settled Land— Leaseholds. 1. — Lunacy order, effect of — Order for payment of debt. See Ltjnacy. 20. — Lunatic's estate. See under LuNAOr. 21. — Marshalling assets — Direction fm- pay ■ ineTif, of detts — Insufficiency of personal estate — Pecuniary legatees and specific devisees. Where a will contains a general direction for payment of debts, and the personal estate is ' insufficient, pecuniary legatees are entitled to have the assets marshalled as against specific devisees of the real estate. In re Bate, (1890) 43 Ch. D. 600, must on this point be treated as overruled. In re Stohes, (1892) 67 L. T. 223, and In re Salt, (1895) 2 Ch. 203, followed. In re EOBEETS. Bobbrts v. Eobeets - - Kekewich J. [1902] W. N. 196 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 834 22. — Marshalling assets — Direction for pay- ment of debts — Insufficiency of personal estate — Pecuniary legatees and specific devisees — Effect of Land Transfer Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict. c. 65), s. 1, suh-s. 1, and s. 2, suh-s. 3 — Intention of testator — Preservation of order in which assets KDTS.l'SlSI'&lL'nOTH— continued. — Merger of beneficial interest — Charge — Unraised portion — Intestacy. See Mbegeb. 1. — Overpayments — Adjustment — Trustee also a beneficiary — Right to imp'ound. See Trustee— Overpayments. 1. 23. — Practice — Secured creditor. Proof by against the real estate — Lapse of time — Applica- tion to prove against personalty — Fund in court, Where in an administration suit there is a fund in court, a creditor for a debt at law, though the appointed time for coming in has long elapsed," is by well-established practice allowed to prove against the general estate, subject to terms as to costs and as to pajments already made. The decision of the Irish C. A., reported as Beattie v. Cordner, [1903] 1 I. R. 1, aflarmed. Harbison v. Kirk H. L. (L) [1903] "W. N. 190 ; [1904] A. C. 1 — Probate. See also under Probate. 24. — Probate action — Costs to come " onit of the estate " — Insufficient personalty — Liability of real estate — Land Transfer Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict. c. 65), s. 1, sub-ss. 1, Z: s. 2, sub-s. 3— B. S. C, Order LXV., r. 14 D — Practice — Par- ticular portions of estate — Costs — Incidence — Direction by Court. By the judgment in a probate action pro- nouncing against the validity of the wiU of the deceased, who died since the commencement of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, the costs of the pits, propounding the wiU were ordered to be paid " out of the estate." The personal estate of the deceased proving insufficient : — Held that, by virtue of Part I. of the Act, the word " estate " now meant the real as well as the personal estate of a person dying since the com- mencement of the Act, and that under sub-s. 3 of s. 2 the real estate of the deceased was subject to the same liability as his personal estate for the costs in question, and must bear those costs. The Probate Division having acquired juris- diction over real estate by virtue of Part I. of the Act, the ground upon which the decision in In re Shaw, [1894] 3 Ch. 615, was based has dis- Although Part I. of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, has rendered unnecessary an express charge of debts on real estate, it has not afiected the application of the doctrine of mai'shalling in favour of pecuniary legatees where land is devised subject to an express charge of debts, and the personalty is exhausted in paying debts. In re Kempsteb. Kemi'STEr v. Kempsteb Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 38 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 446 Note. Applied by Swinfen Eady J., In re Balls, [1909] 1 Ch. 791. See Will— Charges. 2. It is open to the Court under Order LXV., r. 14d, to distinguish between various portions of the estate, for instance between realty and per- sonalty, and to impose costs accordingly. If the Court makes no such distinction, the costs are payable out of the entirety of the estate in due order of administration. In re VlCKERSTAFF. ViCKERSTAPF ■!). Chadwiok - Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 67 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 762 26. — Real estate — Devise of mortgaged estate — Partition action — Fund in Court representing rents and profits — Administration action — Bight of creditors to attach fund before judgment — Administration of Estates Act, 1833 (3 ^' 4 WUl. 4, 0. 104). The Administration of Estates Act, 1833, which makes the real estate of a deceased person assets for the payment of his debts, whether due on simple contract or on specialty, gives no lien ( 35 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 36 ) ADMINISTKATION- or charge on such real estate until a judgment has been obtained. Testator, who died in 1876, devised and be- queathed his residuary real and personal estate to three persons in equal shares. At the time of his death he was entitled to certain real estate which he had mortgaged in 1839 to secure the repayment of a certain sum and interest. In 1902 the devisees commenced an action for sale in lieu of partition, and in that action certain sums, representing the rents and profits of the mortgaged property, had been paid into Court. In 1903 judgment in the action was given direct- ing the usual accounts and inquiries, and order- ing the property to be sold, which had not, how- ever, yet been done. In 1907 the pits., in whom the benefit of the mortgage of 1839 was now vested, issued their writ in the present action, suing on behalf of themselves and all other credi- tors of the testator, against the devisees, claim- ing (1) administration of the testator's real and personal estate, and (2) that the devisees might be restrained from applying for the transfer and payment to them of the fund in Court to the credit of the partition action, and that such fund might be ordered to be transferred to the credit of the present action. No judgment had as yet been obtained in this action. On an application by the pits, for an interim order in the terms of paragraph 2 of the claim in their writ : — Held, that under the Administration of Estates Act, 1833, neither the corpus nor the rents and profits of the real estate became liable to creditors until a judgment had been obtained, and that,. as no judgment had been obtained in the present case, the application must be refused. In re Hyatt, (1888) 38 Oh. D. 609, distin- guished. In re MooN. Holmes v. Holmes Warrington J. [1907] W. N. 154 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 304 86. — Real estate — Devise on trust — Aliena- tion l>y " devisee " — Mortgage of equitable estate — Purchaser for value zoitAout notice — Bona fide alienation — Priority over creditor of testator — Belts Recovery Act, 1830 (11 Geo.i ^ 1 Will. 4, c. iT), ss. 6, 8 — Administration of Estates Act, 1833 (3^4 Will, i, c. ] 04). An equitable tenant for life is a "devisee" within the meaning of ss. 6 and 8 of the Debts Eecovery Act, 1830, and consequently a bona fide alienation by such m, devisee before action brought will be protected, there being no difference for this purpose between the alienee of an equitable and the alienee of a legal interest. Dictum of Lord Chelmsford L.C. in Coope v. Cresswell, (1866) L. R. 2 Oh. 112,122, explained and adopted. British Mutual Investment Co. v. Smart, ((1875) L. E. 10 Ch. 567, and In re <1866) 34 Oh. D. 379, examined and applied! Decision of Joyce J., [1908] W. N". 18, reversed. In re Atkinson. Pbootoe v. Atkinson C. A. [1908] W. N. 129 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 307 — Eeal estate — Exoneration. See Nos. 9, 10, above. ADMINISTBATIOK- — Receiver. See under Receivbb. 27. — Retainer — Personal representative — Real representative — Right to retain out of real assets— Zand Transfer Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Viol, c. 65), ss. 1, 2, suh-s. 3. Part I. of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, which establishes a real representative by vesting the real estate of a deceased person in his personal representative, and provides for the administra- tion of real estate in the same manner, subject to the same liabilities for debts, costs, and expenses, and with the same incidents as if it were personal estatp, does not confer any new right of retainer or priority in favour of the personal representa- tive as against real assets. In re Williams. HoLDEE 1-. Williams - Joyce J. [1903] W. N. 199 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 52 — Simple contract debt — Payment on account by tenant for life — Administration of whole or real estate. See Limitations, Statute of. 24. 28. — Specialty deit — MoHgagoi — Covenant — Real assets — Specific devisees— Payment of in- terest iy one devisee — Testator's general estate — Acknowledgment — Real Property lAmitation Act, 1874 (37 S; 38 Vict. c. 57), ^. 8. i?ayment of interest by the specific devisee of part of a testator's real estate, which was subject to a mortgage created by the testator, is sufficient to keep the mortgagee's right of action alive against the specific devisees of other parts of the real estate which was not subject to the mortgage, and thus entitle the mortgagee to an order for administration of the whole of the testator's real estate. The principles laid down in Roddam v. Morley, (1857) 1 De G. & J. 1, applied. Bradaliaw v. Widdrington, [1902] 2 Ch. 430, discussed. Decision of Kekewioh J., [1906] W. N. 213, reversed. In re Lacbt. Howaed V. Lightfoot C. a. [1907] W. N. 36, 48 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 330 29. — Specific legacy— Internal between death of testator and assent of executor — Cost of upkeep and preservation — Incidence. The expense incurred in the upkeep and pre- servation of specifically bequeathed property between the death of the testator and the assent of his executors to the bequest is payable by the specific legatee, and not out of the general estate of the testator. In re PbaeCb. Crutchlbt v. Wells - Eve J. [1909] W. N. 94 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 819 30. — Statute-barred debt owing to estate — Residuary legatee of debtor's estate also a legatee of creditor's estate — Bringing into account. J. B., entitled to a share in the residuary estate of his father, was also the sole residuary legatee and one of the executors of his aunt, who was a debtor for 200?. to the father's estate. This debt was long ago statute-barred : — Held, that this debt and interest need not be brought into account as against J. B.'s share in his father's residuary estate. Courtenay v. Williams, (1844) 3 Hare, 539 ; C 2 ( 37 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 38 ) ADMINISTRATION on appeal, (1846) 15 L. J. (Ch.) 204, distin- guished. Decision of Neville J., [1908] W. N. 99 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 850, reversed. In re Bettcb. Laweoed v. Beuoe C. A. [1908] W. H. 209 ; [1908] 2 Oh. 682 31. — Trust, Breach of — Practice — Adminis- tration action — Breach of trust alleged in pleadings — Breach made good after issue of writ — Common account and ini/mries — Adding accounts and inquiries after judgment — Breaches of trust not alleged in pleadings and proved at trial — " Wilful default^' — BerM>%al of trustees, Grounds for. Where in an administration action a pit. by his pleadings charges trustees vfith a breach of trust, but at the trial is content to take the common form administration judgment, the Court will refuse to allow him at a later stage of the action to charge the trustees with further breaches of trust alleged to have been committed before the issue of the writ or before the judgment, but not alleged in the pleadings and proved at the trial, either for the purpose of obtaining relief against them on account of such breaches of trust, or merely for the purpose of removing them from their office of trustees. The rule that, if in an action for administra- tion the pit. by his pleadings alleges wilful default and proves one instance of it, the Court will direct an account on the footing of wilful default does not apply to the case of a breach of trust. Joi V. Joh, (1877) 6 Ch. D. 562 ; Mayer v. Murray, (1878) 8 Ch. D. 424 ; In re Synmns, (1882) 21 Ch. D. 757 ; SmUh v. ArmUage, (1883) 24 Ch. D. 727, distinguished on the above ground. In an administration action the Court has jurisdiction at any time during the proceedings to remove trustees if it considers such removal necessary for the preservation of the trust estate or the welfare of the cestui que trust, and that notwithstanding such removal has not been expressly asked for by the pleadings. In re Wei&htson. Weishtson f. Cooke Warrington J. [1908] W. H. 82 ; [1908] : Oh. 789 • — Trust estate. See under Trustee. — Victoria Administration and Probate Act. — Will — Direction to pay debts out of residue — Colonial death duties. See Will — Colonial Duties. 1. — " Widow," Secondary meaning of — Bigamous marriage — Will— Construction. See Will— Words. 10. — Will — Construction. See under Will. — Will — Destruction — Intention — Executors according to the tenor — Form of grant. See Will — Destruction. 1. 32. — Will — Immediate gift of share of residue — Deht due from tenefioiary to testator payable by instalments — MigJU of executors to retaifl shares to answer debt. Where at the death of a testator a debt is ADMINISTRATION—, owing to him by a person to whom a share of residue is immediately given by the will, but the debt is payable by instalments, the executors are not entitled to retain the share of the bene- ficiary as against the future instalments of the debt that may become due, but are bound to pay it to the beneficiary without reference to such instalments. In re Bees, (1889) 60 L. T. 260, followed. In re Aherman, [1891] 3 Ch. 212, distin- guished. In re Abeahams. Abeahams r. Abeahams - - - - Warrington J. [1908] W. N. 116 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 69 — Will — Lapse — Death of all beneficiaries and executor before testator— Administra- tion cum testamento annexe — "In- testate." See Will — Lapse. 8. — With wiU annexed — Joint grant to nominees of sole executrix. See Peobatb — Practice. 5. ADMINISTRATION PENDENTE LITE— Con- current suits in Chancery and Probate Divisions. See Peobatb — Practice. 3. ADMINISTRATOR. See under Administeatiok. ADMIRALTY. See under Shipping. ADMISSIBILITY— Evidence. See under Evidence. — Interrogatories — Discovery — Action for seduc- tion—Disclosure of names — Practice. See DiSCOYBHT. 6. ADMISSION — Criminal suit by letters of request — Proceedings by default — Admissions by respondent before institution of suit. See Ecclesiastical Law — Discipline. 1. — Debt — Acknowledgment — Affidavit for probate. See Limitations, Statute of. 1. — Practice — Workmen's compensation — Evi- dence — Admission from answer. See Masteb and Servant — Practice. 14. — Ship — Collision — Admission by defendants that partly to blame — Practice — Burden of proof — Right to begin. See Shipping — Collision. 53. — Ship — Salvage — Pleading — Admission of facts — Non-admission of inferences — Exclusion of further evidence. See Shipping — Salvage. 2i; ADMITTANCE — Copyhold — Custom to take smaller fine on admittance from tenant of manor than from stranger. See Copyholds. 1. ( 39 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( *0 ) ASiriTESAIION. Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906 (6 Fdw. 7, c. 27,) is an Act to amend the law with respect to tlie sale of agricultural fertilizers and Butter and .Margarine Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 21), is an Act to make furtlier promsioti, with respect to the manufacture, importation, and sale of hitter and margarine and similar substances. 1. — Analysis — Deterioration of sample — Analysis by Commissioners of Inland Revenue at request of vendor — ImposnbilUy — Condition precedent to conviction — Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 (38 ^ 39 Vict. c. 63), ss. 9, 14, 21 ; 1899 (62 d 63 Vict. c. 51), s. 21. On the hearing of a complaint charging the appellant with selling milk in an altered condi- tion contrary to s. 9 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, it having been proved by the analysis of the public analyst (who was not required by the appellant to be called as a witness) that the milk was deficient in butter fat, the appellant required that the sample of the milk, which had been retained by the pur- chaser in accordance with s. 14 of the Act, should be produced and sent to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for analysis under s. 21 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899. The sample, which had been placed in a bottle, was produced, but the cork of the bottle having become loose, the sample was in consequence in such a condi- tion as to make a satisfactory analysis impossible. The appellant was convicted : — Held, that it was not a condition precedent to a conviction that the retained sample should have been analysed ; but that in order to support the conviction there must be a finding of fact by the magistrate that the sample had been sealed or fastened up in such manner as its nature would permit, as provided by s. 14 of the Act of 1875, and the case was therefore remitted to the magistrate. Hutchison v. Stevenson, (1902) i F., J.C,, 69, distinguished. Suckling v. Paekbe Div. Ct. [1906] W. N. 69 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 627 2. — Analysis, Purcliase for — Sample — Mode of dividing sample — Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 |- 39 Vict. c. 63), s. 14. Where an article of food is purchased for the purpo.se of analysis under s. 14 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, each of the three parts, into which the article is required by that section to be divided, must be sufficient to admit of a proper analysis being made of that part. LOWERT V. Hallaed - . - . Div Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 398 Note. See Suckling v. Parher, Div. Ct., [1906] 1 K. B. 527. See preceding Case. 3. — Beer — ZAability of innocent vendor for beer contaminated by admixture of arsenic Sufficiency of certificate of analyst — Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 ^- 39 Vict. v. 63), ss. 3, 6. Beer, with which a certain quantity of arsenic injurious to health had been mixed in the procesa of manufacture accidentally and in ignorance, was sold by a retailer without ADULTEEATION— w?j!;iftKe(i. knowledge or reasonable grounds for suspicion of the presence of the arsenic in the beer : — Held, that there was evidence that the beer was not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by the purchaser, and that the retailer could be convicted under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. Certificates of public analysts stating in one case that the sample of beer " contains arsenic," and in the other case that it " contains a serious quantity of arsenic, " held to be insufficient. GouLDBR V. Rook. Bent v. Oemebod. Lee V. Bent. Barlow v. Noblett - Div. Ct. [1901] W. N. 108 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 390 4. — British Pharmacopmia — Standard strength of drugs — Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 ^ 39 Vict. a. 63), s. 6— Pharmacy Act, 1868 (31 (6 32 Vict. c. 121), s. 15. A purchaser went into a chemist's shop and asked to be supplied with " mercury ointment." Mercury ointment is one of the medicines con- tained in the British Pharmacopoeia. The chemist supplied him with an ointment contain- ing a less proportion of mercury than that pre- scribed by the formulary of the Pharma- copoeia : — Held, that, although the purchaser did not refer to the Pharmacopoeia, he must be taken to have demanded that the ointment should be compounded of the proportions therein pre- scribed, and that upon a complaint under s. 6 of the Sale of Pood and Drugs Act, 1875, the vendor was rightly convicted of having sold a drug not being of the quality demanded by the purchaser. White V. Bywater, (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 582, followed. Held, also, that the fact of the ointment being a compounded drug did not make the sale of it as above mentioned any the less an offence within s. 6. Dickins v. Randeeson Div. Ct. [1901] W. N. 30 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 437 6. — Butter, Importation of — Admixture with foreign fat — Package not conspicuously marked — Application of warranty to importation — Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1876 (38 ^- 39 Vict. c. 63), s. 25— Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899 (62 1& 63 Vict. c. 51), ss. 1, 20, sub-ss. 1, 2, 3. Where a deft, is charged under s. 1, sub-s. 1 (i), of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, with importing into the United Kingdom adulterated butteje in packages not conspicuously marked with a name or description indicating that the butter has been so treated, the fact that he received from the foreign vendor a written warranty of the purity of the butter under circumstances which comply with the provisions of a. 25 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, and s. 20, sub-ss. 1 and 3, of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, affords no defence, inasmuch as the written warranty so received only constitutes a defence to a charge of selling adulterated goods in the United Kingdom, and not to a prosecution for importing into the United Kingdom goods in packages insufficiently marked. Kelly i. Lonsdale & Co. • Div. Ct. [1906] W. N. 144 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 486 ( « ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 42 ) ADVLIER&TlOS—cotUimied. 6. — Sutter — Process of mixing milk with butter — Increased percentage of water — Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 ^ 39 Vict. c. 63), s. 6. In the ordinary process of making butter a large proportion of the water in the milk or cream from which it is made is eliminated. The appellants, after butter had been made in the ordinary way, mixed milk with it, for the purpose of increasing its weight, by a. process which had the effect of retaining the water in the milk, and caused an excessive quantity of water in the butter so treated. They sold the butter so treated to a purchaser as butter : — Held, that they had committed the offence specified in s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, namely, selling to the prejudice of the purchaser an article of food not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by him. Pearks, Gdnston & Tbe, Ld. ;■. Knight. The Same v. Van Teomp Div. Ct. [1901] W. N. 179 ; [1901] 8 K.B. 825 See next Case. 1. — Butter — Sale to prejudice of purcTiaser — Butter Mended witJi miljt — Notice in shop — Label on wrapper — Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 £ 39 Vict. c. 63), ss. 6, 8. The appellants, a firm of provision merchants, displayed on the wall of their shop in a con- spicuous position, so as to be visible to any one entering the shop, a large notice to the effect that their butter, as sold at that establishment, was choicest butter, blended with pure English full cream milk, by new and improved machinery, whereby it retained about 20 to 24 per cent, of moisture. A purchaser who did not see the notice, and whose attention was not called to it, bought half a pound of shilling butter, which when handed to him was wrapped in two pieces of paper ; on the inside paper or wrapper was printed a notice similar to that hung up in the shop, the outer wrapper being a piece of plain opaque paper. When analysed, the butter was found to contain 23'8 per cent, of water, which was 7'8 in excess of the natural amountof 16 per cent. : — Held, that assuming that only one kind of butter was sold in the shop, the seller was pro- tected by the notice displayed on the wall of the shop, and the sale was not to the prejudice of the purchaser within the meaning of s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 : Semble, that the label on the inner wrapper in which the butter was delivered was not a suffi- cient notice by label within s. 8 of the Act. Pbaeks, Ghnston & Tee, Ld. v. Houghton Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 889 8. — Certificate of analysis — Principal chemist of Government laboratories — Form of certificate — Importation of margarine — Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 ^' 39 Vict. c. 63), s. 18 ; Form in schedule — Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899 (62 ^- 68 Vict. c. 51), s. \— Butter and Margarine Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 21), s. 5, sui-s. 1. In proceedings by the Commissioners of Customs under s. 1 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, as extended by s. 5, sub-s. 1, of ADTJLTERATION---f«;rfi«««(?. the Butter and Margarine Act, 1907, for the recovery of a penalty in respect of the importa- tion into the United Kingdom of an article of food specified therein the certificate of the analysis given by the principal chemist of the Government laboratories need not be in the form prescribed by s. 18 and the schedule of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. Foot v. Findlat Div. Ct. [1908] W. K. 204 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 1 9. — Certificate of analysis — Sufficiency of — Insertion of weight of sample — Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 ^- 39 Viet. c. 63), 8. 18. The insertion in the certificate given by a public analyst under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, of the weight of the sample analyzed is obligatory only where the weight of the sample is material to the accm-acy of the analysis, and its omission does not necessarily invalidate the certificate where the accuracy of the analysis does not in any way depend upon the weight of the sample. Snbath v. Taylor Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 376 10. — False warranty — Jurisdiction of justices — Place where article purchased for analysis — Successive warranties — Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1876 (38 4- 39 Vict. c. 63), ss. 25, 21— Sate of Food and Drugs Act, 1899 (62 <|- 63 Vict, c. 51), s. 20, sub-ss. 5, 6. Proceedings for giving a false warranty in respect of an article of food cannot be taken, under s. 20, sub-s. 5, of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, before a Court having jurisdic- tion in the place where the article in question was purchased for analysis, if the warranty was not given within the jurisdiction of that Court, unless it was given to the person from whom the article in question was purchased for analysis. Mannbes v. Tylbe Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 901 11. — Fertilizers aiid feeding stuffs — False description — Guilty knmoledge — Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1893 (56 ^- 57 Vict. c. 56), s. 3, sub-s. 1 (V). Mens rea is not a constitutent element of the offence created by s. 3, sub-s. 1 (J), of the Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1893. Laied V. DOBBLL Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 131 12. —Milk — Inspector of n u isa n ces — Powers — Sample procured outside inspector's district — Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment Act, 1879 (42 4- 43 Vict. c. 30), i. 3. The power conferred upon an inspector of nuisances under s. 3 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment Act, 1879, to procure at the place of delivery a sample of milk in cours* of delivery to the purchaser in pursuance of a contract of sale cannot be exercised by an inspec- tor outside the district for which he is appointed. McKaie v. Cave Div. Ct. [1902] W. N. 194 ; " [1903] 1 K. B. 24 13. — Milli — Written warranty — Future deliveries — Evidence in writing to connect par- ticular consignment with warranty — Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 ^- 39 Vict. c. 63), s. 25. In Aug., 1905, a farmer contracted to supply the respondent with milk, and gave to the respondent a letter stating that he guaranteed ( 43 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( ii ) ADULTERATION— ew;«!wMe referred — Application for stay — Step in pro- ceedings — Summons fm- directions — Arb-Uration Act, 1889 (52 4- 53 Vict. c. 49), s. i—B. S. C, Order XXX., rr. 1, 2. An action was brought for breach of a written contract which contained an agreement to refer matters in dispute between the parties. The deft, attended at chambers on the hearing of a summons for directions taken out by the pits., on which an order was made that the pits,, and deft, should respectively make discovery of ABBITBATIOIT (Practice) — continued. documents. The deft, subsequently applied under s. 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, for a stay of proceedings : — Held, that the deft, had taken a step in the proceedings, and was, therefore, not entitled to a stay. County Theatees and Hotels, Ld., V. Knowles C. a. [1902] W. N. 22 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 480 Note. Followed by Swinfen Eady J., Steven v. Buncle, [1902] W. N. 44, preceding Case. Explained by Swinfen Eady J., Richardson V. Le Maitre, [1903] 2 Ch. 222. See Arbitration — Agreement to refer. 1 . Followed by Warrington J., Oehs v. Ocks Bratliers, [1909] 2 Ch. 121. See Ko. 1, above. — Arbitration clause— Leave for term of years — Action for occupation rent — Staying proceedings. &e LAHBLOEDAITO TENAiJT. 28. — Disputes between society and members — Rules — Arbitration — Ultra Vires acts — Stay of proceedings. See INDUSTEIAL AND PEOVIDBNT Society. 1. — Staying proceedings — Cesser clause — Bill of lading — Claim for demurrage. See Shipping — Charterparty. 1. — Staying proceedings — Partnership — Mortgage of partner's interest — Right of mort- gagee to account — Arbitration clause — Stay of proceedings — Appointment as arbitrators of strong supporters of each party. See Paetneeship. 16. — Staying proceedings — Practice generally. See under Peactice — Staying Pro- ceedings. — Staying proceedings — Ship — Berth note — Arbitration clause — " Dispute arising at loading ports " — Stay of proceedings. See Shipping — Practice. 3. — Staying proceedings — Submission to arbi- tration — Railway Passengers' Assurance Company's Acts. See Peactice — Staying Proceedings. 5. — Staying proceedings where submission to arbitration — County Court — Juris- diction. See County Co uet— Practice. 17. — Tramways — Jurisdiction of High Court ousted — Objection to jurisdiction first taken on appeal. See Tbamways. 3. — Trespass, Action for — Injunction — Arbitration clause — Failure of company to proceed under their Act. See Canada— Arbitration. 4. Private Act. — Statutory agreement — Arbitration clause — Compulsory reference— Ouster of juris- diction. See Manchbstee. 1. ( 99 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( lot) ) AEBITRATION— ( Public Antbority. — Limitation of time for proceedings^ See under Public AtriHOKiTiBs' Peo- TECTION", Kailway. See under Railway— Arbitration. Staying Freceedingg. ■Bee under Aebiteation — Agreement to Bettr— and under Abbiteatiok — Practice. Submission. 1. — " Submissioii " — Agreement to refer disputes to foreign Court — Staying proceedings — Arlitration Act, 1889 (52 ^- 6,S Vict. a. 49), ««. 4, 27. A policy of life insurance was effected by a foreigner witli an English insurance co., which had a branch oflSce at Budapest. The policy, which was in the French language, provided that the premiums and insurance money should be payable at Budapest, and contained a con- dition, of which the English translation was as f oEows : " For all disputes which may arise out ■of the contract of insurance, all the parties interested expressly agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Budapest having jurisdiction in such matters " : — Held, that the above-mentioned condition constituted a " submission " within the meaning of s. 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1889. Austbian- Llotd Steamship Co. c Geesham Life AssuEANOK Society, Ld. - C. A. [1903] W. N. 7; [1903] 1 K. B. 249 Telegraph. See also under TblbgbAph. Telegraph (Ariitration) Act, 1909 (9 Udiu. 7, c. 20), is an Act to gite further powers to tlie Railway and Canal Commission to determine differences with respect to telegraphs (including telephones). Umpire. 1. — Witness called by umpire — Misconduct — Evidence — Removal — Ariitration Act, 1889 (52 ^ 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 11. Neither a judge nor an umpire has any right to call a witness in a civil action without the consent of the parties. Coulson V. Disborough, [1894] 2 Q. B. 216, commented on. Arbitrators are bound to observe the rules of evidence no less than judges. Att.-Gen. v. Davison, (1825) M'Cl. & Y. 160, considered. In re Keighley, Maaeted ^ Co. and Bryan Durant ^ Co. [1893] 1 Q. B. 405, explained. In re Enoch and Zaeetzky, Bock & Co.'s Abbiteation - C. A. [19io] W. N. 3 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 32? Workmen's Compensation. — Arbitration. See under Mastee and Seevant. — Judicial proceeding — Perjury. See Criminal Law — ^Appeal, 17. LAW- ABBITBATOB. 'See under AeSiteAtIoNv AEOHfiS tOURf . See ttttdef Ecclesiastical Court of Arches. A&CHES COUBT BULES, SEPT., 1903. See Ecclesiastical LAW^Fatulty. 18. ABCHITECT— Certiflcate^Atckite'ct in position of arbitmtot — Negligence. iS* Building Conteact. 1. — Certiiicate of — Finality — Reference of dis- putes to arbitration — Right to legal remedies. See Building Contbact. 2. — Covenant not to practise as an architect ov surveyor — Fixed salary. See Resteaint of Teadb. 6, 1. — Damages — Negligence of nrckitict tft preparing plans — Plans not used — Nominal damages. The pits, employed the deft, to prepare plans for a building to be erected on a site belonging to them. The deft, neglected to measure the site, and acting on information which was un- authorised by the pits., prepared plans on the assumption that the site was smaller than it was in fact. The pits., having paid the deft, for the plans, were unable to raise funds to build on the site, and ultimately parted with it, and then dis- covered the error in the plans. In an action to recover the money paid for the plans on the grounds of a total failure of consideration, or, in the alternative, for damages for negligence : — Held, that there had not been a total failure of consideration, but that as the deft, had been negligent the pits, were entitled to damages, although, as they had sustained no loss from his negligence, those damages would be only nominal. Columbus Co. c. Clowes Wright J. [1903] 1 K. B. 844 2. — Plans — Completion of WorJi — Property in plans — Claim of Architeot — Custom — Reason- aileness. An architect was employed by a building owner to carry out alterations in certain houses. He prepared plans and superintended the execu- tion of the work, which was completed, and his agreed remuneration at an inclusive percentage on the outlay was paid. The building owner then demanded the plans, which the architect refused to hand over. In an action by the building owner against the architect to recover the plans : — Held, that a custom set up by the deft, entitling him as architect to the property in the plans after the completion of the work was unreasonable, and afforded no answer to the action. Gibbon v. Pease C. A. [1905] W. H. 56 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 810 — Scope of authority — London Building Act Landlord and tenant. See London— Party Walls. 18. — Street— General line of buildings— Superin- tending architect's certificate— Appeal to tribunal of appeal. See London — Streets. 1. E 2 ( 101 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( io^ 5 AEMS (NAME AND) ClATTSE. See under Name aot) Abms Clause. Will — Name and ArmB Clause. ARMY AitD NAf Y. Army {Annual) Acts, 1901 — 1910. See under " The Statutes Enacted during the Tears 1901—1910." Ante, p. cdlxvii. Military Works Act, 1901 (1 Mw. 7, e. 40), maJtes further provision for defraying the expenses of certain military works and other military aerclres. Militia and Yeomanry Act, 1901 (1 Edw. 7, D, 14), amends the law relating to the militia and yeomanry. A^ai-al Works Act, 1901 (1 MiiK 7, p. 39), mahes further provision for the construction of ivorhs in the United Kiiigdom and elseiohere for thi pur^JOtee of the Royal Nary. Volunieer Efficiency. 0. in 0. declaring what is requisite to entitle a Volunteer to be deemed an Efficieia Volunteer. St. E. & 0. 1902, No. 6i%. Royal Nural Reserve Act, 1902 (2 Edic. 7, e. h, amends s. 1 of the Royal Naxal Reserve (Volunteer') Act, 1896 (59 ^ 60 Vict. c. 3S), as to qualif cation as to service. Militia and Yeomanry Act, 1902 (2 Edw. 7, c. 39), amends the law relating to Militia and Yeomanry. War Store.': Commission Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 7), facilitates the proceedings of the Com- missioners appointed to Iwld an investigation respecting war stores in South Africa. Kuval Worlts Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 20). Seamen's and Soldiers' False Characters Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 5). Reserve Forces Act, 1906 (6 Edtv. 7, c. 11). Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, «. 9), is an Act to provide for the re- organisation of His Majesty's military forces, and for that purpose to authm'isethe establishment of County Associations, and the raising and maintenance of a Te>'ritorial Force, and for amendifig the Acts relating to the Reserve Forces. Naval Lands (Volunteers) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, e. 25), extends the Military iMnds Acts to Naval Volunteers. Naval Marriages Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 26), authorizes, for tlie purjjose of marriages in the United Kingdom,, the jmilication of Banns and Hie issue of Certificates on board His Majesty's : in certain cases. Navy. Discipline. — Prisons. Rules and Regulations, Jan. 18, 1908, amending Regulations for Naval Prisons under s. 81 of " TIw Naval Discipline Act." St. R. & 0., 1908, No. 20. Price \d. Territorial Force. 0. in C, March 19, 1908, under s. 29 of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, traTisferring units of Yeomanry and Volunteers to the Territorial Force. St. E. & 0., J908, No. 266. Price 2d. AEMY AND tfKri— continued. Territorial Force. 0. in C, March 19, 1908, under s. 28 of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, applying certain enactments relating to the Militia and to Officers of the Volunteers to tlie Territmiai force. 8t. B. & ©., 1908, No. 866, Price Id. Territoi-ial Force. 0. in C, March 19, l90S, under s. 28 of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, as to certain Property of the Honour- able Aitillery Company. St. E. & 0., 1908, No. 257. Price Id. Reserve Forces. 0. in C, April 9, 1908, under s. 34 of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, transferring units of Militia to tlie Army Reserve. St. E. ft 0.,' 1908, No. 324. Price Id. Territorial Force. O. in C, April 9, 1908, under s. 29 of tlie Territirrial and Reserve Forces Act, 1 907, transferring units of Volmtteers to tlie Territorial Force. St. E. ft 0., 1908, Ho. 385. Price Id. Reserve Forces. 0. in C, May 5, 1908, adding tile Transvaal and the Orange Rirer Colony to tlie Schedule to the Reserve Forces Act, 1906. St. E. & C, 1908, Ho. 388. Price Id. Naral Establishmeyits in Sritiah Possessions Act, 1909(9 Edw. 7, e. 18), is an Act to mahe better provision respecting Naval Establiskmercts in British Possessions. Colonial Naval Defence Act, 1 909 (9 Edw. 7, e. 19), is an Act to amend the Colonial Narat Defence Act, 1865. Naval Discipline Act, 1909 (9 Edic. 7, c. 41). H.M. Territorial Forces. Correspondence printed at the request of the Pivsident of tlie Law Society. W. N. 1909 (Mar. 20), p. 105. Naval Marriages. 0. in C, under Naral Marriage Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, o. 26), and dated Dec. 21, 1908, adopting provisions of enactments and rules as to jJublication of banns and issue of ceHificates. St. E. ft C, 1908, No. 1316. Djihe of York's School (Cliapel) Act, 1910 (10 Edw. 1 ^-X Geo. 5, c. 16). Territorial Force. 0. in C, April 22, 1910, transferring certain properties from trustees to county associations. St. E. ft 0., 1910, No. 476. — Attachment of debts — Garnishee order — Retired pay of officer in Army — Pension due but not paid — Bank crediting amount to customer. See Attachment. 6. — Licensing Acts — Excise licence for sale in canteen — Sale to civilian. See Licensing Acts. 49. — Military lands — Streets — Paving, &c. expenses — Liability — Crown. See Streets. 18. 1. — Navy — Enlistment — Naval serviee — Royal Naval Reserve—Penalty for making false statements— Naval Enlistment Act, 1853 (16 itinued. — Transfer of stock — Power of attorney — Innocent misrepresentation — Forged power — Liability of agent. See Peincipal and Agent. 3. BANKER— Bank of England. See under Bank of ENGLAND. — Bank — Mortgage debt — Mortgage insurance policy — Indemnity — Guarantee — Co- suretyship — Contribution. See Principal and Surety. 3. — Sillg of Exchange (^Crossed Clieqnes) Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, o. 17), amends s. 82 of the Bills of Excliange Act, 1882 (45 J- 46 Vict. c. 61). — Bill of exchange — Bill delivered to bankers to be discounted — Time at which property passed — Book debt. See Bill of Exchange. 1. — Cheque — Banker and customer — Cheques drawn up with spaces, afterwards fraudulently filled up — Liability of bank — Negligence. See Australia. 2. 1. — Cheque — Company — Cheque drawn iy directors on behalf of company — Forgery — Negligence — Return of pass-hook witliout objection — Settled account. It is the duty of a customer of a bank in issuing mandates to the bank to take reasonable care so as not to mislead the bank ; but, beyond the care which must be taken in or immediately connected with the transaction itself, there is no duty on the part of the customer to take precautions in the general course of carrying on his business to prevent forgeries on the part of his servants. The mere fact that a customer of a bank takes his pass-book out of the bank and returns it without objecting to any of the entries contained therein, there being a pencil entry of the balance, does not amount to a settlement of account as between him and the bank in respect of those entries. The secretary of a co. forged the signatures of two of the directors of the co. to a number of cheques which purported to have been drawn by the directors on behalf of the oo. upon the defts., who were the co.'s bankers, and the defts. paid the cheques so drawn. The forgeries extended over a period of about two months, during which time neither the bank pass-book nor the cash- book of the CO. was examined by the directors. In an action by the co. against the defts. to recover the amounts so paid : — Held, upon the facts, that the oo. was entitled to recover. KF/Pitigalla Rubber Estates, Ld. v. National Bank of India, Ld. - Bray J. [1909] 2 K. B. 1010 Cheque — Company — Debentures — Interest — Cheques for, sent to trustees or by their direction to tenant for life — Non-presen- tation of cheque for payment. See Company — Bebentares, 51. 2. — Cheque — Countermand by telegram, — Notice — Action for money had and received — ( 1*5 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 146 ) BANKER — continued. Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Viot. o. 61), s, 75, suh-s. 1. Though a telegram countermanding a cheque may reasonably be acted upon by a banker, at least to the extent of postponing the honouring of the cheque until further inquiry can be made, yet a banker is not bound to accept an unauthenticated telegram as sufficient authority for the serious step of refusing payment. On Oct. 31, 1906, the pit. drew a cheque for 63i. on his bankers, the defts. On the same day after business hours, he telegraphed to counter- mand payment of this cheque. The telegram was delivered on the evening of the same day by the Post Office, and, it being after office hours, was placed in the letter-box of the bank. By an oversight on the part of the defts.' servants this telegram was not brought to the notice of their manager until Nov. 2. On Nov. 1 the cheque was presented and paid. In an action for money had and received : — Held, that payment of the cheque was not in fact countermanded within the meaning of s. 75 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, although it might well be that it was owing to the negligence of the bank officials that notice of the customer's desire to stop the cheque was not received in time. CUBTICB v. London City and Midland Bank, Ld. C. A. [1908] W. N. 3 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 293 3. — Cheque — Defective title — Receiving pay- ment fof a customs)' — " Customer" — Liability of lanlter— Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 ^- 46 Vict. c. 61), ss. 81, 82. To make a person a "customer" of a bank within the meaning of s. 82 of the Bills of ISxchange Act, 1882, there must be some sort of account, either a current or a deposit account, or some similar relation. H, having by false pretences obtained from the appellants a cheque crossed " & Co." and marked "not negotiable,' ' took it to the respondent bank. The bank at his request paid part of the amount of the cheque into the account of one of their customers and handed the balance to H. After the respondents had received payment of the cheque from the bank on which it was drawn H.'s fraud was discovered, and the appeUauts sued the respondents for the amount. It was found as a fact that the respondents received the payment in good faith and without negligence. They had for years been in the habit of cashing cheques for H. in a similar manner. He had no account or pass-book with them : — Held, that H. was not a " customer " of the respondents, and that they did not receive pay- ment of the cheque for him, within the meaning of s. 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, and were not protected by that section ; that H. having no title to the cheque the respondents took no title to it or to the money, and were liable to the appellants for the amount of the cheque. Decisions of Bigham J., [1899] 2 Q. B. 172, and the 0. A., [1900] 2 Q. B. 464, reversed. Gbeat Western Ky. Co. d. London and County Banking Co. H. 1. (E.) [1901] W. N. 166 ; [1901] A. C. 164 BANKEE- 4. — ■ Cheque — Forged indorsement — Payee — " Fictitious or non-existent person " — Belief or intention of drawers — Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 n<;t. c. 61), s. 7, mi-s. 3. Where a cheque is drawn by a real drawer who designates an existing person as the payee and intends him to receive the proceeds, the payee is not " a fictitious person " within the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, s. 7, sab-s. 3. The drawer of a cheque induced by the fraud of W. drew the cheque to the order of K. an existing person, and intended him to be the payee. W. forged K. 's indorsement, and paid the cheque into his own account at his bankers, who received the amount of the cheque from the drawer's bank : — Held, that the drawer could recover the amount of the cheque from W.'s bankere. Decision of the C. A., Macbeth v. North and South Wales Bank, [1907] W. N. 205 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 13, affirmed. NoETH A2fD South Wales Bank, Ld. v. Macbeth. North and South Wales Bank, Ld. r. Irvine H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 66 ; [1908] A, C. 137 5. — ■ Cliequf. — Conversion — Crossed cheqiie paid into customer's account — Forged indorsement — Credit given to customer before cheque cleared — Draft by one branch of bank on anotlier — Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 ^- 46 Vict. c. 61), «. 82 —Revenue Act, 1883 (46 S; 47 Vict. c. 55), *. 17 —Stamp Act, 1853 (16 S,- 17 Vict. c. 59), s. 19. Bankers are protected by s. 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, only where they receive payment of a crossed cheque as agents for col- lection for a customer. They are not so protected when they receive payment as holdeis of the cheque on their own account. The appellant banks credited a customer with the amounts of cheques as soon as they were handed in to his account and allowed him to draw against the amounts so credited before the cheques were cleared : — Held, that they were not protected by s. 82. The protection given by s. 82 applies only to cheques crossed before they are received by the bankers. The decision of the C. A., [1901] W. N. 247 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 242, affirmed on the above points. A banker's draft payable to order on demand addressed by one branch of a bank to another branch of the same bank and not crossed is not a cheque within the meaning of ss. 60, 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, nor is it within s. 17 of the Revenue Act, 1883. But it is within s. 19 of the Stamp Act, 1858, which protects bankers bona fide paying such drafts to holders claiming under forged indorsements. The decision of the C. A. varied to the above effect on this point. Capital and Counties Bank, Ld. v. Gordon. London City and Midland Bank, Ld. v. Gordon H. I. (E.) [1903] W. N. 92 ; [1903] A. C. 240 — Cheque — Forged indorsement — Payee a "fictitious or non-existing person" — Belief or intention of drawer. See Bill of Exohanqb. 3, ( 147 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 148 ) iATHKE'R—oantinueil. 6. — Cheque — Protection of collecting banker — Customer credited in ledger with amount of cheque before clearance — Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 S; 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 82. Where the customer of a bank delivers to the banker for collection a crossed cheque to which he has no title, the fact that the banker credits the customer in the bank ledger with the amount of the cheque before it is cleared does not deprive the banker of the protection afforded by s. 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882. Akeokeeri (^Atlantic) Mines, Ld. c. Economic Bank Bigham J. [1904] W. N. 125 ; [1904] 2K. B.465 — Cheque — Gambling in a foreign country — Loan — Consideration. See Gaming. 3. — Cheque — Stolen abroad — Forged indorsement — Transfer for value in foreign country — Conflict of laws. See Bill op Exchange. 2. — Cheque — Unregistered dentist — Right to sue for fees— Cheque given by patient — Subsequent dishonour. See Dentist. 4. — Cheque drawn by deceased, Gift of — Over- drawn account. See Donatio Moetis Causa. 2. 7. — Closing account — Banlter and customer -^Mortgage to secure account current — Power of sale — ?lotice by mortgagor to banli of appointment of a trustee for his creditors. A customer of a bank mortgaged to the bank a, policy of assurance on his life to secure the amount from time to time owing by him to the bank in account current. The mortgage pro- vided that the statutory power of sale should be exercisable by the bank if (among other events) default should be made in payment of the balance owing for the space of one calendar month after the account current had been closed. On Nov. 9, 1899, the customer wrote to the bank manager : " There was a meeting of creditors yesterday. . . . They agreed to accept all the assets I had. I gave them to understand that I was insured .... and that you held the policy .... as security for your account There was a trustee appointed. Trusting every one will get 20s. in the pound," &c. On Dec. 18 the bank sold the policy under the power in the mortgage : — Hold, that the letter amounted to a closing of the account, and that the bank were justified in realising their fecurity. Beeky v. Halifax Commercial Banking Co. Kekewich J. [1901] 1 Ch. 188 — Company — Loan by bank — Insuificieut assets — Receiver's remuneration — Priorities. See Company — Keceiver. 13. — Conviction set aside — No evidence of fraudu- lent appropriation — Liability of bank director. See Isle op Man. 1. — Deposit in bank— Obligation of banker to produce and deliver up — Extradition Act. See Subpoena Duces Tecum. 1. 'S&S'SSR— continued. — Director — Misfeasance — Payment of dividends out of capital — Negligence. See Company — Directors. 11. 8. — Ecidence — Order for inspection of boohs — Jurisdiction of magistrate — Bankers' Books Eoideiice Act, 1879 (42 Vict. c. 11), ss. 7, 10. A magistrate before whom criminal proceed- ings are being taken has power to make an order under s. 7 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879, for the prosecutor to inspect and take copies of entries in the books of a bank at which the deft, keeps an account. Rex r. Kinghoen Div. Ct. [1908] W. S. 804 1 [1908] 3 K. B. 949 — Income tax — Purchase of business of another bank. See Revenue — Income Tax. 6. — Indemnity — Action quia timet — Present debt — No demand by bank for payment — Parties. See Principal and Surety. 2. — Liability of bankers — Compradore's limited authority as their agent. See Hong Kong. 1 . — Liability of director of bank — Overdrafts of customers improperly allowed by cashier of bank. See Canada — Bank. 1. 9. — lAen, Banker's — Stockbrolter— Authority to borrow — Pledge of client's security — Overdraft — Special borrowing. Though bankers have a general lien upon the securities of a customer deposited with them to secure an overdraft, this lien does not attach to securities deposited by a customer and known to the bank to belong to some other person and to have been deposited for a special purpose . Where a customer draws a cheque for a sum in excess of the amount standing to the credit of his current account, it is in effect a request for a loan, and if the cheque is honoured the customer has borrowed money ; but it does not follow that a transaction of this kind is a borrowing upon security not belonging to the customer and deposited for another purpose. Hambro v. Burnand, [1904] 2 K. B. 10, distinguished. Cuthbert «. RobABTs, Lub- bock & Co. C. a. [1909] W. N. 185 ; [1909] 8 Ch. 886 — Marked cheque fraudulently altered — Negli- gence — Notice of dishonour — Reason- able delay. &B Canada — Bank. 2. — Mortgage to secure current account — Subse- quent mortgage — Appropriation of pay- ments — Rule in Clayton's Case. See Mortgage — Bank. 1. — Practice — Restricted power of liquidators of bank to sue in their own names — Power to amend by adding bank as plaintiffs. See Canada — Company. 3. — Retired pay of officer in Army — Pension due but not paid — Bank crediting amount to customer— Attachment of debts^ Garnishee order. See Attachment. 6, ( 1« ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 150 ) BANKER— CO ni/HMcrf. — Traders — Bank loan to purchase goods — Letter of lien on goods — Construction — Bill of sale. See Bankruptcy — Traders. 1. — Transfer of money from company's account to its managing director's overdrawn private account — Rights of banker. See Victoria. 1. — Transfer of stock — Attorney — Innocent mis- representation. See Principal and Agent. 3. — Will — Construction — " Heady money " — " Pecuniary investments " — Banker's deposit note. See Will — " Beady Money." 1. — Will — Specific legacy — Misdescription — Shares in a bank — Absorption by another bank — Extrinsic evidence. See Will — Specific Legacy. 1. BANKRUPTCY. Official Receiver (^Order dated April 17, 1907), Appointment of, during temporary vacancy of office, or during temporary ahsence of any Official Receiver, during illness or otherwise. Eeprint from W. N. 1907 (May 4), p. 149 See Current Index, 1907, p. Ixix. Banlirwptcy Act, 1883, Official Receiver — Order of Board of Trade dated May 30, 1908, directing a person being an officer of the said Board can discharge duties of Official Receiver during any temporary vacancy, ^'c. Eeprint from W. N.' 1908 (June 13), p. 172. See Current Index, 1908, p. Ixxi. Banhruptcy Rules, 1908, dated July 6, 1908, made pursuant to the Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 and 1890 — Warrants and arrests under s. 27 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (Aug. 1), p. 241. See Current Index, 1908, p. Ixxi. Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 and 1890 — General Rule, dated Aug. 20, 1908, in substitution for Rule 103 of the Bankruptcy Rules, 1886, made pursuant to s. 127 of the Bankruptcy Art, 1883. Eeprint fi-om W. N. 1908 (Aug. 29), p. 247. See Current Index, 1908, p. Ixxiii. Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 and 1890. Appendix to the General Rules. — Part II. Scale of Solicitor.^'' Costs {Reprint). 1908 (JET. — Legal). Price 2d. Can be obtaiiied nf Messrs. Eyre <|' Spottiswoode, of East Harding Street, Fetter Lane, B.C., or other Publishers. Bankruptcy Act, 1883. The Lord Chaticellor, by Order dated Feb. 10, 1909, assigned to the lion. Mr. Justice Phillimore the business under the Bankriqjtcy Act, 1883. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (Feb. 20), p. 87. See Current Index, 1909, p. xciv. Bankruptcy Act, 1883. — General Rule made pursuant to a. 127 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. — Bankruptcy Notice on County Court Judgment. Eepiint from "W. N. 1909 (July 31), p. 283. See Current Index, 1909, p. xciv, 'Bi.'S'K'&WTCY— continued. In General, col. 151. Act of Bankruptcy, col. 152. Adjudication, col. 154. Administration Orders, col. 154. Advertisements, col. 155. Annulment, col. 155. Appeal. See under Bankruptcy- Practice. Arrangement (Deeds of Arrangemenf), col. 157. Arrangements (^Sc/ieme of Arrangement), col. 158. Assets, col. 162. Assignme7it, Beeds of. See under Bankruptcy — Deeds of Assignment. Bankruptcy Notice. See under BANK- RUPTCY — Notice. Bill of Sale. iSse under Bill op Sale. Bo7id, col. 163. Books, col. 163. Committal, col. 164. Company, col. 164. Composition, col. 164. Compromise, col. 164. CoTdracts, col. 164. Copyrights, col. 165. Costs (_Costs and Feci) col 165. County Court, col. 171. Death, col. 171. Deeds of Arrangement. See under B KR KRUPTCT— Arrangement. Deeds of Assignment, col. 171. Discharge, col. 172. Disclaimer, col. 174. Discovery, col. 176. Distress, col. 176. Dividends, col. 176. Divorce, col. 176. Examination, col. 177, E-eecution, col. 177. Extradition, col. 177. Fees and Percentages. See under BANK- RUPTCY — Costs. Fraud, col. 178. Fraudulent Preference. See under Bankruptcy — Preference. Friendly Society, col. 179. Garnishee, col. 179. GxMrdian of the Poor, col. 179. Biterest, col. 179. Judgment, col. 179. Jurisdiction, col. 180. (-151 ) DIGEST |0F CASES, 1901—1910. ( 152 ) BATSKfLVPTCY—cmtinued. Leases, col. 180. Manager, col. 181. Married Woman. iSfee under Husband AND Wipe— Bankruptcy. Mortgages, col. 181. Mtctual Beits or Dealings, col. 182. Notice (Bankruptcy Notice'), col. 182. Offences, col. 190. Official receivers. See under Bank- EUPTCT — Eeceiver. Order and Disposition, col. 190. Partnership, col. 193. Patent, col. 193. Penal Interest, col. 193. Power of Appointment, col. 193. Practice, col. 194. Preference, col. 201. Preferential debt, col. 202. Principal and Surety, col. 202. Priority, col. 202. Prolate, col. 202. Proof, col. 203. Protected Transaction, col. 208. Receiver, col. 209. Receiving Order, col. 210. Redemption, col. 213. Repotted Ownei'ship, col. 214. Sale, col. 214. (SaZe o/ Goods, col. 214. Scotch Bankruptcy, col. 215. Secured creditors, col. 215. (Sef-o^, CO?. 219. Settlement, col. 221. Shares, col. 222. Sheriff, col. 222. jS»jfflZZ Bankruptcy, col. 222. Solicitor, col. 222. SiocJ Exchange, col. 222. :Z'Ai?'(? Parties, col. 223. Traders, col. 224. Tru^ee (Trustee in Bankruptcy), col. Undertaking, col. 232. Undischarged Bankrupt, col. 232. Vesting Orders, col. 236. Voluntary Settlement, col. 237. In General, — Councillor — Disqualification for " holding " office — Eemedy by quo warranto. See OOEPOKATION. 9. BANKRUPTCY (In 0i6n6XdX)— continued. — Curator bonis in Scotland — Right to appear in proceedings — Committee in England. See Lunacy, i. — Debt — Equitable assignment — Bankruptcy of assignor before receipt of letters. See Assignment. 1, — High bailiff's fees. See under Bailiffs and under County GouBT — Bailiffs. — Lessee adjudicated bankrupt on hia own petition — Lease — Covenant not to assign — Forfeiture. j&eLANDLOBDAUD Tenant. 12. — Settlement, Post-nuptial — Eecital of ante- nuptial agreement — Husband's interest determinable on bankruptcy. See Peaudulbnt Conveyance. 2. — Trustee in bankruptcy, Specific performance against vendor's. See Specific Pbepokmancb. 1. — Voluntary debt — Insolvent estate — Creditor — Priorities — Administration. See ExECUTOE — Administration. 3. — Will — Forfeiture — " Alienate or incumber " — Petition in bankruptcy by tenant for life. See Will— Forfeiture. 1. Act of Bankruptcy. 1. — Bankruptcy notice — Persons entitled to enfm'ce a final judgment — Trustee in bankruptcy of judgment creditor — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 J- 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 4, suh-s. 1 (g)— Bank- ruptcy Act, 1890 (53 ^ 54 Vict. c. 71), s. 1— Order xriL, r. 4 ; Order XLII., r. 23. The trustee in bankruptcy of a judgment creditor, who has obtained an order under Order xvil., r. 4, making him a party to the action, but has not obtained leave to issue execu- tion under Order XLII., r. 23, is not "a person who is for the time being entitled to enforce a final judgment " within the meaning of s. 1 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, and is therefore not entitled to issue a bankruptcy notice against the judgment debtor in respect of the judgment debt. In re Clements. Ea; parte Clements Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 260 Note. This case was referred to by C. A., In re Bagley, [1910] W. N. 224. See Bankruptcy— Arrangement. 2. — Deed of assignment for benefit of creditors — Effect of payment to trustee under deed. See Bankeuptcy — Deed of Assign- ment. 1. 2. — Foreigner resident abroad but trading in England — Jurisdiction — " Debtor " — Assignment executed abroad for benefit of creditors generally — Notice of suspension of payment — Receiving order — Bankruptcy Act, 18»3 (46 ^ 47 Vict, c. 52), s. 4, sub-s. 1 (a), {h) ; s. 6, sub-s. 1 (d). The Court of Bankruptcy has no jurisdiction to make a receiving order against a foreigner resident abroad, who without coming into the jurisdiction, has in this country had a place of ( 153 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 15i ) BANKRUPTCY (Act of IBa.nkxuT^tey')— continued. business, contracted debts, and acquired assets, and has executed abroad an assignment of his property for the benefit of his creditors generally. Such a. person is not " a debtor " within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 6, sub-s. 1 {d). Decision of C. A. reported as In re A. B. Sj' Co. [lyOO] 1 Q. B. 541, affirmed. CooKB f. Chakles A. VOGBLEE Go. H. L. (E) [1901] W. N. 2 ; [1901] A. C. 102. — Fraudulent assignment — Insolvent trader. See Bankeuptct — Fraud. 1. ' 3. — Married woman — " Carrying on " business sejJarately from husiand — Unpaid debts — " Absenting " — Act of Bankruptcy — Liability of married woman to bankruptcy laws — Receicing order — Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 4' 46 Yiet. c. 75), s. 1, sub-s. 5 — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 ^- 47 Vict. c. 52), s. i, stib-s. 1 (d). A married woman who has sold a business carried on by her separately from her husband must be deemed to be still " carrying on " the business within s. 1, sub-s. 5, of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, so long as the debts she has incurred in the business remain unpaid ; and therefore, in such a case, she is subject under that sub-section, in respect of her separate property, to the bankruptcy laws, so that a receiving order may be made against her at the instance of a trade creditor. In re Dagnall, [1896] 2 Q. B. 407, approved. A married woman who has bought a business out of her separate estate, and is carrying it on as her own, is not the less " carrying on a trade separately from her husband " within the above sub-section because the business happens to be carried on in the house in which she and her husband are living and the husband may be taking some part in the management of it. A married woman who, while carrying on a business separately from her husband, leaves her place of business without paying her creditors or notifying her change of address, commits an act of bankruptcy by " absenting herself with intent to delay or defeat her creditors ' ' within s. 4, sub-s. 1 (rf), of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, even though she leaves at her husband's request in order to live with him elsewhere. In re Woesley C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 809 4. — " Notice " — Petitio7i — Suspension of pay- ment — Verbal admission of insolvency — Debt- Payment on a contingency — Future partnersliip — ' ' Liquidated Sum ' ' — Damages — Petitioning creditor's debt — Loan by one partner to another, Becorery of— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 4- 47 Vict. 0. 52), e. 4, sub-s. 1 (/t) ; s. 6, sub-s. 1 (*) —Partnership Act, 1890 (53 ^- 54 Vict. c. 39), s. 3. Under an agreement made in Jan., 1900, between M., a stockbroker, and T., with a view to T.'s ultimately becoming a member of the Stock Exchange and entering into partnership with M. , T. paid 2000Z. into M.'s banking account, subject to a condition that if T. should not, on or before Sept. 29, 1900, become a member of the Stock Exchange, or if, having become a member, he should not be at liberty to enter a partnership within that period by reason of his recommenders BANKRUPTCY (Act of Ba.nkru]^tey')— continued withholding their consent, then and in either of those cases T. should have the option of deter- mining the agreement by notice, whereupon the 2000^. should be repaid by M. On June 28 M. was "hammered" on the Stock Exchange, and on July 3 he told T. in conversation that " he was utterlypenniless," that " he could not pay anybody," and that " he had lost everything." Thereupon T., without having given any notice purporting to determine the agreement, presented a bankruptcy petition against M., alleging that M. was indebted to him " in the sum of 2000Z. lent by him to M. pursu- ant to the agreement," and that the act of bankruptcy was that the debtor gave him "notice " on July 3 of having "suspended pay- ment of his debts " : — Seld, that the alleged debt of 2000L was not " a liquidated sum, payable either immediately or at some certain future time," within s. 6, sub-s. 1 (i), of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and was therefore not sufficient to support the petition, and that on July 3 T.'s only remedy was in damages for breach of the agreement : Meld, also, by Lord Alverstone G.J., that if on July 3 T. had been in fact a. " creditor " of M. , the statement then made by M. to T. would have been a " notice " of suspension of payment constituting an "act of bankruptcy" within 3. 4, sub-s. 1 (A.). In re MiLLEE C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 51 — Payment by third person on behalf of bank- rupt. See Bankeuptct — Third Party. 1. — Stock exchange. Default on — Deposit on securities — Objection to return securi- ties. See Bakkruptct — Stock Exchange. 1. Adjudication. 1. — Practice — Xotice to debtor — Adjudica- tion under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 4' 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 20, sub-s. 1 — Bankruptcy Rules, rr. 27, 28, 190-192A. When a receiving order has been made against a debtor and the creditors have resolved that he be adjudged bankrupt, the Court, under s. 20, sub-s. 1, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, has juris- diction on the application of the official receiver to make an adjudication without any previous notice to the debtor of the intention to make the application. But as a, general rule it is con- venient that notice should be given to the debtor. In re PoNSrOED. Bcr paHe PONSPOED C. A. [1904] W. N. 163 ; [1904] 2 K, B. 704 — Eeceiving order — Debtor's own petition — Committal order. Evasion of. See Bankruptcy — Receiving Order. 1. Administration Orders. Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 tcy Act — Deeds of Arrangement Rule — Affidavits — Bankruptcy Act, 1890. General rule, dated July 8, 1905, made ■pursiiant to s. 25 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890. [Draft rule. W. N. 1905 (June 3), p. 157] W. N. 1906 (Aug. 6), p. 227. 1. — Non-registration — Validity — Assignment for the ienefit of certain named creditors only — Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887 (50 ^ 51 Vict, c. 57), s. i,su})-s. 2 ; s. 19. An assignment by a debtor for the benefit of certain named creditors only without any option to the remaining creditors to assent to the deed is not a deed of arrangement for the benefit of the creditors generally within the Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887, and consequently does not require registration. Dictum of Vaughan Williams L.J. in Hedges V. Preston, (1889) 80 L. T. 847, explained and distinguished. In re Saumaeez. Ex parte Salaman C. A. [1907] "W. N. 109; [1907] 2 K, B. 170 2. — Registration — Validity — Defect in swearing of affidavit — Bankruptcy notice — Bank- ruptcy of judgment o'cditoj' — Devolution of title — Leave to trustee in bankruptcy to issue- exe- tion — -Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887 (50 <5' 51 Vict. c. 57), ss. 5, 6 — Commisionfirs for Oaths Act, 1889 (52 Vict. c. 10), s.l,su'b-ss. 1, 2—Bank- rnjitcy Act, 1890 (53 ^- 5i Vict. o. 71), s. 1— Rules of tlie Supreme Court, Order XVII., r. i. Order XXXVIII., r. 16, Order XLII., r. 23. At the heaving of this case it appeared that the Commissioner for Oaths before whom the alHdavit of Bagley which, under the Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887, was required to be registered with the deed of arrangement was sworn, was solicitor to the trustee of the deed, and it was contended that the deed of arrange- ment was consequently void because not duly registered. The registrar overruled the debtor's ob- jections, and made a receiving order. The debtor appealed. The C. A. dismissed the appeal. The Master of the KoUs, after observing that the efEect of the banla-uptoy proceedings against Gibson was that the garnishee order ceased to have any operation, said that the first objection to the receiving order under apneal wa"* that the official receiver in Gibson's bankruptcy had assented to the deed of arrangement ; to which the answer was that the deed of arrangement was a nullity. The Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887, required that every deed of arrangement should be regis- tered together with two affidavits, and one of those affidavits was sworn before a commissioner BANKRUPTCY (Arrangement)- who acted as solicitor to the trustee of the deed. By the Commissioners for Oaths Act, 1889, s. 1, a commissioner for oaths was empowered to take any affidavit for the purposes of any Court or matter, including matters relating to the regis- tration of any instrument, provided that none of the powers given by the section should be exer- cised in any proceeding in which he was solicitor to any of the parties. " Proceeding " in the proviso was a compendious term to include all matters comprised in the earlier part of the sec- tion, and was not confined, as had been contended, to litigious proceedings or proceedings in Court. Under Order xxxviii., r. 16, also the so-called affidavit was open to the same objection, namely, that it was sworn before a person who had no authority to take the oath. The result was that this affidavit was no affidavit at all, and that the deed, to the vahdity of which the filing of the affidavit was essential, was no deed at aU. This conclusion was in accordance with Baker v. Ambrose, [1896] 2 Q. B. 372, a decision not under the Deeds of Arrangement Act, but under the Bills of Sale Act, 1878 ; but for the present purpose there was no distinction between the two Acts. The appellant's next objection was that the official receiver, before obtaining leave to issue execution, ought to have been made a party to the action under Order XVII., r. i ; to which the answer was that, having obtained leave to issue execution under Order XLii., r. 23, he had brought himself precisely within the language of s. 1 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, and was to be deemed a creditor for the purposes of s. i of the principal Act. That answer ought to prevail. It was sufficient to say that the order for leave to issue execution remained unim- peached, but, speaking for himself, preferring the dictum of Cotton L.J., in In re Woodall, (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 479, 483, to that of Wright J. in In re Clements, [1901] 1 K. B. 260, 263, he thought tiiat it was not necessary for the official receiver, before obtaining leave to issue execution, to get himself made formally a party to the action. In re Bagley - C. A. [1910] W. N. 224 Arrangements. (Scheme of Arrangement.) 1. — Approval by Court — Security for compo- siti-on — Sufficiency — Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 4- 54 Vict. c. 71), s. 3, sub-s. 9. Though the Court will generally be reluctant to refuse to approve of a proposed scheme of arrangement by a debtor with his creditors which has been approved by the creditors, yet it is the duty of tlie Court, under s. 3, sub-s. 9, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, to consider whether the scheme is for tlie benefit of the creditors, and in particular whether it provides reasonable security for the payment of 7s. M. in the pound on all the unsecured debts provable against the debtor's estate, and to refuse to give the approval of the Court if it is iiot satisfied on these points. A proposed scheme of arrangement with creditors (which had been approved by the creditors by the proper majority) provided (inter alia) that the property of the debtors, which would have been divisible among their ( 113 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 160 ) BANKRUPTCY (Arrangements)— co?jii««tei. creditors if they were bankrupt, should vest in a trustee and should be administered by him as in bankruptcy. The trustee was, on the approval of the scheme by the Court, to pay in full all fees, costs, and expenses, including the remunera- tion of the trustee, and all preferential debts, and was then to pay to all the unsecured creilitors in respect of all debts provable under the receiving order, and in satisfaction of the same, a composi- tion of 20s. in the pound, payable in instalments of not less than 2s. 6d. in the pound, as and when the realization of the debtors' assets would allow. The payment of the preferential debts, fees, &c., and of the composition was to be secured by the vesting of the debtors' property in the trustee : — Held, that the scheme did not within the meaning of s. 3, sub-s, 9, provide " reasonable security " for the payment of a composition of 7s. 6d. in the pound, and that the scheme ought not to be approved by the Court. Semble, that, notwithstanding the decision in In re Pilling, [1903] 2 K. B. 50, there may be cases in which the Court might approve of a scheme which provided for the conditional with- drawal by some creditors of their claims. When the Court refuses to approve of a scheme of arrangement with creditors proposed by a debtor, an immediate adjudication of bank- ruptcy against him will be made only in the most exceptional circumstances. In re Flew, Ex parte Flbw - - C. A. [1906] W. N. 3 ; [1905] 1 E. B. 278 See No. 3, ielow. 2. — Cessio honorum — Construction — Agree- ment — Bankruptcy — Soheme of arrangement. Appeal by the pit. from the order of Kekewich J. holding that a fund obtained out of Court by him under an order made on Feb. 29, 1896, the Court being at the time unaware of the agreement of April 20, 1893, referred to in the report below, must be repaid to the Creditors' Assets Co., as being entitled thereto under the agreement : — Seld, that the effect of the agreement and the order approving it, by which "all the pro- perty " of the pit. Bath, the debtor, was vested in the oo., was a complete cessio bonorum made for the purpose of providing the co. with an adequate security for their reimbursement under the obligation they had undertaken of paying the whole of the creditors their debts in full : that the fund in question accordingly passed to the CO. absolutely under the agreement, there being nothing in it to narrow iis effect. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs. Bath v. Bath - - C. A. [1902] W. N, 91 3. — Composition — SoJieme of arrangement — Withdrawals hy creditm-s — Releases by majority of Dredilors — Conditional releases — Escrows — Composition payable to minority of creditors — Approval of Court — BanJiruptcy Act, 1890 (53 ^ 54 Vict. e. 71), s. 3. A debtor against whom a receiving order had been made submitted for the approval of the Court under s. 3 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, a proposed composition scheme consisting partly of releases which had been given biw by P.P, BANKRTJPTCy (Arrangements)— fl«wii«Mete. This case was considered by C. A., In re Flew, Ex parte Flew, [1905] 1 K. B. 278. See No. 1, above. — Deeds of arrangement. See under Bankritptcy — Arrangement (Deeds of Arrangement). 4. — Firm, banltrupt in England and in India — English trustee and Indian official assigned — Ehglish creditors and Indian creditors — Agreee ment fw pooling and distributing the assets — Sanction of Court — Jurisdiction. Where a firm is bankrupt in England and abroad, and has English and foreign assets and English and foreign creditors, the Court has jurisdiction to sanction an agreement between the trustee in bankruptcy in England and the official assignee abroad tor pooling all the assets and distributing them rateably amongst the English and foreign creditors, notwithstanding that the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, contains no express provisions authorizing such a scheme. In re P. Magfadyen & Co. Eae parte Viziana- GABAM Co. Bigham J. [1908] W. N. 32 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 676 Note. See In re Macfadyen, Ex parte Viziana- garam Mining Co., C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 817, Banltn-uptcy — Pfoof. 3. And see next Case. 6. — Partnership, Debtor's s/iare in a — Partnership turned into a limited company — Power of trustee to accept shares in company for debtor's interest — Comp7'omise — Sanction of Court —Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 ^ 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 57, mb-ss. 7, 8 ; s. 102, sub-s. 1. On Oct. 20, 1906, the firm of P. Macfadyen failed, and the same day Patrick Macfadyen, a member of the firm, died. The affairs of the firm and of Patrick Macfadyen were being adnjinistergd in bwkruptojr one Cocker bging ft ( 1«1 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 162 ) BANKBUPTCy (Arrangements)— co»W?meiZ. the trustee of the joint estate of the firm and of the separate estate of Patrick Macfadyen. From 1899 uniil their failure the firm were the managing agents of a syndicate owning valuable manganese mines in the central pro- vinces of India. The firm financed the syndicate, paid all their liabilities, and collected and received all their moneys. Patrick Macfadyen owned three-tenths of the syndicate ; the remaining seven-tenths belonged to three other persons. After P. Macfadyen's death it was ascertained that he had dealt improperly with the moneys of the syndicate, and the three surviving members of it claimed to charge 73,0002. against his separate estate and to set ofE this sum against his interest in the syndicate. The trustee did not admit the claim, negotiations ensued, and eventually it was arranged by way of compromise that the trustee should concur with the surviving members of the syndicate in forming a limited liability oo. to purchase as a going concern from Dec. 31 next the mines, &o., of the syndicate for 300,0002. in fully paid- up shares of 11. each in the co., that 43,0002. of the 73,0002. should be written oS as a loss of the syndicate, that the balance of 30,0002. should be paid out of P. Macfadyen's share of the profits of the syndicate for the current year, which were very large, and that three-tenths of the purchase-price of 300,0002. in fully paid-up shares of the co. should be allotted to the trustee in satisfaction of P. Macfadyen's interest in the syndicate. This arrangement was embodied in two conditional agreements, but, as there was a doubt whether the trustee could accept payment in fully paid-up shares in a co., the surviving owners of the syndicate applied to the Court for an order that the trustee might be ordered and authorized lo enter into the scheme. The committee of inspection of the joint and separate estates had accepted the proposed terms. Phillimore J. : I think there is jurisdiction, and under the circumstances I will make an order authorizing the trustee to enter into the scheme, irc re Patrick Macfadyen. Ex parte Glass - Phillimore J. [1908 J 'W. N. 13 See preceding Case. 6. — Meoeiving orAer — Debtor — Scheme of arrangement — Creditor — Withdrawal of Debt — Release — Security — Undue preference — Krww- ledge of debtor — Composition — " Debts provable" — Approval of scheme — Conduct of debtor — Official receiver's report — Misconduct — " Hash and hazardous speculation " — Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 S- 5* y-iot. c. 71), s. 3, snb-ss. 7, 8, 9, 10. Where a scheme of arrangement is submitted by a debtor under s. 3 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, and part of the arrangement is that certain creditors withdraw their debts, the Court will not refuse its sanction to the scheme merely on the ground that the withdrawals are on terms giving those creditors an advantage over the other creditors, provided that the withdrawals have not been obtained by the debtor himself, or by any person with the knowledge and on behalf of the debtor. Thus, a scheme of arrangement submitted by BAWKEUPTCY (Arrangements) — continued. a debtor against whom a receiving order had been made secured payment to the unsecured creditors, except two who had withdrawn their debts, of a sum of not less than 7». 6d. in the pound, as required by s. 3, sub-s. 9, of the Act. The withdrawals had been obtained by the debtor's brother, who had, but without any knowledge whatever on the part of the debtor himself, given them a security placing them, it was said, in a better position than the other creditors under the scheme : — Held, that, as the security given to the two withdrawing creditors was, neither in form nor in substance, the result of any bargain made by or with the knowledge of the debtor himself, it was not a ground for the Court refusing to sanction the scheme. The expression " debts provable " in s. 3, sub-s. 9, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890 — which requires that a scheme of arrangement shall, as a condition for its approval by the Court, provide reasonable security ior payment of not less than 7s. &d. in the pound " on all the unsecured debts provable against the debtor's estate " — means "debts provable," not at the date of the receiv- ing order, but at the time when the scheme comes before the Court for approval, and, there- fore, does not include debts which may have previously been withdrawn or released. Misconduct on the part of a, debtor, to be sufficient to justify the Court in refusing its sanction to a scheme under s. 3, sub-s. 9, must be of a gross character, or such as would make the sanction contrary to public policy. The mere fact that the official receiver has found in his report made under sub-s. 7 that the debtor has contributed to his failure by " rash and hazardous speculation " is not by itself a suffi- cient ground for refusal. In re E. A. B. C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 457 Note. Explained and distinguished by C. A., In re Pilling, [1903] 2 K. B. 50. See Ko. 3, above. Distinguished by C. A., In re Keet, [1905] 2 K. B. 666. See Hanhrujjtcy — Annulment. 1. — Eeceiving order — Provable debt carrying interest above 5 per cent. — Dividend. See Bankruptcz — Eeceiving Order. 7. Assets. 1. — Property of SanJt7-upt — Money advanced to bankrupt for special purpose — Payment to creditor for withdrawal of bankruptcy petition — ■ Bankruj/tcy Act, 1883 (46 S,' 47 Vict. c. 52), 6. 44. After the presentation of a bankruptcy peti- tion the debtor's solicitor paid 3002. to the peti- tioning creditor, on condition that the petition should be dismissed, and it was dismissed accordingly. The 3002. was advanced by the solicitor, and the debtor gave him a security for it. The debtor was soon afterwards adjudicated a bankrupt upon the petition of another creditor, and the trustee in the bankruptcy applied for an order that the creditor who had received the 3002. should refund it :— Held, upon the evidence, that the 3002. was impressed with a trust so that it could not be applied to any other purpgse than in paying the ( 163 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 161 ) BANKRUPTCY (Assets)- conitMmeii. creditor, and consequently that it did not form part of the bankrupt's general assets : Held, therefore, that the case was governed by In re Eogers, (1891) 8 Morr. 243, and that the trustee was not entitled to recover the money. Decision of Wright J., [1902] W. N. 103 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 55, affirmed. In re Dkuckek (No. 1). Hx parte Basdbn - C. A. [1902] W. N. 133 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 237 Assignment, Seeds of. See under Bankruptcy— Deeds of Assignment. Bankruptcy Notice. iSee under Bankbui'TCT — Notice. Bill of Sale. See under Bill of Sale. Bond. 1. — Arrest of debtor — Bond to enforce debtor's attendance for examination —Default of debtor — Forfeiture of bond — Whether Crown or creditors entitled to proceeds of bond — Bank- ruptcy Act, 1883 (46 J^ 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 25— Form of bond. Where a debtor, who has been arrested under s. 25 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, for failing to attend his examination, gives a bond with sureties to obtain his release from prison, the proceeds of the bond, if it is subsequently foi'feited, will go as a general rule, not to the Crown, but to the creditors, subject to any order the Court may make in any special case. In future the bond is to be given to the senior registrar in bankruptcy for the time bring. In re Gordon. In re Salmond Wright J. [1903] 2 K. B. 164 Books. 1. — Practice — Trustee's record booh — Right of debtor to inspect — Banhruptcy Act, 1883 (46 ^ 47 Vict. c. 52), a. ^—Banhruptcy Rules, rr. 16, 285, 287, 292. A debtor has no right under any circumstances to inspect the record book of the trustee in his bankruptcy, and the Court has no power to give him leave to do so. Decision of Bigham J., [1904] W. N. 169 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 760, affirmed. In re Solomons. Ex parte SOLOMONS - C. A. [1904j W. N. 188 ; [1904] 3 K. B. 917 2. — Underwriter at Lloyd's — Business car- ried on by underwriter on behalf of himself and " names " — Bamkruptcij of underwriter — Right of trustee to boohs of account. An underwriter at Lloyd's carried on an underwriting business on behalf of himself and also on behalf of five other persons, called his "names." An agreement was entered into between him and each " name," by which it was stipulated that proper underwriting and account books should be provided and kept in the usual manner, and should at all times be open to the inspection of the " name." The " name " was to pay to the underwriter a fixed sum per annum as a remuneration for his services in conducting the business, keeping and providing books and papers, and for providing a proper office and clerical assistants, &o. BANKRUPTCY (Books)— co«i! i n ueJ. The underwriter in fact kept books of account relating to the transactions in which he was jointly interested with the " names " or any of them, there being in the books six parallel columns, one for each " name," and one for the underwriter himself. The underwriter became bankrupt, the books being at this time in the possession of account- ants : — ■ Held, that the " names " had a joint property in the books with the bankrupt, and that the trustee in the bankruptcy was not entitled to have the books delivered up to him, but that the " names " must undertake to give to the trustee reasonable facilities for inspecting the books. Decision of Buckley J., [1904] W. N. 73, reversed. In re Bdknand. i& parte Bakeb, StTTTON & Co. - - C. A. [1904] W. N. 77 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 68 Committal. 1. — Non-payment of rates — Imprisonment — Receiving order — Release -Jurisdiction — Legal process — Punitive order — Distress for Rates Act^ 1849 (12 4- 13 Vict. c. 14). s. 2- Debtors Act, 1869 (32 4- 33 Vict. c. 62), s. 4, sub-s. 2—Banhraptcy Act, 1883 (46 ^- 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 10 sub-s. 2. A commitmeut under the Distress for Rates Act, 1849, 0. 2, for one month, unless the money should be sooner paid, is a punitive order, and is not a legal process to enforce payment within s. 10, sub-s. 2, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, so as to enable the Court of Bankruptcy under that sub-section to discharge the debtor from prison on the ground that whilst in prison a receiving order has been made against him. In re James EdgCOME. Ex parte jAMES Edgcome C. A. [1903] W. N..141 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 403 Company. See under Company — Bankruptcy. — Fraudulent preference — Voluntary followed by compulsory winding-up — Date of act of bankruptcy. See Company — ^Winding-up — Prefer- ence. 4. Composition. — Receiving order — Proposal for a composition rejected by the creditors — Debtor's application to expunge a proof — Locus standi of debtor — Costs. See Bankruptcy- Costs. 1. — Will — Trustee — Composition — Acceptance of dividend — Assent to composition. See Will — Trustee. 1. Compromise. — Agreement for pooling and distributing the assets — Sanction of Court. See Bankruptcy — Arrangement. 4. — Power of trustee to accept shares in company for debtor's interest — Sanction of Court See Bankruptcy — Arrangement. 5. Contracts. 1. — Contract for worhs— Payment by instal- ments on engineer's certificate — Specified firms to g2 ( 185 ) DIGKST OF CASKS, 1901—1910. ( 1«6 ) BANKRUPTCY (Contracts)— (10 Brisinier pendin/j extradition — Property found on hanlirupt at date of arrest — Retention by police — Title of trustee in banJiruptcy — Ecidence of crime — Order for delitery up of property — " Competent autho- rity" to malie order — Belgian Extradition Treaty, 1872, art. 12— Extradition Act, 1870 (33 cj- 34 Vict. c. 52), .ss. 9, 10. When a fugitive offender, arrested in England on an extradition warrant for offences committed in a foreign State, becomes bankrupt in England pending the hearing of the charge, the property found on him at the date of his arrest vests in his trustee in bankruptcy, subject to this — that it may on his committal be ordered to be delivered up with him to be used as evidence of the crime at the trial ; and, in such a case, the Secretary of State, in making the extradition order, should stipulate that, when the criminal proceedings in the foreign State are concluded, the property shall be restored to the jurisdiction of the English Bankruptcy Court. In such a case the competent authority in the first instance to decide what proy)erty found on the prisoner will serve as proof of the crime Is the Court which hears the charge and makes the committal order. In re BOEOVSKY & WbinbAUM. Ex parte Salaman - Wright J. [1902] W. N. 109 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 312 BANKRUPTCY— coftiiftwerf. Pees and Percentages. See under BANKRUPTCY— Costs. Fraud. 1. — Fraudulent assignment — Act of bank- ruptcy — Notice to company — Subsequent trans- ferees of debentures — Purchasers for talue without notice — litle of trustee in banhruptcy — Insolvent trader — Transfer of his business and anotJier's to company for shares anj, debentures — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 4- 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 4, sub-s. 1 {*) ; ss. 43, 44, 49—13 Eliz. c. 5. In Deo., 1902, S., an insolvent trader, through the agency of IST., sold and transferred his busi- ness and book debts, and also the business of M. which he bad contracted to purchase, and a large quantity of stock bought on credit not in the ordinary course of business, for 35,539Z. to a CO. which he promoted for that purpose. The purchase-money was paid, as to 4002. in cash, as to 10,000Z. in 100 debentures of lOOZ. each of the CO. , and as to the balance in fully paid-up shares of the CO. The debentures, at the request of N., were issued as follows — seven to B. fifteen to Z., thirty to N., thirty to M., and eighteen to S. The fully paid-up shares for the balance of the purchase-money were allotted to S., who had been appointed chairman of the board of direc- tors. The debentures issued to N. were the remuneration for his services to S. in the matter and B. and Z. were cash creditors of S. The first acting directors of the co. and N. were the mere instruments of S. in carrying through this transaction, which divested S. of substantially the whole of his property, and left him with trade creditors to a large amount and some cash creditors totally unprovided for. M.'s business was genuine, and he acted in good faith and without notice of any fraud. He accepted the 400Z. in cash and his debentures as payment for his business : and there were some bona fide shareholders of the co. Within three months S. was adjudicated bankrupt : — Held, that the transfer of S.'s property to the CO. was fraudulent and an act of bankruptcy within sub-s. 1 (V) of s. 4 of the Bankraptcy Act, 1883 ; that under the circumstances the co. must be taken to have had notice of the fraud ; and that under ss. 43 and 44 of the Act the trustee in bankruptcy, as against the Co., was entitled to the property of S. : — jleld, also, that under the circumstances N. was a party to the fraud, and that his debentures were not a charge upon the property of S. in the hands of the trustee : But field, that M. was protected by s. 49 of the Act, and that his debentures were a charge upon the property of S. in the hands of the trustee so far as the assets of the co. might prove insufficient to satisfy the same. In Jan., 1903, in a debenture-holder's action, a receiver was appointed of the business of the CO. Subsequently B. and Z. sold their deben- tures to X. and Y. at a heavy discount. X. and Y. were acquainted with S., and knew that he had transferred his business to the co. and had become bankrupt. They also knew of the deben- ture-holder's action and of the appointment of ( 179 ) DIGEST Oli' CASES, 1901—1910. ( 180 ) BANKKUPTCY (Fi:!i,Mi)~coiiHmieiI. the receiver, aad they respectively purchased their debentures without making any inquiries : — Held, that under the circumstances X. and Y. were put upon inquiry, and could not be said to be purchasers for value without notice, and that their debentures were not a charge upon the property of S. in the hands of the trustee. In re Slobodinsky. Me paiie IVIooEE Wright J. [1903] W. N. 154 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 517 — Fraudulent preference. See under Bankruptcy — Preference. Fraudulent Preference. See under Bankruptcy — Preference. Friendly Society. — Defaulting treasurer — Eemoval from office — Bankruptcy of treasurer — Preferential debt. See Friendly Society. 1. Garnishee. 1. — GarnUhee order nisi — ■ Payment hy garn'mhee to judgment creditor — SanTtruptcy of judgment debtor — Relation back of trustee's title to garnished debt. Where adebtor commits an act of bankruptcy and judgment is subsequently obtained against him by a creditor who obtains a garnishee order nisi attaching a debt due to the judgment debtor, the garnishee order nisi does not justify the gar- nishee in forthwith paying the debt t© the judgment creditor, and if he does so the debt will still from part of the judgment debtor's estate by virtue of the relation back of the title of the trustee in bankruptcy to the act of bank- ruptcy. The Court will therefore, in such a case, order the garnishee, upon an application by the trustee, to pay the amount of the attached debt to the tjijstee. In re Webster. ^w^aj'^e The OPFicEit JBecbivbr ■ Div. Ct. [1907] W. N. Zt'; [1907] 1 K. B. 623 Guardian of the Poor. ■ — Disqualification for office — " Composition or arrangement with creditors " — Adminis- tration. See Poor Law. 5. Interest. See also under Interest. — Estate of insolvent at date of judgment after- wards found sufiBcient to pay principal of debts. See Administration. 17. Judgment. See also under Judgment. — Judgment summons— Order for payment by instalments — Default. See Bankruptcy — Practice. 1. 1. — Petitioning creditor's debt — — Action by bankrupt to set aside judgment on grmmd of fraud — Jurisdiction. Where a person who has been adjudicated a bankrupt in consequence of his failure to BANKRUPTCY (Judgment)— co/j!:w»«y secured creditor for purpose of toting admitted — Appeal by debtor against admission of proof — Con- ditional withdrawal of po-oof refused — Leave to amend — Receiving order — Banhruptcy Act, 1883 (46 ^ 47 Vict. c.'52), Sched. II., r. 13. A creditor claiming to hold security for part of his debt, and who makes a proof for the unsecured balance for the purpose of voting on a composition proposed by the debtor, which proof is admitted for voting by the official receiver, will not, while an appeal against the decision of the official receiver is pending, be allowed to withdraw the proof conditionally ; but leave may be given to the creditor to amend the proof by revaluing his security. In re Clakk. Ex parte Buenos Ayees and Pacific By. Co. - Wright J. [1901] W. N. 112 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 655 — Debtor's application to expunge a proof — Locus standi of debtor. See Bankruptcy — Beceiving Order. 5 3. — Double proof — Partnership — Breach of trust — Director of company and member of partnership — Jlisapjrropriatiun of company's assets— Proof in respect of distinct contracts- Joint and several contract — Joint and separate proof— Banhruptcy Act, 1883 (46 ^- 47 Vict, c. 52), Soiled. II., r. 18. Where one member of a firm, being an express trustee, wrongfully concurs in a misappropriation by the firm of the trust fund, proof may be allowed against both the joint estate of the firm and the separate estate of the defaulting trustee ; and the fact that the trust fund pro- perly came in the first instance into the hands of the firm for a specific purpose, which the firm omitted to fulfil, makes no difference in this respect ; neither does it make any difference that the trust was not express and that the member of the firm had not originally possession of the trust fund. BANKRUPTCY (Vxoot)— continued. The same principle must also apply to eVery casein which there is a fiduciary relationship resting upon contract, such as that of a promoter, agent, or director of a company. In re Parhers, (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 84, followed and approved. Decision of Bigham J., [1908] W. N. 161, reversed. In re P. Macfadybn. Ex parte Viziana- GARAM Mining Co. C. A. [1908] W. N 198 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 817 Note. See In re Macfadyen ^ Co., Ex parte Viziana- garam Mining Co., ' Bigham J, [1908] 1KB. 675. Banhruptey — Arrangement. 4. — Gaming debt — New consideration — With- drawal of letter to debtofVclub — Bank- ruptcy of debtor — Provable debt. See Gaming. 1. 4. — • Goods in order and disposition of banh- rupt — Reputed ownership — Right of proof by true owne):for value of goods — Banhruptcy Act, 1883 (46 4- 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 37, sub-ss. 3, 8 ; «. 44, .Hub-s. 2 (iii.). At the date of the bankruptcy of the debtor, an art dealer, there were in his possession goods which had been entrusted to him by a customer to sell at the best prices he could get for them, and by an order made in the bankruptcy it was adj udged shat these goods passed to the trustee as being in the order and disposition of the bankrupt within the reputed ownership clause, s. 44, sub.-s. 2 (iii.), of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 :— Held, that the customer was entitled to prove in the bankruptcy for the value of the goods. Decision of Bigham J., [1907] W. N. 24 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 397, reversed. Inre BUTTON. Ex parte Haviside - C. A. [1907] W. N. 85 ; [1907] 8 K. B. 180 5. — Husband and wife — Proof of deit — Banhruptcy of husband— Wife surety for hus- band's debt — Payment of debt by wife — Right of exoneration — Money lent by wife to husband — Onus of proving whether lent for purpose of husband's business — Married, Women's Property Ad, 1882 (45 4- 46 Viet. c. 75), s. 3. A wife at the request of her husband (a trader) deposited with his bankers the title deeds of her separate real estate as security for advances to be made by them to him for the purpose of his business. The bankers made advances to him on the security of the deeds and a memorandum of deposit signed by the wife. She afterwards paid off his debt to the bankers. After his death an order was made for the administration of his estate in bankruptcy : — Held, that s. 3 of the Married Women's Pro- perty Act, 1882, did not apply, and that the wife was entitled to prove against the estate for the amount which she had paid to the bankers, with interest thereon. The wife also lent a sum of money to her husband, and she claimed to prove against his estate for that sum. She did not in her affidavit say that the loan was not made for the purpose of the husband's business, and the trustee of the estate adduced no evidence that it was made for ( 205 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 206 ) BANKRUPTCY (Proof)— continued. that purpose, and he did not cross-examine the wife : — add, that the proof ought to be admitted. Per Vaughan Williams L.J. : In re Ge.nese^ (1885) 16 Q. B. D. 700, must not be understood as a decision that s. 3 of the Married Women's Pro- perty Act, 1882, in every case throws on a wife who is claiming to prove in her husband's bank- ruptcy for money lent by her to him the onus of shewing that the loan was not made for the purpose of his business. In re Ceonmiee. Ex parte Ceonmiee C. A. [1901] W. N. 20 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 480 — "Inadvertence" — Proof of debt — Secured creditor— Omission to value security. See Company — Winding-up — Proof. 1. 6. — Money-lender, Proof of deit by — Wit/i- . draioal of 2»'oof — Money-lenders Act, 1900 (63<:5' 64 Vict. e. 51), s.\, sui-s. 3 — Jurisdiction of Sanliruptcy Court to grant relief wider. A bankrupt was indebted to a money-lender for money lent, the money-lender holding a security for the debt. The creditor lodged a proof in the bankruptcy for the debt stating the amount at which he valued the security. The proof was not made use of in voting at any meeting of creditors. The trustee having required the creditor to give up the security under Sched. I., r. 12, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, he gave notice of withdrawal of the proof and of intention to correct the valuation by a new proof. The trustee then moved the Bank- ruptcy Court for an order for an account, and for relief under the Money-lenders Act, 1900 : — HeldjthaX the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court to exercise the powers of the Money- lenders Act arises only under s. 1, sub-s. 3, of that Act, and is confined to cases in which there is an application before the Court relating to the admission or amount of a proof by a money- lender ; that, as the proof had not been used either for purposes of voting or of claiming a dividend, the creditor was at liberty to withdraw it without the consent either of the trustee or of the Court ; and that, as there was consequently no proof by the money-lender before the Court, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion. /» 7'e Atteee. JEx parte VfA-^V) Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 868 7. — Practice — Administration — Imolrent estate — Secured creditor — Withdrawal of proof — Certificate — Application to restore proof—Bank- ruptcy Rules — Banh'uptcy Act, 1883 (46 4" 47 Vict. c. 52), Sched. II.— Judicature Act, 1875 C38 # 39 Vict. c. 77), s. 10— J?. S. C, Order LV., rr. 44, 57, 70, 71. E. MoMurdo died in 1889 insolvent, and an order was made for the administration of his estate. A creditor for 47,O00Z. held as security (inter alia) shares and debentures of the Delagoa ■ Bay Ey. The ry. was seized by the Portuguese Government, and an arbitration tribunal was appointed in 1891. The creditor declined to prove for his debt, and stated that he preferred to rely on his securities. In 1 893 the chief clerk filed his certificate, in which the creditor's claim was entered as disallowed. In 1900 the award BANKRUPTCY CPioot)— continued. was made, and resulted in the creditor only receiving 1448^. in respect of his shares and debentures. In Jan., 1902, he took out a sum- mons to vary the certificate by allowing his claim, and for liberty to prove for his debt : — Held, by Swinfen Eady J., that the Chancery practice still applied to the administration of insolvent estates, although by s. 10 of the Judi- cature Act, 1875, the Bankruptcy Rules were also in force ; therefore the creditors could not come in and prove after certificate, unless he shewed special circumstances in his favour ; and that he had not done so. Held, by the C. A., that under a. 10 of the Judicature Act, 1875, the Bankruptcy Rules applied to the case, and that under them the creditor could come in and prove at any time if there were assets undistributed, and, if no in- justice would be caused, that he could do the same thing in an administration in the Ch. Div. ; that, inasmuch as his debt had not been adjudicated upon, the disallowance of it in the certificate was not a fatal objection ; that if it was necessary to shew special circumstances he had done so ; that the certificate ne^d not be varied ; and that the creditor must be allowed upon terms to come in and prove. Semtle, a mortgagee of shares is not bound to watch the market so as to sell them at the highest price ; and he does not by failing to sell at the most favourable opportunity lose his right to prove against the estate of the mortgagor. Decision of Swinfen Eady J., [1902] W. N. 87, reversed. In re McMuEDO. Penpibld v. McMuEDO C. A. [1902J Vf. N. 112 ; [1902] 3 Ch. 684 8. — Principal and surety — Behenture of limited company — Behenture interest guaranteed — Bissolution of company — Bankruptcy of guarantor — Proof for future i )aerest — Companies Act, 1862 (25 ^- 26 Vict. c. 89), -s. 143. A. guaranteed B. the regular payment of the interest payable under the debentm-e of a limited CO. until the principal sum secured by the deben- ture was repaid by the co. Some time after- wards the CO. went into liquidation and was dissolved by virtue of s. 143 of the Companies Act, 1862. Subseqitently A. became bankrupt :— Held, that, notwithstanding the dissolution of the CO., B. was entitled to prove in A.'s bank- ruptcy for the estimated value of the future interest payable under the guarantee. In re FitzGbobgb. Bx parte EoBSON Bigham J. [1906] "W. N. 17 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 468 9- — Principal and surety — Mortgage of policy of insurance — Covenant to pay interest and premiums — Indemnity of surety iy principal — Bankruptcy of principal— Proof of.mretyfor estimated amount of liaiility to pay future interest and premiums — Douhle proof. By an indenture of mortgage the mortgagor assigned to the mortgagee a policy of insurance on the mortgagor's life to secure the repayment of an advance of 500L which the mortgagor covenanted to repay on a certain date, and the mortgagor and another person as surety jointly and severally covenanted with the mortgagee tp ( 307 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1001—1910. ( 208 ) BANKRUPTCY (Pioofy—eonthmed. pay interest so long after the said date as any principal money remained due, and to pay all jHremiums on the policy, and, if the policy should become void, the cost of effecting a new policy. The mortgagor subsequently agreed to indemnify the surety against any sums which he might be called upon to pay under his covenants with the mortgagee. Ho part of the principal money was repaid, and the mortgagor became bankrupt. The mortgagee proved in the bankruptcy for the principal money less an amount at which he valued the policy. The surety claimed, under the agreement to indemnify, to prove for the estimated amount of his liability to the mort- gagee for future interest and premiums ; — Meld, that the surety was not entitled to prove under either head. In, re Moss. JUx jiarte Hallet - Dlv. Ct. [19051 2 K. B. 807 — Eeceiving order — Scheme of arrangement — Provable debt carrying interest above 5 per cent. Sec Bankkuptct — Eeceiving Order. 7. 10. — Secured creditor — Increase in value of security — Amending proof — Tiine — BanTtrvptcy Act, 1883 (i6 ^- 47' Vict. c. 52), Sched. II., r. 13. , In 1895 a debtor, against whom a receiving order had been made, lodged a scheme providing for the payment of 10s. in the pound to his unsecured creditors, exclusive of M., whom he alleged to be fully secured. The scheme was duly accepted by the creditors. M. took no pai-t in the proceedings, bat lodged a proof in which he assessed the value of his security at one half of the amount of his debt, and claimed to prove as an unsecured creditor for the other half, and his proof was admitted. The scheme fell through in consequence of M.'s proof, which he refused to withdraw, and the debtor's estate paid only Is. in the pound. In Jan., 1903, M.'s security became greatly increased in value, and in May, 1904, he applied under rule 13 of Sched. II. to amend his proof by revaluing his security on the footing that he was fully secured : — Held, that M. had done nothing to disentitle himself to the relief he claimed, and that his application must be granted. In re Fanbhawe. JEx parte Le Marchant Bigrhftm J. [1904] W. N. 211 ; [1905] 1 K. B, 170 — Secured creditors — Proof — Lumping debts and securities — Debtor's right to redeem. See Babkeuptcy — ^Bedemptiou. 1. — Secured creditors — Separate securities — Lumping debts and secunties. See Bankbuptcy — Secured Creditors. 1. 11. — Sliamsale by debtor — Part payment of purchase-money — Right of proof by purchaser for money actually paid. The owner of a business, who had procured A. to become surety for the payment of a debt, and for that purpose to join him in making certain promissory notes, upon the eve of his bankruptcy entered into an agreement with A. for the sale to him of his business and stock-in- trade. By the terms of the agreement A., by BANKRUPTCY (ixoot)— continued, vraj of part payment of the purchase-money, took over the sole liability upon the notes. Subse- quently the vendor was adjudicated bankrupt, and the trustee in bankruptcy obtained a judg- ment declaring that the agreement and sale wore a sham and void. A., who in the meantime had paid the notes, then put forward a proof against the debtor's estate for the money so paid as in respect of a consideration which had failed : — Held, upon the authority of lit re Cross, (1848) 4 De G. & Sm. 364, n., and Mx parte P/Hllips,\lSS8) 36 W. R. 567, that, although the debtor's estate had had the benefit of the payment, A. could not prove for it, as it had been paid in the course of carrying out a trans- action devised in fraud of the general body of creditors ; that so much of the fraudulent agree- ment as was disadvantageous to A., and precluded him from having reoourae to the debtor as the principal maker of the notes, was binding on him, though the part which was advantageous to him did not bind the other creditors. In re Myees. Hx parte Myees - Div. Ct. [1908] W. N. 51 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 941 — Solicitor and client — Bankruptcy — Cash accounts — Draft bills of costs — Right to require particulais and vouchers. See BA2fKEUPTCY — Trustee. 6. — Trustee, Bankruptcy of — Breach of trust — Proof against bankrupt's estate. See TEtrsTBB — InvestmentB. 17. — Trustee, Compromise with one — Right to prove in the bankruptcy of another trustee for the full amount of the lia- bility. See Trustee — ^Release. 1. 12. — Voluntary payment by third party to creditor fur the loss sustained — Creditor's right to prove for the whole debt — Loan on forged security. At the date of his bankruptcy A. owed B. some 16,500Z. for moneys advanced to him by B. on the deposit of a transfer of shares which turned out to be a forgerj^ Subsequently C, who was formerly A.'s partner, whilst repudiat- ing all liability for A.'s fraud, voluntarily paid B. 6500Z. for the loss thereby sustained. This payment was made without A.'s knowledge : — " Held, affirming Buckley J., [1904] W.N. 64, that the payment was not made on account of either the debt or the debtor, and that C. could prove for the full amount of the debt without deducting the 6500Z. In re EoWB. Ex parte Dbeenbtjeg & Co. - C. A. [1904] "W. N. 98 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 483 Protected Transaction. — Deed of assignment for benefit of creditors. See under Bankruptcy — Deed of Assignment. 1. — Mortgage of chose in action after com - niencement of bankruptcy — Sana fides — Protected transaction — Assignment — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 4- 47 Vict. V 52), s. 49). After the presentation of a bankruptcy peti- tion against debtors on which a receiving order was made, the debtors, before the date of the ( 209 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 210 ) BANKRUPTCY (Protected Transaction)— co»M. receiving order, assigned a sum of money pay- able to them to one of their creditors to secure a debt due by them to him, and he took the assignment in good faith and without notice of nny act of bankruptcy committed by the debtors : — Held, that the assignment was protected by s. 49 of the Bankruptcy Act, and was good as against the trustee in bankruptcy. In re Badham, (1893) 10 Morr. 252, distin- guished. In. re D0NKLET &; Son. Ex parte Waller - - Bigham J. [1905] W. N. 132 ; [1905] 8 K. B. 683 Beceiver. Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 and 1890. Duties of official receiver during temporari/ vacancy. Re- print from W. N. 1906 (June 9), p. 170. See CUEKBNT Index, 1906, p. Ixviii. Official Receiver (Order dated April 17, 1907), ApjMlntment of, during temporary vacancy of office, or during temjwrary absence of any Official Iteceiver during illness or otherwise. Reprint from W. N. 1907 (May 4), p. 149. i See CnuEENT Index, 1907, p. Ixix. — Banlcruptcy — Mutual dealings — Set-off — Company — Receiver of debtor's interest in debenture stock. See BAifKEUPTcy — Set-off. 4. 1. — Petitioning creditor — Beht due to a partn£rsliiji — Dissolution of partnei'ship — Iteceiver ap2>ointed in ^jacfweci/iy; action — Assignment of judgment debt — Leave to receiver to issue execution — Banltruptcy Act, 1883 (46 Ji' 47 Viet. V. 52), s. 6. On the dissolution of a firm of stockbrokers by the death of one of the partners the partner- ship assets, including a debt due to the late firm in respect of certain Stock Exchange transac- tions, were assigned by the surviving partners to L. for the purpose of winding up the partnership, and notice of the assignment was served on the debtor. L. then recovered judgment for the amount of the debt. Subsequently an action was commenced in the Ch. Div. for the winding up of the partnership, and in that action a receiver was appointed of the partnership assets. The receiver took an assignment of the judgment debt from L., and obtained leave to issue execu- tioD. He then served a bankruptcy notice on the debtor, and on the failure of the debtor to comply with the notice a bankruptcy petition was presented against him by the receiver, the surviving partners, and the personal representa- tives of the deceased partner : — Ileld, that inasmuch as the receiver had obtained an assignment of the judgment debt he was a creditor entitled to present a bankruptcy petition. In re Saclter, (1888) 22 Q. B. D. 179, only decides that a, receiver who cannot sue in his own name cannot be a good petitioning creditor. Dictum of Lord Esher in that case dissented from. In re Macoun 0. A. ri904] W. N. 166 ; tl904j 2 K. B. 700 'Bk'S'K.'RV'eTCY— continued. Beceiving Order. 1, — ■ Adjudication — Debtor's own petition- Committal order, JEoasion of — Abuse of process of Court — Annulling bankruptcy — Jurisdiction — Assets — Personal earnings — Administration in banhrupitcy . A creditor obtained judgment against a debtor, a furniture dealer's salesman, whose sole income was derived from his salary or wages, payable weekly, and commission on his sales. He had two children dependent upon him. On the debtor failing to pay the judgment debt, the creditor obtained, on a judgment sum- mons, an order for payment of the debt by instalments. The instalments having fallen into arrear, the credilor obtained a committal order for the amount of the arrears, under pressure of which order the debtor paid the money. The instalments having again fallen into arrear, the creditor obtained a second committal order, whereupon the debtor, finding himself unable to comply with it, presented a bankruptcy petition, which was followed, upon his own application, by a receiving order and adjudication. The judgment creditor was his only creditor, and he had no assets beyond the personal earnings from his employment. The judgment creditor then applied for annulment of the bankruptcy proceedings on the ground that they were an abuse of the process of the Court ; but the regis- trar refused the application. On appeal : — Held, that the proceedings were not, in the circumstances, an abuse of the process of the Court, and in fact would not prejudice the judg- ment creditor, inasmuch as the personal earnings of the bankrupt, beyond what was necessary for the maintenance of himself and his family, could be applied, in the proceedings, towards payment of the judgment debt : In re Roberts, [1900] 1 Q. B. 122. The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs. Semble, it was the intention of the Legislature, by the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, to enable a debtor, in a proper case, to relieve himself from the pressure of a committal order by obtaining an adjudication in bankruptcy against himself. In re Hancock - C. A. [1904] W. N. 37 ; [1904] 1 E. B. 685 — Bankruptcy notice — Bill of exchange — Con- ditional payment — Dishonoured bill — Bill outstanding in third party. See Bankruptcy — Notice. 3. — Contractor, Receiving order against — Subse- quent order by engineer for direct pay- ment to firms — Title of trustee — Secured creditors. See Bankruptcy — Contracts. 1. 2. — Coats in Divorce Court — Order to pay — Default — Judgment sxtminons — Receiving order in lieu of committal — Practice — Debtors Act, 1869 (32 ^- 33 Vict. c. 62) s. o— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 4- 47 T7rf. c. 52), s. 103, xub-s. 5. The debtor, as the co-respondent to a husband's petition in the Divorce Court, was ordered to pay the petitioner's costs of the suit, which were subsequently taxed at llOl. 7s. lOd. The debtor was then ordered to pay the ( 211 ) DIGEST OF GASES, 1901—1910. ( 212 ) BANKRUPTCY (Receiving Oxiet)—-coittimw(l. IWl. Is, Wd. by a specified date to the peti- tioner's solicitors, but did not comply with the order, whereupon the solicitors issued against him a debtor's summons under the Debtors Act, 1869, at the hearing oJ which there was evidence that he had means to pay : — Held, that there was jurisdiction under s. 103 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, to make a receiving order against the debtor. -Z«reHALLMAM. Ex parte ELLIS & COLLIBB - Fhillimore J. [1909] "W. W. 137 i [1909] 2 K. B. 430 — Foreigner resident abroad but trading in England — Jurisdiction. See BANKBUPTcy — Act of Bank- ruptcy. 2. 3. — Jurisdiction — Foreigner — " Ordinarily resided" in England — Banhrnptcy Act, 1883 (46 4- 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 6, sub-s. 1 (d). The debtor was an American citizen. He was engaged in some protracted litigation in England, and on Jan. 2, 1900, he came over to England for the purpose of attending to that litigation. He remained here until Aug. 7, 1900, when he went back to America. He returned to England in the middle of Nov., 1900, and remained there till May, 1901. While he was in Europe he stopped in various hotels in London, and paid many short visits to the Continent. In May, 1901, a bankruptcy petition was presented against him, on which the regis- trar made a receiving order, which was affirmed by the C. A. in Nov., 1901. In Nov., 1902, the Court ordered a rehearing of the petition, mainly on the ground that there had been a mistake in the notes of the evidence. On the rehearing the registrar affirmed his former decision. He held that the debtor had, " within a year before the date of the presentation of the petition, ordi- narily resided " in England within the meaning of sub-s. 1 ((f) of s. 6 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. The registrar came to the conclusion on the evidence that during the year in question the debtor had been for 242 days in England. The Court dismissed the appeal, and held that for only three months during the year in ques- tion was the debtor continuously absent from London. During the remainder of the period he was in London for a definite purpose, which made it necessary, or at any rate most con- venient, that he should be there, and, though he made occasional excursions to the Continent, the central place of- his dwelling was London. The question was, not whether it could be said of a man at large with reference to his domicil that he "ordinarily resided" in England ; the Court had to deal only with a specified year, and that would cover the case of a man who was not domiciled in England. A long sojourn was not a sine qua non. There must be some duration ; two or three days would not be suffi- cient. The question was one of fact, and one of the matters to be taken into account was the purpose for which the man was in England. There was ample evidence justifying the regis- trar in coming to the conclusion that the debtor bad " ordinarily resided " in England within the BANKRUPTCY (Receiving Qiiev')— continued. year in question. Ji» warts C. Bright. In re 0. Bright - - - C. A. [1903] W. N. 17 — Life policies — Payment of premiums fi-om date of receiving order. See BANKEUPTcr — Secured Creditors. 1. — Married woman — "Carrying on" business separately from husband — " Absenting " — Act of bankruptcy. See Bankeuptcy — Act of Bankruptcy. 3. — Married woman — Separate trading — Separate property. See Husband and 'Wife — Bankruptcy. 1. 4. — Money-lender, Debt to — " Harsh and unconscionable transaction " — " Excessive in- terest" — Power of Court to reopen transaction — Money-lenders Act, 1900 (62 ^- 63 Tid. c. ."51), s. 1, sub-ss. 1, 3. Under s. 1 of the Money-lenders Act, 1900, a transaction with a money-lender can be reopened when the Court is satisfied that the transaction is " harsh and unconscionable," even though it is not " such that a Court of Equity would have given relief " before the Act. Decision of Ridley J. in Wiltoii ^' Co. v. Osborn, [1901] 2 K. B. 110, disapproved. This power to give relief can be exercised by the Court of Bankruptcy upon the hearing of a petition by a money-lender for a receiving order against a borrower, the petition being founded on a final judgment recovered in an action in which the debtor did not apply for relief under s. 1. Senible, that the interest charged upon a loan may be so excessive as of itself to render the transaction " harsh and unconscionable." In re A Debtor. Ex parte The Debtor C. A. [1903] ■W. N. 48 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 705 5. — Petitioning creditor — Locus standi — Assignment for benefit of creditors — Petitioning creditor disentitled to use assignment as act of banliruptcy — Petition founded on independent act of banltruptcy. A creditor, who has so acted with reference to an assignment for the benefit of creditors executed by his debtor that he cannot be allowed to found a bankruptcy petition against the debtoii.on the deed as an act of bankruptcy, is yet, if he is not bound by the deed, entitled to present a bankruptcy petition against, the debtor founded on an independent act of bank- ruptcy, though the result may be that the deed will be avoided as against the trustee in the debtor's bankruptcy. Dictum of Lord Cairns L.J. in Ex 2>arte Stray, (1867) L. K. 2 Ch. at p. 381. adopted. Dictum of Vaughan Williams J. in In re Woodrojf, (1897) 4 Mans, at p. 49, approved. In re Mills. Ex parte Mills C. A. [1906] ■W. N. 4; [1906] 1 K. B. 389 — Power of appointment — Assets — Creditors subsequent to receiving order — Property divisible among creditors. See Bankruptcy — Power of Appoint* ment. 1. ( 213 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2U ) BANKRUPTCY (Beceiving Oiier)—cordimied. 6. — Rescind, Junsdiction to — Aiuse of process of Court. A debtor, with the intention of evading com- mittal orders made against him upon judgment summonses, presented his own bankruptcy peti- tion, upon which a receiving order was made. He had previously at short intervals and with the same object presented two other bankruptcy petitions upon which receiving orders had been made, and was an undischarged bankrupt under three bankruptcies : — IfHd, that the presentation of the petition by the debtor under such circumstances was an abuse of the process of the Court, and that the receiving order founded upon it must be rescinded. Ji-r 2>arte Painter, In re Pni/tter, [1895] 1 Q. B. 85, distinguished. Zft ?'e Bbtts. E.c parte OFnciAL Kecbivbr Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 39 — Scheme of arrangement — Creditor — With- drawal of debt. See Bankeuptcy — ^Arrangement. 3. 7. — Scheme of arrangement — ProvaWe debt earri/hiff interest ahore 5 j^er cent. — Diridend — Bauhrnptey Act, 1890 (53 Sf 54 Vict. c. 71), *. 3, siib-s. 9 ; s. 23. 1 1 is competent for a debtor in carrying on a scheme of arrangement under s. 3 of the Bank- ruptcy Act, 1890, with the consent of his creditors and the approval of the Court, to exclude the application of s. 23 of the Act. In re Nepean. Mr parte Eamchund Wright J. [1903] W. N. 67 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 794 — Stockbroker — Right of Stock Exchange credi- tor to petition in bankruptcy. See Stock Exchange. 3. Bedemption. 1. — Adjudication — Secured creditors — Proof — Lunipinr/ debts and securities — Ai/grer/ate assessed value — Ko separate assessment — Shares ■in ships — Vendor's lien — Admission of 2>roof — Composition — Annulment of banlirujitey — liecest- ing — Debtor's right to redeem. The pit. was adjudicated bankrupt on Aug. 26, 1899. The defts., who had various debts and various securities, sent in their proof as secured creditors, lumping together their debts and securities and claiming to prove for the balance. The trustee admitted the proof without separating the debts or having the separate value of the several securities assessed in the proof. Subsequently a scheme for composition was approved, and on payment of the com- position the bankruptcy was annulled on Mar. 6, 1901, and the outstanding estate of the pit. ordered to revest in him. In Jan., 1907, the pit. commenced an action for redemption of the securities : — ■ Held, that at and previous to the compo- sition the estate of the pit. held by the defts., having regard to the proof, formed a security to them for the aggregate assessed value of their securities, and that they had nothing more than a security then or at time of action brought, and that the pit. was entitled to redeem all the securities upon payment of interest from the date of proof. BANKKTTPTCY (Bedemption) — continued. Qucere whether, apart from the special cir- cumstances of the case, the defts. were in strict- ness secured creditors in respect of their vendors' lien for the unpaid purchase-moneys of shares in ships, which shares had been sold by them to the pit. but still remained registered in their names and had never been transferred by them ; and whether these were secured debts. Peakce r. BuLLAED, King & Co. - Joyce J. [1908] W. N. 48 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 780 Xote. Overruled on one point by C. A., In re Pearce's Trusts, [1909] 2 Ch. 492. See Banlt- ruptcg —Secured Creditors. 1. — Proof — Lumping debts and securities — Redemption of one of the securities. Sec Bankruptcy — Secured Creditors. 1. Bepnted Ownership. — ■ Proof — Goods in order and disposition of bankrupt. See Bankruptcy — Proof. 4. Sale. — Sham sale by debtor — Eight of proof. 4. /See Bankruptcy — Proof. 11. Sale of Goods. 1. — Contract induced Vg fraud of purchaser — Vendor's right to disaffirm contract — Disaffirm- ance after receiring order against jmrchaser — Title of trustee in banhruptcij — Mutual dealings — Set-off — Da mages for fraud — Banltruptcu Act. 1883 (46 4- 47 Vict. c. 52), .«. 38, 43, 44. A sale of goods upon credit was induced by the fraud of the purchaser, who upon obtaining them pledged them with a pawnbroker. Aft«r the purchaser had paid part of the price a receiving order in bankruptcy was made against him. The vendor then discovered the fraud and disaffirmed the contract, retaking possession of the goods upon payment to the pawnbroker of the sum advanced upon them. The purchaser having been adjudicated bankrupt, his trustee in bankruptcy brought an action against the vendor, claiming (l.)to recover the goods or their value after giving credit for the sum paid to the pawn- broker to redeem them ; or (2.) in the alternative to recover the amount paid to the vendor on account of the purchase price : — Held, (1.) upon the authority of In re East- gate, E.V parte Ward, [1905] 1 K. B. 465, that the trustee acquired the property in the goods subject to the right of the vendor to dis- afBrm the contract of sale and to retake possession of the goods ; that the vendor had a right to disaffirm the contract after the date of the receiving order ; and that therefore the trustee was not entitled to recover the goods or their value ; and (2.) upon the authority of Jack V. Kipping, (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 113, that the vendor was entitled, under s. 38 of the Bank- ruptcy Act, 1883, to set off the damages caused by the fraud of the bankrupt, in this case the sum paid to I he pawnbroker to redeem the goods, against the amount paid on account of the purchase price. Tilley r. Bowman, Ld. Uamjltpu J. [1910] 1 K B, 745 ( 21S ) BAM KJLVPTCY—cojitmued. Scotch Bankruptcy. 1. - - Abscoiuli/ig ianhrupt — • Warrant for arrest — Ejieciitlng warraiit hi Eitijlarul — Bank- ruptfxj (^Scotlani) Act, 1856 (19 ^- 20 Vict. c. 79), s. Sd—Banhnq/tcy Act, 1883 (46 i- 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 117. On June 9, 1903, the estates of Thomas Dobson were sequestered at Edinburgh in terms of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act, 1856, and James Craig was duly appointed trustee of the said estates. Thomas Dobson failed to appear at Edinburgh for his public examination on July 8 and absconded from Scotland, and on July 29 a warrant was granted by the Lord Ordinary for the arrest of Thomas Dobson in any part of Great Britain or Ireland, other than Scotland, pursuant to s. 89 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act, 1856, which enacts : " If the bankrupt be in any part of Great Britain and Ireland, other than Scotland, the Lord Ordinary may, on petition by the trustee, grant warrant to all judges, magistrates, justices of the.peace, and officers of the law, to apprehend and transmit him to the place of his examination, and to enforce the same, which they are hereby required to do ... . and such warrant shall be a sufficient authority for the apprehension, transmission, detention, and Imprisonment of the bankrupt." The trustee, having ascertained that Dobson was in London, transmitted the warrant to the Scot- land Tard authorities, and requested them to execute it ; but they declined, and alleged that there was a police regulation which prevented their doing so. The trustee now applied ex parte to the English Bankruptcy Court under s. 117 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, for assistance- in the matter. Wright J. : I express no opinion on the police regulation. I will make an order for the aiTest of the bankrupt, which will be issued to the proper officer of the Court. Itt re Dobson. Rr pai-te CUAIG Wright J. [1903] W. N. 155 Secured Creditors. 1. — Adjudication — Secured creditors — Sejia- rate securities — Proof — Lu/mpinfj dehts and securities — Aggregate assessed talue — Shares in ships — Vendor'' s lien — Admission of proof — liedemptiun of one of the securities— Life policies —Payment of premiums frdm date of receiving order — Salvage — Interest. P. was adjudicated bankrupt in Aug., 1899. B. K. & Co., who had various debts and various securities, sent in their proof as secured creditors, lumping together their debts and securities and claiming to prove for the balance. The securi- ties consisted of (1.) a vendor's lien on ship shares, and (2.) a mortgage of policies, a debt, and freeholds. The trustee asked for details of value, and (1.) was assessed at 1325Z., and the property in (2.) at 2481^., making in the aggre- gate 38062. The trustee, however, did not object to the proof being made for a lump sum, nor did he require the separate values of the securities to be assessed in the proof, but he admitted the proof to rank for the amount claimed less 3806Z., the aggregate assessed value of the securities. Subsequently a scheme for a biGESS OF CASES, i90i— l9i0. ( 216 ) BANKRUPTCY (Secured Cxeiiioxs)- continued . composition was approved, and on payment of the composition the bankruptcy was annulled and the outstanding estate of P. was ordered to revest in him. A subsequent incumbrancer on the freeholds included in mortgage (2.) having claimed to redeem, B. K. & Co. contended that redemption could now only be obtained on pay- ment of the full sum of 38062. : — Held (reversing the decision of Warrington J.), that the trustee in bankruptcy could not, by accepting the securities as worth the aggregate sum assessed, confer upon the secured creditor any part of the bankrupt's property to which the secured creditor was not entitled, or compel a mortgagee to put a separate value on two diiierent properties included in the same security, and that mortgage (2.) could be redeemed for 24812. after allowing for what had already been received by the mortgagees on this security. Pearce v. Bullard King Sf Co., [1908] 1 Ch. 780, overrnled on this point. But held, also, that B. K. & Co. were entitled to be repaid all premiums paid by them on the life policies from the date of the receiving order with interest from the same date. In re Pbakce's Trusts - - C. A. [1909] W. N. 116 ; [1909] 8 Ch. 492 — Bank loan — Letter of lien on goods — Bill of sale. See Bankeitptcy— Traders. 1. — Garnishee order — Application of law in bank- ruptcy. See Company — Winding-up— Secured Creditor. 1. 2. — Petitioning creditor's debt — Secured creditor — Jistimate of secwiti/ — Undervalue — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 S,- 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 6, suh-s. 2 ; s. 7, suh-s. 3. Where a secured creditor presents a petition in bankruptcy and gives an estimate of his security, if the estimate is a genuine estimate the Court will not inquire into its correctness or otherwise, although the result of the inquiry might be to shew that the balance of the debt after deducting the value of the security was not sufficient to support the petition, and when the petitioning creditor comes in to prove in the bankruptcy, in the absence of evidence of mistake as to value he will not be allowed to depart from his estimate. Whether he may amend his estimate upon proof of mistake, quccre. Ex parte Taylor, In re Lacey, (1884) 13 Q. B, D. 128, and J« reVautiii, Es parte Saffery, [1899] 2 Q. B. 549, discussed. In re Button. Ex parte Voss - - C. A. [1905] W. N. 24 ; [1906] 1 E. B. 602 3. — Post - nuptial settlement, — Power of revocation with consent of trustees— Partial revocation in order to pay debts on condition of further pro^ierty ieiyig settled — Resettlement — • Vohmtai'y .settlement — " Purchasers for value " — Banlivjiptcy of settlor — Banhnptcy Act, 1883 (46 4- 47 Vict. 0. 52), s. 47. In 1899 A. by a post-nuptial deed settled property upon trust for himself for life and, after his death, upon trusts for his widow and children ( -'i;^ ) blGisl' 01' CASJiS, l90l— lain. ( 2i8 ) BANKRUPTCY (Secured Creditors) ~ci);rf(«!(«?. (if any) with an ultimate trust, in default of issue, for his next of kin. The deed contained a power of revocaUon with the consent of the trustees, which they had an absolute discretion to give or to withhold. In 1902 A. applied to the trustees to consent to a partial revocation of the settlement in order to raise 1600Z. out of the settled funds to pay pressing liabilities ; but they refused except upon the express condition that he brought into settlement his life interest under the deed of 1899, and also a reversionary interest to which he had since become entitled. A. agreed to this, and, in consideration of the consent and of the 1600L, he, in Dec, 1902, by deed assigned to the trustees his life interest under the deed of 1899 and the reversionary interest upon trusts which gave them during his life an absolute discretion to apply the income for benefit of A. or of his wife or children, and, subject thereto, upon similar trusts for his wife and children and next of kin, as in the deed of 1899, with a like power of revocation. In Sept., 1903, A. was adjudicated bankrupt in respect of debts incurred in that year, and the trustees refused to consent to any revocation of the deed of Dec, 1902 : — JleU, that the trustees were not " purchasers for value " within the meaning of s. 47 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 ; and that, therefore, the deed of Dec, 1902, was a voluntary settlement and void against A.'s trustee in bankruptcy to the extent necessary to pay the debts in the bankruptcy. In re Pabky. A> ■parte Salaman Wright J. [1903] W. N. 206 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 129 — Power of appointment, Limited — Bankruptcy of donee of power — Incapacity of trustee in bankruptcy to release the power. See PowEE OP Appointment. 1. — Proof. See under Bankruptcy — Proof. 1. — Propertij of banhrujrt — Secured creditor — Administration action — Order for payment into court of debt due hij defendant to testatrix — Xim-complianee — Sequestration against defendant — Payment of money into court to "accouytt of sequestrators " — Banliruptcy of defendant — I'itle of trustee— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 .5- 47 Met. c. 52), ss. 9, 45. The issue of a writ of sequestration to enforce an order for the payment of a debt into court, coupled with the receipt of money of the debtor by the sequestrator, does not of itself make the creditor a secured creditor within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. An executor, who at the date of the death of his testatrix was indebted to her, was made deft, to an action in the Chancery Division brought by his co-executors for the administration of her estate. On the further consideration of the action an order was made that the deft, should pay into court to the credit of the action the amount which had been found due from him. He failed to obey the order, and on the application of the pits, a writ of sequestration was issued against him. The order was served upon a bank with which he had an account, and an order was afterwards made directing the bank to pay into BANKETTPTCY (Secured Creditors)— fy;/^(«('e«f. court to the credit of the action, '■ the seques- trator's account," the balance standing In their books to the credit of the deft. This payment was accordingly made on Aug. 6, and the same day a receiving order in bankruptcy was made against the deft, upon a creditor's petition presented on the previous July 13. He was afterwards adjudicated a bankrupt : — Held, that the pits, did not by virtue of the sequestration, or by the subsequent payment into court, become secured creditors of the bankrupt, but that the money in court had passed to the trustee as part of the property of the bankrupt divisible among his creditors. Decision of Wright J., [1903] W. N. 58, affirmed. In re Hastings, (1892) 9 Morr. 234, approved and followed. Per Komer L.J. : The efiect and operation of a sequestration explained. Seinble, that if an order had been made that the balance of the fund, after payment of the sequestrator's costs, should be carried to the general credit of the action, the pits, would have been in the position of secured creditors of the bankrupt. I?i re H. E. PoLLABD. Hj: parte S. E. Pollard C. A. [1903] W. N. 87 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 41 — ReceiWng order against contractor — Subse- quent order by engineer for direct pay- ment to firms — Title of trustee. See Bankruptcy— Contracts. 1. 3. — Settlement of settlor's own property — Limitationto settlor for life determinable on bank- ruptcy — Validity. By a settlement made in 1893 the settlor assigned property to trustees on trust to pay to him the annual income until he was declared bankrupt ; thereafter his rights were to cease, and the trustees were to have power to apply at their discretion the income or any part thereof for his personal maintenance and support, and were to apply the residue for the benefit of his children, if any, or to accumulate it and add it to the corpus, which was ultimately to go to his relatives. In 1900 the settlor was adjudicated bankrupt, and the trustee in bankruptcy applied to set aside the settlement, and it was set aside so far as vras necessary to pay the bankrupt's debts provable in the bankruptcy. The trustees of the settlement by consent raised a sufficient sum to pay the bankrupt's debts in full and the costs, but the bankruptcy was not annulled. In 1902 the settlor was adjudicated bankrupt for the second time, and the trustee in that bank- ruptcy applied again to set aside the settlement, but was refused on the ground that at the time of making the settlement the bankrupt was in a position to pay his debts without the aid of the settled property. The trustee in bankruptcy then applied for a declaration that the bank- rupt's life estate under the settlement vested in the trustee in bankruptcy. Throughout these transactions the bankrupt was unmarried : — Held, that the first bankruptcy had operated under that settlement as a forfeiture of the settlor's life estate, and that it did not, therefore, vest in the trustee of the second banki'uptcy. ( -'19 ) tllGESl' OI* CASES, l90l~-I'Jlo. ( m) ) BANKRUPTCY (Seouved Cveiitoia)— continued. In re Johnson Johnson. JSr parte Matthews AND Wilkinson v. Johnson Johnson and DiBB - . DiT. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 134 Set-off. — Bankruptcy — Sale of goods — Mutual dealings — Title of trustee in bankruptcy. See Bankeuptcy — Sale of Goods. 1. — Costs part of petitioning creditor's debts — Petition dismissed. See Bankruptcy — Costs. 1. 1. — Debtor and creditor — Mviual debts or dealings — Contract hy debtor to sell Jwuses — Specific performance — Set-off of debt against purchase-money — Banhruptoy Act, 1883 (46 ^47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 37, 38. By two contracts dated respectively June 18 and July 2, 1908, the debtor agreed to sell for 880?. four houses which were subject to a mort- gage for 6002. The debtor was indebted to the purchaser in the sum of 2572. for work done by the purchaser to certain houses, including those agreed to be sold. On July 11, 1908, the pur- chaser heard for the first time that the debtor had committed an act of bankruptcy on the previous June 30. On Oct. 12, 1908, a receiving order was made against, the debtor in a county court, and adjudication followed. The purchaser, hav- ing accepted the title and entered into possession, applied to the county court judge, against the trustee in bankruptcy, for specific performance of the two contracts and for a declaration that he was entitled to set off the 2572. due to him from the debtor against the balance of the pur- chase-money due from him to the debtor after deducting the amount due on the mortgage. The county court judge held that the purchaser was only entitled to specific performance on payment of the balance of the purchase-money in full to the trustee : — Seld by the Div. Ct. and the C. A. (Fletcher Moulton L.J. dissenting), that there had been mutual dealings between the debtor and the purchaser within the meaning of s. 38 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and that the purchaser was therefore entitled to specific performance upon the terms that the 2572. due to him from the debtor be set off against the balance of, the purchase-money. In re Taylor. Ex parte NOBVELL - C. A. [1910] W. N. 26 ; [1910] 1 E.3. 563 2. — Husband and wife — Gift of money by banhrupt to wife — Cfift void as voluntary settle- ment — Claim by trustee in bankruptcy — Debt due from, bayiTirupt to wife — Right of wife to set off — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 ,^- 47 Vict,, c. 52), ss. 38, 47. A payment of 2502. by a bankrupt to his wife before bankruptcy was declared void against the trustee in bankruptcy as a voluntary settlement. At the date of the bankruptcy a debt of 2502. was due from the bankrupt to his wife. In an action by the trustee to recover the sum of 2502. from the wife, she claimed to set off the debt of 2502. due to her from the bank- rupt : — Held (Fletcher Moulton L.J. dissenting), BANKEUPTCY (Set-off)— cy«2;««i'r/. that the 2502. claimed in respect of the volun- tary settlement was not a debt due to the bank- rupt from his wife, and that there was, therefore, no right of set-off under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. Lister x\ Hooson - 0. A. [1907] W. N. 260; [1908] 1 K.B. 174 3. — Judgment summons by married tuoman — Judgment debtor a creditor — Costs in banh- ruptcy—Set-off— Debtors Act, 1869 (32 4- 33 Vict. c. 62), s. 5. A creditor of a married woman obtained judgment against her separate estate in respect of a debt of over 502. incurred by her whilst trading. Shortly before the date of the judg- ment she sold her business. He presented a bankruptcy petition against her based on his judgment debt, but the petition was dismissed with costs, as the evidence failed to establish the act of bankruptcy alleged. She then obtained an order in the Bankruptcy Court for payment by him of her taxed costs of the petition, which he did not comply with. Thereupon she took out a judgment summons against him under s. 5 of the Debtors Act, 1869, for not complying with the order. He had means to pay : — Held, that the Court had no jurdisdiction to set off his judgment debt against her taxed costs of the petition. In re Drtjmmond. Ex parte ASHMOEB Phillimore J. [1909] W. N. 171 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 622 — " Mutual dealings " — Insolvent estate — Un- secured debts — Mortgages by testator. See Administration. 16. 4. — Mutual dealings — Set-off — Company — Debenture stock — Claim, to set off debenture stock against petitioning creditor's debt — Equitable execution — MeeeiKer of debtor' s interest in deben- ture stock — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 4" 47 Vict, c. 52), 6. 7, sub-s. 3 ; .s.'SS. Moneys which under a bankruptcy become payable to the trustee by the petitioning creditor because they were payable to the debtor come prima facie within the mutual credits section (s. 38), but not if they are moneys which upon Ibankruptcy become payable to the trustee in his right as trustee, and not by virtue of their being payable to the debtor. In Oct., 1908, a debtor holding debenture stock in the petitioning creditor co. claimed to be entitled to set this off against the petitioning creditor's debt. In Nov. following, but before the bankruptcy petition was disposed of, a receiver was appointed on behalf of another creditor of the debtor's interest in the debenture stock :— Held (reversing the decision of the registrar in bankruptcy), that an essential change was effected by the appointment of the receiver ; thenceforward there were no mutual credits between the petitioning creditor and the debtor, and though the effect of an adjudication in bankruptcy would be to defeat the title of the receiver and give a title to the trustee, that would not suffice to bring s. 38 into force, and consequently that the petitioning creditor was entitled to a receiving order. In Pollitt, Ex parte dlinur, [1898] 1 21 ) biGKST Oi' CASES, 1901— ItllO. ( 222 ) BANKRUPTCY (Set-oflEj— «y«iJ/*«e(Z. Q. B. 455, applied. lure ADsBTOn. Ex parte Peak Hill Goldfield, Ld. C. A. [1909] W. H. 5 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 430 — Mutual dealings — Trespass — Seizure of goods under credit agreement — Set-off, See Bill of Sale. Settlement. 1. — Mai'i'iage settlement — Covenant 1))J hns- Ijaiid, to settle after-acquired furniture — Furni- ture afterwards 'bought and used at family residence — BanlirujJtcy of husband — Title of trustee in banliruptcy — Banhruptcy Act, 1883 (i6 .J- 47 Vict. c. 52), .'.•. 47, sub-s. 2. The debtor by his marriage settlement settled the furniture in his private residence upon trust in the first instance for the use and enjoyment of his wife during her life and covenanted that any furniture afterwards acquired by him during the life of his vrife should form part of the settlement. The debtor and his wife, after many changes of residence, ultimately moved into a largo house where they lived together until the debtor's bankruptcy, and the debtor purchased a large amount of additional furniture for this house. There was no formal delivery of the additional furniture to the trustee of the settle- ment, but he occasionally visited the debtor and his wife and saw the furniture. After a receiving order had been made against the debtor he re- moved all the furniture at the family residence to a warehouse. The trustee in the bankruptcy claimed the after-acquired furniture on the ground that it liad not been " actually trans- ferred" to the trustee of the settlement pursuant to the covenant as required by s. 47, sub-s. 2, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 : — Held that, in viesv of the fact that the furni- ture had been used by tlie wife in accordance with the trusts of the settlement, no formal transfer to the trustee of the settlement was necessary, but that in the eye of the law there had been an actual transfer made in pursuance of the covenant by the debtor to the trustee of the settlement and by the trustee of the settle- ment back to the wife, and that the claim of the trustee in the bankruptcy failed. Dictum of Wright J. as to " actually transferred " in In re Reis, [1904] 1 K. B. 451, at p. 456, overruled. Decision of Phillimorc J., [1910] W. N. 190, affirmed. In re Magnus. Ex parte Salaman C. A. [1910] W. N. 20S ; [1910] 2 K. B. 1049 2. — Post-nuptial settlement — Purchaser for valuable consideration — Refraining from divorce proceedings — " Purchaser " — Banliruptcy Act, 1883 (46 5' 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 47. In order to constitute a person a " purchaser " for valuable consideration within the exception mentioned in s. 47 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, it is not necessary that either money or physical property should be given ; the release of a right, or the compromise of a claim, may be sufficient to constitute a person a " purchaser " within the meaning of that section. A post-nuptial settlement of his own property executed by a bankrupt within two years of his bankruptcy in favour of his wife and children, in consideration of the wife refraining from BANKRUPTCY (^Settlement)— cu;«!wMe(/. taking proceedings against him in the Divorce Court : — Beld by Cozens-Hardy M.R. and Fletcher Moulton L.J. (Buckley L..J. dissenting) to be within the exception mentioned in s. 47 and valid against the trustee in bankruptcy. In re Pope. Ex paiie Dicksbe C. A. [1908] W. N. 105 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 169 Shares. — Fraud on bankruptcy law — Compulsory trans- fer at specified price in event of share- holder's bankruptcy. See Company — Shares. 3. Sheriff. — Administration order made under Bankruptcy Act, 1883 — Death of judgment debtor before seizure by sheriff. See Shbeiff. 2. — Bankruptcy of execution creditor — Title to money received by execution debtor after entrance of sheriff into possession. See Shekiff. 4. — " Execution for a sum exceeding 201." — Contingent expenses. See Sheriff. 5. Small Bankruptcy. — Costs — Taxation. See Bankkuptcy— Costs. 10. Solicitor. — Solicitor's lien — Bankruptcy of covmtry solicitor. See Solicitoe — Lien. 3. Stock Exchange. — Broker, Default of — Liquidation under Stock Exchange Rules — Eight of Stock Exchange creditor to petition in bankruptcy. See Stock Exchange. 3. 1. — Default on Stoch Exchange — Act of bankruptcy — Moiigage — Deposit of securities — Redemption — Tender of amount due on mortgage — Xotice of act of banliruptcy — Secured creditor — Title of trustee in banliruptcy — Banliruptcy Act, 1883 (46 ,?• 47 flct. c. 52), i. 9, mb-s. 2; ss. 43, 49. A secured creditor is not entitled to receive payment of his debt from his debtor and to hand over the securities after notice of an act of bank- ruptcy-on the part of the debtor ; this is-not a limitation of the -secured creditor's rights and powers to deal with his securities in any way in which he is entitled to deal with them by virtue of his contract with the debtor, but is only the consequence of the debtor having incapacitated himself from tendering the money. Decision of Buckley J., [1906] W. N. 121, reveised. In re Lawford .f- Lawrence, [1902] 2 K. B. 445, overruled. See Banliniptcy — Trustee. 7. Course to be adopted by the Court, in the event of the debtor attempting to enforce his ( 223 ) DIGEST 6F CASES, 1901— l9i0. ( 22i ) BAKKETJPTCY (Stock Exchange) rights by action, or in the event of its aid being invoked tx) render effective the obligations of third parties towards the debtor or his estate, discussed and stated. Seinble, in any event the secured creditor is entitled to his costs of action as well as to interest on the amount due until actual repayment. PONSFORD, BAKKE & CO. V. UNION OF LONDON AND Smith's Bank, Ld. - C. A. [1906] W. N. 182 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 444 Third Parties. — Bankruptcy notice — Receiving order — Bill of exchange — Conditional payment — Dis- honoured bill — Bill outstanding in third party. See Bankruptcy — Notice, 3. 1. — Composition — DisseivtieM crediiors — Payment iy third person of assenting creditors — Notice of act of ianltruptcy — Ignorance of lam — Dvty of trustee — Mortgages. The bankrupt having mortgaged two fishing boats to some fish salesmen to secure his current account with them, and having subsequently failed in his business, the mortgagees offered to pay his creditors a composition which nearly all the creditors agreed to accept, and, after having notice that the debtor had committed an act of bankruptcy, they paid this composition in good faith to the assenting creditors, believing that they were entitled under their mortgage to add the money so paid to their security. They then sold the fishing boats, and claimed to retain the balance of the proceeds of sale, after paying themselves the amount due on their mortgage at the date of the act of bankruptcy, on account of the composition paid to the creditors. The official receiver applied that the balance might be paid over to him : — Held, that the mere fact that the mortgagees were not familiar with the working of the bank- ruptcy law was not a ground for precluding the official receiver from insisting on his right to treat this balance as part of the debtor's estate, and that the money ought to be paid over to him. Decision of the Div. Ct., [1906] W. N. 229, aifirming the decision of the county court judge, reversed. Ex parte James, (187tt) L. B. 9 Ch. 609, dis- tinguished. In re HALL. Ex parte Official Eeceivbe - - C. A. [1907] W. N. 58 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 876 2. — Mdrtgage of life polioy — VoVwtvtary payment of premiums by- third ^larty — Death of mortgagor — Repayment of premimns to volunteer out of policy money — I)uty of trustee. The principle established by Ex paiie James, (1874) L. R. 9 Ch. 609, that the Court of Chan- cery will not allow its officer, the trustee in banki'uptcy, to retain moneys for distribution amongst the creditors, where it would be con- trary to fair dealing to do so, is not confined to the case of money paid under a mistake of law, but is of general application. The bankrupt, having assigned a policy on his own life by way of mortgage to his bankers. BANKRUPTCY (Third Va,vtieB)—eontinued, requested his wife on the eve of his bankruptcy to pay the premiums and interest for him, and then, after paying one premium before the com- mencement of the bankruptcy, paid the premiums and interest during his bankruptcy until his death, when the polioy moneys were received by the mortgagees, who retained thereout the amount due to them on their mortgage and paid the balance to the official receiver. The wife claimed to be repaid out of the balance the sums she had paid for premiums and interest. The official receiver had no previous knowledge that. the wife had been making these payments, but it subsequently appeared that this fact had been disclosed by the bankrupt in his preliminary examination taken before a former official receiver. The official receiver moved for a declaration that he was entitled to retain the balance of the policy moneys as part of the bankrupt's estate : — Held, even assuming that all the payments were made during the bankruptcy, that the Court ought not to allow the official receiver, having regard to the knowledge of his prede- cessor, to re^tain the policy moneys without repaying to the wife the sums she had paid for premiiiiu ' iid interest. The decision of Bigham ,T., [1906] 2 K. B. 202, affirmed. The principle of Ex parte James, L. R. 9 Ch. 609, applied. In re Tyler. Ex parte Official Eeceivbe - - C. A, [1907] W. N. 82 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 865 Traders. 1. — BanU loaji to purchase goods — Letter of lien on goods — Construction — " Transfer of goods in the ordinary course of business " — " I)ocu- nuints used in the ordinary course of business as proof of tlie possession or control of goods" — Secured creditors — Bill of sale — Attornment — Reputed ownership — Order anddisposition — Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (41 # 42 Vict, c, 31),«. i— Bills of Sale Act, 1890 (53 # 54 Vict. c. 5S)— Bills of Sale Act, 1891 (54 t re Young, Hamilton S; Co., Ex parte Carter, [1905] W. N. 95 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 381, affirmed. Whether the letters of lien were " transfers of goods in the ordinary course of a trade or calling " within the exceptions in s. 4 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, qucere. In re Hamilton Young & Co. TUx parte Carter - C. A. [1905] W. N. 145 1 [1905] 2 K. B. 772 — Bankruptcy of trader — Agreement for ledger account with a trader. See Bill of Sale. 1 . Trustee. (Trustee in Bankruptcy.) — Administration action — Order on executor to pay money into court — Non-compliance — Writ of sequestration — Payment into court under sequestration — Bankruptcy of executor — Equitable execution — Completed execution — Title of trustee in bankruptcy. See Bankbtjptct— Secured CreditoiB. 4. BANKBUPTCT (Trustee)— co«i!t«!ie(f.- — After-acquired property. See under Bankeoptct — Undischarged Bankrupt. — Attachment of debt — Scotch judgment — Extension to England. See Attachment. 4. 1. — Bond — Fidelity hand — Surety — Default of trustee — Penal interest — Liaiility of surety — Unpaid remuneration of trustee — Set-off- — Disljursements — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 <$• 47 Vict. c. 52), e. 74, sui-s. 6. A trustee in bankraptcy and his surety entered into a bond with the Board of Trade in the sum of oOOl. (afterwards reduced to 1001.) for the due performance by the trustee of his duties as trustee, subject to a condition avoiding the bond if the trustee should " well and sufficiently perform and execute all and singular the duties required of him as trustee by the Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 and 1890," or if he should fail therein and the surety should " make good any loss or damage occasioned by any such default to the estate of the said bankrupt." The trustee improperly retained for some years a sum of money exceeding 501., and, on his defaidt being discovered, he was removed from his office, and, pursuant to s. 74, sub-s. 6, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, he was svurcharged with interest at the rate of 20 per cent, per annum on the sum he had improperly retained. The trustee made good the sum he had improperly retained, but did not pay the interest with which he had been siur- charged : — iteld, that the interest surcharged was in the nature of a penalty and was not a measure of the loss or damage to the estate occasioned by the default of the trustee, and that the surety was not liable under the terms of the bond to pay to the Board of Trade the penal interest or any part of it. Decision of Phillimore J., [1910] 1 K. B. 401, reversed. Board of Trade v. Employees' Liability Assurance Corporation, Ld. C. A. [1910] W. N. 161 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 649 See next Case. 2. — Bond— Fidelity bond — Surety — Defaidt of trustee — Liaiility of surety — Unpaid remu- neration of trustee — Set-off' — Disbursements. In this case the Div. Ct. was of opinion that the question must be decided in favour of the Board of Trade. " The .single point is whether the defts., in making good the loss or damage occasioned by the default of the trustee in not sufficiently performing his duties, are entitled to deduct from the amount which he has not paid the amount which has not been paid to him, but which has been earned by him by way of remuneration The contract is, that whatever money is not properly accounted for by the trustee is to be made good by the guarantee society, and we are not to look to such things as the question of whether there is or is not any remuneration due, when that remunera- tion is declared to be forfeited and therefore is no longer due to the man who has made default." Board of Trade v. Guaeantbe Society (June 10, 1896). Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 408, n. ( 22? ) SIGKST OP CASES, 1901— I9l0. ( 228 ) BANKRTJPTCY (T^wateey—oonthaied. Note. PoHowed on one point by Phillimore J., Board of Trade y . JSmployei'ti' Liabilify Assurance Corporation, Ld., [1910] 1 K. B. -toi. But PhiUimore j.'s decision was reversed by C. A., [1910] 2 K. B. 619. See preceding Ga»: 3. — Copyriylit — Author and publisher — Sale of copyright to puhlisher on royalties — Bank- ruptcy of puhlisher — Continuing contract — Trustee currying on husiness — Whether royalties puyaile in full. An author sold the copyright of his boolc to a publisher upon the terms that the publisher sliould print and publish it and should pay him certain royalties upon the sales of the book. The publisher became bankrupt, and the trustee in bankruptcy carried on the bankrupt's business until he sold it as a going concern with all copyrights. During the time the trustee carried on the business sales of the book were effected, and the trustee received the proceeds of these sales. The author claimed to be paid in full the royalties on these sales : — Seld, that the transaction between the author and the publisher was analogous to that of a sale "of goods at u, price varying in amount and depending on certain events, and that the author was only entitled to prove in the bank- ruptcy for the damages sustained by breach of the contract. In re Grant Richards. E-v parte Warwick Deepikg - Big^Iiam J. [1907] W. N. 79 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 33 — Capacity of trustee iu bankruptcy to release power of appointment. See PowBR OP Appointmb.nt. 1. Disclaimer — Lease. See BANKBUPTCy- -Sisclaimer. 4. — Disdairaer — Onerous property of debtor. See Bankruptcy— Disclaimer. 1. — Disclaimer by trustee — Vesting order — Terms to be imposed on underlessee. See Bankruptcy — Vesting Orders. 1. 4. — Inns of Court — Bankruptcy of student — Caution money — Title of trustee. In Jan., 1899, M. Ahmed, an Indian subject, entered as a student at Gray's Inn, and on such entrance deposited with the society the sum of 50?. and executed the usual bond to observe all the orders of the society and to pay all such sums of money as should become due or owing by or from him to the society. The orders of the society provide (amongst other things) that no person who shall be admitted into any of the Inus of Court shall be called to the English Bar unless he shall, previous to his keeping any of the terms requisite for that purpose, have deposited with the treasurer of the society to which he belongs the sum of 501., to be returned without interest upon his being called to the Bar or quitting the society, or, in case of his death, to his personal representative ; but this is not to excuse him . from paying his duties regularly, nor from giving the usual bond upon admission ; that no member shall be permitted to withdraw from the society except after peti- tion to the Bench ; that the sum of six guineas towards the library fund be paid by students for BANKR UPTCY (Trustee)— c««ij?i«e(^. the English Bar who shall relinquish their inten- tion of being called to the Bar ; that members who do not keep commons shall pay the sum of ")s. per term as absent commons ; and that students be at liberty to compound for all charges in respect of absent commons by a payment of 121. In Nov., 1900, a receiving order was made against M. Ahmed on a creditor's petition. Adjudication followed, and the official receiver became the trustee in bankruptcy. The baiilc- rupt returned to India, but had not ceased to be a member of the society. There were no assets other than the 501. deposited with the society. The official receiver as trustee in bankruptcy claimed the 50/. subject to a. deduction only in respect of fees or sums now actually due and payable to the society from the bankrupt. The society submitted that under the terms of the orders the 501. must remain in their hands so long as the bankrupt remained a member of the society and continued to incur liabilities under the orders : — Held, that the 50/. deposited by the bankrupt with the society was a cautionary fund, which they were entitled to retain so long as there was any possibility of a liability for sums due and to become due to them under the orders from the bankrupt. In re Ahmed. Mr parte Official Keceivbr Wright J. [1901] W. N. 106 5. — Interpleader — Kreoufiou creditor — Pro- perty held on trust — Trustee for benefit of credi- tors — Itiglit of indemnity out of trust estate — TAen jmssing to trustee in bankruptcy — Burden if proof— Banhruptcy Act, 1883 (-16 <|- i7 l^irt. 0. 52), s. 44. The trustee under a creditors' deed was empowered by the deed to carry on a. business for the benefit of the creditors. In so doing he incurred debts, for which he was pei-sonally liable. Judgment having been obtained against him for one of these debts, goods which were assets of the business were taken in execution under that judgment. The trustee having become bankrupt, these goods were claimed by his trustee in bankruptcy, and an interpleader issue was directed to try the title to them. Upon the trial of the issue no evidence was given as to the state of the account as betweeu the bankrupt and the trust estate under the creditors' deed, and whether or not the bankrupt was in default to the estate : — Held, affirming the judgment of the Div. Ct., [1901] 1 K. B. 108, that the bankrupt being entitled to an indemnity out of the trust estate under the creditors' deed against liabilities incurred by him in carrying out the trusts of the deed, he had prima facie a right to a lien on the goods, which passed to his trustee in bankruptcy, and therefore the claimant was entitled to succeed on the issue as against the execution creditor, who had no right to have goods held by the execution debtor upon trust taken in execution. Jennings r. Mather. Gray, Claimant C. A. [1901] W. N. 307 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 1 6. — Investigation — SolicUor and client — Cash accounts — Draft bills of costs — Contentious busi- ness — Delicery of detailed bills icaired — Stated i2 ( 329 DIGEST OF CASiS, 1901—1910. ( 330 ) BANKRUPTCY (Trustee)— coMiiwweA and agreed acoiruiits — Mortgage to secure agreed balance' — Proof ig solicitor — Trustee' g rigid to go hehind mortgage and settled account — Right to reciuire 2}articiiliirs and rouchers — Judgment recocered—Jianliruptcy Act, 1883 (46 ^' 47 Vict, c. 52), Sched. II., r. 22. No judgment recovered against the bankrupt, no covenant for payment given by or on account stated with him, can deprive the trustee in bankruptcy ot his right and duty to investigate the nature and grounds of the claim made against the bankrupt's estate : the trustee is therefore entitled to go behind these forms and to require satisfactory evidence that the debt on which the proof is founded is a real debt. Decision of Bigham J., [1907] 1 K. B. 155 (Ijy mistake there called Mji parte PuttuUu), affirmed. In re VAN Laun. E.r parte Chattbrton - C. A. [1907] W. N. 73; [1907] 2 K. B. 23 Note. See In re Ellis atid Ellis, XeviUe J., [1908] W. N. 215. Solicitor— Costs. — Leaseholds — Property held by the bankrupt as trustee for any other person — Trustee in bankruptcy, Position of. See Lakdlobd and Tenant. 47. — Misappropriation by trustee — Evidence — Statement of affairs in bankruptcy — Admissibility. See Criminal Law— Evidence. 2. 7. — Pledge of chattels l/g del/tors for loan rcpagahlr on a certain dag — Redemption on, the xtipiduted date — Dclircrg of chattels bg pledgee icith notice if act of banhruptcg — Fraud of debtors — litle of trustee in hanhrupcc y — Bank- ruptcg Act, 1883 (46 ,(■ 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 49. On Sept. 14, 1900, A. & Co. pledged chattels with B. as security for a loan to be repaid on Oct. 26 following ; and ou Sept. 27 they pledged other chattels with B. as security for a further loan to be repaid on Nov. 11 following. On Oct. 26 B. delivered the chattels first pledged to C, who produced a written authority from A. & Co. as purchaser, and paid him ofi ; and on Nov. 11 G. came again to B. with a written authority from A. &, Go. as purchaser of the chattels under the second pledge, and by arrange- ment with B. extended the date of redemption to Jan. 11, 1901, when he paid ofE B. and took delivery of the chattels. B. acted in good faith, but when paid on Oct. 26 had notice of an avail- able act of bankruptcy committed by A. & Co. ou the previous Oct. 6 ; and when paid on Jan. 11 knew that a receiving order had been made against A. c^ Co. on Jan. 9. G. was in collusion with A. & Co., and was fraudulent in all that he did : he sold the chattels and disposed of the proceeds. The title of the trustee in bankruptcy related back to the act ot bankruptcy committed on the previous Oct. 6, and he claimed from B. the value of the pledged chattels less the loans : — ITeld, that B. was not liable, for that, although not protected by s. 49 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, he was bound by his contract to deliver up the chattels when tendered on the date ot redemption the amount due to him. In re BANKETJPTCY (Ti-asted)— continued. Lawford & Lawrence. Em parte The Trustee Wright J. [1902] W. TS. 129 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 445 Note. Overruled by G. A., Ponsford, Poller Sj' Co. V. Union of London and Smith's Panli, Id., [1906] 2 Gh. 444. See Banltruptcy — Stoeli E.echauge. 1. — Power of trustee to accept shares in company for debtor's interest — Compromise. See Bankruptcy — Arrangemeat. 5. — Release — Breach of trust — Compromise with one trustee — Right to prove in the bankruptcy of another trustee. 'See Trustee — Eelease. 1. — Release — Capacity to release power — Bank- ruptcy of donee. Sec Power op Appointment. 1. 8. — Right of action — Propertg passing to trustee in banhruptcg — Action for trespass and conrersion — Claim for personal annoyance — Panhruptcii Act, 1883 (46 S)- 47 Vict. ... 52), ss. 44, 54, 168. In an action for trespass and seizure of goods, the pit. alleged damage to the premises, damage to the goods, and personal annoyance to himself and family. It being admitted that no substan- tial damage was done to the premises or to the goods : — Held, that upon the bankruptcy of the pit. the right of action did not pass to his trustee in bankruptcy. ROSE r. Buckbtt C. A. [1901] W. N. 118; [1901] 2 K. B. 449 — Settlement, Marriage — Title of trustee in bankruptcy. See Bankrdptcy— Settlement. 1. — Shareholder — Claim to lien under articles for banki-upt's liabilities to company — Trustee's right to registration. See Company — Shares. 3. — Ship — Appropriation of goods to contiact — Banliruptcy of manufacturer — Right of trustee. See Sale of Goods. 1. — Title of trustee — Receiving order against con- tractor — Subsequent order by engineer for direct payment to Arms. See Bankruptcy— Contracts. 1. — Title ot trustee in bankruptcy' — Voluntary settlement — Evidence. See Fraudulent Conveyance. 3. 9. — '■ 3'niste.e " — Onerous property— Lease- holds — Disclaimer, Time for— " First appoint- ment of tru.itee" — Creditor's trustee — OtHcial receirer as frvxtee — Banliruptcy Act, 1883 (46 ^• 47 ^'ict. c. 52), ,v. 21, xul,-.s.s. 1, 4, 6 ; s. 54, sub-s. 1 ; s. 55, suh-s. \— Banliruptcy Act, 1890 (53 J)- 54 Viot.c.7\-),s.y.\. The words "afler the first appointment of a trustee" in s. 55, sub-s. 1, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 — which, as amended by s. 13 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, empowere "the trustee .... at rrny time wilhin twelve months after the first appointment of .i trustee " to disclaim any onerous property of the bankrupt — refer to ( 231 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1001—1910. ( 233 ) BANKRUPTCY (Tiuatee)— continued. an appointment of a trustee under s. 21, either by the creditors (sub-s. 1) or by the Board of Trade (sub-s. 6), and not to tlje official receiver's becoming, under s. 54, sub-s. 1, "the trustee" immediately upon adjudication and until such appointment. Therefore, the time for dis- claimer by a trustee appointed under s. 21 runs from the date of the certificate of his appoint- ment (sub-s. 4), and not from the date of the adjudication. The official receiver, however, in becoming, under s. .54, sub-s. 1, " the trustee" immediately upon adjudication and until a trustee is appointed, may exercise the power of disclaimer given by s. 55, sub-s. 1, as amended, to " the trustee," though without being subject to the limitation of time for the exercise of that power ; for this limitation runs, in terms, from a date which has no relation to the trusteeship of the official receiver, because he is never '• appointed " ; but, nevertheless, under sub-s. 4 o£ s. 55, he may be required by any person interested in the banlirupt's onerous property to decide whether he will disclaim or not. In re Parlier, (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 196, and TurquaTid v. Board ofTrade, (1886) 11 App. Cas. 286, considered. In re Cohen C. A. [1905] W. N. 138; [1905] 2 K. B. 704 10. — Trustee in ianl/ruptcji , 'Title of — Sale of goods — Fraud of dehtor — Vendor's rifl/it to dis- affirm sale and retake goods after notice of act of ianirupfcg. Where a sale of goods is induced by the fraud of the purchaser, the vendor, on discovering the fraud, is entitled within a reasonable time to disaffirm the sale and retake possession of his goods, although he does so with notice of the act of bankruptcy on which the purchaser is subse- quently adjudicated bankrupt ; for in such a case the trustee in bankruptcy has no higher or better title than tbe bankrupt. In re Bastgate. Brpai'te "Ward - Bigham J. [1905] W. N. 18; [1908]"1 K. B. 465 Xiite. Followed by Hamilton J., T'llley v. Bowman, Ld., [1910] 1 K. B. 74i1. See Banhrupfcy—Sale of Goods. 1 . 11. — Trustee's power to eomjiromise claiim — Sanction of committee of in.^pection — Opposition hy hankrupt — Practice — Application to Court for directions — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 S; 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 57, sui-s. 6 ; v. 89, sub-s. 3. A trustee in bankruptcy having, under sub-s. 6 of s. 57 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, ample power with the sanction of the committee of inspection to compromise all claims, the Court will not, as a general rule, on an applica- tion by the trustee under s. 89, sub-s. 3, of the Act for directions, express any opinion upon a proposed compromise, however complicated the matter may be, nor interfere in any way. Where the trustee and committee of inspec- tion propose to accept a compromise, it is for the party objecting to satisfy the Court that the proposed compromise is one which ought not to be entertained. In re Pilling. E.'c parte SALAM4N - Bigham J. [1906] W. N. 160 ; [i906j2K, B,644 BANKRUPTCY -continued. Undertaking. 1. — Lv untie hankrupt — Solicitor's uuder- talting to refund money to ha,?tkrupt's estate — ■ Death of hankrupt — Enforcing nndertaking . In 1899 the debtor was found to be of un- sound mind, and H. was appointed committee oi! his estate in lunacy. Shortly afterwards the debtor was adjudicated bankrupt, and H. was appointed trustee in the bankruptcy with a com- mittee of inspection, of whom L. was one. One K. acted as solicitor tor H. in the lunacy and in the bankruptcy and his bills of costs were taxed and paid. K. also cai-ried in a proof in the bankruptcy under which he claimed 1200Z. as extra remuneration for special services rendered by him. This claim was considered by H. and the committee of inspection and allowed by them at 1000^., and paid in full. The bank- rupt's estate realized sufficient to pay all the creditors in full, and there was a large surplus. Subsequently the official solicitor of the Supreme Court was appointed committee in the lunacy in the place of H. to investigate matters ; and on Dec. 14, 1903, on a motion by the official solicitor, K. gave an undertaking to refund the lOOOZ. to the bankrupt's estate on or before .Ian. 31, 1904. In the meantime, on Jan. 1, the bankrupt died, and his will made prior to his lunacy was proved by Ij., who was the sole executrix and residuary legatee. K. thereupon declined to pay the 1000?., on the ground that under the circumstances the official solicitor was no longer in a position to enforce the under- taking, as the only person now entitled to the money was L., the executrix, who had acquiesced in its payment whilst a member of the committee of inspection, and was therefore estopped from requiring its repayment. L. did not admit K.'s allegations. The official solicitor now moved to enforce the undertaking : — Held, that the official solicitor was without doubt entitled to enforce the undertaking not- withstanding the death of the bankrupt, and made a four-day order on K. to pay the lOOOZ. to the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy, for pay- ment into the Bankruptcy Estates Account, and directed that the money should not be paid out to L. without notice to K. In re Aytodn. E.r parte The Official Solicitor Buoknill J. [1904] W. N. 56 Undischarged Bankrupt. 1. — After-acquired property — Contract of employment made before bankruptcy — Breach of contract after bankruptcy — Bight of hankrupt to sue — Intertention of trustee — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 g; 47 Viet', e. o2), .?. 44. An undischarged bankrupt, employed as traveller for a firm under a contract made before the commencement of the bankruptcy, can main- tain an action against the firm for a wrongful dismissal occurring after the commencement of the bankruptcy, the trustee in bankruptcy not having intervened in the action. Judgment of Phillimore J., [1902] 2 K. B. 397, affirmed. BAILEY r. THURSTON & Co. C 4. [1902] W. N. ?13 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 137 ( 233 ) DIGEST OF CASES. 1001— ] 910. ( 234 ) BANKRUPTCY (Undischarged Bankrupt) — oontinupd. 2. — Aftev-ac(jiiired pi'opertij — Death of hanl'i'vpt iiitesliile — IJidrilution amongst next of kill — Iiiterrention nf trustee in haiiliriiptey — Jtefvndhuj to trv.stee hy next of Tiui. An undischarged bankrupt effected policies on his life and died intestate and undischarged. The administrator of his estate, without notice of the bankruptcy, distributed the policy moneys among,5t the bankrupt's next of kin before the trustee in bankruptcy intervened : — Held, that the administrator was not per- sonally liable to the trustee for the moneys he had distributed, but that the next of kin must refund to the trustee the shares they had respectively received. The doctrine of Herhei-f v. Sayer, (1844) f> Q. B. 965, and Cohen v. Mitoheil, (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 262, applied. In re Ball, [1899] 2 I. B. 313, distinguished. The dictum of Byrne J. in Hunt v. Fripp, [1898] 1 Ch. 675, that a party, even with notice of the bankruptcy, may deal honestly and for value with the bankrupt before the trustee intervenes, approved. /«r? Bennett. E,e paiie The Official Receiver Bigham J. [1906] W. N . 221 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 149 3. — After -aeqii'irei proj>erty — Property resting in trustee — licpdtalile interest in free- holds—Intervention of trustee — Banltruptcy Act, 1883 (46 S,- 47 ViM. c 52), ss 44, 54. A freehold house was conveyed to S. , who was in fact a trustee for P., an undischarged bankrupt, after his bankruptcy. A lease for ninety-nine years was expressed to be executed by S. to P. under the alias of E. P. then vmder the same alias executed a mortgage, by demise, of the leasehold interest to the defendant for 1750Z. The money was paid to P,, and the whole transaction was bona fide so far as the defendant was concerned. The trustee in bankruptcy had not intervened at the date of the mortgage. He now brought this action for a declaration that he was entitled to the freehold house free and discharged from the lease and the mortgage. It was alleged that the signature of S , to the lease was forged by P., and the Court held that it had not been proved to be the signature of S. The mortgage did not therefore pass any legal estate to the defendant, but it was contended that it gave a good charge upon the bankrupt's equitable interest in the freehold : — Held that, in the present state of the authorities, the proposition laid down in Cohenv. Mitchell, (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 262, that " until the trustee intervenes, all transactions by a bank- rupt after his bankruptcy, with any person dealing with him bona fide and for value, in respect of his after-acquired property, are valid against the trustee " must be considered not to apply to real estate, whether equitable or legal, but only to personal estate including leaseholds. In re JVeiv Land Derehtpment Association and Gray, [1892] 2 Ch. 138, .and In re Clayton 4' Barclay's Contract, [1895] 2 Ch. 212. d.iscussed. Official Receivek (as Trustee of Pres- ton) r, f'ooKf; Neville J. [1906] W. N. 166 ; [1906] 2 Cli. 661 BANKRUPTCY (Undischarged Bankrupt) — continued. 4. — After-acquired pro2>erty — Purchase of real estate as jHiHners — Sale to a company — Iiiterrention of trustees in hanhruptry — Banh- ruptcii Act, 1883 (46 Si 47 Vict. c. 52)' ss. 44, 54 —Pa'iinership Act, 1890 (53 t$- 54 \ict. c. 39), s. 22. The principle of Cohen >'. Mitchell, (1S90) 25 Q. B. D. 262, applies to after-acquired real estate which undischarged bankrupts purchase as partners for partnership purposes and sell and convey to a bona fide purchaser for value before their respective trustees in bankruptcy intervene. /// re Kent County Gas Light and Coke Co, Ld. Neville J. [1909] W. N. 128 I [1909] 2 Ch, 195 5. — After-acqnircd property — Beal estate — Ba7ihruptc.y Act, 1883 (46 <$■ 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 44, 54. On Aug. 22, 1900, G. E. C. acquired certain freehold building land at Epsom in fee simple. At this date and throughout the transactions hereafter mentioned C. was an undischarged bankrupt, he having been adjudicated a bank- rupt under the name of George Carter in 1891. On Oct. 5. 1 900, C. mortgaged this land to M. to secure 280/. and interest thereon. On Dec. 18, 1900, C. conveyed the equity of redemption in the land to the pits, in consideration of the sum of 207. The pits, thereupon entered into pos- session of the land and spent large sums in building houses thereon. On Dec. 20, 1900, the deft, took a transfer of the mortgage of Oct. 5. On Oct. 21, 1901, the deft, acquired from the senior official receiver, as trustee of the property of the bankrupt, all his interest in the land. The pits., who at the time of their purchase had no notice of C.'s bankruptcy, brought this action for a declaration that they were entitled to the land, subject to the mortgage of Oct. 5, and for redemption of the mortgage. The deft, disputed the pits.' title, on the ground that the conveyance of Dec. 18 was inoperative to confer on the pits., as against the official receiver, any right or title to the equity of redemption. Kekewich J. said that the pits, relied upon Colien V. Mitchell, (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 262, in which it was laid down by the C. A. that where an undischarged bankrupt entered into transac- tions in respect of property acquired after the bankruptcy, then until the trustee in bankruptcy intervened all such transactions with any person dealing with the bankrupt bona fide and for value, and whether with or without knowledge of the bankruptcy, were valid against the trustee. But in In re Ifea- Zand Berelopmcnt A.-isociation and Gray, [1892] 2 Ch. 138, it was held by Chitty J. that that principle did not apply to real estate, and, although upon the appeal of that case this point was not decided, the C. A. seemed to approve of the view of Chitty J. In In re Clayton and Barclay's Contract, [1895] 2 Ch. 212, Chitty J. adhered to his former opinion, and treated it as having met the approval of the Appeal Court, but held that the principle of Colten V. Mitchell applied to leaseholds. In re New land Derelopment Association and, Gray had since been followed by FarwellJ. in Bird v. Philpott; [1900] 1 Ch. 822. In that state of the ( 23.^ ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 230 ) BANKRUPTCY (Undischarged Bankrupt) — law he was bound to decide that the principle of Cohen v. Mitchell did not apply to freeholds. The result was unfortunate, since the pits., though they had paid the purchase-money in good faith and had spent money in developing the property, must nevertheless be evicted. London and County Conteaots, Ld. r. Tallage Kekewioli J. [1903] W. N. 8 G. — ■ Offeneea — Vndisckarged hanlmipt — Ohtahiing credit — Limit of punishment — Bank- ruptcy Act. 1883 (46 ^- 47 'i'ict. c. 52), s. 31— BeUors Act, 1869 (32 4' 33 Vict. c. 62), ss. 11, 13. By the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 31, " Where an undischarged bankrupt who has been adjudged bankrupt under this Act obtains credit to the extent of twenty pounds or upwards from any person, without informing such person that he is an undischarged bankrupt, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and may be dealt with and punished as if he had been guilty of a mis demeanour under the Debtors Act, 1869, and the provisions of that Act shall apply to proceedings under this section." Sect. 11 of the Debtors Act, 1869, declares certain ofEences committed by persons adjudged banlcrapt to be misdemeanours punishable by a sentence not exceeding two years' impiisoument with or without hard labour. Sect. 13 declares that the oSenee of fraudulently obtaining credit and certain other offences shall be misdemeanours punishable with imprisonment not exceeding one year with or without hard labour : — Held, that an offence under s. 3 1 of the Bank- ruptcy Act, 1883, was punishable with a maxi- mum sentence of one year's impris mment with or without hard labour. Rex v. Turnee ' C. C. E. [1904] 1 K. B. 181 7. — Subseqjisat trading under another name — Mortgage — Second ianhruptoij — Rights of trustees — Vesting order on motion — Practice — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 4' 47 Vict. c. 52), .5. 35. This was an application by Eushforth, acting for himself and the other mortgagees, claiming (1.) a declaration that, subject to the rights of the trustee in the first bankruptcy, he was first mortgagee of the hereditaments comprised in his mortgage ; and (2.) that upon his paying to the trustee in the first bankruptcy in full the amount requii-ed to pay the balance of the bank- rupt's debts aud liabilities in the first bankruptcy with interest as provided by the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and all the costs, charges, and expenses of the proceedings in the first bankruptcy, within twenty-one days from the date of the receipt of notice of the amount required for the purpose, the bankruptcy might be annulled and the said hereditaments might be vested in him. Wright J. : Of course this is a hard case for the trustee in the second bankruptcy ; but it is clear that the trustee in the first bankruptcy is entitled to the 113Z. and to the equity of redemp- tion in the mortgaged property. As between the applicant and the trustee in the first bank- ruptcy, the order asked for is right and should be made. The \V6l. must be applied towards payment of the debts in the first bankmptcy. BANKRUPTCY (Undischarged Bankrupt) — continued. The order will be, that on the registrar being satisfied that all the debts of the bankrupt , provable in the first bankruptcy and the costs and expenses of the trustee i n the first bankruptcy are paid in full, including his costs of this motion, annul the first bankruptcy, and direct that the mortgaged property shall vest in the applicant subject to such other equity of redemption as may subsist therein. In re Adie. Ex parte RusHPOETH Wright J. [1901] W. N. 98 Vesting Orders, l- — Leasehold property of hanhrnpt — ^lort- gage ty underlease — Disclaimer hy trustee — Vest- ing order — Terms to he imposed on nnderlessee— Discretion of Court — Banhruptcy Act, 1883- (46 Sf 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 55, sul-ss. 1, 2, 6— Bank- ruptcy Act, 1890 (53 4- 54 Vict. c. 71), s. 13. On Mar. 1, 1904, seven leases of seven houses, for the respective terms of ninety-nine years, were granted to lessees, who had erected the houses under a prior building agreement. Each lease reserved a small ground rent. None of the leases contained any restriction on the lessee's right to assign. On the same day the lessees mortgaged all the houses by way of underlease for the respective residues of the several terms, except the last day of each term, to secure the sum of 1864?., with interest. On Mar. 24, 1904, a bankruptcy petition was filed against the lessees, and on April 19, 19Q4, they were adjudicated bankrupts. On Nov. 10, 1904, the trustee in the bank- ruptcy disclaimed all his interest in the seven leases. There had been no breach of any of the lessees' covenants in the leases : — Held, that under the circumstances the Court ought to exercise its discretion, under s. 13 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, by making au order vest- ing the disclaimed property in the mortgtgees, "subject only to the same liabilities and obliga- tions as if the leases had been assigned to them at the date when the bankruptcy petition was filed." If in such a case the exercise of the discretion in favour of the mortgagee will place him in no better position, and will place the lessor in no worse position, than if there had been no dis- claimer, the discretion ought to be exercised in favour of the mortgagee. In re Cae i'ke & Ellis. Ex parte Savill Brothers C. A. [1905] W. N. 46 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 735 2. — Liquidation by arrangement — Trustee in ligiddation — Joint trustees — Surviving trustee Close of liquidation — Transfer of assets to official receiver — Bankruptcy Act, 1869 (32 |' 33 Vict, c. 71), s. \25— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 ^- 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 159, 160, 161— Bankruptcy {Dis- charge and Closure) Act, 1887 (50 4' 51 Viet. c. 66), *. 3, suh-s. 1. Where two persons are appointed joint trustees in a liquidation by arrangement under s. 125 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, and one of them dies, the survivor continues to be trustee in the liquidation. Sect. 3, sub-s. 1, of the Bankruptcy (Discharge and Closure) Act, 1887, does not apply to a ( 237 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 238 ) BANKRUPTCY (Vesting Ovieva)— continued. liquidation by arrangement under the Bank- ruptcy Act, 1869, so as to close the liquidation and vest the property of the liquidating debtor ' in the official receiver. Decision of Div. Ct. sub nom. Tomlims v. Latimer, [1909] W. N. 39. reversed. In re Baeton. Tomlins t. Latimer C. A. [1909] W. N. 176 ; [1909] 2 E. B. 841 — Undischarged bankrupt — Subsequent trading under another name. See Bankeuptcy — TJiidischarged Bankrupt. 7. Voluntary Settlement. — Conveyance by settlor to himself as trustee. See Straits Settlements. 4. — " Purchasers for value " — Bankruptcy of settlor. See Settlement, BANKRUPTCY NOTICE. See under Bankeuptct — Bankruptcy Notice. BARBADOS— Privy Council Appeals. See under Privy Council. BARGE — Collision — Barge swinging across fair- way unattended and without light. See Shipping — CoUiBion. 7. — Employers' liability — " Seaman " — Hand assisting to navigate barge on river. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 161. — Thames navigation — Hauling barges out of dock — " Navigated." See Thames, Eiver. 1. BARONETAGE— TJoj-aZ Warrant, Feb. 8, 1910, in regard to the BaroTietage, 1910 (K. — Home Office). Price Id. BARRISTER. See under COUNSEL. BASTARDY — Affiliation order — Application by married looinan liring with husband at date of application — Bastardy Laws Amendment Art, 1872 (35 Si 36 T'?^. c. 65), s. 3. A married woman, who at the date of the application is living with her husband, cannot obtain an order for the affiliation of her bastard child under the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872, s. 3. Jones r. Davies - - Div, Ct. [1901] 1 K, B. 118 2. — Agreement by father to paij mother for maintenance of bastard child — Death of mother —Bight of mother's administrator to sue on agreement. By an agreement in writing the father of a bastard child agreed to pay to the mother a certain weekly sum until the child should attain a certain age, and in consideration of those pay- ments the mother agreed not to apply to justices for a bastardy order and further agreed to main- tain and bring up the child. On the death of the mother before the child had attained the stipulated age the father discontinued the pay- ments. The administrator of the mother's BASTARDY— co»ii««e(i, estate brought an action against the father upon the agreement : — Held, that the father's obligation came to an end with the mother's death and that the action would not lie. James r. Morgan - Div. Ct. [1909] W, N. 31 ; [1909 1 K. B. 564 3, — Bastardy ordei Weetily payment — Death of putative father — Enforcement of order — Liability of fathet's estate — Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872 (35 ^- 36 Vict. e. 65), s. i. The liability of the putative father under a bastardy order is purely personal ; and if the father dies the mother has no right to claim against his estate either arrears or future pay- ments. Jm re Harrington. Wilder «. Turner Warrington J. [1908] W. N. 203 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 687 4, — Jurisdiction of justices — Illegitimate child "chargeable" to parish — Co.^ of relief — Marriage of mother — Application by guardians agaiTist putative fatlier, where husband able to maintain child — Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834 (4 ^- 5 Will. 4, c. 76), 5. 51— Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1873 (36 ^- 87 Vict. c. 9), s. 5. Where an illegitimate child is being main- tained by the guardians of a union or parish, justices have jurisdiction, upon the application of the guardians, to make an affiliation order against the putative father of the child under s. 5 of the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1873, notwithstanding that the child's mother has married and her husband is able to maintain it. Plymouth Guardians r. Gibes Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B, 177 — Legitimacy. See under Legitimacy. — Ees judicata — Affiliation proceedings — Pater- nity of child — Judgment of quarter sessions — Action for seduction. See Estoppel. 3. BATH — Water supply — "Domestic purposes" — School — Swimming bath. See Water. 16. BATHING— Public right of— Foreshore. See Seashore. 3. BATHS AND "^KSSRaVS^i—Looal government — Public baths — Letting for music atid dancing — Tahina mo-ney at the doors — Baths and Wash- houses Act, 1899 (62 S,- 63 Vict. c. 29), s. 2, By the Baths and Washhouses Act, 1899, the commissioners appointed under the Baths and Washhouses Acts, 1846 to 1899, are empowered to let public swimming baths, when closed, for music or dancing, subject to licence by the county council, but the Act provides that no money for admission be taken at the doors. The def ts., an urban district council, being commis- sioners under the Acts, obtained the requisite licence and let the baths in their district to persons who used them for entertainments com- prising music, and at these entertainments money for admission was taken at pay-boxes placed on the defts.' land just outside the build- ing. The hiring agreement between the defts. ( 239 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 240 ) BATHS AND WASHHOTJSES— co»rt«we(?. and their lessees contained a condition that no money should be taken at the doors._ In an action by the Att.-Gen. for aninjunction to restrain the defts. from taking or permitting to be taken money at the doors : — Held that, there being no provisions in the Act making the commissioners responsible for the acts of their lessees, the Court would not compel the defts. to take proceedings against their lessees at the rislc of a decision that what was done by them was not an unlawful evasion of the Act ; and, the defts. not claiming the right to take money at the doors, or to authorize their lessees to do so, no injunction ought to be -granted. Att.-Gen. r.WALTHAMSTOW Drban DiSTBiCT COTJNCIL Joyco J. [1910] W. N. 35 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 347 B a.ZAAB8 — Exemption. See Shop Hours Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 31), s. 2 (4). BECHTTANAIAND — Bechuanaland Protecto- rate — Laws of. See under Cape op Good Hope. — Foreign jurisdiction. See under Foreign Jueisdictiost. BED OF STREAM— Title to— Artificial channel —Mill stream — Riparian proprietors — Right to flow of water — Watercourse. See Stream. 3. BEER — Fitness for consumption — Implied warranty — Breach — Damages. See Sale op Goods. 2. — Licensing Acts. See under Licensing Acts. — Liability of innocent vendor for beer contami- nated with arsenic. See Adulteration. 3. BEEBHOTTSE. See undffl- Brewery Company. Licensing Acts. Inn. — Non-renewal of licence — Lease — Impossibility of performing covenant — Continuance of lease — Compensation. See. Lajsidlord and Tenant, 29. — Licensing Acts. See under LICENSING Acts. BEGGING— Juvenile. See Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c 15), s. 2. BELGIUM— iZ. S. a, Order xL, r. 8, to apply to Belgium. See under Practice. FcTGiTiVE Criminal.] E.vtraMtion — 0. in C, directing that the E-etroMtion Acts sTiall apply in the ease of Belgium, and of the Supplementary Convention of March .5, 1907. St. B. & 0. 1907, No. S41. I 'WSLGViSi— continued. — Belgian law — Collision in river Scheldt — Compulsory pilotage — Liability of owner. See Shipping — Pilotage. 1. — Crime committed in Belgium — Prescriptive period for punishment — Extradition treaty between United Kingdom and Belgium of Oct. 29, 1901, arts. H, 11— Belgian Penal Code, arts. 92, 9C. See Extradition. 1. — Foreign domioil — Administration— Grant to foreign administrators — Execution passed over. See Probate- Eoreigu Domicil. 1. BELLBINGING — Charitable bequest — Uncer- tainty — Overruling charitable intent. See Charity. 2. BELLS— Church bells— Illegality of use of. See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 11. BENEFICE. See under Ecclesiastical Law. — Income tax — Incumbent of -benefice — Easter otferings. See Revenue — Income Tax. 8. — Incumbent of benefice — Perquisites or profits accruing by reason of office. See Revenue — Income Tax. 8. BENEFIT SOCIETY. See under Friendly Society. BEENE CONVENTION, 1887, arts. 2, 7, 9. See Copyright — International. 1. BERTH NOTE — Ship — Arbitration clause — " Dispute arising at loading ports " — Stay of proceedmgs. See Shipping — Practice. 3. BETTING— /SA^re/! Brtiing Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. iS),is an Act fur the svpprestsion of iettitig in streets and other pnhlic j'laces. 1. — Criminal laic — Betting — Evidence of vser of premises — Beeeipt of money — Considera- tion— Bettimf Act, 1853 (16 S; 17 Vict. e. 119), ss. 1, 3. The appellant, who was a bookmaker, was indicted at the Southampton Quarter Sessions for an offence under s. 3 of the Betting Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. u. 119)/ Evidence was given on behalf of the prosecution to the following cifect. In May, 1910, the police, for the purpose of entrapping the appellant, caused a letter to bo written in the name of Ellison from Portsmouth to the appellant at Southampton, stating that the writer wished to open a deposit account with the appellant, and on hearing from him would forward 5?., and that none of the writer's com- missions would exceed that sum without a further remittance. The appellant answered, sending his book of rules and saying that " on receipt of yours, as suggested, I will place you on my list of clients." Postal orders for H. were sent, and bets were made by the appellant on May 26 and 27. On June J the appellant's premises were raided, ( 2a ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— 191o. ( 24-' ) BETTING— P;wf;««er7. and account books shewing betting transactions and about ICO betting slips were found there. The Court dismissed the appeal. Bex r. Mortimer C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 210 — Gaming. Sre under GAMING. 2. — Street betting — Ground used for the pur- puse of a racecourse — Street Betting Act, 1906 (6 Mw. 7, c. 43), s. 2. The appellant was convicted of loitering in a Pertain field for the purpose of betting contrary to the provisions of s. 1 of the Street Betting Act, 1906. By s. 2 of that Act it is not to apply to any ground " used for the purpose of a race- course for racing with horses or adjacent thereto on the days on which races take place." The appellant was a bookmaker, and was betting in a field which was being used on the occasion in question for the purpose of certain athletic sports and horse races. The programme of events at the sports consisted of a number of foot races and athletic competitions, and two horse races. The field was not permanently laid out or used as a racecourse for horse racing, but was adapted for use as such for the occasion . The Court held that the field was not " used for the purpose of a racecourse " within the meaning of s. 2, and confirmed the conviction. Appeal dismissed. Stead r. Aykeotd - Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 227 3. — Street Tietting — Jllegalit;/ — Gaming — House used for betting — Seizure in house by police of proceeds of street bettinq — Action to recover money—Street Betting ^ei;,'l906 (6 Mw. 7.C.43) —Betting Act, 185.8(16 ^- 17 Vict, c.119), ss. 11, \2— Metropolitan Police Act, 1839 (2 ^- 3 Vict, c. 47), ,5. 48. The pit. deposited in a house, which was occupied by a person employed by him, money which was the proceeds of street betting opera- tions carried on by him. In pursuance of a warrant issued under the Betting Act, 18r)3,s. 11, the police entered the house, and seized therein a number of betting slips and the aforesaid money. The pit. and his above-mentioned employee were subsequently prosecuted for using the house as a gaming house. Theplt.'s employee was convicted, but the pit. was acquitted of the charge. The Chief Commr. of the Metro- politan Police having refused to give up the .aforesaid money, the pit. brought an action against him to recover the same. At the trial, the defence having been set up by the deft, that the money belonged, not to the pit., but to his .above-mentioned employee, the pit. who was called as a witness, in rebutting that defence disclosed the fact that he had obtained the money by street betting. The learned judge at the trial found that the detention of the money was in the first instance lawful as being requisite for the purposes of the prosecution ; and he held that the maxim " Ex turpi causa non oritur actio " applied, and that the pit. could not therefore recover : — Held, reversing the decision of the learned jndLfO, that, the plt.'s cause of action not being .shewn to arise out of any illc^jal tra"S3ction, he 'BKl'ilSQ— continued. was entitled to recover, Goedon r. Chief COMMISSIONEE OF MBTEOPOLITAN POLICE. C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 1080 4. — Street betting, Wliat amounts to — Street Betting Act. 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 43), s. 1. By s. 1 of the Street Betting Act, 1906, " Any person frequenting or loitering in streets or public places, on behalf either of himself or of any other person, for the purpose of ... . betting " shall be guilty of an offence : — Held, that a person who loiters In a street for the purpose of distributing handbills, stating that a third person therein named is willing to make bets upon the events and at the rates of odds therein specified, and that if the recipients of the handbills will send to such third person written offers to bet accompanied by remittances of money the offers will be accepted, is guilty of an offence under the section. DtrNNiuG v. SWETMAN - Div. ct. [1909] W. N. 44 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 774 BETTING AND LOANS (INFANTS) ACT, 1892. See under Betting Cieculae. BETTING CmCVL&Sr— Infant— Cirodar sent to undergraduate — Presumption of Itnoicledge of infancy — " Any per.ion at any university " — Betting and loans (_Infanis) Act, 1892 (55 ^■ 66 Vik. c. 4), s. 3. A circular sent to a person at an address in a university town is not sent to a person " at a university " within the meaning of s. 3 of the Betting and Loans (Infants) Act, 1892, unless the sender knows that the address is that of a house at which undergraduates are permitted by the university authorities to reside. So held by Chaunell and Bray JJ., Lord Alverstone C.J. dissenting. Mit.ton r. Studd Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 98 ; [1910] 2 K.B. 118 BIAS — Justices. See under Justices. — Licensing Justices. See under Licensing Acts. ilCYC'L'S— Liability to toll—Carriage— h Geo. 4 e. crir., s. 78. By s. 78 of 5 Geo. 4, c. cxiv., the owners of a bridge across the Teign were authorized to take the following (amongst other) tolls for passage over the bridge : " For every coach, chariot, hearse, chaise, berlin, landau and phaeton, gig, whiskey, car, chair, or coburg, and for every other carriage hung on springs, the sum of six- pence for each wheel, and for each horse or other beast of draught drawing the same, the sura of twopence " : — Held, that a bicycle ridden over the bridge was not within the section. Qurerc, whether a bicycle is a " carriage hung on springs." Cannanv. Earl of Abingdon, [1900] 2 Q. B. 66, considered. Simpson r. Teignmouth and Shaldon Bridge Co. C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 406 2. — Liability to toll — " Sledge dray, or such lilie carriage " — 39 Geo. 3, c. .T.r'viii. {Local). By a special Act, passed in 1799, the trustees I of a bridge were authorized to demand before ( 213 ) niOKST OF CASKS, 1901—1010. ( 244 ) BICYCIE —continued. any passage should be permitted over the bridge the following (amongst other) tolls : " For every sledge, drag, or such like carriage, the sum of sixpence " : — Held, that the clause did not authorize the charge of sixpence in respect of a bicycle passing over the bridge. Smith r. Ktnkeksley C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 788 BIDDING— Costs of— Sale under direction of Court — Rescission . See Vendor and Purchaser — Be- scission. 6. BIGAM0TTSMABBI4GE— Will— Construction- Secondary meaning of " widow " — Administration. See Will— Words. 10. BIGAUT — Decree of nullity by French court on grounds unknown to English law- Conflict of laws — Lex loci contractus. See Divorce- Nullity. 1. — Indictment — Second marriage contracted abroad — No averment that accused was a British subject. See ObiminalLaw — Indictment. 1. — Nullity of marriage — Marriage in England between Englishwoman and domiciled Frenchman — irregularity by French law — Conflict of laws. See Divorce— Nullity. 1. 1. — Seeond mnre'iaflc perfoeme^l ahroad — Offences! against the Person Aef, 1861 {24: i- 25 rict. c. 100), .«. 57. By the Offences against the Person Act, 1861, s. 57, "Whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the life of the former husband or wife, whether the second marriage shall have taken place in England or Ireland or elsewhere, shall be guilty of felony " : — Held, that the section extends to a case where the second marriage is celebrated beyond the King's dominions. Trial OF Earl Russell Before the King in Parliament. H. L. [1901] W. N. 156 ; [1901] A. C. 446 BILL OF COSTS. See under CoSTS. Solicitor — Costs. BILL OF EXCHANGE. JBilh of E-eehange (^CroK-sed Cheqves) Act, 1906 (6 7iV7«>. 7, (!.'l7), amemh x. 82 of the Bills of Rrchanqe Aet. 1882 (45 !\- 46 Vict. ,.61). ■ BMls of Exchnnge, payahle not exceeding three days after date or right, Provision as to Stampinq. See Merenue Act, 1909 (9 Edif. 7, i:. 43), .•..'lO. — Auctioneer — Partnership — Implied authority to accept — Trader — Business — Implied authority of partner to accept. See AUCTION. 3. — Bankruptcy notice — Receiving order — Con- ditional payment — Dishonoured bill — Bill outstanding in third party. See Bankruptcy — Notice, 3, BILL OF EXCHANGE— (!0)i«MMeertij in hill — Indorsement. By an agreement of Feb. 27, 1905, the pit. agreed to sell, and the deft, to purchase, certain shares in a co. at a price to be ascertained as thereby provided, including a condition that book debts due to the co. should be taken as good at the amounts standing in the co.'s books. The CO. received in the ordinary course of business a bill of exchange, which was properly accounted for in their books, and on Feb. 22, 1905, handed it to their bankers to be dis- counted. On Feb. 28 the bankers credited the co.'s account with the amount of the bill : — Held, following In re Stevens, [1888] W. X. 110, 116, that the bill, being entered in the books of the CO. as a receivable bill, was a book debt ; that, inasmuch as it had been handed to the bankers for discount, but had not actually been discounted, it was on Feb. 27 a debt due to the CO. ; and that it must be accounted for as a book debt in ascertaining the amount of the price tn be paid for the shares. Dawson r. I.ole Warrington J. [1906] W. N. 58 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 633 — Cheque— Countermand by telegram — Notice — Action formonej' had and received. See Banker. 2. — Cheque — Defective title — Receiving paj'ment for a " customer " — Liability of banker. See Bankeb. 3. — Cheque — Forged indorsement— — Banker not acting -merely as agent for collection. See Banker. 5. — Cheque — Forged indorsement — Payee — " Fic- titious or non-existing person." See Bankeb. 4. 8. — Cherpie— Forged indorsement — Clieqne ■itolen ahroad — Transfer for value in foreign country— Coniiiet of laws — Bills of E-rchanqe Aet,\m2 (45 S)- 46 Vict. e. 61), 'ss. 24, 72— Aiistrian law. The rule of international law, that the validity of a transfer of movable chattels must be governed by the law of the country in which the transfer takes place, applies to the transfer of bills of exchange or cheques by indorsement. Alcocli V. Smith, [1892] 1 Ch. 238, followed, as being a decision to that effect. Per Vaughan Williams L.J. : Senible, that the indorsement in a foreign country — valid under foreign law but invalid under English law — of a bill of exchange would be effectual to give the indorsee a good title to the bill as against the drawer or acceptor. Sect. 24 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, does not apply to an indorsement of a bill of exchange abroad. That section is only declara- tory of English law, and does not control the general rule of international law. Lacarey. Credit Lyonnais, [1897] 1 Q. B. 148, distinguished. A cheque on a London bank was drawn in Roumania in favour of the pits., who the same day specially indorsed it to a Arm in London, and placed it, with a letter, in an envelope addressed to that firm in London. The cheque was stolen ( 215 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 21fi ) BILL OF EXCHANGE— co««fflM«?. from the envelope by one of the pits.' clerks. The cheque was presented at a bank in Vienna by a person who desired that it might be cashed. It then bore an indorsement, which purported to be that of the pits. ' London correspondents, but which was in fact forged. The Vienna bank, acting in good faith and without, negligence, cashed the cheque, and then indorsed it to the clefts. , a bank in London, and sent it to them by post. The defts. cashed it at the bank in London on which it was drawn. The pits, sued the defts. for damages for the wrongful conversion of the cheque. By the- Austrian law the defts. had a good title to the cheque as bona fide holders for value without gross negligence ; — lirU, tliat Alcoch v. Smith, [1S92] 1 Ch.238, applied, and that the Austrian law must prevail, the transfer of the cheque having been made in that country. Decision of Walton J., [1904] 2 K. B. 870, affirmed. Embibicos r. Anglo-Austeian Bank - - C. A. [1905] W. N. 30 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 677 — Cheque — Forged indorsement — -Draft by one branch of bank on another. See Bankee. f). 3. — Clieqne — Forged 'indorsement — Payee "« fieititioKS or non-ex'istinfi peraon" — Belief or i7iterttion of drawer — Bills of Mxehanqe Ari, 1882 (45 S,- 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 7, snh-s. 3. The pits., market salesmen, had in their employ a confidential clerk and cashier whose duty it was to fill up cheques ' payable to the order of various customers of the pits, with the names of such customers and the amount pay- able to them respectively, to obtain the signature of the pits, thereto, and then to post the cheques to the customers. In the course of the years 1901 to 1903 the clerk made out twenty-seven cheques to the order of various customers, amounting in all to 487?., obtained the signature of the pits, thereto, and misappropriated them, and, having forged the indorsements, negotiated them with the deft., who gave full value for them in good faith and obtained payment of them from the pits.' bankers. On an action to recover from the deft, the amount so received : — Held, that in the circumstances of this case it was impossible to come to the conclusion that the pits, when drawing these cheques had used the names of their customers by way of pretence only, and consequently that the payees were not " fictitious " persons within the meaning of s. 7, sub-s. 3, of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, that the fraudulent indorsements by the pits.' clerk were no authority to the deft, to hold these cheques, and that the pits, were entitled to judgment for the amount claimed. iianhof Engl/ind^. Vagliaiio Brothers, [1891] A. C. 107, and Chttton v. Attenhorough Si Sons, [1897] A. C. 90, distinguished. ViNDBN r. H0GHES 'Warrington J. [1905] W. N. 48 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 795 Kote. Approved by 0. A., Macbeth v. North ami South Wales Banli, [1908] 1 K. B. 13 ; H. L. (E.) [1908] A. 0. 137. See Banker, i. BILL OF :E.XCKA}i!&E— continued. — Cheque — Protection of collecting banker — Customer credited in ledger M'ith amount of cheque before clearance. See Banker, fi. — Company — Liability — Bill accepted by director in name of company without authority in fact. See Company — Liability. 1. — Costs of defending action on — Maritime lien — Master's wages — E moluments — Dis- bursements. See Shipping — Wages. 4. — Dishonour — Person acting as secretary of two companies — Knowledge in one character — Presumption of notice in other cha- racter. See Company — Secretary. 1. — Inchoate instrument — Negotiation. See Pkomissoey Note. 1. 4. — Indorsement ig way of security — Signa- ture in lilank — Bill not complete and regular on. face of it — Estopi>el — ^^ Holder in due cmirse" — Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 ,'|- 46 Vict, c. 61), s. 20. The deft, entered into an agreement with the pit. to guarantee the payment by T. for goods sold to him by pit., and for that purpose to indorse bills accepted by T. for the amouut. In pursuance of that agreement T. wrote his acceptances across the face of two blank stamped bill forms, and the deft, indorsed them. T. then handed the bill forms to the pit., who filled up the body of the bill for the agreed amount, making them payable to his order, signed them as drawer, and also indoreed them. The pit. duly delivered the goods to T., who eventually was unable to pay for them : — Held, that as the deft, agreed to be liable for the price of the goods supplied by the pit. to T.. and indorsed the bills for that purpose, he was liable on those bills. Decision of A. T. Lawrence J., [1907] 2 K. B. 507, affirmed. Glbnie r. Bruce Smith - C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 263 — Negotiable instrument — Signature in blank — Authority to fill up note. See Promissory Note. 2. — Promissory note — Inchoate instrument — Negotiation. See Promissory Notb. i. 5. — Promissory note — Joint and sercrnl — Proriso as to giring time to either parti/ — Bills of Exchange Act.' 1882 (45 ,V 40 Vict. <,-. 61), s. 83. The pit. sued as holder of a document described as a joint and several promissory note, which provided for the payment of certain money by instalments, the whole to become due on default in payment of any one instalment. It contained the following clause : " No time given to, or security taken from, or composition or arrangement entered into with, either party hereto shall prejudice the rights of the holder to proceed against any other party " : — Held, that the documeift w^ a v^lii ( 347 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 248 ) BILL or EXCHANGE— co/M!'mMe<«. promissory note within the meaning of s. 83, sub-s. 1, of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882. Xirhwuod v. Smith, [1896] 1 Q. B. 582, overruled. Yates v. Bmns, (1892) 61 L. J. (Q.B.) 446, approved. Kirkwood v. Carroll C. A. [19031 1 K. B. 531 — Ship — Coaling contract — Liability of master as drawer — Notice of dishonour — Special circumstances excusing delay. See Shipping— Bills of Exchange. 1. — Shipping — ^Action against master — Necessaries. See Shipping — Practice. 1. " BILL OF LADING— Shipping. See under Shippikg — Charterparty, 1, — Indorsement of hill of lading ii/ con- signee^Right to possession — Pfoperiy in goods — Intention — 'Execution creditor of consignor— Slieriff ill possession. Motion by the claimant as indorsee of a bill of lading for an order barring the claim of an execution creditor of the consignor to goods in the possession of the sheriff under the execation. The question at issue was whether the indorse- ment of a bill of lading by the consignees of the goods, without consideration, gave the indorsee a special right of property in the goods saflBcient to entitle him to maintain his claim as against the execution creditor. The claimant was a cork merchant and ware- houseman, who acted as agent for the consignees and warehoused their goods. The consignees indorsed a bill of lading of certain bills of cork- wood to the claimant, in order that he might " remove and warehouse the said goods on their behalf." The goods came from the pit. at Lisbon, and on their ai'rival at the London Docks they were seized by the sheriff under a writ of fi. fa. on behalf of the deft. , who was an execution creditor of the pit. An interpleader summons was taken out to determine the relative rights of the execution creditor and the claimant. It was adjourned to the judge in chambei's, who decided that the claimant was barred. The present motion was to discharge that order. Eve J. said that the claimant must shew two things — (1 .) that he had a general or some special property in the goods in question, and (2.) that he had a right to their possession. The indorsement of the bill of lading to the claimant operated as a transfer of the goods, and entitled him to the right of possession ; but, in his Lordship's view, that did not clothe him, under the circumstances of the pi'esent case, with a special property in the goods so as to enable him to succeed in his claim. In the case of Morison v. Gi-ay, (1824) 2 Bing. 260, Best C.J. held that the indorsement of a bill of lading conferred a special property on the indorsee sufficient to entitle him to bring an action of trover, but the real question at issue there was whether such an indorsement entitled the agent to stop in transitu. That case was not intended to overrule the cases of Waring v. Co,r, (1808) -1 Camp. 369, and Coxe v. Harden, (1803) 4 East, 211. The question was no longer an open one, as the case of Sewdl v. JBwrdich, BILL OF T^kTilSG— continued. (1885) 10 App. Cas. 74, shewed that the intention of the parties when the indorsement was made must be regarded, and in the present case the object of the indorsement was to enable the indorsee to get possession on behalf of the con- signees. It was impossible to infer an intention on their part to pass the property in the goods. Motion dismissed. Burgos v. Nascimento, MoKeanb, Claimant - Eve J. [1908] W. N. 237 BILL OF SALE— Bank loan— Letter of lien on goods. See Bankruptcy— Traders. 1. 1. — Carriers' lien — Agreement giving credit to trader for carriage of goods subject to pre- servation of lien — Goods on land in tenancij of trader — Detainer of goods — £iUs of Sale Act, 1878 (41 4- 42 Vicf. e. 31), s. i. A ry. CO. by a " ledger agreement ' ' opened a credit account with a coal merchant for the carriage of his coal, the co. to have a continual lien upon the coal conveyed on their lines or being at any time on ground rented of the co. for all charges due to them, and to be at liberty to sell and dispose of any of the coal to satisfy the lien, with the right to close the account by giving one day's notice. By separate agreements the 00. let to the merchant allotment-s within the ry. yard for the purpose only of stackmg and dealing with the coal. The co. had the keys of the yard gates and kept them locked at certain times. The payments being in arrear, the co. closed the account, looked the gates, and detained the coal : — Held by Lord Loreburn L.C. and Lords Macnaghten and Atkinson (Lords Robertson and Collins dissenting), that the inference of fact from the circumstances was that both parties intended the co.'s right of detainer to be pre- served and if necessary enforced against the coal while in the ry. yard ; that the ledger agreement conferred no licence to take possession of personal chattels or charge of equity thereon and was not a bill of sale within the Bills of Sale Acts ; and that the trustee in the merchant's bankruptcy had no claim against the co. in respect of the detainer. Decision of the C. A. on the above point, [1908] 2 K. B. 54, reversed, and decision of Phillimore J., [1908] 1 K. B. 195, thereon restored. Grbat Eastern Ky. Go. v. Lord's Trustee H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 4 ; [1909] A. C. 109 — Company — Debenture — Bill of sale — Non- registration — Debenture of foreign com- pany. See Company — Debentures. 1. 2. — Copy filed on registration — Omissions from copy — Affidavit — Term for maintenance of the security — Covenant to replace luom-out articles — Substituted chattels. Assignment of — Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (41 4' 42 Vict. c. 31), s. 10, sub-s. 2 — Bills of Sale Act, 1878, Amend- me/et Act, 1882 (45 4' 46 Vict. e. 43), ss. 4, 6, 9— Liverpool Court of Passage— Interpleader issue — A'ew trial — Livei-pool Court of Passage Act, 1893 (56 4- 57 Vict. 0. 37), s. 10. ( 249 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. 260 ) BILL OF SALE All application lies to C. A.' for a new trial of an interpleader issue tried in tiie Liverpool Court of Passage as in tiie case of any other issue there tried. Where, a bill of sale in proper form having been duly executed and attested, the copy of it filed in pursuance of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, o. 10, sub-s. 2, omitted the signature of the grantor, and the signature, address, and descrip- tion of the attesting witness, but the affidavit tiled with the copy stated that the bill of sale was duly executed by the grantor in the presence of I he attesting witness, giving his name, address, and description : — Held, that the bill of sale was valid, as the matters omitted in the copy of the bill of sale might be supplied by reference to the affidavit tiled therewith. Thomas v. Roherts, [1898] 1 Q. B. (ioT, followed. By a bill of sale, given as a security for the payment of money, the grantor assigned to the grantee the chattels and things specifically de- scribed in a schedule thereto, and also all chattels and things which might at any time during the continuance of the security be substituted for them or any of them. The bill of sale contained a covenant by the grantor that he would during the continuance of the secoi'ity replace such of the chattels and things expressed to be assigned as should be worn out by other articles of value equal to the present value of the articles woru out, so as at all times to keep up the total value of the chattels and things comprised in the security to the present value : — Held, that the bill of sale did not deviate from the form in the schedule to the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, Amendment Act, 1882, the assignment of substituted chattels and things only applying to chattels and things substituted under the covenant for the maintenance of the security. Seed V. Bmdleij, [1894] 1 Q. B. 319, followed, OoATES r. Moore - C. A. [1903] W. K. 105 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 140 3. — Illriit{/ and jjurchase agreement — Inten- tion of parties to agreement — Infereiire to he drawn from facts — Bills of Sile Act, 1878 (41 4- 42 Viet. c. 31), s. i— Bills of Sale Act, 1878, Amendment Act, 1882 (45 .J- 46 Vict.c. 43), ss. 3, 9. The owner of an hotel contracted with a pur- chaser for the sale of the hotel, and tlie chattels therein for a lump sum. The purchaser, being short of a portion of the purchase-money, applied to the def ts. for a loan on mortgage, which was refused ; but it was arranged that the defts. should ofEer to purchase the chattels, and their oflEer was accepted and the money paid to the vendor. The defts. then entered into an agree- ment with the purchaser of the hotel for the hiring and purchase by instalments by him of the chattels, and this agreement contained a licence to seize the chattels on certain defaults being made. The purchase of the hotel was then completed, and the purchaser entered and carried on the business. Subsequently the defts. seized the chattels on a default being made. BILL OF SALE— continued. claimed the chattels, and brought this action to recover them. The learned judge before whom the case came decided that the true inference from the facts was that the money paid by the defts. was a loan to the purchaser of the hotel to enable him to complete the purchase, and that the hire-purchase agreement was a security for that loan, and was void for want of regis- tration under the Bills of Sale Acts, and gave judgment for the pit. Seld, that there was evidence to support the conclusion that the defts. had advanced the money by way of a loan upon the security of the hire-purchase agreement, and that, as the only claim of the defts. to the chattels arose under that agreement, which was void for want of registration as a bill of sale, the pit. was entitled to recover. Judgment of 'Wright J., [1902] 1 K. B. 137, affirmed. Trustee of G. Melloe (a Bank- rupt) r. Maas C. a. [1903] 1 K. B. 286 Affirmed. See next Case. Loan — Mire aiid jmrcluise agreement — ■ Construction — Inference of fact — Registration. M., who had made a contract to buy a hotel and its furniture, being unable to find all the money, agreed with a wine merchant that he should provide 2000Z. The wine merchant went to the vendor and [laid him 2000Z., the vendor giving a receipt for that sum as the purchase- money of the furniture. The same day the wine merchant and M. signed a hire-purchase agree- ment by whicli the wine merchant let and M. hired the furniture for 2412?. to be paid by instalments, the furniture not to become the property of M. till all the instalments were paid. The purchase was then completed and M. took possession. After paying some of the instalments M. became bankrupt — Held, that the circumstances shewed that as a matter of fact the sale to the wine merchant was only colourable, that the transaction between the wine merchant and Jl. was really a loan upon the security of the hire-purchase agree- ment, and that the agreement not having been registered under the Bills of Sale Acts was void as against M.'s creditors. The decision of the C. A., .Vellor v. Jlais, [1903] 1 K. B. 226, affirmed. iVlA.4.s v. Pepper H. L. (.E.) [1905] W. N. 40 ; [1905] A. C. 102 — Money-lcndeis. See under Money-lendbe. 4. — Payment bg iii.idinterest — Construction of statutory form — BiU-i of Silo Act, 1S7S, Amendment Act, 1882 (4j .j- 4G Met. c. 43), .V. 9. By a bill of sale gooils were assigned to the KTautoe to secure an .advance of SOI. made by him to the grantor, with interest thereon at the rate of lOrf, in the pound per month, and the srantor further agreed and declnred that he would i>!iy to the grantee the principal sum aforesaid, together with the interest then due, by monthly payments of 2/. on the 9th day of every month succeeding the date of the bill of sale, the The purchaser became bankrupt, and his trustee I first payment to be made on Nov. 9 then next, ( 251 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 252 ) BILL or SALE—coiai/iued. and that, in default of payment of any instal- ment of the said principal sum, he would pay interest on such instalment at the rate aforesaid from the date when the same should become due until payment thereof. The real bargain between the parties was that tlie payment of botli the principal and the interest should be made by moutlily payments of 21. : — Seld by Vauglian Williams L.J. and Buckley L.O., Fletcher Moulton L.J. dissenting, that, upon the true construction of the bill of sale, it expressed the real bargain between tlie parties, and that It was not -void as not being in accordance with the form in the schedule to the BiUs of Sale Act, 1878, Amendment Act, 1882. Goldstromy. Tallerman, (1886) 18 Q. B. D. 1, discussed. Rosepield v. Provincial Union Bank - - C. A. [1910] W. N. 185 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 781 5. — Registratian, — Apparent possession — Bona-Jide purclMse — Execution creditor — Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (41 ^ 42 Vict. a. 31), s. 8. In 1903 G., the owner of certain furniture in a house occupied by him, sold the furniture to a limited co. by an agreement which was not registered as a bill of sale. In 1904 tlie co. bona fide sold the furniture to G.'s mother by a document which was not registered. In 1905 the furniture, which had during the whole time remained in the appaient possession of G., was seized in execution under a judgment obtained against him. His mother having claimed tlie furniture : — Held, that, as the claimant could neither shew a registered title, nor that she had taken possession so as to render registration unneces- sary, her title could not prevail against that of the execution creditor. Hopkins r. Gudgeon Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 690 6. — Registration not renewed — Apparent possession — Bills of Sale Act, i 878 (41 4" 42 Vict, c. 31), ss. 4, 8, n— Bills of Sale Act, 1882 (45 S,- 46 Vict. a. 43). The owner of furniture in a house of wliich he was the occupier, and in which he resided, granted an absolute bill of sale in respect of the furniture to his mother-in-law, who lived in the same house. This bill of sale was duly regis- tered in the first instance, but the registration was not renewed as required by the BiUs of Sale Act, 1878, s. 11. Tlie grantee .under this bill of sale subsequently gave a bill of sale in respect of the same goods by way of mortgage to secure an advance. This bill of sale was duly registered. The goods, which remained in the same house, in which the grantor of the first-mentioned bill of sale and his mother-in-law continued to reside, were subsequently taken in execution on a judg- ment against the said grantor, and were claimed by the grantee of the second bill of sale. On interpleader proceedings between the execution creditor and the claimant : — Held (aflBrming the judgment of a Div. Ct.), that the case was governed by Coolison v. Swire, (1884) 9 App. Cas. 653, and that the claimant was entitled to the goods as against the execution creditor. Antoniadi v. SstiTH. Smith, Claimant - C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 889 BILL OF SALE— continued. 7. — Repayment by instalments — Form in schedule, Benationfrom — Omissiuit of momtanj denomination— Bills of Sale Act, 1878, Amend- ment Act, 1882 (45 <5- 46 Vict. o. 43), s. 9. A bill of sale to secure a loan of 701. and interest at Is. in the pound per month stipulated that the principal and interest should be repaid by monthly instalments of " seven " on a certain date in each month : — Held, that as, having regard to the amount of monthly interest, the bill of sale could only be paid off if the repayments wore at the rate of 71. per month, the bill of sale was not rendered invalid by the omission of any unit of monetary denomination after the word " seven," and was not void as not being in accordance with the form in the schedule to the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, Amendment Act, 1882. Mohrmand i: Lb Claie. Provincial Union Bank, Claimants Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 216 — Traders — Bank loan to purchase goods — Letter of lien on goods— Construction- Reputed ownership. See Bankeuptcy— Traders. 1. 9. — }'y weight — " Fancy Bread "—Bread Act, 1836 (6 Sf 7 Will. 4, c. 37), s, 4. To constitute bread "fancy bread" within the proviso to s. 4 of the Bread Act, 1836, it is not necessary that it should be superior in quality to ordinary household bread ; it is enough that it is so different in size and appearance as not to be liable to be mistaken for it. Bailey v. Barsby . Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 610 Sunday observation prosecution — Consent in writing. See Justices. 1 9. BREWERS — Brewers' Colonial ale licences — Storekeepers' licences — Law of South Australia . See Australia. 4. ^— Brewer's lease — Covenant to buy beer of lessors and " their suocessore in business" — Covenant running with the land. See Landlord and Tenant. 20. ■ Brewer's lease — Mortgage — " Clog " on redemption — " Tie " — Covenant. See Mortgage — Redemption. 6. — Brewer's licence — Tied house — Lessee's cove- nant to buy malt liquors from lessor- Rise in prices — Breach of covenant. See Landlord and Tenant. 21, 23. 1. — Debenture trust deed — BrcAVery company — Mortgaged licensed premises — Ifbn-reneuial of licence — Lice/ising Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 23), s. 2 — Comperusation — Capital moneys — In vest- ment — Powers of deienture trustees. A brewery co. by deed conveyed all its licensed premises to trustees to Secure an issue of debenture stock. The deed empowered the trustees to permit the co. to hold and enjoy the mortgaged premises until the security became enforceable (which event had not happened), and provided (clause 20) that at any time before the security became enforceable tlie trustees might with the concurrence of the co. sell, lease, and exchange any of the mortgaged premises, and also " settle, adjust, refer to arbitration, com- promise and arrange all ... . controversies, questions, claims and demands whatsoever, open, unsettled or pending with any person or persons in relation to the mortgaged premises," and also generally might " act in relation to the mortgaged premises in such manner as the trustees might think expedient in the interests of the stock- holders"; and declared (clause 21) "that the trustees should hold all capital moneys arising under clause 20," upon trust for investment in (inter alia) other licensed premises. The deed also contained the usual trust investment clause, ( 263 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 264 ) NISWESiS— continued. The licensing authority having refused under the powers of the Licensing Act, 1904, to renew the licence of one of the licensed premises comprised in the trust deed, compensation was awarded under the Act to the co. in respect thereof. The trustees were not parties to the compensation Meld (following Law Guarantee and Trust Society, Id. v. Mitaham and Clieam Brewery Co., Ld., [1906] 2 Ch. 98), that the compensation money must be paid to the trustees of the debenture deed. Held, also, that the compensation proceed- ings were a " controversy in relation to the mort- gaged premises " within the meaning of clause 20, and, therefore, that the compensation moneys were " capital moneys arising under clause 20 " which the trustees could in the exercise of their discretion apply under clause 21 in the purchase of other licensed premises. Noakbs v. Noakes & Co. - Neville J. [1906] W. N. 193 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 64 yote. Approved by Kekewich J., Dawson v. Braime's Tadcaster Breweries, Ld., [1907] 2 Ch. 359. See next Case. Referred to by Eve .1., Bent's Brewery Co. V. Dylies, [1909] W. N. 51. Licensitig Acts. 30. 2. — Brewery Company — Debenture trust deed ^Mortgaged Uce7ised premises — Security not yet enforceable — Trustees' powers — Power to sell and convert — Investment of proceeds of sale — Non- renewal of licence — Licensing Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, V. 28), s. 2 — Compensation — Capital moneys — Applicable as proceeds of voluntary sale, A brewery co. assured all its licensed pre- mises to trustees upon the trusts of a debenture trust deed, which was in the usual form, for securing an issue on debenture stock, the premises being held by the trustees on trust to permit the CO. to hold and enjoy the same and to carry on thereon the business of the co. until the security thereby constituted became enforceable (which event had not happened), and then upon the usual trust for sale and conversion. The deed provided by clause 17 that at any time before the security thereby constituted became enforce- able the trustees might (inter alia) sell and con- vert, or concur in selling and converting, all or any of the mortgaged premises in the same manner as they could do if the primary trust for conversion had then arisen ; and, by clause 18, that the trustees should hold the capital moneys arising under clause 17 upon trust to lay out the same in (inter aUa) the purchase of the licensed premises suitable to be held for the purposes of the CO. : — Held, that moneys paid under the Licensing Act, 1904, for compensation for the licence of one of the mortgaged premises comprised in the trust deed were capital moneys arising under clause 17 as above set out, and were applicable under the provisions of clause 18. Law Ouarantee and Trust Society, Ld. v. Mitcham and Cheam Brewery Co., Ld., [1906] 2 Ch. 98, explained. Malics V. Noakes <|- Co., Ld., [1907] 1 Ch. G4, iB,WW'E&^— continued. approved. Dawson v. Braime's Tadcaster Breweries, Ld. Kekewich J. [1907] W.N. 160; [1907] 2 Ch. 389 Note. Followed by Warrington J., In re Bentley's Yorkshire Breweries, Ld., [1909] 2 Ch. 609. See next Case. 3. — Debenture trust deed — Mortgaged licensed premises — Security not yet enforceable — Trustees' powers — Power to sell and convert — Investment of proceeds of sale — Non-renewal of licences — Licensing Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 23), s. 2— Compensation — " Capital moneys " — " Purchase- moneys " — Applicable as proceeds of voluntary sale — Purchase of or investment on mortgage of licensed premises of company. Where a brewery co. .has executed a trust deed to secure debentures with the usual clause providing that the trustees shall on the co.'s application sell or concur in selling any part of the mortgaged premises and hold the proceeds on trust for reinvestment, and the licences of part of the mortgaged premises have been taken away under the Licensing Act, 1904, such a pro- ceeding is a sale, and the compensation moneys awarded under the Act are " purchase-money s " or " capital moneys " within the meaning of the trust deed. The trustees in such a case, if possessed of the requisite powers, may invest the " purchase " or " capital moneys " in the purchase or on mortgage of licensed properties, and, if so advised, in the purchase or on mortgage of licensed premises of the co. Dawson v. Braime's Tadcaster Brewei'ies, Ld., [1907] 2 Ch. 359, followed. In re Bbntley's Yorkshire Breweries, Ld. Warrington J. [1909] 2 Ch. 609 — Income tax — Deductions — Expense of appli- cations for new licences. See Revenue — Income Tax. 10. — Income tax — Deductions — Profits of brewery — Tied licensed houses^Compensation charge. See Revenue — Income Tax, 9. — Landlord and tenant — Lease — Beerhouse — Licence taken away — Covenant — Im- possibility of performance. See Landlord and Tenant. 29. — Landlord and tenant — Lease — Covenant — ■ Assignment to brewery company — Con- dition imposing increased rent. See LANDLORD AND TENANT. 18. — Lease — Covenant against assignment without consent — Assignment to limited com- pany carrying on a brewery business — Personal residence. See LANDLORD AND TENANT. 18. — Licensing Acts. See under LiCENSlNa ACTS. — Profits of brewery — Tied licensed houses. See Revenue — Income Tax. 9. — "Tied" leasehold public-house — "Clog" on redemption. See Mortgage— Eedemption. i. ( 26S ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 266 ) ^'RI'B^'RY — Extradition Act, 1906 (6 Mw. 7, c. 15), includes bribery amongst extradition crimes. — Franchise — Borough vote — Bribery by agents at municipal election. See Pabliambnt. 2. BSICKFIELD — Settled land — Trustees — Implied power to let from year to year — Royalties. See Settled Land— leases. 10. BBIDOE — "Adjacent " — New Zealand municipal corporations. See New Zbalahd. 2. 1. — Approaclies — Hi//hway — Liahilitij to re- pair 300 feet from end of bridf/e — Statute of Bridges (22 Hen. 8, c. 5) — JVeio Rirer Company's Acts (3 Jac. 1, i. o. 128), s. 9. The words in s. 9 of the BuriaJ Act, 1855, " no ground not already used as or appropriated for a cemetery " mean, "used as or appro- priated" at the date of the passing of the Act, and, consequently, the owner, lessee, or occupier of a dwelling-house which has been erected subsequently to the acquisition of a site for a cemetery by a burial board is entitled to an in- junction to restrain any ground within 100 yards of such dwelling-house from being " used for burials" without his consent in writing. Decision of Kekewich J., [1906] W. N. 90, affirmed. Godden v. Hythe Btjeial Boaed C. A. [1906] W. N. 126 ; [1906] Ch. 270 — Rates — Burial ground. See under Rates. BUSINESS — Right of company to carry on — Debentures — Floating security — Set-oflE. See Company— Debentures. 16. — Trust estate —Management — Powers — Invest- ment — Company — Reconstruction. See Teustee — Investments. 14. — Will — Conversion — Profits of business — Capital or income — Tenant for life and remainderman. See Will — Capital or Income. 1. BUTTER. Butter and Margarine Act, 1907 (7 Mdw. 7, 0. 21), is an Act to majie further provision with respect to the manufacture, importation, and sale of butter and margarine and similar sub- stances. — Adulteration. See under ADULTERATION. BY-LAWS— Advertisements. See under Adveetisements. — Building — Conversion of building into dwelling-house — " New building " — Breach of bylaw — Local government. See Buildings. 1. BY-LAWS— coraiifflji«. Ownees of S.S. " Cape Bbeton" p. C. [1907] a. C. 112 — Canadian Canal Regulations, 1895 — Piiority of passage into Lachine Canal — Duty of vessel lying by. See Canada — Canals. 1. 2. — Collision — Canadian R. S. c. 79 — Arts. 19, 22 and 23 of the Regulations of 1897 for Preventing Collisions — Vessels crossing so as to involve rish of collision — Colli.non off the entrance to harbour. 'Where two vessels were approaching each other in Canadian waters on courses which con- verged at a point outside a harbour where each vessel expected to pick up a pilot ; — Held, that as they were so doing on courses and at speeds which would probably bring them to that point so as to present a danger of collision when they reached it, they were vessels crossing so as to involve risk of collision within the mean- ing of arts. 19, 22 and 23 of the Regulations of 1897, which had been substituted for those con- tained iu Canadian E. S. c. 79 ; and that conse- quently it was the duty, negligently disregarded, CANADA (Shipping) — continued. of the respondents' vessel, which had the appel- lants' vessel on her own starboard side, to keep out of her way, there being no special circum- stances within the meaning of art. 27 to authorize a departure from that rule. ITeld also, that the appellants' vessel was not to blame under art. 21. It was nqt shewn that with reasonable care she ought to have taken action thereunder earlier than she did. S.S. " Albano " V. Allan Line Steamship Co., Ld. Union Damppsohiffsehbdbeei Aotien- gesellschapt v. S.S. "Paeisian" P. C. [1907] A. C. 193 3. — Exchequer Court of Canada {Admiralty) — Extent of jurisdiction— Suit to enforce mort- gage of a ship — Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (Imperiar), s. 11— Plea of set-off— Bamages for breach of building contract. The Exchequer Court of Canada was con- stituted by the Exchequer Court Act (50 & 51 Vict. u. 16) (Dominion) for the purpose of deahng with mattei-s in which the Crown was concerned (ss. 15 and 16) and has no general common law jurisdiction. It has also under the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict, c. 27) (Imperial), and the Admiralty Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 29) (Dominion), jurisdiction in Admiralty, including its statutory extensions. In an action In rem by the appellants in the said Court, British Columbia Admiralty Dis- trict, to enforce payment of the balance due on the mortgage of a ship, granted in respect of the price of construction, which it was agreed should be treated as money lent, the respondents, the registered transferees of the ship, pleaded by way of equitable defence that they were entitled to set off a sum of money expended by them, which was sufficient to prevent their being in default under the mortgage at the date of the action. It appeared that the set-off was claimed as a defence pro tanto so far as it was for a diminution in value of the ship by reason of its having been built negligently and defectively and not in accordance with contract : — Held, that under the Admiralty jurisdiction as it formerly existed neither appellants nor respon- dents could have enforced their claims in an Admiralty Court. But s. 11 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, extends that jurisdiction so as to include the claim of the appellants, which was in respect of a mortgage duly registered under the Merchant Shipping Act ; while the respondents' defence, though pleaded by way of set-off, in reality involved a cross-claim for unliquidated damages under a contract distinct from the mortgage sued upon, which the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain whether the claim was against the ship or the pits. Bow, McLaohlan & Go. r. Ship " Camosun " and Union Steamship Co. of Beitish Columbia, Ld. P. C. [1909] A. C. 697 - Revised Statutes of 2 (&), 58 and 59— Co«- 4. — Pilotaqc dues - Canada, 1886, 'c. 80, ss. struction. The respondent's vessels (about 440 tons each), built for the purpose of carrying coal, and carrying sails so as to be able to run before the wind, but not so as to be safely navigateu ( 323 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 324 ) CANADA (Shipping) — continued. in the ordinary way as sailing vessels, were towed by a steam tug in and out of the port of St. John. In an action by the respondents to recover pilotage diaes paid under the Pilotage Act (Kevised Statutes of Canada, 1886, c. 80), ss. 58 and 59 ; — Held, that s. 58 applied to the said vessels as ships which navigate within the district of St. John, i.e., perform voyages into or out of the port of St. John ; ships being defined by s. 2 (J) as Including " every description of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars," and s. 58 not indicating that in the pilotage waters a ship must at the time possess independent practical power of moving herself. Held, also, that they were not exempted under s. 59 (e), since they were not ships pro- pelled wholly or in part by steam, the word "propelled" not including traction within its scope. St. John Pilot Commissionbes and Att.-Gbn. poe the Dominion op Canada v. CUMBEELAND RT. AND COAL CO. P. C. [1910] A. C. 208 Snow. 1. — Ice and Snow — Contract — Comtruetion — IMy of clearing track of ice and snow — Right to clear ice and snow into the streets — Electnc The city council of Montreal being bound as the road authority to remove the ice and snow on the streets from curb to curb, including the snow thrown or faUing thereon from the roofs of houses and removed thereto from the side walks : — Seld, that the respondent street ry. co. having contracted with the city to keep their track free from ice and snow, did not, having regard to the surrounding circumstances and in the absence of words expressly or impliedly for- bidding it, commit a nuisance by sweeping their snow into the street. Ogston V. Ab&rdeen District Tramways Co., [1897] A. C. Ill, distinguished. Seld, also, that the city having granted to the CO. all rights and privileges necessary for the proper and efficient use of electric power to operate cars in the streets in the manner success- fully in use elsewhere, the latter could not be pre- vented from using the electric sweepers. City OP MONTEBAL c. MONTEBAL StEBET EY. CO. P. C. [1903] A. C. 482 Streets. 2. — Cost of Improeements — Action to recover assessed amiounts — Assessment due on filing the roll — Prescription — Quebec Act (Jtl Vict. c. 79), ss. 120, 144, 231— CmZ Code, Arts. 2227, 2232, and 2236 — Construction. Under s. 231 of the City of Montreal Charter, 1889 (52 Vict. c. 79), the amount of an assess- ment becomes due and recoverable on the filing of the roll of assessment in the office of the city treasurer. In an action by the city to recover after the period of prescription enacted by s. 120, calcu- lated from the date of filing, had elapsed, it appeared that the respondent's predecessor had CANADA (Streets) — continued. been a party to proceedings had for its annul- ment : — Held — (1.) that the period was not inter- rupted thereby within the meaning of art. 2227 of the Civil Code, for there had been no acknow- ledgment of liability ; (2.) That there had been no impossibility to sue within the meaning of art. 2232, for the right of action was not by the above Act suspended during such proceedings ; (3.) That the debt in suit was not dependent on a condition within the meaning of art. 2236 : though s. 144 of the Act limited the time with- in which the roll might be annulled, it did not make the date of its coming into force con- ditional on the roll not being either attacked or annulled. CiTY OP Montebal p. Cantin P. C. [1908] A. C. 241 — Street railway — New lines. See Canada— Railway. 7, 9. Sundays, 1. — Powers of local Legislature — Ontario Act, 1897, c. 2i&,to pre-centthe profanation of the Lord's Day, ultra fires — Exclusive power of the Dominion Parliament over cnminal legislation — British iVorth America Act, 1867, s. 91, sui-s. 27 — Practice as to questions referred. Held, that " An Act to prevent the Profana- tion of the Lord's Day" (Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1897, c. 246) treated as a whole is ultra vires of the Ontario Legislature. The criminal law in its widest sense is reserved by s. 91, sub-3. 27, of the British North America Act, 1867, for the exclusive authority of the Dominion Parliament ; and an infraction of the above Act is an offence against criminal law. It is not the practice of their Lordships to give speculative opinions on hypothetical ques- tions submitted. The questions must arise in concrete cases and involve private rights. Att.- Gen. pok Ontaeio r. Hamilton Steeet Ey. Co. - P. C. [1903] A. C. 624 Swamp Lands. 1. — Crown lands — Swamp lands — Canadian Act, 48 ^ 49 Vict. c. 50, s. 1 — Construction — Transfer of proprietary right — Vesting at a, future date. By s. 1 of the Canadian Act, 48 & 49 Vict, c. 53, subsequently re-enacted by Revised Statutes of Canada, c. 47, s. 4, it was provided that all Crown lands which may be shewn to the satisfaction of the Dominion Government to be swamp lands shall be transferred to the province and ensure wholly to its benefits and uses : — Held, that by its true construction the section did not operate an immediate transfer to the pro- vince of any swamp lands or of the profits arising therefrom, but only from the date of the 0. in C, made after survey and selection as prescribed by the Act directing that the selected lands be vested in the province. Down to that date the profits resulting from the transferred land belonged to the Dominion. Att.-Gbn. poe MANITOBA f. Att.-Gen. poe Canada - P. C. [1904] A. C. 799 M 2 ( 325 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 326 ) CANADA — continuei/. Telephone. 1. — Powers of Dominion Legislature — Local undeiialdruis extended deyoiid provlHcial limits — British Noiih America Act, 1867, s*. 91, 92, suh-s. 10 (a) — Dominion Act, 4:3 Viet. c. 67 — Ontario Act, 45 Vict. c. 71. Held, that under Its Dominion Incorporating Act, 43 Vict. c. 67, the respondent telephone oo. was entitled, without the consent of the municipal corporation, to enter upon the streets and high- ways of the city of Toronto and to construct conduits or lay cables thereunder, or to erect poles with wires aflSxed thereto upon or along such streets or highways. The scope of the respondents' business contemplated by the said Act and involving its extension beyond the limits of any one province was' within the express exception made by s. 92, sub-s. 10 (a), of the British North America Act. 1867, from the class of local works and undertakings assigned thereby to provincial Legislatures. Accordingly, Act 43 Vict. c. 67 was within the exclusive competence of the Dominion Parliament under s. 91. Ontario Act 45 Vict. c. 71, passed to authorize the exercise of the above powers within the province, subject to the consent of the corpora- tion, was held to be ultra vires, and could not by reason of having been passed on the application of the respondent co. be validated as a legis- lative bargain. ToEONTO Coepoeation r. Bell Telephone Co. op Canada P. C. [1905] A. C. 52 Temperance Acts. 1. — Canada Temperance Act, 1888 (51 Vict. V. 34), s. 10 — Issue of searck warrant "before prosecution — Writ ofcei'tiwari refused — Practice as to special leave to appeal in criminal cases — Law of Kova Scotia. Under the Canada Temperance Act, 1888 (51 Vict. c. 34), a search warrant was issued and duly executed, and large quantities of intoxicat- ing liquor found on the hotel and premises searched and a conviction of the appellant sub- sequently obtained in regard thereto, with a consequent order for the destruction of the liquor :— Held, that, the Supreme Court having dis- missed applications for writs of certiorari to remove into tlie said Court the record of the said search warrant and destruction order, special leave to appeal therefrom must be refused. The decision was plainly right, having regard to s. 10 of the Act under which the warrant was issued. Townsend v. Cox P. C. [1907] A.C. 614 Trade Machines. — Leases of machines for shoe manufacture. See Canada — Leases. 8. Trade Mark. 1. — " Culedoiiia Waters" — No exolnsire right to the trade word of local source. Where the mineral waters of the appellant derived from various Caledonia springs, so called from being in a township of that name, acquired in the market the name of " Caledonia Water " ; CANADA (Trade Mark) — continued. and the respondents having discovered other springs in the same township sold their goods as " from new springs at Caledonia " : — Held, in an action for an injunction, that the appellants had not, in the circumstances, a right to the exclusive use of the word " Caledonia." The respondents were entitled to indicate the local source of their waters, and had sufficiently distinguished their goods from those of the appellants. Gband Hotel Co. of Caledonia Springs, Ld. r. Wilson P. C. [1904] A. C. 103 Trade Union. 1. — Action against — Trade union — Action- able compiracy — Misdirection — Resolutions of union calling a strike — New trial. In an action against the appellants alleging that they had conspired to injure the pits, in the conduct of their business, and that in pursuance of the conspiracy the union whom they represented caused the pits.' men to go out on strike, the judge in effect directed the jury that if the resolutions of the union calling out the pits.' men were the cause of the strike they were an actionable wrong, without regard to the motive and without regard to the conspiracy alleged : — Held, that this direction could not be sup- ported and that there must be a new trial. JosE r. Metallic Roofing Company op Canada, Ld. - P. C. [1908] A. C. 514 Trespass. — Action for trespass — Injunction — Arbitration clauses. See Canada- -Arbitration. 4. Water. 1. — Water — Unrecorded waters — British Columbia- - Water Clauses Consolidation Act, 1897, S.S. 2, i—UsquimaU Waterworks Act, 1885, *. 10, and the Extension Act, 1892, s. 10 — Con- struction. By the British Columbia Water Clauses Con- solidation Act, 1897, s. 4, the right to the use of all unrecorded water in any river, lake, or stream is declared, subject to a proviso in favour of existing legal rights, to be vested in the Crown in right of the province ; unrecorded water, by the interpretation clause (s. 2), includes all water not held for the time being under special grant by public or private Act. In an action by the respondents in effect claiming to appropriate for the purpose of the municipality certain waters described as flowing from two different sources, Goldstream River and Niagara Creek, as being unrecorded water and liable to be recorded in their favour under the said Act, it appeared that the waters so claimed had under the Esquimalt Waterworks Act, 1885, and its Extension Act, 1892, vested in the appellants by force of s. 10 of the former Act, subject to the perpetual and onerous obligation imposed by s. 10 of the Extension Act of supply- ing water to the respondents if required after notice and in large quantity ; that considerable outlay had been incurred by the appellants in storing and conveying the waters in suit with a I ( 327 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 328" ) CANADA (Water) — continued. view to meeting such obligation ; and that with- out the waters in suit they would be unable to meet it : — Held, (1) that the appellants' Acts of 1885 and 1892 are private Acts, in the sense that they confer special rights and impose special obliga- tions upon them for special purposes. (2) That the Act of 1897 did not apply to the appellants. It was a subsequent general statute, and could not be intended to interfere with rights granted by special legislation to an extent which prevented the fulfilment of the statutory obligations imposed thereby. (3) That under the true construction of s. 2 of the Act of 1897 the waters in suit, having been granted to the appellants by special legisla- tion, were not unrecorded within its meaning ; and that the plain intention of the proviso to 8. 4 was to preserve any right of diversion or appropriation existing under any Act already passed. EscjuiMALT Watekworks Co. r. City OP Victoria Cokporation P. C. [1907J A. C. 499 Will. 1. — Accwnulatimis of income during minority of dojiee — Testator's children to take equal shares in the residue at majority — Will, Construc- tion of. The testator gave to each child an equal share of the income of the whole of his residuary estate subject to the provision " that until each child attains the age of twenty-five years what would have been his or her share is to accumulate and form part of mj' general estate " : — Held, that according to the true construction of this provision the accumulations of each share during con rentional minority were intended to increase the general residuary estate of which each child was entitled to a share at twenty-five, and not for the exclusive benefit of the sharer. FuLFORD V. Haedt P. C. [1909] A. C. 570 2. — Alienation — Giftto children — Conditions in restraint of alienation — Enjoyment of usufruct — Grandchildren conditionally substituted — JVo right of accretion — Construction of will. A testator directed that his estates should be divided into seven shares amongst his seven children, the children to have the usufruct and enjoyment of all his property, and, on the decease of his children or any of them, the children to be bom of their respective marriages to have the full proprietary right and interest therein. To his gi'andchildren thus substituted for his children he gave the right to use, enjoy, or dispose of the same as it might seem good to them, instituting them for this purpose his universal legatees. He prescribed three conditions : (1.) that the property bequeathed to his children should not be assignable, or capable of being seized by their creditors ; (2.) that it should not be sold or alienated under any pretext, but should pass "en nature" to his grandchildren ; (3.) that the grandchildren should not alienate the share of the property which should belong in usufruct to their respective fathers or mothers before the said usufruct had come to an end: — ffeld, that the effect was that each child was CANADA (Will)— continued. entitled to his specific share which had been ascertained by partition, confirmed by 60 Vict, c. 95, as sole proprietor subject to the condition of handing it over to his children at his death ; and that there was no right of accretion amongst either the testator's children or grandchildren. Consequently the share in suit of one of the children who died in 1902 without issue passed under his will to his executor. PBfivoST v. Pkevost p. C. [1908] A. C. 541 3. — Alternative absolute gifts — Construction. A testator gave to his widow his real estate for life, and at her death to his eldest son, John, for life, and thereafter to " become the absolute property " of John's eldest son, alternatively ' ' to become the property of my son James or of his eldest son," and failing either of them to the appellant. John died in the testator's lifetime without male issue ; James and his son who pre- deceased him survived the widow : — . Held, that the gift to John's eldest son being of an absolute interest, it must, in the absence of words importing a, different intention, and having regard to the context, be deemed to have been the intention of the will that the alternate gift to James should also be absolute. The gift over to the appellant in case of the death of James without male issue was defeated if either James or his son lived to take absolutely. 'MCCOEMICK V. SiMPSOK" P. C. [1907] A. C. 494 Yukon Territorial Act. — Final judgment — -Appeal — Omission to peti- tion for special leave — Costs. See Canada — Practice. 10. CANAL — Bridge over canal — Approaches to bridge — Liability to repair. See Bridge. 1. 1. — Canal company — Diversion of water from river. — Statutory powers — Urban district council — Riparian owners — Statutory power to draw water from rirer — Action by Attorney- General — Mandatory injunction — Laches — Delay — Union and Grand Junction Canal Act, 1810 (50 Geo. 3, c. 122)— Rugby Waterwrn-hs Act, 1863 (26 4' 27 Vict. c. xxxiii.) — Rugby Water and Improve- ment Act. 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. cclxix.). By an Act passed in 181-0 a canal Co., thereby incorporated, was empowered to make a canal and other works and to take the waters of a certain river and its tributary streams for the purpose of supplying the canal, but was pro- hibited from reducing the flow of the river below a certain average to be ascertained as therein provided. The canal works were completed in 1837 and had since been in operation without complaint until 1901. By another Act passed in 1894, and reciting that the canal and works had been duly constructed in accordance with the Act of 1810, the canal and undertaking were transferred to the defts. The pits., an urban district council, had statutory powers to supply water in their district, and to draw from the river at a point below the canal works. They had also acquired property upon the banks of the river. ( 329 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 330 ) CANAL — coutimied. In an action by the Att.-Gen. at the relation of the pit. council, and by the pit. council, for an injunction to restrain the deft, from diverting from the river more water than they were entitled to under the Act of 1810, and for an injunction to restrain them from permitting the works to remain so constructed as not to comply with the Act : — ffeld, that the defts. had only allowed the works, executed more than sixty years ago, to operate as they had done from the first, and had acquired by lapse of time an absolute right to the use of the water diverted by those works ; the action of the pits, as distinct from the claim of the Att.-Gen. therefore failed. Weld, further, with respect to the action by the Att.-Gen., that the Court had a discretion as to granting a mandatory injunction in such a case, and, having regard to the length of time which had elapsed without objection or com- plaint, no such injunction ought to be granted. Att.-Gen. v. Graitd Junction Canal Co. Joyce J. [1909] W. N. 167; [1909] 2 Ch. 505 — Railway — Arbitration — Jurisdiction of Bail- way and Canal Commission. See Railway — Arbitration. 2. — Railway and Canal Commission. See under Railway — Eailway and Canal Commisiion. — Railway and Canal Traffic Acts. See under Railway. — Repairs — Canal company — Liability to repair approaches to bridge over canal. See Bridge. 1 . CANALS — Canadian Canal Regulations — Priority of passage into Lachine Canal — Duty of vessel ly™o ^J- 5e« Canada — Canals. 1. — Railway and Canal Traffic Acts. See under Railway. CANCELLATION — Charterparty — Ship— Non- arrival by fixed date — Date for exercise of option to cancel charterparty. See Shipping — Chakteepaety. Debenture — Registration. See Company — Debentures. 18. Forfeiture on alienation — Cancellation of charge before property charged becomes payable. Se« Will— Forfeiture. 2. Prospectus — Irregular allotment — Cancella- tion of allotment — Rescission — Ultra vires. See CoMPANY- -Prospectus. 1. Ship — Charterparty — Non-arrival by fixed date — Date when option to cancel arises. See Shipping — Charterparty. 21. Ship — Charterparty — "Ready for loading" — Discharge of previous cargo. See Shipping — Charterparty. 55. Will — Erroneous impression of testator as to the effect of an earlier settlement. See Pkobatb — Cancellation. 1. CANTEEN — OfEences — Excise licence - civilian. See Licensing Acts. 49. - Sale to CAPE OF GOOD HOPE. — The South Africa Act, 1909 (9 Udw. 7, c. 9), is an Act to constitute tTw Onion of South Africa. Death DutUs^O.in C, Xor.. 21, 1908, revoh- ing 0. in C. applying s. 20 of the Finance Act, 1894, to the Colony of the Cape of Good Sope. St. E. & 0. 1908, No. 1142. — Appeal. See Nos. 10, 11, helow. 1. — Bechnanaland Protectorate — Mining rights — Hules and regulatioTis of the appellant company — Forfeiture of block of mining claims — Certificate of preliminary registration — Law of Bechuanaland . Although the mining rules and regulations of the appellant co., which were the contractual terms of the respondent's holding of a block of reef claims within their concession, do not in express terms prescribe or authorize forfeiture, yet the holder's liability thereto is the only sanction of all reservations, whether of rent or otherwise, in the appellant's favour. A certificate granted thereunder of prelimi- nary registration of the respondent's holding is not equivalent to a lease. Tte mining rights and privileges conferred by it do not fall under any bead or category known to the Boman-Dutch law. The rights of the parties are governed by the terms of their contract, that is, the mining rules and regulations. In an action for restitution of a mining block, held that the appellants were under their rules and regulations entitled to declare it forfeited for non-payment of rent. Tati Concessions, Ld. V. Hepplb p. C. [1906] A. C. 139 2. — British Bechuanaland Concession Cmirt — Concessions hy native chiefs before 1891 — Pro- clamatiom of April 25, 1889, and Feb. 1, 1893— Power of Court to modify concession — Minerals. Sect'. 23 of the proclamation of Feb. 1, 1893, establishing the British Bechuanaland Concession Court, empowers that Court to modify the terms, conditions and scope of all concessions made by native chiefs prior to 1891 ; or to impose equit- able limitations, restrictions or conditions upon their exercise. A concession by a native chief in Bechuana- land in 1889 and 1890, applicable to all minerals whatsoever, was in effect confirmed by the said Court, subject to the restriction imposed by the proclamation of April 25, 1889, which related solely to the precious metals, and in effect destroyed the appellants' right thereto ; — Held, that this was a modification within the powers of the Court and not an extinction of the conceded rights. Vilander Concessions Syndicate v. Cape of Good Hope Govekn- ment p. C. [1907] A. C. 186 3. — Electric leal: — Escape of electric current — Disturbance to submarine cable — Tramway Act— Act 22 of 1895, ». i—Act 29 of 1896, s. 4 — Construction. The principle of Pylands v. Fletcher, (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 330, is not inconsistent with the ( 331 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 332 ) CAPE OF GOOD SOrS-~oo7iii)iued. Koman law. It imposes a liability on a pro- prietor which is measured by the non-natural user of his own property, not by that of his neighbour. It applies to a proprietor who stores electricity on his land if it escapes therefrom and injures a person or the ordinary use of property. It does not apply to the case of injury done to a peculiar trade apparatus unnecessarily so con- structed as to be affected by minute currents of the escaping force. In an action for damages by tile appellant CO. for disturbances in the working of their submarine cable caused by an escape of elec- tricity stored by the respondents for the due working of their tramway system : — Held, in regard to that section of the tramway which had not been constructed under statutory authority, Rylands t. Fletcher did not apply, because the disturbances only resulted when the cable was constructed without certain precau- tions, which the evidence shewed had sub- sequently secured its immunity ; — Held, in regard to those sections of the tram- way which had been constructed under statutes (Act 22 of 1895 and Act 29 of 1896), that the escape of electricity, being a natural incident of the operations legalized thereby, and not resulting from a leak within the meaning of the statutory undertaking or condition, did not impose liability on the respondents. Eastern and South African Telegraph Co. r. Cape Tqwn Tbamwats Cos. P. C. [1902] A. C. 381 4. — Electric light — Contract, Construct ion of — " Generating light" includes distribution as well as production — ^'Actual cost" includes depreciation, rent, rates, taxes, and insurance. The respondents were under contract to establish an electric light central station in B., and to supply light to the inhabitants and to the streets, public places, and private property, and, in order to carry out that undertaking, to do certain specified things and to provide every- thing which might be necessary, whether specified or not, for the purpose of supplying the electric light to the street lamps. In consideration thereof the appellants by the same contract were bound to pay ' ' at such rates as will yield to the contractors a return equal to 10 per cent, over the actual coat of generating the light " : — Held, that, according to the true construction of this contract, " generating the light " covered the whole series of operations leading up to the production of the light in the street lamps, and the " actual cost " thereof covered all that the production of the light cost, including deprecia- tion of plant, rent, rates, taxes of the electric works and buildings, and insurance. BULA- WATO Mtjnicipalitt v. Bulawato Water- works Co. p. C. [1908] A. C. 241 — Foreign jurisdiction. iSe« under Foebion JtrRiSDiCTlON. 5. — Hariour hoard, liaiility of — Powers of hariouT-master — Negligence in removing and re mooring vessels in port — Cape Colony Act 86 of 1896. The place and method of mooring vessels within a port are within the authority of the harbour-master or port captain. CAPE OF GOOD KOtE— continued. Reney v. Magistrates of Kirkcudbright, [1 892 J A. C. 264, followed. Where by a harbour-master's orders two vessels were removed from moorings and negli- gently remoored and retained [in new position so that on the occurrence of an extraordinary flood both were carried away and lost :-r^ Held, that the appellants, a harbour board, constituted by Cape Colony Act 36 of 1896, were liable for the acts of their officer. East London Harbour Board r. Caledonia Landing, Shipping and Salvage Co. East London Harbour Board c. Colonial Fisheries Co. P. C. [1908] A. C. 271 6. — Land, Grant of — Construction — Title — Terms of grant — Diagram. In a grant of land with certain specified boundaries " as will further appear by the diagram framed by the surveyor " : — Held, that, as a matter of construction, where the diagram is repugnant to the terms of the grant, the latter will prevail. Although by arts. 8 and 13 of the Proclama- tion of August 6, 1813, there must be a diagram before a title be granted, yet the right of the grantee must be expressed in his title, and, when so expressed, will not be limited by the diagram. HoRNE V. Struben p. C. [1902] A. C. 484 7. — Lands for railway purposes. Claim, to take — Compensation — Cape of Good Hope Act, /X 0/1858, .5. U~ Construction. It is a sound canon of construction that an intention to take away property without com- pensation should not be imputed to a Legislature unless it be expressed in unequivocal terms. Western Counties Ry. Co. v. Windsor and Annapolis My. Co., (1882) 7 App. Cas. 178, followed. Where it appeared that road commrs. claimed to expropriate without compensation the respon- dent's land for ry. purposes on the ground that s. 11 of Act IX. of 1858 effected a transfer to them of the rights derived by the Government from the Proclamation of 1813, and extended those rights so as to be applicable to the present case : — Held, that s. 11 must receive a strict con- struction. Its language was satisfied by the transfer of the existing powers without any extension thereof. It would require a more direct expression of intention to create such a new power of expropriation for ry. purposes without compensation as was claimed. CoMMR. OF Public Works (Cape Colony) v. Logan P. C. [1903] A. C. 366 8. — Martial law regulations — Review of martial law — Convictions by Supreme Court — ■ Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of the Gape of Good Hope has no jurisdiction to review judgments of martial law Courts. Where a deputy administrator of martial law was also a resident magistrate, and by mistake used in proceedings relating to acts contravening martial law regulations the printed forms of his Magistrate's Court with headings appropriate thereto : — Held, that his convictions could not on that ( 333 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 334 ) CAPE OF GOOD HOPE — continued. account be quashed as irregular ; it appearing that they were in fact made in the administration of martial law. Att.-Gen. for the Cape of Good Hope v. Van Reenan. Att.-Gen. foe THE Gape of Good Hope r. Smit P. C. [1904] A. 0. 114 9. — Mortgages — Laio of South Africa — Insolvency liquidation— Preferential right to payment — Priority as between mortgagees dejJends upon date of advances, not of regis- tration. Upon an issue as to preferential claim to payment in a liquidation upon an insolvency, it appeared that the mortgage bond under which the appellants claimed was prior in date of execution and regi.stration to that set up by the respondent, but that no present debt was created by the appellants' bond, and no moneys had been advanced to the insolvents there- under prior to their incurring debts to the respondent ; — Held, that by the Koman -Dutch law appli- cable to the Cape Colony preference must be determined by the date of the debts, and not of the securities, and that the respondent's actual advance, being prior to that of the appellant's, was entitled to priority of payment. Standard Bank op South Africa," Ld. r. Hetden- BTCH P. C. [1907] A. C. 336 — Mortgages by purchaser not a breach of condition. See No. l.S, ielow. 10. — Practice — Appeal — Special leave — Abstract point of law. Special leave will not be granted to appeal from a judgment which is not impeached, merely with a view to have an abstract point of law, not arising in the case, decided by their Lordships. Rex r. LoDW. Re parte ATT. -Gen. foe Cape OF Good Hops. P. C. [1904] A. C. 413 11. — Practice — Appeal, Special leave to — Martial Ian) — Civil tribwiutls. Where actual war is raging, acts done by the military authorities are not justiciable by the ordinary tribunals. The fact that for some purposes some tribunals have been permitted to pursue their ordinary course In a district in which martial law has been proclaimed is not conclusive that war is not raging. Elpliinstone v. BedreecJiund, (1830) 1 Knapp, P. C. 816, foUowed. Special leave to appeal refused from a judg- ment affirming the rightful custody of the peti- tioner by the military authority in a district in which martial law prevails. D. F. Maeais v. General Officer Commanding Lines of COMMDKICATION AND THE ATT.-GKN. OF THE Colony. Ex parte D. F. Marais. P. C. [1902] A. C. 109 12. — Pailway contract — Construct inn — Penalty for non-completion of line — Liquidated damages — " Actual cost" does not include interest on moneys cvpended . It was provided in a railway construction contract that in the event which happened of non-completion of the line within a specified CAPE OF GOOD 'S.Qii'S,— continued . period the pit. contractor should forfeit to the deft. Government certain percentages which the Government retained out of moneys payable under this and two other railway contracts as a guarantee fund to answer for defective work and also certain security money lodged with its Agent- General " as and for liquidated damages sus- tained by the said Government for the non-com- pletion of the said line " ; and that it should be lawful for the Government to talie possession of the incomplete line and pay the balance due in respect of its " actual cost" : — Held that, on its true construction, the term " actual cost " was limited to the amount of moneys expended on the work, and that interest thereon could not be added. Held, further, that the Government was not entitled to the retention and security moneys as liquidated damages ; for the total amount thereof was indefinite, and in the case of the retention moneys depended on the progress of construc- tion, the amount of the percentages, and the quantity of defective work. It could not, there- fore, be treated as a genuine pre-estimate of loss ; but the Government was entitled to obtain judg- ment in reconvention for such damages as it may have actually suffered through the plt.'s breach of contract, and deduct the same from the funds in question. Public Woeks Gommes. r. Hills P. C. [1906] A. C. 368 — Railway purposes. Claim to take lands for. See 2\'o. 7, above. 13. — Roman-Dutch law — Fidei commissum conditionale — Sale of property subject to restraint on alienation — Construction — Mortgages by pur- chaser not (I breach of condition. Where husband and wife (married in com- munity) by a duly executed deed in 1881 trans- ferred immovable property to their sou for valuable consideration, stipulating that "it shall never be sold or parted with in favour of a stranger, but shall permanently remain among legal heirs," and on the death of the surviving parent his executor executed in 1 S90 before the registrar of deeds a deed of conveyance to the son, who thereupon mortgaged with notice the property to strangers : — Held, that the effect of the deed of 1S81 followed by the deed of 1890 was to vest the pro- perty in the son, subject to a prohibition against alienation to any person not a member of the family. Held, further, in a suit against the mort- gagees brought on behalf of some of the son's heirs in respect of their shares in his inheritance, that, although the prohibition created a fidei commissum conditionale, i.e., a fidei commissum conditioned to come into existence on a breach of the prohibition, yet mortgages by the son, not being absolute alienations, did not constitute a breach of the prohibition until enforced by a judicial sale. JoSEF r. Muldee P. C. [1903] A. C. 190 14. — Shipping — Demurrage — Contract for sale and delivery of coal by shi2^nients — Con- struction as to clan.ie for demurrage — Consignors not limittd to the shipoirners' claim — Indemnity — Nooation. ( 335 ) DiaEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 336 ) CAPE OF GOOD KOrS— continued. In an action by the vendors and consignors of coals under a contract binding the consignee to accept delivery to the railway authorities immediately on their arrival in port " at the rate of 120 tons per day for sailers and 250 tons per' day by steamers," or to be "liable tor demurrage at id. per net registered ton per day for sailers and 6d. per net registered ton per day for steamers," to recover demurrage in respect of eight ships calculated according to the specified rate : — Seld, that both upon the plain words of the contract, and also as explained by the action, conduct and mode of dealing of the parties ante- cedent to its date, it was an absolute and not an indemnity contract. It could not be so con- strued as to import into it a condition that the consignee was only liable to pay the amount of demurrage due by the consignors under the terms of their charterparties, so far as it did not exceed the contractual total. Seld, also, that by the endorsement and delivery of eight bills of lading in respect of these cargoes (only three of which incorporated the conditions of the charterparties), the con- signee did not become bound by way of novation to pay demurrage as stipulated by the charter- parties, and was not discharged from the obliga- tion in respect thereof as imposed by the contract sued upon. Even if the contract had been strictly c.i.f. there is no mle of law that a vendor thereunder, who is also consignor, may not secure for himself a profit under a demurrage clause ; nor any indisputable presumption of law that the parties did not so intend. Houldek Beothbrs & Go. V. CoMME. OF Public Works. Comme. of Public "Woeks v. Houlder Brothbes & Co. P. C. [1908] A. C. 276 — Solicitors. See under Solicitor — Colonies. 15. — Will — Institution of heirs in specified proportions — Tenants for life — Other propoi'tions in certain assets sold during the life tenancy — Period of distribution — Constmction (f will. The testator died in 1900, his brother and partner in 1906. Under the will in the events which happened the brother took a life interest in the entire residue of the testator's estate, the instituted heirs being himself as respects one- fourth thereof and certain " other heirs " repre- sented by some of the respondents as respects three-fourths. The institution was subject to the condition that the brother besides his life interest was entitled to retain during his life the testator's half share of the partnership assets ; distribution among the heirs being postponed till the brother's death, except in the case of a sale during his life, when the distribution of its proceeds was to be made at once, and if the sale was of partnership assets, in that case the shares should be altered to half and halt. The testator also directed that in order to avoid all disputes and differences an inventory and account should be made of his private estate and also of his firm, and that his " other heirs shall be paid out, their three-fourth shares in his private estate and one-fourth share of his firm CAPE OF GOOD SO'e'E— continued. on the valuations and accounts as set forth and contained in the said inventory, whenever such payment may be made to them, and they shall not be entitled to claim any profits or gains made by the brother should he continue to carry on the business, nor on the other hand shall such heirs be responsible for any losses ' ' : — Seld, that on the true construction of this clause a partnership asset entered in the inven- tory but realized after the brother's death was distributable as regards the testator's moiety thereof in the proportion of three-fourths and one-fourth and not in the proportion of half and half. Stephan v. Cape Town Board of Executors P. C. [1909] A. C. 347 CAPITAL— Company. See under Company — Capital. 1. — Income, Capital and — Agreement for letting house to testator — Payment T>y instal- ments — Death of testator before payment — Peit — Devisee under will alsolutely entitled subject to executory gift over — Contribution of income for debts — Rule in Allhuseii v. Whittell, (_1867) L. R. i JSq. 295, inapplicable. A testator, shortly before his death, agreed to take a London house from Feb. to July, 1903, at the rent of 1000 guineas, payable in three instal- ments on specified dates . The testator died be- fore the last two instalments became due. By a decision of the House of Lords in 1905 QComisiey V. Bowring-Hanbury, [1905] A. C. 84) it was'held, upon the construction of the testator's will, that there was an absolute gift of the testator's real and personal estate to his wife, subject to an executory gift of the same at her death to such of his nieces as should survive her. ' Questions were raised upon the master's certi- ficate by two summonses as to whether the unpaid instalments of rent were payable by the widow, or should come out of the capital of the estate, and also whether the income ought to contribute towards the payment of the testator's debts, according to the rule in Allhusen v. Whittell, (1867) L. E. 4 Eq. 295. Eve J. said that although, in a sense, the widow might be regarded as in the position of a tenant for life, yet, under the decision of the House of Lords, she took absolutely, subject to the executoi-y gift over. In the present case there was no reason for the application of the rule in Allhusen v. Whittell, which was a case of tenant for life and remainderman, and the executors here were not entitled to treat any por- tion of the debts of the testator as payable out of the income of the residuary estate. According to the true construction of the letting agreement the testator agreed to pay a fixed sum of 1000 guineas for the hire of the house, and the unpaid instalments, being a debt of the testator's, must be borne by the residuary estate, to the relief of the widow, who was entitled to the income. In re Hasbury. Comiskey v. Hanbuet Eve J. [1909] W. N. 167 Note. See In re Hanbury, [1904] 1 Ch. 415. Reversed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Comishey'Y. Bowring-Hanbury, [1905] A. ■ C. 84. Will- Precatory Trusts. 3. ( 337 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 338 ) CAPITAL —continued. — Will — Precatory trusts. — Will— Annuity — Charge on income or capital. Sef Annuity. 3. — Income or — Investment — Accretions. See Trustee — Investments. 13. — Income or capital — Conversion, Power to postpone — '• Residuary trust funds." See Will — Interest. 2. — Income or capital — Repairs — Sanitary works, Cost of. See Settled Land — Capital Moneys. 14. — Income or capital — Settled estate. See under Settled Land — Capital or Income. — Income or capital — Trustees — Shares in com- pany — Unauthorized investments — Accretion. See Trustee — Investments. 13. — Increase of capital — Resolution of directors — Validity. See Company — memorandum, i. — Periodical payments — Compromise for lump sum — Apportionment — Payment out of capital of estate — Settlement. See Settled Land — Apportionment, i. — Reduction of capital — Company. See under Company — Keduction of Capital. — Return of capital — Company. See under Company — Keturn of Capital. — Stamp duty — Local authority — " Issue " of loan capital — Date of issue. See Revenue — Stamps. 16. — Stamp duty — Railway company — Increase of nominal capital. See Revenue— -Stamps. 2. — Tenant for life and remainderman— Annuity — Apportionment — Capital and income. See Settled Land — Apportionment. 1 . — Will — Capital or income. See under Will — Capital or income. "CAPITAL MONEYS "— Brewery company — Debenture trust deed — Licensing Acts — Compensation. See Bkeweks. 1, 2, 3. Settled land. See under Settled Land - Honeys. - Capital CAPTTJKE — Insurance, Marine — Warranty of freedom from capture — Capture of neutral ship by belligerents — Relation back of title of captor — Subsequent loss by perils of the sea. See Insurance (Marine). 32. — Loss before commencement of war — Seizure — Public policy. See Insurance (Marine). 1. — Property of alien enemy — Validity of insurance — Public policy. See Insurance — Capture. 1. CAPTUEE— co««i?iwerf. — Ship — Seaman — Wages — Termination of ser- vice — " Loss of ship." See Shipping — Seamen. 10. — Termination of voyage by capture— Seaman — Right to wages. See Shipping — Seamen. 4, CAR Motor Car. See under MOTOE Cars. CABQO — Insurance. See under iNSURAKCE (Marine). — Shipping. See under Shipping. CABNABVON— Harbour dues— Port, Limits of. See Haeboue. 4. CAERIAGE— Bicycle— Liability to toll— Bridge — " Carriage hung on springs." See Bicycle. 1. — Contract of carriage— Railway company. See under Railway— Carriage. — Inland revenue. See under Re'senue — Carriages. — Local authority — Licence to ply for hire — " Omnibus "--" Hackney carriage." ■ See Railway — Light Railways. 1. — London. See under London — Carriages. — Motor car passing tramcar — Duty to pass on off side. See Motor Car. 10, — Negligence of driver — Liability of proprietor. See Hackney Carriage. 2. — Plying or driven for hire — Concealment of number-plate. See Hackney Caeeiaoe. 1 . — Railway company. See under Railway — Carriage. — Shipping. See under Shipping — Carriage. — Tramway — Carriage of passengers — Right of passenger to break journey. iSce Teamway-s. 11. CAERIAGE OF GOODS— By lighter from ship to warehouse — Limits of liability of wharfinger. See Wharfinger. — Carrier. See under Carrier. — Railway. *e under Railway — Carriage (Carriage of goods). — Shipping. See under Shipping. — Wharfinger — Carriage of goods by lighter from ship to warehouse — Limits of liability of wharfinger. See Wharpinobe. 1. CARRIAGE LICENCE— Revenue. See under Revenue — Carriages. ( 339 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 340 ) CAEEIA&K ROAD — Kepaii-s — Keoovery of expenses — Jurisdiction of metropolitan police magistrates. See London — Carriage Bead. 1. CABRIAGE TAX— Exemptions. See Rbvbnue — Carriages. 1, 2. CARRIAGES. In^hts on Vehicles Act. 1907 (7 mw. 7, c. 45), is an Act to render compulsory the carrying of li^jhts by vehicles at night. — London. See under London — Carriages. — London — Hackney carriages. See under London — Hackney Carriages. CARRIER — Bill of lading — Damage to cargo — Negligence of carrier's servants — Lia- bility of carrier. See Shipping — Charterparty. 11. — Bill of sale — Carriers' lien — Goods on land in tenancy of trader — Detainer of goods. See Bill of Sale. 1. — Carriage — Contract of — Ship — Passengers' luggage — Tiief t by shipowners' servants. See Shipping — Passengers. 1. 1. — Common carrier — Inherent unfitness of thin/j to he carried — Damage arising from. — Lia- bility of carriers. The def ts. contracted with the pit. as common carriers to carry for him an engine from his yard to a neighbouring town on the defts.' ry. The engine was on wheels and fitted with shafts to allow of its being drawn by horses. While the defts. were drawing the engine with their horses to the ry. station one of the shafts, owing to its being rotten, broke ; the horses took fright and upset the engine, which was damaged. 'Jhe defective condition of the shaft was not known to either the pit. or the defts., and could not have been discovered by any ordinary examina- tion : — Held, that as the engine was not in fact fit to be carried in the way in which it was intended to be carried, and the damage resulted in con- sequence of that unfitness, the defts. were excused. Listee «. Lancashire and Toek- SHiEB Br. Co. Div. Ct. [1903] W. N . 84; [1903] 1 K. B. 878 — Dogs, Carriage of — Declaration of value. See Railway — Dogs. 1. — Lien — Bill of sale — Bankruptcy — Mutual dealings —Set-off. See Bill op Sale. 1. 2. — Iiig Merman — Contract — Exemption from " loss of goods which can be covered by insuraTice " — Negligence of carrier's servants — Liability of carrier. Goods were loaded on a barge under a con- tract for carriage by which the barge owner was exempt from liability " for any loss of or damage to goods which can be covered by insurance." The barge was sunk owing to the negligence of the servants of the barge owner, and the goods were lost. In an action to recover damages for the loss of the goods : — Held, that, the exemption being in general CARRIER— ooMimMfif?. terms not expressly relating to negligence, the barge owner was not exempt from liability for loss or damage caused by the negligence of his servants ; — Judgment of Walton J., [1903] 1 K. B. 750, affirmed. Peice & Co. v. Union Lighteeage Co., C. a. [1904] W. N. 20 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 412 Note. Followed by Gorell Barnes J., Tlie Pearlmoor, [1904] P. 286. Followed by Bray J., James Nelson A Sons, LA. V. Nelson lAne (Liverpool), Ld. (No. 2), [1903] 2 K. B. 804. Followed by C. A., James Nelson S; Sons, Ld. V. Nelson Line {LiverpooV), Ld. (No. 2), [1907] 1 K. B. 769; [1908] A. G. 16. — Manchester Corporation tramways — Ultra vires — Business of common carriers. See Manchester. 2. — Murder — Risks incidental to the employ- ment. See Master and Servant — Compensa- tion. 29. — Railway company. See under Railway. — Tramway company. See under Tramways. 3. — Dangerous goods — Common aarriei Absence of notice of danger to carrier — Implied warranty by consignor that goods are not dangerous — Duty of consignor to inform carrier of nature of goods. The defts. delivered to the pit. 's husband, who was the owner of a keel, for carriage thereon, by him, as a common carrier,a quantity of a chemical called ferro-silicon, packed in casks. Ferro- silicon is sometimes, under certain conditions, a dangerous substance, from its liability to give off very poisonous gases. The ferro-silicon was delivered by the defts. to ihe plt.'s husband as before mentioned under the description of " general cargo," and he was not informed by them and did not know that it was ferro-silicon. In consequence of the ferro-silicon so shipped on the plt.'s husband's keel giving off poisonous gases, the plt.'s husband died, and the pit., who was on board the keel with him assisting in its management, was rendered seriously ill. At the trial of an action brought by the pit. in her own right, and also as administratrix of her husband, to recover damages in respect of her illness and of pecuniary loss occasioned by her husband's death, it appeared that the defts. knew when they shipped the casks that they contained ferro-silicon, but it was found by Walton J., who tried the case without a jury, that they did not know, and he did not find that negligence could be imputed to them in respect of not knowing, that ferro-silicon was dangerous : Held, affirming the judgment of the learned judge, that the action was nevertheless main- tainable. By Vaughan Williams L.J. : It was, on the shipment of such an article as ferro-silicon, the duty of the defts. to communicate to the plt.'s husband such information as they had as to the ( 341 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 342 ) CAILTilER— continued. nature of the article which they were shipping on his keel, and, therefore, to describe it, not as general cargo, but by the name of ferro-silicon, and by reason of neglect of that duty they were liable. By Fletcher Moulton L.J. and FarweU L.J. : Where a consignor who delivers goods to a common carrier, for carriage by him in per- formance of his common law obligation to carry, does not give notice to the carrier that the goods are dangerous, he must, unless the carrier knows, or ought to know, the dangerous character of the goods, be taken impliedly to warrant that the goods are fit for carriage in the ordinary way, and not dangerous. £rass v. Maitland (1856), 6 E. & B. 470, and Acatos V. Burns (1878), 3 Ex. D. 282, discussed. Bamfield c. Goole AMD Sheffield Tbans- POET Co. C. A. [1910] W.N. 136; [1910] 2 E. B. 94 CAIIS — Carriage licence. See under Eb venue — Carriage. 1, 2. ■ — Electric cars not real estate — Personal estate not exempt from assessment — Appeal from Ontario. See Canada — Railway. 2' — Motor cars. See under MoTOK Caes. CASE STATED— Form of— Finding facts. See JiTSTlCES. 17. CASES — A list of Cases affirvied, reversed, fol- lowed, orerruled, or judieialUj commented on during the years 1901-1910 is given in the Table of Cases Affirmed, Si'c., ante, p. cccxxiii. CASHIER — Murder — Bisks incidental to the employment. See Master and Sebvant — Compensa- tion. 29. CATALOGD E— Copyright. See under CoPYKlGtf[T — Catalogue. CAT-BITE — Worlimen's compensation — Accident arising out of and in the course of em- ployment. See Master and Servant — Com- pensation. .30. CATHEDRAL CHURCH. See also under ECCLESIASTICAL Law — Church. — Commissioner's — Jurisdiction — Exemption — Endowment for minor cauons. See Charity. 5. CATTLE — By-law — Ultra vires — Power to charge fees on cattle in municipal sale-yards only. See New South Wales. Sfj. — Contract by seller to insure cattle "against all risks " — Liability of seller. See Sale OP Goods. 9. — Policy — Prohibition against entry into country of diseased cattle. See INSUEANOB (Marine). 2i. CAVEAT — Attachment — Practice — SoUcitors Act — Unauthorized person — Lodging caveat — Ministerial act. See Probate — Practice. 4. CEMETERY, See under Burial Acts. — Burial authority — Rights of incumbent of parish. See Burial. 2. CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN) ACT, 1910 (10 Bdw. 1 J)- I Geo. .5, c. 27), is an Act for tailing the Census for Great Britain in the year 1911. CERTIFICATE — Analysis — .Sufficiency— Adul- teration. See under Addlteratio>". — Architect — Finality — Kef erence of disputes to arbitration — Eight to legal remedies. See Buildino Contract. 2. — Architect's certificate — Architect in position of arbitrator — Negligence. See Building Contract. 1. — Charity Commissioners — National school — Action by transferee. See Charity. 42. — Company. See under Company — Certificate. — Foreign — Limitation of liability — Foreign steam vessel — Gross tonnage — Double bottom for water ballast. See Shipping — Limitation of Liability . ■ Government stock investment. See Donatio Mortib Causa. 1, 3. — Highway, Period for which notice must be affixed at ends of — Certificate of justices. See Highway. 5. — Land transfer — Wrongful issue of certificate of title. See Australia. 7. — Mining rights — Forfeiture of block of mining claims — Certificate of preliminary registration. See Cape of Good Hope. 1. — Particulars of objections — Reasonableness — Costs. See Patent — Infringement. .5. — Patent — As to validity of patent being in I luestion . See Patekt — International. 1. — Pawnbroker — Licence — " Successor." See Pawnbroker. 3. — Pilotage certificate of master — " Owner " — Compulsory pilotage. See Shipping — Pilotage. 5. 1. — Practice — Summons torarij master's cer- tljieate — Confirmation by .judge 2'ersonally in chambers — .Tiirisdictiim. It is open to a judge upon a summons to vary to reconsider what he had done in chambers, and to reverse his previous decision, just as much as if a motion were made to vary or discharge an order made by a judge in chambers upon an ordinary summons. Hkwlino r. Graham. Joyce J, [1901] W. H. 81 ( 343 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 344 ) CERTIFICATE— cofli";/! ued. — Shares fully paid, Certificate tliat — Estoppel — Partnership. See Company — Shares. 5. — Ship — " Owner " — Certificate of master. See Shipping — Pilotage. 5. — Shipping casualty —Dealing with certificate — Costs of appeal. See Shipping — Practice. 2. — Solicitor. See under SOLICITOR — Certificate. — Workmen's Compensation Acts. See under MASTER AND Servant — Campensation. CEETIOBAKI— Appeal to House of Lords from order of Court of Appeal in Ireland — Jurisdiction — Practice. See Appeal. 19. — Auditor — Surcharge — Certiorari to quash — Jurisdiction of Court — London govern- ment. See Local Government. 1. — Board of Education — Decision — Want of i urisdiction — Mandamus . See Schools. 24. — Canada Temperance Act — Issue of search warrant before prosecution — Writ of certiorari refused. See Canada Temperance Act. 1. — Confirming authority, Order of — Justices — — Disqualification — Bias, Likelihood of. See Licensing Acts. 2, 5. — Costs — Jurisdiction of High Court. See Licensing Acts. 5. — Jurisdiction of justices — Exemption from closing. See Licensing Acts. 8. — Licensing justices — Bias on part of justices. See Licensing Acts. 2, 5. CESSEB — Nuisance after writ and before trial of action. Cesser of — Injunction — Practice. See Nuisance. 4. — Two settled estates — No longer " principal mansion-house " — Tenant for life — Eestriction on powers. See Settled Land— llansion-houBe. 2. CESSER CLAUSE ~ Charterparty— Arbitration clause — ^Bill of lading — Claim for de- murrage at port of loading. See Shipping — Charterparty. 1. CESSPOOLS — Cleansing of privies and — Power of local authority to undertake duty of. See Local Government. 27. CEYLON' — Adulterers, Marriage of — lUegitimaoy of children procreated in adultery. See No. 3, ielow. - Appeal in forma pauperis- See No. 6, below. -Special leave. CEYLON— cwwiimMee/. 1. — A7'bitratioi'i^— Reference by the Court of a pending action — Ex parte hearing by arbi- trator — Validity of award — Ordinance 2 of 1889 {C. a P.), ss. 676, 677, 685, 691. Where the subject of an arbitration is an action in Court, ss. 676, 677, 685 and 691 of the Civil Procedure Code, are applicable. There- under the parties state in writing the matter to be referred, the Court refers to an arbitrator agreed on the matter in difference, the award is filed in Court and receives the effect of a judicial decree, and can only be set aside for corruption and misconduct of the arbitrator : — Held, that the respondent was not entitled at his own option to withdraw from such a refer- ence, and if he did so it was not misconduct in the arbitrator to proceed therein to - award. Aitken, Spence & Co. v. Fernando P. C. [1903J A. ft. 200 — Colonial Stock Act, 1900 See under Colonial Stock. — Lunacy, Order of Master in — Evidence — ■ Admissibility. See No. 5, beloio 2. — Malicious prosecution, Action foi — ■ Onus probandi — Law of Ceylon. Beld, that under Roman-Dutch as well as English law a prosecution instituted without malice and with reasonable and probable cause does not amount to an act of aggression ; that an animus injurise (malice) cannot be inferred from the mere fact that the prosecution has failed ; and that the onus of proving malice rests on the pit. In an action for malicious prosecution against the respondent in that he had charged the appel- lant with theft, criminal trespass, and the forcible removal of his goods, it appeared that the real charge was that of criminal trespass, that the conversion of the charge of removal of goods into that of theft was not done recklessly, that the respondent took action under legal advice in defence of his title to his property in the bona fide belief that the appellant had trespassed and forcibly removed his goods, and that there was no proof of indirect motive or malice of any kind on the respondent's part : — Held, that the Appellate Court was right in reversing the District Judge's decree for damages, and that the appeal therefrom must be dismissed. CoREA V. Peieis p. C. [1909] A. C. 549 3. — Marriage of adulterers — illegitimacy of children procreated in adultery — Law of Ceylon — Ordinance No. 6 ofWil, s.'il. Ceylon Ordinance No. 6 of 1847, s. 31, recognizes the marriage of adulterers, but denies legitimation to children procreated in adultery : — Held, that a legacy by a Ceylon testator to his widow, who had previously lived with him as his mistress during the life of her first husband, is valid. So also is a legacy to her children born during the widow's former marriage where it is not shewn that they were the children of the testator. Eabot v. De Silva P. C. [1909] A. C. 876 ( 346 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 346 ) CEYLOii—contimced. 4. — Partition — Cii'iJ Procedure Code, s. 547 — Sii it for partition of intestate's estate — Ad- ministrator not a j>arty. In a suit brought in 1898 for partition, or alternatively for a sale of certain parts of an intestate's estate, it appeared that the intestate had died in 1884, that no letters of administra- tion had been taken out, that the widow and son had made a division of the immovable estate between themselves and the other heirs and executed certain notarial deeds of gift for the purpose of efEecting such division, and various dealings with their respective shares had been made by the allottees : — Held, that the Supreme Court's decree of dismissal of the suit was right. By s. 547 of the Civil Procedure Code, which was the law in force when the action was com- menced, it was not maintainable in the absence of any administrator on the record. The action, though in form for partition, was in substance for the recovery of property within the meaning of that section. No partition could be effected by the Court without a complete administration of the whole of the intestate's estate, which would include an account of the payment of his debts, and of the dealings of the allottees with their respective shares so as to adjust their respective rights. PONNAMMA r. Arumoq-am P. C. [1905] A.C. 383 5. — Practice — Ceylon Procedure Code, c. 12, s. 87 — Decree absolute for default — Reasonable excuse for default — Order of Master in Lunacy — iaaacy ^ct, 1890 (53 Vict. c. 5), j. 116 {Im- perial) — Evidence — Admissibility. Under the Ceylon Civil Procedure Code, c. 12, s. 87, a decree absolute for default may be set aside if the deft, upon notice to the pit. satis- fies the Court by good and sufficient evidence that bis default was due to accident, or misfor- tune, or want of due information of the proceedings. An order of a Master in Lunacy in England under s. 116 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, reciting that the deft, was in the opinion of the master a person of unsound mind, though not so found by inquisition, and authorizing his wife to defend the action, is admissible as prima facie evidence, and if uncontradicted ought to be regarded as. sufficient evidence to justify an order under s. 87. Hakvbt r. Ebx p. C. [1901] A. C. 601 6. — Practice — Special leave — Ap/ieal in forma pauperis. Where a Colonial Code made no provision for appeals in formS pauperis, and it was contended that the case was as regards amount, value, and nature fit to be taken in appeal, special leave was under the circumstances of the case granted. Ponamma r. Arumog-am. Bx, parte Ponamma P. C. [1902] A. C. 861 1. — Probate, Revocation of — Issue as to total invalidity of v>iU — Declaration of partial validity — Words or clauses omitted from jirahafe. Words or clauses in a will ought not to be omitted from probate except upon evidence pointedly addressed thereto and shewing their improper insertion. Where probate granted to the appellant had CEYL ON — continued. been revoked on issues which impugned the validity of the will as a whole, no issue having been raised or evidence given as to its partial validity, the Supreme Court in appeal varied the decree of revocation by declaring that the deceased died intestate as to his immovable property only and expunging from the will the reference thereto : — Held, on the evidence, that the revocation was right and that the appeal must be dismissed. There being no cross-appeal as to the modifica- tion decreed, it was nevertheless pointed out by their Lordships that it ought not to have been made except as a compromise by consent. Kaeu- NARATNB r. FBBDINANDUS P. C. [1902] A. C. 405 8. — Will, Execution of — Wills — Ordinance No. 7 of 1840, ,s-. 3 — Notary present without attesting — Testamentary capacity. Ceylon Ordinance No. 7 of 1840, s. 3, requires that a testator's signature shall be made or acknowledged in the presence of a licensed notary public and two or more witnesses duly attesting the execution, or, if no notary be present, then in the presence of five or more witnesses duly attesting : — Held, that the words " if no notary be present " mean present acting in his notarial capacity. Where a notary was present but refused to act in that capacity by attesting, and the wiU was in consequence attested by five witnesses, \eld, that it was validly executed. Where a testator is of sound mind when he gives instructions for a will, but at the time of signature accepts the instrument drawn in pur- suance thereof without being able to foUow its provisions, lield, that he must be deemed to be of sound mind when it is executed. Parker v. Fehjate, ("1883) 8 P. D. 171, approved. Pbeera r. Pbrera P. C. [1901] A. C. 354 CHAIRMAN — Borough justices — County justices — Mayor of borough. See Justices. 3. • Declaration of chairman at meeting. See Company — Winding - up — Meetings. 2. ■ Retirement of members — Election of new members — Position of former chairman. See Local Government. 6. ■ Voting — " Personally or by proxy " — Power of chairman to direct manner of taking. See Company — Meetings. 9. CHAIRS— Fastened to floor of place of euter- ment — Hiring agreement — Mortgage of building and fixtures. See Fixtures. 2. CHALK — Mining lease— Payments for purchase of chalk — Capital or income. See Will— Seal Bstate. 2. CHAMBERS— Practice. See under Practice — Chambers. ( 347 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 348 ) CHANCEL SCREEN — Faculty — Jurisdiction- Architectural adornment — Admission of fresh evidence on appeal. See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 1 CHANNEL — Collision — Crossing rule — Crossing ahead — Narrow channel — Good seaman- ship. See Shippino — Collision. 14. CHANNEL ISLANDS— Laws of— Guernsey. iSfee GUBKNSBT. 1. — Civil marriage in the Channel Islands- Foreign law — Evidence. iS«« Divorce— Cliamiell»land». 1. CHAPEL— Wesleyan Methodist chapel— Model deed — Power of sale — Consent of Charity Commissioners. See Land Registry. 2. CHAPEL OF EASE — Faculty for erection of communion table with cross and candlesticks — Chancel steps — Vestry. (Sfee Ecclesiastical Law— Faculty. 7. CHAPELEY— Parish, Division of— Parochial chapelry or separate parish. See Parish. 1. CHABACTEB — Servants' characters — Giving false character — Conspiracy. See Criminal Law — Servant!' Charactera. 1. CHABOES — Administration — Exoneration of general personal estate — Charge on real estate abroad. See Administration. 10. — Annuities. See under Annuity. ■ Company — Debentures. See under Company- -Bebentnres. • Costs — Charge on property preserved. See Solicitor— CoBt«. 8. - Debts and funeral and testamentary expenses on realty — Non-exoneration of per- sonalty. See Will — Exoneration. 1. - Debts and legacies — Will — Construction. See under Will— Charges. ■ " Equitable charge " — Exoneration — Estate duty. See Administration. 9. ■ Equitable charge — Portions — Mortgage by direction of Court — Priority. See Mortgage- Priority. 10. ■ Estate duty — Lunatic — Surplus rents — Charge in favour of next of kin. See Eevenite — Estate Duty. 2.5. - Estate duty — Marriage settlement — Charging sum on death of settlor. See KEVENI7B— Eitate Duty. 24. ■ Land transfer. See under Land Transfek. ■ Mortgages. See under Mortgages. CHARGES— c«TCiwjMe(i. — Power — Execution — Power to appoint up to a limited amount — General power — Overriding power to appoint mixed fund. See Power op Appointment. 13. — Rent-charge. See under Rent-charge. — Ship — Charterparty — Lien — Demurrage, pay- able day by day. See Shipping — Charterparty. 51 . — Trustee — Breach of trust — Charge on share of beneficiary — Constructive notice — Duty to investigate assignee's title — Relief. See Trustee — Breach of Trust. 2. — Will. See under Will — Charges. CHABGING OBDEB. B. S. C, Order XLVI., relates to charging orciers. 1. — Company — Debeittures — "Stooi or shares" of a company— Practice — R. S. C, Order XLri.,r. I— Judgments Act, 1838 (1 oi. r. 33), s. 2, sui-s. 2 — Board of Education (Powers) Order in Council, 1902. A testator who died in 172i gave his residue to trustees on trust to pay half the income for the redemption of Barbary slaves, one-fourth for certain educational charities, and one-fourth for certain non-educational charities. In 1846, for want of Barbary slaves, the slave fund income was applied by a Court scheme to assisting charity schools. By the Board of. Education Act, 1899, s. 2, sub-s. 2, the powers of the Charity Commissioners in raatteis appearing to relate to education may be transferred by 0. in C. to the Board of Education, provided that any question whether any part of an endowment "is held for or ought to be applied to educational purposes" shall be determined by the Charity Commis- sioners. By the Board of Education (Powers) Order in Council, 1902, it is ordered that all powers (except the powers of appointing official trustees and making vesting orders) shall, so far as those powers relate to endowments " held solely for educational purposes," be transferred to the Board, and where the Charity Commissioners, in exercise of the powere conferred on them by the Charitable Trusts Acts, 18.53 to 1894, or the Endowed Schools Acts, 1869 to 1899, determine by scheme or otherwise what part of a mixed endowment is "held for educational purposes," that part shall, " for the purposes of this order," be treated as an educational endowment " held solely for educational purposes." In 1907 the Charity Commissioners made a scheme under the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1 853 to 1894, determining (inter alia) that the slave fnnd income was "held for and ought to be applied to educational purposes." The trustees appealed, contending that the effect of the determination scheme would be to devote the income permanently and in all events to educational purposes. At present, notwith- standing free education, there were managers' purposes to which the income was and could be applied under the scheme of 1846 without reliev- ing the rates, but when these expenses also were thrown on the rates there would be no proper objects left under the scheme of 1846. On that event the income ought to be applied cy-pres the will as a non-educational charity : — Held, that the determination scheme merely determined the controlling body for the time being, and did not in any way restrict, alter, or affect the objects of the charity or prevent the income being applied by a future scheme to non- educational purposes. In re Sutton Coldfield Grammar School, (1881) 7 App. Cas. 91, 93, applied. In re Betton's Charity - Swinfen Eady J. [1907] W. N. 262 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 206 CHAEITY— oo»/;/M(«fZ. — Estate duty — Charitable society. Gift to— Succession duty. See Ebvbnue- Estate Duty. 30. — Evidence, Admissibility of— Will— Charitable legacy — Bequest "for the charitable purposes agreed upon between us." See A^o. 8, atoir. — Forfeiture — Gift over to residue — School endowment — Trust deed. Sec Will— Forfeiture. 8. — Friendly society — Cy-prfes — Resulting trust — Crown— Bona vacantia. See Friendly Society. 8. 19. — Friend/:, Society of — School — Trust for " civil or reliffiuNs purposes " — Uticertninty — Scheme — dharitahle trust. Under the trusts of a deed relating to a school at L. the school premises and certain funds were settled upon educational trusts under the control of the Society of Frientls, with an ultimate trust that, in case the subscribers to the school, or the Society of Friends assembling at L., determined that the school should be discontinued, the trustees should assure the trust estates and funds to such persons and " for such purposes, civil or religious," as the subscribers, or Friends assem- bling at L., should appoint. The deed also pro- vided that the trustees should be members of the Society of Friends. At a duly constituted meet- ing of the Society of Fi-iends and subscribers of the school a resolution was passed that the school should be discontinued, and the trust property be held for the general purposes of the Society of Friends assembling at L. There was evidence that the Society of Friends was a religious body, formed for the furtherance of religious life, and any civil purpose was subordinated to the religious element : — Held, that the trust on the discontinuance of the school failed as a charitable trust and was void for uncertainty ; and the trust premises must be held upon trust for educational purposes, for which a scheme must be settled by the dis- trict registrar. In re The Feiends Pbee School. Clibborn v. O'Brien - Eve J. [1909] W. N. 189; [1909] 2 Ch. 675 20. — IIos2)ital — ■ Bequest " towards neic iuilding .and equipment " — Neic huilding finished, but hospital not completed or equipped — Desire to benefit charity— Validity — Directions — Cy-prcs — Will — Charitable ijift. Testatrix, by her will dated April 24, 1902, appointed the pits, her executors, and con- tinued : — "I give the sum of 20,000^. towards the new building and equipment to the satisfac- tion and under the direction of my executors of the Birmingham and Midland Hospital for Women the enlargement of which has been recommended and which charity I have long desired to benefit." The testatrix then bequeathed various legacies, but did not make any disposition of her residuary real or personal estate. The testatrix died on April 22, 1905. It appeared from the evidence that in 1902, at the time the will was made, a scheme had been published for the rebuilding of the hospital and the execution of the scheme was subsequently ( 361 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. (-' 362 ) CUAB.lTY—contimii'iJ. proceeded with, and the testatrix contributed towards it during her life. At the date of her death the hospital was nearly totally rebuilt, being entirely roofed in and partially plastered, but it was not painted, furnished or equipped, all of which remained to be done before the hospital was completed. Neither of the pits, liad at any time or in any way directed the rebuilding or equipment of the hospital. Summons by pits, for the determination of the question whether the bequest failed to any and, if so, to what extent, the hospital having been rebuilt in the testatrix's lifetime ; and for the direction of the Court. Kekewich J. said that he could not construe the words i f the bequest as constituting a gift to the charity, so that what could not be properly expended on rebuilding and equipment belonged to the charity and might be handed over to it. The present case was clearly outside that line of authorities, many of which were examined by \'.-C. Wood in I/i re Sanderson'. ■< Trusts, (1857) 3 K. & .J. 497, in which it had been held that a specified object might be treated .as merely the motive of the gift, and that the gift might be fultilled, notwithstanding that the motive object failed. Vhether, so far as the specific object failed, the gift might be treated as charitable and apjilied cy-pres, was a question which could not be decided in the absence of the Att.-Gcn., and if, after the application of what could be properly applied in rebuilding and equipment there were money remaining, an adjournment must be made in order to bring the Att.-Gen. before the Court, lie then proceeded to state his critical interpre- tation of the will for the guidance of the executors in their application of the fund, and intim.ated that on the report in writing of the result he should be prepared to give them direc- tions, and, if necessary, provide for service on the Att.-Gen., and ordered the summons in the meantime to stand adjourned. In re Unite. Edward.s c. Smith Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 86 21. — IJospilal — Legacy '■ to found a bed in a /lo.y/ital" — Jindoinnent — 1I';7Z — ConstnicHon. A testator gave a legacy of IflOO?. "to the Kclgrave Hospital to found a bed there to be called ' the Eleanor bed ' " : — TtehJ, that the 1000/. must be invested and the income only applied towards m.iintaining the bed. Att.-Gen. v. Belgeave Hospital Swinfen Eady J. [1909] W.K. 211; [1910] 1 Ch. 73 — Hospital — Medical charities. See .\os. 31 — 33, l)elou\ — Income tax — Allowances — Charitable pur- poses — Advancement of education. ;*« Revenue — Income Tax. 1. 22. — Jndiffen/ bachelors andu'ifhnLcrs,Giff for relief of — Ihivertuinly. The testator, by his trust disposition and settlement, directed his trustees to " employ the whole residue of my estate in instituting and carrying on a scheme for the relief of indigent bachelors and widowers of what- ever religious denomination or belief they ' C^KBITY— continued. may be who have shown practical sympathy either as amateurs or professionals in the pursuit of science in any of its branches, whose lives have been characterized by sobriety, morality and industry, and who are not less than fifty-five years of age ; or of aiding any scheme which now exists or may be instituted by others for that purpose." The next of kin contended that . the bequest was void for uncertainty. Held (affirming the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1907) S. C. 185) that the bequest was not void for uncertainty, for the trustees or, failing them, the Court would find no difficulty in giving effect to it. Weib 'c. Chum-Bkown - H. 1. (Sc.) [1908] W. TX. 40 ; [1908 J A. C. 162 — Infant — Maintenance — Sub^^criptions to local charities. See Settled I;AND — Infants. 2. 23. — Inn of Chancery — School of learning — Study of the laic — Failure of oiject — Disjwsition if jtroperty — Cliaritahle piirjtose. The Society of Cliffords Inn was one of the Inns of Chancery which were established to provide for the legal education of students of the law. In the year 1618 by an indenture of feoffment the messuages and premises occupied l)y the society were assured to certain members thereof as trustees, in consideration of the paj-- ment of a sum of money, and the reservation of certain rents. The indenture declared that the intention of the gi'antors was that the messuage commonly called Clifford's Inn, which was stated to have been for many years used and employed as an Inn of Chancery for the study and practice of the common laws of the realm, and to have been governed to the good of the Commonwealth and the honour of the grantoi'S and their ances- tors, "shall and may hereafter continue to ibe employed as an Inn of Chancery for the further- ance of thepractisers and students of the Common Law of the Eealm as aforesaid," and that the society should from thenceforth be assured of a certain state therein, and the operative part of the deed declared that the true intent and meaning thereof, and of the parties thereto, was that " Clifford's Inn shall for ever hereafter be continued and employed as an Inn of Chancery for the good of the gentlemen of the society and for the benefit of the Commonwealtli as aforesaid and not otherwise. " The property had long been dealt with by the society as its own, and for its own purposes, and the surviving members con- tended that it was not now subject to or affected by any charitable trust, but belonged to the individual members for their own personal bene- fit, to be divided and disposed of as they might think fit :— Held, that the property vested in the present tru.stees was held by them upon trust for charit- able purposes. Judgment of Cozens-Hardy J., [1900] 2 Ch. 611, affirmed. Smith c Kekk C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 774 24. — Institute — Gift for lenejit of a named institute — Institute erected for general benefit of inhabitants — Use for jmrposes not strictly charit- able—General charitable intention. ( 363 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 3'H ) CKAMTY— continued. A testatrix gave 3000Z. to trustees to be applied at their discretion for the benefit of the Mann Institute. The iMana Institute had bec-n erected by the testatrix for the general benefit of the inhabitants of Moreton-iu-Marsh. The building had never been conveyed to trustees, nor had any charitable trust thereof been created. It remained in the testatrix's own control, and had been used for purposes beneficial to the inhabitants : — Srld, that the bequest of 30001. was a good charitable gift, and a scheme must be directed for its application. In re Mann. Haedy i: Att,-Gen. . - Farwell J. [1902] W.N. 281 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 232 86. — Jurisdictionto direct sch^meto he settled —Char italic objects. P. A. Vagliano, of the City of London, merchant, by his will dated Jan. 16, 1900, directed his executors within twelve months after his dtcease to pay to the London and Westminster Banlc, Ld., the sum of 600,000^., or to transfer or deliver to the saoie bank Sfcurities of the market value of such part of the 600,000^ as should not be paid in cash, and requested and authorized the banic to invest the money in such inscribed stouJss and securities (being the securi- ties for the time bein;; auihorized by law for the investment of trust funds, but including power to invest in Bnglisli Colonial Uovernment securi- ties) as the bank might deem fit, with power from time to time to vary and transpose securi- ties. The will proceeded : "And it being my desire to make such provision as hereinafter expressed for charitable purposes in the island of Cephalonia, 1 direct that all such funds and securities shall be permanently held and retained by the said bank, and that the trustees or trusiee for the time being of this my will shall not be empowered to require the said bank to part with such securities or any part there, ^f." And he directed the bank after making certain deduc- tions to apply the yearly income as follows, namely, during the period permitted by law 10 per cent, of such income to be invested and added to the principal, and, subject to such accumulation, the whole net income to be paid to the trustees and applied by them " for charit- able objects in the Island of Cephalonia, such objects to include the establishment of or aid in the establishment of or aids to i hurches, hospitals, and schools, and also from time to time assist- ance to poor and aged persons for the time being resident in or natives of Cephalonia," with absolute power and discretion as to the disposal of such income for all or any of the purposes and objects aforesaid, and to depute any such powers and disoietions and make payments to any persons having or supposed to have power to receive money without seeing to the applica- tion of the money paid. After the testator's death his will and codicil were proved in England by three of the persons appointed executors, the other person named having renounced prob.ite. Money and securi- ties to the amount of 500,000Z. (less legacy duty) were paid and transferred to the bank, and many applications were received from Cephalonia. CHARITY— <3o»!;j««ei. The executors (two of whom resided in London and tne third in Marseille.s) issued an originating summons against one of the re.siduary legatees, the bank, and the Att.-Gen., asking for the determination of the questions — (1.) whether the gift of the 500,000^. was a good and valid charitable gift ; (2.) whether the pits, could apply ihe income in all or any of ihe following ways : (a) in the erection of a church in the island, (b) in the erection and maintenance of a pauper lunatic asylum in the island, (c) in the formation and maintenance of a farming school in the island, (d) in the formation and main- tenam-e of a public, commercial, and nautical school in the island, and (e) towards the relief ot the poor consequent upon the outbreak of smallpox in the villages of Cephalonia ; (3.) to have a scheme setled by the Court for the appli- cation of the bequest or the income there if : — Held, that the gift was a good and valid charitable gift ; that all the purposes suggested in the summons were proper purposes for the api plication of the income ; and that as the fund and two of the trustees were in England it was a proper case for a scheme. The Court accord- ingly referred it to chambers to settle a scheme for the administiation and application of the charity. The ( ourt intimated also that it would be desirable to appoint another trustee resident within the jurisdiction, and in the meantime gave leave to the trustees to expend up to 2000Z. in relief of smallpox victims in Cephalonia. In re Vaqliano. Vaoliano r. Vagliano Buckley J, [1905] W. N. 179 26. — Land — Sale of land — Purchase-money in Court — Payment out — Trustees loitk power of sale — Persons absolutely entitled — Consent of Charity Commissi-oners — Lands Clauses Consoli- dation Act, 1 845 (8 ^- 9 Vii^. c. 18), i.69 ; Charit- able Trusts Act, 1853 (16 Jl, 17 Vict. c. 137), .■!. 17. Trustees of a char'ty, who have power with the consent of the bishop to sell tiie charity land and to give a fu 1 discharge for the money paid therefor are persons '• absolutely entitled " within s. 69 of the Lands Clauses Consolidiition Act, 1845 ; and the purchase-money of land of the charity, which has been paid into Cou t under that Act, can be ordered to be paid out to them without the consent of the Charity Commrs. In re LoKD Mayor op Sheppibld and the Trustees op St. William's Roman Catholic Chapel and iSchools. Sheffield Byrne J. [1902] W. N. 219; [1903] 1 Ch. 208 27. — Land on trust for sale, Derise of — "Personal estate arising from, laiid" — Right of trustees to retain land unsold— Gift to charity — Mortmain avd Charitable Uses Act, 1891 (54 <^- 56 Vict. c. 73), ss. 3, 5. Land was devised to trustees on trust to sell and to hold the proceeds, after making certain payments thereout, upon i rust for a charity. The will contained a power to the trustees to post- pone snle : — Held, that the subject-matter of the gift, being " personal estate arising from land," was within the exception from the definition of " land " contained in s. 3 of the Mortmain and ( 36fi ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 366 ) CKA'RlTY—co>itinned. Charitable Uses Act, 1891, and that therefore B. 5 of the Act was not applicable, and it was competent for the trustees, without obtaining the leave of the Court, to retain the land unsold after the expiration of one year from the death of the testator. In re, Wilkinson. Esam v. Att.-Gen. ■ Kekewich J. [1902] 1 Ch. 841 — Land Registry — Restriction on register — Charity — " Endowment " — Exemption — Jurisdiction of Charity Commis- sioners. See Land Registby. 1. ■ — Land transfer. See also under Land Teanspeb. 28. — Lond transfer — Consent of Charity Commusioners to sain of charily lands — Emry on registerwitli restricion — Hoyal Charted' — Charit- able Trusts Amendment Act, 1855 (18 <^- 19 V'u-t. c. 1 24), s. 29~Land Transfer Rules, 1903, rr. 29, 83. Sehed. Z, Form 13. A Roval Charter incorporating a charity (though containing provisions for the manage- ment of the charity and a power to the charity to sell lands) is not a " scheme legally estab- lished " within s. 29 of the Charitable Trusts Amendment Act, 18.55, so as to exempt the charity from the necessity of obtaining the con- sent of the Charity Commre. to a sale of its lands. In re 3Iason's Orplianxige and London and North Western By. Co., [1896] Ch. 596. applied. Att.-Gen. r. National Hospital fob the Belief and Cuke op the Paralysed and Epileptic Kekewich J. [1904] W. N. 135 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 253 • — Lessor and lessee — Option to purchase rever- sion in fee — Perpetuity. See Lease. 3. 29. — Lilrary — Gift of income to library — Perpetuity — Invalidity — lI'/7^ — Constrncfion Testator by his will dated June 1, 1899, gave to his wife during her lite " all the income accruing from my estate and effects, both real and personal, what^oever and wheresoever and what nature and quality soever ; and on lier demise I give the same income to the Chess Club at Penzance for the support and furtherance of chess and the [:erpetuity of the club of that town in the manner its committee sliall from time to time determine ; and in case the said chess club shall have ceased to exist by the ti]ne this my bequest shall have come into effect, then I give tl'C same income to the Penzance Library." The testator died in 1905. Upon an originating summons taten out by the executor it had been decided that the gift to the chess club was void. The question now was as to the validity of the gift to the library. The library was formed in 1818, and was maintained for the use of sub- scribers. The management of its affairs was vested in a commiitee and officers. Its property was vested in the officers for the time being, who were trustees for the members. I'he rules pro- vided that it should not be broken up until the number of members should be reduced to less than ten, upon the occurrence of which all CBARIIY— continued. donations were to be returned to the donors, and the remaining books and other effects were to be sold and the proceeds applied to the foundation or support of such scientific institution in Pen- zance as should be determined by the majority of the remaining members. Joyce J. said that the fact that the gift to -the chess club was void did not prevent the bequest to the library taking effect, because it was not a remainder on a void limitation, but an alternate gift. The authorities shewed that a gift to a voluntary association of a legacy which was to go into its coffers and might he spent with its other funds as income was valid. That was involved in Cueti.i v. Manners (1871), L. R. 12 Eq. 574. and also in In re Allsop's E.^tate, [1884] W. N. 196. In the latter case aU that appeared from the note in Tlie Weekly. Xotes was that a " Sacred Harmonic Society," established for practise of choral singing and performance of oratorios and similar work, and supported by the subscriptions of the members and receipts from concerts, was held not to be a charity so as to be within the disabilities im- posed by the Mortmain Act (9 Geo. 2, c. 36). He had, however, looked at the record in that case, and found that by the decree the Court declared that the society was not a charity and was entitled to a share of the testator's residuary real estate devised to them by a codicil to him. It was not necessary to the validity of such a gift that it must be in accordance with the rules of the society, or possible under the rules, to distribute the money as or by way of bonus to the individual members. In the present case all that was expressed was a gift of income to the library. An indefinite gift of income ordinarily amounted to a gift of the corpus, but only when there was no intention expressed or implied that the donee was not to take more. On the face of this will nothing but the income was intended to be given to the library. That therefore was a perpetuity, or tended to a per- petuity, and the gift was void. In re Swain. Phillips r. Poole - Joyce J. [1908] -W. N. 209 30. — Lirery company of city of London, Gift to — Devise for general pujposes of company — ■ Authority to company or tritstees to ynake scheme for administration of " charity hereby created." Property was devised to trustees in fee simple, upon trust for and to be held by the Masters, Wardens, and Commonalty of the" Butchers" Co. of the city of London " for the general purposes of the said company." The testator authorized the company or the trustees " to make and for- mulate any scheme, rules, regulations, bye-laws, or trusts for the temporary or permaiient ad- ministration of the charity hereby created," and gave other directions applicable to a charitable bequest : — Held, that the gift was not a charitable gift, and that the company was entitled (subject to obtaining the proper licence) to have the property conveyed for the general purposes of the company free from any charitable trust. Livery companies of the city of London are not, unless there is something special in their ( 367 ) DICIEST OF CASKS, 1901—1010. ( 3fi8 ) CSARlTY—coatin ued. charter, charities in any legal sense of the words. In re Meech's Will. Butchees' Co. v. Rutland - - Parker J. [1910] 1 Ch. 426 — Lodging-house — Keeping without a licence — Charitable institutions. See Lodging-houses. 1, 2. — Lodging-house — Registration — Licence — Charitable institution — No payment by inmates. See Lodging-houses. 1, 2. — Maintenance of suit — Charity induced by religious sympathy — Common interest. See Maintenance op Suit. 1. 31. — " Mrdicnl charity " — CUj-prh — Scheme bi/ Charity Commissioners — Jurisdiction — Intention, of testator — Possibility of carrying otit— Charitable Trusts Act, 1860 (23 4' 2i Vict, c. 136), s. 2. Funds given by a testator for a particular charitable purpose cannot be applied cy-prbs by the Charity Commissioners or the Court unless it is shewn to be iraT)0ssible to carry out the testator's intention. They cannot be so applied because the Commissioners think some other scheme will be more beneficial than the testator's. The Court will not OTcrrule the Commissioners on matters of detail, but will restrain them from carrying out a scheme which is ultra vires. A testator who died in 1902 devised to his trustees two houses upon trust to use house A. as a dispensary, cottage hospital, or convalescent home or other medical charity, to be called the Weir Hospital, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the parish of Streatham and tlie neighbourhood until a restrictive covenant which prevented the house B, (in wliich he resided) from being so used had expired, and then to use house B. in conjuDction or not with house A. for the same purpose ; and he gave his residuary personal estate to the same trustees for the maintenance of the hospital. The trustees established a dispensary at the house A. and maintained it until the covenant expired in 1907. The funds then applicable for the maintenance of the charity were about 100,OOOZ. The Charity Commissioners approved a scheme 'whereby the dispensary was to be maintained, house B. was to be turned into a home for nui-ses, a very small proportion of whom were to give their services gratuitouslj', and the bulk of the fund was to be applied in enlarging and maintaining a general hospital called the Bolingbrolce Hospital, outside and half a mile from the boundary of the parish of Streatham. This hospital was to be renamed the Weir and Bnlingbroke Hospital, and a certain number of beds were to be appropriated so as to give a preference to inhabitants of Streatham : — Seld by the C. A. (reversing the decision of Eve J., [1910] W. N. 82), that the scheme was ultra vires, and the order of the Commissioners must be discharged and the matter remitted to the Commissioners for reconsideration. In re Campdeii Charities (1881) 18 Ch. D. 310, explained. In re Weiu Hospital - C. A. [1910] W. N. 152 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 124 C'Rk'RlTY—contiiiued 32. — "Medical charity or charities" in Scotland — Administration — Scheme — Coistnic- tion — A2}jdication of income — Charity out of jurisdiction, A scheme sanctioned by the Court for the administration of a charity provided that the income of the charity should be applied for the benefit of a particular hospital in England '■or such other medical charity or charities of any kind, school, or teacliing whatsoever, and partly or exclusively to one or other of such objects as the trustees may in their uncontrolled discretion from time to time determine." The trustees desired to apply the income to medical charities in Scotland : — Held, that the charity must be administered and the trusts of the scheme carried into effect within the jurisdiction of the Court, and that the income could be applied to a "medical charity or charities " in Scotland. In re MlRR- LEES' Charity. Mitchell r. Att.-Gen. Joyce J. [1909] W. N. 227 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 163 — Medical Hospital. See Ms. 20, 21, iibore. 33. — Medical Science, Proposed scheme for Institute of — Ap2>ealto public — Fund for project — Voluntary contributions — Legacy to fluid by contributor — Subsequent impossibility of scheme — Abandonment — Return of contributions — Charitable intent — Cy-p>res — Failure of legacy — Will — Construction. Testator bequeathed a legacy of 2.5,000?. to " The Institute of Medical Sciences Fund, University of London." The fund h.id been started by voluntary contributions in the testator's lifetime, witli the object of carrying out a proposed scheme for the establishment of an Institute of Medical Sciences, and the testator himself had contributed largely to the fnnd. Hie executors paid the legacy to the trustees of the fund, but, subsequently, the scheme proved impracticable and was finally abandoned, .and the various contributions were returned to the respective donors. On the question whether the legacy had been definitely devoted to a charit- able purpose .and ought to be administered cy-prbs : — Held (affirming the decision of Joyce J.), [1908] W. N. 182, that the legacy was a gift to take effect upon the happening of a condition which had failed ; that there was no general charitable intent to be gathered from the will ; and that the legacy must be repaid to the execu- tors. In re University of London Medical Sciences Institute Fund. Fowler r. Att.-Gen. - C. A. [1909] W. N. 57 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 1 34. — Mortmain — " Charitable uses " — Will — Construction — Direction to purchase land and build dwelling -houses for the 2Wor — Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1891 (SI ^''ao Vict, c. 73), ss. 7, 8 — Workini) Classes Dwellings Act, 1890 (53 4' 54 Vict. c. 16), s. 1, .vib-s. 1. Testator bequeathed personalty to trustees upon trust to purchase land and build houses thereon, and let the same at an undervnlue to ( 369 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 370 ) CKASXIY—coHti/mnl. the poor of London and other populous places as a continuing trust : — ffeld, that the words " charitable uses " in s. 7 of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1891, meant the same thing as " purposes of the charity " ; that the charitable uses in the present case were, therefore, the continuing trust to let the houses at less than their value, not the direc- tion to purchase land and build houses, and that that trust was not afiected by s. 7, but was a valid charitable gift. Semile, the Working Classes Dwellinsrs Act, 1890, does not apply to charities. In re Sotton. Lewis v. Sutton Buckley J. [1901] W. N. 168 ; [1901] 2 Cli.640 35. — Mortmaln^Churchyard, Gift for main- tenance of — Statute — Implied repeal— Oifts far Churches Ant, 1803 (43 Oeo. 3, c, 108), *. 1— Mortmain and Charitahle Uses Act, 1891 (54 ^■ 55 Vict. c. 73), s. 7. The restriction contained in the Gifts for Churches Act, 1803, s. 1, is impliedly repealed by 8. 7 of the Murtmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1891 ;— Held, therefore, that a residuary gift by a testatrix of property exceeding 500Z. In value for the maintenance of a, churchyard was a valid charitable gift. In re DOUGLAS. DouiiLAS c. Simpson - - Kekewioh J. [1905] 'W.TS.I : [1905J 1 Ch. 879 ■ — Mortmain — Colonial mortgages — Applica- bility of colonial mortmain law. See Conflict op Laws. 14. 36. — Murtmain-^Lund — Oift to charity — Devise of real estate in trust f of sale — Share of rents vntil sale — Consent of tenant for life — " Land " — Vesting in official trustee — Mortmain and CharitnUe tfses Act, 1891 (54 S,- 55 Vict. c. 73), ss. 3, 5, G. A testator, who died in 1900, gave all his real and personal estate to trusiees upon trust for conversion, but directed that no part of his free- holds and leaseholds should be sold during the lifetime of his wife without her consent in writ- ing. The income arising from this estate, and the rents of the unsold portion thereof, were disti'ibutable during the life of the widow — one- fourth to her, and the remaining three-fourths between four named charities, to whom, after the death of the widow, the whole of the residuary estate was eventually given. On an application by the trustees for the opinion of the Court whether the directions for sale and vesting con- tnined in ss. 5 and 6 of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1891, applied to this gift : — Held, that tliere were two interests given to the charities, the one a reversionary interest which was not " land " within the meaning of the Act, and the other an immediate terminable interest in the income of land which the ti'ustecs were expressly forbidden to sell din-ing the life- time of he widow without her consent ; no con- sent having been given, and the land from which the income arose being still unconverted at the expiration of a year from the testator's death, the interest in this income was "land" within the meaning of the Act, and that it was now vested CKKSXIY—eoiitinued. by force of e. 6 in the Official Trustee of Charity Lands. In re Eyland. Kopkb v. Evland Byrne J. [1903] W. N. 18; [1903] 1 Ch.467 37. — Mortmnin — Ileal estate — Demee — Sale — Extension of time — Jurisdiction — Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1891 (54 ^- 65 F^<•^ c. 73), ss. 5, 6. Where land had been devised to a charity the Court has jurisdiction under e. 5 of the Mortmain and Charitable Cses Act, 1891, when and so often as the circumstances render it desirable, to extend the time for sale beyond the year from the testator's death : and the power of granting an extension of time is not confined merely to an extension for the purpose of carry- ing into effect a contract for sale made within the year from the death. In re SiDEBOTTOM. BeELET r. SiDEBOTTOM C. A. [1901] W. N. 76 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 1 N'ote. See next Case. 38. — Mortmain — Ileal estate — Deciie of land on trust for sale — Bequest of proceeds to charity — Extension of time for sale — Right of trustees to retain landvnjiold — Mortmain and Charitatle Uses Act, 1891 (54 .$■ 55 Vict. c. 73), ss. 3, 5. A devise of real estate to trustees upon trust to sell the same and hand over the pnx^eeds to a charity is a gift of " personal estate arising from the land " within the exception to s. 3 of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1891, and is not affected by ss. 5, 6, and 8 of that Act. The trustees are not obliged to sell the land within a year from the testator's death, but may retain it without obtaining the leave of the Court. They are not, however, at liberty to postpone the sale indefinitely. In re SiDEBOTTOM, Beeley r. Waterhouse. C. A. [1902] W. N. 132 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 389 Note. See preceding Case. 39. — Mortmain — Voluntary associations, Officers of — Will — Impure personalty — Gift to named persons " o?' their successors " — Cluiritable r'scs Act, 1735 (9 Geo. 2, c. 36), «. 3. A testator, who died in 188B, gave the I'ents of his freehold and leasehold estaies to his wife for life, and after her death he directed his trustees to sell the property and to divide the proceeds in (amongst others) the followine: legacies: "To M. 0., H. M., A. C, Nazareth House, Hammersmith, or their successore. 400/, To E. M. and iM. L., of the Convent of the Assumption, Bromley-by-Bow, or their successoi-s, 300Z." At the date of the will and of the death of the testator M. 0., H. M., and A. C. were members and officials of a religious community known as the Poor Sisters of Nazareth ; and K. M. and M. L. were members and officials of a religious community known as the Little Sisters of the Assumption. Both of these communities were societies of Roman Catholic ladies living together in a state of celibacy for the purpose of sanctify- ing their souls by prayer and pious contempla- tion ; and also, as to the Poor Sisters of Nazareth, with the object of a9'ording permanent homes for aged and infirm person- of both sexes ; and as to the Little Sisters of the Assumption, with the ( 3V1 > CIQEST OF CASES, 1901— 1910. ( 372 ) CHAEITY— ctffl/ittwrf. object of gi'atuitously niu'sing the sick of the poorest classes iu their owa homes : — HeU, that the bequests were not gifts to the named individuals for their own personal beneiit, but to them as holders of offices and for the benefit , of the associations in which they respectively held office ; and that, as the objects of the associations were chai-itable, the gifts were void under the Mortmain Act, 1736. Coclisy. Manners, (1871) L. R. 12 Eq. 574, followed. In re DblA2JY. Cokoleit r. Quick FarweU J. [1902] W. N. 149 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 642 Note. This case was referred to by Joyce J., In re Oarravd, [1907] 1 Ch. 382. See No. 53, below. 40. — Xun-emstence of institntion named — Lapse — Oij-pris — ^feaning of" chanfaHeinsHtii- tion " — ^yUl — Legacy. The testatrix by her will gave pecuniary legacies to charities established for a variety of purposes, e.g., to aid consumptive persons, blind persons, orphans, deaf and dumb persons, epilep- tics and paralytics. One of the legacies was of a sum of 6001. to the " Home for the Homeless," 27, Red Lion Square, London. After providing that in the event of any question arising as to the designation of any of the charitable institutions, or of any doubt arising as to which one of two or more of them it was intended to benefit, the decision should rest absolutely with her executor, and after giving other legacies, the testatrix provided that her residuary moneys should be " divided rate- ably among the various charitable institutions which are beneficiaries under this instrument." At the date of the will there was not, and there never had previously been, in London any charitable institution known as the " Home for the Homeless." After making provision for debts and legacies there was a fund distributable as residue among the charitable institutions which were beneficiaries under the will : — Held, (1.) that the Court was justified in drawing the inference of a general charitable intention with reference to the gift of 500?., and that the gift did not lapse, but must be admi- nistered cy-prts : (2.) that the word " institu- tions " was large enough to include any authority or person that would have to administer the fund, and that the authority or person was also entitled to the share of residue which would have been taken by the " Home for the Home- less " if it had existed. In re UA^'IS. Hannen ■C. HiLLYER Buckley J. [1902] W. N. 66 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 876 41. — Officers' regimental mess to maintain a library, Gift to — Plate — Public general purpose —Army regulations — Gift for old officers — Per- petuity — Pesidue — 43 Eli:, c. 4 — " Setting out of soldiers " — iVill — Construction. A testator gave his residuary personalty upon trust for the officei-s' mess of his regiment, to be invested and the income to be applied in main- taining a library for the officers' mess for ever, any surplus to be expended in the purchase of plate for the mess. He then directed that two houses, part of the residue, should be for the use C^tLRViY— continued. of old officers of the regiment at a small rent during their lives : — Held, that the gift of residue to maintain a library and to purchase plate for the officers' mess being for a general public purpose tending to increase the efficiency of the army and aid taxation, was a good charitable bequest : — Held, also, that the gift might be supported as a " setting out of soldiers " within the meaning of those words in the statute of Elizabeth : But held, that the gift of the houses was void for remoteness, and that the houses did not fall back into the residue, but were undisposed of. In re GOOD. H ARLINGTON r. Watts FarweU J. [1905] W. N. 82 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 60 Note. Followed bv Warrington J., In re Donald, [1909] 2 Ch. 410. — Poor law (Scotland) — Settlement by residence ■ — Support by charitable institution. See PooK Law. .29. 42. — Praetice — Action — Certificate of Charity Commissioners — Practice— Administra- tion — National School — Income of endowments — Transfer to school board — Action by transferee — Administration of Charitable lYusfs Act, 1853 (16 S' 17 1'iet, c. 137), «. 17 — Elementary Educa- tion Act, 1870 (33 ^- 34 Vict. c. 75), s. 23. The buildings and the income of the endow- ments of a national school were leased by the managers to a school board, under the powers given by s. 23 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, for a term of years. At a subsequent date the then trustee of the endowments transferred them to the Charity C'ommrs. , and the defts., as official trustees of charitable trusts, received the income arising from the funds. The school board brought an action against the defts. to recover the sums so received by thom and for an inquiry as to the trust funds : — Held, affirming the judgment of a Div. Ct., that the claim of the pits, was under the trusts affecting the endowments and not a relief sought adversely to a charity, and that they were not entitled to bring the action without the consent of the Charity Commrs. under s. 17 of the Administration of Charitable Trusts Act, 1853. Llanbadaknpawe School Board r. Official Trustees of Chauitable Trtists C. A. [1901] IK. B. 430 43. — Peligion, Advancement of — Charitable bequest — Uncertainty — IVust rested in ecclesias- tical officer for timebeing — " Charitable religion.^ or other objects in oonnectUm with the Soman Catholic Faith:' A residuary bequest in trust for the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster for the time being, to be distributed by him between such charitable, religious or other societies, institu- tions, persons, or objects in connection with the Roman Catholic faith in England as he shall in his absolute discretion think fit : — Held not a good charitable bequest, but void for uncertainty. In re Havidson. Minty v. Bourne C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 567 — Schools — Charitable trusts. See also under Schools. ( 373 ) DIGEST OF GASES, 1901—1910. ( S7i ) CKAHITY—onnthiucfl. — School — National school — Income of endow- ments — Transfer to school board. &'e JSl). ] 3, above. — School — Endowment — Trust deed — Forfeiture — Gift over to residue — Perpetuities. See ^VILL — Forfeiture. 8. 44. — School — Scheme — Itcligious imtruetioii — Gocernment grant — Board of Education Modification of scJieme to meet regulations of Board — Jurisdiction — Charitable trust. Where the primary object for which a secon- dary school was originally founded cannot be given effect to under its existing constitution without the aid of grants from the Board of Education, the Court will modify the scheme of the Charity Commrs. under which the school was being administered, so far as necessary to comply with the regulations of the Board of Education and enable the school to secure the grants. In re Queen's School, Chestee Eve J. [1910] W. N. 63 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 796 45. — School for edncatioii of poorer classes — Tru^t deed — Denomiiuitio/ial teaching — Biscontimianee of weeh-day school after will, but befm'e death of teslatri.r — CoTitiniied user as Sunday school — No lapse — Tl'iW — Legacy to charitable institution. Testatrix bequeathed a legacy to " St. Andrew's School, Heybridge," for the benefit thereof. A school of that name was founded by a brother of the testatrix in 18G9 for the education of children of the poorer classes, the religious part of the education to be according to the principles of the Church of England. From the date of its foundation this school had been used for tlie purposes of a Church of England elementary day school on weelc-days, and of a Sunday school in connection with Hoy- bridge parish church on Sundays, and was so used at the date of the will. For some years previous to the testatrix's death, however, tliis weeli-day school had been discontinued, having lost the Government grant, and the school- house had not been used for any other day school under the trusts of the deed of settlement, but it continued to be used for the Sunday school uninterruptedly down to the present time : — Held, that the legacy had not lapsed, for although the purposes for which the school was founded had to a great extent failed, yet there had not been, so to speat, a " total loss " of the institution, inasmuch as it still survived in the Sunday school and performed its objects on one day in the weelc. In re Waring. Haywaed c Att.-Gen. - Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 214 ; [1907] 1 Ch 166 46. — School, Site for — Qift of land for educa- tion of poor^ Discontinuance of week-day school — Continued use as Sunday school — Cesser of use for purposes of the Act — Reverter— School Sites Act, 1841 (4 S- 5 Vict. c. 38), .?. 2. The expression "x;easing to be used for the purposes in this Act mentioned " in the reverter clause contained in s. 2 of the School Sites Act, 1841, means " ceasing to be used for such of the purposes in this Act mentioned as are specified in the deed of gran I." CK&SJTY— continued. In 1868 S. executed a deed poll under s. 2 of the School Sites Act, 1841, conveying to the minister and churchwardens of a parish a piece of land for the purposes of the Act and upon trust to permit the premises and all buildings to be erected thereon to be used as a school for the education of children and adults of the poorer classes of the parish and for no other purpose. The schools were to be open to the inspection of the Established Church inspectors and managed by the principal minister of the parish, who was to superintend the religious and moral Instruction of the scholars and might use the premises for a Sunday school. A school was erected on the land and used till 1907 as a public elementary school, when it ceased to be used except as a Sunday school. S. claimed that the premises had reverted to him under the Act ; the Board of Education contended that they weie still devoted to charity and that a scheme ought to be settled for the future administration thereof : — Held, that inasmuch as the school had ceased to be used for the purposes specified in the deed poll it had reverted to the estate of S., the donor, although it had been continuously used for other purposes specified in the Act. Att.-Gen". r. Shadwbli. Warrington J. [1909] W. N. 229 : [1910] 1 Ch. 92 47. — " Site " — Trustees — Deri.ilon of majorit y binding minority — Charitable tru.it — Will — Construction. A testator, after appointing trustees for the general purposes of his will, directed them, out of the proceeds of sale of his residuary real and personal estate, to set apart and appropriate a sum amounting as nearly as might be to 1,000,OOOZ., and to pay the same to the pit. and others, to be called the " W. H. trustees," who should stand possessed of the same upon trust from time to time to lay out a sufBcierjt part of the said ti-ust legacy in the purchase of freehold '■ lands situate in some or one of the western suburbs of London, or in the adjacent country," to be selected by the \V. H. trustees " as a site " for the erection of buildings to be used as homes for aged poor persons and to be called '' Whiteley Homes for the aged poor," or by such other name or names as the W. H. trustees should think fit, but so that the name of "Whiteley" should form part of such name or names. The will contained further directions that the " site " to be selected should be in a bright and healthy "spot," even "if such a site" could only be .acquired ,at additional expense. The W. H. trustees were also given a very wide discretion in determining the name of" the homes and administering the. trust generally, and their minimum number was to be nine. Upon n summons taken out by eight of the ten trustees against the other two trustees : — Held—(\.) That upon the true construction of the will the W. H. trustees were not entitled to select more than one site for the homes. (2.) That the rule stated in WilMnson v. Malin, (1832) 2 Tyrw. 544, ,")71, that in the administration of a trust of a " public " nature the act of the majority was to be treated as the act of the whole body, applied equally to a trust ( 376 ) iDIGESf 01' CASES, 1901—1910. ( 376 ) CRAVLlTY—contiimeil. of a " charitable " nature ; and therefore, in selecting a site and in fouading the homes, the decision- of the majority of the W. H. trustees was binding upon the minority. 7>j re Whitblby. Bishop of London r. Whiteley Eve J. [1910] W. N. 63 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 600 48. — Tithes — Annual 2>aymeiit of corn to poor of parish — Charge on great tithes — Inclosure Art — Lands iMotted in lieu of tithes — Sale of lands — Lands subject to charge— Mortgagee — JVotice of charge — Inclosure Act, 1830 (11 Geo. 4, c. 1), .w. 37, G6 — Charitable Trusts (_Becovery) Act, 1891 {'A 4' '>'> ^'"■'t- «•• 17) — Conveyancing Act, 1882 (-15 4' 16 Vict. c. 39), s. 3, sub-s. 1 (ii.) In 1881 the deft, purchased from the Ecclcs. Coinmrs. certain lands ■which, in 1834, had been allotted to tlieir predecessors in title under the Inclosure Act, 1 1 Geo. 4, c. 4, in lieu of the great tithes of the parish of H. There was evidence that from time immemorial an annual payment of a certain quantity of coru had been made out of the tithes for the benefit of the poor of the parish, and from 1834 to 1881 the same payment had been made by the owners or occupiers of the lauds in question. The conveyance to the deft, was expressed to be made " free from incum- brances, ' ' but wsis also expressly subject to the unredeemed land tax, tithe commutation rent- charge, both rectorial and vicarial, and to all other payments and outgoings, ecclesiastical or civil, charged upon or payable out of the lands conveyed : — Held, that the payment of com constituted a valid chai'ge to which tlie lands allotted in lieu of the tithes became subject by virtue of s. 66 of the Inclosure Act, and that the deft, by the terms of his conveyance took the lands subject to the charge. The deft, had mortgaged the lands by a deed which expressly stated in terms similar to those used in the conveyance that the mortgage was subject to all payments and outgoings, ecclesias- tical or civil, charged upon or payable out of the mortgaged property. The mortgagee had made no inquiry as to the existence of any charges upon the propertj' : — Meld, that, having regard to s. 3, sub-s. 1 (ii.), of the Conveyancing Act, 1882, the mortgagee must be taken to have had notice of the charge in question, and that the mortgaged property was subject thereto. In re Alms Cokn Chaeity. Chabity Commrs. )'. Bode Stirling J. [1901] 2 Ch. 750 49. — 7'omb — Gifttocharity — Invalid bequest followed hi/ gift of residue to charity — Alms- houses — ^¥iU. Testator by his will, dated in 1864, gave the sum of 1000?. out of his personal estate to trustees, and directed that it should be invested in the names of the vicar and churchwardens of a cei-tain church, upon trust in the iirst place out of the income to maintain yearly and keep in good repair and condition a tomb belonging to the testator in the churchyard, and in the next place to divide and distribute the re- mainder among the poor recipients of certain almshouses : — Meld, that the gift to maintain the tomb C'Kk'&Yi'i— continued. being invalid, the whole income of the fund went to the vicar and churchwardens on behalf of the almshouses. Flili V. Att.-Gen., (1867) L. K. 4 Eq. .521, Daivson v. Small, (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 114, and In re Birhett., (1878) 9 Ch. D. 576, followed. In re RoGEESON. BlED c. Lkb. Joyce J. [1901] W. N. 66 ; [1901] 1 CIi. 715 — Trust — Uncertainty — " Charitable or religious institutions and societies." See WlLL—Uncertainty. 4. — Trustee — • Disbursements — Subscription to charity. See Trustee — Costs, &c. 1. — Uncertainty — Charitable or emigration uses — Gift. See jV». 13, above. 50. — Uncertainty, Gift for " charitable and henevident institutions '' not void for — Will — Con- struction. A bequest of residue upon trust for " such charitable and benevolent institutions" as the trustees shall in their discretion determine is not void for uncertainty, but is a good charitable gift. In re Sutton, (1885) 28 Ch. D. 464, followed. Dictum of Lord Cotteuham in Ellis v. Selbi/, (1836)1 My. & Cr. 292 ; 43 R. R. 188, disapprov- ing of Jemm.it v. Verril, cited in (1826) Amb. 573, n., not followed. In re Best. Jaevis v. Birmingham Corporation Farwell J. [1904] W. N. 152 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 354 — Uncertainty — Indigent bachelors widowers, Gift for relief of. See Xi). 22, above. and 61. — Uncertainty — Trust — Residue — ■ Will — Cotstrvction. A testator, by the last purpose of his trust disposition and settlement, after bequeathing a number of legacies to specific charities and public institutions, gave his trustees fuU power " at any time or times" .... "as and when the said residue or any part thereof becomes available, as they may deem proper, to pay over or divide the said residue or any part or parts thereof to or amongst such local or Scottish charitable institu- tions and schemes already constituted, or which may hereafter be constituted (and which may include those hereinbefore named), as they may select, or any one or more of such institutions and schemes, and that at such time, in such mannej', or in such proportions, as they in their absolute discretion may deem proper." The trustees were also to have the " fullest powers of and in regard to realisation, investment, administration, management, and division as if they were bene- ficial owners." They were further empowered to retain the investments of which the estate might consist at the time of the testator's death, " and that for such time or times as they may think fit or indefinitely " : — Held (aflSrming the decision of the First Division of the Court of Session, (1907) S. C. 953), that the bequest of the residue was not void for ( 377 ) DIGEST Of CASES, 1901—1910. ( 378 ) CS.AB,ITY—co7iti,mecl. uncertainty. DiOK v. CoPLAiJD. DiCK v. AUDSLEY H, L. (Sc.) [1908] "W. N. 136 ; [1908] A. C. 347 62. — Vicar and churchwardens to lie, ajyplied •'as they shall thinli fit," Gift to — Validity — Will. A testatrix bequeathed 400/. to the vicar and churchwardens for the time being of K, to be applied by them in such manner as they shall in tlieir sole discretion think fit : — Held, that the bequest was a good charitable gift for ecclesiastical purposes in the parish. In re Gahrabd. Gordon c Chaigib Joyce J. [1907] W. N. 21 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 382 — Volunteers, Yeomanry, and Militia, Gifts to — Territorial and Reserve Forces. See Will — Territorial and Eeserve Forces. 1. — M'ater supply — Swimming bath — School — Domestic purposes. See Water. 16. — Wesleyan Methodist chapel — Model deed — Power of sale — Proceeds applicable as income. See Land Registry. 2. — Will — Absolute gift — Codicil directing use of legacy for charitable purposes — Preca- tory trust — " I wish." See Will — Precatory Trust. 1. — Will — Absolute gift — Gift on condition — Precatory trust forcharity — " 1 specially desire." See Will — Precatory Trust. 2. — AVill — Uncertainty — " Such charitable or public purposes as my trustee thinks proper" — Trust. See Will— ITncertainty. i. CHARITY ORGANIZATION SOCIETY— Bequest to— Invalidity. See Charity. 9. CHARTER— Burgh — Customs and rates— Pre- scription — Roads and Bridges. See Scottish Law. 4. — Mahomedan law — Administration of walcf estate — Rights of wakifs — Charter of incorporation superseded. See Maukitiits. 1. — Patent — User — Weight of evidence. See Foreshore. 1. CHARTER (ROYAL). See under Royal Charter. CHARTERED COMPANY— Breach of charter- Ultra vires. See Conflict op Laws. 3. CHARTERPARTY— Insurance, Marine— Freight — Loss — Saving of charterparty hire — Commission. See Insurance (Marine), 7. — Shipbroker — Signature as agent — Right to sue as principal. See Principal and Agent. 12. CHARTERPARTY— cortfi«ttf'/. — Shipping. See under Shipping— Charterparty. " CHAETREVSE "—Trade mark— Passing off- French law of associations. See Trade Mabk. 10. CHARTS— Maps and— Evidence— Admissibility. Se-e Custom. 1. CHARWOMAN— Casual employment. See Master and Skrv aut— Compen- sation. 31. CHATTELS— Bequest of— Tapestries— Right of removal — Question between devisee and legatee. See Fixtures. 7. "CHATTELS REAL" Rent-charge issuing out — Intestacy. SseWiLL — Chattels real. 1. CHECK WEIGHER— Appointment— Coal mine — " Mine " — Two seams in mine. See Mines. 5. — Removal — Coal mine — Interfering with work- men. *■(' Mines. 2. CHEMISTS. See under Pharmacy Acts. — Excepted. See Shop Houi'S Act, 1901 (.1 Edw. 7, c. 31), s. 2, Schcd. CHEQUE. See under Banker. CHICKEN. Sec under Fowj.s. CHILD. See under Infant. CHILD-BEARING — Mother past — Will — Illegitimate children — Class gift. See Will — Illegitimacy. 3, i. — Woman past the age of — Presumption. See Evidence. ] 2. CHILDREN. See under Infant. CHIMNEY— Black smoke— Private dwelling - house — Club. Sec Nuisance. 2. — Sending forth black smoke — Nuisance — Funnel of steam-tug — London. See Nuisance. 5. CHINA AND COREA. The Wci-hai-Wci 0. in C, 1901, Amendment Order, 1903. St. R, & 0. 1903, No. 217. Merchant Shipping. Hong Kinig.1 0. in C. confirming Ordinances of the Legislature of Hong Kong repealing certain Provisions of the Merchant Shijjping jet, 1891. St.R. & 0. 1903, No. 674 ( 379 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 380 ) CHINA ADTD COKEA—cotainued. — Foreign jurisdiction. See under Fobeign Jurisdiction. — Hong Kong. See under HoN& KoNG. 1. — Insurance — Policy of fire Insurance — ybtice required of additional insurance — Con- struction — Premium of additional insurance unpaid. Where there was a stipulation in a policy of fire insurance that it should become null and void if the insured omitted to give notice of any additional assurance effected on the same goods vifith another co. witliout the consent of the insurers : — Held, that the policy was not avoided by omission to give notice oE an additional assur- ance which, on the true construction of its terms, ne%'er became effective by reason of the premium not having been paid. Equitable Fire and Accident Office, Ld. v. The Ching Wo Hong - - - P. C. [1907 J A. C. 96 lA. — Shanghai — Shipping — Q>llision Regs, art. 29 — Signal as to alteration of course — No duty to stop if signal u)iansmered. Where the appellants' steamship came into collision with the respondents' lighter in a narrow channel under circumstances which rendered the respondents' tug clearly to blame : — Held, that the judge was in error in holding the appellants' steamship also to blame befause she did not stop her engines on the tug's failure to answer her signal to the effect that she had altered her course to the starboard. The tug seemed to be acting in accoi'dance with the rule of the road, and the captain of the appellants' steamship in proceeding on his course cautiously at halt speed did not fail in his duty in any respect. China Navigation Co. c. Asiatic Petroleum Co. and the Taku Tug and Lighterage Co., The " Tientsin." P. C. [1910] A. C. 204 2. — Shanghai — Shipjiing — Forfeiture of ship — Decree of — Merchant Shipping Act, 189i (67 ,f 58 Viet. c. CO), St. 69, 76 — Merchant Shipping Act, 1906 (6 Mw. 7, c. 48), s. 51— Supreme Court of China and Corea — Juris- diction. The Supreme Court of China and Corea at Shanghai decreed the forfeiture for improperly carrying British colours of a ship owned by Russians which had been registered at Shanghai in the name of a British subject : — • Held, that as the Supreme Court of Shanghai was not within British territory it had no juris- diction to make the decree. Sect. 76 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, confers the juris- diction exercised upon no Court except within the dominions of the Crown, and there is no statu- tory authority extending the jurisdiction there- under to the Shanghai Court. Owners. &o.. op Steamship "Maori King" v. His Britannic Majesty's Consul-Genbkal at Shanghai P. C. [1909] A. C. 562 3. — Shipping — Collision in dense fug — jVegligence is not going with moderate speed — Failure to stop and ascertain position of the CHINA AND COZEA— continued. vessels — Art. 16 of Begulations under Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. Art. 1 6 of the King's Regulations, which is in the same terms as art. 16 of the Regulations under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, ought to be most carefully adhered to in order to avert the danger of collision in thicli weather. Where a collision loot place in a dense fog oflE the Shantung Promontoiy, North China, and the judge held that the appellants' vessel was solely to blame for not stopping and going at a, speed of 9^ knots an hour in the fog which pre- vailed :— Held, on appeal , that the respondents' vessel must be pronounced in part to blame, and that her commander should be held guilty of negli- gence contributing to the collision in that he was going at a speed of about 6'8 knots an hour, which, having regard to the weather and the circumstances of the case, was not a moderate speed within the meaning of the article, and that by not stopping her engines after hearing the first signals by the appellants' vessel, until he could ascertain her position with certainty and ivhat she was doing, he failed to comply with its directions. China Navigation Co. (Owners of SS. "Chinkiang") p. Commis- sioners foe Executing the Office of Lord High Admiral of the United King- dom. China Navigation Co. (Owners of SS. " Ghinkiang ") f. Lbathajh P. C. [1908] A. C. 261 — Shipping — Forfeiture of ship, Decree of. See yo. 2, abore, 4. — Shipping — Necessaries supplied on credit of ship — Claim of defendants as purchasers of ship — Admiralty Court Act, 1861, s. 5 — China and Korea Order in Council, 1904, s. 100. In an action in rem against a ship under s. 5 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, fornecessaries supplied to B. on the credit of the ship, it appeared that the registered owners were trustees mainly for the defts. as purchasers who had paid to B. nearly the whole of the purchase-money before the necessaries were supplied, B.'s interest being to the extent of a small balance of purchase-money and subject to the obligation of delivery of the ship to the appellants according to his contract : — Held, that the pits, were entitled to recover. Their claim against the ship was paramount to that of the defts. for the delivery thereof under their contract with B. Foong Tai & Co. c. Buchheister & Co. - P. C. [1908] A. C. 468 CHINA CLAY. See under CLAY. — Mines and " other minerals " — Railway com- pany — Compulsory purchase of surface — Kight to support. See Mines. 4. — Railway company — Right of support. See Mines. 3. CHOSE IN ACTION - Assignment — Contract to sell reversiotiary interest — Assignment by pur- chaser of benefit of contract — Right of assignee to sue render for damages — Legal chose in action ( 3S1 ) DIGEST OF CASE!?, 1901—1910. ( 382 ) CHOSE IN ACnOff—continuetl. —Judicature Act, 1873 (36 S' 37 Vict c. 66), s. 25, siib-s. 6. Judgment of the Uiv. Gt., [1902] 2 K. B.427, reversed. Tokkington v. Magee C. A. [1903] W. N. 60 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 644 — Assignment abroad — Notice — Priority — Ee- versionary interest — Personal estate in England. See Conflict of Laws. 2. — Assignment of debt — Maintenance — Indirect motive on part of assignee. See Assignment. 2. — Brewer's lease — Benefit of covenant a chose in action. See Landlord and Tenant. 20. — Contract to sell reversionary interest — Eight of assignee to sue vendor for breach. See Assignment, 9. ■ — Instrument passing whole right of assignor. See Assignment. 6. — Judgment debt — Assignment of part. Validity of — Leave to issue execution. See Execution. 1. — Mortgage — Notice — Priorities. See Bankkuptcy — Mortgages. 1. — Mortgage — Priority— Notice. See Mortgage — Priority. 1 . — Mortgage of chose in action after commence- ment of bankruptcy — Bona tides. See Bankruptcy — Protected Transac- tion. 1. — Shares in company — Power of sale. See Mortgage — Sale. ."i. CHUECH. See under ECCLESIASTICAL Latv — Church. CHUECH DISCIPLINE. See under ECCLESIASTICAL LAW — Discipline (Church Discipline). CHTJECHWAEDEN. See under ECCLESIASTICAL LAW — Churchwardens. CHUECHWAT. See under Ecclesiastical Law — Churchway. — Customary — Manorial custom — Evidence — Inhabitants of parish at large. See Way, Eight or. 1. CHUECHYAED. See under ECCLESIASTICAL LAW — Burial. See under ECCLESIASTICAL LAW — Churchyard. CINEMATOGEAPH. Chicmafaf/raph Act, 1909 (9 Edw.7, .-. 30), is an Act to make hotter provision for securing safety at cmentatograjih a-iul other ejf/iiiitivnx. Cincmat(u/riip/i, E)i//land — Rcf/s., Dec. 20, 1909, VMder'the Cineniutoririiiih .irf, 1909. St. E. & 0., 1909, No. 1465. Price \d. GIS^UATOGB,AVE— continued. Circular, Feh. 25, 1910, relating to the Amended lleffvlatians, Feb. 18, 1910, under the CinevMfar/raph Act, 1909. St. E. & 0. , 1910, No. 189. Price Id. 1. — Licence — Condition as to cloHng on Sunday — Ultra vires — Cinematoyraj)h Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 30), s. 2. The appellants granted a licence to the respon- dents under s. 2 of the Cinematograph Act, 1909, to use certain premises for the purpose of a cine- matograph exhibition, in which inflammable films were used, inserting therein a condition that tlie premises should not be opened on Sun- days, Good Friday, or Cbri.^tmas Day. The respondents were summoned for having opened the premises for the purpose of the exhibition on Sunday, Feb. 27, 1910, and the magistrate held that the powers of the County Council under s. 2 were restricted by the title of the Act to imposing conditions for securing safety, and that the con- dition as to closing on Sundays, Good Friday, and Christmas Daj' was ultra vires. He accord- ingly dismissed the summons. The London County Council appealed. The Court held that the powers of the County Council under s. 2 were not limited by the title of the Act to imposing conditions for securing safety, and that the condition as to closing the premises on Simdays, Good Friday, and Christmas Day was valid. Appeal allowed. London County Council r. Bermondsby Bioscope Co., Ld. Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 279 CIECTTLAES— Betting circular. Si-c under Betting Circul.^e. — Contempt of Court — Fraudulently circulariz- ing shareholders while winding-up petition pending — Company — Wind. ing-up. See Contempt of Court. 4. — Liquidator, Application to remove — Circu- larizing shareholders — Company — Con- tempt of Coui't. See Contempt of Court. 5. — Trade-mark — Infringement — Circulars. See Trade-mark. 9. CITATION— Administration— Court of Probate Act, 1857 — Grant to creditor under s. 73 — Citation of next of kin (if any) dis- pensed with. See Administration. 0. — Adniinistratiun — Grant — Widow passed over on ground of marital misconduct. See Probate — Misconduct. 1. — Administration — Intestacy — Divorce — Former husband passed over without citation — Sureties required to justify. See Probate — Practice. 1. — Divorce — Practice— Leave to proceed without service of citation or copy petition — Notice of proceedings. See Divorce— Practice. 19. ( 383 ) DIGEST OF CA6ES, 1901—1910. ( 384 ) CITATION— continued. — Marrieri woman — Protection oi-der — Hus- band's address u. known — Citation dis- pensed with. SeeHCBBANDAND Wife— Desertion. 2. — Monition — Faculty — Interest, Insufficiency of. iSfee Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 4. CITY or LONDON. See under LONDON. CITY OF LONDON COURT. See under London — City of Loudon Court. CIVIL LIST ACT, 1910. See under Ceown. CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT. See under LIMITATION OF ACTION. CIVIL SERVANT— Additional years of servioe need not be coniinuous. See New South Wales. 3. CIVIL SERVICE— Compensation on retirement — Ajppeal froni Australia. — Superannuation allowance — Construction — " Ufficei." See New SotTTH Wales. 4. CLAM — Enjoyment clam — Right to support of dock sides by rods fastened in adjoin- ing owner's land. iSse SUPPOKT. 1. CLASS — Ironee of power herself a member of the class — Power of donee to appoint to herself — Settlement. See PowBB OF Appointment. 31. — Illegitimate child — Class gift — After-born children — Child en ventre sa mfere at date of settlement. See Settlement. 29. — Parties — Eepresentative action — Action on behalf of a class of the public — Joinder of plaintiffs. See Pkactice— Parties. 4. — Severance of class — Married woman — Re- straint on anticipation — Rule against pei-petuities. See Husband and Wife — Eestraint on Anticipation. 2. — Win — Construction. See under Will— Class. CLAY — China clay — Mines and " other minerals " — Railway company — Com- pulsory purchase of sui face. See Railway- Mines. 1. — Mines and other minerals — Railway company — Purchase of surface. See Mines. 4. CLEANSING— Lodging-house-Duty on "land- lord " — Validity of by-law. See London— Lodging-bouses. 1. D.D. CLEANSING— oowJiwM^d . — Privies and cesspools— Power of local authority to undertake duty of. See Local Govbenment. 27. — Sewers— Duty of local authority— Meaning of " sewer." See SBWEE8. 18. CLERGY. See under Ecclesiastical Law. CLERGY RESIDENCES REPAIR ACT. Sfe Ecclesiastical Law — Vicarage. 1. CLERICAL ERROR— Settlement — Mistake of fact — Mis lescription— Tail male instead of tail general. See Settlement. 35. — Will — Residuary clause — Motion to rectify — Order to strike out words — Refusal to inst-rt another word. See Peobate — Rectification. 1. CLERICAL SOCIETY— Bequest for payment of anuual dinners — Good charitable gift. See Chaeity. 10. CLERK— Fraudulent conversion of goods- Estoppel. See Sale op Goods. 11. — Justices' clerk — Power to appoint — Payment of salary. See Local Govbenment. 18. — Licensing Acts — Order by clerk to justify notices to fees in respect of witnesses called in opposition to grant. See Licensing Acts. 26. — Presentation of bankruptcy petition by " officer " of companv. See Bankeuptcx — Practice. 11. CLERKS OF THE PEACE— Appointment of deputies. See under Recoedees, &c. — Licensing Acts — Claim by clerk to justices to fees in respect of witnesses called in opposition to grant. See Licensing Acts. 26. CLOCK — Fixed to outside of house — Breach of lessee's covenant — " Alteration." See Landlokd and Tenant. 7. CLOG ON REDEMPTION— Mortgages. See under— MoETGAGE — Redemption. CLOSING — Carriage-door — Passenger — Negli- gence. See Railway — Passengers. 4. — Dwelling-house unfit for human habitation — Closing order. ro- liibits compuUory memhership of unregistered shop clubs or thrift funds, and regulates such as are duly registered. 1. — Alteration of rules — Raising stiiscription ■^Expulsion of member — Injunction. A club which is governed by rules prescribing the amount of the annual subscription, but not containing any provision for the amendment or alteration thereof, cannot by a resolution passed by a majority of the members present at a general meeting raise the amount of the subscrip- tion so as to bind existing members, and the Court will interfere by injunction to restrain the expulsion of a dissentient member for refusing to pay the increased subscription. Haeingtok V. Sendall Joyce J. [1903"' W. ». 80 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 921 — Black smoke — Chimney of private dwelling- house. See Nuisance. 2. — Distress — Goods of underlessee — Proprietary club — Pictures sent by members of club for exhibition and sale on com- mission. See Distress. 4. — Liquor licences duties. See under Eevbnue. — Order by Court of summary jurisdiction that club be struck off register. See Licensing Acts. 46. — Pictures sent for exhibition and sale — Pro- prietary club — Privilege from distress. See Distress. 4. 1. — Principle upon which clubs are founded — Liability of trustees of club in respect of leases — Liability of the members of a club — Appeal from New South Wales. The rule that trustees are entitled to be indemnified by their cestuis que trustent against liabilities incurreil by their holding trust property does not apply to cases where the nature of the transaction excludes it. An ordinary club is formed upon the tacit understanding, judicially recognized, that no member as such becomes liable to pay to its funds or otherwise any money beyond the sub- scriptions required by its rules. Trustees of a club who have incurred liability under onerous covenants contained in a lease, accepted by them on its behalf, are entitled to indemnity out of any property of the club to which their lien as trustees extends. Its mem- bers are pot, by reason only of being oestuis que CLUB — continued. trustent, personally liable to indemnify them, where there is no rule imposing such liability upon them. Wise v. Pbepetual Trustee Co. P. C. [1903] A. C. 139 2. — Rules — Power to alter — Fymdamental objects — Geney-al meeting — Resolution — Validity, The H. club was formed in 1868 with express powers to alter any of its rules by the resolution of a prescribed majority. The rules were accord- ingly altered from time to time, and the sub- sisting r. 2 read thus : " The club is instituted for the purpose of providing a ground for pigeon- shooting, polo, and other sports surrounded with such accessories and so situated as to render it an agreeable country resort." Pigeon-shooting had been carried on at the club from its com- mencement down to 1 905, prizes being given and competitions arranged by the committee. Polo and other sports had also been carried on for a shorter period. At a general meeting of the club held in May, 1905, a resolution was passed by the requisite majority that as from Dec. 31, 1905, pigeon-.shooting should be discontinued at the club. The minority brought an action against the trustees and committee for a declara- tion that the resolution was null and void, on the ground that it was not competent to the majority, under the guise of altering the rules of I he club, to change its fundamental object : — Held (affirming the decision of Joyce J., [1906] W. N. 45 ; [1906] 1 Ch.480), that no one of the objects in r. 2 was more a fundamental object of the club, in the sense that it could not be varied or excluded, than any other mentioned in that rule ; that what had been done was within the power of altering the rules ; and that con- sequently no such declaration as was asked for ought to be made. Thellusson v. Viscount Valentia - C. A. [1907] W. N. 99 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 1 — Sale by club to agent of member. See Licensing Acts. 55. — Shop clubs — Friendly societies. See under Friendly Societies. COACH-HOUSE — • Improvements — Reimburse- ment out of capital money. See Settled Land — Capital Honeys. 5. COACHMAN — Forage supplied by direction of — Authority to pledge credit of master. See Master and Servant — Liability. 1. — Negligence — Injury to article bailed — Lia- bility of master — Bailment. See Master and Servant — Liability, 2. COAL AXD COAL MINES. See under Mines. — Charterparty — Implied condition that ship- owner will not use ship in manner prejudicial to the charterer — Carriage of bunker coal intended for use on future voyage. See Shipping — Cl>arterpart7, 22, ( 387 DIGEST OP GASES, 1901-1910. ( 388 ) COAL AND COAL 1im:ES—continuet?. — Mines — Private coal fields — Royalties on coal extracted. See Natal. 6. — Railway company — Mines — Compensation — Coal required to be left unworked. See Railway— Mines. 2, 5, — Ship — Tonnage — " Deck cargo " — Coal carried ■ on deck for use on voyage. See SHiPPlNG-.-Tonnage. 1. — Ship — Mortgage — Freight — Bunker coal. See Shipping — Uortg^ages. 1. — Ship — Warranty of seaworthiness — Provision that charterers should provide coal. See Shipping — Charterparty. 60. — Shipping — Charterparty — Implied condition — Carriage of bunker coal intended for use on future voyage. See Shipping — Charterparty. 22. — Shipping — Coal — Cargo of — Spontaneous com- bustion — ^Liability of ship to contribute to general average. See Shipping — Average. 1. — Warranty of seaworthiness, Breach of — Steam- ship insufficiently provided with coal. iSee Insurance (Marine). 33. — Weights and measures. See under WEIGHTS and Measures. — Workmen's compensation —Custom to receive allowance coal during incapacity. See Master and Servant — Compen sation. 33. COAL DUTY — Estate duty— Conversion of coal duty into annuity ■ - Redemption of annuity — Purchase of real estate. See Revenue — Estate Duty. 12. COALIKG — Vessel employed in coaling ships of navy — King's ship — Pilotage dues — Liability of master. iSee Shipping— King's Ship. 1. CO-DEFENDANTS— Costs. See Shipping— Practice. 5. — Costs — Taxation — Judgment against one defendant — Practice. See Costs. 67. CODICIL— Probate— Will. See under Probate — Codicil. — Will. See under Will — Codicil. COEECION— Adultery of petitioner brought about under duress and by coercion of the husband. See Divorce — Practice. 30, COHABITATION — Ground for cessation of— Misconduct on part of complainant short of matrimonial offence. See Divorce — Desertion. 4. — Presumption from cohabitation- Evidence. See MaBBIAGE. 6. -Marriage- — Resumption of cohabitation — Settlement on children of marriage. See Separation Deed. 1. — Trust for wife during cohabitation — Validity — Post-nuptial settlement. See Settlement. 2. COLLATERAL AGREEMENT — Lease under seal — Evidence, Inadmissibility of. See Landlord and Tenant. 33. — Parol warranty that drains are in order. See Landlord and Tenant. 31. COLLATERAL COVENANT— Covenant running with the land — Covenant by lessor to perform covenants of head lease. See Landlord and Tenant. 26. — Enlargement for quiet enjoyment. See Landlord and Tenant. 26. COLLATERAL SECURITY— Surety— Mortgage. See Principal and Surety. 2a. COLLECTINO SOCIETIES AND INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE COMPANIES — Disputes — County court jurisdiction. See Justices. 10. — Justices' jurisdiction. See Insurance (Life). 7. — Life insurance — Notice of transfer. See Insurance (Life). 18. COLLECTOR — Poor-rate collector (Ireland) — Remuneration — Transfer of existing officers to county council. See Rates. 9. COLLEGE. See under University. COLLIERY — Right of lessee to sink shaft in land of lessor not demised — Purchase by railway company. See Lands Clauses Acts. 6. COLLIERY GUARANTEE— Exceptions — Char- terparty. See Shipping — Charterparty. 52. COLLISION— CoUision. See under Shipping— Collision. COLONIAL STOCK. Colonial StoeJts—B. S. C, July, 1903. Re- print from W. N. 1903 (July 26), p. 217. See Current Index, 1903, p. Ixxvii. Colonial Stock Act, 1900 — Treasure Orders dated Dec. 6, 1900, Sept. 25, 1905, and Oct. 24, 1905, under s. 2 of the Colonial Stoch Act, 1900 (63 ^ 64 Vict. c. 62").— See Current Index, 1905, p. Ixiv. Australia (_Sout/t) — Colonial Stock Act, 1900 (63 ^ 64 Viet. c. 62) — Notice given in respect of South Australia Inscribed Stock, dated Nor., 1906. Reprint from W. N. 1906 (Deo. 8), p. 389. See Current Index, 1906, p, ixix. 02 ( 389 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 390 ) COLONIAt ST0CK~ccmH7med. Aiistralia (_8outh) — Colonial Stoolt Aot, 1900 (63 4'' 64 Viot. 0. (iT)— Notice, dated Bee, 1909, given in reqieot of South Australia 3| per cent. Inscribed Stock (1924) ; South Australia 3f per cent. Inscribed Stoclt (1934). Eeprint from W. N. 1910 (Jan. 1), p. 1. See Cuerent Index, 1910, p. xc. Australia (Western) — Colonial Stock Act, 1900 (63 .5' 64 Vict. c. 62), s. i—Xotice dated Mar. 27, 1907, given in respect of We.Uern Australia 3 J per cent. Inscribed Stock (1927 — 1947). Reprint from W. N. 1907 (April 6), p. 91. See CuEEENT Index, 1907, p. Ixx. Australia [Western) — Colonial Stock Act, 1900 (63 .%'• 64 Vict. c. 62)— i\W(ce giren in respect of Western Australian 3| per cent. In- scribed Stock (1935—1955). Reprint from "W. N. 1909 (Oct. 2), p. 381. See CUBEENT INDEX, 1909, p. ciii. Canada— Colonial Stock Act, 1900 (63 4- 64 Vict. c. 62), s. 2— Notice, dated Jnne 20, 1908, given in respect of Dominion of Canada 'i\ prr cent. Stock (1930—1950). Reprint from W. N. 1908 (June 87), p. 213. See Cubeent Index, 1908, p. Ixxiii. Canadian Pacific Railway — Colonial Stock Act, 1900 (63 S,' 64 Viot. u. 62)— Notice, dated Aug. 22, 1907, given in respect of Doiiii7ivm of Canada Inscribed Stock of the Canadian Pacific Mailway 3J per cent. Land Grant Loan, 1938. Reprint from W. N. 1907 (Aug, 31), p. 245. See CtTEEENT Index, 1907, p. Ixx. Ceylon— Colonial Stock Act, 1900 (63 S,- 64 Vict. c. &2) — Notice, dated Mar. 17, 1910. Addition to List of Stocks under s. 2. Ceylon Government S^ per cent. Inscribed Stock (1934 — 1959). Reprint from W. N. 1910 (Mar. 26), p. 99. iSee Cdeeent Index, 1910, p. xc. Gold Coast— Colonial Stock Act, 1900 (63 Ji' 64 Vict. c. 62')— Notice, dated July 17, 1909, (fiven in respect of Gold Coat.t Government Zipper 'cent. Inscribed Stock (1934—1959). Reprint from W. N. 1909 (July 24), p. 877. See Cue KENT Index, 1909, p. ciii. Lagos — Southern Nigeria {Lagos) — Colonial Stock Act, 1900 (63 S,- 64 Vict. e. 62), s. 2. With reference to the notice dated April 25, 1905, given in respect of " Lagos 3^ ^Je»' cent. Inicribed Stock (1930 — 1955)," the name of the above Stock has been changed to " Southern Nigeria {Lagos) Z\ per cent, inscribed Stock (1930 — 1955)." Eeprint from W. N. 1907 (Sept. 28), p. 261. See CuE- KENT Index, 1907, p. Ixx. Mauritius— Colonial Stock Act, 1900 (63 S,- 64 Vict. c. 62) — Notice given in respect of Mauritius Inscribed Stock, dated Mar. 24, 1906. Eeprint from W. N. 1906 (April 7), p. 99. See Cueeent Index, 1906, p. Ixix. New South Wales — Colonial Stock Act, 1900 (63 .J- 64 Vict. c. 62), «. 2— Notice, dated Dec. 28, 1906, qiven in respect of New South Wales Z\per cent, 'stock (1930—1950). Reprint from W. N. 1907 (Jan. 6), p. 1. See Cuerent Index, 1907, p. Ixix. COLONIAL ilOCZ— continued. Newfoundland— Colonial Stock Act, 1900 (63 ck Act, 1900 (63 4- 64 Vict. <: 62')— Notice, dated July 30, 1907, given in resjject of Straits Settlements Government Si jjer cent. Inscribed Stock (1937 — 1967). Reprint from W. N. 1907 (Aug. 10), p. 231. See Cueeent Index, 1907, p. Ixx. Colonial Stock Act, 1900 — Treasury List oj Colonial Stocks in respect of which the proi-isions of the Act are for the time being complied with, 1909 (^T.— Miscellaneous). Price 3rf. COLONY (BEITISH). Colonial Acts Confirmation Act, 1901 (1 Edio. 7, u. 29), confirms certain Acts of Colonial Legislature. Colonial Marriages (Jieceased Wife's Sister) Act, 1906 (6 Hdw. 7, c. 30), is an Act to declare the laio with respect to a marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister domiciled in parts of the British Possessions where such a marriage is legal. Evidence (^Colonial Statutes) Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 16), is an Act to facilitate tlw admission in evidence of Statutes passed by tlie Legislatures of British possessions and protectorates, including Cyprus. Naval Establishments in Briti.ih Possessions Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 18), is an Act to make better prori-iiitn resjiccting liaral Establishments in British Posses.fions. Colonial Naval Defence Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 19), is a)i Act to amend the Colonial Naval Defence Act, 1865. Prisoners — 0. in C. applying Colonial Prisoners Benwval Act, 1884, to Protectorate of Northern and Southern Nigeria. St. B. & 0. 1902, Nos. 204, 205. — Appeals from the Colonies. See under Peivy Council. — Colonial death duties — Will — Direction to pay debts out of residue — Specific devise of Colonial property — Incidence of duty. See Will — Colonial Duties. 1. — Criminal law. See under Criminal Law — Colonies. — Domicil. See under Conflict op Laws. — Foreign jurisdiction. See under Foeeion Jurisdiction. — Income tax — Interest from Colonial invest- ments — Remittances not identified as capital. See Revenue— Income Tax. 26. ( 391 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 392 ) COIONY (BEITISH)— cra««j-ocedure on applications for confirmation by the Court of the 7'eduction of the capital of companies under tlie Companies (Con-tolidation) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69). Reprint from W. N. 1909 (May 15), p. 183. See Cueeent Index, 19U9, p. cliii. Companies (Converted Societies) Act, 1910 (10 Edw. 7 cj' 1 Geo. 5, c. 2.S), is an A ct to remove doubts as to tlie validity of the conversion of certain societies into companies. In General, ool, 401. Accounts, col. 401. Agent, col. 402. Allotment, col, 402. Anialgainatioti, col, 405. Arrangements (Scheme of Arra7igement), col. 405. Articles of Association. See COMPANY — Uemorandum. Auditors, col. 407. Bankers, col. 407. Bankruptcy, col. 407. Bond, col, 409. Books, col. 410. Borrowing, col, 411. Brewery Company, See under Beeweeies. Calls, col, 411. Capital, col, 413. Certificate, col. 413. Clmrges. See utider COMPANY — Mort- gagee. Charging Orders, col. 414. Charity, col. 414. Chartered Company, col. 414. Collecting Societies and Industrial As- surance Companies. See under Col- lecting Societies and Indus- tbial a8b0eakob companies. Commission, col. 414. ( 399 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 400 ) COJS:PASY—co/Uimied. Companies established outside the United Kingdom, col. 414. Contract of sercice, col. 415. Contracts, col, 415. Costs, col. 417. Delentures, col. 418. Deeds of Arrangement. See under COM- PANY — Arrangements. Defunct Company, col. 450. Dentist, col. 451. Directors, col. 451. Dividends, col. 467. Electric Light. See under EleCTEIO Light. Evidence. See under Evidence. Examination, col. 471. Foreign Company, col. 472. Foreign Laws, col. 472. Forgery, col. 472. Friendly Society, col. 473. ffratuities, col. 474. Guarantee, col. 474. Dtcome Bond, col. 476. Income Tax, col. 477. Indemnity, col. 478. Insurance Companies, col. 478. Insurance, Life, col. 478. Interest, col. 478. Investments, col. 479. Insurance Companies. See under In- surance, &c. Judgment. See under Judgment. ■Jurisdiction, ml. 479. Land, col. 479. Larceny, col. 480. Leases, col. 480. Liability, col. 480. ZiJ«Z, CO?. 481. Licence to hold lands. See under Com- pany— Land. Lien, col. 481. Limitations (Statutes of Limitations) col. 481. Liquidator. See under CoMPAJTY — WINDING -UP— liquidator. Livery Company, col. 481. Loans, col. 482. Lottery, col. 482. Manager, col. 482. Meetings, ool. 482, Memorandum {Memorandum and Arti cles of Association), col. 486. aO^iASY— continued. Money-lendei's, ool. 498. Mortgages (_Moiigages and Clvarges'), col. 498. Name, col. 500. Namgation Company, col. 504. Notice. See under Notice. One Man Company, col. 504. Pension, ool. 504. Power of Sale, col. 504. Practice, col. 505. Priority, col, 508. Private Act, col. 508. Promissory Note, col. 508. Promoter, col. 509. Promoters, col. 509. P™o/, coZ. 510. Prospectus, col. 511. Proxy, col. 519. Quorum, col. 519. Railvjay, col, 519. Railway Oompatiy, See under Eail- WAY. Receiver, col. 519. Receiver (Receiver and Manager"), col, 519. RecoTistruetion, col. 529. Reduction of Capital, col. 538. Register, col. 549. Register of Members, col. 550. Registration, col. 551. Resolution, col. 552. Return of Capital, col. 552. jSirZe, tfoJ. 553. Satisfaction, ool. 553. Secretary, col. 553. Servants, col. 554. Shares (Shareholders and Shares), col. 554, Stamps, col. 571. Staying proceedings, col. 572. J^'flfffl il/ar/j, coZ. 572. Tramway Company. See under Tram- ways. Trustees, col, 572, i7Zira Tire*, eo^. 572. VestiTig Orders, ool. 573. Yetennary Surgeon, col. 676. Foiim^, coZ. 576. TFa^er Company. See under Water Company. ( ioi ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 402 ) COMPANY— coMiiwwei^. Will, col. 576. Winding-up. See under Company — Winding-up. In General. ■ — Company — " Securities " — Stocks and shares — Extrinsic evidence, Admissibility of. See Will — Investments. 3. — Contempt of Court — Fraudulently circulariz- ing shareholders while winding-up peti- tion pending. See Contempt op Coubt. 4. — Contempt of Court — Liquidator, Application to remove — Circularizing shareholders. See Contempt op Coukt. 5. — False representation — Signature of party to be charged —" Person" — Corporation — Signature by agent of company. See Adulteration. 20. — Forfeiture — Kelicf of underlessee against — Solvent company — Voluntary liquida- tion — Discretion of Court. See Landlord and Tenant. 75. — Income tax — Interest from foreign invest- ments. See Revenue — Income Tax. 13. — Income tax — Investments by company in the Colony — Taxable income. See Eevenue— Income Tax. 14. — Income tax — Profits or gains — Interest from foreign investments. See Revenue — Income Tax. 13. — Incorporated by statute— Power to charge surplus lands — Existing debt. See Corporation. l,j. — Payment out of Court — Evidence — Production of bond of company. See Lands Clauses Acts. 32. — Powers of company — Formation and invest- ment of reserve fund — Purchase by director and resale to company. Sre Canada — Company. 1. — Railway companies. See under Railway. — Receiver, Use or occupation by — Head-lease — Rent — Breach of covenant — Deben- ture trust deed. See Mortgage — Eeceiver. 1. — Re-entry on liquidation. Condition for — Solvent company — Voluntary liquida- tion — Forfeiture. See Landlord and Tenant. 75. — Security — Bond of limited company — Ultra vires. See Receiver, 14. — Will — Partnership— Conversion into company — Agreement by executors — Jurisdic- tion to sanction. See Trustee — Investments. 12. Accounts. 1. — Balance-sheet — Reserve fvnd — Secrecy — Information withheld from shareholders ■ COUFANY (Accounts) — continued. Auditors Tiot to disclose information — Ultra vires —Companies Act, 1900 (63 4' 64 Vict. tued. Glasgow Panlion, Ld. t: Mathei'well, (1903) 6 F. 116, distinguished. Per Swinfen Eady J., and sembleper Vaughan Williams and Gozens-Haidy L.JJ. also : Accord- ing to the true construction of s. 4 of the Com- panies Act, 1900, it is a condition precedent to a valid allotment that the whole of the application money should have been paid to and received by the CO. in cash. Any means by which money can be remitted may be used, but the remit- tances must be cleared and the actual cash received by the co. before allotment. Mears c. Wesibbn Canada Pulp and Paper Co. C. A. [1905] W. N. 120 ; [1905] 2 Ch.353 Kote. Applied by Swinfen Eady J., In re National Motor Mail-Coach Co., [1908] 2 Ch. 228. See next Case. Referred to by Neville J., Surtoit v. Bevaii, [1908] 2 Ch. 240. See 7fo. d, below. 2. — J/i ni III iim subscription — Application ■money — Paid to and receieed by the Company — Che(j[ues cleared and honoured after allotment — Delay in pre.'ientment — Irregular allotment — yotice of avoidance within one month of statutory •meeting — Zei/al Proceedings after one month — Companies Ad, 1900 (63 <^ 64 Vict. c. 48), ss. 4, 5. Where a cheque lor application money for shares forming parf of the minimum subscrip- tion for allotment is received on the day of allotment, but not paid into the co.'s bank until some days later, the, application money cannot be treated as " paid to and received by the co." before allotment within s. 4 of the Companies Act, 1900, although the cheque is duly honoured. Mears v. Western Canada Pulp and Paper Co., [1905] 2 Ch. 353, 360, applied. Glasgow Pavilion, Id. v. Motherwell, (1903) 6 F. 116, distinguished. Sect. 5, which renders an- aUottoent to an applicant. in contravention of s. 4 "voidable at the instance of the applicant within one mouth after the holding of the statutory meeting of the eo. and not later," does not require actual legal proceedings to be taken within the month as a condition of avoidance. Notice of avoidance within the mouth followed by prompt legal pro- ceedings after the month is suificient. Semtle, the notice need not specify the, ground of avoidance. In re National Motor Mail-Coach Co., Anstis' and McLean's Claims - Swinfen Eady J. [1908] W. N. 153 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 228 Sote. In re Nat'ioiuil Motor Mail-Coarh Co., Clinton's Claim., C. A. [1908] 2 Ch. 515. See Company — Costs. 1, 2. 3. — Proceeding to allotment — Proportion of shares applied for — Application money not paid — Liability of directoi's — " Knowinijly contra- vene "—Companies Act, 1900 (63 ^- 64' Vict. c. 48), ss. 4, 5. A CO. issued a prospectus offering 20,000 \l. preference shares to the public and stating that no allotment would bo made unless 15,000 shares, had been applied for and the application money COMPANY (Allotment)— conimMei. paid. The pit. applied for 100 shares. The directors proceeded to allotment when 15,000 shares had been applied for, but in some cases the application money had only been paid by cheques which had not been cleared. The pit. paid the full amount of his shares. The co. went into liquidation, and it then appeared that the CO. was insolvent and the shares worthless. The pit. brought this action against one of the directors claiming repayment of the money paid on application for the shares under s. 4 and compensation for loss under s. 5 of the Companies Act, 1900. The deft, was not present at the meeting of the board at which the allotment was made, but was present at subsequent meetings at which the minutes were confli'med and a resolu- tion passed to apply for a certificate to commence business :— Held that, Mears v. Western Canada Pulp and Paper Co., [1905] 2 Ch. 353, haviiig decided that payment by cheque is not payment witliin s. 4 of the Companies Act, 1900, until the cheque is cleared, there had been a contravention of the Act. Sect. 4 applies only before allotment. After allotment is once made, whether in contravention of the Act or not, it is only voidable at the option of the shareholder, and the co. cannot pay back the application money ; the only liability of the , directors after allotment is the liability to make good the loss under s. 5, sub-s. 2, of the Act. Under that section, " knowingly contravene " means contravene with knowledge of the facts. A director cannot escape liability by ignorance of the law. But a director does not make himself respon- sible for an act done at a meeting at which he was not present, and which is complete without further confirmation, merely by voting at a subsequent meeting for the confirmation of the minutes. Held, also, on all the evidence, that the deft, was not aware of the facts and had not knowingly contravened the Act. Burton v. Bevan - - Neville J. [1908] W. N. 140 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 240 4. — Prospectus — Minimum subscription — Company — Articles of Association — Companies Act, 1900 (63 <$• 64 Vict. c. 48), ss. i, 10. The liquidator of a co. applied for a balance order against a contributory, who raised the defence that the "minimum subscription" referred to in ss. 4 and 10 of the Companies Act, 1900, was not property stated in the articles of association, or in the co.'s prospectus. Clause 8 of the articles provided as follows : " If the company shall offer any of its shares to the public for subscription, the directors shall not make any allotment thereof unless and until at least 10 per cent, of the shares so offered shall have been subscribed, and the sums payable on application shall have been received by the company ; but this provision is no longer to apply after the first allotment of shares ofiered to the public for subscription has been made." The CO. issued a prospectus offering shares for public subscription, and containing only the following statement a-i to the minimum sub- scription : — " The minimum subscription i.-> fixed ( 105 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 406 ) COMPANY (Allotmmt)— continued. ■ by the artiol&s of association at 10 per cent, of the shares offered." Neville J. held that the statement wa^ in each case sufficient. There was a statement of an amount, which was ascertained as soon as it was known what shares the directors were offer- ing for public subscription. The real intention of s. 4, taken with s. 10, was that, the public, when they were asked to subscribe for shares, should be notified what was the minimum subscription on which the directors could pro- ceed to allotment. In the present case the public was sufficiently notified, and the defence set up failed. In re West Yoekshiee Daekacq Agency, Ld. - Neville J. [1908] W. N. 236 5. — " The prosjiectus" — Mimnmin Subscriji- t'lun not stated — 3Iore than one prospectus — AppUcatimi for shares — VoidaMliti/ — Gnnjianies Act, 1900 (63 4- 64 Vict. c. 48), s. 4, sul-ss. 1, 4 ; «. 5. The expression " the prospectus " in s. 4, sub-ss. 1, 4, of the Companies Act, 1900, means that document offering capital to the public upon the basis of which the applicant has actually subscribed. The statement of the minimum subscription on which the directors may go to allotment, which the section requires to be inserted in the prospectus, must be an express statement, and not one which can be implied from other state- ments in the prospectus. Rodssbll i: Bden- HAM - Parker J. [1908] W. N. 288 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 127 Amalgamation. — Companies — Memorandum of association — Ultra Tires — Sale of business to another company-Dissenting debenture-holders. Eights of. See Company — Memorandum. 9. — Company — Memorandum of association — Reconstruction. See Company— Beoonstruotion. 1. — Company — " Winding-up for the purpose of reconstruction or amalgamation " — " Amalgamation." See CoMPAir? — BeconBtruotion. 6. — Railway company — Dock company — Water — Powers — Ultra vires. See Railway — Amalgamation. 1. — Reconstruction and Amalgamation — Unfair scheme — Dissentient shareholders. See Company — Winding-up — Prac- tice. 24. — Reconstruction of company. See under Company — Eeconstruotion. Costs- Arraugementa. (Scheme of Arrangement.) -Charge on property preserved. See Solicit OK — Costs. 8. 1. — Orediiors — Agreement for composition — Registraticn — Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887 (60 cS" 51 Vict. 0. 57), ss. 4, 5. The Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887, does not apply to arrangements made by limited cos. COMPANY (Arrangements) — cmttinued. An agreement was made between the co. and some of its creditors, whose names were to be given in a schedule to the agreement, for the payment by instalments, through a trustee, of the debts due to them. A list of these creditors was given to the trustee ; several of them signed the schedule, and nearly all assented to it. The agreement was not registered under the Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887. If all the instal- ments had been paid the tmstee would have received 936^, and the debts of the creditors mentioned in the list amounted to 933Z. 10s. The CO. paid 216Z. to the trustee and then made default. The debtenture - holders of the co. claimed the whole, and the other creditors of the CO. claimed a share of 216Z. Theco. was not in liquidation : — Held, that the Act of 1887 did not apply to limited cos. ; the agreement was not void for want of registration ; that its operation was not confined to the particular creditors who had assented to it ; and that all the creditors of the CO. were entitled to take advantage of it. In re RiLEYS, Ld. Haepee -c. Rileys Byrne J. [1903] W. N. 135 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 590 — Creditors, Arrangement with — Judgment — Staying proceedings. -SeeCoMPANiT — Staying Proceedings. 1, 2. — Debenture-holders and guarantors — Scheme of arrangement — Preference to assets of company. The House, holding that the question turned on the construction of the documents in the case, affirmed the decision of the First Division of the Ct. of Sess. dated Feb. 20, 1908, and dismissed the appeal with costs. Lancashiee Trust and Mortgage Insdeancb Coepora- TION c. Maetin H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 76 3. — Practice — Order to summon meeting — Form of proxy — Companies (Consolidation') Act, 1908 (8 Jildw. 7, c. 69), s. 120. In order to insure the issue of proper forms of proxies for meetings ordered to be summoned under s. 120 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, the order directing the meeting to be summoned should invariably provide that " the proxies are to be in the form officially authorised by Vaughan Williams J. in the Practice Direc- tion, [1896] W. N. 56, or in such other form as may be settled in chambers." N.B. — The full form is set out in Palmer's Company Precedents, 9tb ed., pt. 2, p. 901, Form 879, and the material parts in Buckley on Companies, 9th ed., p. 276. Practice Direc- tion - Swinfen Eady J. [1910] W. N. 154 — Voluntary winding-up — Scheme of arrange- ment involving reduction of capital. See Company — Eeduction of Capital. 21. 4. — Winding-iip — Scheme of arrattgement with creditors and contributories — Sanction of Court — Dissent of class of contributories having no interest in assets — Joint Stock Compan ies Arranqe- menl. Act, 1870 (33 ,$• 34 Vict. c. 104), s. -2— Com- panies Act, 1900 (G3 c\ 64 Vict. o. 48), s. 24. Under s. 2 of the Joint Stock Companies Ai-raugement Act, 1870, combined with s. 21 o£ ( 407 ) DIGEST OF CASKS, 1901—1910. ( 408 ) COMPANY (Arrangements) — continued. the Companies Act, 1900, the Court has juiis- diotion to sanction a scheme of arrangement with the creditors and contributories of a oo. in liquidation, notwithstanding the dissent of one class of contributories, if the Court is satisfied that having regard to the value of the co.'s assets that class has no interest in them. Under such circumstances the scheme must be treated as made between the co. and their creditors, and between the co. and the other classes of contributories, and a piovisioa made by it for the benefit of the dissentient class must be regarded as in the nature of a gift or con- cession to them. Decision of Buckley J. affirmed. In re Tea CORPOSATION, LD. SoESBIE V. SAME CO. C. A. [1903] W. N. 198 ; [1904] 1 Oil. 12 5. — Winding-up of Comyany — Meetings of members — Separate classes — Ftilly-paid shares — Sliares partly paid loith tincalled halanoe paid in advance of calls — Companies {^Consolidation) Act, 1908 (8 Eduj. 7, c. 69), s. 120. For the purpose of class meetings of members summoned in a winding-up to approve a scheme of arrangement under s. 120 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, holders of shares partly paid with the uncalled balance paid in advance of calls and carrying interest are a different class to holders of fully paid shares. In re Exchange Drapery Co., (1888) 38 Ch. D. 171, 175, and In re Waltefield Rolling Stock Co., [1892] 3 Ch. 165, 174, applied. In re United Pkovident Ass0eakce Co. Swinfen Eady J. [1910] W.N. 199 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 477 Articles of Association. See under Company — Memorandum. Auditors. — Keserve fund — Secrecy — Auditors not to dis- close information — Ultra vires. See Company — Accounts. 1. Bankers. drawn by directors — Cheque drawn by directors on behalf of company — Forgery — Negligence — Return of pass-book without objec- tion — Settled account. See Banker. 1. — Bights of bankers — Transfer of money from company's account to its managing director's overdrawn private account. See Victoria. 1. Bankruptcy. — Arrangement — Debtor's share in a partner- ship — Partnership turned into a limited company — Power of trustee to accept shares in company for debtor's interest. See Bankeitptcy — Arrangement. 5. — Bankruptcy petition — Presentation by " offi- cer " of the company — Clerk. See BANKHnPTCY — Practice. 11. 1, — Bankrupt shareliolder — Unpaid shares — Fully paid shares — Articles of company — Com- pany's lien on unvaid shares — Proof on unpaid COMPANY (Bankruptcy) — eont Inued. shares — Subsequent alteration of articles — Li-en on fally paid shares — Amendme7it of proof — Inad- vertence—Companies Act, 1862 (25 4' 26 Viff. c. 89), s. 5Q— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 4' 47 Vict. 0. 52), Soiled. I., r. 10 ; Sched. II., rr. 13, 14. One of the articles of a limited liability co. provided that the co. should have a paramount lien on all the shares not fully paid of any member for all the debts and liabilities due from such member of the oo. A member of the co. who held partly paid-up shares and also fully paid-up shares became bankrupt. The co. proved in his bankruptcy for the amount due to them on his partly paid-up shares witliout claiming any lien under the article, and their proof was admitted. Subsequently the CO., under s. 50 of the Companies Act, 1862, passed a resolution altering the article by omitting the words " not fuUy paid up," such alteration having a retro- spective effect, and giving them a lien on the fully paid shares : see Allen v. Oold Beefs of West Africa, Ld., [1900] 1 Ch. 656. The co. tif terwards went into liquidation, and it appeared that there would be surplus assets to distribute on the fully paid-up shares. The liquidator applied in the bankruptcy that the co. might be at liberty to amend their proof, or to withdraw it and lodge a fresh one, and set up their lien on the fully paid -up shares : — Held, that they were not entitled to do so, for that it was not a case of inadvertence. In re EowB. Esc parte West Coast Gold Fields, Ld. Bigham J. [1904] W. N. 128 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 489 — Company — Winding-up — Fraudulent prefer- ence — Date of act of bankruptcy. See Company— Winding-dp — Prefer- ence. 4. — Fraudulent assignment — Insolvent trader — Transfer of his business and another's to company for shares and debentures. See Bankruptcy— Fraud. 1. ■ Fraudulent preference — "Voluntary followed by compulsory winding-up— Date of act of bankruptcy. See Company — Windino-tjp — Prefer- ence. 4. — Preferential payments in bankruptcy — Salary—" Clerk or servant." &eCbMPANY— Debentures. 15. — Mutual dealings — Set-ofE — Receiver of debtor's interest in debenture stock. See Bankeuptcy— Set-off. 4. — Proof — Director of company and member of partnership — Misappropriation — Double proof — Partnership — Agents for a company — One partner director of company. See Bankruptcy — Proof. 3. — Receiver and manager— Insufficient estate — Costs — Priorities — Bankruptcy of receiver. See Company — Receiver. 1. 2. — Shareholder, Bankruptcy of — Surplus assets — Distribution among shareholders — Banlt,- ruptcy of shareholder — Proof by company for ( 409 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 410 ) COMPANY (Bankruptcy) —continued. unpaid calh and Imhility to future calls — Receipt of dii-idend — Companies Act, 1862 (25 4' 2e'Vict. u. 89), s. Hi— Company— Wind- ing-up. The holder of \l. shares in a limited co., on which 10s. per share had been paid, became bankrupt, and the co. proved in the bank- ruptcy for a call of \s. per share, which had been made just before the bankruptcy, and for the bankrupt's liability in respect of the un- called "is. per share. The proof was admitted, and the trustee in the bankruptcy paid a divi- dend of 1*. 6any — Companies Act, 1862 (25 4- 26 Vict. c. 89), s. n— Stamp Act, 1891 (54 Sf 55 Vict. c. 39), s. 112— Finance Act, 1899 (62 4- 63 Vict. c. 9), s. 7. The mere fact that a promoter pays the regis- tration fees and ad valorem stamp duty on the registration of a co. does not in itself entitle him to recover them from the co. Judgment of Buckley J. in In re English and Colonial Produce Co., [1906] 2 Ch. 435, 439, overruled on this point. In re NATIONAL MOTOE Mail-Ooach-Co., Clinton's Claim - C. A. [1908] W. N, 172 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 515 Note. See In re National Motor Mail- Coach Co., Anstis' and McLean's Claims, [1908J W. N. 153 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 228. See Company— Allotment. 2. — Receiver and manager — Debenture-holders' action. See under Company — Seceiver. Security for costs — Bond of foreign company Practice. See Costs. 53a. ■ Solicitors' costs. See under Solicitob- -Costs. ■ Stamp duty on capital of company — Payment by solicitor — " Disbursement." See Solicitor— Costs. 12, 35. - Winding-up of company. See under Company — Winding-up — Costs. Debentures. And see al Mortgages. under Company — — Arrangement, Scheme of — Debenture-holders and guarantors — Preference to assets of company. See Company — Arrangement. 2. — Assets covered by debentures — Company — Winding-up — Debenture-holders' action ^Eights of unsecured creditors. See Company — Winding-up — Prac- tice. 8. — Attachment of debts — Debenture-holder — Garnishee order — Execution — Eights of garnishor — Priorities. See Attachment. 5. 1. — Pill of sale — Non-registration — Deben- ture of foreign company— Incorporated company —Bills of Sale Acts, 1878 (41 S,- 42 Tict. e. 31), and 1882 (45 S,- 46 Viet. c. 43), s. 17. Debentures of a limited liability co. registered in Guernsey creating a charge on floating real and personal property of the co. are exempted from the operation of the Bills of Sale Acts, 1878 and 1882, by s. 17 of the latter Act, Clark 1). Balm, Hill & Co. - Phillimore J. [1908] 1 K. B. 667 — Brewery company — Debenture trust deed — Compensation — Powei-s of debenture trustees. See Beewees. 1, 2, 3. ( «9 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 420 ) COMPANY (Debentures) — contimied. — Business of company carried on by deben- ture - holders — Company — Winding- up order. See CoMPAKT— WiNDiNG-TJP — Prac- tice. 28. 2. — Capital and income— Payment of Interest out of capital — Iittereit on money borrowed for the jmrpose of constrwctimg worhs — Period of construction. A tramway co., for the purpose of converting its 'ludertakiug to a system of electric traction, issued conversion debenture stock. The directors passed resolntions that the interest on this stocli should be treated as part of the cost of oonstruo- tion, and chargeable to capital account dui-iiig the construction of the works. The memorandum and articles of association of the oo. contained no provisions relating to this subject : — Meld, that there was no general rule of law which compelled cos. to charge to revenue account interest on money borrowed for the purpose of constructing works, or prohibited them from chariging it, during construction, to capital account ; that, in the absence of any provision to the contrary, cos. were entitled to act in the same way as commercial men dealing honestly in their own business ; and, therefore, that the co. were at liberty to charge the interest in question to capital account. Hinds r. Buenos Aybbs Geand National Tramways Co., Ld. - • Warrington J. [1906] W. N. 187 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 654 — Charging order — " Stock or shares " of a com- pany — Practice. /See Charging Order. 1. — Claim on debentures — Two insolvent com- panies — Winding-up ■ — Cross-claims — Adjustment — Damages for misfeasance. See Company — Winding-up -Assets. 3. Contract to issue debentures — Charge — Execuiisii creditor — Prim'ity. Where a co. contracts for consideration to issue debentures charging its property, and before the debentures are actually issued goods intended to be thereby charged are seized in execution of a judgment recovered against the CO., the execution creditor is only entitled to the goods subject to a charge in favour of the intended debenture-holders. Simultaneous Colour Printing Byndicate v. Foweeakee. Wright J. [1901] 1 K. B. 771 — Contr'a.ct to issue debentures — Floating charge on foreign land — Clog on equity of redemption. See Conflict op Laws. 3. 4. — Costs — Debenture - holdei^s action — Second mortgage debenture-holders made defen- dants. Second mortgage debenture-holders having been made defts. to a first mortgage debenture- holder's action, and the assets being insufficient to satisfy the tirst mortgage debentures, the ques- tion arose whether the second mortgage deben- ture-holders were entitled to any costs. Swinfen Eady J. The rule is correctly stated in Palmer's Company Precedents, 9th ed. COMPANY (Debentures) — eontimird. vol. iii. p. 710, namely, " The deft. co. in a debenture or debenture stock action is not entitled to costs unless, indeed, the action fails : Mortgage Imiirance Corporation, Ld. v. Canadian Agricultural, Coal and Colonization Co., Ld., [1901] 2 Ch. 377. The co. must look to the surplus ; nor are second debenture-holders made defts. entitled to costs, they also must look to the surplus." This is the same as the general rule in mort- gage actions whore subsequent incumbrancers are made defts. Where they are made pits, different considerations arise ; but I am not dealing with that case. In the present case the second mortgage debenture-holders are defts., and are not entitled to costs. [The pit. was allowed solicitor and client costs ; and, under special circumstances, the other first mortgage debenture-holders attending were allowed solicitor and client costs of a cer- tain application in chambers and of the further consideration.] In re Clayton Engineering AND Electrical Consteuotion Co., Ld. Boddington ■('. The Co. Swinfen Eady J. [1904] W. N. 28 See next Case. 5. — Costs — Taxation — Trustees' costs — Same solicitor appearing for trustees and company — Disallowance of company's rights — Might of trustees to full .let of co.its — lletainer — Joint or separate — Debenture-holders' action. Where debentures are secured by a trust deed, the trustees are properly added as defts. to a debenture-holders' action, and where the trustees and the co. appear by the same solicitor, although the co., are not entitled to costs, all the costs of the defts., except any separate costs of the 00. ought to be paid out of the assets before distribution amongst the debenture-holders, upon the ground that, subject to that exception, those costs must be treated as incurred by the trustees ; and for this purpose the order directing taxation should contain a direction that in taxing the costs of the trustees the taxing master should allow them a full set of costs, except as regards any separate costs of the co. , notwithstanding that the trustees and the co. have appeared by the same solicitor. MoETGAGB Insueance Coe- POBATION, Ld. f. Canadian Agricultural, Coal and Colonization Co. - Kekewich J [1901] W. N. 135 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 377 Note. Referred to by Swinfen Eady J., In re Clayton Unr/ineering and Electrical Con.aid at tlie time of creation of cliarge — Registration — CompaniM (Consolidation) Act, 1908 (%mw. 7, c. 69), ss. 93, 212. Where a floating charge is created on the property of a co. within three months of the commencement of the winding up of the co. , the question whether cash is paid " at the time of the creation of the charge" within s. 112 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, is a ques- tion of fact to be determined by all the circum- stances of the case, and as a general rule a payment on account made in consideration for the charge, although made a few days before the execution of the debenture, is made at the time of its creation. A CO. being in need of funds, the directors on Nov. 35, 1909, accepted an offer by S. to advance lOOOZ, upon the security of a floating charge on the property of the co. and passed a resolution that a debenture should be prepared to be executed at the next meeting of the board. On the strength of this resolution S. paid to the co., COMPANY (Debentures)— (;w(rft/r«erf. on account of the lOOOZ., 350Z. immediately and a further 350i. on Dec. 2. At the next meeting, on Dec. 6, the debenture was duly executed and the balance of tlie 10002. was paid. The deben- ture was registered on Deo. 23. The co. went into liquidation in the following Jan., and I he liquidator disputed the validity of the charge :— Beld, (1.) that for the purposes of s. 93 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, the charge was created at the time when the formal instru- ment was executed, and that therefore it was registered within twenty-one days of its creation ; (2.) that the whole of the 10002. was advanced " at the time " of the creation of the charge within s. 212 ; consequently that the debenture was a valid security for the full amount. Decision of Neville J., [1910] W. N. 95 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 758, affirmed. In re COLUMBIAN FiREPEOOFING CO., LD. C. A. [1910] W. N. 142 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 120 11. — Floating security — Bank — Prior charge precluded — Eriiiitahle incunibraiicers — Notice— Prioi-ity. On Nov. 26, 1898, the managing director of a limited co., forgetting that their first mortgage debentures, though only constituting a, floating security, precluded the creation of any prior charge, deposited their title-deeds with their bank to secure the present and future overdraft of their current account. The bank, though aware that debentures had been issued, some of which they held as security for another customer's account, made no inquiry in the matter : — Held, that the mere possession of the deben- tures as security for another customer's account did not affect the bank with notice of their contents in their dealing with the co. ; Held, also, that as the co.'s managing director by depositing the title-deeds impliedly repre- sented that the co. could give a valid first charge, the bank, though aware that debentures had been issued, were not put on inquiry, and were entitled to priority. English and Scottish Mercantile Investment Co. V. Brunton, [1892] 2 Q. B. 700, and In re Castell ,(• Brown, Ld., [1898] 1 Ch. 315, followed. On Mar. 17, 1900, the co. issued a second mortgage debenture to the bank as a collateral secui-ity for an extended overdraft. This deben- ture was expressed to be subject to the first mortgage debentures : — ' Held, that the bank did not thereby obtain notice of the terms of the first mortgage deben- tures so as to postpone their equitable mortgage in respect of subsequent advances. In re Valletoet Sanitaky Steam Laundry Co. Ward v. Valletoet Sanitary Steam Laun- DEY Co. Swinfen Eady J. [1903] W. N. 135 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 654 Xiite. Followed by Farwell J., /;* re Bourne, C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 427. See Partner shiii. 7. 12. — Floating secnrity — Execntion wider writ offi. jia. against company — Payment to sheriffs in irrder to avoid sale— Title to money in hands of sheriff'. ( 125 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 126 ) COMPANY (Debentures) — coiiiirtued. Judgment haYiug been given in an action against a limited co., which had issued deben- tures giving a floating charge over all its pro- perty, the goods of the co. were taken in execu- tion under a writ of fi. fa. In order to avoid a sale and to enable them to continue to carry on business, the co. with the assent of the execution creditor, paid daily to the sheriii a certain sum out of their daily takings. Afterwards a receiver was appointed iu a debenture-holders' action, who claimed to be entitled to the money paid by the CO., which still remained in the hands of the sheriff and had not been handed over by him to the execution creditor : — Held, that the true effect of the transaction was that the money was paid to the sheriff as part of the debt owing to the execution creditor, who was therefore entitled to retain it as against the debenture-holders. Robson V. Smith, [1895] 2 Ch. 118, followed. Robinson v. Burxell's Vienna Bakery Go. Channell J. [1904] 2 K. B. 624 13. — Floating security — Ganiishre order. A debenture constituting a floating security over tlie undertaking and a.ssets of a co., does not specifically affect any particular assets until some event occurs or some act on the pai-t of the mortgagee is done wlrich causes the security to crystallize into a fixed security. A demand by the debenture-holder of the payment by the co. of the money secured by his debenture is not such an act ; nor is a notice by him to the co.'s l)ankers claiming payment to him of the co.'s bank balance which has been attached by a judgment creditor of the co. under a garnishee order ; for theie is no equity in a debenture- holder, whose security is a floating charge, arising from his merely giving notice to seize a particular asset of the co. Evans c. Kival Gbahitb Quarries, Ld. C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 9T9 14. — Floating sccuritij — I.ixuc of finiher dehentures — Specific charge — Priority — Pari passu — Ordinary course of insiuess. The deft. co. was formed iu 1890 with very extensive powers and a very large capital. It issued debejiturcs for 3,700,000?. out of a total authorized issue of 6,000,000/. These debentures were headed " first mortgage debenture," and by thera the co. purported to create a floating charge on all its property, but this was not to interfere (until defnult in payment of principal or interest and steps taken to enforce payment) with the dealing with the property by the co. By condition 1 of the debenture it was stated to be " one of an issue of like debentures for the aggregate sum of /., — part of the said authorized issue of 6,000,000?. — the whole of which debentures of such authorized issue are intended to I'ank pari passu as a first charge upon all (he co.'s property," and the co. reserved the right to issue the balance. By condition 17 a meeting of debenture-holders might " sanction the creation and issue by the co. of debentures or any other security ranking as part of or pari passu with the before mentioned 6,000,000?. debentures and to such amounts and bearing such rates of interest aud generally on such COMPANY (Debentures) — coittinued. terms and conditions as may be sanctioned or prescribed at any such meeting." The CO. proposed to issue further debentures, and two schemes were suggested — (1.) to create in favour of trustees a fixed and specific charge upon specific assets of the co. to secure the new debentures without any floating charge, the total debenture debt not to exceed the 6,000,000?. ; (2.) to issue further debentures of the authorized 6,000,000?., the co. to create a specific charge iu favour of trustees to secure these debentures as in the first scheme. The pit. was a holder of debentures of the co., and he now moved for an injunction restraining the CO. from issuing securities which should constitute a charge on the co.'s assets ranking iu front of or pari passu with the 6,000,000?. first mortgage debentures without first obtaining the assent of a meeting of the debenture-holders, as provided by the conditions indorsed ou the debentures : — Srld, that if a rule existed that a co. which had given a floating charge could not subsequently create a specific charge except in the course of its ordinary business, it applied to cos. which were strictly speaking Trading cos. ; but this was not in the ordinary sense a trading co., but that, if it were, the Court would not assume, in the absence of evidence to that effect, that the schemes were otherwise than in the ordinary course of its business ; that the provision of the debenture that the security was not to interfere with the CO. dealing with its property was in general terms ; that the 17th condition only referred to floating charges, and did not prevent the creation of specific charges on specific assets ; and that there was no reason why the co. should not carry out these proposals. Coi Moore r. Peruvian Cobporation, Ld. Warrington .J. [1908] W. N. 62 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 604 15. — Floating security — Heceirer — Judgment, creditor — Attachment of debts — Garnishee order absolute — Priority — Rights of garnishee — Pre- ferential payment — Salary — Secretary of com- pany — " Clerh or servant " — Debenture-holder — Preferential Payments in Banliniptcii Act, 1888 (51 <\- 52 Vict. c. 62) s. 1, sub-s. l {V)— Pre- ferential Payments in Banbruptrii Act Amend- ment Act, lSy7 (00 .<■ 61 Yict. c. 19), s. 3. In Jan., 1906, a limited co. issued to the pit. a mortgage debenture creating a first charge by way of floating security over all the property for the time being of the co. On June 15, 1906, the deft, obtained judgment against the co., and served a garnishee order nisi on a bank in respect of a sum of money standing to the credit of the CO. iu the books of the bank. On June 25 the garnishee order was made absolute. On June 2H a receiver of the assets of the co. was appointed on behalf of the pit. under the powers contained in his debenture. An interpleader issue having been directed to determine whether the pit. or the deft, w.os entitled to the money : — Held, that a garnishee order absolute does not transfer to the garnishor the property iu the garnished debt, and that consequently the fact that the receiver was not appointed until after the garnishee oriler had been made absolute was ( 427 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 428 ) COMFANT (Debentures) — continued. immaterial, and that the pit. was therefore entitled to the money in priority to the deft. Ill re Combined Weir/Aint/ and Advertising Machine Co., (1889) 43 Ch. D'. 99, and Mrfon v. Yates, [1906] 1 K. B. 112, applied. Mobson V. Smith; [1895] 2 Ch.llS, dis- tinguished. A secretary to a co. may be a "clevis: or servant" within s. 1, sub-s. 1 (J), of the Pre- ferential Payments in Bankruptcy Act, 1888, but a secretary who does not give his whole time to the service of the co. and discharges the general duties of his office by a clerk appointed, and paid by himself is not a ' ' clerk or servant " within the section. Cairnbt c. Back Walton J. [1506] 2 K. B. 746 16. — Floating security — Set-off — Second debenture-holders, Sight of — Liherty of company to carry on business. A debenture issued by a trading co. to their bankers and payable on Aug. 1, 1900, provided that the debenture should be a first charge upon all the co.'s undertaking and property present and future ; that such charge was to be a floating security, but so that the co. were not to be at liberty to create any mortgage or charge in priority to, or upon an equality with that debenture ; that the co. should be at liberty to carry on their business until default should be made in payment of the principal sum secured, or until a receiver should be appointed, and that from and after such default, or the appointment of a receiver, the liberty of the co. to carry on their business should forthwith cease and deter- mine, and the charge created by the debenture should be immediately enforceable. The co. subsequently issued to the defts., with whom they had been and were trading, a debenture payable on Oct. 1, 1900, and expressed to be subject to Ihe debenture held by the bankers. The CO. made default in payment both of the debenture issued to the bankers and of that issued to the defts. The bankers took no steps to stop the CO. carrying on then- business until Oct. 2, 1901, when they appointed a receiver. In an action brought by the co. and the bankers to recover from the defts. the balance of the price of goods sold and delivered by the co. to the defts. between July 1, 1900, and Oct. 1, 1901 :— Held, that the defts. were entitled to set off the sum which on Oct.' 1, 1900, became due under their debenture against the sum dire to the pits, for the goods. Edward Nelson & Co. V. Faber & Co. - Joyce J. [1903] 2 K. B. 367 — Fraudulent assignment — ^Aot oE bankruptcy. iSse Bankruptcy — Fraud. 1. — Fraudulent preference — Kegistered debenture issued in pursuance of unregistered agi-eement. See Company — Winding-up — Prefer- ence. 3. 17. — Future property — Floating cJtarge — Tru,it deed — Restriction against creation ofjirior vwHgages — Purchase by company — Purchase- money to remain on mortgage — Vendor's lien — Legal mortgage — Priority — Registration of COMPANY (Debentures)— oo«i!kMe(i. debentures — Companies Act, 1900 (63 ^ 64 Vict, c. 48), s. 14 — Constructire notice — FJxtoit — Second mortgage — Notice — Power of company — Po.nt- ponemenf. On the sale of freehold propertj' to a co. in 1904, the vendors agreed to let part of the purchase-money remain on mortgage. The con- veyances to the CO. were executed, but remained in the custody of the vendors' solicitor, and sub- sequently, on Jan. 27, 190.5, the mortgage deed was executed without investigation or inquiry on the part of the vendors as to the co.'s title and without notice of any debentures or trust deed. In 1901 the co. had issued debentures secured by a trust deed, particulars whereof had been duly registered pursuant to s. 14 of the Companies Act, 1900. Both the trust deed and the debenture charged the undertaking of the CO. and all its present and future property by way of a floating charge in the usual manner, and both prohibited the creation of any charge on such property ranking in priority to or pari passu with the security created in favour of the debentures, but the conditions indorsed on the debenture, a form of which was scheduled to the trust deed, provided that nothing " herein ' ' contained should prevent the creation of speoiflo mortgages upon after-acquired freehold or lease- hold property. On June 7, 1906, the pit., with notice of the debentures and trust deed, took a mortgage from the co. upon the same premises but subject to the mortgage of Jan. 27, 1905, which was afterwards transferred to him. In a foreclosure action : — Held, as to the mortgage of Jan. 27, 1905, that, whether the vendors had or had not notice of the trust deed and debentures, any equity that attached to the purchased property in favour of the debenture-holders or trustees was subject to the paramount equity of the unpaid vendors, and that the mortgage took priority over any charge to persons claiming through the co. If the priority had turned upon the question of notice, the particulars registered pursuant to s. 14 of the Companies Act, 1900, would have amounted to constructive notice of a charge affecting the property but not of any special restrictions upon dealings by the co. with its property in the usual manner when the subsist- ing charge is a floating security. Held, as to the mortgage of June 7, 1906, that the security created by the trust deed and the debenture was cumulative ; that the former was not controlled by the proviso in the conditions indorsed on the debenture ; and that the co. had no power to create this mortgage in priority to the trust deed. Wilson r. Kelland. Eve J. [1910] W. N. 132; [1910] 2 Ch. 306 18. — Goodwill — '^ Property " — Jurisdiction to appoint manager — Debenture-holders' action. Debentures issued by a hotel oo. charged all the CO. 's " lauds, buildings, property, stock-in- trade, furniture, chattels, and effects whatsoever, both present and future" : — ■ Held, that the word " property " was suflicient to include the goodwill or business of the co., and that therefore, in a debenture-holder's ( 429 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( «0 3 GOMPANY (ItebeutureB)—conti7med. action, the Court had jurisdiction to appoint a manager. Jennuigs v. Jenninas, [1898] 1 Ch. 378, and In re Dacid and Matthews, [1899] 1 Ch. 378. applied. In re LEAS Hotel Co. Saltjeb v. Leas Hotel Co. Kekewich J. [1902] "W.N. 10; [1908] 1 Ch. 332 ■ — Guarantee — Insurance — Suretyship — Release of guarantor — Majority of debenture- holders binding minority. See Company — Guarantee. 2.! 19. — Interest — Deienture- holders' action — Supposed deficient security — Principal and interest— Payments on account — Ai)2>ro2>riation of payments — Orders directing distrihution of dividend —Subsequent surplus. A debenture trust deed provided that the trustees should, in case of default by the co., apply the net proceeds of any realization of the securities, first in payment of interest, secondly of the principal, due on the debentures. The CO. made default, and a representative action was brought on behalf of the debenture-holders to enforce their security, in which the trusts of the deed were ordered to be carried into execu- tion and the usual accounts were directed. The Master certified the amounts due to the various debenture-holders for principal, but, as the security was believed to be insufficient, he for- bore to compute interest. The securities were gradually realised, and orders were made in chambers from time to time whereby dividends of 5s. in the pound, 10s, in the pound, and 5s. in the pound were directed to be paid " on the principal sums by the Master's certificate certi- fied to be due to" the debenture-holders; the last of the dividends being further described as " the balance of the principal sum " so certified. A further sum was subsequently received sufficient to pay all arrears of interest and leave a small surplus for the co. The question now raised was whether by the terms of these orders the debenture-holders had lost their rights under the trust deed : — Seld (atfirming the decision of Joyce J.), that there had been no final and complete appropria- tion by these orders as between principal and interest, and that the debenture-holders were entitled to receive the whole of their arrears of interest in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed, before any surplus was payable to the CO. From the first the Court had professed to be carrying into effect the trusts of this deed and not to be varying those trusts. In re Calgaky and Medicine Hat Land Co. Pigeon c. The Co. C.A. [1908] W. Nt 213 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 652 — Interest guaranteed — Bankruptcy of guarantor Proof for future interest. See Bankbuptoy— Proof. 3. 80. — Irredeemable debentwe stock — Floating charge — Perpetual annuitij — Borrowing — Liiitii- dation — Power of liquidator to pay off stoclt at par. By its memorandum of association one of the objects of the co. was stated to be to borrow money by the issue of any mortgages, deben- tures, debenture stock, bonds, or obligations. COMPANY (Debentures)— co»ii?JKe(Z. By the articles the bd. were authorized to issue debenture stock to be secured upon the property of the CO., and to be irredeemable or redeemable as the bd. should determine. The co. issued irredeemable debenture stock charged upon its assets as a floating charge. The undertaking of the CO. had been sold and the co. was being wound up voluntarily. The liquidators proposed to pay ofE the debenture stock at par, and a stockholder took out a summorrs to determine whether they were entitled to do so : — Held, that the co. had no power under their memorandum of association to issue irredeemable debenture stock, which was really equivalent to a perpetual annuity ; that the articles might be referred to to explain the borrowing powei-s of the CO., but that the granting of perpetual annuities was not a borrowing within those powers ; and that the stockholder was only entitled to a return of his money paid to the co. and interest : — Held, further, that, if this was really a bor- rowing upon the terms that the debenture stock should not be repayable as long as the co. was a going concern, the applicant, now that the co. was in liquidation, was upon that view also only entitled to a return of his money paid to the co. with interest. In re Southekn Bkazilian Kio Grande do Sdl By. Co. Buckley J. [1905] 8 Ch. 78 21. — " Issne" — Deposit of blank debenture to secure loan. A CO. had power to issue a series of mortgage debentures of lOOZ. each. Each debenture was to be under seal in a certain form, and was to be issued to a holder specified therein and regis- tered. The CO. had no power to reissue deben- tui'es : — Hvhl, that the deposit of an unregistered 100?. debenture, sealed in blank without name or date, to secure a temporary loan, was an issue of that debenture, so that it could not be re- issued after repayment of the loan. Lcrg V. Abercorris Slate and Slab Co. (1887) 37 Ch. D. 260, 2r,l ; In re Strand Music Hall Co., Ld., (18(15) 3 D. J. & S. 147 ; In re Regent's Canal Inutwoi-ks Co.. (1876) 3 Ch. D. 43 ; In re George Poiitledge Ji,- Soii.^. Ld.. [1904] 2 Ch. 474, 480 ; and In re W. Taslter ^- Sonit, Ld., [1905] 2 Ch. 5S7, .598, applied. In re Perth Electric Tramways, Ld. Lyons r. Tramways Syndicate, Ld. and Perth Electric Tramways, Ld. Swinfen Eady J. [1906] W. N. 113 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 216 — Issue of debentures .it n, discount — Option to debenture-holders to take fuUy paid shares in exchange for debentures. See Company — Shares. 8. 38. — Jeopardy, Property in — Debenture- holders' action— Practice—Motion for judgment on admissions in pleadings — Immediate sale — Porm of Order— B. S. C, Order Li., r. Is. In a debenture-holders' action, when the property cotnprised in debentures is in jeopardy, an immediate sale will be ordered under the R. S. C, Order li., r. 1b, on motion for judg- ment on admissions in the pleadings, but, unless ( iSl ) DIGEST O'B' CASES, 1901—1910. ( 432 ) COJUPASY (Vebentxaea)— continued. all the debenture-holders subsequent to the pits, are parties to the action, the order will be for sale with the approbation of the judge, so that the absent debenture-holders may be brought in in chambers on the application to approve the conditional contract for sale. In re Criggle- STONB Coal Co. Stewart v. Crigglbstone Coal Co. - Swinfen Eady J. [1906] W. N. 20 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 583 Mte. See also In re Crigglestone Coal Co., C. A. [190fi] 2 Ch. 327 ; Compmty—Winding-tqj— JPractlce. 8. 23. — Jolni debentures issued b;/ three com- panies — Validity — Ultra vires — Joint and several covenantto pay — ■Ckargehycompaniesrespectivelij on their several undertakings and assets — Pro- ceeds ap2)Ued in part to use of each company — Aiticles of association — Construction — Power to raise money "not exceeding amount of preference share capital. " Three cos., each of which had power to borrow money on the security of debentures, issued joint debentures, by which the cos. jointly and sever- ally agreed to pay to the holder the amount advanced by him, with interest thereon ; and the three cos. thereby respectively chai'ged with such payments their several undertakings and all their present and future properties and assets. Each of tlie cos. received a part of the proceeds of the debentures : — Held, that, though it was ultra vires for any of the cos. to charge its assets with money advanced to another co., yet, to the extent to which the money advanced had come to the handsjjf each co., the debentures constituted a valid charge on the assets of that co. Decision of Byrne J., that the debentures were entirely void, reversed. The articles of association of a co. empowered the directors to borrow any sum of money, not exceeding the amount of the preference share capital of the co., on the security of the property of the CO. by (inter alia) debentures. No pre- ference share capital having been issued : — Held, that this clause did not limit the amount which could be raised on the security of debentures. In re Johnston Foreign Patents Co. In re JOHNSTON Die Press Co. In re Johnstonia Engraving Co. J. P. Trust Ld. V. The Above Cos. - C. A. [1904] W. N. 132 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 834 — Leaseholds — Mortgage by sub-demise — Re- ceiver — Eent, Liability for. See MoBTGAGB — ^Receiver. 1. — Licence — No renewal of — Compensation — Capital moneys — Investment — Powers of debenture trustees. See Bbbwbbs. 1—3. — Memorandum of association — Ultra vires — Sale of business to another company — Dissenting debenture-holders, Eights of. See Company — Memorandum, 9. — Mortgage — Clog on redemption — Stipulation that mortgagee shall be employed as broker by the company. See MoiiTGAGB— Redemption, 5. COMPANY (JieientTxrea)— continued. ~ Mortgage— Stock— Clog on equity of redemp- tion — Irredeemable stock, Power to issue. See MORTGAGE— Eedemption. 2. 24. — Pari passu incumbrancers — Deposit of debentures to secure pecioniary assistance — Loan — Repayment of money advanced — Debentures not returned to the company — EMinction of deben- tures — Further loan — Keeping debentures alice — Power to re-charge — ■ Re-issue — Current account. A CO. issued a series of debentures as floating securities on the terms that they should not without the authority of the debenture- holders create any charge on the mortgaged assets ranking pari pa,ssu with or in priority to the charge created by the debentures. They deposited 100,0002. of these debentures with a bank as collateral security for a credit of 150,000Z., by the terms of which the bank were to accept the co.'s drafts. This credit was not a current account, nor was anything advanced which was strictly speaking a loan. After this arrangement had been in operation for some time the amount due to the bank on the credit was paid off by tlie co. Imme- diately before this repayment tlie bank advanced 500Z. to the CO. in order to avoid the deposited debentures being freed from all charges in favour of the bank ; and the debentures were not given back to the co. The other debenture- holders claimed that the deposited debentures were dead, and could not be re-charged with the 500?. or any other sum : — Held that, inasmuch as the whole amount for which the debentures were originally de- posited as security had been paid oS., the deben- tures themselves were spent, notwithstanding that they had not been handed back to the co., and that they could not be re-charged with the 5002. or any further sum. In re W. Tasher ^ Sons, Ld., [1903] 2 Ch. 587, followed, Qursre, whether such a re-charge would be authorized by an article which gave power to the board to create, issue, make and give deben- tures for the purpose of borrowing money or for any other purpose. Per Warrington J. : The rule that if doben- turei are issued and deposited as security, and the amount nominally secured by them is advanced on that security and is then paid off, no further charge on them can be created with- out creating an additional charge which purports to rank pari passu with the debentm-es of the original issue, applies to a current account. In re KussiAN Petroleum and Liquid Fuel Co. London Investment Trust, Ld. «. Russian Petrolbum and Liquid Fuel Co. ■ C. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 540 — Pleadings — Necessity for. See under Practice — Statement of Claim. 25. — Practice — Absence of subsequent incvm- braiicers — Debenture-holder's action. This case came on as a short cause on motion for judgment in the form sanctioned by certain judges of the Chancery Division some years ago ( 133 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 434 ) COMPANY (Debentures) — continued, {gee Setoii on Judgments, 6th ed. 2023), and con- taining " An inquiry what other incumbrances atfect the property comprised In or charged by the said debentures or any and what parts thereof and in whom the same are invested"; "An account of what is due to such other incum- brancers respectively"; "An inquiry what are the respective priorities of such other incum- brances and the said debentures respectively." The pit. sued on behalf of himself and all other the holders of fir?t mortgage debentures of the deft, co., and he had delivered a statement of claim. The co. had approved the minutes of judgment, but pointed out that there was a series of fifty second debentures, and another series of five third debentures, and that the holders of these debenlures were not parties to the action. Buckley J, said that as regarded the joinder of subsequent incumbrancers there was no differ- ence between a debenture- holder's action and an ordinary mortgagee's action. The fact that the judgment prfi|)Oscd to be taken contained an inquiry as to other incumbrancers and their priorities did not enable the pit. to dispense with the presence of known existing subsequent in- cumbrancers as parties. The case must stand over with liberty to join a second and a third debenture-holder to represent their respective classes. The matter came so frequently before his Lordship that he would be glad if one of the cases could be taken to the C. A. In re Wilcox & Co. HiLDER i: Wilcox & Co. - Buckley J. [1903] W. N. 64 26. — Practii'e—Deheidure-luihler'ii action — Form of 'jmltpuent. The note of this case, [1!;02] W. N. 96, is camelled. /« rs I'Rixcjs & Baugh, Ld. Bedkll r. Piil.NCE .V Baigh, Ld. - - Buckley J. [1902] W. N. 96, 120 27. — Pnictice — I)el>entvre-koWer\ dct'ion — Form of order. Action by the trustees of a debentnre trust deed .igainst the co. to have the trusts of the deed carried out. The co. put in no ilefence and had pns-ed a resolution for voluntary wind- ing up. The action came on .ia a short can- e nr motion for judgment in default of defence. The pit. moved for judgment in the foim given in Palmer's Company Precedents, Part III. (lOtli ed.), p. .^.'jo, form 181, which contains the follow- ing clauses : — "4. An inquiry what other incumbr.ances afiect the property eompri.sed in or charged by the ^iiid indenture or any and what part or parts thereof and in whom the same are vested. " .5. An account of what is due to such other ineumbi anecs respectively. "6. An inquiry what are the priorities of snch other inenmbrances .and the ^aid inden- ture rcspectivelv, and what property other than that comprised or cliarj^ed by the .said indenture is eonii)]'ise(l in such other incumbr.ances." Swinfen Eady .J. askeil if there were any other incumbrances, and, licing told that the parties knew of none, faid that the practice in chambers had been altered, and that in eases where no other iucumbrances were known to exist the words "and in whom the same are COMPANY (Debentures) — continued. vested " must be omitted from inquiry (4), while the account (5) and the inquiry (6) must be omitted altogether. Application could be made to add these if the inquiry (4) disclosed any incumbrances. In re Addkbssogeaph, Ld. Backhouse ?■. Addkessogkaph, Ld. Swinfeu Eady J. [1909] "W. N. 260 28. — Practice —Debenture-holder's action, — Motion for j udg in ent — Jli nut ex. Motion for judgment in default of defence in an ordinary debenture-holder's action. As the usual judgment was asked for, no minutes had been prepared. The Court : Counsel's minutes must always be left with the judge on these applications, even if the common form judgment is all that is asked for. The motion must stand over for this to be done. In re AuTOJiATic Machines (Hatdox cfc Ueky's Patents), Ld. Gkaafb r. Automatic Machines (Haydon & Uery's Patents), Li>. • Swinfen Eady J. [1902J W. N. 236 29. — Practice — Pel)enUi re-holder s action — Short cause — Motion for judgment — Pleadings — Statement of claim — Declaration — R. S. C, Order XL., r. 1. On Feb. 19, 1910, the pit. issued a -writ in a debenture-holder's action against the Kitson Empire Lighting Co., Ld'., and on Feb. 25 au order was made on his motion appointing a receiver and manager of the business of the eo. The eo. appeared by counsel and refused to treat the motion as the trial of the action, or to con- sent to judgment. On Mar. 7 the matter came before the Master on a summons for directions, when the co. was not represented, and the pit. asked for the usual order for pleadings. The Master, however, made an order that the case sliould be set down on motion for juflgment as a short cause without pleadings. Kegotiations with a view to the reconstruction of the co. followed, but were unsuccessful, and the pit. served notice of motion for judgment. On May 2 the case came before Parker J., when the co. did not appear, and his Lordship said that it was impossible to make any order in their absence and without a statement of claim. The case accordingly stood over to see whether the CO. would appear by counsel and consent to the order. In the meantime lesolutions for the voluntary winding up c)f the eo. had been passed and liquidators ap\iointed, who, at the plt.'s expense, now appeared by counsel and consented to the usual ortlcr being made, declaring that the debenture-holders were eutitletl to a charge, and for accounts and inquiries. The only evidence before the Court was the plt.'s affidavit filed in support of the motion for a receiver ; but his Lordship gave leave to file an affidavit proving the li(purecedliig Case. 45. — Begistration — Mxtenslon of time — JPro- tectwn of unsecured ci-editors — Practice — Com- panies Act, 1900 (63 ^-64 Vict. c. 48), ss. 14, 15. In making an order under s. 15 of the Com- panies Act, 1900, granting an extension of time for the registration of debentures, the Court will not necessarily impose any terms for the pro tection of unsecured creditors of the co. In re Cardiff Woekmen's Cottage Co. COMPANY (Debentures)— eo«iiW7/crf. Act or any Act passed after the commencement of this Act repeals any other enactment, then, unless the contrary intention appears, the repeal shall not . . . . (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred under any enactment so repealed ; . ... or (e) affect any investigation, legal pro- ceeding, or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, or liability." J. T. Prior, for the CO., asked for an order in the form settled by the C. A. in I. C. John-ion S; Co., [1902] 2 Ch. 101, 111, which preserves the rights of creditors and also of the holders of part of a series of debentures issued before registration was necessary. Swinfen^ Eady J. said that the power and duty to register under the repealed s. 14 of the Act of 1900 was preserved by the Interpretation Act, but as the debentures had been left un- registered so long, he thought the consent of the bank should be obtained. He made an order in the form asked, extending the time for three weeks subject to the production to the registrar of the bank's consent in writing. In re Hbbts AND Essex Waterworks Go. Swinfen Eady J. [1909] W. N. 48 47. — Registration — Omission to register — \ Inadvei'tence — Rectification of register — Com- Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 183 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 627 \pani-s Act, 1900 (63 4" 64 Vict. c. 48), ss. 14, 1,5. 46. — Registration — Exten-iion of time— Regis- tration wnder repealed section — Companies Act, 1900 (63 4- 64 Viet. c. 48), s. li—Companie^s Act, 1907 (7 Udw. 7, e. 50), s. W— Interpretation Act, 1889 (52 4- 53 Vict. c. 63), s. 38, sul-s. 2. On Jan. 1, 1901, the date of the commence- ment of the Companies Act, 1900, the Herts and Essex "Water Co. had outstanding the whole of an authorized issue of 62501. A debentures and 3256Z. part of an authorized issue of 6000 B debentures. On various dates afterwards, the last being April 17, 1905, they issued further B debentures to the amount of 450?. In 1905 the CO. passed a resolution for the issue of 12,250Z. G debentures in place of the A and B debentures. In pursuance of this resolution C debentures to the amount of 7150Z. were issued at various dates, of which the latest was May 20, 1908. The A debentures were paid off, but the B series remained outstanding. By the inad- vertence of the secretary none of the B debentures issued after the date of the com- mencement of the Companies Act, 1900, and none of the C debentures had been registered. The CO. now applied under s. 15 of the Act of 1900 for an extension of the time for registra- tion. Sect. 14 of the Companies Act, 1900, which requires the registration of debentures, is repealed by s. 10 of the Companies Act, 1907, and that section, which re-enacts their registra- tion, applies only to debentures issued after the commencement of that Act (July 1, 1908). The only considerable creditors of the co. besides the debenture-holders were their bankers, to whom they owed 60001. The only question was whether the debentures would now be registered under the Act of 1900. The Interpretation Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c, 63), provides, s. 38, sub-s. 2 : " Where this An application was made in this case by ex parte originating motion on behalf of the co., that the time for registration of the debentures might be extended until one month after the date of the order to be made on the motion, or that such further or other order might be made as the judge might think fit for the purpose of granting relief owing to the omission to register such debentures as required by the Companies Act, 1900, which came into operation on Jan. 1, 1901. The application was supported by an affidavit of the sec. of the co. stating the facts : that he believed that the debentures were created bj the resolution ; that as the resolution was prior to the commencement of the Act he was in the bona fide belief that the debentures did not require registration under it ; that the statutory meeting of the co. was held on Feb. 18, and the statutory return had been made to the registrar containing full particulars of the debentures ; and that the non-registration arose from the above-mentioned circumstances, and was due solely to inadvertence . The Court made an order extending the time for registering the debentures for one month from the date of the order. I?t re E. and F. Beattib, Ld. Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 182 48. — Registration — Power of company to cancel i(T — Mortgages. 2. 50. — Remtnieration oftni.yfee.-;. In this case the Court held that remuneration could not be given. There was a, contract by the CO. to pay remuneration ; but there was no contract that the debenture-holders should pay it, or that the property charged by t he deben- tures should be liable to satisfy the claim for remuneration. The provision in clause 35 that the trustees might retain remuneration out of any moneys in their hands did not apply, for they had no moneys in their hands. The rest of clause 35 was fatal to the trustees' claim : for it gave them an indemnity out of the property for liabilities and expenses, but not for remunera- tion, The relation of trustee and cestui que COMPANY (Debentures)— coniiMMe^. trust excluded any idea of remuneration except by express antecedent contract. In re AcCLBS, Ld. Hodgson r. Accles, Ld. rarwell J. [1902] W. N. 164 — Remuneration of directors, As to. See under Company — Directors. SI. — Settlement of delentureg — Trustees regis- tered holders — Interest — Cheque.s for, sent to trustees or hy their direction to tenant for life — Indorsement hy trustees — Negotiations — Non- presentation of cheq^ues for payment — Claim for interest by trustees as registered holders. Under a settlement trustees held certain de- bentures in a CO. in respect of which they were registered as holders upon trust for D. for life and after her death for her children. Cheques for the interest on the debentures for the time being standing in the names of the trustees were drawn by the co. sometimes in favour of S., a former trustee, and sometimes in favour of D., as the interest became due. In the former case the cheques were indorsed by S.to D., and in the latter case they were sent by the co. direct to her. The amount represented by the cheques was 1793?. 15.?., which included an amount for interest on 30007. debentures, the principal money secured by whieli had been paid off. At the request of her son, who was the managing direc- tor of the CO., D. had abstained from presenting the cheques for payment, and the interest on the debentures had not in fact been paid. A debenture-holders' action liad been commenced against the co. (which was now in liquidation), and the usual order for accounts and inquiries had been made. On takine the accounts the present trustees of the settlement claimed to rank by virtue of their debentures for the aggregate amount of the interest represented by the cheques : — Held, that the mere giving of a cheque was not conditional payment of a secured debt so as to release the security. Dictum of Farwell L.J. in Henderson v. Arthur, [1907] 1 K. B. 10, 13, followed. Held, also, that the indorsement of the cheques by S. did not preclude the claimants from relying on their security. Bvnney v. Poynt::, (1833) 4 B. & Ad. 568, is inconsistent with, if not expressly overruled by (xunn V. Bolclioic, Vaughan & Co., (1875), L. E. 10 Ch. 491. Held, therefore, that the trustees were entitled to rank as secured creditors for the cheques. /« re J. Defeies & SoNS, Ld, Eich- HOLz v. J. Dbfeibs & Sons, Ld. Warrington J. [1909] W. N. 178 ; [1909] 8 Ch. 423 — Short cause — Affidavits in support — Deben- ture-holder's action. See Peactice — Short Cause. — Stamp — Mortgage — Trust deed for securing debenture stock. See Revenue — Stamps. 27. — Stamp duty — Consolidation of debenture stock — Issue of loan capital. See Revenue— Stamps. 3, ( 447 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 448 ) COMPANY (Debentures)— c»;rfiHweer Vaughan Williams L.J.) can he do so even if, after action brought and before trial, he repays the money he- has wrongfully received. Whether he can do so if, before action, he repays the money, qveere. ToWBHS r. Afeioan Tug Co. - C. A. [1904] W. N. 54 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 558 Kote. Overruled by C. A., Moseley v. Kofyfontein Mines, Zd., [1910] 2 Ch. 382 ; C. A., [1910] W. N. 231. See Company — 3Iemoravdum. 4. — Dividends — Profits available for distribution — Directors' discretion. See Company — Dividends. 2. Dividends. See under Company- -Dividends. — Executor — Production of probate — Notice — Director — Qualification — Transfer — Eectification of register. See Company — Shares. 11. 8. — Fidnciary position — Purchase of shares — Negotiations for sale of undertaldng— Ol/liga- tion to disclose. The directors of a co. are not trustees for individual shareholders, and may purchase their shares without disclosing pending negotiations for the gale of the co.'s undertaking. Peecival V. Weight. Swinfen Eady J. [1902] 'W. N. 134 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 431 9. — Fiduciary relation — Conflict of interest loith duty — Contracts with company — Articles of association — Vacation of office — Director having an interest in cotdracts— Disclosure of iTiterest — Voting — Profits — Account. By the articles of association of a limited ry. CO., it was provided that a director should ( 457 ) DIGE8T OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 458 ) COMPANY (DiTectors.)—conHmted. vacate his office if he was concerned in, or par- ticipated in the profits of, any contract with the CO. without declaring the nature of his interest ; but "no director shall vacate his office by reason of his being a member of any corporation, co., or partnership, which has entered into .contracts with, or done any work for, the co. ; or by reason of his being interested, either in his individual capacity, or as a member of any co., corporation, or partnership, in any adventure or undertaking in which the co. may also have an interest"; but the director was not to vote on any contract of this kind, and if ho did, his vote was not to be counted. In 1886, shortly after its formation, the ]'y. CO., of which F. wa^ a director, entered into contracts with a .steamship co. for the cai-riage and shipment of bananas. F. was the largest shareholder in the steamship co., aiid was also a partner in the firm that managed it ; no dis- closure of F.'s interest was made either in the jirospectus of the ry. co., or when the contracts were entered into, nor did he ever ''declare the nature of his interest" pursuant to the articles of association ; but his co-directors of the ly. co. were aware that h? h.ad some interest in the steamship CO. F. contiruied a director of the ry. CO. until 1896, when he resigned, and .shortly afterwards that co. brought an action against him to make him liable for all profits received by him as shareholder in the steam.ship co., and as par'tner in the firm that managed it, under the contracts with the pit. co. F. h.aving died before the trial, the action was revived against his oxecutoi's : — IMd, affirming the decision of Byrne J., [19(11] 1 Ch. 756, that, on the articles of associa- tion , and on the authority of JiiipenaJ J/n'/rutfile Credit Asmciathn \. Colemar,, (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. 568 (not overruled on this point by S. C. (1873) L. R. 6 H. L. 18!l), F.'s estate was not liable to account for any profits made \>j him out of the contracts with the pit. co. Consideration of the equitable rule prohibit- ing a person who stands in a fiduciary relation from entering into engagements in which his interest may conflict with his duty, except on the condition of accounting for all profits he may receive from such engagements to the person towards whom he stands in the fiduciary relation. Costa Eica By. Co. r. Foewood C. A. [1901] W. N. 44; [1901] 1 Ch. 746 — Liability — Pi'ospectus. See under COMPANY— Prospectus. 10. — Miinafjing director — "Vacating irectors)—coHti/fued. The qualification of a director being the hold- ing of 250 shaves in his own right, F. was regis- tered as " F. liquidator of the H. Company " with a holding of 500 shares : — Held, that he was not qualified to be a director. Balnbridfle v. Siiiit/i, (1889) 41 Ch. D. 462, 474, and Sutton t. English and Colonial Produce Co., [1902] 2 Ch. .502,' applied. Apart from special provision in the articles directors are not entitled to their fee 5 free of income tax. The resolutions of a general meeting convened by de facto directors are not invalidated by any irregularity in the constitution of the board. Browne v. La Trinidad, (1887) 37 Ch. D. 1 ; Grant v. United Kingdom Sicitch7)ack Sijs. Co., (1888) 40 Ch. D. 135 ; Briti.'ih Ashe-ttos Co. v. Boyd, [190,S] 2 Ch. 439 : and Southern Countie.i Deposit Banh v, Bider, (1895) 73 L. T. 374, applied. In re liaycraft Gold Beduction and Mining Co., [1900] 2 Ch'. 230, and In re State of Wi/oiii- ing Syndicate, [1901] 2 Ch. 431, distinguished. Articles fixing the qualification and remu- neration of directors being binding on the co. as well as the directors, the co. cannot ratify an act of the directors in contravention of such articles without first altering them by special resolution. Imperial Hydropathic Hotel Co.jBluclqmolT, Hampson, (1882) 23 Ch. D. 1, applied. Irvine v. Union Banh of Anstralia, (1877) 2 App. Cas. 366, distinguished. The notice convening a general meeting stated that it would be held for the purpose of receiving the directors' report, and the election of directors and auditors. The directors' report sent there- with mentioned certain special bu'^iness not referred to in the notice, viz., the ratification of the board's previous election of R. as a director : — Held, that the notice and report together were sufficient notice of this special business. Irrine v. Union Bank of Australia, 2 App. Cas. 366, 375, applied. BosCHOBK Pkopribtaey Co. Ld. r. FUKE. - SwinfenKady J. [1906] 1 Ch. 148 17. — Qualification shares — Railing of quali- fication — Vacation of ottice — Companies Act, 1900 (63 <<• 64 Yirt. c. 48), s. 3, snb-s. 2. The pit., a director of a limited liability CO., held the necessary qualification under the articles of fifty share?. By a resolution of the shareholders in general meeting the capital of the CO. was increased, and at the same time the qualification for a director was raised to 250 shares. The pit., in his capacity of director, was present at the bd. meetings at which the in- crease of capital and the raising of the directors' qualification were discussed and approved, and also at the general meetings at which the resolu- tions were passed and confirmed on April 4 and April 19, 1901, respectively. On April 20 the secy, of the co. without the plt.'s knowledge entered the plt.'s name on the register for 200 shares, the number necessary to make up his qualification ; the sccy.'s act was subse- quently ratified by the directors other than the COMPANY (JiixecUirii)— continued. pit. at a bd. meeting on May 8. On April 22 the pit., as required by n. 9 of the Companies Act, 1900, signed a copy of the share prospectus, in which his name appeared as a director, and on the following day the prospectus was issued to the public. On May 16 the pit. sent in his resignation of the office of director : — Held, that upon the pas.sing of the confirma- toiy resolution the pit. had not vacated his office of director within the meaning of s. 3, sub-s. 2, of the Companies Act, 1900, either by failing to obtain the necessary qualification or by ceasing to hold it : Held, further, that the pit. had contracted to obtain the necessary qualification within a reasonable time either by transfer from existing shareholders or directly from the company ; that a reasonable time for acquiring the qualification had elapsed when the pit. in his capacity of director signed the prospectus that was issued to the public, and that, there being then a binding contract to take the shares, the pit. could not get rid of his liability for calls by subsequently resigning his office of director. Molineatjx r. London, Birmingham and Manchester Insurance Co. - C. A. [1902J2 K. B.589 18. — Quorum — Breach of regulations iy directors — Validity of acts as regards third parties. A co.'s articles of association provided that its affairs should be conducted by a council of ad- ministration ; that the number of members of the council should not be less than three ; that the continuing council might act notwithstand- ing any vacancy : and that the council might determine the quorum necessary for the transac- tion of business. The members of the council became reduced to two, and those two members acting in the name of the co. gave securities for debts of the co. to persons who had no knowledge of the irregularity. It was not proved that any resolution fixing a quorum had been passed by the council; — Held, that the securities so given were binding on the CO. One of the securities was transferred by the creditor to whom it was given to one of the two members of the council, who had himself paid off the secured debt : — Held, that the security was valid in the hands of the transferee. Decision of Wright J., (1900) 2 Ch. 272, reversed on the first point and affirmed on the second. In re Scottish Petrulenm Co., (1S83) 23 Ch. D. 413, followed. In re Bank of Syria. Owen AND ASHWOETH'S CLAIM. WhITWORTH'S Claim. c. A. [1901] 1 Ch 115 19. — Quorum of directors — Besolution — Iii- terested director — Validity of resolution — Articles. The article? of a co. provided that any director might enter into a contract or be interested in .iny business with the co. ; that no director should vote on any matter relating to the contract or business with the co. in which he was interested ; and that two directors should be a quorum for the transaction of business : — Held, that a quorum of directors meant a ( 4«3 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 16-t ) COMPANY (Diiectora)— continued. quorum competent to transact and vote on the business before the bd. ; and, therefore, that a resolution passed at a meeting of three directors, two of whom were interested in the subject- matter of the resolution, was invalid. In rr Greymouth Point Elizabeth Ky. and Coal Co. YuiLL ('. Greymouth Point Elizabeth Ky. aud Coal Co. - - - Farwell J. [1903] "W. H. 187, 190 ; [1904] 1 Cli.32 — Eailway company. See under Eailway — Directors. 20. — Rsm%nf)'atwn,Dlrector''s — Qualification shares received as ttiistee — LiabilHii of director to account to cestvi que trust for remuneration. The D. Co. transferred certain shares which it held in the K. Co. to C, one of its directors, in order to qualify him to become a director of the K. Co., the intention being that C. should represent the interests of the D. Co. on the bd. of the K. Co., and C. executed a declara- tion of trust of the shares in favour of the U. Co. :— Meld, that the remuneration received by C. as director of the K. Co. was not profit received by him from the use of the property of the D. Co., and tliat C. was under no liability to account for that remuneration to the D. Co. Decision of Warrington J., [1907] 2 Ch. 76, affirmed. In rr Dover Coalfield Exten- sion, Ld. C. a. [1907] W. N. 226 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 65 Mt-e. Referred 'to by Warrington J., In re Leuns , [1910] "W. N. 21 7. See Trustee— Account. 21. — Remuneration, IHreetori — TrarelVinij e-r^enses to and from hoard meetinffs — Directors acting idtra -tires — LiaVility for payments to co- director — Articles — Indemnity clause. Directors who are remunerated for their services are not entitled, in the absence of a resolution of the co. or a provision in the articles, to be paid out of the assets of the co. their travelling expenses incurred in attending bd. meetings. One of the articles of a limited co. provided for the payment of 200Z. a year to each director " by way of remuneration for his services " ; another article declared that no director should vote on any matter in which he was interested ; and a further article provided that every director and other officer should be indemnified by the co. against, and it should be the duty of the directors out of the funds of the co. to pay, all costs and expenses which any officer of the co. might incur in the discharge of his duties. In April, 1902, A. was elected a director of the CO. In May, 1902, the directors passed a resolution that all reasonable travelling expenses should be reimbursed to the directors fi'om time to time. At the date of his election A. was re- siding in the West of England, and remained so resident until his resignation in Jan., 1903, and during his directorship was paid out of the eo.'s assets his travelling expenses to and from London incurred in attending the bd. meetings :— Hdd, that the resolution was ultra vires the directors, and that A. must refund to the co. the COMPANY (Directors) — continued. moneys paid him for his travelling expenses whilst a director. But held, following Oullerne v. London and Suburban, .S-c, Building Society, (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 485, that A. was not personally liable for the sums paid to his co-directors for their travelling expenses, except to the extent that he had signed cheques for that purpose. Young t. Naval, Military, and Civil Sbevioe Co-operative Society op South Africa, Ld. Farwell J. [1905] W. N. 41 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 687 22. — Remuneration fixed by articles of association — Bc^ohition of board to forego- — ■ Vacating office of director by absence for specified jyeriod — Date from -which, period- runs. By the articles of association of a co. each of its directors was to be paid out of its funds by way of remuneration 300Z. per annum, and the office of a director was to be vacated if he absented himself from directors' meetings during a period of three calendar months without special leave of absence from the directors. M. was appointed a director on Aug. 3, 1898, and attended meet- ings of directors down to Feb. 3, 1899, on which last-named date he attended a meeting at which they, including himself, passed a resolution " that no remuneration be received by the directors for their services until a dividend is declared on the ordinary shares of the bank." There was no further meeting from Feb. 3 to Mar. 3, 1899. From Feb. 3 he absented himself without leave until after May 7, 1899, on which another direc- tors' meeting was held, and on May 8, 1899, received a written notice from the bd. stating that he had ceased to be a director pursuant to the articles, and that the fact of his non-attend- ance for three mouths had been ordered to be entered on the minutes. M. did not insist on being reinstated and did not attend a meeting of directors on June 3. The co. went into liquida- tion on Dec. 29, 1899, and no dividend was declared on the ordinary shares. M. claimed to prove for remuneration from the date of his appointment until the winding-up : — Held,, (1.) distinguishing Lambert v. Northern Ry. of Buenos Ayres Co., (1869) 18 W. E. 180, that, the remuneration not being due until the end of a year, and the agreement to pay it being on Feb. 3 only partially performed and not broken, the resolution was efiective ; (2.) that the period of absence only began to run from Mar. 3, 1899, terminating on June 3 ; (3.) that the remuneration was not apportionable, and that the claim of M. failed. Observations as to when a director absents himself. In re London and Northern Bank. McConnell's Claim - - Wright J. [1901] W. N. 12 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 728 23. — Remuneration of director — Articles of association. A CO. limited by shares was registered on Mar. 25, 1896, with articles of association, one of which provided as follows: "Each of the direotor.s .... shall be paid out of the funds of the CO. by way of remuneration for their services 150Z. for each year." By another article S. B. Bryant was appointed one of the first directors, and he continued a director until May 28, 1897, ( 4fio ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 466 ) COMPANY (Directors) — continued. when he wa^ re-elected. From that time he con- tinued to be a director until Mar. 22, 1900, when the co. passed an extraordinary resolution for voluntary winding-up. In the winding-up the liquidators disallowed Bryant's claim for remuneration for the year ending Mar. 25, 1900. If the resolution for winding up had not been passed on Mar. 25, there would hare been no further meeting of directors, and by Mar. 22 the directors' work for the year ending Mar. 25 had been com- pleted. Bryant applied to the Court to reverse the decision of the liquidators : — Held, that the applicant was entitled to remuneration for the year under the article which said he was entitled " for each year." The co. was in a sense terminated, as a goingconcern, by the resolution for winding-up, a few days before the year had expired. From the commencement of the year the applicant had been a director and done work in that office, and he continued to be ,1 director until the winding-up commenced and afterwards. Therefore he had been a director for the whole of the year ending Mar. 25, 1900. He did not cease to be a dii'ector by the co. going into liquidation, although after that event hap- pened he could not act as a director except in certain events. He had in substance done his work for the year, and it did not follow that because he did nothing during the last few days of the year he was not entitled to be paid the remuneration for the year. Claim allowed. In re Shaws, Betant '& Co. Wright J. [1901] W. N. 124 84. — ReiiiuHcrution of dim-furs — Fixing time iif pKijineiit — Condition precedent —Power to po.ttjxittc payment, "Where the articles of association of a co. pro- videtl that there should be allowed to each of the directors out of the funds of the co. as a remunerai ion for his services a certain sum per annum to be paid at such times as the directors might determine : — Held, that it was a condition precedent to the right of a director to sue for remuneration in respect of a year's service tliat the directors should have determined a time fcr payment thereof. Caeidad Copper Minixg Co. v. Swallow C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 44 25. — Remuneration of director — Yearly Ijayment. Articles of association of a limited co. pro- vided that the directors should be paid out of the funds of the co. by way of remunei-ation tor their services " the sum of 125?. per annum, per director, and such further sums as shall from time to time be determined by the co. in general meeting, and the same shall be divided among them in such proportion and manner as the directors by agreement may determine and in default of such determination equally." In an action by a director, who had resigned after serving for a part of a year, to recover remune- ration in respect of his services during that period : — Held, that the articles of association did not entitle a director to recover remuneration tor any Ic-is period than a year. COMPANY (JlnxteXaii)— continued. Saltan v. A^ew Beeston Cycle Co., [1899] 1 Ch. 775, approved. Swahey v. Port Darwin Gold Minimi Co., (1889) 1 Megone, Comp. Cas. 385, distinguished. lUMAN «. ACKROYB & Best, Ld. C. A. [1901] IK. B. 613 26. — Remuneration under aiiicles of a.H.iocia- tion — Appointmeid, hy Court of some of direetom an remunerated receiiters anil managers! — Right to receive remuneration in iath capacities. The directors of a co. were entitled under its articles of association to be paid at the rate of a certain sum a year to be divided amongst them as they should agree amongst themselves. In pursuance of their agreement the remuneration was paid to the directors in certain proportions. In a debenture-holders' action against the co. two of the directors were appointed by the Court to be receivers and managers of the co.'s assets and business, and the Court allowed them a remuneration for so acting. Subsequently the CO. went into voluntary winding-up : — Held, that the fact of the two directors being remunerated as receivers and managers did not disentitle them to their remuneration in addition as directors from the time when they were appointed receivers and managere until the commencement of the winding-up. In re SOUTH Westeen of Yexezuela (Baequisimeto) Et. Co. Buckley J. [1902] 1 Ch. 701 27. — " Ser vines " — Impro2)er payments — Xrf/H{ieni'e — Ultra rires. Action by the pit. co. against its nine directors to compel them to refund moneys alleged to have been improperly paid by them out of the co.'s funds to F., one of their body, for "services" claimed to have been rendered by him in obtain- ing subscriptions for shares and in other respects before the co. actually started business. F.'s claim for his "services" amounted to 15,000Z. Kekewich J., while allowing the detts. any proper expenditure made by F. on behalf of the co., gave i udgment declaring that they were liable to refund a sum of about 8000Z., on tlie ground that that sum had been improperly paid, and that the def ts. had been guilty of gross ueghgenoe in paying it. The Coiu't said the question on the appeal was as to the moneys paid to F. so far as they exceeded his proper expenditure. The excess was claimed by him for " services " rendered by him to the CO. "What those services were was never properly explained by him to his co-direc- tors or inquired into by them. So far as the Court could see, he did not render any services beyond those rendered by him in his capacity of director, or any for which he was entitled to be paid by the co. any sum outside his ordinary remuneration as director. His claim, therefore, to be paid moneys beyond his expenditure was unfounded, and this was, or ought to have beeu, known to his co-directors. The Court adopted the language of Lord Lindley, when Master of the Rolls, in In re Kutional Bank of Wales, Ld. [1899] 2 Ch. 629, at p. 671, where, "citing from a passage in the judgiuent of the C. A. in Lagunus Nitrate Co. \. Lugunaa Syndicate, [1899] 2 Ch. 392, he said that '• if directors act within their powers, if they act with such care as is reasonably C 407 ) DIGE8T OF GASES, 1901— 1910. ( 468 ) COMPANY (Directors) — continued. to be expectfid from them, having regard to their knowledge and experience, and if they act honestly for the benefit of the co. they represent, they discharge their equitable as well as their legal duty to the co." The directors in the present case did not bring themselves within the scope of those observations. They appeared, in i-espect of the transactions now impeached, not to have acted as men with any ordinary degree of prudence woiild have acted on their own behalf, and to have been guilty of such negligence and misconduct a^^ to malte them liable to the co. Merchants' Fire Office, Ld. r. Abmsteong C. A. [1901] "W. N. 163 — '• Sham " or -" illusory " contract. See Company — Winding-up — Con- tributory. 6. — Veterinary surgeon — One man company — Unqualified person managing director. Sir Vbterinabt Surgeon. 2. Dividends. 1. ■ Anorirtion to capital — Ciijiital /»• profits. The question of what is profit available for dividend depends upon the result of the whole accounts fairly taken for the year, capital, as well as profit and loss, and though dividends may be paid out of earned profits in proper case^, notwithstanding a depreciation of capital, a realized accretion to the estimated value of one item of the capital assets cannot be deemed to be profit divisible amongst the shareholders without reference to the result of the whole accounts fairly taken. Among the assets taken over by a new co. in 1897, on the purchase of the undertaking of an old CO., wore promissory notes for |100, 000 given in 189-t to the old co. by the B. Co. ; these notes, which had never been considered of any value, and had never appeared as assets in the balance- sheets of the new co., had recently been paid off with arrears of interest, and the directors pro- posed to treat the whole sum as a windfall in the nature of an unexpected profit and divisible as dividends : — neU, that the $100,000 ought not to be dis- tributed as dividend without reference to the other business or assets of the co. Foster v. New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Co. Byrne J. [1901] 1 Ch. 808 — Apportionment, Express stipulation against — Dividends on shares — Company's articles. See Appobtionment. 1 . — Arrears of dividends — Interest. /S'ee Interest. 1. — Director — Payment of dividends out of capital — Negligence — Misfeasance. See Company — Directors. 11. — Income bond — Dividends out of capital — Ultra vires. Sue Company— Income Bond. 1. — Income tax — Gas company — Standard rate of dividend. Sec Kevbnue — Income Tax. 19. COMPANY (Dividends)- 2. — io.s.s of capital — Profits afuilalle for distribution — i!.i'perteriden.ce — Preference shares — Fi.ved cinmilui'ire dividend — Declarntiou — Directors^ discretion, — Interest — Dividend — Profit — Fixed capital — Circulatint/ capital — Realized loss — E.itimated loss. The question whether a co. has profits avail- able for distribution must be answered according to the circumstaiiees of each particular case, the nature of the co., and the evidence of competent witnesses. In re National Bank of Wales, [1899] 2 Ch. 629, reported on appeal asPovey v. Cori/, [1901] A. C. 477, applied. Although in some cases fixed capital may bo sunk and lost, without precluding the payment of a dividend, circulating capital mnst be kept up, and (s^w iZe) there is no distinction in this respect between a realized loss and an estimated loss. Lee V. Neuchatel Asphalte Co., (1889) 41 Ch. D. 1, and Veriier v. General and Commercial Investment Tnist, [1894] 2 Ch. 239, explained. The distinction between the propositions "Dividends must not be paid out of capital" and " Dividends may only be paid out of profits " explained. The common article requiring dividends to be declared by the directors applies to fixed cumu- lative dividends on preference shares, and the Court will not readily override the directors' discretion in relation thereto. Tlie moaning of the words "interest," " divi- dend," "profit," ''fixed capital," and "circu- lating capital " discussed. Leasehold iron ore mines held by a smelting company for the purpose of supplying themselves with ore arc circulating capital. Bond r. Barrow Hematite Steel Co. - - Farwell J. [1902] W.N. 17; [1902] 1 Oh. 383 yute. Applied by Swinten EadyJ., In re Accrinrfton Corporation Sicinn Triimwuijs Co., [1909] 2 Ch. 40. Companij — M'indinrj-wp — A.'isetx. 1. 3, — Pai/inent hij divided loarrant — iusi" warrant — Action iij shareliolder — Plen of puij- menf— Powers of directors — llecjvest for payment i II particidar way — Companies Chntsp.i Coii.ioUda- tion Act, 184,5 (8 4- 9 Vict c. 16) s. 90. The general powers conferied upon the directors of a co. by s. 90 of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, authorize the directors to decide Avithin reasonable limits when and how dividends duly declared by a general meeting of the shareholders shall be paid. The directors of a co. in a half-yearly report and statement of accounts recommended the payment of a certain dividend on preference and ordinary stock, and gave notice that dividends would be paid on a certain day by means of dividend warrants sent by post to the registered address of the stockholder in each case. The shareholders of the co. at their half-yearly general meeting declared the amount of dividend as proposed by the directors, but passed no resolution as to how payment should be made. On the day named in the directors' report a dividend warrant was sent by post to the ( 4fifl ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( i70 ) COMPANY (Dividends) — confAnued. registered address of a stockholder. The warrant was lost in the post : — Held, that in the circumstances there was a request by the stockholder to the co. to pay the amount due to him by means of a warrant sent by post to his registered address. Therefore in an action by the stockholder against the co. to recover the amount of dividend in respect of the stock held by him : — Held, that the above facts supported a plea of payment by the co. . and that the remedy, if any, of the stockholder was to put in suit such rights as he had upon the lost warrant. Kiii-wan v. B'lfkcttx, (1886) 3 Times L. R. 182, followed. Thaielwall I. Geeat Noethee^' Ey. Co. Div. Ct. [1910J 2 K. B. 509 4. — Payment uf dividend — " Profits avail- able for dirideiid" — Setting apart reserve fund — Articles parllij e,reludinr/ Table A — Companies Act, 1862 (2.5 Jj' 26 Met. ,': 89), Sched. I., Table A, clause 71. The memorandum of association of a co. pro- vided that, as between the holders of the ordinary shares and the holders of the founders' share-, '• the profits from time to time available for dividend " should be applicable as follows ; (1.) to the payment of a non-cumulative pre- ferential dividend of l.'i per cent, per annum on the shares other than the founders' shares ; (2.) of the surplus, two-thirds should be applicable to the payment of a further dividend on the shares other than the founders' shares, and the remaining one-third should be applicable to the payment of dividend on founders' shares. The articles of association provided (clause 1) that, so far as they did not exclude or modify the regulations contained in Table A in Sched. 1. to the Companies Act, 1862, those regulations should, as far as applicable, be deemed to be the regulations of the co. The articles expressly excluded some of the clauses of Table A, but did not expressly exclude clause 74, which provides that " the directors may, before recommending any dividend, set aside out of the profits of the CO. such sum as they think proper as a reserved fund to meet contingencies, or for equalising dividends " : — Seld, that clause 74 of Table A was not in toto excluded by implication, but that it must be taken to form part of the articles ; that " profits available for dividend" meant the net profits after making any deductions which the directors could properly make before declaring a dividend, and that the directors were justified, after paying a dividend of 1.) per cent, to the ordinary share- holders, in setting aside as a reserve fund to meet contingencies so much of the surplus of the profits of a year as they thought fit. Decision of Kekewich J. reversed. Per Romer L.J. : Whether the directors could have sot aside a reserve fund for the purpose of equalizing dividends, qitmre. FiSHEE r. IBlack AND White Pdblishinq Co. C. A. [1900] W. N. 271 : [1901] 1 Ch. 174 — Payment of dividend out of capital— Ultra vires — Shareholders — Acquiescence. See Company — Directors. 7. COMPANY (Dividends) — continued. 5. — Preference sliares — Dividend — Cumula- tive or non-eumulative. The deft. co. w.as incorporated in 1896 under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890, with a capital of 1 lO.OOOZ. divided into 70,000 preference shares and 40,000 ordinary shares of 11. each. Clauses 7 and 137 of the articles of association are set out in full in this weekly note, [1908] W. N. 24. No dividend was paid on the preference shares in respect of any of the years ending Sept. 30, 1904, 1905, and 1906. In a report of the directors sent round to the shareholders on Nov. 30, 1907, to be submitted to the ordinary general meeting to be held on Dec. 11, it was stated that it was proposed to pay a dividend on the preference shares for the year ending Sept. 30, 1907. An action was on Dec. 7 brought by the pit. (on behalf of himself and the other preference shareholders, other than those who were made defts.) against the co. and its directors and one Bell (sued on behalf of himself and the other holders of ordinary shares) for a declaration that the preference shareholders were entitled to receive out of the profits of the co. a cumulative preferential dividend of o per cent, on the amounts paid up on the preference shares, and to have any arrears of such dividend made up to them out of the profits of subsequent years before any distribution of dividend was made in respect of any such subsequent year, and for an injunction to restrain payment of the proposed dividend until the arrears had been made up. The pit. now moved for an interim injunction in the term of the writ, and the motion, by con- sent, was treated as the trial of the action : — Held, that clauses 7 and 137 were the only material articles. If clause 7 stood alone, it might be well contended that the dividend was cumulative. But the words were not absolutely clear, and might be interpreted by clause 137. That article contemplated a yearly division of profits, and at the end of each year they had to be divided between the preference and the ordinary shareholders. If that was strictly carried out, it was impossible to treat the prefer- ence dividend as preferential ; and it must be so declared. Adaie i . Old Bushiiills DistiIjLeey Co. - - Parker J. [1908] W.N. 24 6. — Preference shares — Cnnnilatite or non- cu m iilati ve di vidend. Motion by an ordinary shareholder of deft. CO. to have it determined whether the preference shareholders were entitled to a cumulative or only a non-cumulative preferential dividend. The CO. was originally formed in 1890, but was reconstructed in ISii.-i. By clause 5 of the memorandum of association of the original co. the capital was declared to be o00,000/.. divided into 21,000 preference shares of 101. each, carry- ing a cumulative preferential dividend of 6 per cent, per annum and 29,000 ordinary shares of lOZ. each. The articles provided inter alia that " the net profit from time to time available for distribution as dividend shall be applied first in payment to the holders of preference shares of a cumulative preference dividend at the rate of C 471 ) blGEST OF CASES, 1901— l9l0. ( 472 ) COMPANY (Dividends)— c««<(7we(Z. 6Z. per cent, per annum, and, secondly, and subject thereto In payment so far as the balance will extend of a dividend on the ordinary shares of the CO." Under the reconstruction tlie capital was reduced and the preference dividend cut down to 51. per cent., and the memorandum and articles were altered by striking out the word " cumulative " before the word " prefer- ence." The question was whether, notwith- standing this omission of the word " cumulative," the preference shareliolders were not still entitled to have arrears of unpaid dividends paid out of profits earned in subsequent years before any dividend was paid to the ordinary shareholders. Joyce J. said that the proper comse was first to consider the language of the instruments apart from the authorities. Prima facie clause 5 of the memorandum meant that the preference shareliolders were to have a cumulative dividend, and tliere was nothing in the articles to show that it was to be otherwise. This was not inconsistent with the autliorities. In Staples v. ISastmaii Phatographic Materials Co., [lS9fi] 2 Ch. 303, the preference dividend was to be paid " out of the net profits of each year." There was nothing of that sort here, and the preference shareholders were entitled to have any deficiency in their past dividends made up out of the profits of subsequent years. Foster v. Coles AND M. B. Foster & Sons, Ld. Joyce J. [19061 W. N. 107 yate. See Adair v. Old HushmilU Didillei'y Co., Parker J., [1908] W. N. 2i, preceding Case. — Suj'plus assets — Accumulated profits — Capital • — Arrears of preferential dividends. See Company — Winding-up — Assets. 3. — Surplus profits — Making up deficiency of previous dividend — Prescribed rate. See Water. 31. — Will — Trustee — Eetainer — Bankruptcy — Assent to composition — Acceptance of dividend. See Will. — Trustee. 1. — Winding-up — Two insolvent companies — Cross-claims — Adjustment — Claim on debentures — Damages for misfeasance. See Company — Winding-up — Assets. 6. Electric light. See under Elbctbic Light. Evidence. See under Evidence. Examination. 1. — Officer of company, Examination of — Officer u'ho has retired — Execution — Judgment against company — JJ. S. C, Order XLII., r. 32. Where a judgment or order is obtained against a co. for the recovery or payment of money, an order may be made under 0. XLii., 1. 32, upon a person who has been a director of a CO., but has ceased to be so at the time of the making of the order to attend to be examined as to debts owing to the Co., and whether the COMPANY (Examination) — continued. CO. has property or means of satisfying the judgment or order. SoOIEte Genebale du Commerce bt db l'Industrib en France v. JoHAiTN Maria Farina & Co. C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 794 Foreign Company. — Debenture of — Bill of sale — Non-registration. See Company — Debentures. 1. — Non-commencement of business for a year — Company registered in England to protect name of foreign company. See Company— Winding-up — Non- commencement. 1. — Shares held in foreign company — Income tax — Company resident in the United K ingdom — Control . See Be venue — Income Tax. 17. Foreign Laws. 1. — Limited Liahility — Comptiiniforvied for purpose of trading in, foreign country — Personal liahility of .shareholders under the foreig n law — Conflict of laws. An English co., incorporated under the Joint Stock Companies Acts as a limited co., was formed for the purpose of acquiring and working mines in (amongst other countries) the United States of America, and by the articles of associa- tion the directors were empowered to do all things necessary to comply with the requirements of the law of any country where the co. might carry on business. The co. acquired and worked mines in the State of California, and for the purposes of those mines purchased from the pits., manufacturers in California, certain machinery. By the law of California, every shai eholder of a CO., whether incorporated in California or else- where, trading within that State is personally liable for such proportion of the co.'s debts as the amount of his shares bears to the whole of the subscribed capital of the co. The co. having become insolvent, the pits, sued the deft., a shareholder of the co., in this country for his proportion of the price of the machinery : — Held, that the deft, did not by becoming a member of the co. upon the terms of the memorandum and articles of association autho- rize the directors to pledge his peisonal credit for the price of the goods supplied, and that, in the absence of express authority on his part, the action could not be maintained against him. Judgment of Kennedy J., [1905] W. N. 12 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 30i, affirmed. Risdon Iron and Locomotive Works r. Furnkss. C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 49 Forgery. 1. Company — Forged transfer of stock — Innocent presentment for registration — Indemnity — Implied contract to indemnify. A banker innocently sent to a corporation a transfer of corporation stock which purported to be executed by T. and H., the two registered holders of the stock, with a request to the coiporation to register the stock in the name of the banker. The corporation innocently acted ( iTi ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 474 ) COMPANY (Forgery)- cu/iti/iucd. upon this request aud granted a fresh certificate to the banker, who transferred the stock to third parties who were registered as holders. After- wards it was discovered that T. had forged H.'s signature, and H. recovered against the corpora- tion judgment whereby they were compelled to buy equivalent stock and register it in H.'s name, and to pay him the missing dividends with interest : — //elil, that both parties having acted bona fide and without negligence the banker was bound to indemnify the corporation against the liability to H., upon an applied contract that the transfer was genuine. The deci.sion of C. A., [1908] 2 K. B. 580, reversed, and the decision of Lord Alverstone G.J., [1903] 1 K.B. 1, restored. Sheffield Goepoka- TION e. Barclay H.L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 118; [1905] A. C. 393 Xute. Applied by C. A., Att.-Gen. v. Oddl, [19(16] •2 Gb. 47. Land Tmmfev. 4. Applied by Phillimore J., Mud Trijrun iSliip (!i). V. Kniqev .<■ Co., [1906] 2KB. 792 ; C. A., [19(17] 1 k. B. 809; H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 272. Shipping — Charter jiartij. 9. Followed by A. T. Lawrence J., Banh iif Eni/land v. Cutler, [19(17] 1 K. B. 889 ; C. A., [19(18] 2 K. B. 2(18. See India, i. 2. — Share certifcate frdjidiilodly issued tfij ■■^ecretari/ — Furgerij — Master and servant — Sritpe of emploijnient — Estoppel. The appellants advanced in good faitli a sum of money to the secy, of the respondent co. for his own purposes on the security of a share certificate of the co. issued to them by tlie secy, certifying that the appellants were regis- tered in the co.'s register of shareholders as transferees of shares. This certificate was, in point of form, in accordance with the co.'s articles of association, inasmuch as it bore the seal of the CO., and appeared to be signed by two of the directors and counter-signed by the secy. 'The seal of the co. was, however, affixed to it by the secy, fraudulently and without autho- rity, and the signatures of the two directors were forged by him. In an action against the CO. for damages for refusing to register the appellants as owners of the shares : — Held, that, in the absence of any evidence tliat the CO. ever held out the secy, as having autliority in this behalf to do anything more than the mere ministerial act of delivering share cer- tificates, when duly made, to the owners of shares, the co. were not estopped by the forged certificate from disputing the claim of the appel- lants, or responsible to them for the wrongful action of their secy. Decision of the C.A., [1904] W. N. 163 ; [1904] 2 K. B, 712, affirmed. Shaw V. Port Philip Gold Minim/ Co., (18841 13 Q. B. D. 103, discussed. Buben ■». Geeat FiNGALL Consolidated - H. L. (E.) [1906J W. N. IS'T; [1908] A. C. 439 Friendly Society. See under Fhiendly Society. COMPANY (Friendly Society) — coiitiibued. — Conversion into company — Enlargement of Objects. See Company — Memorandum. 12. Aud also under Feiesdly Society. 1. Gratuities. 1. — Officers aiul servants, Gratuities to — ultra rires. This was an action by the pit., on behalf of himself and all other shareholders in the deft. CO. other than the deft, directors, for a declara- tion that a resolution, passed and confirmed by the shareholders in general meeting, that a sum of 7SO0Z. should be distributed amongst the officers and servants of the co., was ultra vires. The defts. were the CO., the managing director, and four other gentlemen, wlio were his co- directors. The CO. had recently sold its under- taking to the "VVesleyan body, and at general meetings held respectively on Jan. 28, 1903, and Feb. 16, 1903, resolutions were passed and con- firmed by large majorities for the voluntary winding-up of theco. and for the distribution of the sum of 7800?. among the directors and other officers and servants of the co. in the manner therein menlioned. It was proved that thissum was to be given as a mere gratuity : — Jfeld,, that the majority of the shareholders had no power to vote gratuities to officials so as to bind the minority in a case where the co. was being wound up. The principle of Iluttoii v. West Curh Ity. Co., (1S83) 23 Ch. D. 654, applied to a trading co. incorporated under the Com- panies Acts and completely governed this case. The resolution was therefore ultra vires. Stroud r. Royal Aquarium axd Summer and Winter Garden Society, Ld. Joyce J. [1903] W. N. 146 Gnarantee. 1. — Company limited hy ynarantee — Jurisdiction to wind up — Practice — State- ment of amount ofyuarantec — Companies (^Memo- randum nf Association') Act. 1890 (53 4' 54 Vict, c. 62), s. 1, sui-s. 2 — (Companies Winding-up') Act, 1890 (53 S- 54 Yid. c. 63), s. 1, suV-.-:s. 1, 2, 3. Petition under the Companies (Memorandum of Association) Act, 1890, for the confirmation of an alteration of the memorandum of association of a CO. limited by guarantee. 'The Companies (Memorandum of Association) Act, 1890, s. 1, sub-s. 2, provides that the petition for alteration shall be confirmed by '■ the Court which has jurib- diction to wind up the co." Up to the date of that Act the Court having that jurisdiction was in all cases the High Court. But the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, which received tlie Royal assent on the same day as the former Act, provided that " where the capital of the co. paid up or agreed to be paid up exceeded 10,000i. a petition to wind up the co. should be presented in the High Court, or the Palatine Courts of Lancaster .ind Durham in the case of cos. situate within their respective jurisdictions, and in cases where the amount of the capital pjid up or credited as paid up does not exceed 10,000?. a petition to wind up should be presented to a county court." 'This Act contained no mention ( 475 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( ^7'i ) COMPANY (Guarantee) — continued. of COS. limited by guarantee. But it appeared that a custom had grown up of inserting in petitions relating to cos. limited by guarantee a statement that the amount of the guarantee exceeded 10,0002., and words to this effect had been inserted in the petition in this case in the registrar's office. Neville J. : The point is clearly covered by In re North of England Iron Steamship Insur- ance Association, [1900] 1 Ch. 481. The state- ment of the amount of guarantee is unnecessary and may be struck out and the order made a asked. In re Monmouthshike and South Wales Employees' Mutual Indemnity Society, Ld. - Neville J. [1909] W. N. 6. 2. — Debentures — Chiarayitee — Insurance — Suretyship — Release of guarantor — " Arrange- ment or compromise" — Majority of deienture- holders binding minority. The pit. held debentures of the deft. co. forming part of an issue secured by a trust deed which provided that the debentures should be guaranteed by the Law Guarantee Trust and Accident Society, Ld., which was to be tlie trustee for the debenture-holders. By this deed a sinking fund for the redemption of the deben- ture was to be established, and the co. were to pay to the society a remuneration for services as trustee and 10s. per cent, premium on the amount of the outstanding debentures. A general meeting of the debenture-holders was to have power by extraordinary resolution to assent to any modification of the provisions of the deed which should be proposed by the co,, and to assent to any arrangement or compromise proposed to be made between the co. and the debenture-holders, provided that it was one which the Court . would have jurisdiction to sanction under the Joint Stock Companies Arrangement Act, 1870, or any statutory modi- fication thereof, if the co. were being wound up and the requisite majority at a meeting of the debenture-holders summoned pursuant to that Act had agreed thereto ; and an extraordinary resolution duly passed at a general meeting was to be binding upon all the debenture-holders whether present or not present at the meeting, and each of the debenture-holders was to be bound to give effect thereto accordingly. Kesolu- tions were passed in Dec, 1909, for the voluntary winding up of the society, and the winding up was now being continued under supervision. At meetings duly convened and held in Mar., 1910, resolutions were passed by the requisite majority of the debenture-holders of the co. releasing the society from the guai-antee ; increasing the interest on the debenture debt-; aijpointing new trustees of the deed, and discon- tinuing the sinking fund. A draft supplemental trust deed was prepared which provided that each debenture-holder should forthwith sur- render his debentures to the co. and accept new debentures carrying the higher rate of interest but no guarantee by the society. The pit. did not attend the meetings nor assent to the resolutions, and he declined to surrender his debentures or give up the guarantee. He brought this action against the co., the society and the new trustees COMPANY (Guarantee") — continiteil. for a declaration that the resolutions were not binding on him, and for an injunction to restrain the defts. from acting on them. Warrington J. held that the guarantee was in the nature of a policy of insurance as well as a contract of suretyship, and was not destroyed by the disappearance of the debt. But the real question was wl:iether the resolutions were an arrangement or compromise which the debenture- holders could pass and the Court could sanction. This transaction was within those words even it it were necessary to shew for that purpose that there had been a dispute or difference between the parties. There N\'as ample authority for say- ing that the Court had jurisdiction to sanction such an arrangement in a winding-up. The whole scheme of the resolutions was valid and binding on the pit., and the action must be dismissed. Shaw v. Eoycb, Ld. Warrington J. [1910] W. N. 251 3. — Guarantee company — Debentures charg- ing present and future assets. A petition was pre-seuted by creditors of a, CO. limited by guarantee, and not having a capital divided into shares, asking that the co. should be wound up by the Court. The principal defence to the petition was that the assets of the CO. were covered by debentures for aii amount greater than the value of the assets, and that in the event of a winding-up order being made there would not be anything for the unsecured creditors. The debentures purported to create a charge on the whole of the assets of the co. present and future. In accordance with Form B. of Sched. II. to the Companies Act, 1862, the Memorandum of Association stated that every member of the CO. undertook to contribute to the assets of the CO. " in the event of the same being wound up during the time that he is a member, or within one year afterwards for payment of the debts and Habilities of the co. contracted before the time at which he ceases to be a member, and the costs, charges, and expenses of winding up the same, and for the adjustment of the rights of the contributories amongst themselves, such amount as may be required, not exceeding 51." Buckley J. said that it would be a melancholy thing if the law were otherwise than as stated in the decision cited (/« re Mayfair Property Co., 0. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 28), for in that ca^e there would be no use in having reserve capital. There must be the usual winding-up order. In re Irish Club Co. - - - Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 127 — Debenture-holders and guarantors — Prcfor- oiice to assets of company. See Company — Arrangement. 2. Income Bond. — Bond — Company. See under Company. — Bond. 1. — Income bond — Construction — Sonus payable out of profit.'! — No profits earned — Issue of paid-up shares in exchange for bonus — Diridends out of capital — Want of considera- tion — Vltra tires. ( 477 ) DIGEST OB" CASES, 1901—1910. ( 478 ) COMPANY (Income Bond) — coiitiimed. A limited co. being in want of money borrowed it by the issue of 10^. bonds on the terms that the CO. would, when and so far as there were net profits available for the purpose pay to the bond- holder the principal money of \Ql. together with a bonus of 2,5Z., the principal money and bonus to be paid exclusively out of profits. Years later, the co. having made no profits whatever and being still in want of money, it was arranged with the consent of all parties interested that new 1 1, shares should be issued and the bonus of 25?.. satisfied or extinguished by the allotment of twenty of the new 11. shares considered as fully paid : — Held, that it was ultra vires for the co. to make the charge on future net profits a charge on capital and a present debt and to issue shares fully paid up in satisfaction of the debt so created, the charge being exclusively on income. Qucere whether it is possible for directors to create a debt against their co. and to paddle their co. with it for the purpose of enabling them to issue shares without payment in ca«h, however advantageous they may consider the transaction to be. Decision of C. A., Bun/ v. Famat'inii Develop- ment On-ijuvation, Ld. [1909] 1 Ch. 754, affirmed. Famatina Dkvelopment Corpokation, Ld. ■V. BUBY. H. L. (E.) [1910] "W. N. 157; [1910] A. C. 439. Income Tax. — Colonial companies, Relief from income tax on insurances with. See Finance Act, 1901 (4 Edw. 7, c. 7), s. 9. — Company investments. See Revenue — Income Tax. 12, 21, 33. — Company resident in United Kingdom — Holding all the shares in company abroad — Control . See Revenue — Income Tax. 17. — Exemption — Income not exceeding 160?. See Revenue— Income Tax. 12. — Gas company — Standard rate of dividend. See Revenue — Income Tax. 19. — Income derived from business — Business carried on in the Colony or profits received. See New Zealand. — Nitrate grounds situate abroad — Profits and gains — Deduction. See Revenue — Income Tax. 30. — Residence — Company registered abroad — Majority of directors in'England. See Ekvenue — Income Tax. 33. — Residence — " Person residing in the United Kingdom " — Company registered abroad — Head office and directing power in United Kingdom. iSee Revenue — Income Tax. 17. — Single ship company — Average of three years preceding year of assessment — Trade first set up within a period of three years. See Revenue — Income Tax. 38. COMPANY— ctf«?t«Ke(/. Indemnity. — Forged transfer of stock — Innocent present- ment for registration — Implied contract to indemnify. Se-e Company — Forgery. 1. Insurance Companies. See under Insueance, Insubance (Fieb), Insurance (Life), Insur- ance (Marine) and Insueance (Pkofessional). — Trading and life assurance combined — Tea company — Pensions. See Insueance, Life. 2. Interest. See also under Intebest. 1. — Bonds heariiuj Merest out of profits — Deficiency in interest — Sale nf bonds — Tenant for life and remaindernuin. Second mortgage 6 per cent, gold bonds of a Mexican ry. co. contained a promise by the co. to pay the principal secured in 1917, and interest thereon, " accumulative, at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum " on Mar. 1 and Sept. 1 in each year, " upon surrender of the annexed coupons, as and when earned, out of any net earnings of any year remaining after interest " on the co.'s first mortgage bonds had been paid for such year, and provided as follows : " If in any year the net earnings so remaining available for pay- ment of interest upon the " second mortgage bonds " shall not be sufficient to pay such in- terest in full, there shall be paid any part thereof earned and available, and any deficiency shall not be waived, but shall be paid to the holder hereof out of the net earnings of any subsequent year or years, as and when there shall be any net earnings available for such purpose." By a settlement made in May, 1899, some of the second mortgage bonds were settled upon trust to pay the income to M. for life, and after her death to her husband, T., for life, and after the death of the survivor, if T. survived her, in trust for the next of kin (excluding T.) of M. Interest less than 6 per cent, per annum was paid on the bonds down to 1901 , and no deficiency of any year was ever made up out of the earnings of any subsequent year or otherwise. In March, 1902, the bonds, with the coupons, were sold by the trustees for 2700?., and in May, 1902, M. died leaving T. surviving her, and he was her legal personal representative : — Held, that T. was not entitled to any part of the 2700?. as representing the apportioned amount in respect of any deficiency of interest in M.'s lifetime, but tliat the whole of the 2700?. went to M.'s next of kin. In re Taylor's Trusts. Matheson c. Taylor Buckley J. [1906] 1 Ch. 734 — ■ Debentures — Settlement of — Trustees regis- tered holders — Interest. See Company — Debentures. 51. 2. — Tnsolcent company — Interest on debts. On Jan. 15, 1906, the co., being insolvent passed a resolution for voluntary winding-up. ( *79 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 180 ) COMPANY (Interest) On Jan. 27, 1906, creditors of the co. obtained judgment against it, under Order xiv., r. 1, for 23,242^. 10,«. Sd. for principal and interest, and 81. 12s. for costs. On Oct. 22, 1906, a scheme of arrangement was sanctioned by the Court, by the terms of which the unsecured creditors of the CO. were to take preference shares in the re- constructed CO. in satisfaction of their debts at the " fuU face value " of the same. On July 11, 1907, the judgment creditors made a claim under the scheme to be creditors for 24,9742. 17s. Id., being the 23,2422. 10s. Sd., 81. 12s. costs, and interest at 51. per cent, on the principal (22,983Z. Is. Sd.") due on the judgment from Jan 27, 1906, to July 26, 1907, which interest amounted to 1,7232. 14s. 7d. The liquidator offered to admit the proof at 23,2042. 5s. 5d., the amount indorsed on the writ of summons, with interest to the date of the commencement of the winding-up ; but the judgment creditors applied in the winding-up for an order that the debt should be admitted with interest on the 23,2422. 10s. 6d. from Jan. 27, 1906, the date of judgment, at 5 per cent, (the rate reserved by the original contract on which the action was brought) or alternately at 4 per cent. Neville J. said that s. 10 of the Judicature Act, 1875, applied the rule in bankruptcy to the winding-up of an insolvent co., although the winding-up was voluntary. The claim for interest subsequent to the date of the judgment could not be sustained. /« 7'e Thomas Salt & Co. Neville J. [1908] W. N. 63 Investments. — Income tax. See under Company — Income Tax. — Kailway or other " public company " — American company — Investment, Trust for. See Will — Investments. 4. — Trustee — Nominal debentures issued under Local Loans Act, 1875. &« Tettstee — Investments. 11. — • Will — Construction — " Company " — Invest- ments — Companies not registered in the United Kingdom. See Will — Investments. 2. — Will — Investment clause — Companies "in the United Kingdom." See Will— Investments. 6. Judgment. See under Judgment. Jnrisdiction. — Memorandum of association — Alteration of objects — Jurisdiction of Chancery Divi- sion. See Company- — Hemorandum of Associa- tion. 8. Land. Companies Act, 1908 (8 Hdw. 7, c. 12), amends the law with respect to the holding of land by companies incorporated in Sritish Possessions. D.D. COMPANY (Lani.)—oo>itinued. Licence to hold Lands. — The Companies Acts, 1862 to 1900— Companies Act, 1862, s. 71— Licence to hold lands — Form substituted for Form F. Reprint from W. N. 1907 (June 8), p. 209. See Cdbebnt Index, 1907, p, Ixx. Larceny. — Officers of public companies — Publishing fraudulent statements — Manager de facto. See Criminal Law — Larceny. 10. Leases. — Dissolution of company— Reverter to lessor — Acceleration of reversion — Determina- tion of term — Liability of sureties. See CORPOEATION. 10. — Lease — Assignment to limited company after consent refused — " Respectable and responsible per.son " — Forfeiture of See Landlord and Tenant. 10. 1. — Tena.nt' s fixtures — Removal — Determi/na- tion of lea.se by forfeiture — Mortgage of lease — Right of mortgagee. A lease to a limited co. contained a provison for the determination of the term in the event of the CO. going into liquidation. The co. having issued debentures which constituted a floating charge on all its property present and future, a receiver was appointed in a debenture- holders' action. The receiver took possession of the lease- hold premises and obtained leave from the judge to sell the tenant's fixtures, the lessor being present and not objecting. After the iixtures had been advertised for sale 'the co. went into voluntary liquidation, and the lessor thereupon demanded possession of the leasehold premises including the fixtures in question : — Seld, that the- voluntary act of the co. in going into liquidation ought not in the circum- stances to prejudice the right of the debenture- holders to remove the tenant's fixtures, and that they were entitled to a reasonable time after the determination of the lease for removal. Pugh V. Art07i, (1869) L. R. 8 Eq. 626, com- mented on. In re Glasdik Copper Works, Ld. English Electro - Metalltjegical Co. r. Glasdir Copper Works, Ld. - Joyce J. [1904] W. N. 73 ; [19041 1 Ch. 819 Note. In re Glasdir Cooper Mines, Ld., [1905] W. N. 57 ; 0. A. [1905] W. N. 172 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 365. See Company — Receive): 11. Liability. 1. — Bills of exchange. Liability upon — Sills accepted by director in name of company without authority in fact — " Person acting under the authority of the company " — Companies Act 1862 (25 » 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 47. Certain bills of exchange drawn on a limited CO. were accepted by one of its directors in the oo.'s name, the bills also being signed by the director. The CO. received no part of the proceeds of the bills nor any consideration for the accept- ances, which, although the director had nd ( 181 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( iS2 ) COMPANY (Liability) — continued. fraudulent intenLion, were in fact in fraud of the CO. The pits, were holders in due course of the bills. Among the objects of the CO. as defined by its memorandum were the drawing, making, accepting, indorsing, and discounting of bills and promissory notes, and the directors were authorized to delegate any of their powers to committees consisting of such member or mem- bers of their body as they thought fit. Before the date of the acceptances a resolution had been passed by the directors requiring all bills of exchange to be signed by one director and countersigned by the secretary. In an action against the co. as acceptors to . recover the amount of the bills : — ITeld that, as the director had no authority in fact to accept the bills of exchange, he was not, in accepting them, " acting under the authority of the CO." within the meaning of s. 47 of the Companies Act, 1862, and that therefore the co. was not liable upon the bills. Pkbmibk Indtjs- TEIAL Bank, Ld. v. Caelton Manupaotdeing Co. , Ld. and Ceabteee, Ld. - Pickford J. [1909] 1 K, B. 106 libel. — Publication to clerks of company exercising privilege. See Defamation — Libel. 15. Lien. — Bankrupt shareholder — Lien on fully paid shares — Amendment of proof — Inad- vertence. See Company — Bankruptcy. 1. — Director — Vacating office — Company's lien on director's' shares for repayment of fees. See Company — Directors. 6. Limitations. (Statute of Limitations.) 1. — Dividends unclaimed ■ — Reduction of capital by return of money to shareholders — lAmitatioiis, Statute of — Companies Act, 1877 (40 S' 41 Vi<^- <■■■ 2fi), s. 3. The holder of shares, the certificate of which is under the seal of the co. and refers (hs is usual) to the memorandum and articles of the CO., is not barred by the Statute of Limitations until the expiration of twenty years : — (a) In respect of dividends declared on the shares, from the date of declaration : (V) In respect of capital to be returned on the shares, from the date of notice of the order of the Court confirming the reduction. In re JDroglwda Steam PacTiet Co., [1903] 1 I. R. 512, followed. In re Aetisans' Land AND MOETGfAGE COEPOEATION Byrne J. [1904] 1 Ch. 796 Liquidator. See under COMPANY — WiNDING-UP — Liquidator. Livery Company. — Livery Company of city of London, Gift to— Devise for general purposes of company. See Chaeity. 30. COMPANY— co«iiBKe(i. Loans. — Debentures — Issue — Deposit of blank deben- ture to secure loans. See Company — Debentures. 21. — Offence See Gaming. Lottery. Corporation — " Person.' 14. Manager. — Debenture — Goodwill — " Property " — Juris- diction to appoint manager. See Company — Debentures. 18. Meetings. See also under Company- Windisg- trp —Meetings. — Chairman, Declaration of — Company — Wind- ing-up. See Company — Winding-up — Meet- ings. 2. — Directors — Powers — Postponement of general meeting. See Company — Directors. 13. — Directors — Qualification — Notice — Special business. See Company — Directors. 16. 1. — General meeting — Special bmi9iess — Minutes — Notice — Sufficiency — ResolutUms — "Alterations or amendments" — Appointment of additional directors. The notice of the annual general meeting of a CO. stated that such meeting was for the pur- pose of considering and, if thought fit, passing certain resolutions, " with such amendments and alterations as shall be determined upon at such meeting." One of such resolutions was that three named gentlemen should be appointed directors. According to the minutes of the general meeting the notice was taken as read, and the three named gentlemen were proposed as directors. An amendment was, however, carried that in addition to these three gentle- men two additional named directors should be appointed. Under the articles of association of the CO. it was provided (54.) that the notice of an ordinary general meeting at which special business was to be transacted should specify the general nature of such special business ; (69.) that the number of the directors should be no more than seven or less than three ; (62.) that the signed minutes of the proceedings at a general meeting should be conclusive evidence that the proceedings were regular. Upon motion by the co. for an injunction to restrain the two additional directors from acting : — Held, that the Court was entitled to look at the notice convening the meeting as part of the res gestae, to see if the proceedings were regular. Held, further, that, having regard to the terms of the articles of association, the business transacted at the meeting was within the scope of the special business indicated in the notice. Betts & Co. v. Macnaughten Eve J. [1910] 1 Ch. 430 ( 183 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 484 ) COMPANY (Meetings) — continued. 2. — Meeting of shareholders — Requisition — ■Signature ty one of joint-holders — Directors — Irregularity in appointment — Companies Act, 1900 (63 ^ 64 Vict. c. 48), s. 13. In this case Buckley J. said it was necessary, in order to see whether the action was really discontinued, to decide whether the three so- caUed new directors were validly appointed. As to the point on s. 13 of the Act of 1900 — if shares were held by A., B. and C. and by D. and E. jointly, a requisition was not signed by all of them unless it was signed by A., B., C, D. and E. If it was sufiBoient that A., B., C. and D. should sign it must be because E. was not a member. Table A. contained several provisions as to what one of several joint holders might do (see Articles 1, 46, and 96) ; and other things, such as signing a requisition, must be taken as excluded. The requisition was therefore insufficient. Even if the resolutions were valid, they only followed the wording of the notice of the meeting and did not appoint anyone. Moreover, the resolutions ought not to have been put to the poll en bloc, but separately. The directors not having been properly appointed they could not appoint solicitors for the co., and the solicitors whom they attempted to appoint could not discontinue the action. The notice must be taken off the file and set aside, and the solicitors must pay the costs. Patentwood Keg Stndioath, Ld. v. Peaesb Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 164 3. — Memorandum of association — Increase of capital — Alteration of rights of shareholders — P)'eferen/:e sliarelwlders — Consent of iy resolution of meeting — All preference shares held by one shareholdei — " Meeting." In this case Warrington J. said that the question he had to determine was whether the present case was one of those referred to by Lord Coleridge in Sharp v. Dawes, (1876) 2 Q. B. D. 26, in which it might be possible to shew that the word " meeting " in clause 5 of the memorandum had a meaning different from its ordinary meaning. He was of opinion that where, as in this case, one person was the owner of a class of shares, inasmuch aa he could not "meet" himself, or form a "meeting" with himself in the ordinary sense, it must be assumed the framers of the memorandum and articles having such a probability in contemplation used the word " meeting " not in its strict sense, but as including the case of a single shareholder. He accordingly held that the preference shares had been validly issued and that there was no necessity for the rectification of the register. He therefore refused the motion. East ■». Bennett Brothers, Ld. Warrington J. [1910] W. N. 260 4. — Notice — Company — Special resolution — ■ Notice of meeting — ValidUy — Notice of both meet- ings given in one docwment — Notice of second meeting given contingently — Notice in accordance with articles — Companies Act, 1862 (25 ^ 26 Vict, c. 89), «. 51. The articles of association of a co. provided that, " Whenever it is intended to pass a special resolution, the two meetings may be convened COMPANY (Meetings) — continued. by one and the same notice, and it shall be no objection that the notice only convenes the second meeting contingently on the resolution being passed by the requisite majority at the first meeting" : — Held, that this clause was not ultra vires as being inconsistent with s. 51 of the Companies Act, 1862, or on any other ground. With the view of passing a special resolution for the reduction of the oo., notice was given that a general meeting would be held on Feb. 15, 1905, at a time and place mentioned, when a resolution (which was subjoined) would be pro- posed. The notice continued : " Should such resolution be duly passed by the required majority, the same will be submitted for con- firmation at a special resolution to a subsequent general meeting of the co., which will be held on Friday, 3rd March, 1905, at the same time and place." The resolution was duly passed at the first meeting, and was confirmed by the proper majority at the second meeting : — Meld, that the notice of the second meeting was valid : that the second meeting was duly summoned and held and the resolution duly confirmed ; and that it became binding on all the shareholders. Decision of Buckley J., [1905] W. N. 66 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 609, reversed. Alexander v. Simpson, (1889) 43 Ch. D. 139, explained and distinguislied. In re Noeth of England Steamship Co. C. A. [1905] W. N. 77; [1906] 2 Ch. 16 5. — Notice — Special resolution — Amendment —Companies Act, 1862 (25 ^- 26 Vict. c. 89), ,!. 51. A special resolution need not follow the exact terms of the notice given under s. 51 of the Com- panies Act, 1862, but may be amended at the first meeting, e.g., by reducing the remuneration proposed for the directors. Toebock v. Loed Westbtjet - - - Swinfen Eady J. [1902] "W. N. leo ; [1902] 2 Ch. 871 — Notice issued by secretary without authority of directors. See Company — Winding-up — Meet- ings. 1. — Reconstruction of company. See under Company — Eeconstruction. — Scheme of arrangement — Winding-up — Meetings of members — Separate classes. See Company — Arrangements. 5. 6. — Shareholders — General meeting — New regulations — Special resolution — Notice — Siiffi- ciency — " General nature" of business — Non- disclosure — Director's pension — Agreement — ■ Incidental to^ ordinary business — Ultra vires — Action by sliareholders — Riyht to sue. The notice of an extraordinary general meet- ing of a limited co. stated the purpose of the meeting to be to consider and, if thought fit, approve the draft new regulations to be sub- mitted to the meeting, and to pass a resolution approving and adopting the same. It also stated that copies of the proposed new regulations might be seen at the offices of the co., or would be forwarded to shareholders on application. The e2 ( 485 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 186 ) COMPANY (Meetings) — continued. new regulations contained an article enabling the board to grant a retiring pension to any managing director, and confirming an agree- ment of Jan. 17, 1902, by -which the directors, acting on behalf of the co., agreed to pay to one of the retiring managing directors, for considera- tion, an annual sum of lOOOZ. for ten years, and 6001. a year thereafter for the remainder of his life. There were also other new articles (inter alia) — (1.) enabling the board to increase the remuneration of the directors from 30002. to 4.5002. per annum, and allowing them travelling, hotel, and other expenses ; (2.) providing for the appointment of three directors for life ; (3.) re- lieving directors from liability for loss ; and (4.) enabling the directors to borrow a further sum of 150,0002. The resolution adopting the new regulations was passed at the meeting and confirmed at a second extraordinary general meeting. In an action by the shareholders against the CO. and the directors to test the validity of the resolutions : — Held, that the notice of the general meeting, by reason of its omission to refer to the specified matters which were all. of importance to the shareholders, did not sufficiently state the " general nature " of the business, as required I by the articles of association, and that the resolutions were therefore not duly passed. What is to be suflicient notice of the general nature of the business must be determined from the particular circum«tances of each case by itself. Held, also, that the agreement of Jan. 17, 1902, although within the powers of the co. in general meeting, was ultra vires the directors without the sanction of such a meeting, as it purported to grant additional remuneration to a director, which, according to the articles, could only be effected by a resolution of the co. in general meeting. But lield, that the shareholders were not entitled to maintain the action at all, and must appeal to the co. in general meeting in respect of the irregularity committed by the directors. No managing or other director is a " person in the employment of the co." NobmA-TIDY r. IND, COOPE & Co., Ld. - Kekewich J. [1907] W. N. 229 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 84 — Vesting of management in directors — Control of management by company in general meeting. See Company— Bireotors. 14. 7. — Voting — DkqvMlification — Forfeiture of ihares — Purchaser of forfeited sivares disqualified from voting tvMlst calls remain due from original holder. By the articles of association of a co. it was provided that after the forfeiture of shares the director.^ of the co. should be entitled to recover from the shareholder calls and other sums due in respect of the forfeited shares, and that no member should be entitled to vote whilst any calls or other sums should be due and payable to the CO. in respect of the shares of such member. Shares were forfeited for non-payment of calls, and resold by the co. to a purchaser, to COMPANY (Meetings) — continued. whom a certificate was issued stating that he was to be deemed to be the holder of the shares discharged from all calls due : — Held, that the purchaser of the shares was not entitled to vote whilst any calls or other sums remained due and payable to the co. from the original holder of the shares. Bandt Gold Mining Co. r. Waixwbight Kekewich J. [1901] 1 Ch. 184 8. — Voting — Meeting of shareholders — Voting — Proxy — Stamp — Bate of meeting uncertain — Blanks in proxy — Authority to fill up blanks — Stamp Act, 1891 (54 4' 55 Vict. c. 39), s. 80. Provided a proxy be stamped with a penny stamp on execution, the date of execution and the date of the meeting at which it is to be used may be filled in afterwards by any person duly authorized by the giver of the proxy to do so ; even though at the time of execution the date of the meeting has not been fixed. Sadgeove v. Betden Parker J. [1907] W. N. 23 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 318 9. — Voting — " Perso^mlly or iy proxy " — Poll — Power of chairman to direct manner of taking — Polling papei-s — Invalidity. The articles of a co. provided in the ordinary way for votes being given either personally or by proxy, the appointment of proxies, ice, but that if a poll was demanded it should be taken " in such a manner and at such time and place as the chairman of the meeting directs." At a general meeting of the CO., a resolution having been lost upon a show of hands, the chairman demanded a poll and directed that it should be taken by means of polling papers signed by the members and delivered at the offices of the co. on or before a fixed day and hour : — Held that, having regard to the terms of the articles, such a mode of taking the poll was unauthorized and invalid. McMILLA^" r. Lb Eoi Mining Co. Joyce J. [1906] 1 Ch. 331 10. — Voting — Show of hands — Beclaration of chairman that resolutivn is carried — " Conclu- sive evidence" — Special resolution — Companies Act, 1862 (25 4- 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 51. By virtue of s. 51 of the Companies Act, 1892, the declaration of the chairman of a meeting of the shareholders of a co. that a special resolution has been carried on a show of hands (a poll not having been demanded) is, at any rate in the absence of fraud, absolutely, and not merely prima facie, conclusive of the fact that the resolution has been carried. In re Hadleigh Castle Gold 3Iines, [1900] 2 Ch. 419, approved. In re Horlury Bridge Coal, Iron and Waggon Co., (1879) 11 Ch. D. 109, explained. Aenot v. United Apbicau Lands, Ld. C. a. [1901] W. N. 28 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 518 Note. — This case was referred to by Buckley J., In re Carata {New Mines'), Ld., [1902] 2 Ch. 498. Company — Winding-up — Meetings. 2. MemorandTun. (Memorandam and Articles of Association.) — Adoption of articles of association — Registra- tion of unsigned articles — Acquiescence. See Hong Kong, 2. ( *87 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 488 ) COMPANY (Memorandum) — continued. 1. — Alteration — Jurlsdiotion — Company under Joint StocJt Companies Acts, 1856, ISs'? (19 4' 20 Vict. c. 47 ; 20 Jj- 21 Viet. c. 14)— Companies Act, 1862 (25 <|- 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 175, 176 — Companies {^Memorandum of Association') Act, 1890 (53 S,- hi-Yict. c. 62), s. 1, sul-s. 1 ; s. 3, svi-s. 2. The Companies (Memorandum of Associa- tion) A-ct, 1890, applies to a co. formed and registered under the Joint Stools; Companies Acts, 1856, 1857, so that the Court has jurisdic- tion to confirm an alteration of its memorandum. 7ft re Nitrophosphate and Odams Cliemical Manure Co., Ld., [1893] W. N. 141, In re Bong Kong and China Gas Co., Ld., [1898] W. N.158, and In re Copiapo Mining Co., [1899] W. N. 25, followed. In re General Credit Co., [1891] W. N. 153, not followed. In re Euphrates and Tiseis Steam Navigation Co. Swinfen Eady J. [19041 W. N. 23 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 360 Note. This case was followed by Eve. J., In re Trust and Agency Co. of Australasia, Ld., [1908] W. N. 229. See Xo. 3, lelow. 3. — Alteration — Memorandum of association — Fundamental objects — Abandonment — Con- firmation by Court — Jurisdiction — Diicretion — Questions for consideration — Principles applic- able — Companies {Memorandum of Association') Act, 1890 (53 ^' 54 Vict. c. 62), s. 1, sub-ss. 4, 5 (f). The Court has jurisdiction under s. 1, sub-s. 5 (e), of the Companies (Memorandum of Associa- tion) Act, 1890, to confirm an alteration in the memorandum of association of a co. involving the abandonment of objects of a fundamental character and limiting the operations of the CO. from a world-wide area to a comparatively small prescribed region. But in a case where the constitution of the co. placed it in the power of the controlling body of the co. , who were in favour of such an alteration, to permit the extended powers of the co. to lie dormant, and where the vast majority of the shareholders, representing over three-fourths of the share capital, had given no indication of their wishes on the subject, the Court refused to sanction the proposed alteration. The provisions of sub-s. 5 of s. 1 of the Act furnish the only test for determining the ques- tion whether the Court has jurisdiction to sanction a proposed alteration of the memo- randum of association. The principles which have been laid down for the guidance of the Court in dealing with applications for confirmation of reduction of capital under s. 11 of the Companies Act, 1867, apply to the case of applications for confirmation of an alteration of the memorandum of associa- tion under s. 1 of the Companies (Memorandum of Association) Act, 1890, and, accordingly, all that the Court has to decide is whether the alteration is fair and equitable as between the members of the co. The Court is not concerned to consider the wisdom or desirability of the propo?ed alteration. British and American Trustee and Finance Corporation v. Couper, [1894] A. C. 399, and COMPANY (Memorandum) — continued. Poole V. National Bank of China, Ld., [1907] A. C. 229, applied. In re Jewish Colonial TKUST (JtJEDISCHE COLONIAL-BANK), Ld. Eve J. [1908] a Ch. 287 3. — Alteration — Memorandum of Associa- tion — Jurisdiction — Fnlargment of area of business — Change of name not imposed as con- dition — Companies {Memorandum of Association) Act, 1890 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 62), s. 1, sub-s. (5), (c), (^yable — Interest not in Aefault-r Jeopardy — lieceirer — Practice. The Court has jurisdiction to appoint a receiver and manager of the undertaking and assets o£ a CO. on the application of the holder of a deben- ture issued by the co., secured by a floating charge, if the principal money thereby secured has become due before the time when the appli- cation is made, although at the date of the issue of the writ no default had been made in payment of interest, the money was not payable, and the security was not in jeopardy. The holder of a debenture secured by a float- ing charge on the assets of the co. issued a writ in an action claiming an account, execution of the trusts of the debenture trust deed, realization of the security, and the appointment of a receiver and manager. At the date of the issue of the writ the principal money secured was not due and no default had been made in payment of interest. The pit. moved for the appointment of a receiver and manager, but the motion was refused on the ground that the money was not due, no default had been made, and the security was not in jeopardy. After the money became due the pit. served another notice of motion for the apointment of a. receiver and manager. This was opposed on the ground that the pit. had no cause of action when he issued his writ and that the action could not be maintained : — Held, that the pit. as the holder of a floating security had a right to issue his writ before the money became payable, and that the Court had jurisdiction, inasmuch as the money was now payable, to appoint a receiver and manager. Bonham v. Newcomh, (1684) 1 Vern. 2.^1, distinguished. In re Cabshalton Paek Estate, Ld. Graham r. The Co. Tuenbll , . The Co. Warrington J. [1908] W. N. 107 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 62 4. — Costs — Official receiver and liquidator — Report alleging fraud — Public examination of persons charged — Person exculpated from oliarge — Costs — '^Proceedings" — Jurisdiction to order official receiver to pay costs personally — Com- pani-es (^Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 ^' 54 Yict. 0. 63), s. 8. A CO. having been ordered to be wound up in a county court, the official receiver, who was the liquidator, in his further report to the Court under s. 8, sub-s. 2, of the Companies (Winding- up) Act, 1890, stated that in his opinion the facts set out therein constituted a fraud committed in the promotion or formation of the co., and also in relation to the co. since its formation, and that the pei'sons named in the schedule to the report were parties to the fraud. Among the persons so named was E., a director of the co. Upon this report the county court judge made an order under sub-s. 3 for the public examina- tion of the persons named. After the public examination E. applied to the judge for an order exculpating him from the charge of fraud ; this COMPANY (Keoeiver) — continued. application was opposed by the oiRcial receiver, but the judge nevertheless made an order exculpating him, and directing the oificial receiver personally to pay to E. the costs of his examination and of the application, there being no available assets of the co. : — Held, that so far as the costs of the public examination of E. were concerned, the oflicial receiver was merely discharging a statutory duty of a judicial character, and that there was no jurisdiction to order him personally to pay these costs. The proviso in s. 8, sub-s. 7, of the Act of 1890, empowering the Court to "allow" the exculpated person such costs as the Court may think fit, only applies where there are assets of the CO. available for the payment of costs. Decision of Darling and BuckniU JJ., [1910] 2 K. B. 67, affirmed. Held, also, that as the oificial receiver had accepted the position of a litigant, appeared in Court, and opposed E.'s application for exculpa- tion, he was a party to " proceedings " in the county court, so that the judge had jurisdiction in his discretion to order him to pay the costs of that motion, and on this part of the case the Court could not interfere. In re Raynes Park Golf Club, [1899] 1 Q. B. 961, doubted. In re John Twbddle & Co. C. A. [1910] W. N. 168 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 697 — Costs — Property recovered or preserved — Charging order. See under Company — Charging Orders. 5. — Debenture — Floating security — Ao money payable on debenture — Jeopardy — Receiver. Debenture-holders, who have a floating secu- rity upon the undertaking and all the property, present and future, of a co., are entitled to the appointment of a receiver of the property subject to the debentures if their security is in jeopardy, although nothing is payable in respect of prin- pal or interest, and there has been no default or breach of contract by the co. In re London Pressed Hinok Co. Campbell i. London Pressed Hinge Co. Buckley J. [1905] 1 Ch. 576 Jfbte. — This case was referred to by Buckley J., In re Alfred Melson S,- Co., [1906] 1 Ch. 841. See Company — Winding-up — Practice. 16. 6. — Debentures — Receiver — Principal and agent — Receiver agent of debenture-holders — Assets charged by receiver — Personal liability of debenture-holders and receiver. Debentures gave power to the holders to appoint a receiver to take possession of the assets, carry on the business, sell the property, make any arrangements he should think expedient in the interest of the debenture-holders, and apply in a specified way the moneys received; but they did not provide that the receiver was to be the agent of the mortgagors. A receiver appointed under this power made an agreement with the pits, whereby he assigned to them book debts of the co. in consideration of their doing certain work for the co. The debenture-holders afterwards appointed another receiver in the place of the first one. He repudiated the agree- ment, but wrote to the pits, that he would be prepared to pay for some work which he ( 523 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 524 ) COMPANY (Reeeivet)— continued. described. The work was done, but the pits.' account was not paid : — Seld (following In, re Vimios, Ld., [1900] 1 Ch. 470), that the receiver was the agent of the debenture-holders ; that he had authority to pledge the assets in priority to the debentures ; that the agreement was a valid assignment of book debts paid to the receiver during his agency so far as was necessary to secure payment to the pits. ; that the pits, were, therefore, entitled to have the money received in respect of these debts paid over to them ; that the debenture-holders were themselves personally liable to pay the pits, the amount due to them ; and that the second receiver was by the terms of his letter personally liable to pay for the work thereby ordered. KoBiNsoN Printing Co. v. Chic, Ld. Warrington J. [1905] 2 Ch. 123 Note. See In re Chic, Ld., Warrington, J., [1905] 2 Ch. 345 ; Company — Winding-up — Prac- tice. 28. 7. — Deienture-holder — Floating security — Jieoeicer — Judgm-enf creditor — Attachment of debts — ffarnisliee order nisi — Priority — Bights of garnishor — M. S. C, Order XLV., r. 2. In 1903 a limited co. issued a series of deben- tures creating the usual first charge '' by way of floating security " on " all real and personal pro- perty now or any time hereafter belonging to the CO." On Jan. 17, 1905, T. & Co obtained judg- ment against the co. , and on the same day they obtained and served on T. & Sons a garnishee order nisi for a debt of 43 4Z. owing by that firm to the CO. On Jan. 19, a receiver and manager of the CO. was appointed in a debenture-holders' action. Notice of this appointment was served on Y. & Co. on Jan. 20. The debt of iSil. having been claimed by both the judgment creditor and the receiver, the money was paid into Court. On an interpleader issue to determine the question of priority : — Held, on the authority of In re Combined Weighing and AdveHising Co., (1889) 43 Ch. D. 99, that as service of a garnishee order nisi did not operate as an assignment in equity or amount to a transfer of the debt, the right of the garnishor was subject to such rights and equities as already existed over this particular debt as the property of the CO. ; that at the time the garnishee order was served there was an existing charge on this property by virtue of the floating security created by the debentures, which was capable of be- coming a specific charge when the debenture- holders intervened, and, consequently, that the receiver was entitled to the money now in Court in priority to the judgment creditor. The dictum of James L.J. in ISx parte Joselyn, (1878) 8 Ch. D. 327, at p. 330, that " the moment the order of attachment was served on the garnishee the property in the debt due from him was absolutely transferred from the judgment debtor to the judgment creditor," must not be taken too literally, but must be read in con- junction with the facts and with what was said by the other Lords Justices in that case. Robson V. SmUh, [1895] 2 Ch. 118, distinguished. NoKTON V. Yates Warrington J. [1905] W. K. 176; [1906] 1 K. B. 112 COMPANY (Receiver) — cmitimted. — Debenture-holders' action — Bond — Sureties — Default — Rights of trade creditors. See Company — Bond. 1. 8. — Debeniure-holders' action. — Receiver and manager — Insufficient estate — Costs — Priorities — Bankruptcy of receiver. Where a receiver and manager appointed by the Court properly incurs debts in carrying on the business, the Court will see that such debts are satisfied, either by the receiver, or, if the receiver becomes bankrupt or there is any other reason which makes it advisable, by payment direct to the creditors of the business out of the funds in Court available for that purpose. In a debenture-holders' action a receiver and manager was appointed. The receiver, in carry- ing on the business of the co., incurred consider- able debts without the leave of the Court or the consent of the debenture-holders, and subse- quently became bankrupt. The funds in Court were the only assets of the co., and were insuffi- cient t;o discharge the pits', costs of realization and the receiver's costs of carrying on the business. The trustee in bankruptcy of the receiver claimed that the funds in Court, less the costs of realization, ought to be paid out to him for distribution amongst the receivership credi- tors, whilst the pits, contended that the receiver, having acted improperly, was not entitled to be indemnified out of the assets, and that the funds, less costs of realization, ought to be paid to the debenture-holders. Held (following Batten v. Wedgwood Coal and Iron Co., (1884) 28 Ch. D. 317), that the funds in Court must be applied, first, in payment of the costs of realization ; secondly, in payment of the receiver's costs. Held, also, that the trustee in bankruptcy was not entitled to have the balance of the funds, after the payment of costs of realization, paid to him, but that the Court would distribute such balance subject to an inquiry whether any and what debts had been properly incurred by the receiver in carrying on the business. In re London United Bkbwbeibs, Ld. Smith v. London United Bbewbkies, Ld. Neville J. [1907] W. N. 198; [1907] 2 Ch. 511 8a. — Debenture-holder's action — Form of de- benture — Receiver and manager. Action by a debenture-holder on behalf of himself and all the other debenture-holders of the CO., claiming an account, foreclosure or sale, and the appointment of a receiver and manager. Pit., who was a director of the CO., now moved that he might be appointed receiver of the pro- perty comprised in and subject to the debentures, and manager of the business of the co. The debentures were not quite in common form. The conditions indorsed provided that the money thereby secured should immediately become payable if (amongst other things) " any writ be issued against the co. at the instance of a creditor." Actions had been commenced against the co. in a county court and in the High Court for goods sold and delivered. The CO. had been served, but did not appear. The Court made the order subject to an affidavit being produced to the registrar that ( 525 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 52fi ) COMPANY (Receiver) — continued. all the other debenture-holders consented to the appointment of the pit. as receiver and manager. BunGKTT r. Improved Patent Foeced Dkatjq-ht Fuenacb Syndicate, Ld. Farwell J. [1901] W. N. 23 9. — Delenture-holders' action — Receiver and manager — Preservation of assets — Order giving receiver and manager leave to harrow and create iirat charge on assets — Loan by hank — First charge by deed — Realization — Iiisufficisnt assets — Receiver's remuneration — Costs of preservation and 7'ealization — Priorities. In an action by a debenture-holder on behalf of himself and all the other debenture-holders of a CO. to realize his security the usual judg- ment in a debenture-holders' action was pro- nounced and a receiver and manager was appointed. On the same day an order was made on the application of the pit. in the action authorizing the receiver to borrow 5002. to be secured by a first charge on the assets of the 00. in priority to the debenture-holders. The receiver borrowed the money from a bank, and the deed containing the charge did not in express terms exempt the receiver from personal liability to repay the loan. The receiver realized the whole of the assets comprised in the debentures, and there was in Court a fund which was insufficient to satisfy all the claims upon it. The bank claimed that, subject to the costs of realization in the strict sense, they were entitled to be first paid out of the fund their charge, on the ground that the receiver, having borrowed the money from them, was their debtor, and that they were entitled to be subrogated to him in respect of his indemnity against the fund ; — Held, that the proper inference to be drawn from the transaction was that the receiver did not intend to pledge his credit and that the bank did not rely upon it, and therefore that there was no right of indemnity to which the principle of subrogation could apply. Dictum of Cozens-Hardy L.J. in In re Glasdir Copper Mines, Ld., [1906] 1 Ch. 365, 384, followed. Meld, therefore, that the fund must be applied, first, in payment of the plt.'s costs of the action as between solicitor and client ; secondly, in payment of the receiver's remuneration ; and, thirdly in repayment of the loan to the bank, so far as the balance of the fund would extend. In re A. BoYNTON, Ld. Hoffmann v. A. BoYNTON, Ld. - Warrington J. [1910] W. N. 43; [1910] 1 Ch. 819 — Debenture trust deed — Leaseholds — ! by sub-demise — Rent, Liability for. See MOETGAOE — Receiver. 1. 10. — Foreign mine — Obtaining possession — Practice — Debenf.ure-holders'' action — Receiver. Action by debenture-holders of the co. to enforce and realize their debentures which were secured by the usual trust deed. The pits, held all the debentures, and some 40,000^, was due to them. The co. was not in liquidation and its registered office was in London. Its principal asset was a copper mine in Peru, which formed COMPANY (Receiver) — continued. part of the security of the debenture-holders. On May 26, 1908, the usual judgment was pro- nounced, and one Neil, a chartered accountant of London, was appointed receiver and manager on behalf the pits, of all the co.'s property situate in Peru. At the commencement of the action and down to Feb., 1910, Duncan, Fox & Co., of Lima, in Peru, held the power of attorney of the deft, co., and acting under it had taken pos- session of the mine on behalf of the receiver, but on Feb. 19, 1910, the deft. co. revoked this power of attorney and granted a power of attorney to one Carceres, who thereupon as the agent of the deft. 00. ousted Duncan, Fox & Co. from posses- sion of the mine, and had since remained in possession of the mine and was working and picking it to the detriment of the pits.' rights. On June 23 last the deft. CO., on the pits.' motion that the CO., its directors and agents, might be ordered forthwith to give such direc- tions and take such steps and proceedings, whether in Peru or elsewhere, to compel Carceres to withdraw from and give complete possession of the mine to the authorized agent in Peru of the receive I', gave an undertaking forthwith by telegram to order Carceres to give up possession of the mine to the nominee of Duncan, Fox & Co. on behalf of the receiver and not to interfere in any way with the receiver's possession. It appeared, however, that the deft, co., beyond sending the telegram and a letter to Carceres, had made no serious effort to fulfil their under- taking, and that Carceres had disregarded the telegram and continued in possession. It also appeared that Duncan, Fox & Co., although hold- ing the power of attorney of the pits, and of the trustees of the debenture trust deed, were power- less to eject Carceres so long as he held the power of attorney of the deft, co., because the Peruvian law recognized the deft. co. alone as legally entitled to possessson of the mine. The pits, now moved that the deft, co., its directors and agents, might be ordered forthwith to execute a power of attorney appointing two named persons, members of the firm of Duncan, Fox & Co., attorneys in Peru of the deft. co. in the place of Carceres to take possession of the mine on behalf of the receiver. Neville J. ordered the deft. co. to revoke their power of attorney to Carceres so far as it related to the mine, and to execute a power appointing one or more named partners of Duncan, Fox & Co., the attorney or attorneys of the co., to take possession of the mine on behalf of the receiver, the pits, to indemnify the co. in respect of the acts of such attorney or attorneys. The power of attorney to be settled by the judge, if necessary. In re HuiNAC COPPBE Mines, Ld. Mathbson & Co. I. The Co. - Neville J. [1910] W. N. 218 11. — Indemnity — Debenture-holders' action — Receirer and manager— Preservation of assets — Orders giving receiver and manager leave to borrow and create Jirsf cliarge on assets — Loans by plaintiff — Contract by receiver and mana-ger — Principal or agent — First charges by deed — Realization — Iiuitfficient assets — Receiver's re- muneration — Costs of preservation and realization ( 527 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 528 ) COMPAITY (TLeceivei^—Bontinued. — Priorities— Form of borrowing and oJturc/ing order — I/imited compo/mj. Where advances for the preservation of a limited co.'s assets are made to a receiver and manager by a party to a debenture-holders' action under an order of Court which direct^ that the sum advanced shall be a first charge on the assets in priority to the debenture-holders, the receiver and manager is nevertheless entitled to take his costs and expenses properly incurred out of the assets in priority to the sums advanced, if it appears that the true bargain was that the assets should be realized by the receiver and manager for the benefit of all concerned : Strapp V. Bull, Sons 4- Co., [1905] 2 Ch. 1. But whether the same rule applies where the person making the advance is a stranger to the action, quwre. An order was made in a, debenture-holders' action against a mining co. appointing a receiver and manager. Successive orders were then made on the application of the pits, giving the receiver and manager liberty to borrow on the security of first charges to be created by him, certain sums of money for the purpose of preserving the co.'s property and carrying on the business. The receiver and manager borrowed the money from the pits, themselves on the security of deeds executed by him and creating first charges in their favour on the property of the co. comprised in the debentures. By each of those charges the receiver and manager expressly stipulated that he should not be personally liable to repay the sums advanced out of his own moneys ; but he made no express reservation of his right to be indemnified out of the assets in respect of his costs and expenses properly incurred. He then continued to carry on the co.'s business, but it proved a failure, and he eventually realized the assets, but the proceeds were insufficient to satisfy both his costs and expenses (including his remuneration allowed by the Court) and also the plt.'s charges : — Held by the C. A. (affirming Joyce J.), [1905] W. N. 57, that, inasmuch as, in the circum- stances, the receiver and manager had acted in the preservation and realization of the assets for the benefit of everyone concerned, he was entitled to indemnity out of the assets in priority to the pits, and all other persons for whose benefit he had so acted. Strapp V. Bull, Sons :. Glasdie Coppee Mines, Ld. - - C. A. [1905] W. N. 172 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 365 COMPANY (Receiver)— coreiMMeeZ. Note. Dictum of Cozens-Hardy L.J. in, followed by Warrington J., In re A. Boynton, Ld., [1910] 1 Ch. 619. See No. 9, aloiie. 18. — Powers of receiver and manager — Debenture-holders — Shipment of goods iy receiver — Bill of lading — lAen for previously unsatisfied freight. Ind, Coope, & Co., Ld., a brewery co., used to ship beer in the defts.' vessels to the co.'s agents abroad for the sale of beer. Among these agents was a firm in Malta. The co. being in difficulties, debenture-holders, whose debentures constituted a floating charge on the undertaking and assets of the co., took steps to enforce their security, and, a debenture-holders' action having been brought, the pit. A. W. was by an order of the Court appointed receiver and manager of the business and undertaking of the co. which was not wound up, but continued in existence. By a letter signed " Ind, Coope & Co., by A. W. receiver and manager," the pit. requested the defts. to carry a quantity of beer to Malta con- signed to the CO., c/o the firm in Malta ; and the defts. accordingly carried the beer to Malta under a biU of lading by one of the terms of which the defts. were to have a lien on the beer shipped, not only for the freight due in respect thereof, but also in respect of any previously unsatisfied freight due from the " shippers or consignees " to them. This was the form of bill of lading which had been used in the case of goods carried for the co. by the defts. The defts. refused to deliver the beer shipped as aforesaid unless certain unsatisfied freigl^t due to them from the co. previously to the plt.'s being appointed receiver and manager was paid. No leave had been given by the Court authorizing the pit. to give to the defts. any security in respect of such previously unsatisfied freight : — Held by Vaughan Williams L.J. and Buck- ley L.J., Fletcher Moulton L.J. dissenting, that the defts. were not entitled to a lien on the beer shipped as aforesaid for the previously unsatis- fied freight, because (1.) the bill of lading had not the effect of giving the defts. such a lien, and (2.) no leave to give them such a lien bad been obtained from the Court. Whiknet v. Moss Steamship Co. C. A. [1910] 8 K. B. 813 13. — Trade creditors, Bights of — Deienture- holders' action — Receiver and manager —Bond — Sureties — Default — Rights of trade creditors. A receiver and manager in a debenture- holders' action gave the usual security by a bond with sureties. He properly incurred and was entitled to be indemnified by the estate against trade liabilities to the extent of 900Z. for goods supplied to him on credit, of which the estate had the benefit, but his cash account was deficient by 400^., which he was unable to pay. Held, that the trade creditors could only claim against the estate to the net amount of the receiver's indemnity, i.e., 500Z., and they and not the sureties must bear the loss of the iWl. Inre Johnson, (1880) 15 Ch. D. 548, 555, applied. In re Beitish Power Teaotion and Lighting Co. Halifax Joint Stock ( 529 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 530 ) COMPANY (Receiver) — continued. Banking Co. v. British Powbe Traction AND Lighting Co. Swinfen Eady J. [1910] W. N. 194 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 470 — Receiver in debenture-holders' action — Goods in possession of compimy under hire- purchase agreement — Interference with possession of receiver — Injunction — Proceedings in other Courts — Jurisdic- tion. See Receiver. 8. Beconstruction. 1. — Amalgamation —Memorandum ofassocia- tiiiii — Reoun-itruction under power in memorandiim — Sale of assets for shares in new company — Partlij-ptiid shares — Vlstrlbutivn of consideration — Ojler of shares to all shareholders. One of the objects of a oo. was to sell and dispose of its property for such consideration as it thought fit, and in particular for shares fully or partly paid up, and to divide the consideration amongst the members of the co. This power was to be exercisable either in view of a wind- ing up of the CO. or not. Another object was to distribute any of the assets of the co. among the members of the co. The CO. agreed to sell its assets and under- taking to another co. By the agreement the vendor co. was to be wound up ; part of the consideration was to consist of partly-paid shares to be allotted to the vendor co. or its nominees. The vendor co. were within two calendar months to find people to take up these shares, and if any of them were not taken up they were to be at the disposal of the purchasing co., and the vendor co. was not to be liable to take them up itself. Resolutions were passed and confirmed at meetings of the vendor co. to wind up that CO. voluntarily, and that the liquidator should offer the new shares to the members at the rate of one such share for each share held by the members. By the amalgamation scheme it was provided that the liquidator should sell shares which were not accepted by the shareholders and distribute the net proceeds of sale among such members. A shareholder in the vendor co. objected to these proposals : — Held, that the proposed scheme of recon- struction was within the powers conferred by the memorandum, and ought to be allowed to proceed. Fuller ii. White Fbatheb Reward, Ld. Warrington J. [1906] W. N. 74 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 823 Note. This case was overruled by C. A., Bisgood v. Henderson's Transvaal Estates, Ld., [1908] 1 Ch. 713. See No. 8, helow. — Amalgamation and reconstruction — Unfair scheme — Dissentient shareholders. See Company — Winding-up — Prac- tice. 24. — Contemporaneous resolutions for voluntary winding-up and reconstruction scheme — Invalidity of scheme. See Company — Winding-up — Prac- tice. 27. COMPANY (Eeeonstruotion)- 2. — Dissentient sharelwlder — Meqi^tered office in Rhodesia — Notice of dissent left at London office — Waiver by liquidator — Conflict of law — Companies Act, 1862 (25 ^ 26 Vict. c. 89), *. 161 — Companies {Consolidation') Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69), s. 192, sub-s. 3 — Evidence of local law. The pit. was the holder of fully paid up shares in the deft, co., which was in course of liquidation for the purpose of reconstruction. The CO. was registered in 1903 under the Com- panies Ordinance, 1895, of Southern Rhodesia,and its registered office was in Bulawayo. Bytheco.'s articles it was provided that the business of the CO. should be carried on in England. At extra- ordinary general meetings held in London on June 18 and July 3, 1909, resolutions had been passed for the voluntary winding up of the co., and all its assets were to be taken over by a new CO. Under s. 158 of the Companies Ordinance, 1895, which was similar to s. 161 of the Com- panies Act, 1862, a dissentient shareholder had to give notice of dissent at the registered office of the CO. within seven days of the date of the meet- ing. The pit. voted against the resolutions, and on July 5 gave notice of dissent at the London office of the co. On July 6 the liquidator sent him in reply a letter in the following terms : " I am in receipt of your letter of the 5th inst., and note that you do not consent to the reconstruc- tion of the above company." Subsequently the liquidator lef used to treat the notice of dissent as valid, on the ground that it was not served at the registered office of the CO., and the pit. brought this action. Under the Companies Ordinance, 1895, the liquidator had power to do all acts in the name and on behalf of the co. : — Held, that the liquidator had waived the irregularity and that the notice of dissent must be treated as valid. Evidence of an expert in Roman-Dutch law admitted although he had not practised in Rhodesia. Brailey r. Rhodesia Consoli- dated, Ld. ■Warrington J. [1910] W.N. 123 ; ri9101 2 01.95 3. — Memorandum of association — Reconstrtie- tiiin under 2iower in memorandnm — Sale of assefn for " shares " ;« new company — Partly paid shares — Distribution of considerativn — Evidence — Unstamped agreement — Companies jdci,1862 (25 4' 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 161. A 00. authorized by its memorandum of association to sell its undertaking for "shares" may if there is nothing in the context or in the memorandum or articles of association as a whole so to qualify the meaning of the word "shares" as there used as to confine it to fully paid shares, accept partly paid shares as con- sideration. Mason r. Motor Traction Co. Buckley J. [1905] W. N. 27 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 419 — Notice of meeting to pass resolutions for re- construction — Special resolutions for voluntary liquidation. See Company — Wending - up — Voluntary Windinif-up. 1. 4. — Memorandum of association — Power to sell undertaking for shares in another company ( 531 ) BIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 532 ) COMPANY (Keoonstruction)^(!o;jy special resolution confirmed by the Court reduced its capital to 1,554,000?. divided into 80,000 preference shares of 102. each and 75,000 Accumulative preference shares of 102. each, and 4000 ordinary shares of 12. each, all fully paid up : see In re Hoare ^ Co., Ld. and Reduced, [1904] 2 Ch. 208. These preference shares had priority in dividend COMPANY (Eeduotion of Capital) — continued. and capital over the ordinary shares, and the preference dividend was 5 pp.r cent. Neville J. made an order sanctioning the reduction of capital and the scheme ; and directed that the scheme should be scheduled to the order, and that the words " and Reduced " should be continued for one month. In re Hoare & Co., Ld. "and Reduced." Neville J. [1910] MT. N. 87 Note. See Tn re Hoare 4' Co. Ld. and Reduced, C. A. [1904] W. S. 123 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 208. No. 19, below. 8. — Dispensing with words " and reduced " — Special undertajdng by company. Petition for the reduction ot the capital of the above co., which carried on the business of pub- lishers and printers. It was proposed that the co. should give an undertaking to inform their creditors of the reduction, and to use the words " and reduced " on all documents on which by s. 41 of the Com- panies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), the name wai required to be used, as though the words formed part of the name. The Court made an order dispensing altogether with the addition of the words " and reduced " a*^ part of the co.'s name, on the co. entering into an undertaking to the above effect for a period of one month. In re LAWRENCE & BuLLEN, LD. Kekewioh J. [1901] W. N. 158 9. — Extinguishment of founders' shares — Companies Acts, 1862 — 1877. To give the Court jurisdiction to entertain a petition for the reduction of capital it is not essential to prove that the capital which the CO. proposes to cancel is lost or unrepresented by available assets. The only questions to be considered are : (1.) Ought the Court to refuse its sanction to the reduction out of regard to the interests of those members of the public who may be induced to take shares in the co. ? (2.) Is the reduction fair and equitable as between the different classes of shareholders ? PoOLE r. NATIONAL Bank op China, Ld. H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 229 Note. See In re Midland Ry. Carriage and Waggon Co., Ld. and Reduced, Warrington J., [1907] W. N. 175. No. 18, below. Applied by Eve J., In re Jewish Colonial Trust {.Tuedischf. ColnmalbanTi), Ld., [1908] 2 Ch. 287. See Company — Memorandum. 2. See In re Louisiana and Southern States Real Estate and Mortgage Co., Neville J., [1909] 2 Ch. 552. See next dase. — Limitations, Statute of — Reduction of capital by return of money to shareholders — Unclaimed dividends. See Company— Limitations. 1. 10. — Lost capital — Eridenceofloss — Practice —Companies Act, 1877 (40 4' 41 Vict. c. 26), J. 3- Companies (Consolidation') Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69), s. 46. ( -i^ ) DIGEST OF GASES 1901--I910. ( rAi- ) COMPAKY (Keduotion of Ca.fitaV)—oontmued. On a petition under the Companies (Con- solidation) Act, 1908, for confirmation of a redaction of capital by cancelling paid-up capital which is lost or unrepresented by available assets evidence that the capital is lost or so unrepre- sented is not necessary. In re Louisiana awd Southern States Real Estate and Mort- gage Company. . Neville J. [1909] W. N. 170; [1909] 2Ch. 552 11. — Memorandum — Articles — Ueorganiza- Hon of capital — Consolidatiruj different classes of stocks and shares into one stock — Validity of resolutions — Companies (^Consolidation) Act, 1908 (8 Mw. 7, c. 69), ss. 7, 45, 48, 69 ; Table A, uvt. 4 — " andBeduced " dispensed with. By the memorandum of a limited co. formed in 1894 under the Companies Acts the capital of the CO. was 1,000,OOOZ. divided into 100,000 ordinary shares of lOZ. each, and the capital was afterwards inci-eased by special resolution in the statutory mode. The co.'s articles of a,ssociation authorized the co. to issue its share capital with such preferences or special rights as they thought fit, and provided (art. 12) that all shares should be held on the terms that any rights or preference or special privilege of the holders of any class of shares should not be interfered with except by special resolution passed and confirmed by shareholders of that class, and every resolution so passed should be a valid resolution binding all shareholders of such class ; and (art. 14) that the co. might by special resolution reduce its capital. In 1903 the co. divided its existing share capital into preference share; and stocks and ordinary stocks by special resolution, which resolution became part of the memorandum. In 1909 the co., having lost capital to a large amount, passed in general meeting, held under s. 69 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, a special resolution reducing its capital by writing ofE the loss in certain proportions from the nominal amount of its then issued preference shares and stock and ordinary stock, and at the same time passed a second special resolution that upon the reduction of capital being sanctioned by the Court the preference rights attaching to the preference shares and stock should be extinguished, and that the preference stock and ordinary stock resulting from the reduction of capital should forthwith thereafter be consolidated into one consolidated ordinary stock ranking pari passu for all pur- poses. Those two resolutions were at the same time also passed at separate meetings of each class of preference share and stockholders and ordinary stockholders held under art. 12. The CO. then presented a petition for the sanction of the Court to the resolution reducing its capital. Dissentient stockholders opposed on the ground that the second resolution came within s. 45 of the Act and was ultra vires as it had not been passed in conformity with that section. The Court sanctioned the reduction, holding that the resolutions had been validly passed under the articles and that s. 45 did not apply. The words "and lieduced " were dispensed COMPANY (Keduotion of C&-pitBX)--oontinued. wi^h as they would be injurious to the co. in Australia. In re AUSTRALIAN ESTATES AND Mortgage Co., Ld. - - Neville J. [1910] W. N. 44 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 414 12. — Paid-up capital under WfidOl.— Con- firmation by Sigh Court of Justice — Companies Act, 1867 (30 4- 31 Vict. c. 131), s. \2— Com- panies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 S' 54 Virt. c. 63), ss. 1, (1), (2), (3), 3, (1). In this case a petition was presented to the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, for the confirmation by the Court of a reduction of the capital of a co. having a paid-up capital considerably less than 10,00OZ. and a registered ofiice situate within the district of a county court having jurisdiction to wind up the co. Neville J. made an order confirming the reduction of capital, but said that it must not be supposed that the High Court would in every case make an order for confirmation when the county court had jurisdiction to make the order. In re Portsmouth and District Vacuum Cleaner Co. Neville J. [1908] W. N. 203 13. — Paying off capital in excess of compamfs wants — Procedure — Companies Acts, 1867 (30 4~ 31 Vict. c. 131), s. \5— Companies Act, 1877 (40 S,- 41 Vict. c. 26), s. 3. Where the Court is asked to confirm a reduc- tion of a co.'s capital which is to be effected by paying off capital in excess of the wants of the co., and the Court upon hearing the petition is satisfied that the reduction ought to be confirmed, the proper procedure is to make the order confirming the reduction and then allow the further hearing of the petition to stand over until evidence has been produced that the capital to be paid off has actually been returned to the shareholders, and when this has been done to post-date the order confirming the reduction and approving a minute shewing with respect to the capital, as altered by the order, the particulars required by s. 15 of the Companies Act, 1867, and s. 4 of the Companies Act, 1877. The Court cannot make the order approving the minute stating the reduced capital until the capital has in fact been reduced by the repay- ment. It is sufficient if the minute states the result of what has been done without shewing how that result has been brought about. Form of minute. Observations as to the form of minute where the capital is returned on the ooting of its being subject to be recalled. In re Calgary and Edmonton Land Co. - Buckley J. [1906] 1 Ch. 141 N'ote. Not followed by Swinfen Eady .J., In re Lees Brooh Spinning Co., [1906] W. N. 130 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 394. See next Case. See also In re Anglo-Italian Bank, LA., and Beduced, Warrington, .1., [1906] W. N. 202. No. 15 below. Not followed by Parker J., In re General IndmtriaU Berelopmenf Sijiidicafe, Ld., [1907] W, N. 23. See Xo. 16, below. ( '-'i^ ) DIGEST OF GASES, 1!)(J1— 1911). ( 546 ) COMPANY (Keduction of Capital) — contimied. 14. — Paying off capital in e^pcus of oom- pany's wants — Term of order — J'raiitioe — Procedure — Companies Act, 1867 (30 ^- 31 Vict, e. 131), ss. 9, l5—Oompanien Act, 1877 (40 S,- 41 Vict. c. 26), iss. 3, 4. The provisions ot the Companies Acts as to reduction of capital by paying oil capital in excess of the wants of the co., contemplate that the order of the Court and the registration of the minute stating the reduced capital are to precede any repayment of capital ; and they do not con- template two orders being made on a i^etition for such reduction, one a preliminary order sanction- ing the reduction, and the other an order approving the minute after the reduction has been carried into effect. The minute is intended to shew what the capital will be after the reduc- tion has been carried into effect. There should only be one order sanctioning the reduction and approving the minute. Form ot minute. In. re Calgary and, Edmonton Land Co., [1906] 1 Ch. 141, not followed. Jn re Lbbs Beook Spinning Co. - - Swinfen Eady J. [1906] W. N. 130 ; [1906] 2 Ch, 394 Note. Followed by Warrington J., In re Aiiglo- Italian Bank, Ld., viz., by extinguishing the liability of 102. per share (accruing in case of winding up only) on the 30,000 issued preference and ordinary shares, .and by cancelling the 400 redeemed preference shares. As the co. had used the words "and .reduced " as part of its name, he dispensed with :any further use of those words. In re Mid- land Railvtay Caekiage and Wagon Co., Xd., and Eedtjced Warrington J. [1907] W. N. 176 18. — Publication of reasons — Comijanies ^Consolidation) Act, 1908 (8 Edio. 7, c. 69), s. 55. Owing to a recent fall in the value of licensed properties a brewery co. that had always had a credit balance to profit and loss and paid divi- dends found itself compelled to reduce its capital by a very large amount. In sanctioning the reduction the Court ordered the CO. to publish a short memorandum of the reasons for the reduction and the causes which led to it for the information of the public under s. 55 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908. In re Tkuman, Hanbuky, Buxton & Co., Ld. Swiufen Eady 3. [1910] W. N. 200 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 498 19. — Sanction of Court — Lost nip'itul — Reserve — Apportirimaent of loss — Cumpanies Act, 1877 (40 4- 41 Fief. c. 26), s. 3. IJnder tke Companies Act, 1877, the capital of a CO, may be rediiced if any capital (1.) has COMPANY (Reduction of Capital) — continued. been lost, or (2.) is unrepresented by available a -set-'. The directors of a co. were empowered by the articles of association to create a reserve fund out of the profits of the co. for such purposes as they should think conducive to the interests oE the CO., and to employ the reserve fund in the business of the co. without being bound to keep the same separate from the other assets. The co. had built up a reserve composed partly of pre- miums received for leases, partly of premiums received on the issue of preference shares, and partly of ordinary business profits. The re erve was u^ed in the co.\ business, and was not kept separately invested. Theco. had incurred a loss arising from the depreciation in the value of its public-liouses below the amount stated in the co.'s balance-sheet. The oo. accordingly applied for the sanction oE tlio Court to a fcheme for reduction of capital whereby the oo., while retaining a small portion of the reserve, attri- buted to the reserve more than its rateable proportion, and to the capital account less than its rateable proportion, of the loss : — Held (reversing the decision of Buckley J.), that, the reserve having been properly created out of profits, in ascertaining the amount of capital lost, the loss of assets ought to be treated as rateably apportioned between the reserve and the capital account, and that, in the ab.sence of special circumst.inocs, the co. in proposing a scheme for reduction of capital was not bound to wipe out the whole of the reserve, or to attribute to it more than its due proportion of the loss though it might do so if it chose ; and the Court sanctioned the scheme. The decision of Cozens-Hardy J. in In re Barrow IlrBmatite Steel Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 846, explained. Reduced Xote. See In In re Hoabe & Co., Ld. and C. A. [19041 W.N. 123; [1904] 2 Ch, 208 Ld. and Reduced. See Xo. 7, above. re Hoare S) Co., Neville, J. [1910] W. N. 87. 20. — Scheme — lUegalitij — Xuminal reduc- tion — Actual increase — Issue of capital at » discuu nt. A CO. passed a resolution to reduce its capital by cancelling a class of 12. deferred shares in the nature of founders' shares upon the terms of an agreement that the deferred shareholders should consent to the cancellation, and, as soon as the reduction was confirmed, the capital should be increased, and each deferred shareholder should receive 100 12. ordinary shares, part thereof, in exchange for each 12. deferred share. The agree- ment was conditional on the co. obtaining an order confirming the reduction. The petition for the confirmatory order was supported by all the shareholders. There were practically no creditors, the only debts being a small sum for current expenses : — Held, that as the reduction scheme in its entirety really involved an increase of capital, and an issue of part thereof at 99 per cent, dis- count without any consideration to the co. it was wholly illegal, and the reduction could not be confirmed. t3 ( -'i^ ) DIGEST OF CASES, 19iu]— 1«10. ( 530 3 COMPANY (Keduition of Ca,^ita.iy~cotdiinied. Srifkli and Americaii Trintie awl F'maiiee- (ui-poi'afioii V. Oiii/irr, [1S94] A. G. 399, distin- guished. /« rd Development Co. ot Ckntkal AND West Africa - Swinfen Eady J. [1002] W. N, 87 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 647 §1. — Sehenie of afyangement i nrolring ivdilct'am of rapital — Whidiiiff-uj) (i-oUintarij') — Joint Stock Companies Arvaiigement Act, 1870 {33 Si' U Tu-t. c. 104). Where a scheme of arraugement involves a reduction of capital the reduction should be carried out in accordance with the statutes specially dealing with reduction of capital, and the Court directed the petition to stand over with liberty to amend by intituling it also in tlie matter of the Companies Acts, 1867 and 1877. The Court also gave liberty to the liquidator to call such meetings of shareholders as he might be advised to call. In re GooPEE, GooPEE & Johnson, Ld. Byrne J. [1902] W. N. 199 — Special resolution — Coiifirmatiou by Court. See Company — Memorandum. 2. — Trustees — Investment — Breach of trust. See Trustee — Investments. 2. Eegister. 1. — Copies, Bight to take — Tteyiste.r of menibers — Inspection — Companies Act, 1862 (25 cj- 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 32. The right conferred by s. 32 of the Companies Act, 1862, to inspect the register of members of a CO. under that Act, does not carry with it the right to take extiacts from or to make copies of the entries in the register. Boord V. African Consolidated Land and Irading Co., [1898] 1 Ch. 596, overruled. In re Balagh.^t Gold IiIining Co. C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 665 — Debentures — fiegistration. See under Company — Debentures. 2. — Ratification — Register of dehentiires — Practice — Companies Act, 1899 (63 4" 64 Viet, c. 48), .58. 14, 15. Motion, eic parte, for leave ti> file the co.'s debentures with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, notwithstanding the twenty-one day^ within which the same should have been done under s. 14 of tlie Companies Act, 1900, had expired. It appeared that the matter had not been assigned to any judge. Farwell J. : The motion of summons should be assigned by ballot to a particular judge by an application to the Central Office in the usual way. The present application must stand over until that has been done, and the affidavit will have to be re-sworn. In re LEGAL and General Investment Co. Farwell J. [1901] W. N. 72 3. — Rectification — Transfer — Xame of partnership firm — "-Person" — Companies (^Con- solidation') Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69), s. 32. Motion by Thomas Blair and William Blair Girling (who carried on business as solicitors in partnership), asking that the register of members of this eo. might be rectified by iCntering their names thereon in respect of 2.50 fully j)aid shares in the capital of the co. now COMPANY (BM^iter)— continued. registered in the name of Mrs. Coak-on. The applicant?, nerc the holders of a transfer of the shares in question from Mrs. Cookson. The transferees were expressed upon the face of the transfer to be Messrs. Blair & W. B. Girling, and it purported to be executed by "Blair & W. B. Girling " (the firm name) as transferees. The CO. had refused to register the transfer' on the ground that they were not bound to enter the name of a firm on the register, except by naming the members. Joyce J. said that the application failed upon the short ground that the applicants' firm was not a " person." A firm was not a " person " nor a legal entity at all. He referred to Palmer's Company Law (6th ed.), p. 1, and to the observations of Farwell L.J. in Sadler v. Whiteman, [1910] 1 K. B. 868, atp. 889, and said that in English law a firm was not a " person." If the applicants were right in their contention then " Smith & Co." might be registered, and if so, why not a cricket club ? The application failed. In re Vagliano Antheacitb Col- LIEEIES, Ld. Joyce J. [1910] W. N. 187 4. — Restoration of name to register, Petition, for — Jurisdiction — Comjmnies Act, 1880, (43 <^ 44 Vict. c. 19). Petition praying that the name of the above CO. might be restored to the register of joint stock cos. The Board of Trade stated that in a similar case Buckley J. had entertained some doubt whether the application ought not to be made to Wright J. as being the judge to whom co. business is assigned. Other judges of the Gh. Div. had, however, previously made orders on similar petitions. Kekewich J. made the order. In re Chaco (Paeaguay) Land Co. Kekewich J. [1901] W. N. 124 — Shares. Sec under Company' — Shares. Begister of Members. 1- — Rsctificdtion — Deceased memier — S.reciitors, whether to he described as such in register — Order of entry of names— Companies Act, 1862 (25 S' 26 Vict', c. 89), «.?. 25, 30, 35. The articles of association of a co. provided (art. 13) that the co. should not be bound by nor recognize any equitable, contingent, future, or partial interest in any share, nor (except only as by its regulations otherwise expressly provided) any right or trust in respect of a share other than an absolute right thereto in accord- ance with its regjulations, in the persons from time to time registered as the holders thereof ; (art. 14) that every member should be entitled to a certificate under the seal of the co. specify- ing the share or shares held by him, and the amount paid up thereon ; (art. 24) that the executors or administrators of a deceased member, not being one of several joint owners, should be the only persons recognized by the co. as having any title to his share or shares ; (art. 25) that any person becoming entitled to a share in consequence of the death of any member, or by any lawful means other than by ( ^"1 ) DIGEST OK CASKS, Ifldl— 1910, ( ) COMPANY (Register of Members) — conthuictJ. an ordinary transfer, might be registered as a member upon sueh evidence of title being pro- duced as might from time to time be required by the directors ; and (art. 26) that any person who had become entitled to a share in conse- quence of the death of any member might, instead of being registered himself, elect to have some pei-son, to be named by him, registered as a transferee of such shaies. M. was the registered holder of shares of the CO. Upon his death his executors requested the CO. to register Ihem as members in respect of the shares formerly held by him. The co. refused to register the executors in the co.'s books other- wise than in their representative capacity and as being the parties entitled to legally transfer the shares held by the deceased. On an application by the executors to rectify the register: : — Held, that applicants were entitled to have their names entered on the co.'s register, without any statement that they held the shares in a representative capacity, and to have them inserted in such order as they chose. In re T. H. Saunders & Co. - Warrington J. fieOS] W. N. 29 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 415 2. — Rectification of register — Numerous shareholders — Ex parte application — Companies Act, 1862 (25 4- 26 Vict, c 89), s. 35. Application made by the co. by originating motion, ex parte, asking that the register of members might be rectified by removing there- from the names of 1026 persons named in the schedule to the notice in respect of about 48,000 shares in the co., on the ground that they had been induced to take the shares by mis- representations contained in a prospectus issued by the co. Buckley J. made an order that the register of members of the co. should be rectified by remov- ing therefrom the names of the persons slated in the schedule in respect of the shares respectively held by them, and that the co. should pay to such shareholders respectively the sums paid by them to the CO. in respect of their shares, except in those cases in which it appeared by the evidence that such sums had already been paid. The order to lie in the registrar's office for three weeks, and notice in writing to be sent personally or by post to each of the several shareholders, such notice to state that an order had been made rectifying the register by striking his name out and for payment (when payment ordered) of the amount (naming it) ordered to be paid to him, and that such order was not to be delivered out of the registrar's office for three weeks from the date thereof, and that in the meantime he was at liberty to apply to the Court in case he objected to the same — with liberty to apply. In re London Blecteo- Bus Co. - Buckley J. [1906] W. N, 147 Begistration. ■ — Debentures. See under Company— Debentures. — Fees — Preliminary expenses— Payment by promoter. See CoMPAur— Costs. 2. — Mortgages. See under Company— Mortgages. COMPANY (Registration) —coiitinunl. — Shares. Sci' under Company — Shares. — Trade mark. 5«e -under Tkadb Makk. Resolution. — Directors — Powers— Eesolution by a simple majority of shareholders for sale of undertaking — Refusal of directors. See Company — Directors. 14. — Director.s — Purchase — Effect of resolution by insufficient quorum. See Canada— Company. 1. — Return of Capital. See under Company — Return of Capital. Return of Capital. 1. — Itettirn of capital — Income or capital — Tenant for life and remainderman — Special resolution — Retrospectite and prospectlre effect — Companies Act, 1880 (4.S Vict. c. 19), ss. 3, 4, 5. A testator gave his residuary real and personal estate to trustees upon trust for certain persons for life, with remainders over. His estate com- prised fully-paid shares in the S. Co. In each year from 1894 to 1896, the company returned to its shareholders out of profits avail- able for dividends a part of the capital paid up on their shares, increasing the unpaid capital by the same amount. These returns purported to be made under the Companies Act, 1880, but no special resolution was passed until 1905. In that year a special resolution was passed that 7s. 6d. per share should be so returned in that year, that all similar returns in past years should be confirmed and that the directors should be authorized to make similar returns in the future : — Held, that the special resolution was invalid so far as it purported to have a retrospective or prospective effect, and valid only so far as con- cerned the return made in 1905 ; and that the rule to be inferred from Bowch v. Sproule, (1887) 12 App. Cas. 385, and other cases is that a tenant for life is entitled to all payments made out of profits in respect of share.s in a co. except such as have been validly capitalized by the CO. All the returns except the 7s. M. per share in 1905 were therefore payable as income to the tenants for life. In re PlEKCY. WhitwhAM r. PiERGY Neville J. [1906] W. N. 227 ; [1907] 1 Cb. 289 2. — Return of capital to he called up again — Some shares fully paid — Return on fully-paid shares only — CompaKies (^Consolidation) Act, 1908 (8 Hdw. 7, c. 69) s. 40, sub-s. 1. The deft. co. had au issued capital of 40,000 preference shares of 51. each fully paid and 60,000 ordinary shares of 51. each, of which 6047 were fully paid and the residue were only paid to the extent of 11. a share. By the articles of association dividends were paid in proportion to the amount paid up on the shares. The co. had paid dividends of 10 per cent, on the amounts paid up on the ordinary shares and had accumulated a very large reserve fund consisting C 553 ) DiaKST OF CASES. 1901—1910. ( 55i ) COMPANY (Return of Cuv^tal)— emit hi mil vi iiu'livided profits. A special resolutiijii was duly passed and coufij-med " That out o£ the accumulated profits ot the comiiauy the sum of il. per share be paid to the holders of 60i7 fully paid ordinary shares of the company by way of reduction of capital pursuant to s. 40 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908 " : — Held, that that section could not be construed as only authorizing the return of capital to the whole class of shareholders among whom the accumulated profits were divisible, and therefore the resolution was not ultra vires. Nbalb v. City of Birmingham Tramways Co Swinlen Eady J. [1910] W. N. 175 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 464 Sale. — Directors— Management — Kesolution of share- holders for sale of undertakine. Sec Company — Directors. 14. — Property in jeopardy — Immediate sale— Form of order. ,y(v COMP AX Y— Debentures. 22. Satisiactiou. f'linijm/iies Act, 1900— Mciiinmiidum of xatis- fuctioii of mortgage or charge. Rejnint fronn W. N. 1906 (March 10), p. 69. See Cueeent Index, 190S, p. Ixvii. COMPANY (Secretary) - coiifiminL transferor had no shares to transfer, and that the action would not lie. Grant v. .Xnrwai/, (1851) 10 C. B. 665, approved. Observations upon "the doctrine of estoppel by representation. George Whitechuech, Ld. V. CAVANAGH H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 117 Mte. Applied by Swinfen Eady J., Porter v. JIiHire. [1904] 2 Ch. 367. JSstojipel. 5. — Receipt; — Authority to bind company. See Company — Shares. 4. — Share certificate fraudulently issued by secre- tary — Forgery — Estoppel. Sec Company — Forgery. 2. Servants. — Libel by servant of c irporation — Liability of company for malicious libel. See Ne\V South Wales. 1. — Secretary. See under Company— — Secretary. -yntice — sceretiirg if tivu companies — 09ie character — Presninptloii of JE.rchaiuje 48. 49, 50, Secretary. 1. — Bill of exchauge — Dishonom I'ersiin acting Kninoleilge in notice in other character — Jiills nf Act, 1882 (45 A- 46 Vict, c 61), .sj. isuh-s. 2 (J). Where a man acts as secretary of two cos., it is not true as a general proposition that a fact which comes to his knowledge as secretary of one CO. is notice to him as secretary of the other CO. from the mere existence of the common re- lationship. In order to make it notice, it must be shewn that it was his duty to the first co. to communicate his knowledge to the second co. In re Fenwick, Stobaet & Co., Ld. Deep Sea Fishery Co.'s (Ld.) Claim - Buckley J. [1902] W. N. 33 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 507 2. — Principal and agent — lieprexcntntiiuis — Shares — Ccrtifcation of transfer — Estiqjpel. In permittiing its secretary to certify transfers of shares, a co. does not authorize the secretary to do more than give a receipt for certificates of shares which are actually lodged in the office. If the secretary gives a receipt or an acknow- ledgment for certificates which have not been lodged, the co. is not estopped from setting up the true facts. Transfers of shares in a co. having been lodged with the co.'s secretary without the certi- ficates for the shares, the secretary fraudulently certified upon the transfers that the certificates for the shares were in the co.'s office. The pro- posed transferee having brought an action against the co, for refusing to register him as the owner : — Held (Loril Robertson doubting), that tlie eo. was not estopped from shewing that the proposed 3. — Voluutarg litjuidntion — Agreement of seriice — JResulution to wind up — Dismissal of sen-ant— Comjiiiiiie.1 Act, 1862 (25 cf' 26 Vict. c. 89), s 131. A resolution fur the voluntary winding-up of a limited co. does not operate as a notice of discharge to the servants of the co. Sheriff's Case, (1872) L. E. 14 Eq. 417. examined and distinguished on this point. Mid- land Counties 'District Bank, Ld. r. Attwood Warrington J. [1905] W. N. 6; [1905] ICh. 357 Shares. (Shareholders and Shares). 1. — Action to rescind cuntract for shares — Unpaid calls — yntice to forfeit shares — Interim injunction restraininq forfeiture. On Mar. 31, 1910, the pit. applied for 100 shares in the deft. co. upon the faith of the representations set out in a prospectus issued by the deft. co. on Mar. 24, 1910. On April 2 80 shares of 11. each were allotted to him, in respect of which he paid 60^. On Aug. 17 he gave notice to the co. rescinding his contract to take the shares on the ground of misrepresenta- tion in the prospectus. On Oct. 4 the co. sent to the shareholders, including the pit., notice requu'ing them to pay the balance due upon their shares. On Oct. 8 the pit. issued a writ against the co. claiming (inter alia) (1.) a declai-ation that the pit . was induced to take the shares by misrepresentations and non-disclosure of material facts : (2.) rescission of the contract to take the shares, and (3.) repayment of the amount paid for the shares with interest. On Nov. 1 the deft. co. gave notice to the pit. that if the unpaid call on his shares was not paid^ by Nov. 17 the shares would be liable to be forfeited . On Nov. 7 the pit. applied to Lush J. at chamliers for an injunction restraining the deft. CO. fi'om making any call in respect of the shares registered in the plt.'s name, and also from ( ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 55i; ) COMPANY (Shares)— cy/rfirt«e,/. forfeiting tlie shares pending the ti'ial ot tliis action. Lush J. dismissed the application. The Court (Buckley L.J. and Kennedy L.J.) allowed the appeal and granted the injunction asked for, the pit. consenting to pay the money into Court. Buckley L.J. stated that he did not agree with the -view expressed by Chitty J. in Mlpley V. Papftr Bottle Co., (1887) 57 L. J. (Ch.) 327, Jones r. Pacaya Rubber and Produce Co., Ld. C. a. [1910] W. N. 257 8. — Actum to ivxciiitl eoivtract for shares — Unpaid colli — Xotice to forfeit shares — Interim infiDWtioii restrainiiuj forfeiture — Pai/ment intn Court — Prafficf. Where in an action to rescind a contract to take shares the co. have given notice to forfeit the shares for non-payment of calls, the Court will, on the pit. giving the usual uudertakiug in damages and paying into Court the amount of the call with interest, restrain the co. from forfeiting the shares until tlie trial of the action. Ripley V. Paper Bottle Co., (1887) ."i7 L. J. (Ch.) 327, not followed. Lamb c. Sambas EXJBBBR AND GUTTA PERCHA Co., Ld. Neville J. [1908] W. N. 83 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 845 — Allotment. See under Company — Allotment. 3. — BanJtruptey of member — Claim to lien under articles for iankrupt's liabilities to com- pany — Trustee's right to registration and share certificate not referring to claim — BectificatUm of register — Companies Act, 1862 (25 .^' 26 Vict, c. 89), ss. 25, 30, 35 ; Sched. I., lable A, clauses 2, 13. Where a shareholder of a co. become i bank- rupt and the transmission clause in its articles of association is in the form of clause 13 of Table A in the 1st schedule to the Companies Act, 1862, the trustee is entitled to be registered in'; respect of and to have a certificate of the shares, and the co. has no right to enter in the register of members or in his certificate any statement as to the co.'s claim under its articles to a lien on the shares for the liabilities of the bankrupt to the oo. The right of the trustee to clean registration may be enforced by motion for rectification of the register under s. 35 of the Act of 1862. In re W. KEY & SON, LD. - Byrne J. [1902] W. N. 16 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 467 — Banki'uptcy of shareholder — Proof in bank- ruptcy for liability in respect of future calls. See Company — Bankruptcy. 2. — Building society share certificates — Evidence — Delivery. See Donatio Mortis Causa. 1. 4. — CeHificate of shares — Negotiable instru- ment — Title, Prima facie evidence of — Stooh Exchange — Companies Act, 1862 (25 S; 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 31 — Transfer — Certification — Return of certificate to transfeivr— Mistake by company's secretary — Fra7td of transferor — Second trans- feree—Loss, Proximate c/iuse of—Safe custody of COMPANY (Shares)— co««««e. 7, aUve. 15. — Issue of shurex at ii diseount — Iss^ie of dehenturex at a dhroiint — (Jptioii to debenture- holders to talie full ij 2>aid shiire.s in crehange for debentures. A CO. proposed to is^uc' to its shareholders debentures at a discount of 20 per cent., repay- able on Nov. 1, 1909, upon the terms of a circular whereby the registered holder wa* to have the right at any time prior to May 1, 1909, to ■ exchange bis debentures for fully paid shares in the CO. at the rate of one 1?. fully paid share for every IZ. of the nominal amount of the deben- tures ; and by the conditions of the debentures, in the event of the debenture-holder given to the CO. a written demand for shares in exercise of this right, the principal moneys wore to become immediately repayable : — Seld (rever,sing the decision of Buckley J.), that the proposed issue of debentures was void, inasmuch as it was capable of being used as a means of issuing shares at a discount. Observation.s of Vaughan Williams L.J. as to paying for shares otherwise than in cash. MOSELY f . KOPFYFONTEIN MINES, LD. C. A. [1904] W. N. 117 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 108 — Lien on shares — Set-off against debts due from member — Winding-up. Sre iNDHSTEIAL . AND PROVIDENT SociETy. 5. — Mortgage of shares — Stipulation that mort- gagee shall be employed as broker by the company — Clog on redemption. See Mortgage — Bedemptlon. 5. — Power of sale — Chose in action — Shares in company. See Mortgage -Sale. 5. — Preference shares — Alteration of holders' rights. See COMPAmr — Memoraudum. 19. — Preference shares — Articles of association — Questions affecting class of shareholders. See Company — Practice. 5. — Preference share- — Dividend. See Company — Dividends. 5, 6. — Proxy. Shareholder only to be — Nomination only of unqualilii'd proxy — Disqualifi- cation removed before proxy is U'^cd. See India. 2. COMPANY (SUateay-ivnliniied. — Qualification shares — Holding shares ■' iri his own right." See Company — Directors. — Reconstruction of company — Concurrence of trustees — Management — Powers. See Trustee — Investments. 2. 16. — Rtetifieation of register — Form, of order — Special circumstances — Direction that companies Act, 1898 (61 4' 62 Viet. e. 26), s. 1 —Companies Act, 1900 (63 S,- 64 Met. c. 48), ss. 83, 36. Notwithstanding the repeal of s. 25 of the Companies Act, 1867, by s, 33 of the Companies Act, 1900, the Court has, in a case in which no contract as required by s. 25 has been filed with respect to shares issued before the repeal, power under s. 1 of the Companies Act, 1898, to give relief by ordering the filing of a contract or a memorandum in lieu of a contract, which shall ( 605 ) nrOEHT OF CAHE^, 19u]--lfJlO. ( ,'.;.; ) COMPANY (Shares) --K()«/i/iKY'r7. ijperatc: in ix'lation to the shares as if a cmilrart had been duly Sled before their issue. Whether, uolwithstauding s. 33 of the Act of 1900, s. 25 of the Act of 1867 has not still some operation as regards transactions to which it applied before the commencement of the Act of 1900, rpirfre. Form of memorandum ordered to be filed under s. 1 of the Companies Act, 1898. In re Bkutton & BUENEY, Ld. /« re Burney's New Ceoss Bkewekt Co., Ld. C. A. [1901] W. N. 37 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 637 18. — Shares paid for otherwise than in cash — Omission to file contract — Si(jnatorij to memo- randum — Suisequent agreement — (jnnjjunies Act, 1867 (30 .)'■ 31 Vict. c. 131), .s. 2ri~ Companies Act, 1898 (61 4'- 62 Vict. (■.26). .n. 1. Seven persons signed the memorandum of association of a co. formed for carrying on a business, for specified numbers of shares amount- ing in the aggregate to 750 shares. On Mar. 3, 1893, the CO. was incorporated. The total capital consisted of 1000 shares, of which 750 were men- tioned in the memorandum, and 118 had been issued and paid for in cash, leaving a balance of 132 shares. The memorandum and articles referred to an agreement between the signatories and the co. for the sale of the business to the CO., and this agreement was executed on Mar. 4, 1893. It referred to the 750 shares, and stated that they were to be fully paid shares. On Mar. 22 it was filed under the Companies Acts, and on April 15 the 750 shares were allotted to the signatories. The signatories were advised that they were liable to pay for the 750 shares in cash, and applied to the Court for liberty to file a memorandum stating that the shares were issued to them as part of the consideration for the assignment of the business : — Seld, that the 750 shares must be taken to have been issued at the date of the registration of the 00. ; that the fact that the shares were identified, in the sense that the parties intended the shares referred to in the agreement and allotted to the subscribers to be the same as those for whioh they signed the memorandum, was not sufSoient to enable the Court to allow a memorandum to be filed ; there was no co. in existence at the date of their signature, so there could not then be a contract to pay for these shares otherwise than in cash, and there could not be a subsequent contract for that purpose. In re F. W. .Tarns J)- Co., Ld., [1899] 1 Ch. 193, and In re Archibald D. Dawntiy, Ld,, [1900] W. N. 152, followed. In ro Whitehead ^- Brothers, [1900] 1 Ch. 804, distinguished, on the ground that in that case all the shares in the co. had been taken by the signatories. In re Ebenezee Timmins& Sons, LP. Buckley J. [1901] W. N. 238 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 838 — Subscription obtained by misrepresentation. See Company — Winding up — Con- tributory. 5. 19. — Surrender of shares — Invalidity — Release of shareholder's linhiUty—Bectification of register — Discretion of Court — Lapse of time — Limited company ~Comj>anics Act, 1862 (35 ,5- COMPANY ( Shares)— «/«/;«««/. 26 Mct.c. 89), .s». 26. 35. ; Sched. I.. Table A, clai'sc!, 20, 21. A surrender of shares in a limited co., the co. releasing the shareholder, from further liability in respect of the shares, is equivalent to a pur- chase of the shares by the co., and is therefore illegal and nnll and void on the principle of Trevor v. Whitworth, (1887) 12 App. Cas. 409. A surrender of shares which has the effect of reducing the co.'a capital can be supported only under circumstances which would have justified a forfeiture of the shares, the validity of for- feiture being recognized by s. 26 of the Com- panies Act, 1862, and by Table A to that Act, clauses 20, 21. Per Stirling L.J. . Teasdalgs Case, (1873) L. E. 9 Ch. 54, ought not to have been followed in Eichbanm v. City of Chicago Grain Eleraiors, [1891] 3 Ch. 459, inasmuch as the circumstances of the two cases differed in a material point. Senible, that Teasdalc's Case has been over- ruled by Trevor v. Whitivoi-th. Per Cozens- Hardy L.J. : A surrender of fully paid shares is unlawful, except under circum- stances which would justify a forfeiture. A surrender of shares. which is illegal and null and void having been made, the Court will, in an action by the surrenderor against the co., order the plt.'s name to be restored to the co.'s register in respect of the surrendered shares, even after the lapse of years, the shares not having been meanwhile reissued or otherwise dealt with by the 00. Decision of Kekewich J., [1901] W. N. Ill ; [1901] 2 Ch. 265, on the former point affii-med, and on the latter point reversed. Bkllerby ". EowL.iXD & Mabwood's Steamship Co. C. A. [1902] W. N. 93 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 14 20. — 'I'riiHxfcr — Slanli transfer — Mortgage — Filling in blank by mortgagee — Refusal to register — Imjilied obligation of transferor not to hinder registration — Derogatiim from grant— Damages. Upon a transfer for value of shares in a limited co. the transferor is under an implied obligation, arising from the relation of grantor and gi'antee constituted between the parlies by the transfer, not to prevent or delay the registra- tion of the transferee as owner of the shares. W. executed a transfer in blank of certain shares of a mining co. of which he was the registered owner, and handed over the blank transfer and the share certificate to H. with authority to raise money upon them for H.'s own use. At H.'s request the pit. obtained from a bank a temporary loan to himself on the security of the blank transfer and share certifi- cate, and paid over the money to H. upon S. undertaking to repay the loan and authorising the transfer of the shares to the bank or their nominee in default of payment. Default having been made in payment by the pit. and by H., who absconded, the bank, with the plt.'s con- currence, filled in the plt.'s name in the blank transfer, and the pit. executed the transfer, under circumstances which precluded W. from asserting that the transfer was unauthorized. The transfer having been lodged at the co.'s ( ->«7 ) MGEOT OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 568 ) OOMPANY (Shares)— ey«?«merf. office for registration, W. put a stop on tlie I'egistratlon. The shares subsequently fell in yaiite !— Beld, that W. was under an implied obliga- tion to the pit. not to delay registration, and that the pit. as mortgagor had a sufficient interest in the shares to entitle him to claim damages for the breach of that obligation. HooPBB V. Herts C. A. [1906] W. N. 38 ■ [1906] 1 Ch. 549 21. — Transfer — Iiistijficient stamp — Refusal to register— BigM to go behind that ivhich appears in document — Stamp Act, 1891 (54 4'- 55 Vict. u. 39), 5. 11, sul)-s. 4 ; s. 17. A transfer to the pit. of shares in the deft. co. was presented for registration. The stamp on the transfer was in accordance with the consideration stated on the face of it, but it was discovered that the consideration so stated was less than that which had been given. The directors there- upon refused to register the transfer. In an action to recover damages arising out of the refusal : — Held, that since a transfer not duly stamped according to law would not, by reason of s. 14, sub-s. 4, of_ the Stamp Act, 1891, be available in a Court of law either to enforce rights of the CO. against the transferee, or to justify an altera- tion of the register of shareholders, the directors were entitled to refuse to register the transfer, and that in determining whether the transfer was duly stamped they were entitled to go behind that which appeared on the face of the document. Matnaed f. Coneolidated Kent Collieries Corporation, Ld. C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 121 22. — Traiufer — Registration — Transfer in Hank — Eqidtahle moHgage of shares — Notice — Priority. On Mar. 4, 1901, I. executed to the deft. H. as security for a loan a transfer in blank of certain shares in a co. , which were registered in his name, but which he held as trustee for his wife, the pit. H. had no notice of the plt.'s title to the shares. On Nov. 23, 1901, H., having filled up the blank transfer in his own name, left it, together with the certificate, at the co.'s office for registration. On Nov. 26 the managing director of the co. had an interview with I. with reference to the transfer, tlic amount of the con- sideration, as filled in, not appearing to be the full value of the shares, and I. informed him that H. was not entitled to have the shares registered in his name, and requested the co. to delay registration. On Nov. 27 the directors held a meeting at which the managing director stated what had occurred between I. and him- self. The transfer was not formally before the meeting, no resolution was passed with reference to it, and it was not registered. On the same day the pit. brought an action against H. and I. and the co., claiming the shares, and obtained an interim injunction restraining the transfer. The CO. were not served with the writ until after the meeting of the 27th, and they had had no previous notice of the plt.'s title. Upon the trial of the action : — Held, on the authority of Societ'e tiinh-tde de \ COMPANY (Shares) -eo«ihrw2?tci/ — Articles of as.ioeiatiun — Repuc/- iiancy — Rule agaiiut perpetuity — Fraud on lianltruptcy laic — Companies Act, 1862 (25 3i' 26 Virt. c. 89), s. 16. Provisions in a co.'s artiidcs of association compelling a shareholder at any time during the continuance of the co. to transfer his shares to particular persons at a particular price are not void as being repugnant to absolute ownership, or as tending to perpetuity. There is nothing obnoxious to the bankruptcy law in articles which bona fide provide that a shareholder shall, in the event of his bank- ruptcy, sell his shares to particular persons at a particular price, which is fixed for all persons alike, and is not shewn to be less than the fair price which might otherwise be obtained. A share in a co. cannot properly be likened to a sum of money settled upon and subject ti j executory limitations to arise in the future ; it is rather to be regarded as the interest of the share- holder in the CO., measured, for tlie purposes of liability and dividend, by a sum of money, but consisting of a series of mutual covenants entered into by all the shareholders inter se in accordance with s. 16 of the Companies Act, 1862, and made up of various rights and lia- bilities contained in the contract, including the right to a certain sum of money. The rule against perpetuity has no applica- tion to personal contracts. Borland's Trustee ( . Steel Brothers &; Co. Farwell J. [1901] 1 Ch. 279 25. — Transfer of shares — Rectification of rer/ister — Refiisal to register — " Vsnal coinmim form " — Address of transferor — Bisfingvi^hinf/ numler of shares. Directors cannot under articles of a co. which provide that any member may transfer his shares, " but every transfer must be in writing and in the usual common form," refuse to register a transfer because it omits particulars which would be found in a common form but are in the cir- cumstances immaterial. In re Lktheby & Oheistophbe, Ld. Buckley J. [1904] W. N, 89 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 815 26. — Transfer of shares — Register of members — Xon-registration — '■•Default or unnecessary delay^^ in registration — Accidental mistalie — Reconstruction of cooiptDig — Voluntary liquida- tion — Unregistered sliareliolder — Dissent from resolutions, Notice of — Reciificntion of register — Registration oiunc pro tune, Order for — Refro- specti'ce registration — Rii/hts of third parties. Protection of— Companies Act, 1862 (25 , 98,131, 161. The power given to the Court by s. 35 of the COMPANY (Shares) -continued. Companies Act, 1862, of rectifyiui' tlic register of members of a limited co. i^ exercisable in any of the cases therein mentioned, whether a co. is in liquidation or not ; and, acccordi ugly, in a liquidation the power is not, by s. 98, limited to rectification for the purpose fjf settling the list of eontributories. In ordering rectification of the registei' under s. 3.5, whether the co. is in liquidation or not, the Court has power, in a proper ca-e, to fix a parti- cular date at which the registration shall become operative, even to the extent of making it retro- spective ; but subject, if necessary, to conditions protecting tlie rights of third persons. The transferee of shares in a limited co. sent in his transfer to the co. for registration in the usual course, but by mistake or oversight I'egis- tration of the transfer was omitted. Subse- quently the CO. passed resolutions for a volunt.ary winding-up with a ^icw to reconstruction, where- upon the transferee, in the belief that his transfer had been registered, and purporting to act under s. 161 of tlie Companies Act, 1862, served the liquidator with notice of dissent, which, how- ever, the liquidator disregarded on the ground that the transferee was not a ■■member" of the CO. as required by tlie ■-cction. Upon an applica- tion by the transferee, irnder 5. 35. for recti- fication of the register so a-< to render his notice of dissent effectual : — Held, by the C. A. (varying aii order of Buckley J.), that there had been such "default or unnecessarj' delay " in i-egistration as entitled the applicant to an order for rectification by entering his name on the register as on a day prior to the passing of the winding-up resolutions : — Held, also, that the order did not invalidate the notices to registered members by which the meetings for a voluntary liquidation had been called, and would not, in the eircurastanees, work any injustice to other members of the co. Xof ion's C'rt.-.-^, (1866)L.H. 3 Eq. 77. Brecken- riJi/e-s Case, (1865) 2 H. & JI. 642. and Reese Ri'rer Silver Mining Co. \. Smith, (1869) L. K. 4 H. L. 6-t. SO, applied. In re SUSSEX BRICK Co. C. A. [1904] W. N. 38 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 598 27. — Transfer to infant nominee — Wiitdiiig- up — Cmvtrihutories. At the commencement of the voluntary winding-up of a co., in 1893, S. was the registered holder of twenty shares therein, which in April, 1894, he transferred to L. The liquidator, in pursuance of the power given to him by s. 131 of the Companies Act, 1S62, sanctioned the transfer and entered the name . of L. as holder of the shares in the register of vnembei^s. In May, 1894, L. transferred the shares, with the sanction of the liquidator, to D. , who after a time was registered as holder of the shares. The shares were part of a batch of shares purchased from S. by M. and G. (stockbrokers) on the market with a view to a re-^ale, and L., who was their nominee, was a clerk in their employ- ment, and was an infant at the times of the transfers to and by him. D. was also an infant when he became transferee, and this fact was known to the liquidator in 1896, if not earlier. In 1906, after calls had been made on the ( "''1 ) DIGEST OK CASES, 1901— ISUO. ( ) COMPANY (Shares') —eotttiimed. shares, but not paid, the liquidator applied that the names of-M, and G. might be substituted for that of D. in the register of members and the list of eontributories ; — Held, that, as there was no contractual rela- tion, in respect of the shares, between the oo. and M. and G., the principle of King'x Case, (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. 196, applied, and M. and G. could not be placed on the register or list. Piigh and Sharman's Case, (1872) L. E. 13 Eq. 566, and Richardson's due, (1875) L. li. 19 Eq. 588, distinguished. Semble, that any equity which the liquida- tor might have had against L., by reason of the transfer by him to an infant, was abrogated by the laches of the liquidator. In re NATIONAL Bank op -Wales, Ld. Massby and Gifpin's Case Parker J. [1907] 1 Ch. 682 28. — Votinfi — Agreement to vote in ii par- ticular way — Executors — Directors. Executors holding shares in a co. agreed to sell part of them to G., who stipulated that as part of the transaction he should nominate X. and "W. aa directors, and that the executors should, when either X. or W. should retire by rotation, vote for and not against his re-election. The agreement extended to shares whether held by the executors in that capacity or in their own personal capacity. W. was about to retire by rotation, and some of the executors threatened to oppose his re-election : — Held, that the agreement was valid as re- garded shares held by the executors, either as such or as directors, and that on W. undertalcing to retire, if required by the Court, at the ordinary meeting next after the trial, an injunction must be granted until the trial restraining such of the executors as threatened to do so from voting against the re-election of W. on his retirement by rotation. Gbeenwbll v. Portee Swinfen Eady J. [1902] W. N. 19 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 530 — Will — General legacy — Gift of shares — Change in value of shares — ^Will speak- ing from death — Contrary intention. jSee Will — Company. 1. — Wrongful sale of shares — Stockbroker — Measure of damages. See under STOCK Exchange. Stamps. — Capital of company — " Increase of registered capital." See Ebvbntje — Stamps. 2. — Consolidation of debenture stock— Issue of loan capital — Stamp duty. See Reybnub — Stamps. 3. — Conveyance on sale — Dissolution of company and reincorporation by same Act — Vesting of property of old company in new. See Revenue — Stamps. 8. . — Double duty — Transfer of powers, liabilities and immunities to another railway com- pany — Stamp duty. See Revenue — Stamps. 6. COMPANY (Stamps) — coiitiiiitcd. — " Receipt" — "Discharge" — Acknowledgment that debenture stock has been redeemed, paid off, and satisfied. See Revenue — Stamps. 25. — Stamp duty — ^Debenture stock. Consolidation of — Issue of loan capital. 3. See Revenue— Stamps. — Stamp duty — Trust deed for securing deben- ture stock — " Mortgage." *e Revenue— Stamps. 27. Staying Proceedings. 1. — Company — Arrangement with creditors — Judgment — Staying proceedinqs — Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69), s. 120 — St7:^ ) COMFASY—cviithitied. Vesting Orders. 1. — C'ordntct to sell assets — Leaseholds — Omission to assign — Disselution of company — Appointment of new trustee — Vesting order — Trustee Act, 1893 (56 ^- 57 Viet. c. 53), s. 25, sub-s. 1, and s. 26. By an assignment of Sept. 18fl0, leaseholds became Tested in a limited oo. for the residue of a term of ninety-nine years. In 1896 this co. went into voluntary liquidation, and its assets were transferred to a new co. ; the purchase- money was paid, the new co. was let into possession, but by inadvertence no assignment of the leaseholds was executed. The old co. having become automatically dissolved under s. 143 of the Companies Act, 1862, a petition was now presented by the new co. under the Trustee Act, 1893, asking for the appointment of a named person, pursuant to s. 25, to be a trustee of the leaseholds in the place of the old co., and for a vesting order : — Held, that, as it was clearly expedient to appoint a new trustee, tlie Court was justified in making the order asked for by the petition. In re Taylor's Aijreenient Trusts, [1904] 2 Ch. 737, distinguished. In re No. 9, Bomore Road Warrington J. [1906] W. N. 16 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 359 2. — Contracts to sell assets — Letters patent — Omission to assign ttefore d'lssoJiftion — Vesting order — Hegistrution — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 142, li?,— Trustee Act, 1893 (56 .J- 57 Vict. c. 53),«.?. 25, i^— Patents, Designs, and Trade Marls Act, 1883 (46 ,?■ 47 Vict. c. 57), ss. 23, 87, QQ— Winding-up. Further hearing of a case noted [1904] W. N. 99, suh mjm. In re Niger Patent Elastic ISnamel Co. where the facts are stated. The liquidators of a CO. had agreed to sell to a purchaser letters patent of which the co. was the registered owner, but the 00. was dissolved without any assignment having been esecuted. The purcliaser, who was unable to get himself registered as proprietor of the letters patent, presented a petition asking for an order under s. 35 of the Trustee Act, 1893, vesting them in him. Buckley J. declined to make the oider, and directed that the petition should stand over with liberty to serve it on the Crown, which was done. Held, that when the co. was dissolved the legal interest in the letters patent, if it vested anywhere, vested in the Crown, and that in that case, although the Crown did not act as trustee, it could not be said within s. 35 of the Trustee Act, 1893, that the trustee " could not be found " ; if the legal interest did not vest in the Grown there was no trustee, and again it could not be that the trustee " could not be found " ; beciiuse there being no trustee it could not be predicated of him that he " could not be found " ; therefore a vesting order could not be made under s. 35. I7ire General AcaideM Assurance Corpora- tion, [1904] 1 Ch. 147, not followed. Held, further, that a new trustee could not be appointed under s. 25 of the Trustee Act, 1893 ; and that tbe consent of the Att.-Gen. would not give the Ccurt jurisdiction. Qntere, whether the patent had not merged as DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 574 ) COMPANY (Vesting Orders) — continued. soon as the legal interest vested in the Crown if it did so vest. In re Tayloe's Aobebment Teut s Buckley J. [1904] W.N. 120; [1904] 2 Ch. 737 Xote. Not followed by Farwell J., In re Richard Milh S,- Co. iBrierly Hilly, Ld., [1905] W. N. 36 See next Case. Distinguished by Warrington J., In re No. 9, Bomore Boad, [19n()] 1 Ch. 359. See No. 1, above. 3. — Eqiiitalile mortgage of freeholds and copy- hold.^ — Judgment in dehenture-holder' s action — Winding-up of coinpang — Sale — Dissolution of company before completion of sale — Trustee — Vestitig order— Trustee Act, 1893 (56 ^- 57 Vict, c. 5.3), ss. 26, 35. This CO. was incorporated early in 1902 under the Companies Acts to purchase and work certain collieries, which on Feb. 7, 1902, were conveyed to it, and' the co. thus acquired the legal estate in fee simple in some freeholds and an equitable interest in some copyholds, together with the benefit of a covenant to surrender the copyholds by the trustees of one Glaze (a former owner and admitted tenant in fee of the copyholds) to W. Mills (one of the vendors of the co. ). On the same Feb. 7, 1902, the co. issued to the pits. Smith and Walker debentures which operated as an equit- able mortgage of the said freeholds and copyholds as security for 1,000Z. and interest, there being no trust deed. The oo. proved a failure and became hopelessly insolvent, and in July, 1902, the pits, commenced this action to enforce their deben- tures. On Aug. 1, 1902, on motion by the pits for a receiver, the co. appeared, and consented to a receiver and to the usual judgment in a deben- ture-holder's action. In Nov. 1902, the oo. went into liquidation, and on Feb. 17, 1903, the liqui- dator published in the Gazette the usual notice of the last meeting of the co. pureuant to s. 142 of the Companies Act, 1862, and in due com-se the CO. was dissolved. In July, 1903, the master made his certificate in the action. On Oct. 24, 1904, the pits, took out a summons in the action for an order '( 1 .) to confirm a conditional contract entered into on Oct. 18, 1904, by the receiver for the sale of the said freeholds and copyholds to a pur- chaser ; and (2.) for a declaration that the co. was a trustee of the said premises, and that the premises on payment of the purchase-money might vest in the purchaser for the estate of the CO. therein. This summons was served on the solicitors on'the record for the co., who did not appear thereto. On Oct. 28 an order was made confirming the contract and directiiig it to be carried into effect ; and the rest of the summons was ordered to stand over. In Nov., the pur- chaser having paid her purchase-money, the summons was restored, but, in consequence of the conflicting decisions of Farwell J. in In re General Accident Assurance Corporation, [1904] 1 Ch. 147, and of Buckley J, in /;; re Taylor's Agree- ment Trusts, [1904] 2 Ch. 737, was adjourned into Court. Notice had not been given to the* Crown. Far«-ell J. On the fti'st' point I will follow In re Cniicc'.^ Mortgage, (}87\') L. E. 13 Bq. 26. ( 575 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 576 ) COMPANY (Vesting Orders) On the second point I will follow my own decision in In re General Accident Asswance Corporation. With great respect to Buckley J., I do not think the difficulty exists that he raises on the section. If you know where a trustee is, you can locate Mm. If you do not know where he is, then, •whether it is an individual or a co. that has been ■dissolved, it is the case of a trustee " who cannot he found." There will be an order vesting in the purchaser the freeholds and the right to sue on the covenant to surrender the copyholds ; but the order will not go until notice of it has been given to the Crown. In re Richaed Mills & Co. (Beibrly Hill), Ld. Smith ■». The ICom- PANY - - Farwell J. [1905] W. N. 36 4. — Sale of assets — Mortgage security — No legal transfer of security — Dissolution of company — Vesting order — Companies Act, 1862 (25 ^ 26 Vict. c. 89), s. U^— Trustee Act, 1893 (56 |- 57 Vict, c, 53), s. 26, «mJ-s. il. (e) ; s. 35, sui-s. 1, cl. ii. (c), and s. 36. When a limited liability co. goes into volun- tary liquidation for the purpose of carrying out a sale of its property and receives the full pur- chase consideration, and afterwards becomes automatically dissolved by virtue of s. US of the Companies Act, 1862, before the property has been legally conveyed to the purchaser, the Court will in a proper case make an order under the Trustee Act, 1893, vesting the property in the purchaser for all the estate of the co. therein at the date of its dissolution. In re Geneeal Accident Assiteance Coepoeatiojj, Ld. Parwell J. [1904] 1 Ch. 147 Mte. Not followed by Buckley J., In re Taylor's Agreement Trusts, [190i] 2 Ch. 737. See M. 2, aiove. Followed by Farwell J., In re Richard Mills ^' Co. (_Brierly HiU), Ld., [1905] W. N, 36. See preceding Case. 5. — Sale of Leaseholds — JS'o assignment by deed — Dissolution of company — Outstandinjj legal estate — Vesting order — Trustee Act, 1893 (56 ^ 57 Vict. V. 53), ss. 26, 35, 36, sul-s. 2. By deed dated April 13, 1899, M. assigned to a limited liability co.the premises No. 12, Cable Eoad, Hoylake, Cheshire, for the unexpired resi due of a term of ninety-nine years, by way of mortgage to Secure a sum of money advanced to him by the co. By a written contract dated May 10, 1900, and made between the General Accident Assurance Corporation, Ld., of the one part and the co. of the other part, the corporation for the considerations and on the terms therein mentioned agreed to purchase the business, pro- perty, and assets of the co. The contract pro- vided that the co. should go into voluntary liquidation ; that the co. and its liquidator should execute all such deeds as should be required for vesting in the corporation the business, property, and assets agreed to be sold ; and that until such vesting was completed the co. should stand possessed of the same in trust for the corpora- tion. In May, 1900, the co. went into voluntary liquidation, and its liquidator in due course received the purchase consideration and made over to the corporation the business, property, and COMPANY (Vesting Orders) — continued. assets of the co. ; but the mortgage of April 13, 1899, was not transferred by deed to the corpora- tion. On Dec. 9, 1901, the liquidator passed and filed his final accounts, so that at the expiration of three months therefrom the co. became auto- matically dissolved by virtue of s. 143 of the Companies Act, 1862. The corporation now presented a petition under the Trustee Act, 1893, and asked for an order, under ss. 26, 35, 36, sub-s. 2 of the Act, that the premises comprised in the mortgage of April 13, 1899, might vest in them for all the estate of the co. Farwell J. made the order. In re No. 12, Cable Road, Hoylake, Chbshiee Farwell J. [1904] W. N. 8 Veterinary Snrgeon. — • One man company — Unqualified person managing director — Injunction. See Veteeinaey Suegeon. 2. Voting. — Executors — Directors — Agreement to vote in a particular way. — ■ Meetings^Companies. Sje under COMPANY — Meetings, Water Company. See under Watee. Will. — Gift of shares — Change in value of shares-^ Will speaking from death. See Will — Company. 1. — • Will — Investment clause — Companies " in the United Kingdom." jSsf Will- Investments. 6, Winding-up. See under Company— Winding-up, COMPANY— WINDING-TTP.j Transfer of business under Companies ( Wind, ing-up) Act, 1890. Reprint from W. N. 1901 (Dec. 21) p. 355. See Cureent Index, 1901, p. Ixxvii. General rule pursuant to s. 26 of the Com- panies (Winding-up') Act, 1890 (53 ^ hi Vict, e. 63). Reprint from W. N. 1902 (Aug. 30), p. 229. See Cuerent Index, 1902, p. Ixxix. Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 ^ 5i Viet. c. 63), and the Companies (Winding-up) Rules, 1890 and 1891 — lAquidator's Statement of Account. Reprint from W. N. 1903 (Feb. 14), p. 62. See Cuebbnt Index, 1903, p. Ixx. Not E. — A copy of the Companies ( Winding-up) Rules, 1903, was given gratis to every subscriber to the entire series of the Law Reports for 1904 in respect of a subscriptio7i paid before the end of that year. Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 — Order as to fees — Order dated Dec. 2, 1903, made by the Lord Chg-ncellor with the concurrence of the ( WT ) DIGEST OF CASES. lUOl— 1910. ( 578 ) COMPANY— WINDINa-UP— co»rt« «aZ. Treasury as to fees under the Companies ( Winding- up) Act, 1890. Beprint from W. W. 1904 (Jan. 9), p. 5. See Cuekent Index, 1904, p. Ixxii. County Court (^England') Jurisdiction. The County Court (^Banliruptcy and Companies Winding-up') Jurisdiotion Order, Aug. 11, 1904. St. B. & 0. 1904, No. 1428, 1. 18. See Current Index, 1904, p. xc. Companies {Winding-up) Act, 1890. The Companies Acts, 1862 to 1900. JVew Dejiartment to he called the Companies Department. Appoint- ment of Comptroller, dated Oct. 31, 1904. Reprint from W. N. 1904 (Dec. 10), p. 329. See Curebnt Index, 1904, p. Ixxv. Companies (Winding-up) Rules, 1903 — Ttules dated March 13, 1906, amendimj the Compianies (Winding-up) Rules, 1903 — Rules 27a and 170(2). IDraft Rules dated Jan. 12, 1906— W. N. 1906 (Jan. 20), p. 45.1 Eeprint from W. N. 1906 (April 28), p. 121. See Current Index, 1906, p. Ixxyiii. Fees — Company — Winding-up — Supreme Court fees — Order dated July 31, 1908. Eeprint from W. N. 1908 (Oct. 24), p. 307. See Current Index, 1908, p. Ixxxv. Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69), co'ivsolidates the Companies Act, 1862, and the Acts amending it. Companies (^Windin^-ujy) Rules, 1909, and the Limited Parttterships (Winding-up) Rules, 1909. A copy of these Rules was presented gratis hy the Council to suiscribers to the entire series of the Law RepoHs, 1909, in the United Kingdom. These copies were delivered with the May Parts of the Law Reports. W. N. 1909 (April 24), p. 141. Rules of the Supreme Court — Procedure on application for confirmation iy the Court of the reduction of the capital of companies under tlie Companies (ConsolidatiorC) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69). Eeprint from W. N. 1909 (May 16), p. 183. See CURRENT Index, 1909, p. cliv. In General, col. 578. Advertisements, col. 579. Appeal, col. 579. Arrangements [Scheme of Arratigeineiit) . See under COMPANY — Arrangements. As.tets, col. 579. Assurance Company, col. 582. Rooks. See under Company — Books. Calls, col. 583. Committee of Inspection, col. 583. Contempt of Court, col. 583. Contrihutory , col. 584. Costs, col. 588. Debentures. See under Company — Debentures. Directors. See under CCMPAUy — Direotors. COMPANY— WINDING-UP— ctf/rf(«i(ef/. Discharge, col. 592. Dividends, col. 592. Esfamiitation, col. 594. Fees. See under Company — "Winding- up — Costs. Fraudulent Preference. See under Com- pany — WiNDiNa-up — Preference. Gratuities. See under COMPANY — Gratuities. Guanintee. See under Company — Guarantee. Insurance, Life. See under Insurance (Life). Interest. See under Company — Interest. Libel, col. 595. Liquidator, col. 595. , Meetings, col. 598. Memorandum and Articles of Associa- tion. See under COMPANY — Memo- randum. Mortgages, col. .JII9. Xame. See under Company — Name. Xon-conimence)nent, col. 599. Notice. See under Notice. Practice, col. 600. Preference, coZ. 611. Proof, col. 614. Receiver. See under Company — Receiver. Reconstruction, col. 616. Reduction of Capital. See under Com- pany — Reduction of Capital. Sale, col. 616. Scheme of Arrangements. See under Company — Arrangements. Secretary. See under Company — Secretary. Secured Creditor, col. 617. Shares. See under Company — Shares. Solicitors' Lien, col. 617. Supervision Orders, col. 617. Trade Same. See under Company — Name. Jjltra Vires, col. 617. Ve.iting Orders. See under Company — Vesting Orders. Volutitary Winding-up, col. 618. In General. — Attachment of debts — Garnishee order — " Companies liquidation account." See Attachment. ( "-'9 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 580 ) COMPANY— WINDING-TIP (In General)— cowid?. — Building society — Illegal company — Jurisdic- tion to wind up — Repeal of statute under which certified. See BrriLDiNG Society. 3. — Debentures — Eegistration — Extension of time — Protection of creditors. See Company — Debenturee. 37—45. — Fraudulent preference — Powers of committee See Inddstrial and Provident Society. 5. Advertisements. 1. — Petition, adrertisenent of — Error as to Hate for serving notAee of intention to appear — Compa?ites (^Winding-up') Rules, 1903, rr. 27 (3), 33, 200— iJ., Form 6. A petition for the winding-np of a co. was presented by the co. itself on June 8, 1906, and the day appointed for the hearing was June 26. The petition was advertised in the Gazette of June 15, and in a daily London newspaper of June 16. The note at the foot of each advertise- ment stated (in error) that notices of intention to appear on the hearing of the petition must be served not later than 6 p.m. on Jnne 18 (instead o£ June 2.5). Several persons gave notices, after June 18, of their intention to appear at the hearing. Held, that the mistake ought not to invalidate the proceedings, and a winding-up order made. In re Sa0l Moss & Sons, Ld. Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 142 — Practice. Appeal. ■See under Company — Winding-up — Practice. . Arrangements. (Scheme of Arrangement.) See under Company — Arrangements. Assets. — Absence of assets — Compulsory winding-up order. See Company — Winding-up — Prac- tice. 28. \. — Parliamentary company — Distribution .of ■ assets — Preference shares — Priority — Deficiency of capital — Undistributed, profits — Undeclared preferential dividends — -Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 ^' 9 Vict, c. 16), s. 120. Apart from some special provision in that behalf, preference shares in a parliamentary co. incorporated by a special Act that incorporates the Companies Clauses Acts have no priority as to capital. Preference shareholders in such a parlia- mentary CO. have no right or claim to their fixed preferential dividends, cumulative or non-cumu- lative, unless and until declared under s. 120 of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. Bond V. Barrow Scematlte Steel Co., [19021 1 Ch. 353, 362, applied. If the assets realized in a winding-up are insufficient to return the preference and ordinary COMPANY- WINDING-UP (Assets)— c(»?j<«ji««(i. capital in full, the preference shareholders can- not claim any arrears of undeclared preferential dividends out of undistributed profttS) but the whole assets must be distributed rateably among all the shareholders in proportion to their capital. In re Crichton's Oil Co.^ [1902] 2 Ch. 86, 95, applied. In re Accrinoton OORPOBAttON STBAit Tramways Co. Swiufen Eady J. [IdOd] 2 Ch. 4d Kdte. See iVo. i, beUw. 2. — Preference sharis^ Winding-up — Sur- plus assets — Preference on vepa^ment of capital — Rigkt to further share of siirplus — DistribtitioH according to nominal value df shares — Companies Act, 1862 (25 4> 26 Vict. c. 89), *. 13.3, sub-sa. 1, 10 — Companies (Consdliddtion) Act, 1908 (8 Edw.l, c. 69), s. 186. There is no general rule that where preference shareholders have a preference as to repayment of capital they can have no further share in surplus assets. The question depends on the construction of the memorandum and articles of association. But if these documents contain no provisions on the point, surplus assets must in a winding-up be divided amongst all the share- holders, ordinary and preference, in proportion to the nominal value of the shares. A CO. incorporated in 1884 had an issued capital of 28,222 ordinary and 26,905 preference shares of hi. each ; the preference shares were entitled to a cumulative preferential dividend of 10 per cent, out of "the divisible profits of the CO. in each year," and " a preferential right to be repaid the amount paid up thereon and interest out of the assets of the co. if the co. should be wound up." The co. never paid any dividend except in the year 1905, when they paid 3 per cent, on the preference shares. In 1900 the capital of the co. was reduced by writing down the ordinary shares to Is. per share. In 1908 the co.'s assets were sold for a sum sufficient to pay all their liabilities, repay the capital of both classes of shares, ar^d leave a large surplus : — Held, that the surplus was not divisible profits of the co. and the preference shareholders were not entitled to have it applied in payment of their cumulative dividends ; that they were entitled to have their capital repaid with interest at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum from the date of the winding-up order ; and that the surplus, after paying to the ordinaiy share- holders their reduced capital of Is. per share, must be divided among the preference and ordinary shareholders in proportion to the nominal value of their shares. In re EsPUELA Land & Cattle Co. ■ Swinfen Eady J. [1909] W. N. 142 ; [1909] 2 Oh. 187 3. — Surplus assets — Accwmulated profits — Capital— Arrears of preferential dividends — Direction to pay out of surplus assets — No dividends declared—To what extent arrears payable. A co.'s capital consisted of 5 per cent, cumulative preference shares and ordinary shares, the preference shares having priority both as to capital and dividend, and the U2 ( 681 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910, ( 682 ) COMPANY— ■WINDING-UP (Assets)— coni;«!Jci. preferential dividend being payable before any profits could be oamed to reserve. The articles provided that no dividend should be payable except out of profits, and that, in the event of the co. being wound up, the sur- plus divisible assets for the time being remaining " after paying the liabilities of the co." should be applied first in repaying the preference capital and " secondly in paying the arrears (if any) of the 5 per cent, preferential dividends thereon to the commencement of the winding- up." The remainder of the surplus assets was to belong to the ordinary shareholders. No dividends were ever declared, but the profits were accumulated until the co. was wound up : — Held, that the preferenoei shareholders were entitled to their arrears of preferential divi- dends, though not declared, but only to the extent of the accumulated profits, In re Criehton's Oil Co., [1901] 2 Ch. 184 ; C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 86, distinguished. In re W. J. Hall & Co. - Swiufen Eady J. [1909] W. N. 49; [1909] 1 Ch. 521 Kote. See next Cane. — Surplus assets — Company — Winding-up — Effect as to paying shares up. See Company — Bankruptcy. 2. 4, — ■" Sujydiix assets" — Loss of capital — Profits earned hefore uundhi^-ujj — Difidend not declared — jRigJits of preference and ordinary shareholders inter se. The capital of a trading co. consisted of lOZ. shares, preference and ordinary, all paid up in full, the former being entitled to a cumulative preferential dividend. The articles of associa- tion empowered the directors to set aside out of the profits such sums as they thought proper as a reserve fund. For some years the preferential dividend was paid, and then for three years the business was carried on at a loss, the result being a loss of capital to the amount of 4346Z. In the next year there was a profit of 167.5?. on the year's trading, but the directors did not declare a dividend or make any appropriation of that sum. The co. went into voluntary liquida- tion, the debts were all paid, and the capital to the extent of Tl. per share was returned to the shareholders. The sum of 1675Z. remained in the hands of the liquidator. Held, upon the construction of the articles, that the preference shareholders were not entitled to have this sum applied in paying them dividends for the four years in which they had received none, but that it must be divided as capital rateably among all the shareholders. Decision of Wright J. [1902] W. N. 113 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 184, affirmed. In re Br'idgeioater Aarigation Co. [1891] 1 Ch. 155, and jBishoj) v. Smyrna a7id Cassaba Ry. Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 265, considered and distinguished. In re Crichton's Oil Co. C. A. [1902] W. N. 85; [1902] 2 Ch. 86 Note. Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J. In re W. J. Hall ^' Co., [1909] 1 Ch, 521. See No. 3, ffjtove. COMPANY— WINDING-UP i&aseU)— continued. Applied by Swinfen Eady J., In re Acerington Corj}oration Steam Iraniways Co, [1909] 2 Ch. 40. See No. 1, above. 5. — Surplus assets — Preference shares — Revenue representing dividends nerer declared. In re Odessa Watekwoeks Co. Byrne J. [1897] W. N. 166 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 190, n. 6. — Two insolrent companies — Cross-claims — Adyjustment — Claim on debentures — Damages for misfeasance — Dividend. The F. Co. and the T. Co. were both in liquidation ; the F. Co. were creditors of the T. Co. for 5100Z. on debentures of the T. Co., and were also debtors to the T. Co. for 4323Z., the balance of a sum of 12,000Z., ordered to be paid to the T. Co. for misfeasance. There being no mutual credit, and consequently no set-off of these two debts, the question now raised was how the claim by the F, Co. for 5100Z. against the T. Co. was to be adjusted : — • Held, that in distributing the assets of the T. Co. the liquidator must treat the balance of the debt due from the F. Co. as paid, and must divide the resulting total assets of the T. Co. rateably among all the creditors of the T. Co., including the F. Co., the dividend due to the F. Co. being pro tan to retained in respect of the debt due from them, which must thus be satisfied before any dividend on the 5100Z. could be received by the F. Co. In re Leeds and Han ley Thbatees of Varieties, Ld. Buckley J. [1904] 2 Ch. 45 Assurance Company. See also under Insurance. — Assurance company (Life) — Liquidation — Transfer of contracts to another com- pany. See Insurance (Life). 18. 1. — Winding-up petition — Bond investment holder — " Contingent or pi'ospectire creditor" — Locus standi of petitioner — A.tsurance company — Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870 (33 4" 34 Vict. c. 61), .?.'. 2, 2\— Companies Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 50), «. 28 — Companies (^Consoli- dation) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69), s. 130, sub-s. Cii'.); s. 137, .mb-s. 1 (c) — Assurance Companies Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 49), ss. 1, 15, 34, .38. The owner of an investment bond issued by an assurance Co., who, upon making periodical payments to the CO., will at a future date become entitled to the payment of a certain sum of money, is -a, " contingent or prospective creditor " of the co. within the meaning of those words in s. 137 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, and can under that section petition for the winding up of the co. Semlle, such a bondholder will by virtue o£ ss. 1 and 34 of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909 (which comes into operation on July 1, 1910), be deemed to be a policy-holder for the purposes of s. 15 of that Act, which is not an enabling but a restrictive section and limits the rights of policy-holders to present a winding-up petition as therein mentioned. In re British Equitable Bond and Mortgage Coepoba- TION, Ld. Neville J. [1910] W: N. 88; [19101 1 Ch. 874 ( 583 ) DIGEST 6f cases, 19o1— 19l0. ( 684 ) COMPANY— ■WINDING.UP~co«H/«(e(i. Books. See under Company- -Books. Galls. See also under Company — Calls. — Contributories. ' See under Company — Winding-up — Contributory. Committee of Inspection. 1. — Altering constitution of — Companies Act, 1862 (25 4' 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 91— Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 ^ 5i Vict. c. 63), ss. 6, 9, 23, 24, Sclied. I., r. 6. Where a creditor, or a class of creditors (with a substantial interest), of a co. which is being wound up by the Court is, through no fault of his or its own, unrepresented on the committee of inspection, the Court may direct the liquidator to summon a meeting of the creditors to consider whether one or more members of the committee should be removed and some other person or persons, representative of the " aggrieved " and unrepresented creditor or creditors, appointed in substitution ; or semble, may order fresh first or further meetings of the creditors and contribu- tories to be summoned for the following purpose of s. 6 of the Act of 1890, namely, to determine whether an application is to be made to the Court to appoint a comniittee of inspection, and who are to be its members if appointed. In re Eadpoed & Bright, Ld. (No. 1) Wright J. [1901] 1 Ch. 272 See next Case. 2. — - Creditors unrepresented — Resummoniiig first meetings — Companies Act, 1862 (25 ^ 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 91 — Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 # 5i Vict. c. 63), ss. 6, 9. In the winding-up of a company by the Court the Court has power to order the first meetings of the creditors and contributories to be re- summoned, and it may limit the purposes of the meetings to the selection of persons to be appointed as members of the committee of inspection. Where the creditor of a co. for a large amount was unrepresented on the committee of inspec- tion, and at a meeting of the creditors, summoned by the direction of the Court, a resolution was passed that it was desirable that the creditor should be represented on the committee, but a majority of ihe creditors at the meeting expressed the opinion that it was undesirable that any members of the present committee should retire, the Court directed the first meetings to be re- summoned to determine whether a committee should be appointed and who should be the members of it. In re Radford & Bright, Ld. (No. 2) - Wright J. [1901] W. N. 13 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 736 Contempt of Court. — Fraudulently circularising shareholders while winding-up petition pending. See Contempt of Court. 4. — Liquidator, Application to remove — Circu- larising shareholders. iSeS7 ) DIGEST OB"' CASES, 1901—1910, ( 588 ) COMPANY — WINDING-UP (Contributory) — continued, patent rights to the co. for 25,000Z., as to iflOOl. in cash and as to 22,000?. by the allotment to the vendors or their nominees of 2200 fully paid shares, and this agreement was duly registered. Of these 2200 shares, 300 were allotted to the vendors, and, on the nomination of the vendors, the remaining 1900 were allotted, as to 100 to the three directors jointly for the purpose above mentioned, and as to 1800 to the three directors and the other three shipowners in equal shares for their own benefit, the whole of the 2200 shares being so allotted as fully paid. Upon a summons by the liquidator in the winding-up of the co. against the three directors to render them liable as contributories for pay- ment of the full amount of all the shares allotted to them : — Held, reversing Kekewich J., [1902] W. N. 26 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 674, that the case was covered by CarliTig's Case, flSTS) 1 Ch. D. 115, and there- fore that the directors could not be placed upon the list of contributories as holders of unpaid shares. Zn re Innes & Co., Ld. C. A. [1903] "W. N. 93 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 264 — Scheme of arrangement — Sanction of Court — Dissent of class of contributories having no interest in assets. See Company — Arrangements. 4. — Shares — Transfer to infant nominee — Wind- ing-up — Contributories. See Company — Shares. 27. 7. — Transfer of shares to escape liaiility — Validity — Transfer out-and-o ut — Power for directors to refuse regiitration. Where the articles contain no clause authoriz- ing directors to reject a transferee, a shareholder may up to the last moment before liquidation, and for the express purpose of escaping liability, transfer his partly-paid shares to a transferee, even though he be a pauper, and may compel the directors to register that transfer, provided it be an out-and-out transfer reserving to the transferor no beneficial right to the shares direct or indirect. Whether the transfer is of that character is a question of fact. , Hyam's Case (1859), 1 D. F. & J. 75 ; CostelU's Case, (1860) 2 D. F. & J. 302 ; and Budd's Case, (1881) 3 D. F. & J. 297, discussed and explained. Lund's Case, (1859) 27 Beav. 465, overruled. Where the articles contain a clause empower- ing the directors to reject a transferee whom they do not approve, the transferor cannot escape liability if he has actively or passively induced the directors to pass and register a transfer (even though it be an out-and-out transfer) which, but for his conduct, they would have refused to register. Here again the question is one of fact. Whether the articles do or do not contain a clause authorizing the directors to refuse regis- tration, the transferor cannot escape liability where he has obtained the advantage of executing and registering his transfer upon an opportunity obtained by him fraudulently or in breach of some duty which he owed the corporation. Decision of Neville J., [1909] W. N. 245 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 207, affirmed. COMPANY — WINDING-UP (Contributory) — continued. lure Discoverers Finance Corporation, [1908] 1 Ch. 141, overruled, lit, re DiSOOVEEBBS Finance Coepoeation, Ld. Lindlae's Case C. A. [1910] W. N. 42 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 312 — Voluntary winding-up — Compulsory order. ) Rules, 1903,?-. 201. Where a creditor residing out of the juris- diction applies in a voluntary winding-up for a declaration that he is entitled to prove in the winding-up, the Court has jurisdiction to require him to give security for costs. And senible, that wherever a person out of the jurisdiction comes forward as an actor in a winding-up, whether voluntary, or under super- vision, or by the Court, the ordinary practice of the Court as to ordering security for costs applies. In re Peetoeia Pieteesbueg By. Co. (No. 2) Buckley J. [1904] W. N. 140 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 359 Mte. See In re Pretoria Pietershurg Ity.'.Co., C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 170. See Company— Winding-up — Practice. H. 8. — Winding up petition — Appeal — Practice — Costs of contributor ies and creditors supporting successful party. Where an appeal is brought against the deci- sion of the Court of first instance upon a winding- up petition, and by the Order of the Court below, those contributories or creditors who have sup^ ported the successful party have been allowed one set of costs between them in accordance with the settled practice, if the appellant does not seek to disturb that- part of the order, his proper course is not to serve such contributories or creditors with notice of the appeal, but to inform them by letter of the pendency of the appeal of his intention not to ask for a reversal or modifi- cation of the order of the Court below so far as it deals with their costs, and then, if they think fit to appear upon the appeal and the appeal is dis- missed, the rule awarding them one set of costs between them will continue to apply upon the appeal. If, on the other hand, the appellant desires to appeal against the whole order and serve such contributories or creditors with notice of appeal, they will be entitled, in the event of the appeal being dismissed, to their separate costs of appeal. In re IBO Investment Co. C. A. [1903] W. N. 110 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 373 9. — Winding-up petition dismissed — Credi- tors and contributories opposing — One set of costs — Separate counsel — Practice. COMPANY— WINDING-TIP (Costs)— cowiiftMerf. In this case, after the co. had gone into volun- tary liquidation, a contributory presented a petition for a compulsory order, which was dis- missed with costs, the usual direction being given of one set of costs to the parties attending and opposing. At the hearing separate counsel, instructed by the same firm of solicitors, appeared for opposing creditors and contributories, and these solicitors, when attending before the registrar to settle the draft order, contended that the judge's direction meant one set of costs to the creditors, and one set of costs to the con- tributories opposing. The registrar, on the authority of He Briqhton Marine Palace and Pier Co., [1897] W. N.'l2, was of opinion that the direction meant one set of costs only between the creditors and contributories opposing. The parties objecting moved to vary the draft order. Neville J. : The question is whether when the same solicitor represents creditors and con- tributories, either supporting or opposing a, petition, and instructs separate counsel to appear for the creditors and for the contributories, he is entitled to two sets of costs or only one set of costs under the usual direction giving one set of costs to parties attending. I think that the principle of He Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Co. (supra) applies, and that the solicitor as a general rule is entitled to only one set of costs. At the same time this ruling will not interfere with the discretion of ihe taxing officer to allow in a proper case the costs of separate counsel instructed by the same solicitor, notwithstanding that only the usual order as to costs has been made. In re Silbee- hUtte Supply Co. Neville J. [1910] W. N. 81 10. — Withdrawal of petition — Costs of persons appearing to support or oppose — Companies Winding-up Rules, April, 1892, /-. 20. When the petitioner for a winding-up order elects at the hearing to withdraw his petition, he will be ordered to pay the costs of those persons who have given notice, within the time limited by the Companies Winding-up Rules, April, 1892, r. 20, of their intention to appear — one set of coats to those supporting, a.nd another set to those opposing. In re Beitish Elbcteic Steeet Teamways Buckley J. [1903] 1 Ch. 725 Debentures. See under Company — Debentures. Directors. See under Company- -Directors. Discharge. — Discharge of contributory on composition — Reduction of discharge after twenty years on allegation of concealment of assets — Lapse of time. See Company — Winding-up — Con- tributory. 3. Dividends. See also under Company — Dividends. 1. — Discretion of Court as to allowvnf/ questions by creditors and contributories — Public ( 503 ) DIGEST* OV CASES, 1901—1910. ( S"^ ) COMPANY— WINDING- tJP (Dividends)— f»«W. e.xaminatinii — Companies { WhuHiiii-ui)~) Art, 1890 (53 S,- 51 Vid. <;. 03), .s. 8. At the public examination of W., formerly the managing director of the co. being wound up, counsel appearing for two contributories of the CO. were about to put questions to the witness with reference to an alleged verbal agreement as to the purchase of large blocks of shares in another CO., when the official receiver and liquidator objected to the question.? on the ground that an action with reference to the same transaction was pending, in which the co. was pit. and to which certain members of the Stock Exchange were parties, and that the answers to the questions might prejudice the co.'s position in the action. The action had been continued with the sanction of the Court. The registrar before whom the examination was being taken refused to allow the questions to be put, and the contributories applied to the Court by motion for its decision whether the questions should be allowed or disallowed. Some doubt was expressed as to whether the application should be by motion, but no objection was taken by the official receiver to the form of the application. The Court was far from saying that it would be a proper exercise of the discretion to disallow questions simply because there was litigation to which the co. or the liquidator was a party. Each case must be governed by its own ciroum- stanoes. In the present case it was satisfied tHat the proposed questions were not bona fide in the interests of the co., its creditors or contributories, but were to be put in the interest of the pereons who were litigants with the co. ; and the liqui- dator, representing the shareholders and the public, and expressing the opinion that, at the present stage, to allow the questions would be injurious, the questions must not, at any rate at present, be put. The applicants would have to pay the witnesses' costs of the application. In re Loudon and Globe Finance Co. Byrne J. [1902] W. N. 16 — Liquidator's statement of account. See under Company — Winding-up — Liquidator. 2. Private examination — Attendance of solicitor — Undertaking not to disclose — Companies Act, 1862 (25 4- 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 115. The examination of witnesses in the winding- up of a CO. under s. 115 of the Companies Act, 1862, is a private proceeding ; therefore, where a witness directed to be examined under this section was attended by a solicitor who also represented a third party against whom an action by the co. was pending : — Held, that the registrar might exact from the solicitor, as the condition of his being allowed to be present at the examination, an undertaking not to disclose to any one without the leave of the Court any information he might acquire at the examination. Decision of Byrne J. [1902] W. N. 55, affirmed. In re London and Northern Bank, Ld. Haddock's Case, Hoyle's Case C. A. [1902] W. N. 84 ; [1902] 3 Ch. 73 Xiife.—See In re Walker, Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 104. Hankriqjtci/ — Practice. 5. COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Dividends)— co/rffl!. — Surplus assets. See under Company^ — Winding-up — Assets. Examination. X. Refusal of witness to answer — Documents alleged to hate Veen given iy officer of company to defendants mj an actimi hy it — Private examination — Companies Act, 1862 (25 <$■ 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 115, 138. The Court said that in the case relied on, In re JVorth Australian Territory Co., (1890) 45 Ch. D. 87, the person whom the liquidator wished to question was not an officer of the co. in liquidation, but of another co. with which it was in liquidation. He was examined under s. 115, not as an "officer of the co. or person known or suspected to have iu his possession any of the estate or effects of the co." in liquidation, but as a " person whom the Court might deem capable of giving information," &c. The present applica- tion was quite diflferent, inasmuch as the person under examination was one of its officers. It seemed to be a matter of course that the liqui- dator should be entitled to know what had been done with documents forming part of the assets of the bank. Even if the sole ground of the application had been to obtain evidence in the action, why was not the bank entitled to find out from its own documents whether it had a good cause of action or not ? The witness was bound to answer what documents of the bank he had had in his possession, and what had become of them ; and there must be an order on him to attend at his own expense and be further examined. In re London and Noethbbn Bank. Archer's Case Wright J. [1901] W. N. 236 This case was affirmed by C. A. [1901] W. X. 247. 2. Sale of undertaking — Dissentient member — Purchase of interest — Arbitration — Right of dissentient member to examine officers prior to arbitration — Companies Act, 1862 (25 ij- 26 Viet, c. 89), ss. 115, 161, 162. Where the undertaking of a co. in voluntary liquidation is being sold to another co. under s. 161 of the Companies Act, 1862, and the liqui- dator has elected to purchase the interest of a dissentient member at a price to be determined by arbitration under s. 162, the Court will not give that dissentient member liberty to examine the officers of the co. under s. 115 with the view of obtaining evidence to enhance the value of his interest in the arbitration. Morgan's Case, (1884) 28 Ch. D. 620, applied. In re BRITISH BUILDING STONE Co. Swinfen Eady J. [1908] W. N. 174; [1908] 2 Ch. 450 Fees. See under Costs. Company— WiNDiNG-UP- Fraudulent Preference. See under Compaxy— WiN'DlNa-UP— Preference. ( 595 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 596 ) COMPANY— WINDING-UP— 6'0«««MtY«. Gratuities. See under Company — Gratuities. Guarantee. See under Company — Guarantee, Insurance, life. See under Insurance (Life). Interest. See under Company — Interest. Libel. — Absolute privilege — Official receiver in com- panies' liquidation — General annual report of Board of Trade. See Defamation — Libel. 1. Liquidator, Ziqwidat07''s statement of account — Com- panies (^Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 ^- 54 Vict. 0. 6S), and the Companies Winding-up Rules, 1S90 and 1891. Keprint from W. N. 1902 (Feb. 14), p. 62. See Ctjerent Index, 1902, p. Ixx. — Books — Joint liquidators — Inspection by agent. See Company — Books. 2. — Contempt of Court — Application to remove voluntary liquidator. See Contempt op Court. 5. — Costs, Security for — Hisfeasance summons. See Companyi — Winding-up — Costs. 5. — Costs — Taxation — Disbursements — • Profes- sional charges. See Company Winding-up— Costs. 1. — Denial of liability by liquidator — Stay of proceedings in action. See Company — Winding-up — Prac- tioe. 20. — Directors — Qualification — Shares held as liquidator of another company. See Company — Directors. — Irredeemable debenture stock — Power of liquidator to pay ofi stock at par. See Company — Debentures. 20. 1. — Liability — Voluntary winding-up — Dis- solution — Unpaid creditor-^ Statvtory duty of liquidator to pay debts — Negligence — lAguidator liable in damages — Advertisement for creditm-s — Companies Act, 1862 (25 S; 26 Vict. c. 89), .w. 107, 133, 138, lii—Companies Act, 1900 (63 ^- 64 Vict. c. 48), s. 25. It is the duty of the liquidator to find out from the books and papers of the co. and the statement of affairs vfho are the creditors of the CO., and if any creditor omits to put in his claim the liquidator shall communicate with him. Sect. 133 of the Companies Act, 1862, imposes a statutory duty on the liquidator to pay the debts of the co. pari passu, and, subject thereto, to distribute the property of the co. amongst the shareholders ; and whilst the liquidation con- tinues a contributory can apply under s. 138 of COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Liquidator)— co«W. the Act, and a creditor can apply under s. 25 of the Act of 1900, to the Court for relief in respect of his rights. When the co. is dissolved the statutory remedy is gone, but the duty remains, and a contributory or creditor has a remedy at common law for injury caused to him by a breach of the liquidator's statutory duty. A CO. went into voluntary liquidation and appointed a liquidator, and its business and assets were transferred as a going concern to a purchasing co. in consideration of fully paid-up shares in the purchasing co., who covenanted to pay all the debts and liabilities of the liquidating CO. The liquidator received the purchase con- sideration of fully paid-up shares and distributed them amongst the shareholders of the liquidating CO. The assets of the liquidating co. were suffi- cient to pay all its debts in full, but the liquida- tor, beyond advertising insufficiently for creditors, took no steps to ascertain the creditors of the liquidating co. or to see that they were paid. He left everything to the purchasing co. After the dissolution of the liquidating co. : — Held, that the liquidator had been guilty of negligence in the discharge of his statutory duty, and was liable in damages to unpaid creditors of the liquidating co. of whose claims he was aware and who had no notice of the liquidation until long after the dissolution of the co. Dictum of James L.J. in In re London and Caledonian Marine Insurance Co., (1879) 11 Oh. D. 140, approved and followed. Knowles v. Scott, [1891] 1 Ch. 717, discussed and distinguished. PuLSFORD -e. Devenish Farwell J. [1903] W. N. 179 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 625 2. — Official receiver — Duty as to giving in- formation to outside liquidator — Companies (Winding-up) Rules, 1903, rr. 53, 144. Information obtained by the official receiver from officers of the co. under rule 53 of the Com- panies (Winding-up) Rules, 1903, is not " pro- perty " of the CO. within rule 144 (1), or " infor- mation respecting the estate and affairs of the CO necessary or conducive to the due discharge of the duties of the liquidator" within the meaning of rule 144 (3), which it is the duty of the official receiver to produce to a liquidator superseding him as liquidator. Qumre, whether the Court on sufficient evi- dence may not direct the official receiver, as its officer, to disclose the information to an outside liquidator. In re LAKE George Mines, Ld. Byrne J. [1904] 1 Ch. 803 — Official receiver and — Jurisdiction to order official receiver to pay costs personally. See Company— Receiver. 3. — Power to compromise action — Extra- ordinary resolution — Companies Act, 1862 (25 A- 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 160. A compromise by the liquidator of a co. in voluntary liquidation of a, claim by the co. against a third party, is, if not set aside, binding on the CO., although entered into by the liquida- tor without obtaining the sanction of an extra- ordinary resolution of the co. under s. 160 of the Companies Act, 1862. Cyclemakers' Co- operative Supply Co. v. Sims: Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 477 ( 59f ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 598 ) COMPANY— WINDING-UP (liquidator)— cowi.'i. 4. -^ Removal of volimtary liquidator — By whom applications iiiay he viade to the Court in a voluntary windinti-up — Companies Act, 1862 (25 3,- 26 Vict. 0. 89), ss. 138, \i\— Companies Act, 1900 (63 Sf 64 Vict. c. 48), s. 25. AH applications to the Court in a voluntary winding-up are made under s. 138 of the Com- panies Act, 1862, and the fact that a, creditor is enabled to apply under the section (by s. 25 of the Companies Act, 1900) may give him a locus standi to apply under the latter part of s. 141 of the Act of 1862 for the removal of a liquidator and the appointment of another liquidator in the voluntary winding-up. But the omission from the latter part of s. 141 of the words " on the application of a contributory " (which occur in the former part of the section with reference to the appointment of a liquidator where there is no liquidator) does not authorize an application by a person who is not the liquidator, or a contributory, or a creditor of the CO. In re New de Kaap. Lt>. Neville J. [1908] 1 Ch. 589 5. — Remuneration, Claim for invalid ap- pointment of liquidator — Companies Act, 1862 (25 S,- 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 67. A CO. which had resolved on voluntary wind- ing-up by a resolution, which was subsequently set aside by the Court as invalid, appointed the appellant to be liquidator. On a compulsory winding-up of the co. the appellant sought to prove as a creditor for work done and expenses incurred by him while purporting to act as liquidator, and before he knew of the invalidity of his appointment : — Held, that neither under s. 67 of the Com- panies Act, 1862, nor on a quantum meruit was he entitled to be paid anything for services rendered as liquidator ; but in so far as any work then done by him had been useful to the CO. for business purposes unconnected with the voluntary liquidation, or had been used by the official receiver and liquidator in the compulsory winding-up with full knowledge of the facts, he was entitled to claim reasonable remuneration. In re ALLISON, Johnson & Foster, Ld. E.v parte BiKKENSHAW - Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 327 6. — Remuneration of liquidator — • Charges for letters — Winding-up (^Voluntary'), A CO. which was being wound up under a compulsory winding-up order was liable for the costs and expenses of the voluntary winding-up of other cos., the undertakings of which it had purchased. In assessing the amount payable as remunera- tion to the voluntary liquidator : — Held, (1.) that the Court would not sanction an alleged practice of accountants \o charge tor all letters written, irrespective of their character, as having taken half an hour of the principal's time (charged for at a certain rate) in the preparation ; (2.) that there was nothing to bind the Court to apply the scale adopted by the Chancery judges and sanctioned by the Lord Chancellor in 1868, which only applied to official liquidators ; and (3.) that each case as to the remuneration of a voluntary liquidator must be considered with regard to its own particular COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Liquidator)— co«i!(/. circumstances. In re Amalgamated Syndi- cates, Ld. - - - Wright J. [1901] W. N. 105 ; [1901] 2 Oh. 181 — Restricted power of liquidators of bank to sue in their own names. See Canada. 3. — Solicitors' lien. See under Company — Winding-up — Solicitors' Lien. — Solicitor — Lien on documents — Winding-up — Liquidator — Documents in solicitor's hands before winding-up order. See Solicitor — Lien, 7. — Voluntary liquidator — Officer of the company — Duty to stamp and file coutract.i with respect to shares issued for % consideration otlier than cash — Companies Act, 1900 (63 ^ 64 Vict, c. 48), s. 7. A liquidator in the voluntary winding-up of a CO. is an officer of the co. within the meaning of s. 7 of the Companies Act, 1900, and it is, therefore, his duty to pay out of the assets of the co. the stamp duty in respect of any unfiled contract constituting the title of an allottee of shares allotted for a consideration other than cash, and to file the contract when duly stamped. Form of order on application for directions. In re X, Co., Ld. Parker J. [1907] 2 Ch. 92 Meetings. See also under COMPANY — Meetings. 1. — Meeting to pass resolution for winding- up — Requisition of shareholders — .Votive issued ty secretary icithout authorit 1/ of directors — Com- panies Act, 1862 (25 <5' 26 Vlct. v. 89), ss. 51, 129 145 ; Sched. I., Table A, cl. 32 — Companies Act, 1900 (63 4- 64 Vict. c. 48), s. 13. After a requisition for an extraordinary meet- ing has been deposited under s. 13 of the Com- panies Act, 1900, the meeting can only, within the next twcuty-one days, be summoned by the directors acting together as a board, and the secretary of the co. cannot on his own responsi- bility lawfully summon the meeting. In re JLujcroft Gold Reduction and Mining Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 230, followed. Qucere, whether,^ if the twenty-one days expire without any meeting being summoned by the directors, the requisitionists can call the meeting by notices signed by the secretary. A CO. was governed, so far as the calling of meetings was concerned, by Table A (in Sched. I. to the Act of 1862), clause 32 of which says that " the directors may, whenever they think fit . . . . convene an extrordiiiavY general meeting." By the articles of association two directors con- stituted a quorum. A requisition was sent to the directors in accordance with s. 13 of the Companies Act, 1900, requesting them to convene a meeting to pass an extraordinary resolution for voluntary winding-up. Within the twenty-one days allowed to the directors, by s. 13, for con- vening the meeting, the secretary of the co., without the authority of the directors, summoned the meeting. At the meeting two directors, the requisitionists, and many shareholders were ( 599 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 600 ) COMPANY— WINDINff.irP (Meetings)— coreJii. present, and the resolution was passed by the required majority. • At the hearing of a petition by a creditor for the compulsory winding-up of the oo., the defence was set up that a voluntary winding-up was pending, and that the petitioner did not shew that he was thereby prejudiced : — Held,, that the secretary had no power to issue the notices, that there was no ratification of his act, that the so-called ratification of the co. was inTalid, and that a compulsory winding-up order must be made. In re State of Wyoming- Syndicate - - Wright J. [1901] W. N. 141 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 431 2. — Special resolution — Wiriding-up — De- claration of chairman — Companies Act, 18621(25 ,|'26 Vict. c. 89), s. 51. The declaration of the chairman of a meeting called to pass a resolution under s. 51 of the Companies Act, 1862, is not conclusive where the declaration shews on the face of it that the statutory majority has not voted in favour of the resolution. InreHadleigli Castle Gold Mines, Li., [1900] 2 Ch. 41 9, and Arnat v. United African Lands, LA., [1901] 1 Ch. 518, distinguished. In re Caeatal (New) Mines, Ld. - Buckley J. [1908] W. N. 180 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 498 Memorandum of Association. See under Company — Memorandum. Mortgages. — Company incorporated by statute — Power to mortgage undertaking — Existing debt — Charge upon surplus lands Ultra vires. See COEPOHATION. 15. ■ Debentures. See under GompAny- Name. -Debentures. — Company practice. See under Company — Name. Non-Commencement. 1. — Non-commencement of business for a year — Company registered in Ungland to protect name of foreign company — Companies Act, 1862 (25 ^• 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 79. A CO. having been registered in Guernsey with the name of C^mentium (Parent) Company, Limited, a co. carrying on the same kind of busi- ness, and having the same directors and the same name, was in 1906 registered in England with a capital of Wl., none of which had been paid up. The English oo's registered office and the English place of business of the Guernsey co. were both at the same address in London. The English co. had never done any business, and the Guernsey CO. had recently complied with the requirements of s. .S5 of the Companies Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7 c. 50), as regards cos. incorporated outside, but having a place of business within the United Kingdom. A shareholder petitioned for the winding-up of the English co. on the grounds that it had not commenced its business within a COMPANY — WINDING-UP (Non-Commence- ment) — continued, year from its .incorporation, and that the co- existence of tne two cos. was likely to cause confusion and be injurious to creditors. Neville J. ordered the English co. to bo wound up. In re Csimentium (Paeent) Co., Ld. - Neville J. [1908] W. N. 2S7 Notice. See under Notice. Practice. See also under Company — Practice. Transfer of business under Companies ( Wind, ing-up) Act, 1890. W. N. 1901 (Deo. 21), p. 336. See CUEEENT INDEI, 1901, p. Ixxvii. 1. — Absence of petitioner at hearing — Stibsti- tution of another person, as petitioner — Com- panies {Winding-up') Rules, 1903, r. 36. On a petition for the winding-up of a co. coming on for hearing the petitioner did not appear. Neville J. said that it could not have been intended that because a petitioner did not attend there should be no power for the Cmrrt to sub- stitute a creditor or contributory as petitioner ; but the rule omitted to provide for such a case, and no order for substitution could be made. The creditors supporting were entitled to one set of costs between them, and the contributory supporting was also entitled to his costs. Petition dismissed. In re Vanguaed Motoe- Bus Co. - Neville J. [1908] W. N. 99 — Advertisements. See under Company — Winding-up — Advertisements. 2. — Advertisement of petition — Omission of word "Limited" — Companies (WindiTig-wp") Rules, 1903, rr. 27, 200 (1), Form 6. The advertisement of a petition for winding- up a CO. omitted the word " Limited " at the end of the co.'s name. Buckley J., referring to In re Army and Nary Hotel, (1886) 31 Ch. D. 644, where a co. called " The Army and Navy Hotel, Limited," had been described in the advertisement as " The Army and Navy Hotel Company, Limited," and the Court ordered the petition to be re-advertised, said that the petition must be re-advertised and must stand over for a fortnight. In re London and Peovincial Puee Ice Manupactueing Co. - - - Buckley J. [1904] W. N. 136 3. — Affidarit in support of petition — Charge of fraud — Companies ( Winding-up") Rules, 1903, )■. 29. A petition presented for the winding-up by the Court of a co., contained allegations of fraud against one of the officers of the co. The only affidavit in support of the petition was the so- called " statutory affidavit " referred to in r. 29 of the Companies (Winding-up) Eules, 1903. On an application for an adjournment the question was raised whether the officer need adduce any evidence to rebut the allegation of fraud. Parker J. said that where fraud was charged ( 601 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 602 ) COMPANY- WINDING-UP (Practice)— co«i(^. the statutory affidaTit was not sufficient.' The facts of the alleged fraud must be stated on .affidavit. In re LONDON AND Hull Soap WOEKS, Ld. - Parker J. [1907] W. N. 254 — Appeal — Costs. See Company— Winding-up— Costs. 8. 4. — A-ppeal — Final or interlocutory — Com- -pulsorij winding-up order. Application for security for tke costs of an appeal from an order made by Buckley J. for the compulsory winding-up of the co. After some discussion it was stated that the application would not be pressed if the hearing of the appeal were advanced. The Court directed that the appeal should be put in the paper for hearing on the next day on whicli interlocutory appeals were taken, observ- ing that it would be convenient that appeals from compulsory winding-up orders should be treated as interlocutory and not as final appeals. In re Naval, Militaey and Civil Service Co-OPEEATIVB Society op South Africa, Ld. C. A. [1903] W. N. 180 Note. Inre SiimvH Allsnpp ^ Sons, Ld., C. A. [1903] W. N. 132. See Company — Practice. 2. 5. — Appeal from registrar — Companies {Winding-up} Rules, 1903, r. 7. An appeal from an order of the registrar in chambers in the winding-up of a co. does not lie direct to the C. A. The proper course to obtain a reversal of such an order is to move before the judge to discharge it. In re Pretoria Pietersburo Et. Co. C. A. [1904] W. N. 129 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 170 Note. See In re Pretoria Pietcrsljiirr/ Rij. Co. (_No. 2), Buckley J., [190i] 2 Ch. 359. 'See Company— Winding-up — Costs 7. 6. — Appearances, Li.sf of — Petition — Coni- panies QWindifig-up) Rules, 1903, /-. 34. Buckley J. called the attention of solicitors to r. 34 of the Companies (Winding-up) Rules, 1903, under which a copy of " the list of the names and addresses of the persons who have given notice of their intention to appear on the hearing of the petition, and of their respective solicitors," is. "on the day appointed for hear- ing the petition," to " be handed by the peti- tioner, or his solicitor or London agent, to the Court prior to the hearing of the petition," and to the settled practice that where no notice of intention to appear has been given, that fact must be stated in the form handed to the Court prior to the hearing. Referring to the inconvenience which had been caused by non-compliance with r. 34, he said that, as regarded all winding-up petitions presented after June 13, 1906, he should, in case of non-compliance with the rule, disallow the costs of the petitioner's solicitor of attending at the hearing of the petition. In order, however, that solicitors might be reminded of the practice on this point, the registrar would in future hand to the solicitor of the petitioner, on the petition being filed, a notice calling attention to the rule referred to. Practice Direction Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 127 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Praotice)—oo»M. — Costs. See under Company — Winding-up — Costs. — Costs — Taxation — Drawing bills of costs — Practice. See Costs. 69. 7. — "Creditor" — Winding-up order — Peti- tion hy equitable assignee of part of a debt — Companies Act, 1862 (25 A 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 79, 80. 82. A CO. was indebted to one Noakes in a sum of 1 15Z. Noakes made an equitable assignment of a part of the debt, amounting to all. 8.?., to Borton. Borton gave notice of the assignment to the co., and, being unable to obtain payment, served on the CO. a statutory demand for payment of the 51L %s. The demand not having been complied with, Borton, as a creditor of theco. in respect of the 51Z. 8i., presented a petition praying that it might be wound up by the Court : — Held, that tliere was a valid equitable assign- ment of the 51Z. 8.S. ; that, having regard to s. 80, sub-s. 1, referring to "a creditor, by assignment or otherwise, to whom the co. is indebted at law or in equity," the " creditor " entitled to petition under s. 82 included a creditor by equitable assignment, and that the petitioner was entitled to a winding-irp order. In re Montgomeet Moore Ship Collision-Doors Syndicate Bryne J. [1903] W. N. 121 8. — Creditor's petition — Assets covered hy debentures — Maniigementof company controlledhj debenture-holders — Debenture-holders' action — Rights of unsecured, creditors — Companies Act, 1862 (25 S,- 26 Vict. a. 89), ss. 79, 91. A creditor's petition for a winding-up order was opposed by debenture-holders, who had a floating charge on all the property of the co., and who had obtained the appointment of a receiver in an action to enforce their security, and by the CO., whicli was under the control of the debenture-holders, on the ground that there were no assets available for the unsecured creditors. Held, that the onus was on the respondents to prove that there was no reasonable possibility of any benefit accruing to the unsecured creditors from the winding-up, and that unless that onus was discharged the petitioner was entitled to a winding-up order in order that the unsecured creditors might be represented by the official receiver in the proceedings in the deben- ture-holders' action. Decision of Buckley J., [1906] W. N. 120, affirmed. Per Buckley J. : The Court has jurisdiction to make a winding-up order on a creditor's petition which is not opposed by the unsecured creditors if the order will be useful, not necessarily fruitful, and it is no answer that the debenture-holders will or may sweep up all the assets ; and the tendency of the Court since the passing of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, is not to refuse a Avinding-np order in such a case on the ground that there are no assets unless it sees that the petition is presented simply for the purpose of making costs. ( 603 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( CM ) COMPANY—WINDING-UP (Practice)— coreW. In re St. Tlwmas's Dock Co., (1876) 2 Oh. D. 116, and In re Chapel House Colliery Co., (1883) 24 Ch. D. 259, discussed. In re Ceigglb- STONE Coal Co., Ld. C. A. [1906] W. N. 126 ; ■ [1906] 3 Ch. 327 Note. See also Inre Crigglestone Coal Co., Stewart V. Tlie Company, Swinfeii Eady J., [1906] W. N. 20; [1906] 1 Ch. 523. Company — Deientures. 22. 9. — Notice of intention to appear on petition — Name and address — Companies (Winding -U}?) Rules, 1903, r. 33, Form 11. Judgment creditors' petition to Wind up a CO. Kotice of intention to appear and oppose the petition was given on behalf of several creditors by their solicitor under the Companies (Winding- up) Rules, 1903, r. 33, form 11. Vide Palmer's Company Precedents, 9th ed., part 2, pp. 107, 1047. This notice contained the names of the creditors and the amount of their claims, but it did not give their addresses, the only address being that of the solicitor who signed the notice. The petitioners had therefore not been able to include the creditors' addresses in their " list of parties attending the hearing " as required by r. 34, form 12. On behalf of the opposing creditors it was suggested that r. 33 and form 11 did not require the creditors' addresses to be inserted. Swinfen Eady J. : I will hear the opposing creditors on this occasion, as there seems to have been some misapprehension. It is, however, quite clear from the rules and forms that both the names and addresses of persons intending to appear on the hearing of the petition must be stated in the notice under form 11. The petition was ordered to stand over on certain undertakings in order to give the co. an opportunity to pay. In re Descoues, Paeet H Co. Swinfen Eady J. [1909] W. N. 50 10. — Order of registrai-^Motion to discharge — Companies (Windi'ig-up) Rules, 1903, r. 7. Application made by motion to discharge an order made by the registrar in chambers. Buckley J. : Rule 7 of the Companies (Wind- ing-up) Rules, 1903, provides that " Subject to the provisions of the Acts and Rules in every Court the registrar may, under the general or special direction of the judge, hear and deter- mine any application or matter which under the Acts and Rules may be heard and determined in chambers." I have power to give a special or general direction, and I hereby give a general direction that when a person desires to have an order made by the registrar in chambers dis- charged, he must move before me in Court to discharge the order of the registrar. In re BETifD0 AND Poet Talbot Collieeies, Ld. Buckley J. [1904] W. N. 136 11. — Petition — Affidavit in snpport — Petition by Attorney- General on iehalf of the Crown — Companies Winding-up Rules, 1890, r. 36. The Att.-Gen. on behalf of the Crown, desired to present a petition for the winding-up of the COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Practice)— 6'(i«fe«. above co. Rule 36 of the above rules requires that a, winding-up petition shall be verified by an aflidavit made by the petitioner. The question arose who should make the affidavit in the present case. The matter was mentioned to Cozeiis-Hardy J., and he desired that it should be brought before the C. A. :— Held, that it would be highly inexpedient to adhere so strictly to the rale as to require the affidavit to be made by the Att.-Gen. himself ; that the officer of the Court ought to receive the petition if it were verified by the affidavit of some other fit and proper person, and the solicitor to the Inland Revenue would be a proper person for the purpose. In re Beandy Distillebs' Co. C. A. [1901] W. N. 87 ' 12. — Petition — Creditor — Debenture stock- holder — Unpaid ititerest — Companies Act, 1862 (25 4" 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 82. A trust deed for securing debenture stock, made between the co. and the trustees for the stockholde'rs, provided that the co. would pay the half-yearly interest direct to the stockholders, whose receipt should be a good discharge to the trustees and the oo. The certificate delivered to each stockholder stated the rate of interest and dates of payment, and certified that the stockholder was the registered holder of the stock which " is issued subject to the provisions contained " in the trust deed, but it did not contain any direct covenant with the stockholder to pay him the interest : — Held, that stockholders whose interest was in arrear were not entitled to present a winding- up petition as creditors under s. 82 of the Com- panies Act, 1852. In re Dundbeland Ieon Oee Co., Ld. - - - Swinfen Eady J. [1909] W. N. 23; [1909] 1 Ch. 446 13. — Petition — Creditor with deit payable at a future date — Debenture stocliholder's petition — Companies Act, 1862 (25 4- 26 Viet. c. 89), -is. 79, 80, 82. A debenture stockholder of a co. who has no present claim for principal or interest is not a creditor in such a sense as to be entitled to petition for a winding-up order. 1)1 re Australian Joint Stock Rank, [1897] W. N. 48, distinguished. The effect of provisions in a debenture stock trust deed as to the security being enforceable immediately on a breach of covenant by the co. considered. In re Melbouene Beeweey and DISTILLEEY Wright J. [1901] 1 Ch. 453 — Petition — Debt under 50^. — Costs. See Costs. 14. — Petition — Evidence in support — Statu- tonj affidavit — Defector irregularity — Companies {Winding-up') Rules, 1903, rr. 29, 200. Rule 29 of the Companies (Winding-up) Rules, 1903, which provides that a petition for winding up a CO. shall be verified by an affidavit made by the petitioner, is merely directory as to the kind of affidavit to be accepted as prima facie evidence of the statements in the petition. The Court will, therefore, in a proper case, accept the affidavit of the petitioner's attorney or agent, particularly where it is satisfied that the material ( 605 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 606 ) COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Practice)— coaM. facts are more within the knowledge of the deponent than of the petitioner himself. In re Charterland, Stores and, Trading Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 870, dissented from. In r« African Farms, Ld. - Warrington J. [1906] W. N. 69; [1906] 1 Oh. 640 15. — PetithmStatemerdas to assets — Super- rinlon order — Me-adcevtisement of petition — File of proiieedinijs. Several petitions for the winding-up of cos. omitted any allegation shewing that the co. had any uncalled capital, works, book debts, or other assets upon which a winding-up order, if made, could operate. Buckley J. directed the petitions to stand over, with liberty to amend by shewing that the cos. had something to wind up ; and he stated that he should always look to see whether there was anything belonging to the co. petitioned against sufficiently substantial to produce some- thing if realized. Buckley J. also said, that where a petition for a compulsory order had been advertised, and at the hearing the petitioner asked for a super- vision order only, the petition ought as a general rule to be re-advertised. This appeared to be the practice more recently adopted, the reason for it apparently being that persons who would be satisfied with a compulsory order would not take the trouble to appear if they thought such an order would be made, but might appear and object to a supervision order only being made. His Lordship also said that he did not intend to look at the files of proceedings, but that parties must come furnished with ofBoe copies of affidavits, &c., as in other cases in the Ch. Div., and that the costs of such copies would be allowed. PRACTICE NOTE - Buckley J. [1902] W. N. 77 16. — Petition of unsecured creditor — Assets covered hy debentures — Business carried on hy debenture-holders — " Just and equitable " ground for winding up — Companies Act, 1862 (25 ^- 26 Vict. V. 89), s. 79. A creditor of aeo. recovered judgment against it in an action for goods sold and delivered. On threatening to issue execution the creditor discovered that all the present and future assets of the CO. wei-e charged by debentures (some of which had been created after the date of his judgment) in favour of debenture-holders who were carrying on the business in the co.'s name although no receiver had been appointed. The judgment creditor presented a petition asking that the co. might bo wound up by the Court, and stating the inability of the petitioner to say positively until after proper investigation whether there would be any surplus of assets after satisfying the deben- ture-holders. The petition was not supported or opposed by the other unsecured creditors : — Held,, that assuming that the assets were insufficient to satisfy the debenture-holders, the Court was entitled to say that it was " just and equitable" within the meaning of s. 79 of the Companies Act, 1862, to wind up a co. so conducted. The Court was, moreover, not satisfied oft the COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Practice)— co««i. evidence that there would be nothing for unse- cured creditors in the event of winding-up, and ordered the co. to be wound up. In re Alfred Melson & Co., Ld. Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 91 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 841 17. — Petitioner's debt less tlian 50Z. Petition for the compulsory winding up of the CO., brought by a solicitor who had recovered judgment for his costs amounting to 41L Neville J. : I think this petition must be dis- missed. I understand the practice of the Court to be, that it does not make an order on a petition for winding up a co. where the peti- tioner's debt is less than 50Z., unless there are special circumstances. In In re World Industrial Sanh, Ld., [1909] W. N. Ii8, I made the order because the co. were using this practice of the Court to enable them to refuse to pay a debt when they had sufficient assets, and I made an order this morning in the case of a co. which obviously could never commence business. But in this case no special circumstances have been shewn, except that the debt has not been paid. In re INDUSTRIAL Insurance Association, Ld. - - Neville J. [1910] W. N. 245 18. — Petitioner's debt under 501. — Costs — Companies {Con.ioiidation') Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69), ss. 137, 129, 130. This CO. was incorporated in September, 1908, with a capital of 50,000?. in IZ. shares, but only 1007 shares had been issued, and on lOOd of these only l.s. per share had been called up. The CO. had never commenced business, and had no assets except its uncalled capitaL The CO. had incurred a debt to the petitioner for goods supplied and work done amounting to. 28^.' 11.S. id., and the petitioner had recovered judgment for that amount and costs amounting to 35Z. Us. id. The petitioner had applied in vain for payment, and one of the directors, who held 200 shares upon which only a shilling each was paid, told him that the co. had no assets, except its uncalled capital, and he declined to call up capital to pay the petitioner's debt because its amount would not justify the pre- sentation of a petition. The petitioner theu presented this petition for a compulsory winding-up. Neville J. said that he certainly did not wish to encourage the presentation of winding- up petitions for small debts, but it was still more important to prevent the Companies Acts being used as an instrument of fraud. He thought this was emphatically a case in which it was just and equitable that the 00. should be wound up. The co. had incurred a liability which they had ample means to discharge by means of their uncalled capital, but the creditor was met with defiance because the co. refused to make calls, and thought he could not file a petition. The order for a compulsory winding- up must be made with the usual order as to costs. In rr WORLD INDUSTRIAL Bank, Ld. Neville, J. [1909] W. N. 148 iXot,: This case was followed by Neville J., In re Industrial Insurance Association, Ld., [1910] W, N, 215, See Xo. 17, above. ( (507 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 608 ) COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Practice)— coffiirf. 19. — Staiulhuj-ucei' petition. A petition by creditors for the compulsory winding-up of the co. was in the paper. Counsel for the petitioners said that he was willing that the petition should stand over on the terms of what is liinown as " a St. Thomas' Dock Order." He referred to Palmer's Company Pre- cedents, vol. ii. 9th ed. 123, where reference is made, not only to the case of Jn re St. T/ioimis' Docli Co., (1876) 2 Ch. D. 116, but also to North- Western of Monte Tideo, ^-c, Co., Hall, V.-C, April 28, 1876, B. 1377, in which (as appears from earlier editions of tlie same worli) the order set out was made. Buckley J. said that the undertalsing by the CO. in the order cited w^s " not to consent to a winding-up order on any other petition, and not to wind up voluntarily." But a corporation could not bind itself not to go into voluntary winding-up. In Jn re St. Tlio»ta.s' Dock Co., Jessel M.E. imposed on the co. an undertaking " not to consent to a M'iuding-up order on the petition of any other creditor, or to a voluntary winding-up," and a similar undertaking — not an undertaking " not to wind up voluntary " — must be given in the present case. In re St. Neot's Watee Co. Buckley J. [1905] W. N. 183 20. — Stay ofproceediTigs in action — Denial of Uaiility by liquidator — Practice — Volu7itary winding -lip — Companies Act, 1862 (25 <)'• 26 Vict, c. 89), ss. 85, 87, m— Companies Act, 1900 (63 4' 64 Vict. c. 48), s. 25. A CO. having gone into voluntary liquidation, an action was brought against it for money alleged to be payable to the pit. in respect of services rendered by him to the co. The liquidator denied any liability on the part of the CO. On the liquidator's applying for a stay of proceedings in the action on the ground that the CO. was in liquidation : — Held, that the question of the co.'s liability being a matter which was prima facie properly determinable in the ordinary way by an action, and no special ground for a stay of proceedings being made out, the application should, in the exercise of the discretion of the Court, be refused. Cubeib r. CONSOLIDATED Kent CoLLiEBiES Corporation, Ld. C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 134 21. — Stay of proceedings — Pricate company — Undisclosed agreement for promoter participat- ing in vendor' s shares — Tra/nsfer of vendor's shares to directors — Issuing shares at a discownt — Com- panies Act, 1862 (25 4- 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 89— Companies {Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 oj' 54 Vict, c. 63), s. 7 — Companies Winding-up Rules, 1890, •/•. 58. In the exercise of its jurisdiction with reference to staying proceedings under an order for the winding-up of a CO., the Court should, so far as possible, act upon the principles which are applicable in exercising jurisdiction to rescind a receiving order or annul an adjudica- tion in bankruptcy against an individual— in which cases the Court refuses to act upon the mere assent of the creditors in the matter, and considers not only whether what is proposed is for the benefit of the creditors, but also whether d.d. COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Practice)— cw/f^/. the rescission or annulment will be conducive or detrimental to commercial morality and to the interest of the public at large. In refusing or postponing a stay of winding- up proceedings tlie Court will have regard to the following facts : — (a) That directors have not complied with their statutory duties as to giving information to the official receiver or furnishing a statement as to the afiairs of the co. (V) That there has been an undisclosed agree- ment between the promoter and the vendor to the CO. as to the participation by the former in fully paid shares forming the consideration for the purchase of property by the co. on its formation. (c) That the promoter has made gifts of fully paid shares to the directors. (d) That there are any other matters con- nected with the promotion, formation, or failure of the CO., or the conduct of its business or affairs, which appear to the Court to require investigation. And, semble, the same principles are applic- able whether tlie co. has or has not invited the public to subscribe for its shares — at any rate, if any shares held by those originally connected with a CO. of the latter description have been transferred to persons not having full knowledge of what has been previously done. In re Tele- SCRIPTOE Syndicate, Ld. - - Buckley J. [1903] W. N. 41 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 174 22. — Stay of proceedings— Voluntary wind- ing-up— Dissolutio7i — Companies Act, 1862 (25 ,|' 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 89, 138, 142, 143. Though there is no jurisdiction to make an order directly extending the period of three months prescribed by s. 143 of the Companies Act, 1862, for the dissolution of a co. in voluntary liquidation, the Court has jurisdiction, after the registration of the return, but before the expira- tion of the three months limited by this section, to make an order under ss. 89 and 138 in the matter of the voluntary winding-up to stay all proceedings in relation to such winding-up, and so keep the co. on foot notwithstanding the expiration of the three months limited by s. 143, In re Croolihaven Mining Co., (1866) L. E. 3 Eq. 69, discussed and applied. In re EASTERN Investment Co., Ld. - - Warrington J. [1905] W. N. 5 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 352 23. — Transfer of actions — Uegistrar — Pro- ceedings in chambers — Companies {Winding-up') Rules, 1903, r. 42. Warrington J. . Questions have lately arisen as to the mode in which applications in chambers in actions transferred under rule 42 of the Rules of 1903 should be dealt with. Under the juris- diction in winding-up it has for some time been the practice, as a general rule, for the registrar in such cases to make such order as he thinks fit, leaving the dissatisfied party to move the judge in Court to discharge it. In the Ch. Div., as we know, the Master adjourns the application to the judge without actually making the order. I have consulted Buckley J. , and we have come to the conclusion that, to avoid a diversity of practice in the office, the practice in winding-up ( 609 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1310. ( ttlO ) COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Practice)— cuftM. should be followed in the transferred actions. Practice Note - Warrington J. [1905] W. N. 128 24. — VoluTitary winding-up — Amalgamation and reconstruction — Unfair sclieme — Dissentient minority — No agreement executed — Contribu- tory' s petition impeaching scheme — Compulsory order— Companies Act, 1862 (25 S, 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 161. Where a scheme for the voluntary winding- up and amalgamation of co. A and eo. B by sale and transfer of their assets to a, new co. under a. 161 of the Companies Act, 1862, is eminently unfair to the independent minority of co. A, and is only passed as regards co. A by means of a large majority of shares held by co. B, which alone is benefited by the scheme, then, if no agreement for the sale to the new co. has been actually executed, the Court will, at the instance of the minority of co. A, stop the scheme by making a compulsory order to wind up that co., and will not leave that minority to their remedy of being paid out as dissentient members under s. 161. In re CONSOLIDATED South Band Mines Deep, Ld. - - Swinfen Eady J. [1909] W. N. 36 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 491 On Appeal, 26. — Appeal by company — Security for costs — Practice — Company — Winding-up order. The CO. appealed : the official receiver and liquidator was made respondent to the appeal. The C. A. ordered security to be given for lOOZ. Cozens-Hardy M.E. said it was quite clear that security, and indemnifying security, ought to be given. A winding-up order had been made, the effect of whiciti was to displace the voluntary liquidator under the previous voluntary liquidation and vest the property of the co. in the respondent to this appeal. The official receiver represented the co., and although the appeal was nominally in the name of the co., and although it might be quite right that the CO. should be in a position to appeal against the order which wound it up, still the Court could not allow such an absurd result as this to happen, namely, that if the appeal was unsuccess- ful and was dismissed with costs, those costs would have to be paid by the successful respondent. Therefore, though the co. had a right to appeal, it ought only to be allowed to do so upon the terms of finding, not from the co.'s fund, but from some outside source — the directors or share- holders who were at the back of the appeal — security, and not merely nominal security, but indemnifying seourity against the costs of the appeal. In re CONSOLIDATED SOUTH BAND Mines Deep, Ld, C, A. [1909] W. N, 66 26, — Voluntary winding-up — Compulsory order — Contributory — Fully paid shareholder, Petition iy — Surplus assets — Directors — Pre^ sent! of shares — Fraud — Breach of trust — Juris diction — Companies Act, 1862 (25 S,' 26 Vict. c. 89), », 145. A contributory of a co., even though he is the holder of fuUy paid shares, is not debarred from presenting a compulsory winding-up peti- tion by the mere fact that there is a voluntary COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Practice)— fo/iCd. liquidation pending in which there is a surplus or probable surplus of assets for distribution. The jurisdiction to make a compulsory order is not limited to cases either where the voluntary liquidation is proved to be a sham or a fraud, or where the petition is supported by creditors, but may be exercised wherever the Court is satisfied that the voluntary liquidation is existing in circumstances which are likely to prejudice the shareholders, and that some benefit will result to the shareholders by the exercise of the juris- diction. During the pendency of the voluntary wind- ing-up of a CO. having surplus assets, a petition for a compulsory winding-up order was presented by a fully paid shareholder! — Held, that the case was not one in wliich the Court would exercise its jurisdiction to make a compulsory order, the evidence not being suf- ficient to shew that any benefit would thereby result to the shareholders. The petition was therefore dismissed, but, in the circumstances, without costs. Decision of Wright J. affirmed. In re Haycraft Gold Meduction and Mining Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 230, and In re Outta Perclw, Corporation, [1900] 2 Ch. 665, approved. In re Gold Co. (1879) 11 Ch. D. 701, con- sidered. In re NATIONAL Company fob the Disteibution of Electeicity by Sbcondaey Geneeatoes, Ld. - C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 34 27. — Winding-up — Validity — Contempo- raneous resolution for voluntary winding-up and' reconstruction scheme — Invalidity of scheme. A resolution for a voluntary winding-up is not invalid by reason of its being passed con- temporaneously and in concert with resolutions for a reconstruction scheme which are held to be invalid. Dictum of Turner L.J., in In re Imperial BanTi of China, India, and Japan, (1866) L. R. 1 Ch. 339, 3i7, explained and distinguished. Cleve V, Financial Corporation (1873) L, K, 16 Eq. 363, approved. Thomson r. Hendee- son's Transvaal Estates, Ld. C. A. [1908] W. N. 106 ; 1 Ch. 765 28. — Winding-up ordei — Absence of assets — Just and equitable — Business of company carried on by debenture-holders — Companies Act, 1862 (25 J(- 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 79, sub-si. i, 5.— Com- panies (^Winding-up) Rules, 1903, r. 186. On a winding-up petition presented by judg- ment creditors it appeared that after the judg- ment the debenture-holders of the co. appointed a receiver of all the assets and undertaking of the CO. He carried on the business of the co. and incurred further liabilities. The assets were very small and were more than covered by the debentures. Under the circumstances it was impossible for the petitioners to shew that there would be any surplus assets, or that they would get any advantages from a winding-up : — Held, that in the special circumstances of the case a winding-up order ought to be made. In re Chic, Ld. Warrington, J, [1906] W. N, 110 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 846 Note. An action had been brought by the ( 611 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 613 ) COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Practice)— cH/rff/. Kobinson Printing Co. against the co. to enforce a charge on the advertising book debts of the co., when it was held by Warrington J. that the charge was Talid. This case is reported ; Bobinson Printing Co., Ld. v. Cltic, LA., [1905] 2 Ch. 123. See Company — Receiver. 6. 29. — Winding-up petition iy fully paid up thareholder — Jfo assets — Petition dismissed — Companies (^Consolidation) Act, 1908 (8 Mdw. 7, c. 69), s. Ul, sub-s. 1. Petition by the holder of 5000 fully paid up shares in the co. asking for a compulsory wind- ing-up order, on the ground that the co. had no assets and was insolvent, and that the whole substratum of the co. was gone. The preliminary objection was taken that the petition was demurrable. It was settled that a fully paid up shareholder was not entitled to an order. In re Mica Gold Washing Co., (1879) 11 Ch. D. 36, and Buckley on Companies, 9th ed., p. 321, referred to. Neville, J. : I think this petition ought to be dismissed. It is a petition by a fully paid up shareholder, and he alleged that the co. has no assets and is insolvent. Under those circum- stances the petition must be dismissed with costs. In re Kaslo-Slocan Mining and Financial Coepokation, Ld. Neville J. [1910] W. N. 13 Preference. 1. - Frauduletit preference — Baiihruptcy- -" Creditor" — Companies Act, 1862 (25 ^- 26 'Vict. c. 89), s. l&i— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 46 j^ 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 37 ; s. 48, sub-s. 1. The word "creditor" in s. 48 of the Bank- ruptcy Act, 1883 (which avoids as a fraudulent preference a charge or payment made by an in- solvent debtor " in favour of any creditor or any person in trust for any creditor with a view of giving sucll creditor a preference "), means any person who at the date when the charge or pay- ment is made is entitled, if bankruptcy super- venes, to prove in the bankruptcy and share in the distribution of the bankrupt's estate. A surety who has a right of proof under s. 37 of the Act in respect of his contingent liability as surety is such a person. A charge, therefore, given to a surety, before he has been called upon to pay as surety, may be a fraudulent preference. Ex parte Read, [1897] 1 Q. B. 122, is not on this point inconsistent with, and has not been overruled by In re Warren, [1900] 2 Q. B. 138. In re Blackpool Motoe Car Co., Ld. Hamil- ton V. Blackpool Motor Cak Co., Ld. Buckley J. [1901] 1 Ch. 77 2. — Fraudulent preference — Companies Act, 1862 (25 i 26 Vict. c. 29), s. 16i—Ba7ikruptcy Act, 1883 (46 4- 47 Vict.c. 52), ss. 28 (repealed), 48. Sect. 164 of the Companies Act, 1862, although it uses the words " undue or fraudulent prefer- ence," does not extend the operation of the fraudulent preference clause (s. 48) of the Bank- ruptcy Act, 1883, which is thereby applied to cos. being wound up under the Companies Acts. COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Prefereace)—fy?ii(i. Within three months before the commence- ment of its winding-up a co. was indebted to H., and was to the knowledge of its directors unable to pay its debts as they became due from its own moneys. The chairman of its directors was per- sonally liable on an acceptance of the co. for part of the debt due to H. In pursuance of a scheme resolved upon by the directors with the very object of relieving the chairman from his liability, deben- tures of the CO. were allotted, to H. as a collateral security for his debts : — Held, that the transaction was not a fraudu- lent preference, and that the debentures were vahd. In re Stbnotypee, Ld. Hastings Beotheks v. Stenotypee, Ld. Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 4 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 250 3. — IVaudulent preference — Registered debenture issued pursuant to antecedent unregis- tered agreenient — Companies Act, 1862 (25 4' 26 Vict. c. 89), s. Wi— Companies Act, 1900 (63 Jf' 64 Vict. c. 48), s. 14. A CO. with a small paid-up share capital was incorporated in March, 1904. It was composed of seven members of the families of J. and B. W. J. was its " permanent director " and the holder of the bulk of its shares, and his sou and J. B. were the other directors. The co. had a large turnover necessitating more money, and in Dec, 1904, asked for an overdraft from its bankers. The bank required the guarantee of W. J., and at a meeting of the directors it was resolved that he should be empowered to arrange the overdraft and be requested to secure the same by deposit of securities or otherwise, and that the co. should, " whenever called upon by him to do so," give him security over its assets by means of debentures or other charge for the amount for which he should be liable. The overdraft was obtained, and W. J. deposited securities of his own to cover it. In Eeb., 1905, the overdraft was increased, a, similar resolution being passed. Neither agreement was registered. On Dec. 8, 1905, W. J. wrote to the co. asking for his del enture, and the same day the other direc- tors resolved to give it to him. He received on Dec. 15 a debenture charging all the co.'s assets with payment of the amount of the overdraft, and this debenture he registered on Dec. 31 under 3. 14 of the Companies Act, 1900. On Dec. 29 the directors resolved to call a meeting of the shareholders to pass an extraordinary resolution for voluntary winding-up, and the resolution was passed on Jan. 1, 1906. The co. was unable to pay its creditors in full : — Held (applying the principle of ISx parte Fisher, (1872) L. E. 7 Ch. 636 ; In re Gibson, (1878) 8 Ch. D. 230 ; and Bx parte JLilner, (1879) 13 Ch. D. 245), that, as the giving of the debenture was purposely postponed until the CO. was insolvent, in order to preserve the destruction of its credit which would result from registration, the postponement was evidence of an intention to give W. J. a fraudulent pre- ference, and that on that ground the debenture was invalid. Fx parte Hauxwell, (1883) 23 Ch. D. 626, X2 ( 613 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 6U ) COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Preference)— o-rtM. distinguished. In re JACKSOX AND Bassfoed, Ld. Buckley J. [1906] "W. N. 158 ; [1906] 2 Oh. 467 4. — Framhilenf preference — I'lduntari/ fol- lowed hy compulsory winding-up — Date of act of hankrvptcy — Companies Act, 1862 (25 Si' 26 f ict. c. 89), s. 164 — Companies (^Consolidiitivn) Act, 1908 (8 Hdic. 7, c. 69), s. 210. When a voluntary winding-up is followed by a compulsory winding-up, then, for the purpose of the fraudulent preference section (Companies Act, 1862, s. 164 ; Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, s. 210), the act of bankruptcy is the presen- tation of the petition. In re Taurine Co. (1883) 25 Gh. D. 118, 138, applied. In re EussELL HusTiNG Eecokd Co. Swinfen Eady J. [1910] W. N. 142 ; [1910] 3 Ch. 78 5. — Mates — Deienture-holders' action — Heceifer in. possession — Poor and district rates — }]'afer rate yayablehy meter — Apportionment — Preferential Payments in Banltruptcij Act, 1888 (51 S; 52 Viet. c. 62), .s. 1, sub-s. 1 {(i)— Preferen- tial Payments in Banhniptcy Amendment Act, 1897 (60 A'' 61 Vict. o. 19), ss.2,S. On Not. 9, 1898, holders of debentures of a CO. commenced an action to enforce their security, and a receiver was appointed. The debentures were a charge on the undertaking of the co. and its property present and future. On Dec. 1, 1898, the CO. went into liquidation. In Jan., 1899, the receiver paid poor rate and district rate made in Oct. 1898, and water rate, which was payable according to meter. He claimed to be recouped these payments as preferential payments under the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Act, 1888, and Amendment Act, 1897 :— Held, that the question being one between mortgagor and mortgagee, not between successive occupiers, and the poor rate and district rale being due from the co. at the date of the com- mencement of the winding-up, the liquidators must pay the whole amounts out of the general assets of the co. ; but that the water rate was not due until the water was supplied, and must be apportioned, the liquidators paying only so much as was due at the date of the commencement of the winding-up. In re Mannbsmann Tube Co. Von Siemens v. Mannesmann Tube Co. Kekewich J. [1901] W. N. 104 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 93 6. — Worhmen — Payment partly by commis- sion on work done — " Wages or salary " — Pre- ferential Paymotts in Bunliruptc}i Act, 1888 (51 4'- 52 Vict. u. 62), s. 1, sul-s. 1 (*). In this case workmen were employed by the CO. and paid for their services partly by fixed salary and partly by way of commission upon the tonnage of ships turned out from the building yards. A resolution had been passed for volun- tary winding-up, and a receiver had been ap- pointed in an action by debenture-holders. At the date of the passing of the resolution for winding-up, the co. was indebted to various employees in certain amounts of which they claimed payment in priority to the debenture- holders. The question was whether the amounts COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Prefereuce)—e«rtM. so claimed were " wages or salary " entitled to priority within the meaning of s. 1 , sub-s. 1 Qi), of the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Act, 1888 :— Held, that the sums claimed were wages within the meaning of the section. The section did not prescribe that in order to be entitled to priority the wages must be fixed wages. These were wages varying in amount in proportion to the work done, and were none the less " wages " within the Act. In re Eaele's SHIPBUILDING AND ENGINEBEXNG CO. BAECLAY & CO. V. Eaele's Shipbuilding and Engineering Co. Joyce J. [1901] W. N. 78 Xote. — See In re Klein, Ex parte Goodwin, Bigham J., [1906] W. N. 148. Banliruptcij— Preferential Belt. 1. Proof. — Costs, Security for — Winding-up (Voluntary) — Creditor out of jurisdiction claiming to prove. See Company — Winding-up — Costs. 7. 1. — Creditm — Proof of debt — Amendment^ Secured creditor — Omission to value security — Vote in respect of whole debt — " Inadcertenoe " — Solicitor — Lien on clients documents — Wairer — Companies (Winding -up) Act, 1890 (53 ^~ 54 Vict, c. 63), ScJied. I., clause 8. Solicitors, who had a lien for costs upon title- deeds of a CO. which were in their possession, proved their debt in the winding-up of the co., stating in the proof that they held no security for the debt, and they voted at a meeting of creditors in respect of the whole debt. The solicitors afterwards acted for the liqui- dator in completing the sale of the co.'s property, and on completion they received the purchase- money and handed over the title-deeds to the purchaser, without any express bargain with the liquidator, that their lien should not be pre- judiced. They claimed to retain their debt out of the purchase-money, and applied for liberty to amend their proof by stating in it their security and the estimated value of it, or, in the alterna- tive, to withdraw their proof and rely on their security for payment. One of the solicitors deposed that the form of proof was filled up by a clerk who was ignorant of the existence of tlae lien, and this was con- firmed by the clerk. The solicitor said that when the proof was put before him by the clerk he asked whether it was in order, and, on being assured by the clerk that it was, he swore the proof. It entirely escaped his attention that the proof stated that his firm held no security for the debt. Neither he nor his partner had any intention of surrendering the security, and they were not aware until some months afterwards that the proof made it appear that they did not hold security. The deponent also said that at the commencement of the liquidation a loss to the creditors of the co. was not anticipated, for the statement of affairs shewed a surplus after paying the creditors, and the official receiver stated that the assets would be more than suffi- cient to pay the creditors in fuU. The assets ultimately proved to be deficient : — Held, that, under the circumstances, leave ( 615 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 616 ) COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Proof)— co?rfi«M^^. ought not to be given to amend or withdraw the proof. Decision of Buckley J. reversed. Per Vaughan "Williams L.J. ; The definition of "inadvertence" given in Ex parte Clarke (1892) 67 L. T. 232, adopted. The solicitors had not discharged the onus which lay on them of proving inadvertence on their part. But even if they had discharged that onus, yet they had lost their lien by handing over the deeds to the purchaser without calling the attention of the liquidator to the lien and asking whether he would consent to their retain- ing the benefit of it. Stirling L.J. would not say that the omission to value the security did not arise from " inad- vertence," though he thought the evidence very unsatisfaptory. But he rested his judgment on this, that the granting of leave to amend or withdraw a proof was not a matter of right, but was subject to the control of the Court, and leave ought not to be granted in a case in which, as here, the position of all parties, and especially that of the liqui- dator, had been altered since the proof was made. In re Safety Explosives, Ld. C. A. [1904] W. N. 9 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 226 Note. See In re Bowe, Bigham J., [1904] 2 K. B. 489. See Company — Banltruptcy. 3. — Winding - up — Creditor — Proof fur interest — Solvent company — Oaming and wager- ing contract — Interest on sums deposited as cover. A CO. carrying on the business of outside brokers and transactions with its customers which were held to be illegal gambling trans- actions. The customers deposited money with the CO. as cover for differences on these trans- actions, and it was held that they were entitled to prove in the winding-up of the co. for the amounts remaining in the co.'s hands as de- posits. The liquidator, on the proofs admitted in respect of deposits, paid by cheques two divi- dends amounting together to 20.s. in the pound, and each creditor gave him a receipt for the amoiOit of the second dividend, describing it as " the amount payable to me in respect of th& second and final dividend of 10«. in the pound on and in full discharge of my claim against this CO." After payment to the creditors of 20s. in the pound on the principal of their deposits there remained a surplus in the hands of the liquidator. It was shewn that by the course of dealing between the co. and its customers interest at i per cent, was paid on the deposits : — Held, that there was an implied contract by the CO. to pay interest on the deposits, and that the creditors were entitled to receive out of the surplus interest from the date of the winding-up until the date of payment of the second dividend : Held, also, that there had been no accord and satisfaction of the claim for interest. ' In re W. "W. Duncan & Co. Buckley J. [1905] 1 Ch. 307 Receiver. See under Compant— Receiver. COMPANY— WINDING-UP— eo/ii-i.wtffK?. Beconstruction. See also under CoMPANT — Reconstruc- tion. 1- — Dissentient shareholder — Registered office in Rhodesia— Notice of dissent 'left at London office— Waived' by liquidator—Conflict of laws— Companies Act, 1862 (25 ^- 26 Vict. c. 89), «■ 161 — Companies {Consolidation) Act, 1908 (8 Miu. 1, c. 69), 5. 192, sui-s. ^— Evidence of local law. The pit. was the holder of fully paid up shares in the deft, co., which was in com-se of liquidation for the purpose of reconstruction. The CO. was registered in 1903 under the Com- panies Ordinance, 1895, of Southern Rhodesia, and its registered oiEce was in Bulawayo. By the co.'s articles it was provided that the business of the CO. should be carried on in England. At extraordinary general meetings held in London on June 1 8 and July H, 1909, resolutions had been passed for the voluntary winding-up of the co., and all its assets were to be taken over by a new CO. Under s. 158 of the Companies Ordinance, 1895, which was similar to s. 161 of the Com- panies Act, 1862, a dissentient shareholder had to give notice of dissent at the registered office of the CO. within seven days of the date of the meeting. The pit. voted against the resolutions, and on July 5 gave notice of dissent at the London office of the co. On July 6 the liquidator sent him in reply a letter in the following terms : " 1 am in receipt of your letter of the 5th inst., and note that you do not consent to the recon- struction of the above company. Subsequently the liquidator refused to treat the notice of dissent as valid, on the ground that it was not served at the registered office of the co., and the pit. brought this action. Under the Companies Ordinance, 1895, the liquidator had power to do all acts in the name and on behalf of the co : — Held, that the liquidator had waived the irregularity and that the notice of dissent must be treated as valid. Evidence of an expert in Eoman-Dutch law admitted although he had not practised in Khodesia. Bkailey r. Rhodesia Consoli- dated, Ld. Warrington J. [1910] W. N. 123 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 95 Reduction of Capital. See under Company — Reduction of Capital. Sale. 1. — Comjianij — Windinri-np — Sale to foreign compaiui — "Companii" — Meanlnq of — Companies (^Consolidation') Act, 1908 (8 Ed'w. 7, c. 69), ss. 192, 285. A sale to a foreign co. cannot be eiiected under s. 192 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908. III. re. Irrigation of France, (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. 176, distinguished. Thomas r. United BOTTEB Cos. op France, Ld. Eve J. [1909] 2 Ch. 484 ( 617 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 618 ) COMPANY— WINDING-UP— roM/ZflwerZ. Scheme of Arrangement. See under Company — Arrangements. Secretary. See under Company- ■Secretary. Secured Creditor. 1. — Garnishee order — Applicatinn of lair of ianhruptcy—Judicatiire. Jlci, 187.5 (38 <5' 39 Vict. c. IT), s. \0—Ba.nliruptcij Act., 1883 (46 ^- il Vict, c. 52), .s. 4.5. Sect. 45 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, re- stricting the rights of creditors under attach- ments of debts, is not made applicable by s. 10 of the Judicature Act, 1875, to the winding-up of insolvent cos., and therefore it is still the law, as recognized in In re Stanhope Sillistone Collieries Co., (1879) 11 Ch. D. 160, that a judgment creditor who has obtained a garnishee order nisi to attach a debt owing by a co. to his debtor, and has served the order on the co. before com- mencement of its winding-up, is a secured creditor and entitled to the debt as against the liquidator. In re National United Invest- ment COBPOBATION - - Wright J. [1901] W. N. 76 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 950 Shares. See under Company — Shares. Solicitors' lien. — Documents in solicitor's hands and subject to lien before the date of winding-up order. See SoLiciTOK — Lien. Supervision Orders. 1. — Pracfirr — Petition — Cost.-) — Companies Act, 1862 (25 cj- 26 Vict. c. 89), .?. IZ9,— Companies Act, 1900 (63 4' 64 Vict. c. 48), s. 25. The Companies Act, 1900, s. 25, provides that " in a voluntary winding-up an application under s. 138 of the Companies Act, 1802, may be made by any creditor of the co." The Court held that, since the coming into operation of the Act of 1900, there was not any real advantage in having a supervision order.' It was pointed out that a supervision order ipso facto stayed all actions against the Co., whereas in a voluntary winding-up application had to be made to stay each action. The Court would not in future be disposed to allow the costs of a petition for a supervi.sion order unless it could be shewn that there was some sufficient reason for , making the order. Peaotice Note Wright J. [1901] W. N. 14 Trade Name. See under Company — Name. Ultra Vires. — Gratuities to officers and servants. See Company — Gratuities. 1. Vesting Orders. See under r'oMPANY — Vesting Orders. COMPANY— WINDING-UP— coTrfiMMei. Voluntary Winding-up. 1. — Special resolvtions for — Voluntary liqui- dation — Notice of meeting to pass resoliitions for reconstruction — Com,pan%es Act, 1862 (25 ^ 1(i Vict. c. 89), ss. 51, 129. A petition was presented by a creditor for a compulsory winding-up order against the co. As between him and the co. the only question was whether there should be a compulsory wind- ing-up order, or what was alleged to be a voluntary winding-up should be continued under the supervision of the Court, and the petitioner was satisfied with a supervision order : — Held, that there never was passed a valid resolution for voluntary winding-up. The circular and notice of the first meeting meant, " You are asked to consent to something under which a voluntary winding-up in the ordinary sense will not take place, but which is only a reconstruc- tion scheme. If you do not like to consent you will have the usual rights of a dissentient under s. ] 61 of the Act of 1862. The usual expenses of a voluntary winding-up will not be incurred, as there is a fixed amount payable to the liquidator." At the meeting the only resolution put was for a voluntary winding-up and the appointment of a liquidator. That was altogether different in its results and objects from what was proposed in the notice. It would not bring s. 161 into operation, and it would not limit the amount of the expenses, and, in fact, it was not the resolution of which notice had been given. A shareholder receiving the notice might very well say that he would not trouble to attend aa ordinary reconstruction meeting, and at the same time might have the strongest objection to an ordinary voluntary winding-up, which was something more than a winding-up for the limited purpose of reconstructing the company. And held, therefore, that there was no vahd winding-up in existence, and the usual compul- sory winding-up order must be made. In re Teede & Bishop, Ld. Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 62 — Supervision orders — Practice. See Company — Winding-up — Super- vision Orders. COMPENSATION— ^JoZtf(o« of office— Emolu- ments — Period for calculation — Jurisdiction to fix amount — Rescission of resolution — Surcharge —London Government. Act. 1899 (62 Jj- 63 Vint, c. 14), .?. SO, sub-ss. 1, 2, i — Local Government Act, 1888 (51 ,»;• 52 Vict. c. 41), s. 120, suh-ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, G— Superannuation Act, 1859 (22 ^ 23 Vict. G. 26), .w. 2, 7. Where on a transfer of powers and officers from a vestry to a borough council under the London Government Act, 1899, an officer, whose office is abolished, makes a claim for compensa- tion, the council is the proper tribunal to decide, with a view to assessing his compensation, what has been the amount of his salary and emolu- ments, and their finding of fact cannot be reviewed by the Court. Where a borough council after investigation of the circumstances have passed a resolution under s. 120 of the Local Government Act, 1888, ( 619 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 620 ) COMPENSATION— coMiMwei. assessing the compensation payable to an officer for the abolition of his office, this resolution is binding on the council, and cannot be rescinded by a subsequent resolution on the ground that the amount claimed and assessed is excessive. In 1874 the pit. was appointed surveyor to the vestry of St. George, Hanover Square, at a salary of 3501. a year, which was increased from time to time. By the London Government Act, 1899, the borough of Westminster was consti- tuted, which included the parish of St. George. In May, 1901, the Westminster City Council abolished the plt.'s office, and he sent in his claim for compensation based on the average of his salary and emoluments for the five years previous to the abolition of his office. On Aug. 1, 1901, the council passed a resolution granting him the amount claimed, namely, 518Z. 12s. id. a year. There was no appeal to the Treasury from this resolution. In Nov., 1902, the auditor disallowed part of the com- pensation on the ground that it did not properly represent emoluments, and he surcharged the members of the council with the amount. On Nov. 20, 1902, the council passed a resolution rescinding their resolution of Aug. 1, 1901, and reducing the plt.'s allowance to i32l. 7s. lOd. He appealed to the Treasury, but the appeal was disallowed, and in July, 1903, commenced this action against the corporation for the arrears of his allowance : — Seld, that the period of five years of which the pit. had given particulars was the right period, but that it was immaterial, as the council had a general power to assess ; that the question what was the amount of the plt.'s salary and emoluments was a question of fact which must be decided by the council, and it was not com- petent for the Court to review their decision ; that even if the council exceeded the right amount their decision was not ultra vires ; the vote was good up to the proper limit ; that the resolution of Aug. 1, 1901, was valid ; the council had no power to relieve themselves from the obligation thus rendered binding upon them, and the reso- lution to rescind it was invalid. Livingstone V. Westminster Coepobation - Buckley J. [1904] W. N. 69 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 109 — Agricultural Holdings Act — Covenant — Destruction by fire — Compensation for manurial value. See Lanbloed and Tenant, i. — Alien — Death — Negligence of British subject — Cause of action arising on high sea. See Negligence. — Appeal — Railways, Regulation of — " Practice and procedure " — Practice. See Appeal. 2. — Appeal to High Court — Order under s. 5 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. See County Cotjkt — ^Appeal. 1. — Apportionment — Common lands. See Common. — Civil Service — Retirement, Compensation on — Appeal from Australia. See New South Wales. COMPENSATION— eowi!MJ«e(2. — Commonable rights. Compensation for extin- guishment of — Action to determine persons interested — Jurisdiction. See Common. 1, — Compromise of all claims, including claim for loss of rateable area — Validity. See Local Goveenmbnt. 12, — Compulsory purchase — Street widening — Notice to treat — Withdrawal — Local government. See Streets. — Conditions of sale — Misdescription — Absence of title to mines — Compensation. See Vendor and Puechasee— Condi- tions of Sale. 6. — Contract — Enjoyment of light — Deed of acknowledgment — Non-disclosure — Speciiic performance — Costs. See Vendor and Puechasee — Con- tracts. 1. — Copyholds — Enfranchisement. See Lands Clauses Acts. 15. — Costs of action for compensation — New South Wales Public Works Act. See New South Wales. — Creation of county borough — Loss of borough's contribution to county expenses — Ad- justment of financial relations. See Local Government. 10. 2. — Damage caused by exerrise of statutory powers— PuUic Sealth Act, 1875 (38 <|' 39 Vict. c. 55), ,s. 308— -SeuiCT-s. The respondents, acting under the powers conferred by the Public Health Act, 1875, con- structed an intercepting sewer, a pumping station, a sewage reservoir, and an outfall sewer, which were integral parts of, and together formed, one scheme of sewerage. The sewers were in part constructed on land the property of the claimant ; the pumping station and the reservoir were constructed on land the property of other persons. The present value of certain portions of the claimant's land which were in proximity to the pumping station and reservoir was depreciated by reason of the contemplated user of that station and reservoir for sewage purposes : — Held, that as the acts of user, the contempla- tion of which causes the depreciation, would be done on land not the property of the claimant, the damage was not sustained "by reason of the exercise of the powers " of the Public Health Act within the meaning of s. 308 of that Act, and consequently that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation under that Act in respect of that depreciation. Judgment of Bigham J., [1906] W. N, 210 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 14, affirmed. Hoeton v. Colwtn Bat and Colwyn Urban District Council C. A. [1908] W. N. 8 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 327 — Election, Right of — Estates in Scotland and Australia — Two separate wills — Right to equitable compensation. See New South Wales. ( 621 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 022 ) COMPENSATION— cr)«i;;n7/''r7. — Election to take property as against will- Amount of compensation, at what date to be ascertained. See Election. 2. — Employer and wortman. See under Mastise and Sbkvant. — Exercise of statutory powers by public body Appeal from Western Australia. See AUSTEALIA. 17. — Glass-houses — Eemoyable fixtures — Fruit trees. See Landlord akd Tenant. 5. — Housing of the working classes. See under HOUSING OF THE WOBKING Classes. — Interest on amount awarded — Mines. See Railway — Minerals. ■ — Lands Clauses Acts. See under LANDS CLAUSES Acts. — Lands Clauses Act— Compensation for per- sonal injury, inconvenience, or annoy- ance. See Railway — Lands Clauses Acts. — Lands for railway purposes. Claim to take — Cape of Good Hope Act. See Cape of Good Hope. 1. — Lands taken oompulsorily — Injurious affection of adjoining lands — Land taken for fort. See Defence Acts. 1. — Lands taken for public purposes. See Zauzibae. — Lease — Covenants — Breaches — Ee-entry — Compulsory purchase by public body — Lands Clauses Acts. See Lease. 2. — Lease — Suspension of pastoral lease. See New South Wales. — Licence, Non-renewal of — Capital moneys — Investment — Powers of debenture trustees. See Beewers. 1,2, 3. — Licensing Acts. See under LICENSING ACTS. — Light. See under Light. — London Building Act — Compensation for damage to trade — Jurisdiction of sur- veyors. See London — Buildings. 21. 3. — Loss of office — " Office " — " Place, situa- tion, or employment " — Local Government Act. 1888 (51 S; 52 Vict. c. 41), ss. 100, 120. A local Act, by which a poor law union and rural district were dissolved, provided that any officer of the guardians or rural district council who should be in office at the commencement of the Act, and who by virtue thereof should sus- tain direct pecuniary loss, should be deemed to be an officer entitled to compensation within the meaning of a. 1 20 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and that that section should apply COMPENSATION —con fin )ieiJ. accordingly. By s. 100 of that Act the expres- sion "office" includes "any place, situation, or employment," and the expression "officer" is to be construed accordingly. Solicitors were during a period of about twenty-six years from time to time employed by the board of guardians of the union and the rural district council to do such legal work as those bodies required to have done, receiving by way of remuneration for that work the usual professional costs and charges payable to solicitors ; and during that period no other solicitor was employed by the board of guardians or council : — Held, that the solicitors so employed could not be considered as officers of or as holding any "place, situation or employment" under • the board of guardians or rural district council within the meaning of ss. 100, 120 of the Local Government Act, 1 888. Caepentee r. BRISTOL Corporation - C A, [1907] W. N. 178; [1907] 2 K. B. 617 — Market Gardeners' Compensation (Scotland) Act — Improvements — Retrospective effect of statute. See Landlord and Tenaistt. 3. — Married woman — Restraint on anticipation — Removal of disability. See Election. 3. — Mines. See under Mines. Railway — Minerals. — Mines — Reservation of manorial rights — Right to support of surface — Damage to sur- face. See INCLOBUEE. 2. — Mining lease — Waterworks clauses — Capital or income — Lessor's compensation. See Settled Lajid — Leases. — New South Wales Acquisition Act. See New South Wales. — New Zealand Mining Act. See New Zealand. — Public health— Ofiences — Sale of unsound meat — Seizure— Prosecution— Acquittal. See Local Government. 22, — Railway company — Coal required to be left unworked. Sec Mines. — Railway company. See under Railway — Mines. — Sale by the Court — Conditions of sale — Mistake — Mi sdescri p tion . See Vendor and Purchaser— Condi- tions of Sale. 6. — Salvage — Injury to salving vessel — Onus pro- bandi . See Shipping— Salvage. — Specific performance — Misleading particulars — Statement by auctioneer. Sec Vendor and Purchaser — Condi- tions of Sale. 3. — Statutory powers — Postmaster-General. ,SVv Negligexcf.. ( 623 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 621 ) COMPENSATION— coKfinwe^f. — Submarine telegraphs conyentiou — Fouling of cable by anchor — Sacrifice of anchor — Compensation. See Telbgeaph. — To officer on abolition of office — Practice of Treasury — Discretion of council. See Local Goveenmbnt. 2i. — Trade mark — Registered mark — Innocent infringer — Injunction — Whether plain- tiff also entitled to compensation. See TeADB MAEK. i. — Tramcar, Accident to — Liability of contractor to lessee — Damages — Compensation paid to passengers — Right of lessee to reopTer from contractor. See Tramways. 9. — Transfer of powers of London School Board to London County Council — Direct pecu- niary loss — Officer of authority whose powers not transferred. See Local Government. 7. — Waterworks — Notice to prevent working of mines — Compensation — Rise in value of minerals. See Mines. — Waterworks clauses — Construction of statutes. See under Watbe. — Will — Several persons electing to take against will and taking other benefits under it — Compensation inter se. See Election, i. — Workmen's Compensation Act. See under MASTER AND SERVANT. COMPETENCY- Appeal to House of Lords- New trial. See Divorce — Practice. 25. — Appeal to House of Lords from Scotland — Workmen's compensation. See Master and Seevant — Practice. COMPLETION— P.uilding^contract — Completion of contract or work — Extraordinary traffic. See Highway. 32. COMPOSITION— Agreement for— Registration- Creditors — De^ds of arrangement. iSee Company — Arrangements. 1. — Bankruptcy. See under Bankruptcy — Composition. COMPOUND SETTLEMENT. See under Settlement. COMPRADOEE— Liability of bankers— Compra- dore's limited authority as their agent. See Hong Kong. 1. COMPROMISE — Absent parties — Administration — Claim against executor — Compromise at trial of action — Binding absent parties — R. S. C, Order XVL, r. 9 A. The pits, were four of the residuary legatees under the will of W. The deft, was the sur- viving husband of the testatrix, and also the COMPROMISE- co«!!(«?W(Z. executor of her will. He was also entitled under the trusts of the will to the income of the residuary estate during his life. The other three residuary legatees were not parties to ' the action, and were believed to be in America. The pits, claimed a declaration that a sum of ioOOZ. (for a moiety thereof), invested on mort- gage, formed part of the estate of the testatrix ; and also administration, so far as necessary, of the personal estate of the testatrix. The deft, alleged that the whole of the 4.500Z. belonged to himself absolutely. The action now came on for trial, and the deft, offered certain terms in settlement of all claims against himself whereby a sum of money would be equally divisible at once between the seven residuary legatees. All parties were sui juris. Farwell J. : I think I can safely say that the compromise will be for the benefit of all parties, including the three absent parties, and I will make the order. An affidavit must be produced to the registrar that the absent parties are out of the jurisdiction, and are believed to be in America, and their shares will be carried to separate accounts. In re Wrigglebwoeth. Wilkinson v. Weigglesworth Earwell J. [1901] W. N. 172 2. — Absent parties — Practice — Power of Ciniirt to bind absent persons — Extent of jurisdic- tion — B. S. C, Order xvi., r. 9a. An action having been brought on behalf of the holders of bonds (payable to bearer), issued by a ry. co., against the trustees for the bond- holders and the CO., the Court in 189i sanc- tioned a scheme for tlie compromise of the action, under which all the bondholders should receive a certain sum in respect of each bond delivered up to be cancelled, and ordered that the scheme should be binding on all the bondholders who were not parties to the proceedings : — Held, that the Court had jurisdiction to make an order on the holders of outstanding bonds whose names and addresses had not been dis- covered, to come in within a period of six months and accept the sum per bond, or be excluded from the benefit of the scheme. The decision of the 0. A., reported-as Colling- ham V. Sloper, [1901] W. N. 50 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 769, reversed. Saragossa and Mediter- ranean Ry. Co. r. Collinqham H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 66 ; [1904] A. C. 169 — Bankruptcy. See under Bankruptcy — Compromise. — Bankruptcy — Trustee for power to com- promise claims. See Bankruptcy — Trustee. II. — Company — Winding-up — Liquidator — Power to compromise action. See Company — Winding-up — Lic^ui- dator. 3. — Consent order. Effect of — Waiver of rights — Election of selling partner to affirm sale. See Partnership. — Costs of trustees — Trustees' right of indemnity — Priority. See Solicitor— Costs. ( 625 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 626 ) COMPROMISE— co?jti«««(Z. — Counsel's authority — Agreement to refer — Authority exceeded by counsel. See Bareistee. — Creation o£ urban district — Subtraction of parish from rural district — Local gOTernmeut — .Compensation — Compro- mise of claims including claim for loss of rateable area. See Local Government. 12. — Executor. See under Executor — Compromije. — Infants. See under Infant — Compromise. — Periodical payments — Compromise for lump sum — Apportionment — Payment out of capital of estate. See Settled Land — Apportionment. — Sale of tenant for life's interest — Investment. See Settled Land— Forfeiture. — Solicitor — Agent's authority — Lay client bound. See Solicitor — Compromise. — Solicitor — Costs — Lien — Infants — Judgment Form of order. See Solicitor — Costs. — Solicitor, Authority of, to compromise action — Apparent assent but misunderstand- ing in fact on part of client as to terms of compromise. See Solicitor — Compromise. 3. — Stay of pi'oceedings — Strildng out name of one co-plaintiff' — Practice. One of several co-pits, has no absolute right to withdraw froiii an action and hare his name strucli out. An application by one or more of several defts. to have all proceedings stayed as between one of several oo-plts. and themselves, or to have that co-pit. 's name removed from the record, on the ground that a compromise has been arranged to which the other co-pits, are not parties, is wholly irregular. In case of a difference between co-pits., the proper course is to make an order that the name of one of them should be struck out as pit. and added as deft. But such an order will only be made on security being given for the deft.'s costs. In re Matthews. Gates v. Mooney Swinfen Eady J. [1905] 2 Ch. 460 — Trustee. See under TRUSTEE — Compromise. 1. — Trustee, Compromise with one — Release pro tauto of the others — Right to prove in the bankruptcy of another trustee. See Trustee — Release. 1. 4. — Will — Beneficiaries — Conflicting interests — Legal rights — Compromise — Agree- ment — Family solicitor — Common agent — -Mistake of law or fact — Setting aside compromise. A compromise between members of a family of their supposed rights under a will or other document, made after a joint consultation with the family solicitor, he acting as the common agent, is, in general, binding upon .ill the parties, even though it may not be quite iu accordance C OWB'&OTB.lSE—contin'mtl. with the exact legal rights, provided the solicitor has first fully explained to the parties what those rights are. But if any one of the parties has entered into the compromise in consequence of what afterwards proves to have been an erroneous view taken by the solicitor of the facts or of the law, or merely because the solicitor may have considered a compromise would be for the advantage of all parties irrespective of their legal rights, that party may have the compro- mise set aside. Decision of Kekewich J. reversed. In re Roberts. Roberts v. Roberts C. A. [1905] 1 Ch. 704 COMPTROLLER -Patent— Petition for revoca- tion — Application to amend specifica- tion — Practice. See Patent — Practice. COMPTTLSORT PILOTAGE— Shipping. See under Shipping — Pilotage. COMPULSORY POWERS— Award. See ARBITRATION — Award. 1. — Lands Clauses Acts. See under Lands Clauses Acts. — Railway company. See under RAILWAY — Powers. COMPULSORY PURCHASE— Lands Clauses Acts. See under Lands Clauses Acts. — Street widening — Notice to treat — Withdrawal — Compensation — Local government. See Streets. COMPULSORY WINDING-UP— Company. See under Company — Winding-up. CONCEALMENT — Material fact — Statement induced by misrepresentation. See Estoppel. 5. — Mutual insurance association — Ship mort- gaged not to be considered insured — Concealment of mortgage — Liability for calls. See Insurance, Marine. 15. — Suppression of material facts — Non-disclosure — Subsequent knowledge by selling partner. See Partnership. CONCESSION— Deed of— Construction of cove- nant — Lands in possession of the Crown. See Trinidad and Tobago. CONCURRENT ACTIONS — Conduct of pro- ceedings — Practice. See Administration. 3. CONCURRENT JUDGMENTS— Practice. See Scottish Law. CONDEMNATION— Warranty of freedom from capture — Relation back of title of captors. See Insurance (Marine). 32. ( 637 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 628 ) CONDITION— Alienation, Restraint of— Grand- children conditionally substituted — No right of accretion. See Canada- Will. 2. — Arbitration — Workmen's Compensation Act — Condition precedent to jurisdiction of arbitrator. See Master and Servant — Practice. — Attached to renewal — Licensing justices — Refusal to deliver licence without undertaking. See Licensing Acts. 39, 40, 41. — Bankruptcy — Conditional order of discharge — Revocation of order. See Bankruptcy — Bischarge. 3. — Bill of sale — Validity — Condition for defeas- ance of security — Condition not ex- pressed in bill — Avoidance of bill. See Bill of Sale. 9! — Charter of ship for voyage — Implied condi- tion — Carriage of bunker coal intended for use on future voyage. See Shipping — Charterparty. — Contract — Impossibility of performance — Implied condition — Cargo to be shipped by specified ship. See Contract. 23. — Contract — "Validity — Condition attached to goods. See Contract. 30. — Contract for fixed period — Express term — Implied condition. See Contract. 15. — Fetter on power of sale — Condition of residing and providing a home for third party — Condition of trust. See Settled Land — Sale. — Fidei-commissum primogenitura — Condition as to surname not authorized by the founder. See Malta. — Implied — Breach — Measure of damages. See Sale of Goods. — Insurance, Accident — Condition in policy — Immediate notice of accident— Omission to give notice — Insurer's liability. See Insurance (Accident). 3. — Land transfer — Registration — - Conditions annexed to title. See Vendor and Purchaser— Cove- nants. 4. — Lease — Condition to take over sheep at expiration of lease. See Scottish Law. — Lease — Covenant — Licence to assign — Assignment by husband to wife — Un- reasonable condition. See Lajtolobd and Tenant. 14, 15. — Lease — Licence to assign — Unreasonably withheld — Condition imposing in- creased rent. &e Landlord and Tenant. 15. — Lease — Relief from forfeiture — Conditional order — Non-fulfilment of conditions. See Landlord and Tenant. 37. CQTS'DITIQ'S— continued. — Leases of machines for shoe manufacture — Restrictive condition as to user— Re- straint of trade. See Canada — Leasea. 3. — Legacy, Duty of executor to give notice of — Beneficial interest of executor on breach of condition — Estoppel. See Executor — Sisclosnre. 1. — Licensing justices, power of, to attach con- ditions — Monopoly value. See Licensing Acts. 41. — Marriage, Condition as to consent to — Mar- riage with consent in testator's lifetime — Codicil confirming will after the marriage. See Will — Conditions. 2. — Marriage, Restraint of. See under MARRIAGE. — Mortgage — Foreclosure — Conditions of proviso for redemption — Interest. See Mortgage — ^Foreclosure. — Name and arms, Condition subsequent re- quiring assumption of — Infant. See Settlement. — Patent — Licence — Purchase of patented article from licensee without notice of condition — Estoppel. See Patent — Infringement. — Precedent — Charity, Gift to — Remoteness — Perpetuity — Postponement of enjoy- ment — Construction. See Chabitt. 11. — Precedent — Compensation — Tenant — Title. See Lands Clauses Acts. 9. • Precedent, Condition- See Rates. -Rating appeal. - Precedent, Condition — Order of Secretary of State — Notice of making of order. See Statutory Rules and Orders. - Precedent, Condition — Poor rate — Objection before assessment committee. See Rates. - Precedent, Condition — Public vaccinator — Ofier to vaccinate child. See Vaccination. - Precedent, Condition — Workmen's compensa- tion. See Master and Servant — Practice. -Precedent— Conviction — Analysis — Deteriora- tion of sample. See Adulteration. 1. - Precedent — Directors' remuneration — Fixing time of payment. See Company — Director!. 24. - Precedent — Fire policy— Award condition precedent to suit. See Jersey. - Precedent — Lease— Option to purchase land- lord's interest — mortgage — Specific per- formance. See Landlord and Tenant. 58. ( 629 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 630 ) CONDITION— co«/('fl,MwZ. — Precedent — Mortgage — Foreclosure absolute — Consent order — Effect — Demand in writing. See Mortgage— Foreclosure. — Precedent — New Zealand Property Law Act, 1908 — Suit by lessee on a coTenant to renew the lease — No relief against per- formance of condition precedent. See New Zealand. — Precedent — Poor rate — Appeal. See Kates. — Precedent — Warranty against suicide — Policy for benefit of third party. See Insubance (Life). 17. — Probation of offender) — Recognizance — Con- dition as to abstention from intoxi- cating liquor. See Criminal Law — Appeal. 19. — Railway company — Carrier — Damageable goods carried unpacked — Owner's risk — Reasonable condition. See Railway — Carrier. — Restraint on alienation. Sale of property sub- ject to — Mortgages by purchaser not a breach of condition. See Cape op Good Hope. — Sale of goods. See under Sale op Goods. — Settled land — Fetter on power of sale. See Settled Land — Sale. — Ship — Contract of carriage — Passengers' luggage — Theft by shipowners' servants. See Shipping— Passengers. — Slaughter-house — Licence — Limitation of time. See Slaughter-house. — Tenant for life — Forfeiture clause — Non- residence — Validity of condition. See Settled Land — Forfeiture. — Tramway company — Common carrier of passengers — Negligence— Liability for personal injuries — Special condition limiting liability. See (lABBIER. 1. — Unreasonable — Covenant by lessee not to assign without licence " not to be un- reasonably withlield." See Landlord and Tenant. 1.5. — Vagrancy — Refusal of offer of work subject to conditions , See Poor Law. — "Water, Cutting off — Non-payment of rate — Condition precedent. See Water. — Will — Absolute gift— Gift on condition— Pre- catory trust for charity — " I specially desire." See Will— Precatory Trust. 2. — ■ Will — Construction, See under Will — Conditions, CONDITION— co«iifflMe(Z. — Will — Not conditional — Dispositions not dependent on a specific event — Docu- ment pronounced for. See Will — Conditional. 1. CONDITIONAL— Simple contract debt— Acknow- ledgment — Conditional or limited promise. See Limitations, Statute of. CONDITIONAL LICENCE— Licensing Acts. See under Licensing Acts. CONDITIONAL OFFER— Xands Clauses Acts- Arbitration — Costs — Offer by promoters — Conditional offer. See Lands Clauses Acts. 14. CONDITIONAL ORDER— Discharge— Bankrupt. See Bankruptcy — Discharge. 1 — 4. CONDITIONAL RELEASE — Composition — Scheme of arrangement. See Bankruptcy — Arrangements. CONDITIONAL SALE— Clog on redemption. See Mortgage — Redemption. — Vendor and purchaser. See under VENDOR AND PURCHASER- Conditions of Sale. CONDONATION— Adultery. See under DIVORCE — Condonation. CONDUCT MONEY— Probate— Practice. See under PROBATE — Conduct Money. CONDUCT OF ACTION— Transfer of action from inferior Com't — Cross action in High Court. See Shipping — Practice. CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS— Practice— Cou- current actions. See ADMINISTRATION. 3. CONFESSION — Adultery— Divorce— Practice- Evidence. See Divorce — Confession. 1. "IN CONFIDENCE "—Precatory trust— Abso- lute gift " in confidence." See Will — Precatory Trusts. 3. CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONS — Contract of service — Restraint on trade — Winding- up. See COMPANY' — Directors. 5. — Solicitor and client — Rectification of deed — Independent advice. .svy- Solicitor — Fiduciary Relation. CONFISCATION— Act of State— Annexation of native State— Jurisdiction of Municipal Courts. See Act op State. 1. — Regrant of native lands, Construction of — Tru-it. See New Zealand. ( 631 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. CONFLICT OF LAWS. See also under INTERNATIONAL LAW. — Action — Lex loci — Lex fori —Right of action in England for acts in foreign country — Territorial waters. See Action, i. 1. — - Assignment for benefit of creditors — Deed exeuuted abroad — Title to goods in England — Registration — Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887 (50 4' 51 Vict. c. 57). A trustee under a deed of assignment for the benefit of creditors, executed by a foreign debtor in the country of his domicil, and valid by the law of that country, can establish in the Courts of this country a good title, as against an execu- tion creditor, to goods in this country, belonging, at the date of the assignment, to the' debtor, although the deed has not been registered pur- suant to the Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887. DULANBY ('. MeERY & SON Channell J. [1901] 1 K. B. 636 — Bigamy — Foreign decree of nullity on ground unknown to English law — Lex loci contractus. See Divorce— Nullity. 1. — Cheque stolen abroad — Forged indorsement — Transfer for value in foreign country. See Bill of Exchange. 2. 2. — Chose in action — Assignment abroad— 'Notice — Priority — Rerersionanj Interest — Per- sonal estate in England. By a deed of June, 1891, A. H. S., being then domiciled in the State of New York, assigned to his wife absolutely his reversionary interest in his late father's estate which was invested in English trust securities. According to the law in the State of New York, notice to the trustees of the will was not necessary to complete an assignment of a chose in action or reversionary interest in personalty, and notice of this assign- ment was not sent to the English trustees. By a deed of Aug., 1894, A. H. H., being then in England, assigned his reversionary interest in his father's estate to the pit. by way of mort- gage to secure 400Z. Notice of this assignment was forthwith given by the pit. to the trustees of the will. In Sept., 1903, notice of the first assignment was given to the trustees by the wife. In an action to settle the priorities of these two assignments : — Held, that, as the Court was administering an English trust fund settled by the will of an English testator, the rights of the claimants to that fund must be regulated by English law, and, accordingly, that the pit. was entitled to priority by virtue of the notice he had given to the trustees. Kelly v. Selwyn Warrington J. [1905] W. N. 69 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 117 — Colonial domicil of origin — Subsequently acquired foreign domicil. See No. 5, below. ■ — Company — Personal liability of shareholders under the foreign law. See Company— Foreign Laws. 1. CONFLICT OF LAWS— continued. — Company — Winding-up — Reconstruction — Dissentient shareholders — Registered office in Rhodesia — Notice of dissent left at London office. See Company — Reconstruction. 2. — ■ Contract — Intention of parties as to law applicable. See Jersey. 1. 3. — Contract — Proper law — Intention — Contract to issue debentures — Floating charge on foreign land — Clog on equity of redemption — Chartered company — Breach of charter — Ultra vires. An English contract to give a mortgage on foreign land, although the mortgage has to be perfected according to the lex situs, is a contract to give a mortgage which, inter partes, is to be treated as an English mortgage subject to such rights of redemption and other equities as the law of England regards as necessarily incident to a mortgage. The equitable rule against clogging the equity of redemption of a mortgage applies to an English contract for an issue of debentures to secure a loan, and will be enforced against a contracting party in the jurisdiction, although the floating security to be created by the deben- tures comprises foreign land where the clog doctrine is possibly not recognized. Decision of Swiufen Eady J. [1910] 1 Ch. 354, affirmed. British South Africa Co. v. Db Beers Consolidated Mines, Ld. C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 502 4. — Contract obtained by duress abroad — Threat of 2'rosecwtion — Contract nA>t illegal where ■made — Whether enforceable liere. An English Court will not enforce a foreign contract, though valid by the law of the country in which it was made, in cases where the Court deems the contract to be in contravention of some essential principle of justice or morality. The pit. who was domiciled in a foreign country, sued on a contract made in that country between himself and the deft., a woman likewise domiciled there, whom he had coerced into sign- ing the contract by threats of a criminal prosecu- tion against her husband for an offence which he had committed, the consideration for the contract being that the pit. would not prosecute the husband. Evidence was given to the effect that the contract was not invalid by the law of the country in which it was made : — Held, that even assuming that to be so, the Court would not enforce a contract so pro- cured. Judgment of Wright J., [1904] 2 K. B. 114, reversed. Kaufman v. Gerson h-e Infant — Maintenance. 1. CONTINGENT LIMITATION - Cy-prfes — Perpetuity. Sec CY-PRis. 1. ■ Introduction of CONTINGENT OR VESTED— Residue to indi- viduals in shares, Gift of — Income for maintenance of all. Gift of. See Will — Vesting, i. CONTINGENT PROFITS —Damages — Rcinote- ness — Breach of contract. See Damage and Damages. 3. CONTINGENT REMAINDER— Equitable — Re- moteness — Child en ventre sa mere — Relation back. See Perpetuity. 1. — Settlement — Power of appointment — Per- petuity. See Power of Appointment. 2. — Will — Construction. See under WILL — Contingent Re- mainder. CONTINGENT REVERSIONARY INTEREST — Not falling into possession during cover- ture — After-acquired 'property — Cove- nant to settle. See Settlement, o. Realty and personalty. See Intestacy. 2. CONTINUATION CLAUSES— Validity^Stamp— Time policy for more than twelve mouths. See Insurance (Marine). 28. CONTINUING OFFENCE — Conviction — Aver- ment of commission of offence on several discontinuous days. Se£ Criminal Law— Practice. 21. ( 053 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( fi'l ) CONTRABAND OF WAR— Seaman — Contract of service for commercial voyage — Eefusal to proceed to belligerent port — Wages — Damage for wrongful dis- charge. See Shipping — Seaman. 2, — Warranty against — Persons not contraband — Breach of warranty. See Insueance (Maeine). 31. CONTRACT. See also under Specific Titles the subject-matter of Conteact. 1. — Action of deceit — Fraudulent rejyresenta- tions — Verification of representations by con- tractor — Principal responsible for fraud of aqent — Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 ^ 57 Vict. c. 61), s. 1. A contractor having sued the other party to the contract (a public authority) in an action of deceit for damages for fraudulent representations made by the agent of the public authority as to the nature of the works to be executed, one defence was that by a provision in the contract the pit. must verify all representations for him- self and not rely on their accuracy. Another defence was that the action was not brought in due time within the Public Authorities Protec- tion Act, 1893 :— Held, that the contract, truly construed, contemplated honesty on both sides, and pro- tected only against honest mistakes : and that the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, did not apply, the act complained of not being done in pursuance of a public duty within the meaning of the statute. Decision of the C. A. in Ireland, [1907] 2 I. R. 27, 82, reversed, and decision of the K. B. D. (Ireland) restored upon the ground that there was a question of fact for the jury upon the allegation of fraud. The question of the liability of a principal for the fraud of his agent dis- cussed. S. Peaeson & Son, Ld. i'. "Dublin Coepoeation H. L. (Ir.) [1907] A. C. 351 2. — Agency agreement — Vendor and. pnr- chaser agreement — Constriuiion of rniitracf — Appeal from Canada — Quebec. In an action by the appellant for a declara- tion that he was entitled as purchaser to a con- veyance from the respondent of the property in .suit : — Held, on consideration of all its terms and of the surrounding circumstances, that the agree- ment sued upon was not a vendor and purchaser agreement, but an agency agreement : that the appellant never came under any personal liability, present or future, to purchase, the arrangement contemplated being on behalf of third parties who might thereafter be accepted by the respon- dent. Living-stone r. Ross P. C. [1901] A. C. 327 3. — Agreement. — Mntiial error — Beconstruc- tion of agreement by the parties — Construction thereof — Interest, on price. The House (Lords LorcburnL.C, Ashbourne, Gorell, and Shaw of Dunfermline) affirmed with a variation the interlocutors appealed from, dated .July 18 and Nov. 14, 1908, and dismissed the appeal ; but without costs in this House or in CONTRACT -continued. the Courts below on the ground that both parties were in fault for the litigation. (Lord Lore- burn L.C. dissented from the payment of interest.) GLASGOW and South-Wbstebn Ry. Co. r. Geeenock Poet and Habboue Teustebs H. L. (So.) [1909] W. N. 152 4. — Assignability - Contract to supply goods to company — Assignmeni of contract. — Liquidation of company — Bights of contracting company and assignee — Joinder of a.?sign/)r in action. The appellant, owner of chalk quarries, made a contract with the Imperial Portland Cement Co., Ld., that he would for fifty years supply to the CO., and that the co. would take and buy from him at least 750 tons of chalk per week at a certain price, and so much more (if any) as the CO. should require for the whole of their manu- facture of Portland cement upon their land. The Imperial Co. afterwards assigned the con- tract and sold its undertaking, land, works, and business to the Associated Co., Ld., and went into voluntary liquidation : — Seld (the Earl of Halsbury L.C. doubting and Lord Robertson dissenting), that upon the true construction of the contract it must be read as if it had been expressed to be made with the Imperial Co., its successors and assigns, owners and occupiers of the works ; that the Associated Co. was entitled to the benefit of the contract and could enforce it by action without joining the Imperial Co. as pits. The decision of the C. A., [1902] 2 K. B. 660, affirmed, except on the question of joining the Imperial Co. ToLHUEST !'. Associated Poet- land Cement Manupactueees (1900), Ld. ToLHDEST r. Associated Poetland Cemext Manufactueebs (1900), Ld., and the Im- PEEiAL Poetland Cement Co., Ld. H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 149; [1903] A. C. 414 Xote. Distinguished by C. A., Xemp v. Baerselman, [1906] 2 K. B. 604. See next Case, Referred to by C. A., Bennett v. Jf'hite, [1910] 2 K. B. 64.?. See Set-of. 5. — A.ssigHJiI)iIify — Contract to supply goods as piirrliaser may reguirefor his business— Agree- ment by purchaser mit to buy similar goods from others — Assignment of purchaser's business- Bight of assignee to require supply of goods from render. The deft, contracted with K., a cake manu- facturer, to supply him with all the eggs of a specified quality "that he shall require for manufacturing purposes for one year," K. under- taking not to purchase eggs from any other merchant during the year so long as the defts. were ready to supply them. During the year K. transferred his business to a co., whereupon the defts. claimed to be discharged from their con- tract, and refused to supply any more eggs either to K, or to the co. In an action brought by K. and the co,, as co-pits., for breach of the contract : — Held, that the dcft's. contract was with K. personally, that the benefit of it was not assign- able, and that the deft, was discharged from his obligation. Tollnirst y. Assiiriated Portland Cement ( 655 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 666 ) CONTBACT— eo«/t«M«(7. Manufactvrern, [1903] A. C. 41+, distinguished. Kemp v. Baeeselmajt - - C. A. [1906] W. N. 162 ; [1306] 3 K. B. 604 6. — AssUjiiation — Xo title to sue. The House affirmed the decision of the Second Div. of the Gt. of Sess., (1900) 2 F. 636, and dismissed the appeal with costs. Tntek- NATIONAL FiBKE STUDICATB, Ld. r. DAWSON H. L. (So.) [1901] W. N. 97 — Assignment — Right of assignee to sue vendor for damages. See Chose IN ACTION. 1. — Author and publisher — Registration — Agree- ment. See under CoPTEIOHT. 7. — Breach — Waiver The House affirmed the interlocutor of the First Div. of the Ct. of Sess., dated July 17, 1909, and dismissed the appeal with costs. Rbid Newfoundland Co. <•. Bat op Islands Slate Syndicate, Ld. H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 185 8. — Sreach of contract — Da^nages — Arlitra- tion — Liaiility of sureties to he sued. The House (Lords Loreburn L.G., James of Hereford, Atlsiinson, Gorell, and Shaw of Dun- fermline), dissenting from the order of the First Division of the Court of Session, dated Mar. 19, 1909, reversed the interlocutors appealed from except so far as they dismissed the action against Messrs. Beardmore, and remitted the cause with a direction. Respondents to pay the costs here and below. JOHANNESB0KQ- MnNlciPAL Council v. D, Stewart & Co. - H. I. (So.) [1909] W. N. 181 9. — Breach of contract — Measure of damages — Penalty or liquidated damages. The defts., coal exporters at Newcastle, entered into a contract with the pit. for the sale and delivery to him in Germany of a quantity of coal, of which part was to be screened and part small coal, at certain prices per ton c.i.f. The contract, which was drawn up by the defts., contained the following clause : " Penalty for non-execution of this contract by either party 1.?. per ton on the portion unexecuted, and the amount of proved loss, if any, on freight actually arranged by us." In an action to recover damages for non-delivery of the coal, the pit. claimed that the l.s. per ton men- tioned in the contract was a penalty and might be disregarded, and that he was entitled to recover the difference between the contract price and the market price in Germany, which difference was much in excess of Is. per ton : — Held, that, notwithstanding that the parties had called the Is. per ton a penalty, and tliat the loss caused to the pit. by the non-delivery might be different in the case of the screened coal and of the small coal and that the difference between the contract and marlset prices was easily ascer- tainable, the \s. per ton was to be treated as liquidated damages. Diestal c. Stevenson Kennedy J. [1906] W. N. 138; ("1906] 2 K. B. 348 CONTBACT— flonrtw.Mef/. — Coal — Contract to deliver on specified tciin.'i all the coal required for use in the pits.' works — Breach of contract — Appeal from Nova Scotia. See Canada— Contracts. 1 . — ■ Commission] — Personal contract — Death of party — Commission payable " as long as we do business." See Commission. 1. — Conflict of laws. See under Conflict of Laws. 3. 10. — Consideration — Breach <;/' dntij to tahe care — Damages — Bemotetiess — Iidcrrenhng criminal act of third part g causing loss. The defts., who were newspaper proprietors, advertised in their newspaper that their city editor would answer inquiries from readers of the paper desiring financial advice. The pit., a reader of the paper, wrote to the defts. ' city editor asking for a safe investment for 800Z., and also for the name of a " good stockbroker." The editor recommended a person who, as he well knew, was an " outside broker," that is, a person who transacted Stock Exchange business, but was not a member of the Stock Exchange. The outside broker had for some months been employed by the editor to advise him on matters connected with the financial correspondence in the defts.' newspaper, and there was no evidence that the editor had any reason to suspect his hone.sty. The outside broker was, in fact, an undischarged bankrupt, a fact which was unknown to the editor, who might, however, easily have ascertained his financial position if he had made inquiries. The pit. in reliance on the editor's recommendation, sent sums of 1300Z. and lOOZ. for investment to the outside broker, who immediately misappropriated them : — Held,, that there was a contract between the pit. and the defts. by which the defts. under- took to use reasonable care that the person recommended as a broker should answer the description of -a, good stockbroker ; that the defts.' city editor, in recommending the outside broker without making reasonable inquiries about him, had committed a breach of that contract ; and that the plt.'s loss naturally flowed from the defts.' breach of contract, even if the misappropriation of tlie money by the broker amounted to a criminal offence. Held, also, by Vaughan Williams L.J. and Sir Gorell Barnes, President (Bigham J. doubt- ing), that the measure of damages was not limited to the 8002., but that the pit. was entitled to recover the actual amount of his loss. Decision of Lord Alverstone C.J., reported [1907] 1 K. B. 483, affirmed. De La Bbbb v. Pearson, Ld. C. A. [1907] W. N. 244 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 280 — Contract of service. iSee under Contract of Service. — Crown — Prerogative — Servants of the Crown — Liability to be sued. See Crown. 9. 11. — Damages — Forfeiture of .mm dejiosited — Liquidated damages or 2Knalty. In deciding whether a sum made payable by ( 657 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 658 ) CO'STRACI— continued. way of compensation for breach of a contract is to be treated as liquidated damages or as a penalty, tiie Court must take all the circum- stances into consideration, in order to ascertain the intention of the parties. The fact that the sum in question is to be paid on the breach of any one of a variety of stipulations of different degrees of importance does not necessarily oblige tire Court to treat it as a penalty, although it raises a presumption that that was the intention of the parties ; nor does the fact that the sum in question had been deposited at the making of the contract compel the Court to treat it as liquidated damages, although it forms a material element to be taken into consideration in ascertaining the intention of the parties. Ptb V. British Automobile Commercial Syndi- cate, Ld. Bigham J. [1906] W. N. 3S ; [19081 1 K. B. 425 — Determination — Contract to execute works- Wrongful seizure of works by defen- dants — Plaintiff entitled to determine the contract. See New Zealand. 7. — Electric light — " Generating light " — " Actual cost" — Construction of contract. See Cape op Good Hope. 4. — Electricity, Supply of — Loughborough Cor- poration — Breach of contract — Remedy for. See Statute. 3. — Entry — Exclusive right of entry on appel- lants' land for specified purposes — Laws of Newfoundland. See Newfoundland. 1. 12. — JSi:idence — Coidraot hi writing — Parol evidence to contradict. Action brought by pits., a firm of builders and contractors, against the administratrix of one T. P., to recover the balance of an account for work done and materials supplied under a building agreement. The agreement was made between R., who was throughout the docu- ment referred to as "the proprietor," and the pits., who were throughout styled " the con- tractors." The county court judge, adopting the contention of the pits, that R. entered into the contract as agent for T. F., gave judgment for the pits. ; the Div. Ct. (Darling and Jelf JJ.) reversed that decision, and the pits, appealed. Parol evidence had been tendered by the pits, in the county court to shew that R. had contracted as T. F. 's agent ; the case of Humhle v. Hunter, (1848) 12 A. & E. 310, was cited on behalf of the deft, as shewing that the proposed evidence contradicted the written contract, but the evidence was admitted. The Div. Ct. held, on the authority of Jlumhle v. Hunter (supra), that the evidence was inadmissible as contradicting the written contract. In the C. A. it was contended that the point of law had not been clearly raised and sub- mitted to the county court judge at the trial as required by s. 120 of the County Courts Act, 1888, and that therefore no appeal lay from his decision ; see Smith v. Balier ,\- Sons, [1891] A. C. 325, and on this ground alone the Court COSTRACT—conthiued. (Vaughan Williams L.J., Farwell L.J., and Kennedy L.J.) allowed the appeal, and restored the decision of the county court judge. During the argument the pits.' counsel cited XiUick V. Price, (1895) 12 T. L. R. 264, in which Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. is reported to have said : " He gravely doubted whether that case (Humlle v. Hunter') would be recognized as an authority at the present time." The Court, without considering the question at length, expressed the unanimous view that the authority of Humble v. Hunter (12 A. & E. 310) had not been directly or inferentiaUy impaired. FOKMBY Brothers v. B. Formbt - - C. A. [1910] W. N. (Erratum 67) 48 13. — Hridence — Parol evidence — Statute of Frauds — Specific performance — Land — Contract — Resc ission — Variation . Parol evidence is not admissible to prove a subsequent agreement to vary the terms of a contract in writing and by law required to be in writing, although it can be admitted to prove rescission of such a contract. Vezey v. Rash- LEIGH - Byrne J. [1904] W.N. 64; [1904] 1 Ch. 634 14. — Executed contract — Rescission — Mis- repi'esentation — Absence of fraud — Delay. The Court will not grant rescission of an executed contract for the sale of a chattel or chose in action on the ground of an innocent misrepresentation : — In order for the pit. to succeed in such a case fraud must be proved. Wilde Y. Gibson, (1848) 1 H. L. C. 605, 632 ; 73 R. R. 191, 209, Browrdie v. Campbell, (1880) 5 App. Cas. 925, and Kemiedy v. Panama, New Zealand and Australian Royal Mail Co., (1867) L. R. 2 Q. B. 580, applied. Seddon r. NoSTH Eastern Salt Co., Ld. - - - Joyce J. [1905] W. N. 4; [1905] 1 Cli. 326 — Feu contract — Superior and vassal. See under Scottish Law. 15. — Fixed period. Contract for — Express term — Implied condition — Construction of con- tract — Damages. Tobacco merchants contracted with a retail dealer that — in consideration of his purchasing direct from them and agreeing to continue to buy, display and sell their goods and not to sign any agreement with any other firm which would prevent him from carrying out this contract — they would for the next four years distribute to such of their customers as purchased direct from them their entire net profits on goods sold in the United Kingdom, and also the sum of 20O,O00Z. a year, to be distributed every three months in proportion to the purchases. Soon after the manufacturers sold their business, and went into voluntary liquidation : — Held, that upon the true construction of this particular contract there was an express contract to pay to the retail dealer his due proportion of 200,0002. a year for four years, and that he was entitled to damages for the breach of that con- tract, the merchants having put it out of their own power to carry on the business. The decision of the C. A., [1904] 2 K. B. 410, C 659 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 660 ) CONTRACT— COTif i n uetl. affirmed. Ogdens, Ld. r. Nelson. Ogdens, Ld. «. Telfoed H. 1. (B.) [1908] "W. N. 84; [1905] A. C. 109 — Grant of right to make " a tunnel " — Per- sonal contract — Uncertainty — Per- petuity — Assignability. See Railway — Accommodation Works. 2. — Ice and snow, Eight to clear, into the streets — Electric sweeper. See Canada — Snov. 1. 16. — Illegality — Proiate actum — Contract hy parties that costs shall be paid out of the estate — Infant co-contractor. The pit. in a probate action sought to estab- lish the validity of a will as residuary legatee, and H., one of the defts. as an executor and the trustee of an infant beneficiary under a will of the testator earlier in date, sought to establish the validity of that will. During the course of the proceedings in the action a contract was made between the pit. of the one part and H. and the infant, who was also a deft., of the other part, whereby it was agreed that, whichever of the two wills was upheld by the Court, the costs of the pit. and of the deft. H. and the infant should be paid out of the estate whether the Court so ordered or not. The Court pronounced in favour of the earlier will, and on application made refused to sanction the contract on behalf of the infant, and directed that the pit. should pay the costs of H. and the infant in the probate action. Tn an action by the pit. to recover his costs against the deft. H. under the contract : — Held, that the contract was not illegal, and that the deft, was personally liable upon it. Prince v. Haworth - Lawrance J. ri9081 2 K. B. 768 17. — Illeiiality — Remoteness — Uncertainty — Statutory confirmation — Pre-emption, Rigid of — Contract to give '^ first refusal '' of land-— Negatite contract — Interest in land — Purchaser with notice — Injwnction. An agi-eement scheduled to an Act of Parlia- ment was thereby " confirmed and declared to be valid and binding upon the parties thereto " : — Held, that every clause of the agreement had statutory validity, so that no objection could be taken on the ground of remoteness or uncer- tainty. An agi-eement between a racecourse co. and a canal co. contained a clause that if the racecourse should be at any time proposed to be used for dock purposes, the racecourse co. should give the canal co. the " first refusal " thereof : — Held, that "first refusal" imported either a fair and reasonable ofier to sell to the canal co., or that the price at which the racecourse co. were to give the canal co. the " first refusal " was a price which the racecourse co. would accept from other would-be buyers in the event of the refusal of the canal co. to buy at that price : i.e., that the canal co. had a " right of pre-emption " ; and that an offer to the canal CO. at an extravagant price which the racecourse CO. did not reasonably expect would be given either by the canal co. or any other would-be CONTEACT— eoBiwiwr//. buyer was not giving a '' first refusal ' ' within the meaning of the clause : — Held, also, that the clause did not create an interest in land so as to entitle the canal co. on that ground to enforce their right of pre-emption as against an intending purchaser with notice of the right ; but that the canal co. were entitled to enforce their right as against the racecourse CO. and the intending purchaser on the ground that the contract to give the canal co. the " first refusal ' ' involved a negative contract not to part with the racecourse to anyone else without giving them that "first refusal" : Lumley v. Wagner, (1852) 1 D. M. & G. 604. Appeal from Farwell J., [1900] 2 Ch. 352, dismissed with costs. Manchester Ship Canal Co. v. Manchester Racecourse Co. C. A. [1901] 2 Ch. 37 — Illegitimate child — Void contract— Contract by mother to give up possession of child — Parent and child. See Infant — Custody, 1. — Impossibility of performance. See Nos. 20—25, lelow. — Licence — Advertising station — Tenancy from year to year — Licence — Eevocatiou — Notice. See Licence. 1. — Lunatic — Contract by insane person is void, not voidable — Eights of negotiorum gestor. See Natal. 3. 18. — Memorandum wi writing — Signature by agent — Statute of Frauds — Contract for sale of The House reversed the decision of the C. A. and restored the judgment of Phillimore J. for the defts. with costs here and below, holding that, upon the true construction of the corre- spondence and conduct of the parties, the agree- ment sued on had not been established in fact. Their Lordships did not decide or discuss the point under the Statute of Frauds on which alone the case is reported, [1899] 2 Q. B. 4]i. Humbbr & Co. V. John Griffiths Cycle Corporation, Ld. H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 110 — Military service, Contract with the Colonial Government for — Payments by the Imperial Government — Payments under the contract. See New South Wales. 22. 19. — Penalty or liquidated damages — lime limit — Waiver. The Spanish Government contracted with the appellants for the building of four torpedo boats, delivery to be within periods varying from six and a half months to seven and three-quarter months from the date of the contracts. The contracts provided that " The penalty for later delivery shall be at the rate of 5002. per week for each vessel." The vessels having been delivered many months after the stipulated period and the price paid, the Spanish Government claimed from the appellants payment of 5002. for each week of late delivery : — Held (affirming the decision of the Second ( fi61 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 662 ) CONTRACT— cOBii «««/. Div. of the Cfc. of Sess., (1903) 5 F. 1016 ; sequel to [1902] A. C. 524), (1.) that the sum of 500?. a week was to be regarded as liquidated damages and not as a penalty, and that the Spanish trovernment were entitled to recover ; (2.) that payment in full of the price of the vessels with- out reservation was no waiver of the claim for damages for delay in delivery. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co. r. Don Jose Ramos Yzquibbdo y Castaneda H. L. (Sc) [1904] W. N. 192 ; [1905] A. C. 6 20. — Performance, Impi'.s.iihiVifyof^Coromi- tion procession — Inference that procession lonidd pass — Implied cnmlition — Necessary inference — Siirronnilirxj circumstances — SiiMance of contract. By a contract in writing of June 20, 1902, the deft, agreed to hire from the pit. a flat in Pall Mall for June 26 and 27, on which days it had been announced that the coronation proces- sions would take place and pass along Pall Mall. The contract contained no express reference to the coronation processions, or to any other pur- pose for which the flat was taken. A deposit was paid when the contract was entered into. As the proce sions did not take place on the days originally fixed, the deft, declined to pay the balance of the agreed rent : — Hold (affirming the decision of Darling J.), from necessary inferences drawn from surround- ing circumstances, recognized by both contracting parties, that the taking place of the processions on the days originally fixed along the proclaimed route was regarded by both contracting parties as the foundation of the contract ; that the words imposing on the deft, the obligation to accept and pay for the use of the flat for the days named, though general and unconditional, were not used with reference to the possibility of the particular contingency which afterwards hap- pened, and consequently that the pit. was not entitled to recover the balance of the rent fixed by the contract. Taylor v. Calda-ell, (1863) 3 B. & S. 826, dis- cussed and applied. Krell v. Henby C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 740. iVote. See Orimsdick v. Sioeeimaii, Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 740 Landlm'd and Tenant. 29. 21. — Performance, Impossiliility of — Corona- lion procension — Birikts of 2>arties wlien perform- ance of contract has become imposaihlc. On May 23, 1902, the plt.'s agent, having seen a plan of certain seats to view the coronation procession appointed to take place on June 27, which seats it was proposed to erect on the ground floor of a shop, paid the def Ls. fifteen guineas for three numbered seats. The scats were to be on a structure to be erected by the defts., and the structure and seats were afterwards erected by them. The procession not having taken place in consequence of the King's illness, the pit. brought this action. The county court judge gave judgment for the defts. In Holi.wn v. Pal- ienden ^ Co. the facts raised substantially the same question : — Held, that each partj' mn-t rest in the position CONTRACT— COK/; » Kijrf. in which he is found to be when the event occurs which makes the contract impossible of perform- ance, unless there is something special in the terms of the contract which gives one or other of the parties a different right. Judgment of the county court judge affirmed. Taylm- v. Caldwell, (1863) 3 B. & S. 826, dis- cussed and applied. Blakelby r. Mullee k Co. HOBSON r. PATTENDEN & CO. Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 760, n. 22. — Performance, Impossibility of — Xaval ivriea: — Rig/its rf parties allien, performance of contract lias become impossible — Contrait — Con- itruction — Costs — Discretion — Appeal — Trial by judge without juri/ — (Jrder LXV., r. 1 — Judicc- ture Act, 1890 (.53 ^ 54 Vict, c 44), s. 5. By a charterparty dated Mar. 22, 1902, the defts. agreed to let, and the pits, agreed to hire, the defts.' steamer for the term of three days from the hour she was placed at the pits.' dis- posal in London on the day preceding that of the naval review to be held at Spithead on the occasion of the King's coronation in June or July, 1902 ; the steamer was to take up passengers at London and Southampton, and proceed to Spit- head, arriving in time for the review, and return- ing to London on the third day of the hiring ; and the amount to be paid by the pits, for the hire was a lumpsum of 1500?., payable "250?. on signing the charter, and the balance ten days before the date of the review." The usual ex- ceptions from owners' liability in respect of perils of the seas, &c., were contained in the charter- party. The pits, paid to the defts. 2507. on sign- ing the charterparty, and the balance. 1250/., on June 18, the review having in the meantime been fixed to take place on June 28. The review was, in consequence o£ the King's illness, postponed on June 25, and thereupon notice that the pits, would not require the steamer was given by them to the defts., and accordiniily she was not placed at the pits.' disposal. The defts., before the postponement of the review, had incurred expenses amounting to 5001. in fitting out the steamer and in doing other things by way of part performance of the contract, or in order to enable them to perform it. The review was not held until the month of Aug., 1902. and the pita, sued the defts. to recover the 1500Z. as money paid on a consideration which had failed. At the trial before a judge alone, it appeared that there had been some negotiations for a settlement of the dispute, and the judge expressed his desire that the matter should he left to him to say what, under the circumstances and apart from the strict legal rights of the parties, should be done. The defts. would not agree to that course being taken, and they also declined to accejit the judge's suguestion that they should be con- tent to retain the amount of the expenses they had incurred and have their costs. In the result the judge gave judgment for the defts., but ordered that each of the parties should bear their own costs : — Held, on an app(^al by the pits, from the judgment for the defts., that the pits, were not entitled to recover the money they had paid : TIeld, also, on the defts.' appeal from the ordei' that each of the parties should bear their ( 663 ) DKiKST OB' CASES, 1901—1910. ( 664 ) CONTRACT— cy«!';« ued. own costs, that there were no materials upon which the judge could exercise his discretion by making that order, and, therefore, that the C. A. had power to entertain the appeal and reverse his decision. CIVIL Sekvice Co-opeeative Society, Ld. v. General Steam Navigation Co. C. A. [1903] W. N. 182 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 756 JVoie. This case was followed by C. A., King S,- Co. V. Oillard ^- Co., [1905] 2 Ch. 7. See Costs. 33. 23. — Perfunnance, impos.iliiUty of — Implied condition — Cargo to be shipped iy specified sliip — Sliip da?nai/ed so us to be luiable to receive cargo. By a contract made in Oct., 1899, the defts. sold to the pits, a cargo of cotton-seed, to be shipped per steamship Orlando at an Egyptian port during the month of Jan., 1900, and to be delivered to the pits, in the United Kingdom. The contract provided that, in case of prohibition of export, blockade, or hostilities preventing ship- ment, the contract or any unfulfilled part thereof should be cancelled. In Dec, 1899, the Orlando was stranded througli perils of the sea without default on the defts.' part, and was so much damaged as to render it impossible for her to arrive at the port of loading in time to load during Jan. In an action by the pits, against the defts. for failure to ship a cargo under the contract : — Held, by A. L. Smith M.R. and Homer L.J. (Vaughan Williams L.J, dissenting), that the contract must be construed as subject to an implied condition that, if at the time for its per- formance the Orlando should, without default on the defts.' part, have ceased to exist as a ship fit for the purpose of shipping the cargo, then the contract should be treated as at an end ; and that the action was therefore not maintainable. Taylor y. Oiddicell, (1863) 3 B. & S. 826, and Howell V. Coupland, (1876) 1 Q. B. D. 258, fol- lowed. Judgment of Mathew J., [1900] 2 Q. B. 298, aflBrmed. NiOKOLL & Knight r. Ashton, Eldeidgb & Co. C. A. [1901] W. N. 97 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 126 24. — Performance impcssible — Payment made "on account of' contract — Express pro- vision in the event of no e.i'pensc being incurred — Refreshments. A caterer agreed to supply refreshments at a fixed price to the respondents on the occasion of a naval review to be held on a named day, " 3002. to be paid to the caterer on account of the refreshments on the Monday previous to the review day," it being expressly stipulated that in the event of the cancellation of the review before any expense was incurred by the caterer there should be no liability on the respondents A few days before the named day it was known that the review would not be held. The caterer had spent about 20Z. in crockery, &c., but incurred no expense in providing refreshments. The caterer having sued the respondents upon a cheque for 300Z. given by them to him in advance in accordance with the contract : — Held, that upon the true construction of this particular contract the respondents were not COSTRUiyi— continued. liable in respect of refreshments, and could not be sued upon the cheque. The decision of the C. A., [190i] 1 K. B. 665, affirmed. Elliott c. Ceutohley H. L. (E.) [1906] W.N. 164; [1906] A. C. 7 25. — Performance, impossibility of — Money paid under contract, whether recorerable — Right accrued before performance impossible — Failure of con.nderation — Coronation procession. The deft, agreed to let to the pit. a room for the purpose of viewing the coronation procession of June 26, 1902, for the sum of lill. 15s. The procession subsequently became impossible, owing to the illness of the King. By the terms of the contract the price of the room was payable before the time at which the procession became impossible. The pit. had paid 1001. on account of the price of the room, and the balance remained unpaid : — Held, that the pit. was not entitled to recover the 1001. which he had paid, and that the deft, was entitled to payment of the balance, inasmuch as his right to that payment had accrued before the procession became impossible. Chandlee r. Webster - - C. A, [1904] 1 K. B. 493 — Practice — New trial must be on motion. See British Honduras. 1. — Principal and agent — Custom House, Obliga- tion of agent to pass through. See New South Wales. 27. 26. — Procuring breach of contract — Cau.ie of action — Interference with legal right — Malice — Justification — Trade union. Procuring a breach of contract is an action- able wrong unless there be justification for inter- fering with the legal right. Miners employed in collieries without giving notice to their employers and in breach of their contracts abstained from worliing on certain days upon the direction or order of a federation of the miners given by their executive council. The federation and council acted honestly without malice or ill-will towards the employers, and with the object only of keeping up the price of coal by which the wages were regulated : — Held, that an action for damages lay by the employers against the federation and its officers, no justification for their action being shewn. The decision of the G. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 545, aflBrmed. South Wales Miners' Federation «. Glamorgan Coal Co. H. I. (E.) [1906] ■W. N. 72; [1905] A. C. 239 — Railway — Agreement to construct a railway jointly — Construction — Rights of joint owners. See New South Wales. 30. — Railway — Contract, Construction of — " Whole operation of its railway." See Canada — Contracts, — .Railway contract — Penalty for non-comple- tion of line — Liquidated damages — "Actual cost." See Cape of Good Hope. 12. 27. — Sale of goods — Principal and agent — lindisolosed principal — Ratification. A contract made by a person intending to ( GC5 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( C6G ) CONTRACT —cuiit'i ii loerl. contract on behalf of a tliird party, but witlioat his authority, cannot be ratified by the third party so as to render him able to sue or liable to be sued on the contract, where the person who •made the contract did not profess at the time of making it to be acting on behalf of a principal. The decision of the C. A., [1900] 1 Q. B. 629, reversed for the reasons there given in the dissenting judgment of A. L. Smith M.R. Keiohley, Maxstbd tion paid before the end of that year. County Courts Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 42), extends the jurisdiction of the County Courts. Cownty Courts (Districts) Postponement Order, iVo. 13, dated Ian. 22, 1903. Eeprint from W. N. 1903 (Feb. 14), p. 61. See Cueeent Index, 1903, p. Ixxii. County Courts (^Districts') Postponemoit Order, M. 14, dated Mar. 1, 1904. Eeprint from W. N. 1904 (Mar. 19), p. 88. See Current Index, 1904, p. Ixxvi. County Courts {District) Postponement Order, dated Xov. 4, 1904, so far as it relates to London, and neighbouring County Couit Districts, until Jan. 1, 1906. Eeprint from W. N. 1904 (Nov. 12), p. 817. See Cueeent Index, 1904, pi Ixxvi. Fees.'] Treasury Order, dated Dec. 30, 1903, regulating Court Fees in County Courts. Beprint from W. N. 1904 (Mar. 26), p. 87. See Current Index, 1904, p. Ixxvi. Prisons J Prisons to which Committals may be made — County Courts Act, 1888. Order oftlie Secretary of State, dated May 21, 1904, directing to what prisons Committals may be made. Eeprint from W. N. 1904 (June 11), p. 201. See Current Index, 1904, p. Ixxxix. ' ( 745 ) DIGEST OF CASfeS, 1901—1910. ( 746 ) COUNTY COVRT—oontlmied. Order oftlu. Secretary of State, dated Aug. 23, 1904, directing to what prisons Committals may be made. Kepi-int from W. N. 1904 (Sept. 17), p. 268. See Cderent Index, 1904, p. xc. Order of the Secretary of State, dated Sept. 7, 1904. Reprint from W. N. 1904 (Oct. 1), p. 267. See CuEEENT Index, 1904, p. xo. Comity Courts Order in Council, 1904, dated Dec. 12, 1904. Jvrisdiction of certain named county courts with regard to actions in which plaintiff claims a sunt, exceeding 501. Heprint from W. N. 1904 (Deo. 17), p. 331. See Cubeent Index, 1904, p. xci. County Court Mules, 1904, dated Sec. 19, 1904. See Cueeent Index, 1904, p. xovi. County Court {^England') Jurisdiction. The County Courts (^Bankruptcy and Companies Winding-up^ Jurisdiction Order, Aug. 11, 1904. St. B. & 0. 1904, No. 1428, L. 18. County Court Mules, 1905, dated June 7, 1905, and which come into force on July 1, 1905. W. N. 1906 (June 24), p. 167. See Cueeent Index, 1905, p. Ixvii. County Court, England. Courts and Dis- tricts.'] Order in Council, directing that tlie County Court of Somersetshire held at Temple Cloud shall he held at Midsomer Norton as well as TempiU Cloud. St. R. & 0. 1905, No. 97. L. 4. Remitted actions — Form of request — Ap- pendix. See R. S. 6. {July'), 1905. W. N. 1905 (July 29), p. 224. See Cueeent Index, 1905, p. Ixxiii. Fees— Treasury Order dated Fei. 22, 1906, amending the order of Dec. 30, 1903, regulating Court fees in County Courts. Reprint from W. N. 1966 (march 10), p. 69. See Cueeent Index, 1906, p. Ixxx. County Court Mules, 1906, dated April 4, 1906. Reprint from W. N, 1906 (AprU 21), p. 103. See Cueeent Index, 1906, p. Ixxx. Fees — Treasury Order dated Aug. 2, 1906, amending the Order of Dec. 30, 1903, regulating Court fees in County Courts. Reprint from W. N. 1906 (Sept. 29), p. 259. See Curbent Index, 1906, p. IxxxTii. County Court Mules, 1906. Addenda to the County Court Mules, 1906, dated April, 4, 1906. Reprint from W. N. 1906 (June 9), p. 169. See Cueeent Index, 1906, p. Ixxxv. Prisons to which committals may he made — Order of the Secretary of State, dated May 18, 1906, directing to what prisons committals may be made. Reprint from W. N. 1906 (June 16), p. 178. See Cueeent Index, 1906, p. Ixxxvi. County Courts (^Districts) Postponement Order, No. 17, dated Nov. 12, 1906. Reprint from W. N. 1906 (Dec. 1), p. 327. See Cueeent Index, 1906, p. Ixxxvii. County Court Mules, 1907, and explanatory memorandum, and appendix. Reprint from W. N. 1907 (Aug. 17), p. 233. See Cueeent Index, 1907, p. Ixxi. Fees — Worhnen's Compensation Acts — COUNTY COVRT—cojitinned. Treasury Order, dated Jan. 17, 1908. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (Jan. 25), p. 53. See Cueeent Index, 1908, p. Ixxxvi. Judges and districts — Order of the Lord Chancellor, dated Feb. 12, 1908. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (Feb. 22),;; p. 65. See Cueeent Index, 1908, p. Ixxxvi. ' County Court Mules, 1908 — Explanatory Memorandum amd Mules. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (Mar. 21), p. 79. See Cueeent Index, 1908, p.lxxxix. County Courts Act, 1888 — Prisons to which committals may be made — Order oftlie Secretary of State, dated Mar. 27, 1908, directing to what prisons committals may be made. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (AprU 18), p. 97. See Cueeent Index, 1908, p. xcii. County Court (Extended Jurisdiction) Order in Council, 1908, dated April 9, 1908. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (April 25), p. 101. See Cueeent Index, 1908, p. xciii. County Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction') Order in Council, 1908, dated Nov. 21, 1908, and coming into operation on Jan. 1, 1909. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (Nov. 28), p. 335. See Cueeent Index, 1908, p. xoiv. County Courts Act, 1888 — Order in Council dated Nov. 21, 1908 — Change of Names :— Brompton County Court of Middlesex : County Court of Kent held at Momney. Tliis Order shall take effect from and after Dec. 1, 1908. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (Nov. 28), p. 335. See Cueeent Index, 1908, p. xcv. London (huirty Courts Directory, containing the streets and places in the City of London, with their county court districts, for the guidance of tile officers of the court and the public generally, ith edition. Price 5s. 1907 (JT. — Legal.) County Courts in England and Wales, Index to the parishes, tovmships, hamlets, and places contained within the districts of tlie several. 5th edition. Price 6«. 1907 (S.— Legal). County Court Mules (Dec), 1908. — Explana- tory Memorandum and Rules, dated Dec. 18, 1908. Tlie Mules came into force on Jan. 1, 1909. Re- print from W. N. 1909 (Jan. 2), p. 1. See Cueeent Index, 1909, p. civ. County Court Mules, 1909. — County Court (Agricultural Boldings) Mules, 1909, dated Feb. 11, 1909, and which came into force on Mar. 1, 1909. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (Feb. 27), p. 89. See Cueeent Index, 1909, p. cvii. The County Court Mules, 1909, dated Mar.W, 1909, and which came into force on April 19, 1909. Reprint from W. N, 1909 (April 3), p. 117. See Cueeent Index, 1909, p. cxiii. County Court Rules, 1909 {A'o. 2), dated May 2ith, 1909, and which came into force on June 15, 1909. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (June 5), p. 202. See Cueeent Index, 1909, p. cxv. ( 747 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 748 ) COUNTY COVB,T— continued. County Court Fees. — Treasury Order, dated July 7, 1909, regulating fees in County Courts. Eepriut fromW. N. 1909 (July 24), p. 277. See CuKEENT Index, 1909, p. cxTi. The County Courts [Bankruptcy and Com- panies Winding-up) Jurisdiction Order, June, \%m, dated June2%,\Qm. Eepriut from W, N. 1909 (July 17), p. 375. See CnKEENT Index, 1909, p. oxvii. Co^mty Courts Act, 1888 (51 <$• 52 Vict. c. 43). — Order in Cotmcil, dated June 29, 1909 — Con- solidation of two or more districts — Districts of County Courl of Essex lield at Bunmow and at Braintree consolidated. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (July 10), p. 269. See Cueeent Index, 1909, p. cxTii. County Courts Act, 1888. — Prisons to which committals may be made. — Order of the Secretary of State, dated October, 1909, directing to what prisons committals may be made. Reprint from "W. H. 1909 (Nov. 13), p. 383. See Cdeeent Index, 1909, p. cxvii. CovMy Court Mules, and Explanatory Memo- randum, 1910, dated July 26, 1910.' Reprint from W. N. 1910 (Sept. 3), p. 277. See Oueeent Index, 1910, p. xci. County Courts Act, 1888. Prisons to which convmittals may be made. Order of the Secretary of State, dated Dec. 31, 1909, directing to what prisoTis committals may ie made. This Order came into operation on Jan. 17, 1910. Reprint from W. N. 1910 (Jan. 22), p. 83. See Ctjeuent Index, 1910, p. xcvi. County Court , Emgland, Courts and Districts. Order in Council, April 22, 1910, transferring the Urban District of Much Woolton from tlie District of the County Court of Lancashire holden at St. Heleiis and Widnes to that of tlie District of the County Court of Lancashire holden at Liverpool. St. E. & 0., 1910, No. 473 L. 9. Price \d. Cownty Court, Engla/nd. Courts and Distriots. Order in Council, April 22, 1910, transferring the Urban District of Little Wootton from the District of the County Court of Lancashire holden at St. Helens and Widnes to that of the District of the County Court of Lancashire holden at Liverpool. St. E. & 0., 1910, No. 474. L. 10. Price Id. County Cmirt, England. Order in Council July 19, 1910. County CouHs [Districts). St. E. & 0. , 1910, No. 822. L. 14. Price Id. County Court, Englamd. CouHs and Districts. Order in Council, Aug. 2, 1910, directing that the County Court of Carnarvonshire held at Conway and Llandudno shall be held at Colwyn Bay as well as at Conway and Llandudno, St. E. & 0, 1910, No. 879. L. 23. Price \d. Appeals, col. 748. Attachment, col. 750. Bailiffs, col. 750. Bankruptcy, col. 750. Company — Winding-up. See under Company— Windiiig-iip. COUNTY C0VB,'I:—007itinued. Costs, col. 751. Deputy Judge, col. 754. Devastavit, col. 755. Discretion, col. 7553 Distress — See under Distebss. Employer and Workman. See under County Court — Workmen's Com- sation. Execution, col. 755. Factory Acts, col. 758. Fees, col. 758. Fines, col. 758. Highway, col. 758. Interpleader, col. 758. Juries in County Court Cases, col. 758. Jurisdiction, col. 758. Landlord and Tenant, col. 761. Licencing. See under Licensing Acts. Payment into Court, col. 761. Practice, col. 761. Prisons, col. 767. Prohibition, col. 767. Staying Proceedings. See under County Couet— Practice. Trial, col. 767. Workmen's Compensation, col. 768. Appeals. — Appeal — Bankruptcy Appeals (County Courts) Act — Lea¥e to appeal — Jurisdiction. See Bankeuptcy — Practice. 6. 1. — Appeal — Order wider s. 5 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37)— Appeal to High Court — Practice — County Courts Act, 1888 (51 ^ 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 120. An appeal lies to the K. B. Div. against an order made by a county court judge under s. 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. Knivbton v. Noetheen Employees' Mutual Indemnity Co. Div. Ot. [1908] W. N. 78 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 880 2. — Appeal as of right — Ejectment, Action of— County Courts Act, 1888 (51 d; 52 Vict, c. 43), s. 120. In actions of ejectment, as distinguished from actions for the recovery by landlords of tene- ments, tried in a county court, there is a right of appeal to the High Court, irrespective of the value or rental of the premises sought to be recovered. Shrewsbury {Earl of) v. Garfield, (1891) 60 Ij. J. (Q.B.) 765, overruled. Millbtt v. Ballaed C. A. [1904] W. N. 166 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 593 — Appeal, Eight of — ^Workmen's compensation — Arbitrator appointed by county court judge. See Mastee AifD Servant — Practice. — Appeal from county court— Right to appeal on leave to Court of Appeal. See Distress. 19. ( 749 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 750 ) COUNTY COUKT (Appeals)— co«imMfi. Brown - C. A. [1906] W. N. 117 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 884 — Judgment for 50Z. against both defendants, and for more than 50Z. against one defendant. See Costs. 35. — Mandamus to county court to state case — Practice as to security for costs — Appeal from Victoria. See Tramways. 14. COUNTY COURT (Coiti)— continued. — Married woman's liability to costs. — " Pro- ceeding instituted" — Interpleader pro- ceedings. See Husband and Wipe — Costs. 1. 3. — Nonsuit — Costs — Limits of judge's dis- cretion as to — County Courts Act, 1888 (51 ^' 52 Vict. u. 43), ss. 88, 93, US— Practice. In an action in the county court where the judge is satisfied upon the plt.'s case that the deft, is not liable, he has no power to enter a nonsuit, but ought to give judgment for the deft. Semile, that if in an action in the county court the judge finds that the pit. has sued the wrong party, it is not a ground for depriving the successful deft, of his costs that, having the necessary information to enable the pit. to ascertain who was the proper party to be sued, he neglected to give it to the pit. Wbstgate V. Crowe Div. Ct. [1907] W. N. 208 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 24 4. — Payment into court of part of claim as condition of leave to defend — Action sent for trial in county court — Order xiy. — Judgment for defendant in county court — County Courts Act, 1888 (51 4- 52 Vict. c. 43), ss. 65, 107, 113— County Court Mules, Order ix.,r. 12 ; Order LIII., r. 18. An action founded on eoatract having been brought in the High Court for 7\l., the pits, took out a summons for judgment under Order XIV., and an order was made giving the defts. leave to defend on paying 2Sl. into court within seven days, otherwise final judgment for that sum, with liberty to defend as to the residue of the pits.' claim. The defts. paid the 2Sl. into court within the seven days ; and, the action having been sent for trial in the county court under s. 65 of the County Courts Act, 1888, the defts. gave notice to the pits., more than five clear days before the day appointed for the hearing, that they consented to judgment for the 231. At the heariog the county court judge gave judgment for the defts. as to the residue of the claim, with costs from the date of their notice consenting to judgment for 231 : — Held, that the defts. were entitled to costs from the date of their notice consenting to judg- ment, and that those costs ought to be taxed according to Scale C. of the county court scales of costs, being the scale applicable " where the subject-matter or sum recovered exceeds 501." Aston Tube Works, Ld. v. Dumbell Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 835 Jfbte. This case was approved by C. A., MvniU v. Brown, [1906] 2 K. B. 884. See No. 2, alove. 5. — Power of oovmty judge to award fixed swmfor costs before taxation — County Courts Act, 1888 (51 ^- 52 Viet. c. 43), ss. 113, 118. A county court judge has no power under s. 113 of the County Courts Act, 1888, to award a party a fixed sum for costs which have not been taxed under s. 118. Golding c. Smith Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 14; [1910] 1 K. B. 462 6. — Power to order successful defendant to pay costs— Practice— CovMy Courts Act, 1888 (51 S; 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 113. ( 753 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 754 ) COUNTY COURT (Costa)— continued. A county court judge has no power to order a successful deft, to pay the costs of the pit. Andrew i: Grove Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 628 7. — Puhlic authority, Action against — Taxa- tion — " Costs to ie taxed as ietween solicitor and client "—County Courts Act, 1888 (51 ^ 52 Vict, c. 43), s. 118 — Puhlic Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 # 57 Vict. u. 61), ss. 1, 2. Where in an action in a county court against a public authority for an act or neglect in the execution of its public duty a judgment is obtained by the deft., the costs " to be taxed as between solicitor and client " given by s. 1 (J) of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, must be taxed on the scale then in force in the county court, in accordance with s. 118 of the County Courts Act, 1888. Tort v. Dorchester Corporation Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K. B. 393 — Eef erence of action to Master — Discretion to give costs on High Court scale — Practice. See Costs. 84. 8. — Remitted action — Payment by defendant to plaintiff after action irotoght — Sum " I'ecovered in the action" — Count// Courts Act, 1888 (51 ^ 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 116. ' Sect. 116 of the County Courts Act, 1888, provides, with respect to actions brought in the High Court which could have been commenced in the county court, that if in an action founded on contract the pit. shall recover a sum less than 201., he shall not be entitled to any costs of the action. An action founded on contract having been brought in the High Court to recover 271., the defts., after appearance, paid 81. to the pits., no judgment or order of the Court having been given or made in respect of that payment. The action was subsequently remitted to the county court. In their particulars of claim in the county court the pits, credited the defts. with the pay- ment of 81., and claimed the balance — 19^. ; but the particulars did not shew that the payment had been made since action brought. The pits, obtained judgment for 191. in the county court, the judgment in form being for 19^, and not for that sum in addition to the 81. credited in the particulars : — Held by Lord Alverstone C.J. and ChannellJ., Darling J. dissenting, that, although it should have appeared on the proceedings that the pits, had recovered 191. in addition to 81. paid since action brought, they had in substance recovered in the action a sum not less than 201., and were, therefore, not disentitled to their costs by s. 116 Peaece v. Bolton Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. Ill 9. — Scale — Claim for injuncti. Birmingham Coukty CotrET Judge Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 283 — Application for judgment summons — In- sufficiency of aifidavits — Waiver. See County Court — Practice. 2. — Bankruptcy, Claim arising out of — Lease — Application for vesting order — Question of merger. See Bankruptcy — Jurisdiction. 1. — Collision — Damage by ship to pier — County courts Admiralty jurisdiction. See Shipping — Collision. — County court judge. Jurisdiction of — Work- men's compensation. See under Master and Servant. 2. — Distress fur poor rate - charges for taking, lieeping, and selling — Action to recover excess — Distress ^Costs') Act, 1817 (57 Geo. 3, c. 93), .is. 2, 4- Distress {Costs) Act, 1827 (7 ^ 8 Geo. i, c. 17)— Distress for Bates Act, 1849 (12 4' 13 Vict. c. 14), s. 1. Where a bailiff in distraining for a poor rate has retained out of the amount realized by the sale of the distress an unreasonable charge for the taking, keeping, and selling of the distress, the remedy of the person aggrieved is not con- fined to an application to justices for an order under s. 2 of the Distress (Costs) Act, 1817. The county court has jurisdiction to try an action in which repayment is claimed of so much of the charge as is unreasonable. Rex v. Judge Phil- brick AND MoRBY. JEa; parte Edwards Div. Ct. [1905] 1 K. B. 108 — Industrial assurance company — Disputes. See Justices. 10. 3. — Injunction — Claim for injunction only — County Courts Act, 1888 (51 ^ 52 Vict. c. 43), s. R6— Judicature Act, 1873 (36 i-37 Vict. c. 66), s. »9. An action, in which an injunction only is claimed, is within the jurisdiction of a county court, provided that the case is one in which, if there had been a claim for damages, the claim must have been for an amount within the juris- diction of a county court. Stiles e. EcCLB- stonb Div. Ct. [1903] W. N. 26 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 544 4. — Judgment summons — Jurisdiction to malie receiving order in lieu of committal order — Absence of eridenceof means — Debtor.^ Act, 1809 COUNTY COURT (Jurisdiction)— cOTiiiwae;?. (32 3; 33 Viet. o. 62), s. Z—Banh'uptcy Act, 1883 (46 I 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 103, sub-s. 5. The jurisdiction given by s. 103, sub-s. 5, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, to a county court judge having bankruptcy jurisdiction, upon the hearing of an application under s. 5 of the Debtors Act, 1869, for the committal of a judg- ment debtor, to decline to commit and in lieu thereof to make a receiving order against the debtor, cannot be exercised if there is no evidence of the debtor's means before the county court judge. Reg. V. Sussex County Court Judge, (1888) 59 L. T. 32, considered and distinguished. Inre A Debtor. Mx parte The Debtor Div. Ct. [1905] 1 K. B. 374 5. — Landlord and tenant — Factory — Ex- pense of complying ivith requirem-ent of sanitary authority — Practice — Factory and Workshop Act, 1891 (54 ^ 55 Vict. c. 75), s. 7. Where the lessor of a factory sues the lessee in the county court, on a covenant by the lessee to pay all charges and outgoings which may be charged or imposed on the lessor in respect of the premises, to recover the expenses to which he has been put in complying with the requirements of the sanitary authority under s. 7 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1891, the county court judge has jurisdiction, whatever may be the legal effect and construction of the covenant, to make such order apportioning the expense between the parties as may seem just and equit- able to him under all the circumstances of the case. Monk v. Arnold Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 761 Mte. Observations of Channell J. in, approved by 0. A., JTorner v. Franklin, [1905] 1 K. B. 479. — Landlord and tenant — " Factory " — Means of escape in case of fire. See Factory. 7. — Lease — Disclaimer — Mortgagees by demise — Option to take vesting order or be excluded. See Bankruptcy— Jurisdiction. 1. 6. — Payment into court with denial of lia- bility — Discretion of judge over costs of specific issues — Practice. The pit. having brought an action in the county court for personal injuries caused by the defts.' negligence, the defts. paid money into court with a denial of liability. A trial was had, but on appeal the Div. Ct. ordered a new trial, with costs of the first trial to abide the event. On the second trial the pit. recovered a verdict, but for no more than the amount paid into court :— Held, that, though the defts. were entitled to the general costs of the action, the county court judge had a discretion to give the pit. his costs of the issue of negligence on which he had sue ceeded, and that that discretion was not taken away by the order of the Court that the costs should abide the event. Dunn r. South Eastern and Chatham Ry. Co. Div. Ct. [1903] W. N. 20 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 358 ( 761 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 762 ) COUNTY COTJKT (Jurisdiction.) — continued. 7. — Remitted action — Amendment — Claim for wnliquidated damages — Cownty Courts Act, 1888 (51 3,- 52 Viet. c. 43), ss. 65, 87. An action, commenced in the High Court by a writ specially indorsed with a claim for 33i. 12.?. for demurrage at a specified rate in respect of the detention of the pits.' waggons, was remitted to the county court under s. 65 of the County Courts Act, 1888. At the trial the pits, failed to prove an agreement to pay demur- rage : — Held, that the county court judge had power to amend the particulars of claim by substituting a claim for unliquidated damages. Spbkcee, "WhATLBY & UNDEEHILL i: POBSTBB & CO. Div. Ct. [1905] W. N. 23 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 434 8. — Sale of eqidty of redemption — Cminty Courts Act, 1888 (51 S' 52 Vict. u. i3), s. 67. Sect. 67 of the County Courts Act, 1888, gives the county court jurisdiction in actions for specific performance of any agreement for the purchase of any property where the purchase- money shall not exceed the sum of 5001. In an action in the county court for specific per- formance of an agreement to purchase for 751. some leasehold property which was of the value of more than 500?., but was subject to a heavy charge : — Sold, that the action was within the juris- diction of the county court, since the test was the actual purchase-money to be paid, and not the value of the property subject to the charge. Hex v. JtTDSB Whitbhobnb Div. Ct. [1904] W. N. 57 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 827 9. — Trade marli. Action for infringement of registered. The county court has no jurisdiction to enter- tain an action for an injunction to restrain an infringement of a registered trade marls. Appeal from a decision of a Div. Ct., [1904] 2 K. B. 693, allowed. Bow v. Haet C. A. [1905] W. N. 25 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 692 — Trial — Misdirection — Refusal of new trial. See County Court. — Appeal. 4. — Workmen's compensation — Appeal to High Court. See Mastbe and Seevaut. Practice. Landlord and Tenant. — Re-entry for non-payment of rent — Recovery of possession. See Laudloed and Tenant. 74. Licensing Acts. See under Licensing Acts. Payment into Court. — Practice generally. See under Peactioe— Payment, etc. Practice. 1. — Affidavit for leave to issue judgment summoTis agaiiist partner — Judgment against firm — County Court Rules, Ajip. B.., Form 52 (c). By the County Court Rules, Order xxv., r. 14 (V), it is provided that where a judgment is recovered against a firm, and the pit. seeks to COTJHTY COTJET (Practice) — continued. enforce it by judgment summons against a person whom he alleges to be a partner in the firm, he shall file an affidavit in Form 52 (c), and there- upon a judgment summons shall issue. Para- graph 2 of Form 52 (c) is as follows : " I am informed and believe \_state the sources of infor- mation and grounds of belief] that G. H. was at the date of judgment a partner in the said firm of C. D. & Co." :— Held, that the statement of the plt.'s sources of information and grounds of belief that the person against whom the judgment summons is sought was a partner is a material part of the form, and that its omission from the affidavit wiU render irregular the issue of the summons and all subsequent proceedings thereon. Lumlet V. OSBOENE Div. Ct. [1901] W. N. 39; [1901] 1 K. B. 532 2. — Affidarit, Formof — Insufficiency of affi- darit — Jurisdiction — Applieation for judgment summons — Prohilition — County Court Rules, 1889, Order XXV., rr. 13, 14a, App.H., Form 52A. Aji affidavit in support of an application for leave to issue a judgment summons out of the district of the county court in which judgment had been obtained stated that the deft, lived in a house apparently of the yearly value of 60Z. and carried on business as a builder, but it did not state any circumstances shewing that the business was profitable, or that the deft, had means to pay, nor did it state whether the deft." was married, and if so whether he had children. The county court judge gave leave to issue the summons. On an application for a writ of pro- hibition : — Held, that the affidavit was not in accordance with Form 52A of Appendix H. to the County Com-t Rules, 1889, and was therefore insufficient to give the county court judge jurisdiction under Order XXV., r. 14a, of those rules. McIntosh r. SiMPKiNS - - C. A. 1.1901] 1 K. B. 487 Xote. See also Alderson v. Palliser, Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 833, No. 5, ielow. — Appeal — County Courts. See under County Couet — Appeals. — Costs. See under County Couet — Costs. 3. — Cross-judgments — Execvtion — Payment of judgment delt into court — Solicitor's lien for casta— Couidy Courts Act, 1888 (51 A- 52 Vict, c. 43), «. 150. By s. 160 of the County Courts Act, 1888, "if there shall be cross-judgments between the parties, execution shall be taken out by that party only who shall have obtained judgment for the larger sum, and for so much only as shall remain after deducting the smaller sum, and satisfaction for the remainder shall be entered, as well as satisfaction on the judgment for the smaller sum ; and if both sums shall be equal, satisfaction shall be entered upon both judg- ments " : — Held, that this section applied where there were cross-judgments in separate actions, and not merely where there were cross-judgments upon claim [^and counter-claim in the same ( 763 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 764 ) COUNTY C01TBT (Viaotieey—eontiniied. action ; also that it applied where the party against whom judgment had been obtained for the larger sum had paid that sum into court so that no execution was taken out ; also that the party against whom judgment had been obtained for the larger sum was entitled to have deducted from the sum paid into court the smaller sum for which he had obtained judgment, and that the balance only between the larger and smaller sums should be paid out to the party who had obtained judgment for the larger sum, notwith- standing that the solicitor for the party who had obtained judgment for the larger sum claimed a lien for his costs which exceeded in amount the sum paid into court. Ward v. Haddkill Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 399 4. — Judgment for delivery of speoijic oliattel — Warrimt of delivery — Wilful refusal to deliver — Attachmeiii — Comity Court Rules, 1903, Order XXV., ?T. 57, 69. A county court judge has jurisdiction to order a warrant of attachment of a deft, who, in an action for the recovery of a chattel, wilfully refuses to comply with the judgment for the return of the chattel, and this jurisdiction is not afEeoted by the fact that the baiUflE to whom a warrant of delivery was issued directing him to seize the chattel, and if it could not be found to distrain the lands and chattels of the deft., did not, on failure to find the chattel, distrain under the warrant. Htmas c. Ogdbn C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 246 — Jurisdiction — Application for judgment summons — Existing committal order against co-defendant See COTJKTT CoTJKT — Jurisdiction. 1. 5. — Jurisdiction — Application for judgment summons — Insufficiency of affidavit — Waiver — ProhiTntion — County Court Rules, 1889, Order XXV., rr. 13, lia, FormhlK. An affidavit in support of an application for leave to issue a judgment summons out of the district of the county court in which judgment had been obtained was defective as not being in accordance with Form 52a of the County Court Rules, 1889. Xeave was granted and an order for cominitment made. On an application for a writ of prohibition : — Meld, that the want of jurisdiction appeared on the face of the proceedings, and could not be waived. Aldebson v. Pallisbr C. A. [1901] W. •&. 138 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 833 — Jurisdiction generally. See under County Couet — Jurisdic- tion. — Misdirection — Refusal of new trial — Appeal to High Court. See County Coubt— Appeals. 4. 6. — Mortgagereducedfrom over to under 500Z. — Jurisdiction — Forecloswre actiov,— Transfer to Oiancery Division wider mistake as to jurisdic- tion — Retransferto County Court — County Courts Act, 1888 (51 ^ 52 Vict. c. 43), ss. 67, 68. The deft. Richards gave a mortgage to the pits, to secure 675?., but only 475Z. of this sum was actually advanced, and the amount owing was afterwards reduced to 4612. Richards COUNTY COURT (Tr&atiQti)— continued. assigned the equity of redemption to the deft. Rochester. The pits, brought an action for fore- closixre in the county court against Richards and Rochester. The county court judge held the mortgage to " exceed in amount the sum of five hundred pounds " within the meaning of s. 67 of the County Courts Act, 1888, and that he had no jurisdiction ; and, under s. 68 of the same Act, he transferred the action to the Ch. Div. of the High Court. The pits, applied, under the latter part of s. 68, for an order retransf erring the action to the county Court. The judge of that court had jurisdiction, inasmacli as the mortgage did not exceed 500Z. Richards had been served personally, and notice of the application had been left at Rochester's house with his wife, who said he was away and that she did not know when he would return. All the parties were within the county court district, and the inquiries could be more conveniently taken in the county court. The Court made the order. Shields, Whitley and District Amalgamated Model Building Society v. Richards Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 106 — New trial — Assault — Schoolmaster — Corporal punishment. See Assault. 1. 7. — Iffew trial — Jurisdiction of judge to grant new trial — County Courts Act, 1888 (51 4' 52 Vict. 0. 43), s. 93. The House affirmed the decision of the C. A., Dean v. Brovm, [1909] W. N. 146 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 573, holding that the discretion of a county court judge to order a new trial " if he shall think just," conferred by s. 93 of the County Courts Act, 1888, is a judicial discretion, that he is bound by the same rules as the judges of the High Court, and that the new evidence did not justify a new trial. Beown v. Dean H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 108 8. — New trial, Applicationfor — Jurisdiction — Power to enter judgment — County Courts Act, 1888 (51 # 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 93. A county court judge has no jurisdiction, on an application for a new trial of an action tried in the county court, to enter judgment for the applicant. Robinson v. Fawcbtt & Firth Div. Ct. ri901] 2K. B. 325 Note. See Rigby i- Co. v. Cox (No. 2), [1904] 21K. B. 208, 211. 9. — Rem.ittal of action to cownty couH — — Action of tort — Practice — County Courts Act, 1888 (51 ^ 52 Vict. o. 43), s. 66. The pit. in an action in the High Court alleged in the statement of claim that she employed the deft., a dentist, for reward to extract a tooth by his painless process, but that the tooth was so unskilfully extracted that portions of it were left in the plt.'s jaw, whereby illness, pain, and suffering were caused to her : — Held, that the action was an action of tort within the meaning of s. 66 of the County Courts Act, 1888, and might be remitted to the county court under that section on the ground that the pit. had no visible means of paying the deft.'s ( 765 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 766 ) COUNTY COURT (VTa,ctice)—oontinKed. costs should a verdict not be found for the pit. Edwards <. Mallam C. A. [1908] W. N. 67 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 1003 10. — Remittal of action to county court — Claim originally exceeding WOl. — Reduction hy amsndmeut of writ — County Courts Act, 1888 ("51 4' 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 65. Where in an action of contract the claim indorsed on the writ originally exceeded lOOZ., but the pit. obtained leave for an amendment of the writ, by which the claim was reduced to 2i:l. :— Held, that there was jurisdiction under the County Courts Act, 1888, s. 65, to order the action to be remitted to the county court. DierJten v. Philpot, [1901] 2 K. B. 380, con- sidered. Snbadb v. Wothbeton Baettes and Lead MnfiNt} Co. C. A. [1904] W. N. 81 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 296 11. — Remitted action — Adding claim, to tluvt mentioned in writ — Jurisdiction — County Courts Act, 1888 (51 <5- 52 17cf. c. 43), s. 66 ; Ord. XIV., r. 12. A common law action of tort for personal injuries was commenced in the High Court and remitted to the county court under s. 66 of the County Courts Act, and the pit. lodged the original writ with the registrar as directed by that section. He then delivered particulars of a claim under the Employers' Liability Act. The deputy judge held that as such a claim could not have been tried in the High Court he had no jurisdiction to try it as part of the trial of the remitted action ; — Held that, as under s. 66 a remitted action becomes for all purposes a county court action, and as consequently the pit., if he had delivered particulars of his common law claim, could have amended those particulars under Ord. XIV., r. 12, by adding the claim under the Employers' Liability Act, he ought equally to be allowed to add that claim, although, as he had not delivered any particulars of the original claim, there were technically no particulars to amend. Appeal allowed. WOOD r. Wbbee - Div. Ct. [1908] W. N. 121 — Eemitted action — Discretion of judge as to costs. See County Coukt — Costs. 2. 13. — Remitted action — Invalid order lo remit not appealed against — Objection to jurisdiction at trial — Prohibition — County Courts Act, 1888 (51 ^' 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 65 — County Court Rules, 1889, Order XXXIIL, r. 1. By the County Courts Act, 1888, s. 65, where in any action of contract brought in the High Court tlie claim indorsed on the writ does not exceed 1001., or where such claim, though it originally exceeded 100?., is reduced by payment, an admitted set-off or otherwise, to a sum not exceeding lOOZ., an order may be made for the trial of the action in a county court. In an action of contract brought in the High Court, in which the sum indorsed on the writ exceeded 100/., the pit. at the hearing by a Master of a summons under the above section abandoned the excess above 100?., and the M?i.ster COUNTY COURT (Pvaetiee)— continued. made an order for trial of the action in the county court. The deft, did not appeal against the order, but at the trial in the county court objected to the jurisdiction ; the judge, consider- ing himself bound by the order, tried the action and gave judgment for the pit. ; the deft, there- upon applied for a writ of prohibition : — Held, (1.) that the Master's order was im- properly made, the excess not having been abandoned before the issue of the writ in the High Court ; but (2.) that, the deft, not having appealed againtt the order, the objection raised at the trial was made too late, and the county court judge was not bound to inquire into the circumstances under which the order was made, and was not guilty of any excess of jurisdiction in trying the action. DiEEKEN r. Philpot Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. S80 JVote. This case was considered by 0. A., Sneade v. Wotherton Barytes and Lead Mining Co., [1904] 1 K. B. 295. See No. 10, above. 14. — Reply, Rigid of plaintiff to. ■ Where the deft, in an action in a county court calls evidence, the pit. has a right to reply. Clack i: Clack Div. Ct. [1906] W. N. 40 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 483 15. — Statutory defence — Notice — Gaming and wagering contract — County Court Rules, 1889, Order X., rr. 10, ISa— Gaming Act, 1892 (55 # 56 Vict. c. 9), s. 1. In an action in the county court for commis- sion, the defence that the promise to pay com- mission was null and void under s. 1 of the Gaming Act, 1892, as being made in respect of a gaming and wagering contract, is a statutory defence of which notice must be given under Order X., rr. 10 and 18a, of the County Court Ilules, 1889. Willis v. Lovick Div. Ct. [1901] W. N. 100 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 195 16. — Staying proceedings — Stay of execution pending appeal — Jurisdiction of county court judge — Order that a sum for security for costs be paid into Court — Money " affected by tlie judgment" — Practice — R.S. C, 1883, Order LIX., r. 14. By Order Lix., r. 14, of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883, an appeal from an inferior Court is not to operate as a stay of proceedings unless the inferior Court so orders, or unless within ten days after the decision a deposit is made of or security given to the satisfaction of the inferior Court for a sum to be fixed by that Court, not exceeding " the amount of the money or the value of the property affected by the judgment" : — Held, that the " money affected by the judgment" includes costs, and that therefore a county court judge has jurisdiction to order a deft, against whom judgment for a sum of money and costs has been given, and who desires to appeal, to deposit in court or give security for a sum for costs in addition to the amount for which judgment has been given as a condition precedent to the appeal operating as a stay of proceedings. Grimshaw, Baxtee & Elliott, Ld. v. Parker - - Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 133; [1910] 2 K. B. 161 ( 767 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 768 ) COUNTY COURT (Tra.ctiee)—eontmued. 17. — Staying proceedings lohere suimisiionto arhitration — Jurisdiction — JPi'actice — Ariitra- tion Act, 18S9 (52 ^- 53 Vict. c. 49), ss.i, 27. A county court judge has jurisdiction, under s. 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, to stay any legal proceedings in his court by any party to a submission against another party in respect of any matter agreed to be referred. Moreiston TlUPLATB Co. 1-. BrOOKER, DORB & CO. Div. Ct. [1908] W. N. 16; [1908] 1 K. B. 403 — Trial — New trial. See JVbs. 7, 8, above. 18. — Writ of execution — TiTne of application for writ — Where registrar of cowniy court is also high bailiff — Delivery of writ to officer charged with enforcement — Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 # 57 Tict. c. 71), s. 26. Sect. 26 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, as applied to execution in county courts, must be construed as providing that the time from which a writ of execution, in a county court where the registrar is also high bailiff, binds the property in the goods of the execution debtor is the time at which application is made for the writ, and not the time at which the writ is delivered to the officer charged with the enforcement of it. Qutere, whether the same rule does not apply in a county court where the registrar is not also high bailiff. Muegatkoyd v. Wright ; Ban- msTER, Claimant Div. Ct. [1907] W. H. 120 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 333 Prisons. See the paragraphs at the commencement of this Heading of County Courts, cols. 744 — 747, ante. Prohibition. 1. — Practice — Prohibition — Alternative -Service out of the jurisdiction — Action ~ ' ' ' 7'esi- 1903, founded on breach of contract dent in Scotland — Covmty Court Order VII., rr. 41 («), 49. The Court, in the exercise of its discretion, will prohibit, on the ground of absence of juris- diction, further proceedings in a county court action founded on an alleged breach of contract . within the district, where, the deft, being resident in Scotland, the county court judge has, con- trary to Order vil., r. 41 (e), of the County Court Rules, 1903, made an order for the service of the summons on the deft, in Scotland, although there is an alternative remedy open to the deft, by way of an application to the county court judge, under Order vii., r. 49, to set aside the service or to discharge the order authorizing such service. Channel Coaling Co. v. Ross Div. Ct. [19071 1 K. B. 145 — Practice. See County Court— Practice, 16, 17. Trial. 1. — New trial — Jurisdiction of judge to grant a new trial — Practice — County Cowrts Act, 1888 (51 # 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 93. The power given by s. 93 of the County Courts Act, 1888, to a county court judge, " if he shall think just, to order a new trial to be had I COUNTY COUBT (JriaX)— continued. upon such terms as he shall think reasonable," is a judicial, not an arbitrary, discretion, and the judge is bound by the rules binding upon the High Court. Decision of the C. A., Dean, -i. Brown, [1909] 2 K. B. 573, affirmed. Brown v. Dean H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 102 ; [1910] A. C. 373 2. — Wight to liare action tried with jury — Amount claimed not exceeding 51. — Enforcement of right relating to land — County Courts Act, 1888 (51 S; 52 Vict. c. 43), s. \^\— County Court Rules, 1903, Order XXII., r. 3. The pit., who was the owner of certain land, demised the exclusive right of sporting and shooting over the land for two years to a person who employed the deft, as his head gamekeeper. A fire having broke out in the heather on the land, the deft., thinking that the means taken by the plt.'s men would not be successful in extinguishing it, set fire to certain strips of heather on the land to leeward of the approach- ing conflagration in order that the fire might be checked when it reached the places where the strips of heather had already been burnt down by him. The pit. brought an action in the county court claiming 10s. damages for trespass and an injunction. The deft, contended that it was necessary for the preservation of his em- ployer's sporting rights over the land to use the above means for extinguishing the fire, and he gave notice requiring the action to be tried with a jury :— Meld, that the action was brought to enforce a right relating to land and for the recovery of damages in respect thereof within the meaning of Order xxii., r. 3, of the County Court Rules, 1903, and that therefore the deft, was entitled to have the action tried with a jury. Rex v. Surrey County Court Judge - Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. E. 410 Workmen's Compensation. See under Master and Servant. — Appeals from county courts- See County Court- COUNTY BATE. See under Rates. -Papers forjudges -Appeal. 3. COUPLEE— Patent— Alleged infringement. See Canada — Patent. " COUPON COMPETITION "—Office used for betting — Events relating to horse-races. See Gaming. 4. — House used for betting. See Gaming. 5 — 7. COUBT OF APPEAL. See under Appeal. Practice— Court of Appeal. COUBT OF ABCHES. See under Ecclesiastical Law — Court of Arches. COUBT OF CHANCEBY (FUNDS) ACT, 1872. See Practice- Payment, &c. c ( 769 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 770 ) COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL. See under Cbiminal Law. COURT OF PROBATE. See under Peobate. COURT OF RECORD OF CIVIL JURISBICTION — Appeal to the King's Bench Division — Inferior Court. See Appeal. 15. COURT ROLLS— Custody of— Lord of the manor — Steward. See Manob. 3. — Manor — Custom — Stone quarry — Right to get stone — Evidence. See Common. 3. COURTS-MARTIAL— Practice— Special leave to appeal refused. See Natal. COVENANT— After-acquired furniture, Covenant by husband to settle — Bankruptcy of husband, See Bankhdptct — Trustee. — After-acquired property, Covenant to settle. See under Settlement. — After-acquired property clause — Persons derivatively entitled — Will — Satisfac- tion. See "Will — Satisfaction. 1. — Annuities. See under Annuities. — Annuities, Covenant to pay — Apportionment. See Settled Land — Annuities. — Annuity — Release by married woman — Covenant not to sue — Acquiescence — Action by administrator for arrears of annuity. ■S?e Husband .4 ND Wipe — Covenant. 1. — Annuity for separate use of wife without power of anticipation — Right to annul the covenant on notice to trustee — Wife's waiver of notice valid. See AUSTKAHA. 2. — Brewer's lease — Beer — "Tied" public-house — Covenant by mortgagor to take beer from mortgagee only. See Mortgage — Redemption. — Brewer's lease — Covenant to buy beer of lessors and " their successors in business " ■ — Covenant running with the land. See Landlord and Tenant. 20. — Brewer's lease — Non-renewal of licence — Impossibility of performing covenant — Continuance of lease. See Landlord and Tenant. 29. — Brewer's lease — Tied house — Lessee's covenant to buy malt liquors from lessor — Bise in prices — Breach of covenant. iSee Landlord AND Tenant. 19,21,22. — Brewers — Public-house — Licences in jeopardy —Recovery of possession — Disputed title — Breach of covenant. See Receiver. COTES KST— continued. — Build, Covenant to — Specific performance — Lease. See Building Contract. 4. — Building. See also Covenant — Restrictive Cove- nants, infra. — Building — Building restrictions — One house ■ — Double-tenement house. See Building. — Building scheme — Alteration of character of neighbourhood — Acquiescence in breaches. See Building. — Business, Not to carry on — Restraint of trade See under Restraint op Trade. — Company — Director — Contract of service — Restraint of trade — Breach of negative covenant. See Company — Directors. 5. 1. — Compensation for subsidence — Lease — Owners for time being — Covenant running with the land — Benefit of covenant — Heirs and assigns of covenantee — Covenantee not a party — Mining lease— Real Property Act, 1845 (8 4" 9 Vict, c. 106), s. 5 — Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (44 4- 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 58, sitb-s. 1. in a mining lease granted by the owners of the minerals (who were not owners of the surface) the lessee (which expression was to include his executors, administrators, and assigns, unless such construction was excluded by the sense or the context) covenanted with the lessors and " as separate covenants with other the owner or owners occupier or occupiers for the time being " of surface lands to pay to the lessors and other the covenantees or covenantee compensation for all damage occasioned by the working of the coal demised. The lease was assigned to a coUiery CO. and damage was occasioned to the surface by the co.'s working : — Held, that the covenant was not simply collateral, but affected the nature and value of the land and ran with the land, and that although the surface owners were not parties to the lease, yet under s. 5 of the Real Property Act, 1845, and s. 58, sub-s. 1, of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, the benefit of the covenant might be taken by the devisees of one who was a surface owner at the date of the lease and by the successors in title of others who were surface owners at that date, and that they could sue the executors of the lessee and the colliery co. for compensation for damage done to their surface lands. Decision of the C. A. sub. nom. Forster v. Mvet Colliery Co. Quin v. the Same. Seed v. the Same. Mm-gan v. the Same, [1908] 1 K. B. 62;), aflBrmed. Q-ucere, whether s. 5 of the Real Property Act, 1845, is confined to covenants running with the land. Dyson ■». Forster. Dyson r. Seed, Quin, and Morgan H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 98 — Conveyance — Implied covenants for title — Breach — Damages. See Vendor and Purchaser — Title. 3. ( 771 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 772 ) COVEN AHI—contimied. — Corporation — Ultra vires — Covenant not to erect buildings — Validity of covenant. See Vendob and Puechasek — Corporation. 1 . — Costs — Taxation — Lease — Renewal at the " cost of the lessee." See SoLiciTOE — Costs. — Court of Probate. See under Probate. — Debts — Covenant to exercise power as security for loan — Liability of appointed fund for debts. See PowEE OF Appointment. — Deed of concession — Construction of covenant — Lands in possession of the Crown. See Teinidad and Tobago. 1. — Determination of lease — Notice — Liability of lessee for past breaches of covenant. See Landlord and Tenant. 20. — Fixtures — Tenant's covenant to deliver up demised premises with fixtures — Sur- render and creation of new tenancy. See Landlord and Tenant. 34. — Forfeiture — New Zealand Property Law Act, 1908 — Eelief against forfeiture on breach of covenant. See New Zealand. — Forfeiture for breach of — Costs — Unnecessary defendants — Weekly tenants — Practice. See Costs. 78. — Further assurance — Legacy duty — Right to indemnity — Reversionary share — Settle- ment. See Revbntje — Legacy Duty. 2. — Hay and straw on the premises. Covenant to stack and consume — Destruction by fire. See Landlord and Tenant. 4. — Husband and wife —Covenants. See under HUSBAND AND Wipe — Covenant. — Husband and wife — Insurance. See under Husband and Wife — Insurance. 2. — Implying covenant from recital. Motion to strike out a statement of claim on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action. In the view which the Court took the case had no legal interest, but it is noted for the sake of the observations of the learned judge upon the head-note in Monypenny v. Monypenny, (1861) 9 H. L. G. 114, in the House of Lords. Kekewich J. said that when Monypenny v. Monypenny was before Wood V.-C, 4 K. & J. 174, he invoked the assistance of Bramwell and Wat- son BB., and adopted the opinion of those learned judges, which was read by Bramwell B. One question dealt with by Bramwell B. was whether a recital by the grantor of an annuity charged on certain lands that he was seised in fee simple of those lands implied a covenant for payment, and he held that it did not.. In the C. A., 3 De G. & J. 572, Lord Chelmsford upon the construction of the deed came to the conclusion that there was COVENANT— cojtteftMerf. an express covenant, and he thought it unneces- sary to determine whether a covenant should have been implied from the recital. In the House of Lords the majority of the noble Lords took the same view as Lord Chelmsford ; but in none of the speeches was there anything approach- ing a declaration that a recital of seisin by itself imported a covenant. Therefore the reporter in the House of Lords, in saying in the first para- graph of his head-note that the recital could be treated by the grantee as a covenant, had been guilty of a mistake. The reporter, observing that the House of Lords had reversed the decision of the Court of first instance, must have supposed that they had reversed that particular conclu- sion ; but the judgments of the House of Lords and the judgment of the Court of first instance proceeded upon different lines. North British AND Mercantile Insurance v. Clifford Kekewich J. [1903] W. N. 77 — Impositions— Covenant by lessee to pay and discharge "impositions charged or im- posed in respect of the premises." See Landlord and Tenant. 41. — Impositions— Outgoings, Covenant by lessee to pay. See Landlord and Tenant. 41. Impositions — " Outgoings," Covenant by occupier to pay— " Factory "—Means of escape in case of fire. See Factory. 7. — Impositions — " Outgoings " — Factory — Ex- pense of complying with requirement of sanitary authority — Landlord and tenant. See County Court— Jurisdiction. 5. — Impositions — "Outgoings." See Landlord and Tenant. 56 60. — "Impositions and outgoings" — Factory Acts — Underground bakehouse. See Factory. 8. — Impositions and outgoings — Lease of land Covenant to pay taxes— Usual covenant by lessee. See Canada — leases. 1. — Impositions and ' outgoings — To pay " out- goings "—" Factory "—Means of escape in case of fire — County court. See Factoey. 7. — Insurance — Husband and wife. See under Husband and Wipe— Insur- ance. Insure, Covenant to. See Landlord and Tenant. 44. " Interested " in similar business— Servant- Fixed salary. See Restraint op Trade. 3. 3. — Judgment—Merger— Mortgage—Rate of interest— Ancillary and, independent covenants. A mortgage deed contained a proviso for redemption if the mortgagors should pay the prmcipal with interest after the rate thereinafter covenanted. The mortgagors covenanted to repay the prmcipal on a day named with interest 0C2 ( 773 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 774 ) COVSS AST— continued. at 5 per cent., and if the principal was not then paid, to pay interest at tliat rate half-yearly on so much of the principal as should remain unpaid. The mortgagors having made default, the mortgagees recovered judgment against them for principal and interest upon the covenant. An action having been brought by another mortgagee for an account of all moneys due to incumbrancers : — ■ Sdd, that though the personal remedy on a covenant to pay a debt merges in a judgment and a judgment carries only 4 per cent, interest, yet upon the true construction of this mortgage deed the mortgagees were entitled to retain their security until they were paid the principal sum and interest at 5 per cent. The decisions of the Master of the Rolls and the Court of Appeal in Ireland, Usiorne v. Lhnericli Marhet Trustees, [1901] 1 I. R. 8.5, reversed on this point. ECONOMIC Life Assue- ANCE Society *. Usboene H. 1. (Ir.) [1902] A. C. 14T — Land tax, Covenant by lessor to pay — Con- struction — Value of land improved by building. See Landlohd and Tenant. 45. — Landlord and tenant. See under Lanolohd and Tenant — Leasehold house — Title — Open contract— Breaclr of covenant to repair. See Vendok and Puechasee - In General. — Leaseholds generally. See under LEASEHOLDS. COTES hST— continued. — Mortgagor in possession — Breach of covenant to repair — Right of mortgagor to sue lessee — Landlord and tenant. See MOKTGAGfE — Leases. — Mortgagor to take beer during the term from mortgagee, Covenant by — " Clog " on redemption. See MOETGAGE— Bedemption. — Negative — Lease — Proviso for re-entry. See Landlobd and Tenant. 71. — Negative covenant, Eight of assignee to enforce — Indemnity. See Landloed and Tenant. 52. — Not to sue for restitution — Wife's petition — No defence — Existence of deed of separation. See Restitution of Conjugal Rights. 1. — Notice to quit. See Landlord and Tenant. 53 — 55. 4. — Ojition to purchase reversion in fee — Validity — Executory interest in land — Per- petuity — Covenant running with land — Lessor and lessee — Covenants Act, 1.540 (32 Sen. 8, c. 34) — Remoteness. A lease of land for ninety-nine years granted in 1867 contained a proviso that in case the lessee, his heirs or assigns, should at any time during the term be desirous of purchasing the fee simple of the land at the rate of 5001. per acre, the lessor, his heirs or assigns, on receipt of the purchase-money, would execute a conveyance of the land in favour of the lessee, his heirs and — Leaseholds — Onerous covenants — Duty of vendor to disclose — Rescission. See Vendor and Purchaser— Rescis- sion. 3. Breach — In j unction — Letting — " Not to let "• — Damages. See Landloed and Tenant. 47. In 1904 an action was brought by an assignee of the lease, who had given notice of his desire to exercise the option, against assigns of the lessor to compel a conveyance of the land accordingly : — Held by Warrington J., [1904] W. N. 205, that the option to purchase was invalid on the ground of remoteness. Held by the C. A., that the proviso or cove- — Market, Substructure and support of — Lease nant did not come within the statute 32 Hen. 8, — Covenant — Iron girders — Deteriora- c. 34, so as to make the liability to perform it 83. tion — Standard of strength. See Landlobd and Tenant. . — Mining leases. See under Mines. — Mortgage — " Clog " on redemption — Public- house — " Tie " — Restrictive covenant. See Mortgage — Redemption. ■ — Mortgage — Foreclosure — Covenant to pay | interest half-yearly — Redemption. See Mortgage — Foreclosure. — Mortgage — Foreclosure — Tacking — Consolida- tion — Postponement of surety. Sec Mortgage — roreclosure. — Mortgage of reversion — Real Property Limi- tation Act. See Limitations, Statute of. 17. — Mortgages of settled estates — Covenants for title. See Settlement. run with the reversion, and that consequently the action could not be maintained against the defts. Semile, also, that the option was void on the ground of remoteness. Woodall v. Clifton. C A. [1906] W. N. 99 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 257. — Outgoings, Impositions and. I See Covenant — Imposition, supra. 6. — Parties — Covenant by covenantor with himself and others — Joint right to enforce oiliga- tion — Validity. By a marriage settlement W. W. K. assigned to the trustees a policy of assurance to be held upon the trusts of the settlement ; and he, T. D. B. and C. J. K. (two of the trustees of the settlement) covenanted with the trustees to keep the policy on foot and pay the premiums. A new trustee was afterwards appointed in the place of one who retired ; and the policy and the right to enforce the covenant were I vested in T. D. B., C. J. K., and E. H. E. (the ( 775 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 776 ) CQVESAST—cmtintied. new trustee) as joint tenants. W. W. K. made default in payment of the premiums, and T. D. B. and C. J. K. refused to continue making the payments personally. E. H. E. brought an action against W. W. K., T. D. B., and C. J. K., the covenantors, for a declaration that they were jointly and severally liable to pay the premiums and for an order on them to do so. T. D. B. and C. J. K. raised a point of law, asking for a declaration that the covenant was void so far as regarded them by reason of their being named therein both as covenantors and cove- nantees, and that the action might be dis- Seld, that the covenant was void and the action must be dismissed. Be Tastet v. Shaw, (1818) 1 B. & Al. 664, and Boyce v. Edhrooke, [1903] 1 Ch. 336, followed. Hose V. Poulton, (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 822, explained. Ellis «. Keer Warrington J. [1910] W. N. 62; [1910] 1 Ch. 529 — Pasture lands — Covenant not to plough up — Good husbandry. See Landlord and Tenant. 62. — Paving expenses — ■ Payment by occupier Eight of deduction from rent— Distress. See London — Streets. 12. — Paving expenses — Rates and ■ assessments. Covenant by tenant to pay. See Distress. 6. — Premiums, Covenant to pay — Mortgage of life policy — Bankruptcy of mortgagor — Voluntary payment of premiums by third party. See Bankruptcy — Third Parties. 2. — Purchase of lease — Unusual and onerous covenants — Duty of vendor — Construc- tive notice. See Vendor and Pueohaser— Leases. 1. • Quiet enjoyment — Covenant. See Landlord and Tenant. 64—68. of — Quiet enjoyment. Covenant for — Breach covenant — Interruption by assignee. See Landlord and Tenant. 64. — Quit, Notice to. See Landlord and Tenant. 53— D5. — Railway company — Conveyance subject to restrictive covenant — Resale of part of land. See Vendor and Pubchasbe — Kail- ways. 1. — Receiver, Use or occupation by — Head lease — Rent — Breach of covenant — Damages. See MoETGAGE— Receiver. — Re-entry — Compulsory purchase by public body — Severance of reversion. See Lease. 2. — Re-entry, Proviso for. See Landlord and Tenant. 71, 72. — Renewal, Covenant for — Lease. See under Landlord and Tenant. 76-78. COVES KSI—continuei. — Rent — Landlord and tenant. See under Landlord and Tenant. — Rent-charge — Personal covenant to pay- Remedy when barred. See Limitations (Statutes of). 23. — Restraint of trade. See under RESTRAINT OF TRADE. — Restrictive covenant — Building restrictions — One house — Double tenement house. See Building. 3. — Restrictive covenant — Building scheme — Alteration of character of neighbour- hood — Acquiescence in breaches. See Building. 4. — Restrictive covenant — Building scheme — Rights of purchasers inter se. See Vendor and Puhchasbe— Cove- nants. 2, 3. — Restrictive covenant — Compensation — Lauds injuriously afEected. See Lands Clauses Acts. 36. 6. — Restrictive covenant — Covenant running with land — Covenant enforceaile in ecjnity — Per- sonal and collateral covenant — Sale of all cove- nantee's land — Breach after death of covenantee — Right of action hy personal representative against assign of covenantor. When on the sale of the whole of a vendor's land the purchaser enters into a covenant restrict- ing the user of the land, the executor of the vendor cannot maintain an action for an injunc- tion against an assign of the purchaser in respect of a breach of the covenant committed after the vendor's death. Such a covenant is merely personal and col- lateral, and the principle of Tullt v. Moxhay, (1848) 2 Ph. 774, does not apply to it. Formby r. Barker C. A. [1903] W. N. 133 ; [1903] a Ch. 539 1. — Restrictive covenant — Freehold building land — Plans to be submitted — Ccmstruction of covenant — Lease by covenantor — Breach of cove- nant by lessee — Banhritptcy of lessee — Re-entry by covenantor — Liability of covenantor for his assigns — Past breach. The purchaser of part of a freehold building estate covenanted with the vendor for himself and his assigns to erect no other than private residences and to submit plans for approval before commencing to build. The purchaser granted a building lease with covenants similar to those in his conveyance ; the lessees, without submitting plans for the vendor's approval, com- menced a building which was alleged to be and was held a breach of the covenant. The lessees became bankrupt, and their trustee having dis- claimed the lease, the purchaser took possession of the land and offending building. The vendor having sold the rest of the estate to the pit. with the benefit of the purchaser's covenants, the pit. brought an action against the purchaser to com- pel removal of the building, and for damages : — Held, that there was no continuing breach, the covenant having been broken once for all when the building was erected contrary to it ; that the breach was committed not by the ( 777 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 778 ) COVENANT— coBimwei. purchaser, but by his lessees, and that he had not by his conduct rendered himself liable for the violation of the covenant ; and that neither at law nor in equity was the pit. entitled to any relief. Decision of Eve. J., [1909] W. N".61 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 680, affirmed. Dictum of Lopes L.J. in Hall v. JEwin, (1878) 37 Ch. D. 74, 82, queried. Powell v. Hemsley C. A. [1909] W. N. 141 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 252 — Kestrictive covenant — " OfEensive " trade or business — BiUposting — Advertisement hoarding — " Building " — Mandatory injunction. See Building Estate. 1. — Restrictive covenants. Freeholds subject to — Covenants to be entered into by pur- chaser. See Vendor and Puechasee — Cove- nants. 1. — Eestrictive covenants — Landlord and tenant. See under LANDLORD AND Tenant. — Restrictive covenants — Title by possession- Notice — Acceptance of less than forty years' title. See Vendoe and Puechasee — Title. 12. — Kestrictive covenants — Trespasser — Title by adverse possession — Statute of Limita- tions. See Vendoe and Puechasee — Title. 13. — Eunning with land. Covenant — Covenant by lessor to perform covenants of head lease — Collateral covenant. See Landloed and Tenant. 26. — Running with land, Covenant — Lease by mortgagee as "agent." See Landloed and Tenant. 51. — Running with land — Indemnity — Quiet enjoy- ment. See Landloed and Tenant. 26. — Running with land — Lands compulsorily taken — Compensation — Tied house. See Housing of "Woeking Classes. 2. — Running with land — Option to purchase free- hold — Option during whole term. See iVo. 4, above. — Running with the land. Covenant — Mine — Subsidence, Compensation for — " Heirs and assigns." See Mine. ■ — Separation, Deed of — Covenant not to sue for any previous offence — Husband's breaches of other covenants. See DIVOECB — Practice. 11. — Settled estates — Lease. See under Settled Land — Leases. • Solicitor — Restraint on trade. See under SOLIOITOE - Trade. -BcBtraint on COVENANT— coniJraKefZ. — Stamp duty — " Bond or covenant " — " Lease." See Revenue- Stamps. 30. — Sub-letting — Forfeiture, Relief against — Breach of covenant not to sub-let without consent — Effect of negligence. See under Landloed and Tenant. — Sub-structure, Lease of — Covenant to suffi- ciently maintain, support, and keep in good repair — Iron girders. See Landlord and Tenant. 83. — Title — Breach — Measure of damages — Con- veyance. See Vendoe and Puechasee — Con- veyance. 1. — To build. Covenant — Specific performance — Lease. See Building Contbaot. 4. — To stack and consume hay and straw on the premises — Destruction by fire — Com- pensation. See Landlord and Tenant. 4. — Trade fixtures — General words — Ejusdem generis — Tenant's right of removal. See Fixtures. 10. — Trading, Breach of restrictive covenant as to — Right of employers to sue. See Master and Servant — Contract of Service. — Underlessee — Covenant running with the land ■ — Covenant by underlessor with underlessee to perform covenants of head lease — Collateral covenant. See Landlord and Tenant. 26. — Underlessee not an " assign " — Privity of con- tract. See Landlord and Tenant. 11. — Validity — Covenant as to mode of execution of special testamentary paper. See under PowBE op Appointment. — Vendor and purchaser. See under Vendor and Purchaser — Covenants, — "Water rate — Covenant by lessor to pay rates. See Landlord and Tenant. 69. COVERING DEED— Debenture stock. See under Company — Debentures. COVERTTTEE— Power— Appointment — " During coverture by will or deed " — Execution of will during coverture— Death of testatrix discovert — Exercise of power —Validity. See under Power of Appointment. CRAN MEASURES ACT, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 17), legalizes tlie use of crcin and quarten cran measures in connection with trading in fresh herrings in England and Wales. CRANE PIATFORM— "Workmen's compensation — Temporary wooden structure. See Master and Servant— Com- pensation. ( 779 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 780 ) . CSEDIIOB — Administration generally. See under Administration. — Administrator — Eetainer — " Not unduly pre- ferring." See EXBCTJTOE — Eetainer. — Bankruptcy practice. See Cases under Bankeitptcy. — Company practice. See Cases under COMPANY and Com- pany — Winding-up. — Corporate creditor — Grant of administration to officer — Retainer. See Exeoittoe — Retainer. 2. — County court. See under County Couet. — Creditor's action — Attendance at proceedings. See Administeation. 2. — Deed of arrangement — Registration — Contents of affidavit. See Feaudulent Conveyance. 1. — Escheated land — Land Transfer Act — Ad- ministration. See Land Teanspee. 6. — Execution. See under Execution. — Execution creditor. See under Execution Ceeditoe. — Execution creditor — Wrongful seizure — Absence of malice — Action of trespass. See Shbeipp. — Executor — Administration. See under ExBCUTOS. — Fraudulent preference — "Winding-up — Powers of committee. See INDUSTEIAL AND PEOVIDBNT Society. 5. — Grant of administration to creditor under s. 73 of the Court of Probate Act, 1857— Citation of next of kin (if any) dispensed with. See Administeation. 6. — International law — Annexation — Creditor's rights against conqueror. See Petition op Right. — Judgment creditor — Equitable execution — Efiect of order — Notice to executor — Charging order — Priority. See Eeobivee. — Judgment creditor — Garnishee order absolute — Mistake — Setting aside. See Peacticb — Setting Aside. — Judgment creditor — Receiver — Appointment — Jurisdiction — Railway not open for public traffic. See Railway — Beceiver. — Partition action — Fund in Court representing rents and profits — Administration. See Administeation. 25. ■ — Priorities — Voluntary debt — Insolvent estate — Bankruptcy rule — Administration. See Executor — Administration. 3. CEEDITOE— cowiiraierf. — Probate — Practice — Concurrent suits in Chancery and Probate Divisions — Sureties. See Peobate — Practice. — Railway company — Construction of exten- sion line — Separate undertaking. Sae Railway — Powers. — Retainer — Judgment creditor — Judgment against executor — Subsequent adminis- tration decree — Insolvent estate. See ExECUTOB — Eetainer. ,1. — Secured creditor. See under Bankeuptcy — Secured Creditor. — Secured creditor — Default on Stock Exchange — Mortgage — Deposit of securities — Redemption — Notice of act of bank- ruptcy. See Bankruptcy — Stock Exchange. 1. — Secured creditor — Proof by against the real estate — Lapse of time — Fund in court. See Administeation. 23. — Secured creditor — Receiver, Appointment of — Notice to vendor — Rescission of con- tract by consent. See Vendor and Pueohasee — Eeceiver. 1. — Trustee carrying on testator's business — Defaulting trustee — Indemnity. See Trustee— Business. 1. CEEMATION. See under Burial. CEEW — Ship — Agreement with crew — Stipula- tions contrary to law. See Shipping — Crew. CEIMINAI, LAW. Criminal Procedure, England — Costs and Compensation. Regulations made by the Secretary of State, dated Nov. 12, 1903, governing the allow- ances payable to prosecutors and witnesses in criminal prosecutions. Reprint from W. N. 1904 (Jan. 2), p. 1. See Cueeent Index, 1904, p. cxi. Poor Prisoners' Defence — Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1903 (8 Edw. 7, c. 38). Regulations of the Secretary of State, dated Deo. 30, 1903, as to the allowances which may be made under s. 1 sub-s. 2, of the Poor Prisonei's' Defence Act, 1903! Reprint from W. N. 1904 (Jan. 23), p. 55. See Cueeent Index, 1904, p. oxxi. Rules made by the Attorney- General, dated May 13, 1904, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of s. 2 of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1903. Reprint from "W. N. 1904 (June 25), p. 209. See Cuerbnt Index, 1904, p. cxxii. Summary Jurisdiction.] Summary Juris- diction Acts. Rule, dated Dec. 30, 1903, made by the Lord Cliancellor wider s. 29 of the Summary ( 781 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 782 ) CRIMINAL 11I.-VT— continued. Jurisdiction Act, 1879, as to the tailing of recog- nizances hy the governor of a prison. Reprint from "W. N. 1904 (Feb. 20), p. 71. See Cuekekt Index, 1904, p. cxxiv. Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1851 (14 if 15 Vict. 0. 55). Regulations made ly the Secretary of State, dated June 14, 1904, gorerning the allowaTwes payaile to prosecutors and witnesses in criminal prosecutions. Reprint from W. N. 1904 (Jnly 16), p. 225. See Cdreent Index, 1904, p. cxiii. Criminal Appeal Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 23), is an Act to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal and to amend the law relating to appeals in criminal cases. Probation of Offenders Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c . 17), is an Act to permit the release on probation of offenders in certain cases, and for other matters incidental thereto. Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 15), consolidates and amends the law relating to the payment of costs in criminal cases. Prosecution of Offences Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 3), amends the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 and 1884. Criminal Appeal QAmetidment^ Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, 0. 46), amends the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 23), with reference to the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal and the Begistrar. Pretention of Crimes Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, G. 59), m^hes better provision for the prevention of crime, and for that purpose to provide for the reformation of young offenders and the prolonged detention of habitual criminals, and foi' other purposes incidental thereto. Toiithful Offenders — Children Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, 0. 67). — The Summary Jurisdiction {Children Act) Rules, 1909, dated Mar. 23, 1909. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (April 3), p. Ill ; and May 27, 1909, W. N. 1909 (July 10), p. 269. See Cueeent Index, 1909, p. sciv. Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 16) — Costs and Expenses. — Regulations, dated Pec. 16, 1908, made by the Secretary of State under s. 5 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, u. 15). Reprint fromW. N. 1809 (Jan. 2), p. 3. See Cueeent Index, 1909, p. ciii. [Note. — The Regulations dated Mr. 28, 1908, made under s. 5 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, o. 15), are set out (as a reprint from W. N. [1908] (Deo. 12), p. 343) at p. xcvii. of the Final Part of the Current Index, 1908.] Criminal Appeal Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 23) — Shorthand writers apjiointed under, will con- tinue to act until further order. Bated April 19, 1909. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (April 24), p. 141. Sec GnEEENT Index, 1909, p.cxvii. Punishment, England. Detention in Borstal Institutions. Regs. June 23, 1909, undm- s. 4 (2) of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908. St. K. & 0., 1909, No. 724. Price \d. CBIMINAI LAW—contitiued. Punishment, England. Petenfi-on in Borstal Institutions. Regn., July 7, 1910, amending Regn. 15 under s. 4 (2) of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908. St. E. & 0., 1910, No. 771. Price \d. Abortion, col. 783. Allowances, col. 783. Appeal, col. 783. Betting. See under Betting. Bigamy. See under BiGAMT. Colonies, col. 803. Conspiracy. See under CONSPIEACT. Convictions, col. 803. Costs, col. 804. Crimping. See under Shipping — Crimping. Cruelty to Animals. See under Ceueltt TO Animals. Cruelty to Children, col. 805. Debtors, col. 806. Defamation, col. 807. Ecclesiastical Law, col. 807. Evidence, col. 807. Extradition. See under Extradition. False Imprisonment, See under False Impeisonment. False Pretences, col. 812. Fiihification of Accounts, col. 814. Felony. See also under Felony. Fisheries. See under FiSHEElES. Forgery, col. 816. Fugitive Criminals. See under EX- TRADITION. Game, col. 817. Habitual Criminals, col, 817. Incest, col. 817. Indictment, col. SIS. Infants, col. 819. InformaVwn, col. 820. Justices. )Sl»e under Justices. Larceny, col. 821. Libel, col. 826. Loaded Arms, col. 826. Lunacy, col. 827. Malicious Damage, col. S2S. Motor Cars. See under MoTOE CARS. Offences against the Person, col, S2S. Perjury, col. 829. Pleading, col. 829. ( 783 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 784 ) CRIMINAL LAW— c Poaching. See under Game. Poor Prisoners (Poor Prisoners' De- fence'), col. 829. Practice, col. 829. Prevention of Cruelty to Children. See under Ceiminal Law — Cruelty to Children. Probation of Offenders, col. 830. Prosecution of Offences, ool. 831. Rape, col. 831. Receiving, col. 831. Recognizances, col. 831. Restitution of Stolen Property, col. 832. Riot, col. 832. Servants' Characters, col. 833. Slander, col. 833. Summary Jurisdiction, col. 833. Third Parties, col. 834. Treason, col. 834. Vagrancy, col. 835. Youthful Offenders, col. 835. Aliortion. 1. — Using instruments with intent to procure abortion — Admissibility of evidence of felonious use of similar imtrumeftts on anotlier woman on a previous occasion. The prisoner, a medical man, was indicted for feloniously using certain instruments on a ■ certain woman with intent to procure her mis- carriage. At the trial evidence was tendered on behalf of the prosecution to shew that some nine months previously the prisoner had used similar instruments upon another woman with the avowed intention of bringing about her mis- carriage, and that he had then used expressions tending to shew that he was in the habit of performing similar operations for the same illegal purpose. The evidence was admitted, and the prisoner was convicted : — Held, by Kennedy, Darling, Jelf, Bray, and A. T. Lawrence JJ. (Lord Alverstone C.J. and Ridley J. dissenting), that the evidence was rightly admitted, and that the conviction must be upheld. Rex v. Bond - - - C. C. R. [1906] 2 K. B. 389 ; [1906] W, N. 138 Allowances. Ci'imvnal Justice Administration Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. c. 55). Regulations made by the Secretary of State, dated, June 14, \^Qi, governing the allowances payable to prosecutors and wit- ftesses in criminal prosecutions. Rejirint from W. N. 1904 (July 16), p. 225. See Ctjbkent Index, 1904, p. cxiii. Appeal. (Criminal Appeal). Ci'iminal Appeal Rules, 1908. Rules made with the approval of t/ie Lord Chancellor and the CRIMINAL LAW (Appeal)— coMiiaaerf. Secretary of State, by the Lord C/iief Justice and the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and came into operation on April 18, 1S08. A copy of these Rules was presented gratis by the Council to Subscribers to the entire series of the Law Reports, 1908, in the United, Kingdom. Ihese copies were delivered with the April Parts of the Law Reports. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (March 28), p. 83. Additional Rule made, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, by the Lord Chief Justice and the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal, dated March 27, 1908. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (April 4), p. 94. See Cuerent Index, 1908, p. xcv. Criminal Appeal Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 23) — Costs of Appeal. Order of Secretary of State, dated March 27, 1908, under s. 13 (2) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907. Reprint from W. KT. 1908 (April 11), p. 95. See Cueeent Index, 1908, p. xcv. Criminal Appeal Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 23), s. 20 (_3)—Rule 17 of Crown Office Rules, 1906, added to. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (June 6), p. 165. See Cueeent Index, 1908, p. xcvi. Ci'iminal Appeal Act, 1907 — Rates of pay- ment fixed by the Lords Commissioners of Sis Majesty's Treasury for Slun-thand Writing and Copying under the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, and the Criminal Appeal Rules, 1908. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (Oct. 17), p. 303. See Cueeent Index, 1908, p. xcvi. Prison, England — Rules, April 8, ISOS, under the Prison Act, 1898, and the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, for the treatment and custody of appellants not admitted to bail. St. R. & 0., 1908, No. 282. Price Id. Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Act, 1908, (8 Edw. 7, c. 46), amends the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 23), with reference to the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal and the Registrar. Criminal Appeal Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 23) — Shorthand writers appointed under, will con- tinue to act until further order. Dated April 19, 1909. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (April 24), p. 141. See CUBRENT Index, 1909, p. cxvii. 1. — Attempt — Act done with intent to commit offence. The deft, was indicted at the Knutsford Quarter Sessions for attempting to obtain money by false pretences from two persons named Slater and Ingham. The deft, represented to Slater and Ingham respectively that he was a partner in a firm of advertising contractors, that the firm were about to transfer their business to a CO., and that he was desirous of appointing a person to act as the representative of the co. in a particular district. He told them that the person who got the appointment would make about 6001. a year out of it, but would have to invest the sum of 1001. in debentures or shares of the co. He proposed to each of them that they should apply for the appointment. At the time when he made these proposals he, with the object of • ( 785 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 786 ) CRIMINAL LAW (Appeal)— co?i«M«e(Z. inducing Slater and Ingham respectively to believe that his business was a substantial one, produced to each of them in turn a balance-sheet which purported to shew a considerable profit, and which he falsely represented to be the balance-sheet of his firm for the preceding year. He was convicted of attempting to obtain the sum of 1001. from each of them. He appealed upon the ground that the acts complained of did not amount in law to an attempt to commit the offence : — Seld, that the deft.'s acts sufficiently approxi- mated to the commission of the offence to constitute an attempt to commit it. Appeal dismissed. Ebx v. Laitwood C. C. A. ri9101 W. N. 122 2. — Attempt — Indicfmettt fo?' murder— ~Con- eicthm for attempt — Punishment — Criminal Procedure Aef, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. c. 100), «. 9— Offences against t/ie Person Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 100), ss. 11—15. A person who upon an indictment charging him with murder is convicted under s. 9 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1851, of an attempt to murder may be sentenced to penal servitude for life by virtue of the provisions of as. 11 — 15 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861. Bex v. White - C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 122 ; rieiOl 2 K. B. 124 — Attempt — Sentence. See Xo. 24, below. — Conspiracy. See under CRIMINAL LAW — Conspiracy. 3. — Co/iiicfioii intohing " no substaniial miscarriage of jiistice," Meaning of — Power of Court to jind facts— Criminal Ai}peal Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 23), s. 4, suh-s. 1. On the trial of an indictment for man- slaughter there was evidence that the prisoner had inflicted injuries upon the deceased more than a year and a day before the date of the death, and also certain further injuries within that period which tended to accelerate the death. The judge directed the jury that they might find the prisoner guilty even if they thought that the death was whoUy caused by the earlier injuries. The jury convicted the prisoner. By s. 4, sub-s. 1, of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, " The Court may, notwithstanding that they are of opinion that the point raised in the appeal might be decided in favour of the appel- lant, dismiss the appeal if they consider that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred." Upon an appeal against the conviction on the ground of misdirection : — Held that, althougli upon a proper direction the jury would probably have found that the later injuries accelerated the death, as it was not certain that they would have done so, and as the Court were not entitled under the above section to substitute themselves for the jury and find the facts necessary for conviction, they could not say that there had been no substantial mis- carriage of justice, so as to entitle them to CRIMINAL LAW (ApT?ea,l)— continued. dismiss the appeal upon that groimd. Bex r. Dyson C. C. A. [1908] W. N. 142 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 454 — "Criminal cause or matter" — Distress — Bailiff — Costs and charges — Practice. See Appeal. 6. — Drunienness — Capacity to manage own affairs when sober. See Deunkenness. 1. 4. — Drunkenness — Murder — Manslaughter — Prisoner so affected by drink as to be incapable of knowing that Ms act is dangerous — Direction to jury. Upon the trial of an indictment for murder the question whether the jury are justified in returning a verdict of manslaughter on the ground of the voluntary drunkenness of the prisoner may be determined by the following rule : — A man is taken to intend the natural con- sequences of his acts. This presumption may be rebutted, in the case of a man who is drunls, by shewing his mind to have been so affected by the drink he had taken that he was incapable of knowing that what he was doing was dangerous, i.e., likely to inflict serious injury. If this be proved, the presumption that he intends to do grevious bodily harm is rebutted. Upon the trial of a prisoner for murder evidence was given that he was drunk at the time of the commission of the act charged, and the judge gave the following direction to the jury : — " In the first place, every one is presumed to know the consequences of his acts. If he be insane, that knowledge is not presumed. Insanity is not pleaded here, but where it is part of the essence of a crime that a motive, a particular motive, shall exist in the mind of the man who does the act, the law declaa-es this — that if the mind at that time is so obscure by drink, if the reason is dethroned and the man is incapable therefore of forming that intent, it justifies the reduction of the charge from murder to man- slaughter " : — Held, that the direction was right. Bex c. Meade - C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 62 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 895 5. — Drunkenness — Validity of sentence — Habitual drunkard — Conviction for being guilty of disorderly behar'imir while drunk — Three prerious summary coni-ictions for offences inrolr- ing drunkenness — Power to order imprisonment in addition to detention — Inebriates Act, 1898 (61 ^ 62 Vict. c. 60), s. 2, sub-s. 1. By the Inebriates Act, 1898, s. 2. sub-s. 1, " Any person who commits any of the offences mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act, and who within the twelve months preceding the date of the commission of the offence has been convicted summarily at least three times of any offences so mentioned, and who is a, habitual drunkard, shall be liable upon conviction on indictment, or if he consents to be dealt with summarily on summary conviction, to be detained for a term not exceeding three years in any ( 787 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 788 ) CRIMINAL LAW (Appeal)— eoraimaei?. certified inebriate reformatory the managers of which are willing to receive him " : — Held, that where a person is convicted on an indictment preferred against him under the section a sentence of imprisonment with hard labour cannot be inflicted upon him in addition to the detention in a certified inebriate reforma- tory authorized by the section. Rez v. Beiggs C. C. A. [1908] W. N. 244 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 381 — Drunkenness, Conviction for offence not involving. See Ko. 19, below. — Evidence. See under Criminal Law — Evidence. 6. — Emdence of aoconytlice — Absence of corroboration — Omission of judge to caution jury — Effect of on conviction. Where a prisoner is convicted upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice the Court of Criminal Appeal may quash the con- viction if the judge at the trial omitted to caution the jury against convicting upon such evidence. Rex v. Tate C. C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 680 — False pretences. See under Ceiminal Law — False Pretences. 7. — Habitual criminal — Form of indictm,ent — Crime committed before Act in opey-ation — Sentence of penal servitude and preventive deten- tion — Ay-peal against sentence without leave — Oriminal Appeal Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, e. 23), s. 3 (c) — Prevention of Crime Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 59), ss. 10, 11, 19. By s. 10, sub-s. 1, of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, " where a person is convicted on indictment of a crime committed after the passing of this Act, and subsequently the offender admits that he is or is found by the jury to be a habitual criminal, and the Court passes a sen- tence of penal servitude, the Court .... may pass a further sentence ordering that on the determination of the sentence of penal servitude he be detained for such period not exceeding ten nor less than five years, as the Court may deter- mine, and such detention is hereinafter referred to as preventive detention ... " By sub-s. 2 "a person shaU not be found to be a habitual criminal unless the jury finds on evidence (a) that since attaining the age of sixteen years he has at least three times previously to the conviction of the crime charged in the said indictment been convicted of a crime . . . and that he is leading persistently a dishonest or criminal life ... An indictment containing a count under the above section alleged that the prisoner, since attaining the age of sixteen years, had at least three times previously to the crime charged in the indictment been convicted of a crime within the meaning of the Act, and that he was leading persistently a dishonest and criminal life, but it did not allege that the prisoner was a habitual criminal : — Held, that the count was sufficient, though from the point of view of pleading it would be better to insert an averment that the prisoner is a habitual criminal. Held, also, that the words in s. 10, sub-s. 1, CRIMINAL LAW (Appeal)— <;o " crime committed after the passing of this Act," must be read in their natural sense, and that there- fore the section applies in the case of a crime committed after the passing of the Act and before it came into operation, where the con- viction takes place after the Act came into operation. By s. 3 (c) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, a person convicted on indictment may, with the leave of the Court of Criminal Appeal, appeal to the Court against the sentence, unless the sentence is one fixed by law. By s. 11 of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, " "■ person sen- tenced to preventive detention may, notwith- standing anything in the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, appeal against the sentence without the leave of the Court of Criminal Appeal." The Court, without deciding whether " the sentence " in s. 1 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, includes the sentence of penal servi- tude as well as the sentence of preventive deten- tion, said that they would adopt the practice that a prisoner who appeals against the sentence of preventive detention will be considered as having leave to appeal against the sentence of penal servitude, without the necessity of applying for leave. Rex v. Smith. Rex v. Weston iC. C. A. [1909] W. N. 210 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 17 8. — Habitual criminal — Practice— Plea of guilty to crime charged in indictment — Furtlier charge in indictment of being habitual criminal — Swearing jury — Evidence of consent of Director of Public Prosecutions — Evidence of notice of intention to insert charge to officer of Court and to prisoner — Length of notice — Admissibility of evidence of previous convictions — Grounds of charge of bevng habitual criminal — Form of sentence — Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, (8 Edw. 7, c. 59), s. 10. An indictment under s. 10 of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, charged the prisoner with felony and also with being a, habitual criminal. The prisoner pleaded guilty to the felony and not guilty to the charge of being a habitual criminal : — Held, that upon the inquiry whether the prisoner was a habitual criminal there was no objection to swearing, the jury as for the trial of a felony, although it would have been suifioient to swear them as for the trial of a misde- meanour. Without laying down any general rule as to how the consent (required by s. 10, sub-s. 4 (a) ) of the Director of Public Prosecutions to a charge of being a habitual criminal being inserted in an indictment ought to be proved, it will be sufficient if some person who has been in corre- spondence with the Public Prosecutor is called to say that he received the document contain- ing the consent in the ordinary course of corre- spondence and believes it to be signed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, but it is not necessary to call a witness who has seen him write. In order to prove that seven days' notice (required by s. 10, sub-s. 4 (J)) of the intention to insert in the indictment a charge of being a ( 789 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 790 ) CEIMINAL lAW (Appeal) — continued. habitual criminal has been given to the proper officer &f the court, it is not necessary that the officer himself (e.g., the clerk of the peace) should be called, but there must be some proof of the receipt by him of the notice, e.g., by calling his clerk. Notice to produce the notice (required by s. 10, sub-s. 4 (J)) to the offender that it is intended to insert the charge of being a habitual criminal in the indictment is not required in order to render secondary evidence of the con- tents of the notice to the offender admissible. The seven days' notice to be given to the oflScer of the Court and to the offender that it ia intended to insert a charge of being a habitual criminal in the indictment is seven clear days' notice. Before the previous convictions mentioned in s. 10, sub-s. 2 («), can be given in evidence in support of the charge of being a habitual criminal, evidence must be given to shew that the previous convictions were specified in the notice to the offender. It is not necessary that the notice to the offender of intention to insert a charge of being a habitual criminal in the indictment should contain a statement of the evidence which it is intended to call for the purpose of shewing that he is leading persistently a dis- honest or criminal life, but the grounds upon which it is intended to prove that he is leading persistently a dishonest or criminal life must be stated in a general way, e.g., that the prisoner is doing no work and has no honest means of livelihood. Whether evidence of the prisoner's per- sistently dishonest or criminal life previous to his last conviction is admissible in evidence in order to prove that he is at present leading a persistently dishonest or criminal life depends on the facts of the case. The evidence may be admissible as a step in proving that he is at present leading a persistently dishonest or criminal life. If the facts make it doubtful whether the prisoner was over sixteen when the first of the three convictions mentioned in s. 10, sub-s. 2 (a), took place, some evidence of that fact must be given. But a statement of the prisoner to that effect would be sufficient. Where a person is convicted of, or pleads guilty to, having committed a crime charged in the indictment, the Court ought not to pass a sentence for that crime before the jury inquire into a further charge, contained in the indict- ment, of being a habitual criminal. Rex v. TUMBK - C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 242 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 346 9, — Ilahitual criminal — Sentence — Preven- tion of Crime Act, 1908 (8 Mw. 7, c. 59), s. 10. The prisoner was convicted on Oct. 19, 1910, at the Brecon County Quarter Sessions of having stolen two shirts from a clothes line, and also of being a habitual criminal. He was sentenced to three years' penal servitude and five years' pre- ventive detention. Between the years 1890 and 1908 he had been convicted eleven times of offences of larceny and burglary, and had re- CEIMINAL LAW (i.^^&a.V)— continued. oeived sentences amounting in the aggregate to ten years and seven months. It was suggested on the prisoner's behalf that having regard to the small value of the articles stolen, in the present case the sentence of penal servitude must have been imposed in order to give the Court jurisdiction to pass a sentence of preventive detention. The Court (Lord Alverstone CJ., Pickford and Bankes .JJ.) held that a judge is not entitled to pass a, sentence of penal servitude with the object suggested ; that the sentence for the particular offence must be such as the judge would be justified in passing if it were not to be followed by a sentence of preventive detention. In this case, however, they thought that, having regard to the appellant's previous history, there was abundant reason for passing a sentence of penal servitude. Application refused. Bex v. Jones C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 259 10. — Habitual criminal — Sentence — Preten- tion of Crime Aot, 1908 (8 Mw. 7, c. 59), .ss. 10, 12. The prisoner, aged twenty-two, was con- victed on April 7, 1909, at the West Kent Sessions holdeu at Maidstone, of having stolen, at Penge, on March 23, 1909, a lady's bag containing articles of the value of 4L 10s. The only previous conviction against him was dated March 25, 1907, when he was convicted at the Middlesex Sessions on three charges of housebreaking, and was sentenced to twenty-one months' imprisonment. A constable stated that he was a clever thief who had given himself up to housebreaking. The chairman of the West Kent Sessions treated the prisoner as being a habitual criminal, and sentenced him to five years' penal servitude. In a report made by the chairman to the C. C. A. he stated that he was influenced by the consideration that if he imposed that sentence the Secretary of State would have power to commute it to preventive deten- tion under s. 12 of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, which provides that "Where a person has been sentenced, whether before or after the passing of this Act, to penal servitude for a term of five years or upwards, and he appears to the Secretary of State to have been a habitual criminal within the meaning of this Act, the Secre- tary of State may, if he thinks fit, at any time after three years of the term of penal servitude have expired, commute the whole or any part of the residue of the sentence to a sentence of preventive detention, so, however, that the total term of the sentence when so commuted shall not exceed the term of penal servitude originally awarded," and that he could not otherwise pro- vide for that detention which under the circum- stances he considered necessary for the protection of the public, as the Act had not yet come into force. Channell J., delivering the judgment of the Court (Channell, Jelf, and Bray JJ.), said that the chairman was not justified upon the facts proved in treating the prisoner as a habitual criminal within the meaning of the Act of 1908. If, however, upon the evidence it had appeared that he was a habitual criminal, the Court was ( 791 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 792 ) CRIIIINAL LAW (Appeal)— contmued. of opinion that the proTisions of s. 12 were such as the judge, when sentencing the prisoner, might properly take into consideration. As, however, under the circumstances s. 12 did not apply, the Court thought the sentence excessive, and reduced it to fifteen months' imprisonment. Appeal allowed. Rex v. Raybould C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 118 11. — Habitual ari/minal — Trial with another prisoner — Practice — Prevention of Crime Act, 1908 (8 Mio. 7, c. 59), s. 10. The applicant and another prisoner were indicted together in the first count with house- hreaktag, and in the second count under the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, with being habitual criminals. Both prisoners pleaded guilty to the first count and not guilty to the second. The two prisoners were then tried together upon the count charging them with being habitual criminals. The jury found them guilty ;— Lord Alverstone C.J., in delivering the judg- ment of the Court (Lord Alverstone C.J., Bray and Lord Coleridge JJ.) dismissing the applica- tion, said that there was a point of practice of some importance to which, though it was not raised in this case, he ought to refer. The applicant and anotlier prisoner were tried at the same time upon the charge of being habitual criminals. When a person was tried upon such a charge the evidence must necessarily be directed against him individually, as it must relate largely to his mode and habits of life, and it ought to be kept quite separate from the evidence against any other person. Their Lord- ships could not conceive any case where two persons should properly be tried together upon a charge of being habitual criminals, and therefore they thought it right to lay it down 'that a person charged with being a habitual criminal ought to be tried separately from any other person. Kbx v. Blake - C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 123 12. — Halitual crimin/il, Charge of being a — Grounds of charge — Sufficiency of notice — Con- sent of Director of Public Prosecutions, Presumj}- tion of— Prevention of Crime Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 59), s. 10. At the trial of an offender on a charge of being a habitual criminal under the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the insertion of the charge in the indictment, which is required by that Act, will be presumed in the absence of any oV)jection by the ofEender that no such consent was in fact given. The requirement of s. 10, sub-s. 4, that the notice to the ofEender of an intention to insert such a charge in the indictment " shaU specify the previous convictions and the other grounds upon which it is intended to found the charge " means that the notice shall specify " the other grounds " if any. It does not mean that the previous convictions may not by themselves be sufficient grounds upon which to found the charge. Kbx v. Wallee - C. C. A. [1910] 1 E. B. 364 CBIMINAI LAW (Appeal) — continued. — Incest. See under Criminal Law — Incest. 13. — Incorrigible rogue — Sentence by quarter sessions — Appeal — Vagrancy Act, 1824(5 ffeo.i, c. 8.B), ss. 3, 4, 5, — Criminal Appeal Act, 1907 (7 Mw. 7, c. 23), *. 19 ; a. 20, sub-s. 2. The appellant was convicted by a petty sessional court of being an incorrigible rogue within s. 5 of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, for that he did beg for alms after having been twice previously convicted of being an idle and dis- orderly person, and he was sentenced by quarter sessions to one year's imprisonment with hard labour. The appellant petitioned the Home Secretary against His sentence, who referred the case to the C. C. A. under s. 19 («) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907 :— Held, that a person sentenced by quarter sessions as an incorrigible rogue can under s. 20, sub-s. 2, of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, appeal against the sentence, but not against the conviction. Held, also, that as the appellant had not at some former time been adjudged to be a rogue and vagabond within s. 4 of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, and duly convicted thereof, the quarter sessions had no power to sentence him as an incorrigible rogue. Rex i;. Johnson ■ CCA. [1909] W. N. 19; [1909] 1 K. B. 439 — Insanity, Defence of. See under Criminal Law — Lunacy. — Juryman, Illness of — Trial for murder. See next case. — Larceny. See under Criminal Law— Larceny, — Lunacy. See under Criminal Law. — Lunacy. 14. — Murder, Trial for — Illness of juryman — Temporary absence from court — Custody of juryman — Mebutting evidence on behalf of prose- cution — Admissibility. The prisoner was tried at the Central Criminal Court before Lord Alverstone C.J. on Oct. 18, 1910, and following days for the murder of his wife. The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to death. He appealed from his con- viction upon the grounds (inter alia) : — (1.) That one of the jurymen, after the prisoner had been given in charge of the jury, absented himself from the rest of the jury with- out the juryman or the rest of the jury being given in charge of the proper officer of the com-t. (2.) That the evidence of James Childers, buyer to Messrs. Jones Bros., HoUoway, a witness for the Crown, was wrongly admitted. The facts so far as material to the two grounds of appeal to which this report relates were as follows : — On Oct. 18, 1910 (the first day of the trial), two ushers of the Central Criminal Court were sworn as jury bailiffs to take charge of the jury during adjournments. On Oct. 19, about 11.30 A.M., a juryman was taken ill. Two medical men went to the juryman's assistance. The juryman left the jury-box, leaving the others remaining in the box. He was taken out of court, accompanied by the two medical men and ( 793 ) DIGEST or CASES, 1901—1910. ( 794 ) CRIMINAL lAW (Appeal) — continued. James Phillips, one o£ the jury bailifEs mentioned above, to a space outside where there was open air and to which the public had no access. After a consultation between the medical men, one of them (Dr. Dyer, medical officer of Brixton Prison) returned into court and gave an opinion as to when the juryman would probably recover, and was sworn to take charge of him. He then returned to the juryman, and the two medical men, a constable, and Phillips remained with him in the open air for three-quarters of an hour. The juryman rejoined his fellows about 1 o'clock, Phillips having been with him the whole time he was absent from the rest of the jury. Phillips was not sworn again at the time he took charge of the juryman. During the whole time the juryman was absent no one spoke to him about the trial. The medical men only spoke to him, and no one else had an opportunity of doing so. On the way to the open air less than a dozen persons had to be passed, and the juryman was in a state of collapse. At the trial the prisoner was called as a witness on his own behalf. At the close of the prisoner's evidence the prosecution applied for leave to call the witness Childers to give rebut- ting evidence. Leave was granted, and Childers accordingly was called by the prosecution and gave evidence : — The Court (Darling, Channell, and Pick- ford JJ.) held that the appeal must be dis- missed. The argument upon the prisoner's behalf was in substance that, although the bailiff in whose charge the juryman was had been sworn on the first day of the trial to take charge of the jurymen during the adjournment, never- theless, when this juror was taken iU, it being necessary for him to leave the court, he was in law accompanied by an unsworn bailiff and by doctors who examined him and asked him neces- sary questions. The Court thought that all the rules as to the custody of jurymen were subject to qualification in cases of emergency, for a case might arise when it would be necessary to take a juror away before there was time to swear a bailiff. Nothing had been decided by Lord Alverstone C.J. contrary to law. If there had been an opportunity of tampering with the jury- man the Court might have quashed the convic- tion, but so far from there being such an opportunity, the evidence shewed that there had been none whatever, that no one spoke to the juryman but the doctors, and that the bailiii was in charge all the time. There was not even a suggestion that there had been any tampering with the juryman, in fact. . The appeal on this point must therefore be dismissed. As to the objection to the evidence of Childers, rebutting evidence must be admissible evidence. Supposing it to be admissible evidence, it then became a question for the judge at the trial to determine in his discretion whether the evidence, not having been tendered in chief, ought to be given as rebuttiug the case set up by the defence. The matter was one within the discretion of the judge who presided at the trial, who was in a much better position than any Appeal Com't to determine whether it was really fair to allow it CEIMIKAL LAW (Appeal)— co?8-s. 3. Two indictments were preferred against the appellant at the quarter sessions for the borough of Southampton, the first charging him with obtaining money by false pretences, the second charging him with attempting to obtain money and goods by false pretences. To the first indictment the appellant pleaded not guilty. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and he was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment ( 799 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 800 ) CRIMINAL LAW (Appeal)— cowii/twtf. with hard labour. To the second indictment he pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, the two sentences to run consecutively. The appeal was against the sentence on the second indictment. The judgment of the Court (Darling, Walton, and Pickford JJ.) was delivered by Darling J., who said that it was clear that hard labour could not be given for an attempt to obtain money or goods by false pretences, and the Court were of opinion that a different sentence, one of three mouths' imprisonment without hard labour, should have been passed, and therefore the sentence must be quashed ; but the words " and pass such other sentence warranted in law by the verdict " in s. 4, sub-s. 3, had no application to this case, where there had been no verdict, the prisoner having pleaded guilty. Therefore the only thing the Court could do was to quash the sentence. Appeal allowed. KEX V: DAVID80N - C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 52 Mte. This case was overruled on one point by C. C. A., Reas v. Ettridge, [1909] 2 K. B. 24. 25. — Sentence — Detention in Borstal institu- tion — Misconduct — Imprisonment — Order of Smne Secretary — Appeal — Prevention of Crime Act, 1908 (8 Edm. 7, e. 59), s. 7. In this case the judgment of the Court (Lawrance, Darling, and A. T. Lawrence JJ.) was delivered by Lawrance J., who said that under the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, there might be an appeal against a sentence passed on conviction. In this case the sentence was two years' detention in a Borstal institution. As soon as that sentence was passed the matter passed, under the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, into the hands of the Home Secretary, who by s. 7, had power, in the circumstances of this case, to commute the unexpired residue of the term of detention to such term of imprisonment as he might determine. The Home Secretary, if he thought proper, might commute the term of detention to a shorter term of imprisonment, but in the present case, having regard to the conduct of the appellant, he thought it right that the appellant should be imprisoned with hard labour for the whole period of the unexpired residue of the term of detention. Speaking for himself, the leai-ned judge was not prepared to say that in no circumstances could this Court deal with a case of a sentence commuted under the Act of 1908 ; but it was not necessary to decide that point, for the Court was clearly of opinion that in the circumstances of this case the order of the Home Secretary ought not to be interfered with. The case of Rex v. Kirlipatriclt, was decided before the Act of 1908 came into force, and had, therefore, no material bearing on this question. Appeal dismissed. Rex v. Keating - C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 198 26. — Sentence — Evidence of character — Accusations against prisoner not proved — Effect on sentence. The prisoner was convicted upon an indict- ment for larceny. At the trial the prisoner called evidence as to bis good character, and no D.D, CRIMINAL LAW (Appeal)— cow'oseewtrix — Complaint elicited by question — Admissibility. The prisoner was indicted for an indecent assault on a girl under the age of thirteen years, whose consent to the act was therefore im- material. At the trial evidence was admitted of the answer given by tlie girl to a question put by another child, in the absence of the prisoner, as to why the girl had not waited for the other child at the prisoner's house. The girl's reply was a complaint of the prisoner's conduct to her : — Held, that the evidence was admissible, not as evidence of the truth of the charge alleged, but as corroborating the credibility of the girl and as evidence of the consistency of her con- duct. Hex f. OsBOBNB C. C. B. [1905] 1 K. B. 651 — Larceny. See under Ceiminal Law — Larceny. 8. — Nature and conduct of defence — Evidence of person charged — Oross-e.raviination as to character — Criminal Evidence Act, 1898 (61 ^' 62 Vict. 0. 36) s. 1, siii-s. (/), (ii). Upon the trial of an indictment for conspiring by false pretences to induce the prosecutor to sell a mare, the prosecutor gave evidence that one of the defts. had previously ofEered to buy the mare on credit. The deft, in question was called as a witness for the defence, and was asked in cross- examination, " Did you ask the prosecutor to sell you the mare in April, or has he invented all this ? " To which he replied, " No, it is a lie, and he is a liar." Counsel for the prosecution was thereupon allowed to cross-examine the deft, as to previous convictions : — JECeld, that the deft.'s answer amounted only to an emphatic denial of the truth of the charge against him ; that the nature or conduct of the defence was not such as to involve imputations on the character of the prosecutor within the meaning of s. 1, sub-s. (/), (ii.) of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1888, and that therefore the deft, was not liable to be cross-examined as to his pre vious character. Ebx v. Rouse C. C. a. [1904] 1 K. B. 184 9. — Nature or conduct of defence — Uridence of person charged — Cross-examination as to pre- vious conriction — Criminal Eiidence Act, 1898 (61 Sf 62 Viet. c. 36), s. 1, sub-s. (/) (iii.). A prisoner who was arrested in possession of stolen property said in answer to the charge that he was acting under instructions from a detective, and at the trial at quarter sessions the detective was cross-examined as to whether he had not employed the prisoner as an informer : — Held, that the nature or conduct of the defence was not such as to involve imputations on the character of the witnesses for the prose- cution under s. 1, sub-s. (/) (ii), of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, so as to render the prisoner liable when called in his own defence to be cross- examined as to previous convictions. Ebx v. Beidgwatee - C. C. R. [1906] 1 K. B. 131 10. — " Nature or conduct of defence" — Im- putation on character of witness for prosecution — Evidence — Cross-examination of person charged — CRIMINAL LAW (Evidence) — continued. Criminal Eddence Act, 1898 (61 # 62 Vict. c. 36), s. 1, sub-s. (/) (ii.). Upon the trial of an indictment for an offence one of the issues was whether the deft, was the man who was seen near the place where the offence was committed. Two witnesses identiiied the deft, at the police station as the man they had seen near the place, but a third person failed to identify him. With respect to this latter occasion the deft, in his evidence stated that the police inspector, who was present on the occasion and who gave evidence for the prosecution, said to the constable who was sent to bring the person in for the purpose of seeing whether he could identify the deft., " the second," or something like it ; that he (the deft.) was placed second from one end of a row of men ; and that the person who was brought in did not pick him out, but picked out the man who was second from the other end. Counsel for the prosecution was then allowed to ask the deft, whether he had not been con- victed on previous occasions. No reliance was placed upon the above evidence in support of the defence, nor was the defence conducted on the footing that the inspector's evidence ought not to be believed : — Held, that the allegation of the deft., so far as it reflected on the inspector, was made with reference to the conduct of the identiiication proceedings, which were relevant to the defence ; that, though the identification on the particular occasion had failed, and therefore the allegation was not strictly relevant to the defence, it was natural for the deft, to make some comment on those proceedings ; and that the nature or conduct of the defence was not such as to involve imputations on the character of the inspector within the meaning of s. 1, sub-s. (/) (ii.), of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, so as to allow the deft, to be cross-examined as to previous convictions. Eex (■. Peeston - C. C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 568 11. — " Nature or conduct of the defence " — Imputation on character of witness for the prose- cution — Cross-examinatio7i of person charged — Criminal Evidence Act, 1898 (61^- 62 Vict.c. 36), s. 1, sub-s. (/) (ii.). The prisoner was indicted for a rape upon his daughter, aged thirteen. The prisoner gave evidence. He was asked in cross-examination whether the girl had invented the story. Answer, " She did not invent it herself ." "Who invented it for her ? " Answer, ' ' Her mother, for one." The mother was one of the witnesses for the prosecution. Later on he was asked what made him say that his wife had induced the girl to tell the story. Answer, " Because I said I was going to sell the things up and leave her." "Leave her — what for?" Answer, " Because we could not agree." " Is that the only reason ? " Answer, " I heard the children saying that a man used to come from the house when I was from home." " You suspected your wife of immoral conduct with another man ? " Answer, " Yes." On this the judge allowed counsel for the prosecution to ask him whether another daughter of his, then aged sixteen, had ( 811 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 812 ) CRIMINAL LAW (Sviieace)— continued. not been delivered of a child, and whether he was not the father of it. The prisoner was con- victed. He appealed against the conviction on the gi'ouud that the question as to his paternity of the elder daughter's child was not admissible under s. 1, sub-s. (/) (ii.), of the Criminal Evi- dence Act, 1898. The Court held that the imputation of mis- conduct on the part of the mother was sufficiently independent of the defence or of the necessity for developing the defence to render the question objected to admissible, and that it was not the less admissible because the imputation was made in answer to questions put in cross-examination. Appeal dismissed. Ees (•. Jones - C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 218 12. — Prisoners jointly indicted — Evidence ty one prisoTier incriminating another — Eif/ht of the latter to cross-examine — Criminal Eridence Act, 1898, (61 j * lo^i - - - - pondents for incest, and directed I g^y-T^rriToTf 57 '^''"''" ^"*' ^^^^ On a trial for bigamy where the second 1910, of the res^ a Yordict and judgment of acquittal to be entered. Also on Nov. 8 the C. C. A. refused to hold the accused respondents to bail, and they were set at liberty. Theru being no rules of the H. L. as yet in respect of criminal appeals, nor any standing order applicable to sucli appeals, the Law Lords were consulted, and, on Nov. 28 it was ordered (Minutes of H. L.) that the appeals presented by the Director of Public Prosecutions should be read, and the same be ordered to be prosecuted marriage has been contracted elsewhere than in England or Ireland it is not necessary that the indictment should contain an averment that the accused was a British subject. Eex r. Attdley C. C. E. [1907] W. N. 9 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 383 — Conspiracy — Obtaining a passport by false representations — Direction to jury — Criminal law. See CONSPIEACT. 3. ( 819 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 820 ) CRIMINAL LAW (Indictment)— co«««!(e(?. — Larceny. See under Criminal Law — Larceny. — Motion to quash indictment — Practice — High treason — Expatriation in time oJ; war. See Criminal Law — Treason. 1. — Obscene matter, Indictment for defamatory libel containing — Criminal law. See Defamation — Libel. 3. — Striking out indorsement on writ — Embarrass- ing pleading. See Practice — Pleadings. 3. — Sufficiency of arei'ments — Indictment, In an indictment for receiving stolen goods it is enough to allege that the prisoner received them knowing them to have been feloniously stolen, without further alleging that the stealing of them amounted to a felony at common law or under the Larceny Act, 1861. An indictment charged that the defendant ' ' one thousand pheasants' eggs of the goods and chattels of and of and belonging to W. G. feloniously did steal &c." It was contended for the defence that the indictment was had in that it did not allege tliat the eggs had been reduced into possession, and that without such an aver- ment the eggs, being those of a bird teres nature were prima facie not the subject of larceny : — Seld, that the words " of and belonging to," being in addition to the ordinary formal words " of the goods and chattels of," coupled with the fact that the large quantity of the eggs stolen suggested that they had previously to the steal- ing been taken from the nests and collected into one place, amounted to a sufiBcient averment that the eggs had at the time of the stealing been reduced into the possession of the person in whom the property was laid. Item V. Sovgh, (1779) 2 East, P. C. 607, distinguished. Beg. V. Cox, (lS4i) 1 C. & K. 494, ques- tioned. Rex v. Stride and Millard - C. C. K. [1908] W. S. 20 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 617 Mte. This case was referred to by C. C. A., Rex v. Garland, [1909] W. N. 252. Infants. See also under Infants. — Cruelty to children. See under Criminal Law- ChUdren. -Cruelty to 1. — Indecent assault on female vmder sixteen years of age — Consent of prisoner to ie dealt with summarily — Might of appeal from conviction — Swmviary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 4' ,13 Vict, c. 49), s. 12 — Children Act, 1908 (8 Udio. 7, c. 67), ss. 33, 128. If a person, charged before a court of sum- mary jurisdiction with an indecent assault on a female who in the opinion of the Court is under the age of sixteen years, consents to be dealt with summarily by virtue of the power conferred on Courts of summary jurisdiction by s. 12 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, and s. 128 of the Children Act, 1908, he has no right of CRIMINAL LAW (IjitaiAs)— continued. appeal under s. 33 of the Act of 1908. Eex v. Dickinson. jE?a' parte Davis Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 469 — Youthful offenders. See under Criminal Law— Youthful Offenders. Information. — Execution of work in contravention of by- law — Continuing offence. See Local Government. 16. 1. — Sale of intoxicatwig liquors to children — Sale by servant contrary to instructions of licensee — '^Knowingly allows any person to sell" — In- toxicating Liquors (Sale to Children) Act, 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. 27), s." 2. By s. 2 of the Intoxicating Liquors (Sale to Children) Act, 1901, " every holder of a licence who knowingly sells or delivers, or allows any person to sell or deliver, save at the residence or working place of the purchaser, any description of intoxicating liquor to any person under the age of fourteen years for consumption by any person on or off the premises, excepting such intoxicating liquors as are sold or delivered in corked and sealed vessels in quantities not less than one reputed pint for consumption off the premises only," is made liable to penalties. Intoxicating liquor was knowingly sold to a child under fourteen in a bottle neither corked nor sealed by a servant of a licensed person con- trary to the express orders and without the knowledge of his master, who was himself in charge of the premises at the time of the sale : — ■ Held, that the licence-holder could not be convicted under s. 2 of "knowingly allowing " "■ person to sell intoxicating liquor to a child under fourteen in a vessel neither corked nor sealed. Emary v. Nolloth - Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K.B. 264 2. — Sale of intoxicating liquor to children — Vessel not properly sealed — Muidence — Gummed paper label — Intoxicating Liquors (Sale to Children') Act, 1901 (1 Edw. 7, u. 27), s. 2. The appellant was charged under s. 2 of the Intoxicating Liquors (Sale to Children) Act, 1901, with selling beer to a child under fourteen, the beer not being sold in a sealed vessel. It was proved that a gummed paper label was affixed over the screw stopper of the bottle, ex- tending about an inch down two sides of the neck of the bottle. The label was dry at the time of the sale, but by moistening the label with the tongue and so damping the gum the label could be removed without its being torn. The justices found that the bottle was not sealed as required by the Act, and convicted the appellant : — Held, that there was evidence to support the finding of the justices.. MiTCHEL v. Crawshaw Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 701 3. — Sale of intoisicating liquors to children — Vessels not properly corhed and sealed — Mois rea — Intoxicating liquors {Sale to Children") Act, 1901 (1 Edw. 7. c. 27), s. 2. By s. 2 of the Intoxicating Liquors (Sale to Children) Act, 1901, every holder of a licence ( S21 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 822 ) CRIMINAL LAW (Information)— coftfm«e(?. who knowingly sells or delivers, save at the resi- dence or working place of the purchaser, any intoxicating liquor to any child under fourteen for consumption by any person on or offi the premises, excepting such intoxicating liquors as are sold or delivered in corked and sealed vessels in the prescribed manner, shall be liable to penalties : — Held, that the holder of a licence, who had delivered intoxicating liquor to a child under fourteen in a vessel not corked and sealed as the Act required, was guilty of an offence under s. 2, although he honestly believed when he delivered the liquor that the vessel was so corked and sealed. Bkooks r. Mason. Div. Ct. [1902] W. N. 193 ; (1902] 2 K. B. 743 Justices. See under Justices. Larceny. Larceny Act, 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. 10) amends the Larceny Act, 1861 (24 4' 25 Vict. c. 96.) See also tlie paragraphs at the commencement of this heading (Criminal Law). 1. — Adrertisement of reward for return of stolen property — Penalty — " Any property what- soever" — Bog— Larceny Act, 1861 (2i ^-25 Viet, s. 96), s. 102. A dog is included in the words " any property whatsoever" in s. 102 of the Larceny Act, 1861, which imposes a penalty on an}' one who publicly advertises a reward for the return of any pro- perty whatsoever which shall have been stolen or lost, and uses in such advertisement any words purporting that no questions will be asked, and on any one who prints or publishes such an advertisement. itfiEAMS r. OuE Dogs Publish- ing Co. C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 664 CRIMINAL LAW (Larceny')— continued. of stealing it was the duty of the chairman to withdraw the case from the jury on the prisoner's counsel's submission, at the close of the case for the prosecution, that there was no evidence for them. Counsel for the prisoner made that sub- mission in the court below, and as the prisoner had a right to a decision at that moment this Court now would ignore anything that took place during the remainder of the trial after that submission had been made. The present case was quite unlike Meg, v. Suvton (1854) Dears. 282, which had been cited. The facts were quite consistent with the appellant's innocence. He might have been moving birds of his own from one place to another, and the only suspicious circumstance was the time being 3.15 A.M. There was not sufficient evidence to call upon the prisoner to answer a charge of larceny. Conviction quashed. Rex r. Joineb. C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 43 3. — Deer usu-ally Ttept in a forest — Eilling outside foreM — Unlawful possession — ■ Larceny Act, 1861 (24 4' 25 Vi'ct. c. 96), ss. 12, 14. A person who kills and carries away a deer usually kept in a forest, when it is outside of the limits of the forest and upon the land of a third person, cannot be convicted, under s. 14 of the Larceny Act, 1861, of being in unlawful posses- sion thereof. Theblkeld r. Smith. Div. Ct. [1901] 2K. B. 531. — Evidence — Statement of afiairs in bankruptcy — Admissibility — Misappropriation by trustee. See Criminal Law — Practice. 2. — Case for jury — No eridence of theft. In this case the judgment of the Court (Darling, Pickford and Lord Coleridge J J.) was delivered by Darling J., who said that the ques- tion the Court had to decide was whether at the close of the case for the prosecution there was any evidence of larceny to go to the jury. From the facts it appeared that the appellant was the owner, in a perfectly legitimate way, of a num- ber of pheasants. On the night in question his house was being watched, and he was seen to go out about 3.15 A.M. with nothing whatever in his hands and to return about 6.15 with a sack containing eleven tame pheasants. As the birds were tame no question of poaching or oiiences under the Game Laws arose, and the case was exactly tlie same as if they had been barndoor fowls. There was evidence before the case for the prosecution was closed that no one could be found who had lost any pheasants, and on these facts the question was whether there was any evidence of larceny to go to the jury. They were not now concerned with the explanations which the appellant gave, but had simply to decide the question of law. In such a case it was necessary to consider all the ciroumstances, such as the nature of the goods and the hour at which they were being dealt with. If there was no evidence 4. — Fixtures — AgreeTnent for tenancy of house — Tailing possession tcith intention to steal fixtures— Larceny Act, 1861 (24 S' 25 Met. c. 96), s. 31. By an agreement in writing dated July 6th, 1910, between King, who was the lessee for a long term of certain houses, and the appellant, the latter agreed within three months to put the houses into repair, and King agreed that, upon completion of the repairs, he would grant to the appellant a lease of the houses for twenty-one years at a yearly rent, the appellant in the meantime to be deemed a tenant-at-will. The appellant entered into possession of the houses, and according to the evidence for the prosecution proceeded to sever and remove the lead and zinc piping from a number of the houses. The case for the prosecution was that the appellant entered into the agreement with the fraudulent intention of getting possession of the houses in order to steal the above fixtures, and that, if that were so, he was, upon the authority of i?c.r V. Munday, (1799) 2 Leach C. C, 850, which was decided under 4 Geo. 2, s. 32, guilty of the ofEence charged. The jury found the appellant guilty. Pickford J., in delivering the judgment of the Court (Lord Alverstone C.J., Pickford and Avory J J.), said that the jury must be taken to have found that, when the appellant entered into the agreement for the tenancy of the houses, he had no intention of becoming a bona fide tenant, but did so for the purpose of getting possession ( 823 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 82i ) CRIMINAL LAW (Larceny)—^ of the houses in order to steal the lead and zinc piping specified in the indictment. That raised the question whether the decision in JRem t. Munday, 2 Leach C. C. 850, ought to be followed. That was a case decided more than a ceatury ago on reference to all the judges, and it had been recognized as an authority ever since. They thought that they ought to follow it, and there- fore the conTiction must be aflirmed. Ekx ■». BiCHABDS C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 868 5. — Fraudulent misapjpropriation by agent — " Banlier, merchant, irolter, attorney, or other agent "—Larceny Act, 1861 (24 ^ 25 Vict. e. 96), s. 75. By 24 and 25 Vict. o. 96, s. 75, " Whosoeyer, having been intrusted, either solely, or jointly, with any other person as a banker, merchant, broker, attorney, or other agent, with any money or security for the payment of money, with any direction in writing to apply, pay, or deliver such money or security or any part thereof respectively, or the proceeds or any part of the proceeds of such security, for any purpose, or to any person specified in such direction, shall, in violation of good faith, and contrary to the terms of such direction in anywise convert to his own use or benefit, or the use or benefit of any person other than the person by whom he shall have been so intrusted, such money, security, or proceeds, or any part thereof respectively .... shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. " The prisoner, a conjurer and thought-reader, received from the prosecutrix a cheque for the specific purpose of paying a deposit upon an application on behalf of the prosecutrix for shares in a certain ry. CO., the cheque to be returned to the prosecutrix in the event of the shares not being obtainable. The prisoner made no applica- tion for the shares, but cashed the cheque and misappropriated the proceeds : — Held, that the words " or other agent " in s. 75 applied only to persons whose occupation was similar to those enumerated in the section, and did not inclvide any ordinary agent who might from time to time be intrusted with chattels or valuable securities, and that the facts disclosed no offence within the meaning of the section. Her/. V. PoHugal, (1885) 16 Q. B. D. 487, approved and followed. Eeg. r . Kane. C. C. R. [1901] 1 K. B. 472 Note. Sects. 75, 76 of the Larceny Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 96), are repealed by Larceny Act, 1901 (lEdw. 7, c. 10). 6. — Indictment for offence after 2)reHous conviction — Arraignment — Larceny Act, 1861 (24 4- 25 Vict. c. 96), s. 116— Srror. Sect. 116 of the Larceny Act, 1861, provides that " In any indictment for any offence punish- able under this Act and committed after a previous conviction " the offence may be charged in the manner therein specified ; and the section then goes on to say that " the proceedings upon any indictment for committing any offence after a previous conviction .... shall be as follows ' ' : — Held, that the words " for committing any offence " in the latter paragraph are perfectly CRIMINAL LAW (Laxceny)— continued. general and not limited to offences "punishable under that Act. A prisoner was indicted at quarter sessions for attempting to commit larceny, and a subse- quent count in the indictment charged a previous conviction. The prisoner was arraigned upon and pleaded to both counts. Objection was taken on his behalf to the aiTaignment as con- travening the provisions of s. 116 of the Larceny Act, 1861,, which require that upon an indict- ment for an offence after a previous conviction the offender shall in the first instance be arraigned upon so much only of the indictment as charges the subsequent offence, and that until he be found guilty of that offence he shall not be called upon to plead to the charge of the previous con- viction. The recorder accordingly adjourned the trial to the next sessions. At that sessions the prisoner was tried. There was no fresh arraign- ment, but his former pleas were treated as stand- ing. He was, however, giyen in charge to the jury upon the first count only, and was found guilty and sentenced on that count : — Seld, that although the arraignment did not take place at the sessions at which the prisoner was tried, and although the fact of the previous conviction was not disclosed to the jury by whom he was convicted, either by the manner of giving him into their charge or otherwise, the fact that the arraignment did not comply with the provi- sions of the section was such a substantial defect as could not be cured by verdict, and that the conviction must be quashed. Faulkner v. Kex Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 76 7. — Indictment — Form — Receipt of money stolen by wife from husband — Indictment for misdemeanour — Absence of allegation that thief was wife of person from whom money stolen — Larceny Act, 1861 (24 risoners charged with' rape. The Court expressed the opinion that prisoners charged with rape should always be defended by counsel. Lord Alverstone C.J. said that he always made a practice of asking counsel to defend on a charge of rape. In his opinion it was absolutely essential. Pkaoticb Note C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 206 Keceiving. — Pleading — Indictment — Admission of "feloniously." See Criminal Law — Larceny. 11. 1. — JReceivinr/ stolen goods — Goods "found in his possession" — Preventionof Crime Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 112), s. l^—Ecidence—Primier called as witness on hehalf of fellow prisoner — Cross-examhmtion — Criminal EoideTi.ce Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 36), ^. 1 (e). On the trial of a prisoner for receiving goods knowing them to be stolen it was proved that he pawned the goods with a pawnbroker on the day preceding that of his arrest : — ■ Meld, that the goods were ." found in his possession" within the meaning of s. 19 of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1871, and that for the purpose of proving guilty knowledge evidence might be given that he had been previously convicted of an offence involving dishonesty. Beg. V. Brage, (1878) 14 Cox, C. C. 85, and JUg. V. Carter, (1884) 12 Q. B. D. 522, not followed. Where two prisoners are tried for an offence and one gives evidence on behalf of the other, the prisoner so giving evidence may, under s. 1 (e) of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, be asked questions in cross-examination tending to criminate him as to the offence charged, none the less because he gave no evidence in support of his own defence. Eex v. Kowland C. C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 458 Secognizances. — Good behaviour, Kecognizance to be of— Jurisdiction — Public meetings — Use of insulting language. See Justices. 12. — Probation of offenders — Condition as to abstention from intoxicating liquor. See Criminal Law— Appeal. 19. 1. — Recognizances on case stated — Sufficiency — Sammary jurisdiction — Practice — Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 (20 ^- 31 Vict. c. 43), ss. .?, 5. P,0. CRIMINAL LAW (Eeco§fnizances) — continued. The appellant having been convicted at a metropolitan police court of an offence against the London Building Act, 1894, applied to the magistrate to state a case, and his application was refused. The appellant then entered into a recognizance with one surety with the consent of the magistrate under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, s. 3, to prosecute the appeal and applied to and obtained from the High Court a rule absolute for a mandamus to the magistrate to state the case. In the meantime the appellant had been adjudicated bankrupt, and his surety had died. The magistrate stated and signed the case in pursuance of the order of the Court, but declined to deliver it up until the appellant had entered into a fresh recognizance : — Held, that the recognizance previously entered into was valid, and that the magistrate had no authority to require a fresh recognizance. Eex v. Kettle and London County Council, Ex parte Ellis Div. Ct. [1905] 1 K. B. 212 Sestitution of Stolen Property. — ' Order for — Appeal by person against whom order made. See Criminal Law— Appeal. 21. Blot. 1. — Intention to render mutual help against opposition — Force and violence — Persons riotously a/nd tumultuously assembled — Building injured or destroyed — Riot {Damages') Act, 1886 (49 ^- 50 Vict. V. 38), s. 2. In order to constitute a riot five elements are necessary — (1) a number of persons not less than three ; (2) a common purpose ; (3) execution or inception of the common purpose ; (4) an intent on the part of the number of persons to .help one another, by force if necessary, against any person who may oppose them in the execution of the common purpose ; (5) force or violence, not merely used in or about the common purpose, but displayed in such a manner as to alarm at least one person of reasonable firmness and courage. In an action under s. 2 of the Eiot (Damages) Act, 1886, to recover compensation for the injury or destruction of a building by persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together, the following facts were proved : — At nine o'clock on a night at the end of Oct. a number of youths of ages varying from fourteen to eighteen years were congregated together upon the foot-pavement of a road in a low neighbour- hood shouting and using rough language. The pavement adjoined a nine-inch wall of consider- able length inclosing a yard and let into a house. Some of the youths were standing with their backs against the wall and others were running against them, or against the wall with their hands extended. After they had gone backwards and forwards in this way for about fifteen minutes, the wall, to the extent of about twelve feet, fell. As soon as it fell the caretaker of the premises came out into the street, and the youths then dispersed in different directions : — Held, that there was no evidence of any intention on the part of the youths to help one another by force if necessary against any person 615 ( 833 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 834 ) CRIMINAL LAW (Riot)— continued. who might oppose them in the execution of their common purpose o£ injuring or destroying the wall ; or of anj' force or violence (other than the force or violence used in the actual demolish- ing of the wall) displayed in such a manner as to alarm any person of reasonable firmness and courage ; and therefore that the youths were not riotously and turaultuously assembled together within the meaning of s. 2 of the Riot (Damages) Act, 1886. Semile, in order to sustain a claim under that section it is necessary to prove all the elements of a riot. Field v. Eeceiver of METEOPOLiTAif Police Div. Ct. [1907] S E. B. 853 Servants' Characters. 1. — Giving false character — Character not in writing — Conspiracy — Servants' Characters Act, 1792 (32 Geo. 3, c. 56), ss. 2. 3. By s. 2 of the Servants' Characters Act, 1792, " if any person or persons shall knowingly and wilfully pretend or falsely assert in writing that any servant has been hired or retained for any period of time whatsoever, or in any station or capacity whatsoever, other than that for which or in which he, she, or they shall have hired or retained such servant in his, her, or their service or employment," such person or persons shall be liable to a penalty. By s. 3, " if any person or persons shall knowingly and wilfully pretend or falsely assert in writing " that any servant was discharged or left his service at any other time than that at which he was discharged or actually left such service, such person or persons shall be liable to a penalty : — Held, that the words "in writing" in the above sections only qualify the word " assert," and do not apply to the words " knowingly and wilfully pretend," and that therefore the false pretence as to character may be made orally or by conduct and need not be in writing. Rex v. COSTBLLO AND BiSHOP - - C. C. A. [1909] W. N. 210 ; [1910] IK. B. 28 Slander. See also under Defamation — Slander. — Slander — Words actionable per se — Innuendo — Criminal oilence — Punishment — Liability to summary arrest. See Defamation — Slander. 6. Summary Jurisdiction. See also under JUEISDICTION. — Justices generally. See under Justices. 1. — Justices — Summary jurisdiction — Charge of offence triable summarily — lirideiice in course of hearing shewing offence triable by jury ■ — ■ Jurisdiction of justices to convict — " Before the charge is gone into " — Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 4' 43 Vict. c. 49), s. 17. By s. 17, sub-s. 1, of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, " A person when charged before a Court of summary jurisdiction with an offence in respect of the commission of which an offender is liable on summary conviction to be imprisoned for a term exceeding three months . , . . may, CRIMINAL LAW (Summary Jurisdiction) — contd. on appearing before the Court, and before the charge is gone into but not afterwards, claim to be tried by a jury." Sub-s. 2 : " A Court of summary jurisdiction, before the charge is gone into in respect of an oEEenoe to which this section applies, for the purpose of informing the defendant of his right to be tried by a jury in pursuance of this section, shall address him " to the effect in the section set out, and ask him if he desires to be tried by a jury. A woman was charged before justices with an offence, in respect of which, if it was a first offence, she was liable on summary conviction to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three months. In the course of the hearing evidence was given by the prosecution that the deft, had been previously convicted of a like offence, and thereupon she became liable on conviction to be imprisoned for a term exceeding three months. The justices, without giving her the option pre- scribed by the above section, convicted the deft, and sentenced her to three months' imprison- ment : — Seld by Walton and Jelf JJ. (Lord Alver- stone C.J. dissenting), that the justices had no jurisdiction to treat the case as one of a first offence ; that the words " before the charge is gone into " mean in such a case " before the charge in its altered character is proceeded with " and that, as the justices had not, upon the evidence of the previous conviction being given, asked the deft, if she wished to be tried by a jury, the conviction was bad. Rex r. Beesby - Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 52 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 849 Third Parties. — Intervening, of third party causing loss — Damages — Remoteness. See CONTEACT. Treason. 1. — JSigh treason — Practice — Motion to quash indictment — Ej:jMtriation in time of war —Naturalization Act-, 1870 (33 4' 34 Vict. c. 14), s. 6. On a trial for high treason the Court will not entertain a motion to quash the indictment as defective, but will leave the prisoner to his remedy by motion in arrest of judgment or by writ of error. The Naturalization Act, 1870, provides by 3. 6 that " any British subject who has at any time before or may at any time after the passing of this Act, when in any foreign State and not under any disability, voluntarily become natural- ized in such State shall, from and after the time of his so having become naturalized in such foreign State, be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject and be regarded as an alien " :— Meld, that the section does not empower a British subject to become naturalized in an enemy State in time of war ; and that the act of becoming naturalized under such circumstances is itself an act of treason, and ineffectual to afford protection against an indictment for ( 835 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 83C ) CHIMIN AL LAW (Tvea.ion)—co/itiiiiied. treason in subsequently joining the military forces of the enemy. Ebx v. Lynch. Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 444 Vagrancy. — Incorrigible rogue — Sentence by quarter sessions — Appeal. See Cbiminal LAW — Appeal. 13. Youthful Offenders. See also under INFANT. Youthful Offenders Aot, 1901 (1 Mw. 7, c. 20) — Tlie Summary Jurisdiction Rules {September'), 1903, and Forms, dated September 14, 1903. Reprint from "W. N. [1903] (Nov. 21), p. 313. See CUBKENT Index, 1903, p. Ixxx. Prevention of Crime Act, 1908 (8 Mu). 7, €,'. 59), makes better provision for the prevention of crime, and for that purpose to priiride for the reformation of Toun// Offendei-s and the pro- loTiged detention of Sabitual Crim iTials, and for other purposes iTioidental thereto. Youthful Offenders — Children Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 67). — The Summary Jurisdiction (CJiildren Act") Rules, 1909, dated Mar. 23, 1909, W. N. 1909 (April 3), p. Ill, and Mai/ 27, 1909, W. N. 1909 (July 10), p. 269. Keprint from W. N. See Cukeent Index, 1909, p. xciv. Juvenile Offender. Detention and Main- tenance. — Regulations, March 8, 1909, as to the contribution out of money s 2irovided by Parliament towards the cost of maintaining children or youTig persoTis when in custody under ss. 97 and 106 of tlie Children Act, 1908, in a place of detention. St. E. & 0. 1909, No. 329. Juvenile Offender. Detention and Main- tenance. — Rules, May 21, 1909, for Places of Detention under s. 109 of the Childreyi Act, 1908. St. E. & 0. 1909, No. 591. Price \d. each. 1. — Reformation of youiig offenders — Sen- tence of detention in Borstal institution — Iteport by governor of prison as to suitability of case ''or such sentence — Duty of Court to cunsidei' — ■ Prevention of Crime Act, 1908 (8 JUdw. 7, c. 59), s. 1. Three lads, W., J., and S., aged respectively seventeen, eighteen, and sixteen, pleaded guilty to three indictments for burglary. The burg- laries were committed in the course of a period of three weeks. On the first occasion the prisoners secured about 27Z., and on the second about 12Z. On the third they were caught in the act, when W. pointed a pistol at the head of the owner of the house. The prisoners were the sons of respectable parents, and had never been convicted before. The recorder was of opinion that they were proper cases for sen- tences of detention in a Borstal institution, but, owing to a report from the governor of the prison, made on behalf of the Prison Commis- sioners, to the efEect that they were not suitable cases for such sentences, he did not think himself at liberty to pass them, having regard to the proviso in s. 1, sub-s. 1, of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, that "before passing such a sentence the Court shall consider any report or CRIMINAL LAW (Youthful Offenders)— ^o«^fl!. representations which may be made to it by or on behalf of the Prison Commissioners as to the suitability of the case for treatment in a. Borstal institution. He accordingly passed a sentence upon W. of two years' hard labour, and upon J. and S. of twenty-one months' hard labour, respectively. The Court held that the recorder, though bound under the section to " consider " the governor's report, was entitled to disregard it if he disagreed with it. They were of opinion that the cases of W. and J. were proper ones for a Borstal institution, and they amended the sentences by ordering W. to be detained at such an institution for eighteen months, and J. for fifteen months. In the case of S., who in conse- quence of defective eyesight was unsuitable for such detention, they reduced the sentence from twenty-one "months' to four months' hard labour. — Appeals allowed. Bex v. Watkins - C. C. A. [1910] W. N. 169 CRIMINAL LUNATIC. • See under Ckiminal LAW — Lunacy. — Necessaries — Past obligation — Debt — Claim by Crown for arrears. See Lunacy. 7. " CRIMPING "—Foreign ship— End of voyage. See Shipping — Crimping. — " Crimping " — Eight of accused to be tried by a jury. See Shipping — Crimping. CROFTERS— «Vi/?e;'.s Common Gratings Regula- tion Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 50), extends the powers of the Crojters Commission in regard to the regulation of Common Qrazings. CROSS-ACTION— In High Court— Transfer of action from inferior Court — Conduct of action. See Shipping — Practice. CROSS-APPEAL. See under Appeal. CROSS-EXAMINATION. See under Evidence. — Evidence— Cross-examination of prisoner. See Criminal Law— Evidence. 3. — Evidence — Prisoner called as witness on behalf of fellow prisoner. See Criminal Law — Receiving. 1. CROSS-JULBMENTS- Execution — Payment of judgment debt into Court— Solicitors' Lien for costs. See County Court- Practice. 3. CROSSINGS — Eailway. See under Eailway- -Level Crossings. CROWN— C';tv7 List Act, 1901 (1 Edm. 7, c. 4) nuxltes provision for the honour and dignity of the Crown and the Royal Family, and for the pay- ment of certain allowances and pensions. Demise of the Crown Act, 1901 (1 Edw 7 c. 5), amends the law relatimg to tlie holding of offices in case of the demise of tlte Crown. £E2 ( 837 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— 1910. ( 838 ) C'ROVfTSl—conthiui'r/. Demise of the CmiDii.] 0. in C. apprin-ing rroclamathin re([uiring all Pei'.iom being in Office of authority or Government at the decease of the late Queen, to proceed lit the e.cecvtton of their respectice offices. St. E. & 0. 1901, No. 190. Eoyal Titles Act, 1901 (1 Ediu. 7, c. 15), enables His Most Gracious Majesty to mahe an addition to the Itoyal style and Titles in recoyni- tioii of His Majesty's Dominions beyond the seas. Crown Lands Act, 1906 (6 .Edw. 7, c. 28), amends the Crown Lands Acts, 1829 to 189i. Crown Lands. See Small Holdinqs and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 1, c. 54),s.'28. Crown Mights. See Puljlic Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 56), s. 12. Heyency Aci, 1910 (10 Edw. 1 S; \ Gn,. 5, c. 26), is an Act to piroride for the administra- tion of the yorernment in case the Crown .•should descend to any issue of His Majesty irhiU .inch issue shall he under the aye of 18 years, and for the care and yuardianship of such issue. Civil List Art, 1910 (10 EdiP. 7 cS' 1 Geo. 5 c. 28), is an Act to malte provision for the honour and diynity of the Crown and the Royal Family, and for the 2}ayment of cerlain allowances and pensions. Accession Declaration Act, 1910 (10 Edw. 7 Si' 1 Geo. 5, c. 29), is an Act to alter tlie form of tlie declaration recjiuired to he made hy the Sovereiyn on accession. Crown I-jands, ^'c. Provision for increment value duty incase of. See Finance Act {1903 — 10) Act, 1910 (10 Edw. 7, and 1 Geo. 5, c. 8),«. 10. — Arrest of debtor — Forfeitm-e of bond — Form of bond. See Bankeuptcy — Bond. 1. — Bankruptcy — Administration of bankrupt's estate— Priority of the Crown — New South Wales Bankruptcy Act, 1898. See Neu' Hofth Wales. — Bona vacantia — Charity — Cypres — Friendly society — objects exhausted. See Friendly Society. 8. — British Columbia Crown Procedure Act — Statutory duty to submit petition of right — Damages. See Canada — Petition of right. 1. — liona vacantia — Escheat — Leyal deviic to one for life trith 'no dovi.^:c over — Dcullt of testator vitluiut lieirs — Stole under SeHlcd Lund Acts — Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 S; 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 2, suh-s. 2 ; s. 22, suh-s. 5, Land was devised by an owner in fee simple to one for life with no devise over. The testator died in 1882, without an heir. The land was sold by the tenant for life under the powers of the Settled Lands Acts, and a fund representing the proceeds of sale remained in the hands of trustees appointed for the purposes of the Acts. On the death of the tenant for life : — Held, that the fund was a money fund which vested in the Crown as bona vacantia. CB.O'WS—coniinued. Taylor v. Huygarth, (1844) 14 Sim. 8, dis- tinguished. In re 'Boxd. Panes )•. Att.-Gex. Kekewici J. [1901] 1 Ch. 15 ■ Charitable trust, Administration of — Crown cannot as defendant impeach the trust Cy-prfes. See New Zealand. • Costs in action to which the Crown is a party — Appeal from. See SiEEBA Leone. ■ Costs where Crown litigant. See Revenue — Income Tax. 2. ■ Criminal lunatic — Necessaries — Past obliga- tion — Debt — Claim by Crown for arrears. See Lunacy. 7. • Crown grant, Construction of — Confirmation of doubtful title. See New South Wales. - Crown lands in New Brunswick — Adverse possession for less than sixty years — Grant by the Crown during adverse possession valid. See Canada — Crown Lands. 2. ■ Crown lands — Grant of foreshore by the Crown — Pier — Unauthorized construc- tion — Public nuisance — Rates for pas- sengers — Rates for vessels " mooring." See Pier. • Crown lands — Inquiry as to falsity of state- ments by applicant for conditional pur- chase. See New South Wales. • Crown lands — New South Wales Lands Alienation Act, 1861. See New South AVales. Crown — Crown lands — Pier — Unauthorized construc- tion — Nuisance — Public right of access — Bates for passengers — Rates for vessels " mooring." See PlEE. — Crown lands — Land revenue records and enrolments. See under Land Revenue Recoeds AND ENEOLMENTS. — Crown lands — Swamp lands — Transfer of proprietary right — Canadian Act. See Canada — Swamp Lands. 1. — Crown prerogative — Exemption — Locomotive driven on service of Crown. See Highway. 12. 2. — Crown 2>reroyat!ve — Exetnption — Prison Commi.%s-ioners — Local Board — Pif-laws — Prison Act, 1877 (40 S- 41 Met. c. 21), .,' 5. The questions .were whether there was evi- dence that the part of the plot in question and the buildings thereon formed part of the prison, as defined by the Prison Act, 1865, s. 4, and the Prison Act, 1877, s. 60, and whether, the land and buildings being vested in the Prison Commrs. for the use of the See. of State for public prison purposes, the by-laws were applicable thereto, and whether, under the circunistauces, ( 839 ) DIGEST OF GASES, 1901—1910. ( 840 ) CROWN — contimied. penalties for breach of the by-laws could be enforced against the Prison Commrs. : — Held, on the facts, that the buildings were not part of the prison and were not exempt fi-om the by-laws on that ground, but that the plot of ground was State property and property there- fore over which the local authority had no control whatever. Gorton Local Boakd u. Peison GOMMBS. - Div. Ct. [1904] 8 K. B. 165, n. — Deed of concession — Construction of covenant — Lands in possession of the Crown. See Trinidad and Tobago. — Dog licences — Duties in respect of dogs — Penalty for teepiug dog without licence —Information dismissed — Order to pay costs — Costs paid to clerk to justices — Debt due to Crown. See, Eevende — Dog Licences. 2. — Fishings, Mussel — Eight of Crown to grant. See Fishery. 3. ■ Foreshore — Railway company. See Caxada — Crown Lands. 1. — Foreshore — Rights of Crown — Encroachment — Adverse possession, Title by. See Seashore. 3. — Grant fvr sen- i rex rendered — Con-'^iderci. turn — Estate tail—Reverxkin in Crown — Kinr/ de facto et de jure — Extate tail lohether iarrable — Mnes and Becuierics Acts, 1833 (3 ^- 4 Will, i, c. 74, s. 18 ; 1.543, 34 cj- 3.5 Men. 8, c. 20, .s, 2). A reversion to the Crown, expectant on the determination of an estate tail in realty granted by the Crown to a subject for services, being excepted by s. IS of the Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833, from the operation of that Act, and protected by the statute 34 & 35 Hen. 8, c. 20, cannot be barred ; and although the considera- tion is not stated in the grant, it will be pre- sumed after lapse of time — unless the grant on the face of it clearly shews that it is a voluntary gift — and the onus is on those who seek to take the grant out of the statute of Henry VIII. to. prove the want of consideration. But where a grant from the Grown shews on the face of it that it is a voluntary gift, the reversion expectant on the estate tail created thereunder is not within the statute of Henry VIII., and is barrable. KoBINSON v. Gipfard Farwell J. [1903] W. N. 69 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 865 — Habeas corpus — Foreign country in which the Crown has jurisdiction — Protectorate. See Habeas Corpus. 2. — Industrial and provident societies — Dissolu- tion — Appointment of new trustee — Vesting order — Bona vacantia. See Industrial and Provident Societies. 2. 4. — Jura regalia — Treasure trove — Celtic gold ornaments — Alleged prce-Chrutian votire ofierings — Royal charter — Grantof lands to suhjects — Construction — General words — '■'■ Franchues'" — '^Royalties" — Title of Crown — Jus tertii. Where gold or silver articles whose owner is unknown are found buried and lying all together CROVf^—oontimed. in one place, the presumption is that they were intentionally hidden for the benelit of the deposi- tor, and they are therefore treasure trove. Treasure trove, being one of the jura regalia which belong to the King by virtue of his Royal prerogative, cannot be claimed under the general grant of franchises in a Royal charter, but must itself be expressly granted ; although, when so granted, it becomes a franchise in the grantee. The rule of construction applicable to grants from the Grown to a subject discussed. Qneere, whether in all claims to property, either real or personal, by the Crown, the deft, can defeat the claim of the Grown only by shewing a better title in himself, or whether he can do so by shewing a better title in some one else. Att-Gen. i). Trustees of British Museum - Farwell J. [1903] W. N. 125 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 598 — Jurisdiction — Action relating to land in Crown colony. See Jurisdiction. 4. -=- Lands surrendered to the Crown subject to subsisting contracts — Rights of Crown against trespasser. See New Zealand. — Lease— Soil of highway — Ownership — Street in town — Rebuttal of presumption. See Highway. 21. — Lease vesting in Crown — Corporation — Dissolution — Bona vacantia — Landlord and tenant. iSee Corporation. 10. — Native title to possession of land — Juri,sdiction as to cession to the Grown . See New Zealand. — New South Wales Crown Lands Act. See under New South Wales. — New South Wales Life, &c., Insurance Act, 1902 — Grown not bound by the Act. See New South Wales. — New Zealand Act — ^Prerogative not talceu away except by express words — Special leave to appeal. See New Zealand. 6. — Prerogatire — Chatteh helonging to Crown — Distress for rent — Pririlege — Landlord and tenant. The chattels of the Crown on land occupied by a subject are privileged from distress for rent. Secretary of state for War v. Wynne Div. Ct. [1906] W. N. 150 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 845 6. — Prerogative of Crown — Practice — Trans- fer of action — Selection of Court — Action by Altorney-Gcnrral at instance of a relator. The action was brought in the Ch. Div. by the Att.-Gen., at the relation of the corporation of Sunderland, as pit., and by the corporation as co-pits., in effect to compel thedefts. to restore the surface of a highway, situate within the district of the corporation, which, as it was alleged, had been deprived of lateral support by means of excavations made by the defts. or their predecessors in title. The defts. applied for the transfer of the action to the Q. B. Div., in order ( 841 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 842 ) CROVfS—ooyitinued. that it might be tried at the Durham Assixes with a special jury. The main ground for the application was that it was desirable that there should be a view of the locus in quo. The pits, resisted the application on the ground (inter alia) that the transfer would be an interference with the prerogative right of the Crown to select its own Court : — IlelrJ^ that the Att.-Gen. by his fiat merely authorized the relators to bring the action in his name, and did not clothe them with any preroga- tive of the Crown. The relators then took such steps in the action as they thought proper. The Att.-Gen. not having made any selection, the (/ourt was at liberty and was bound to treat the case as if the action had been brought by the relators only as pits. That being .■>(). the Court ought to make the order for transfer which Kekewich J. would have made, if he had not thought that he was precluded from doing so by the exercise of the discretion of the Att.-Gen. And held also that if the Att.-Gen., on behalf of the Crown, had any right to object to the transfer, he had waived the right. Decision of Kekewich J., [1900] W. N. 263, reversed. Att.- Ges. v. Wilson - C. A. [1901] W. N. 5 7. — Privilerje of C'njioi — Actum hetwecn nuhjects intolc'ing rUjIiix of the Crown — Foreshore — night of Croi.cn to trumfer act'io/i to Itecrniic side. A statement of claim alleged that the pit. was in possession of an oyster fishery and oyster beds in the estuaiy of a river and v.'as the ov^Tier of large quantities of oysters that he had placed there, and that the defts., being the harbour commrs. of the said estuary, wrongfully caused certain vessels to anchor upon the oyster beds, whereby the oysters were damaged. The Att.-Gen. clamed to have the action removed to the Revenue side of the King's Bench Division upon the suggestion that the rights of the Crown as the owner of the foreshore might be thereby affected : — Held that, although the pit. did not claim to be in possession under any title, and the defts. did not justify their acts under the authority of the Crown, ttie Crown was entitled to have the action removed. Dlmann r. CdWES Haeboue CoMMES. Channell J. [1909] 2 K. B. 1 8. — Proaccuf'ioit — Sfionnnry jtrorccdi///ff; — Informntiim under Acts relathirj to receiiiie — Cost.i — Sinniiiari/ Jurisdiction Acts., 1848 (11 6$' 12 Tict. c. 4;i),'s. \%,inid 1879(42 S,- 43 Vict, c. 49), .S-. 53. By virtue of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, 1848 (s. 18) and 1879 (s. 53), a Court of summary jurisdiction has power to give costs for or against the Crown in proceedings talccn by the Crown under any of the statutes relating to His IVIajesty's revenue under the control of the Commrs. of Inland Ecvenue. Thomas r. Peitchaed Div. Ct. [1903]1 K. B. 209 9. — Semi nix of the Crown — Contracts — Liahility to he sued — Tfie Cominissiuncrs of Public ^Vorhs and BuildUtgs. An action will lie against His ]\Iajesty's Coramrs. of Public Works and Buildings, wIk. are incorporated ttaUilc for, by damages for C^O'^'S— continued. breach of a contract entered into by them with a firm of builders for the erection of a public building ; — 'So held, by Bidley J., because the Commrs. must be taken to have made the contract specially themselves, and not as agents of the Crown : By Phillimore J., because the Commrs. are in the position of servants of the Crown who may be sued on their contracts for the purpose of obtain- ing a judgment declaratory of the right of the subject who has contracted wilh them. Geahasi c. Public Woeks and Buildings Commbs. Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 781 — Ship salved property of Crown — Action not maintainable. See Newfoundland. — Treasury solicitor — Direction to appear for subject — Eight to costs. See SOLICITOE — Costs. — Trespass — Title to foreshore under a Crown grant — Construction. See Tasmania. 1. CROWN LANDS. See under Ceown. CEOWN OFFICE. Croirn Office Bnles, 1906. — A copij of these was presented gratis Ijy the Council to all suh- scrihers to the entire series of the Law Reports, 1906, in the United Kingdom. Crown Office Pules, 1906, r. 17, added to— Crinmial Appeal Act, 1907 (7 Jidir. 7 c. 23, s. 20 (3) ). Eeprint from W. N. 1908 (June 6), p. 165. See Cureent Index, 1908, p. xcix. 1. — Muting appeal — Case stated l/g Quarter Session'^ — Time for filinq sjtrcial case — Valuation Qlefropolis^ Act, 1869 (32 S' 33 Vict. c. 67), s. 40 — Sumnutn/ Jurisdiction ^[ct. 1879 (42 S' 43 Vict. c. 49). s. W— Crown Office Pules, r. 20. Case stated by the Quarter Sessions for the County of London on an appeal under the Valuation (liletropolis) Act, 1869, and the Local Government Act, 1888, against the valuation of certain hereditaments known as Spitalfields Market in the occupation of Eobert Horner, and comprised in a valuation hst made on June 28, 190.5, for the parish of Christchurch, Jliddlesc.x. The appeal was heard on May 30 and July 16, 1906, when the Court of Quarter Sessions ordered tliat the valuation list should be altered by re- ducing the gross value of the said hereditaments from 8500/. to 1180/., and by reducing the rateable value from 7650/. to 785/., subject to the opinion of the K. B. Div. upon a special case stated. The special case was iiled on Jan. 15, 1907, in the Crown Office. Held, that by r. 25 of the Crown OfBce Rules the special case might be filed at any time within six calendar months from the making of the order or determination of the Court of Quarter Sessions. HoENEE c. Stepney Assessment Committee Div. Ct. [1908] W. N. 101 CEUELTY -Divorce. See under DlVOECE. ( 843 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( SU ) CRUELTY TO ANIMALS— Cz-ifflMM? Laio—Foiir animals — Information oluirglng one offence — Four coiwietions — Validity — Cruelty to Animals Act, 1849 (12 4' 13 Vict. v. 92), s. 2. An information under s. 2 of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1849, charged the deft, for that he did cruelly ill-treat four ponies between certain dates by neglecting to supply them with nourish- ing food. The deft, was convicted by a Court of summary jurisdiction and fined bl. in respect of each pony. Four convictions were drawn up, each of which stated that the deft, had been convicted of ill-treating " a pony " in the manner alleged in the information. The deft, had no notice before conviction that he was being charged with a separate offence in respect of each pony : — Held, that the information alleged only one ofieuce, and that the deft, could not, without previous notice, be convicted on that information of four oiiences ; three of the convictions were bad and must be quashed. Ebx v. Eawson Div. Ct. [1909] "W. N. 190 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 748 2. — Irregularity inform of summons — More tlian one offence charged — Election ty prosecu- tion on what charqe to proceed — Criminal law — Cruelty to Aninials Act, 1849 (12 S,- 13 Vict, c. 92), s. 2. The Cruelty to Animals Act, 1849, s. 2, enacts that " if any person shall .... cruelly .... ill-treat .... abuse, or torture .... any animal " he shall be liable to a penalty : — Held, that the words " ill-treat," " abuse," and "torture" create three separate offences, and that therefore a conviction for " ill-treating, abusing and torturing " would be bad. When a, summons is issued under s. 2 of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1849, the justices can- not decline to proceed merely on the gi'onnd that the summons is irregular in form or is open to objection on the ground of an alleged defect. They should hear the evidence, but when it has been given they must make up their minds what offence under the summons has been proved, and at that stage it is not placing too great a burden on the prosecutor to ask him to elect what offence he alleges the evidence proves to have been committed. Johkson v. Need- ham Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 26 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 626 3. — One act — Several animals — Cruelty to Animal Act, 1849 (12 S' 13 Vict. c. 92) s. 2. ' A conviction for an offence under s, 2 of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1849, stated that the deft, was convicted for that he did cruelly ill- treat, abuse and torture five cows by causing them to be overstocked with milk. On an objection being taken that the conviction was bad on its face in that it was a conviction for five separate and distinct offences ; — Held, that an act or omission affecting several animals may constitute one offence under s. 2, and that the conviction was not bad on its face. Bbz v. Cable ■ - Div. Ct. [1906] W. N. 82; [1906] 1 K. B. 719 CEUELTY TO CHILDBEN (PBEVENTION OF) See under Ceiminal Law — Cruelty to Children. CTTL-DE-SAC — Dedication to public — User — Blocking up road. See Building Scheme. 1. — National monument — Public right of access — Public road — Dedication — User. See Way, Eight op. 9. CULVERT — Title — Misdescription — Latent defect — Underground culvert for water. See Vekdoe and Pukchasbb — Title. CUMULATIVE— Substitutionary or— Successive appointments. See PowEE OP Appointment. CUNARD STEAMSHIP CO. See under Shipping — Cunard Agree- ment (Money) Act, 1904. CURATOR — Lunatic out of the jurisdiction — Foreign curator — English stocks and shares — Transfer — Discretion of judge in lunacy. See Lunacy. 12. CURATOR BONIS — Lunatic debtor — English lunacy — Committee — Curator bonis — ■ Scottish jurisdiction — Locus standi — Bankruptcy proceedings. See Lunacy. 4. CUSTODY— Child— Paternity— Evidence. See Infant — Custody. 2. — Children — Practice — Pleading — Paternity. See Divorce- Practice. 27. — Court rolls — Lord of the manor — Steward. See Manob. 3. — Divorce. See under DIVORCE — Custody. — Innkeeper — Liability of goods deposited " expressly for safe custody." See Innkebpee. 1. — Irish Divorce Bill — Access to children — Practice. See Divorce — Ireland. 4. — Nullity of marriage — Lunatic — Decree — Custody of child. See Divorce — Nullity. 10. — Title-deeds — Deeds shewing title to easement and to extinguishment. See Vendor and Purchaser — Deeds. 1. — Title-deed — Lease — Surrender. See Deeds. 7. — Title-deeds — Non-negotiable securities — Trustee. See Trustee— Title-deeds. 1. — Title-deeds — Trustee — Non-negotiable secu- rities. See Deeds. CUSTOM— Ancient demesne — Fine on alienation — Foreigner — Evidence — Prescription. See Manor. 1. — Authority to pledge. Extent of — " Mercantile agent " — Custom of particular trade. See Factor. 1. ( ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 846 ) iCTJ STOK—contumed. — Charterparty — Custom of port — Delay by reason of charterer's engagements. See Shipping — Charterparty. — Charterparty — Custom of port — Obligation of charterer to have cargo ready — Liability of charterer for delay. See Shipping — Charterparty. — Charterparty — Damages for detention — Obligation to have cargo ready — Custom of port. See Shipping — Charterparty. • — ■ Contract — Sale by sample — Validity of custom for buyer not to reject. See Sale op Goods. — Copyholds — Descent — Common law heir or customary heirs. See Will — Intestacy. 1. 1. — Fishing nets, Custom to dry — Validitij — Extent — Changesin modeofiiser — Mecession of sea — Land added hy accretion — Ecidetice — Admissihility — " Fiiblic Documents " — Official repoHs — Reptitation — Depositions in former suit — J/aps and charts. An immemorial custom for iishermen inhabit- ants of a parish to spread their nets to dry on the land of a private owner situate near the sea in the parish, at all times necessary or proper for the purposes of the trade or business of a fisher- man : — Held, to be a valid legal custom. The use of a modern mode of drying the nets will not deprive the fishermea of the benefit of the custom, provided that an unreasonable burden is not thereby cast upon the landowner. Land added by accretion, in consequence of the gradual and imperceptible recession o£ the sea, will become subject to the custom. Decision of Farwell J., [1904] 2 Ch. u34, affirmed. In an action to establi.sh the existence and validity of the above custom, aa afEecting land of a private owner at Walmer, called the ■' beach ground," the deft, sought to prove that within legal memory the land had been covered by the sea, and in proof of this he tendered in evidence (inter alia) a survey of Walmer Castle taken in the year 1816 by the direction of the then Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, and an estimate made by the King's engineer for the reparation of Walmer and other castles. These documents were produced from the Record Office, and they stated that serious damage had been done by the sea to a wall of Walmer Castle ; — Held, that these documents were not admis- sible in evidence as " public documents," on the ground that they were not and were not intended to be, records afEecting the King's property or revenues, but were to serve temporary purposes only, and in no way affected Crown property , Crown revenues, or Crown grants when the respective purposes were served ; Held also, that the documents were not admis- sible within the doctrine of Price v. Earl of Turrington, (1703) 1 Salk. 285, as records made by a deceased official in the discharge of his official duty, there being nothing to shew that they were made contemporaneously with the CVSTOM— continued. doing of something which it was the duty of the deceased official to record, and no evidence what his instructions were or of the relation of those instructions to the documents, or of the source oE the knowledge or information on which the contents of the documents were based : Held also, that maps and plans prepared by the directioris of the Board of Ordnance in 1641, 1644, and 1647, and produced from the War Office, were not admissible as public documents or as evidence of reputation : — Held also, that a map or chart published in 1837 and in the possession of the Admiralty, was inadmissible, it not being an Admiralty chart, and not having received in any way the sanction of the Admiralty. Held also, that the depositions taken in an information by the Att-Gen. in 1639 against persons who claimed to be entitled to the manor of Walmer for causing or sufEering the destruc- tion of a bank between the sea and Walmer Castle were not admissible as evidence of reputa- tion, the depositions being only evidence of particular facts. Decision of Farwell J., [1904] W. N. 136 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 541—546, affirmed. The definition of "public documents" given by Lord Blackburn in Sturla v. Freccia (1880) 5 App. Gas. 623, 643, discussed and explained. . Jhllory. Walmesleg, [1905] 2 Ch. 164, 168, distinguished. Meecee r. Denne. C. A. [1905] W. N. 140 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 538 — Jewish marriage — Nullity — Money paid into bank, in joint names, in nature of dower — Petition to restore so-called dower. See DivOECE — Nullity. 6. — Lease — Obligation to take over sheep stock on expiration of lease. See Scottish Law. — Manor — Stone quarry — Freehold and copyhold tenants — Right to get stone. See Common. 3. — Manorial — Customary churchway — Evidence — Inhabitants of parish at large. See Wat, Eight of. 1. — Married woman — Mortgage — Separate exanii- iiatiou — Acknowledgment — Burgage tenure. Srr Husband akd Wipe — Mortgages. 1. — " Mercantile agent " — Authority to pledge. Extent of — Custom of particular trade. See FACTOE. 1. — Plans, Property in — Completion of work — Claim of architect — Keasonableness. See Aechiteot. — River— Right of public to shoot wild fowl — Birds of warren. Sec FOEESHOEE. 2. — Sale of goods by description^Award based on custom subsequently fuund not to exist — Custom inconsistent with written contract. Sec Arbiteation- Award. 2. ( 847 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 848 ) CUSTOM HOUSE— Obligation o£ agent to pass through — Principal and agent. See New South Wales. CUSTOM OF PORT — Ship — Charterparty — Demurrage — Surf days — Delay caused by surf. See Shipping— Charterparty. CUSTOMARY FREEHOLDS— Misdescription of gift — Mistake. See Will— Words. 5. CUSTOMARY HEIR— Real estate— Copyholds— Resulting trust — Descent — Customary or common law heir. See Will — Intestacy. 1. " CUSTOMARY TURN "—Demurrage— Charter- party. See Shipping — Charterparty. " CUSTOMER " — Cheque — Defective title — Receiving payment for a " customer " — Liability of banker. See Banker. 3. CUSTOMS— Assay— Hall mark — Watch-cases- Foreign watches. See Plate. CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE. See under Revenue. CY-PRES — Building held on trust to carry on a national school — Impossibility of carry- ing on such a school — Scheme. See Chakity. 13. — Charitable intent — Failure of legacy. See Charitt. 13. — Charitable trust, Administration of — Crown cannot as defendant impeach the trust. See New Zealand. — Charity — Resulting trust — Grown — Bona vacantia — Friendly Society — Objects exhausted. See Fbiendli Society. . 8. — Charity — Scheme by Charity Commissioners — Jurisdiction — Intention of testator — Possibility of carrying out. See Charity. — Hospital — Bequest " towards new building and equipment." See Charity. 20. 1. — Perpetuitij — Legal devise to unburn tenant for life vnth remainders in tail — Intro- duction of contingent limitation — Will. Where land is devised to an unborn person for life with remainder to his children in tail or to his sons in tail male, the Court under the doctrine of cy-pr&s will give legal effect to the general intention of the testator by treating the life estate as an estate tail or an estate tail male, as the case may be ; but, except in the case of an executory trust, in which a greater latitude is allowed in moulding the provisions of the will, the doctrine will only be applied in this manner ; and the Court will not construe a will cy-prfes if the result is to include as an object of the testator's bounty any person whom he intended CX-YKkS— continued. to exclude, or to exclude any person whom he intended to include. Devise o£ real estate to the use of A. for life, remainder to the use of the first and every other son of A. successively for life, remainder to the use of the first and every other son. of that son successively in tail male, remainder to the use of the daughters of each of A.'s sons as tenants in common in tail with cross-remainders, the daughters of each elder son to take before the daughters of the younger sons, remainder to the use of A.'s daughters as tenants in common in tail with cross-remainders, remainder to the use of A. in fee simple. A. survived the testator and died a bachelor. The limitations after A.'s life estate being void as they stood for remotcuess, it was proposed, in order to give effect to the general intention of the testator without including in the devise the class of persons omitted by him, namely, daughters of sons' sons, to substitute under the doctrine of cy-prcs a scries of limitations in tail differing in form from the original limitations and involving the intro- duction of a contingent remainder : — Held, (affirming the decision of Farwell J., [1905] W. N. 47), that the doctrine of cy-pres was not applicable, and that the ultimate limita- tion to A. in fee simple failed. Nichull V. Nicholl, (1777) 2 W. Bl. 1159, and Pitt V. Jackson, (1786) 2 Bro. C. C. 51, com- mented on. In re Mobtimbk. Gray v. Gray C. A. [1905J W, N. 139 ; [1905] 8 Ch. 602 3. — Power — Testamentary power — Hxcessive execution. A cy-prfes estate cannot be implied in lieu of excessive limitations of real estate under a testa- mentary power, unless it will include all persons intended to take under those limitations, and no others. Monypenny v. Bering, (1852) 2 D. M. & G. 145, and Hampton v. Holman, (1877) 5 Ch. D. 183, followed. In re Rising. Rising v. Rising Swinfen Eady J. [1904] W. N. 33 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 533 — Will— Charity — Proposed scheme for Insti- tute of Medical Sciences— Failure of legacy. See Charity. 3. — Will — Cy-pres doctrine — Perpetual life estates — Stirpital distriiution — Intestacy. A testator, who died before the Wills Act was passed by his will gave real estate to his children C, G., andM. (without any words of limitation), and declared that they and the survivors of them should stand seised thereof in trust to retain the income thereof, for their own benefit in equal shares during their natural lives ; but the will contained a proviso that if any of such childi-en should die unmarried, or, being married, without leaving a child, his or her share shall accrue to the surviving child or children, equally if more than one, and that the last survivor of the three children should take all the estate devised. The will continued as follows : " But in case such son or daughter so dying shall leave issue at his or her decease .... the share of such child so dying to go and be divided equally amongst his or her child or children .... for life, share and ( 849 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 850 ) CY-F'R:ES— continued. share alike if more than one, and if but one then the whole share to such only child for life . . . . and so to be continued and disti'ibuted in a descending line per stirpes from issue to issue for life so long as any issue shall be living descended from my said children, the children of the parent dying taking parent's share equally between them in all cases of decease." The will contained no gift over in case of default of issue. G. died in 185G a bachelor and intestate. C. died in 1874 leaving one child only, R. M. died in 1890 without issue, but having devised her real estate to E., who executed a disentailing deed. It was admitted that only half of the property passed to M., as the survivor of the three chil- dren : — CY-TTCES— continued. Held, that neither C. nor R. took an estate tail in the other moiety according to the cy-pres doctrine, but that on the death of E. there was an intestacy, and that this moiety belonged to the testator's heir. Mortimer v. West, (1828) 2 Sim. 274 ; 29 R. R. 104, distinguished and commented on. In re RiCHAHDSON. PARBT V. HOLMES Buckley Z. [1904] 1 Ch. 332 CYPBTTS— Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 16). See under Colonies. — Foreign jurisdiction. See under FOREIGN Jurisdiction. ( S51 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( S52 ) D. 'DAILY"— Gas - sfcatutes— See Gas. - Testing - -London. 2. - Interpretation of DAMAGE AND DAMAGES— i^'ato? Accidents (iDamnges) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 7). — Action, Cause of — Special goods — Fraud — Interference with contractual relation. See Action. 3. — Admiralty practice. See under Shippins. — Adultery — Claim for damages only — Prin- ciples and practice applicable to such a petition. See DivoEOE— Practice. - — Advertising property for sale — Slander of title — Auctioneer cast in damages — Liability of principal. See Auction. 1. — Ancient lights. See under Light and Air. — Bankruptcy, Damages for causing. See Bill op Sale. — Beer — Fitness for consumption — Implied warranty — Breach — Damages. See Sale of Goods. — Breach of contract — Tort — Wrongful dis- missal — Damages. See Master and Sekvant— Dismissal. 1. — Breach of wa?'raiity, Action for — Sale of food — War^'arcty of article as jit for human con- sumption — Death of plaintiff's wife through eating food sold to him — Loss of wife's sercices — Death no part of cause of action. . In an action for breach of a warranty that tinned salmon sold by the defts. to the pit. was fit for consumption as human food, the pit. claimed damages under the following head, among others, namely, on the ground that his wife having partaken of the salmon had in con- sequence died, and that, she having performed services for him in the care of his house and family until her death, he was under the neces- sity after her death of hiring some one else to perform such services. The jury found a verdict for the pit. and awarded 200Z. in respect of the damages claimed as above mentioned : — Held that, the death of the plt.'s. wife not forming an essential part of the cause of action sued upon, but only an element in ascertaining the damages arising therefrom, there was no ride of law which prevented such damages as aforesaid from being recoverable in the action. Saher v. Bolton, (1808) 1 Camp. 493, con- sidered and distinguished. Jackson c. Wa tson & Sons C. A. [1909] W. N. 83 ; [1909] 2 K.B. 193 DAMAGE AND DAMAGES— co»t(«MC(^. — Building contract — Architect — Certificate — Defective work and materials — Claim for damages. See Building Contkact. 1, 2. — Building estate — Restrictive covenant — Breach—" Assign " — Damages. See Landlobd and Tenant. 23. — Charterparty— Shipping. See under Shipping— Charterparty. — Collision — Shipping. See under Shipping— Collision. — Common carrier — Inherent unfitness of tiring to be carried — Liability. See Caeeibe. 1. — Company — Prospectus. See under Company— Prospectus. — Company — Shares — Transfer — Eefusal to register. See Company — Shares. 20. — Conditions of sale — Delay — Interest — Loss of expected profits. See Vendoe and Pukchasee— Con- ditions of Sale. 1. — Contract. See under Conteaot. — Contract — Breach — Construction of Docu- ments. See Scottish Law. — Contract — Breach — "Waiver. See Conteaot. 7. — Contract — Right of assignee to sue vendor for damages. See Chose in Action. 1. — Contract to deliver on specified terms all the coal required for use in plaintiff's works — Breach of contract — Specific per- formance. See Canada — Contract. 1. — Conveyance — Implied covenants for title — Breach. Se^ Vendoe and Puechaseb — Title. 3. — Copyhold — Breach of obligation of copyholder to repair — Forfeiture — Manor. See Copyholds. 3. — Copyright. See under Copyright. — Copyright — Infringement — Injunction — List of brood mares — Competition. See Copyright — lists. 1. — Costs — " Action founded on tort " — Judgment for nominal damages and injunction. See Costs. 75. ( 853 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 851 ) DAMAGE AND J>AU&0'ES— continued. — Covenant by landlord " not to let " adjoining premises for a similar business — Breacb of covenant. See LAilDLORD AND TENANT. i7. ■ — Covenant running with the land — " Assign " Breach. See Landlord and Tenant. 23. — Divorce — Bankrupt petitioner — CJaim for damages — Security for costs. See Divorce —Costs. 1. — Divorce — Damages against co-respondent — Death of co-respondent — Liability of his executor. See Divorce— Practice. — Divorce — Damages and costs against co- respondent — Subsequent condonation — King's Proctor's intervention — Effect of such condonation. See Divorce — Costs. — Dog, Savage — Liability oi; owner — Interven- ing act of third person — Remoteness of damage. See Dogs. 2. — Effective cause of damage — Intervening act of third party — Trespassers — Inter- ference by. See Negligence. — Electric power, Duty to supply — Penalty — Damages. See Corporation. 16. — Excessive damages — New trial, Application for — Prospective loss of income. See Practice— Trial. — Explosion, Damage caused by — Verdict — Absence of exact proof of cause of injury — Order setting verdict aside reversed. See Canada — Practice. 11. — Highway — Eepairs — Corporation — Neglect of duty. See Highway. 36. — Highway — Subsidence caused by mining fipcrations — Measure of damages. See Highway. 40. — Infant — Next friend — Unsuccessful action — Costs and damages — Indemnity — Declaration. See Infant — Next Friend. 1. — Injunction — Special damage — Pleading — Evidence — Costs. See NdisANCE. — Injunction or — Ancient lights — Future injury — Extortion. See Light and Air. 9. — Insanitary house — Defective drains — Landlord, Negligence of — Eight of wife and cliildren to claim damages for illness. See Landlord and Tenant. 13. — Insurance, Marine— Open cover slip— Fraudu- lent representations — Reinsurance — Subr(jgation. See Insurance (Marine), 16. DAMAGE AND JiAMAGES—coiitlnmd. 2. — Interdict too wide — Pleasure of damarjea. An interim interdict w-as obtained by the defenders against the pursuers, a mineral oo., who owned a large shale and limestone mineral field and also large works for extracting and refining oil<. The intcrrlict restrained the pursuers from working and winning the scams of the sliale and other minerals within forty yards of the defenders' water-pipes, wliich pas.^ed through the pursuers' property. The interdict was in force for eleven months, when it was recalled. During the eleven months shale to keep the works going could have been obtained from other sources, but only at an expense which would not have been profitable. The pur-aeis' capital in hand was limited, and prices in the oil trade were at the lowest point. In tliese circum- stances the pursuers closed their works, with the result that their machinery deteriorated, the business connections were lost, and it was found impossible to restart the works after the recall of the interdict. In an action for damages for wrongous inter- dict, the first Division of the Court of Session gave the pursuers judgment for 27,000^. damages out of claim for 1.37,000;. :— Held (affirming the decision of the Court below, (1906) 8 F. 731) that the pursuers were not entitled to recover as damages the total loss consequent on the closing of their works ; that both parties were in fault ; and that the damages awarded were not insufficient. Clippens Oil Co., Ld. r. Edinburgh and District Water Trustees H. L. (Sc.) [1907] W. N. 142 ; [1907] A. C, 291 — Intervening criminal act of third party causing loss. Sec Contract. 10. — Land Transfer — Wrongful issue of certificate of title. See Australia. 7. — Lease — Covenants — Breaches — Re-entry — Compulsory purchase by public body — Compensation. /*ir Lease. 2. — Lessor and lessee— Option to purchase rever- sion in fee — Damages for breach of contract — Contract to convey at time beyond period allowed by rule against perpetuities — Charity. See Lease, 3. — Light — Ancient lights. See under Light and An;, — Limitation of time for bringing action — Tram- way worked by municipal authority — Injury to passenger. See Public Aiithorities' Protec- tion. — Liquidated damages — Injunction--Electiou. See Principal and Agent. — Liquidated damages, Penalty or — Contract. See under Contract. — Liquidated damages — EaUway contract — Penalty for non-completion of line — '• Actual cost." See Cape op l_iooD Hope. 12. ( ) DIGEST OF CASKS, 1901—1910. ( 856 ) DAMAGE AND DAMAGES — Liquidator — Negligence creditors. Siie Company— WiNDiKG-up datoi. continued: - Advertisement for - Liqui- — Malicious injury to property — Shooting at dog. See Criminal Law — Malicious Damage. 1. — Market, Loss of— Bill of lading. See Shipping— Charterparty. — Measure of — Trustee, Bankruptcy of — Breach of trust — Proof against bankrupt's estate. See Tedstbe — Investments. 17. — Measure of damages— Fraudulent prospectus — Non-disclosure of promoter's interest. See Company- Promoter. I, 2. — Measure of damages — Untrue statements by agent — Ship. See Pbincipal and Agent. — Mines. See under Mines. — Mines — EeserTation of manorial rights — Support — Damage to surface — Compen- sation. See INCLOSUEE Act. 2. — Misfeasance — Winding-up — Two insolvent companies — Cross - claims — Adjustment — Claim on debentures — Dividend. See Company— Winding-up— Assets, 6. — Negligence of architect in preparing plans — "plans not used — Nominal damages. See Aechitect. 1. — No proof of damage — Action of tort — Parties. See Conteaot. — Patent and registered design for same inven- tion — Estoppel — Liability in damages. See Design. 2. — Petition of right, Statutory duty to submit — Damages for breach must be assessed by a jury. See Canada. — Plants in adjoining land. Damage to — Creosote used in paving road. &e Team WAYS. 10. — Poor law — Negligence of offlcor — Liability of guardians to pauper inmate. See PooE Law. — Prospectus — Company. See under Company — Prospectus. — Public Authorities Protection Act — Act done in '-intended" execution of public duty. See Shipping— Costs. — Public Health (Buildings in Streets)- Special damage to adjoining owner — Whetlior action for damages maintainable. See Steeets. — Public health — Unsound meat — Seizure — Prosecution. See Local Government. 22. DAMAGE AND DAMAGES— cowiiwwf?. — Railway— Demurrage of trucks— Damages for detention — Jurisdiction of arbi- trator. See Railway — Arbitration. — Railway — Demurrage of trucks — Right of action for damages for detention — Jurisdiction. See Railway — Trucks. — Railway — Traffic management — Undue pre- ference — Rebate — Claim for damages. See Railway— Rates. — Railway accident — Prospective loss of income — Excessive damages — Material. See Peactice— Trial. — Railway company — Act done under statutory authority — Non-liability for damage. See Canada — Railway. — Railway company — Carrier — Damageable goods carried unpacked — Owner's risk. See Railway — Carrier. Railway company — Passenger — Damages for personal injuries — Failure of railway servants to close carriage doors before starting the train. See Railway- ~ — Railway company — Statutory contract with landowner — Subsequent contract in derogation of same — Public rights. See Railway — Contracts. 3. — liemote/iexx — Sreach of coidi'act — Con- tingent profits — Damages. It was agreed at the beginning of 1908 between the pit., who was a breeder of race- horses, and the deft., who was the owner of a stallion, that the deft.'s stallion should during the season of 1909 serve one of the plt.'s brood mares in consideration of a sum of 315Z. to be paid by the pit. to the deft, at the time of the service. The deft, in the summer of 1908 sold the horse to a purchaser in South America, and thus precluded himself from carrying out the contract. In an action for breach of contract, the pit. gave evidence that the profit he had made from the sale of foals by the same stallioii out of other mares belonging to him consider- ably exceeded the 'i\'il., and he claimed damages upon the footing that he had in all probability lost a valuable foal : — Held, that the damages claimed were too remote and contingent, and that the pit. was only entitled to nominal damages. Sapwell r. Bass - Jelf J. [1910] 2 K. E. 486 ■ Remoteness — Contract — Consideration — Breach of duty to take care. See Conteaot. 10. - Remoteness — Savage dog — Intervening act of third person causing dog to bite. See Dogs. - Remoteness of damages — Slander — Special damage. See Defamation— Slander. 5. - Repairs— Neglect of duty — Misfeasance — Non-feasance — Corporation. See Highway. 36. ( ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 'SZS ) DAMAGE AND DAMAGES— ra?j?i««ff7. — Restrictive covenants — Building scheme — Eights of purchasers inter se. See Vendor ajjd Puechaser — Covenants. 2, 3. — Kiot — Persons riotously and tumaltuouily assembled — Building injured or de- stroyed — Damages. Srn CfilMINAL LA"\V — Riot. 1 . — Eiver, Pollution of — Injunction — Nuisance — Continuance of injury. See ElVEE. — Sale by trustees — Eepurchase by one trustee. See VE^•DOE and Pcrchasee — Specific Performance. 3. — Sale of goods — Contract induced by fraud of purchaser — Vendor's right to disaiBrm contract — Damages for fraud. See Baskeuptcy — Sale of Goods. 1. — Sale of goods — Implied condition — Breach — Measure of damages. See Sale op Goods. — Sale of goods — Interest in laud — Slag to be severed and removed by purchaser — Breach of contract — Defect in title. See Vendor and Purchaser — Sale of Goods. 1. — Ship — Detective berth — Duty of harbour authority — Duty of wharf owner. See Haeboue. 5. — Shipping. See under Shipping. — Statutory powers, Damage caused by exercise of — Compensation — Public health. See Compensation. 3. — Stock Exchange — Client's account closed by broker — Anticipatory breach — Contract. See Stock Exchange. — Trade libel — False statement — Special damage — General loss of business. See Teadb Libel. 1. — Trade mark, Assignment of — Breach of trade mark — Title to damages. See Hong Kong. 5. — Trade union, Liability of, for wrongful acta of agents. See Teade Union. S. — Tramcar, Accident to — Liability of contractor to lessee. See Tramways. 9. — Tramway company — Liability in damages to individual — Obligation to keep surface of tramway in good condition. See Tramways. 15. — Trees, Overhanging — Injunction. See NuiSAiiCE. — Trespass on licensee's land before licence gi-anted — JSTewfoundland, Laws of — Effect of grant of licence. See NEWPOUNDr.AND. — Unfurnished house — Defective premises — Promise by landlord to repair — Accident arising from defect. See Landlord and Tenant. 89, DAMAGE AND DAMAGES— eo«/i« — Uidiquidated damages. Claim for — Jurisdic- tion — Eemitted action — Amendment. (See County C'ouet — Jurisdiction. 7. — Unliquidated damages — Judgment — Entry of judgment — Damages to be ascertained — Intere-t on amount recovered — Judg- ment taking effect from time when given. See Judgment. 3. — Unliquidated, due to defendant from cestui que trust — Plaintiff suing as trustee — Equitable defence. See Trustee — Practice. 3. — Verdict for excessive damages — Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal — Order for new trial unless damages reduced. See Practice — Trial. — Watercourse — Artificial channel — iliU stream — Title to bed of stream — Eight to flow of water. See Stream. — Western Australian Transfer of Land Act, 1893 — Wrongful registration — Measure of damages. See Australia. 8. — Workmen's compensation. See under MASTER AND SERVANT. " DANGEROUS " — Dog— Xot kept under control — Evidence — Attacks on sheep. See Dogs. 1. DANGEROUS GOODS— Knowledge of vendor- Duty of vendor to purchaser — Warranty of fitness. See Sale op Goods. DANGEROUS STRUCTURE NOTICE -Rebuild- ing — Liability of lessee. See Landlord and Tenant. 80. DATE — Alteration of — Alteration after execution — Imperfect execution — Immaterial alterations. See Deeds. 2. — Contract — Consensus ad idem — Wrong date — Statute of Frauds. See Vendor and Purchaser — Mis- take. — Pleading — Lost grant — Date and parties. See Practice — Pleadings. " DAYS " — How to be reckoned — Voyage policy. See Insurance (Marine). 29. DEATH — Accounts — Admissibility — Evidence — Entry of deceased pei'son against interest. See Trustee— Breach of Trust. 4. — Administration de bonis non — Original administrator believed to be dead. See Probate — Administration. — Annuitant — Payment of sura required to purchase annuity — Whether interest payable. See Annuity. 7. ( 859 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 860 ) H'EATH.—coyitinued. — Annuitant before probate — Death of — Eight to value of annuity. See Annuity, i. — Arbitrator designated by name — Railway companies, Difference between — Death of person designated. See Railway — Arbitration. — Bankruptcy. See under Bankruptcy — Death. — Bastardy — Maintenance — Death of mother — Right of mother's administrator to sue on agreement. See Bastardy. 2. — Bastardy order — Weekly order — Death of putative father — Liability of father's estate. See Bastardy. 3. — " Commission payable as long as we do business" — Death of party — Personal contract. See Commission. 1. — Company — Register of members — Eeotification — Deceased member — Executors, whether to be described as such in register. See Company— Register of Members. 1 — Costs of probate — Lands Clauses Acts — Death of vendor before completion — Vendor's will. See Lands Clauses Acts. 19. — Damages— Death of plaintiff's wife through eating food sold to him — Death no part of cause of action. See Damage and Damages. 1. — Direction for settlement of " the share " of one of the class — Death of legatee before period of distribution. See Will — Class. — Divorce — Practice — Damages against co- respondent — Death of co-respondent — Liability of his executor. See Divorce — Co-respondent. 1. — Entry of deceased person against interest — Admissibility. See Trustee — Breach of Trust, i. — Execution hj feri facias — Death of judgment debtor before seizure by sheriff. See Sheriffs. — Executor. See under Executor — Death. — House — Agreement for letting house to testator — Payment by instalments — Death of testator before payment. See Will — Capital and Income. ■ — Industrial and provident societies — Winding- up — Contributories — Death of member before winding-up — Liability of his estate. See Industrial and Provident Societies. 4. — Lands Clauses Acts — Costs — Sale -of copy- holds. See Lands Clauses Acts. 16. Ji^ATE—cu/dintied. — Legatee entitled to share on surviving testator — Disappearance — No evidence of death — Presumption. See Will— Survivor. 1. — Lessee, Death of — Administrator ad colligenda bona— Power to sell — Entry into pos- session — Rent. See Administration. 20. — Libel action — Deatli of plaintiff — Abatement of action. See Practice— Payment, &c. — Life policy, Sale of — Mistake — Death of assured before contract. See Insurance (Life). 16. — Lunatic — Subsequent receipts — Surety — Liability — Committee and receiver — Default — Accounts, See Lunacy. 1. — Notice to one of several trustees — Death of trustee who had notice —Priority. See Assignment. 10. — Partner — Authority to mortgage partnership assets — Lien of deceased partner's executors — Priorities — Notice. See Partnership. — Partner — Death of solvent — Bankruptcy of surviving partner — Forum for winding- up partnership. See Partnership. — Partner — Specific devise of share in partner- ship realty — Solvent partnership. See Partnership. — Payment of premium after death of assured — Payment within days of grace. See Insurance (Life). 20. — Petition action— Order for .sale — Conversion — Death of person entitled before sale Devolution of share. See Partition. — Presumption of death — Person not heard of for seven years — Time of death—Onus probandi. See Presumption. — Presumption of death — Surrounding circum- stances — Form of oath. See Probate — Preiumption of Death. — Presumption of death without issue — Evi- dence — Sufficiency. See Evidence. 10. — Sale of copyholds — Death of vendor before completion — Fine on heir's admission. See Lands Clauses Acts. 16. — Surety — Guarantee — Bond to secure fidelity of employee — Determination of liability. See Principal and Surety. — Will — Annuity — Direction to purchase — Death of annuitant before purchase. See Annuity. 7. — Will — Execution — Witnesses dead — No attes- tation clause — Presumption. See Probate— Execution. ( SBT ) DIGEST OF CASES, 190]— 1910. ( 862 ) BEAJH^ continued. — Will — Lapse — Death of all beneficiaries and executor before testator — " Intestate." See Will — lapse. 3. — Will — Speaking from death. See under WILL — Speaking from Death. — Will speaking from death — Company — Gift of shares — Change in value of shares. See Will — Company. 1. — Workmen's compensation — Death of depen- dant before making claim. See Master and Seevaxt — Compen- sation. 39. — 1\'orkmen's compensation — Death of sole dependant before award. See Masteb and Seevant — Compen- sation. DEATH DUTIES. See under Revenue. DEBENTURE-HOLDERS AND DEBENTT7RES — Brewery companies. See under Beewbes. Companies generally. See under Company- -Debentnres. — Payable to bearer — Usage — Conversion — Holder for value. See Negotiable Instrument. DEBTOR— Bankruptcy. See under Bankeuptcy. DEBTORS ACT— Absconding debtor — " His pro- perty." See Ceijiinal Law — Debtors. 1. — Attachment. See under Attachment. — Bankrupt — Discharge. See under Bankeuptcy— Discharge. — Bankrupt — Misdemeanour — Discharge — " Special reasons." See Bankruptcy— Discharge. 5. — Committal — Non-payment of rates — Release — Jurisdiction — Punitive order. See Bankeuptcy— Committal. 1. — Costs in Divorce Court— Order to pay — — Default — Judgment summons. See Pankkuptcy — Receiving Order. 2. — Evidence — Admissibility — Debtor's books — Bankruptcy petition. See Bankeuptcy — Practice. 4. — Fraudulent — Costs of prosecution by trustee. See Bankeuptcy— Practice. — Indictment — Amendment of count — Substi- tution of allegation of fraud for false pretences. See Criminal Law— Indictment. — Insolvency of debtor — Cause of action. S'/Canada. — Judgment debt — Order for payment by instal- ments — Execution — Necessity for leave '1^?:' — Practice. ' " See Execution-. 2. DEBTORS ACT — Judgment -eontimied. by summons by married woman — Judgment debtor a creditor — Costs in bankruptcy — Set-off. See Bankeuptcy — Set-off. 3. — Jurisdiction to make receiving order in lieu of committal order. See County Couet— Jurisdiction. 4. — Offences — Undischarged bankrupt. See under BANKEUPTCY — Undis- charged Bankrupt. DEBTS — Acknowledgments — Statute of Limita- tions. See under Limitations, Statute of. — ■ Administration generally. See under Administeation. — Appointed fund for debts, Liability of. See PowEE op Appointment. ^ Assignment. See under Assignment. — Attachment of debts. See under Attachjient. — Bankruptcy. See under BANKEUPTCY. — Book debt — Property in bill — Indorsement. See Bill op Exchange. 1. — Charging order — Jurisdiction — Application to enforce charge by order for sale of shares — Practice. See Chaeging Oedee. 2. — Consideration — Antecedent debt. See GONSIDEEATION. 1. — Contributiion of income for debts. See Will— Capital and Income, i~ " Debt or obligation " — Liability of estate of deceased partner. See Pabtneeship. — Direction to pay debts " except mortgage on Blackaore " — Exoneration. Sec Will — Exoneration. 3. — Gambling debt. See Peactice- -Frivolous, &c., Action. -Gaming debt — New consideration — With- drawal of letter to debtor's club — Provable debt — Bankruptcy. Sec Gaming. 1. - Garnishee order — Discretion to make — In- complete discharge of garnishee — Liability to pay a second time. See Gaenishee. 1. - Garnishee proceedings— Choses in action — Debts owing or accruing. See DivOECE — Practice. 20. -Indemnity — Frauds, Statute of — Oral "pro- mise to answer for the debt of another." See GUAEANTEE. 1. - Judg'ment debt — Charging order — Interest in stock — Practice. See Chaeging Oedee. 3. ( 863 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 864 ) WEZTi—contlmied. — Judgment debt — Order for payment by instal- ments — Execution — Necessity for leave — Practice. See ExKCUTION. 2. — Legacy in satisfaction of a debt — Forgiveness of debts — Will — Legacies — General or specific — Insufficiency of assets — Abate- ment — Administration. See Will— Legacy. 1. — Liability of appointed fund for debts — Cove- nant to exercise power as security for loan. See PowEE OF Appointment. — Limitations, Statute of — Acknowledgment. See under Luiitations, Statute oi'. — Marshalling assets. See under AdministeATION. — Mortgage debt. See under Mortgage. — Payment of debts — Debts paid out of capital — Provision for recoupment. See Accumulations. 7. — Payment of judgment debt into Court — Cross- judgments — Execution — Solicitor's lien for costs. See County Coubt — Practice. ,3. — Preferential debt. See under Bankeuptot — Preferential debt. — Sale of leaseholds by executor — Actual notice to purchaser that no debts of testator remain unpaid. See Vendor and Pukchasbe — Title. 8, ■ Satisfaction — Legacy. See under WlLL- -SatUfaction. - Set-off — Mutual debts — Assignment to defen- dant of debt owed by plaintiff to third person. See Set-off. - Simple direction to pay debts — Executor according to the tenor. See Will— Debts. 1. - Specialty debt — Bond — Lost acknowledgment — Parol evidence— Onus of proof. See Limitations, Statutes of. - Specialty debt in New South Wales liable to duty in Victoria. See ViOTOBIA. - Trade union — Member of union. See Trade Union. 6. - Truck Acts — Deduction from wages — Set-off — Debt due from workman to employer. See Master and Servant — Truck Acts, - Victorian book debts — Invalidity of assign- ment does not extend to covenants and recitals. See Victoria. - Will — Charge of debts and legacies — Implied power to sell or mortgage — Liability of mortgagee to see to application of money. See Will— Charges. 1. d.d. DEBTS— CO «H««e(f. — Will— Direction to pay debts out of residue- Colonial death duty. See Will— Colonial Duties, 1. — WiU — Exoneration — Contrary or other inten- tion — Mortgage debt. See Will — Exoneration. 3. — Will — Mixed fund — Express charge of debts — Period of limitation. See Will — Charges. 2. — Writ of extent — Affidavit of debt and danger — Sufficiency of affidavit — Motion to set aside writ. See Revenue — Writ of extent. 1. DEBTS KECOVERY ACT, 1830. See Mortgage — Foreclosure. — Real assets — Alienation by ' ' devisee " — Mortgage — Purchaser — Priority. See Administration. " DECAY " — Bill of lading — Damage to cargo — NegligCilce of carrier's servants — Lia- bility of carrier. See Shipping — Charterparty. — Lease — Lessor's covenant — Good and sub- stantial repair — Natural decay. See Landlord and Tenant. 81. DECEASED DIKECTOR— Liability of estate of— Prospectus — Untrue statement. See Company — Prospectus. DECEASED "WriEE'S SISTER'S MARRIAGE ACT, 1907. See Ecclesiastical Law — Holy Com- munion. — Church discipline — Refusal to administer the Holy Communion. See Ecclesiastical Law — Holy Com- munion. DECEIT— Action of. See Trade Mark. 1, 2. — Action of — Fraudulent representation — Public authorities protection. See Contract. DECEPTION— Person trading under his own name — Form of injunction. See Trade Name. 1. DECLARATION- Ancient lights — Action for declaration that there is no easement. See Light and Air. 3. — Expired patent — Action for declaration of invalidity — Mode of procedure. See Patent — Expired Patent. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. See under JUDGMENT. — Costs — Lease — Licence to assign — Unreason- ably withheld — Condition imposing in- creased rent. See Landlord and Tenant. 13, 18. DECLARATORY ORDER — Costs— Practice — Lessor and lessee. See Landlord and Tenant. 14. F F ( 865 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 866 ) DEDICATION— Cul-dc-sac— Dedication to public — User — Blocking up road. See Building Scheme. 1. — Highway. See under Highway. — Lease — Assignment — Unreasonable condition. See Landloed and Tenant. 13, 18. — Manorial market — Extent of franchise — New streets — Presumption. See Market. — Market. See under Market. — Mortgage in favour of unregistered money- lender — Validity — Equitable relief — Imposition of terms. See Money-lender. — National monument — Public right of access — Public road — User — Cufde-sac. See Way, Eight of. 9. — Presumption of dedication — Inclosure award User of footway as cart road. See Teespass. i. — Public footway — Private carriage-way along the same line — Presumption. See Way, Eight op. 2. — Eiver — Locks — Stanch — Eoyal charter, Vali- dity of — Grant of exclusive passage for boats, &c. — Implied obligation to main- tain and repair. See Water Highway. 1. — Eoadside waste — Presumption — Eridence — Public authorities protection. See Highway. 38. — Way, Eight of— Highway— User by public- Land in settlement — Possibility of dedication. See Way, Eight of. 1. DEDUCTIONS— Income Tax. See under Eeventje — Income Tax. — Workmen's compensation. See under Master and Servant- Compensation. DEED OF ABEANQEMENT. See under Aeeangement. DEED OF ASSIGNMENT. See under Assignment. DEED OF GIFT— New Zealand Deceased Per- sons' Estates Duties Act, 1881 — Stamp Acts — Verbal gift to holder of a power of attorney. Sec New Zealand. DEED POLL — Settlement — Appointment — Deed Poll — Eescission — Mistake. Sec Power op Appointment. DEEDS, &c. (Documents, Title-deeds, &o.) — AiEdavit of documents — Discovery. See under Discovery. DEEDS, &c. — coiitiimed. 1. — Alteratiun — _Va«ie of party — Misdescrip- tion — MoHgage — Reconveyance — Married woman — Trustee mortgagee — Concurrence of husband- Separate acJtnowledgmettt. Upon a sale of freehold property the abstract of title delivered to the purchaser commenced with a mortgage to three persons, of whom the third was described as " WiUiam " G. It ap- peared from the original deed that the name " William " had been erased, and the names " Edward Thomas " substituted. The alteration was made after execution, but it was not known when or by whom. It was proved that tlie person described as WiUiam G. was really Edward Thomas G. and that the misdescription n-as due to inadvertence. Held, that the alteration was immaterial, and, in the absence of fraud, did not avoid the deed. The mortgage was dated in 1878 and was granted to trustees ; and in 1896, upon payment of the mortgage debt, the property was recon- veyed by the sole surviving trustee, who was a married woman : — Held, that under s. 16 of the Trustee Act, 1893, she was competent to reconvey without the concurrence of her husband and a separate acknowledgment. In re HowGATE AND Osbokn's Contract Kekewich J. [1902] "W. N. 24 ; [1902J 1 Ch. 451 2. — Alteratio7i after execution — Iinperfrr-t execution — Filling tip Hanks — Alteration of date — Immaterial alteration. A deed which required for its validity execu- tion by the Bishop of Exeter was executed on or about Oct. 21, 1899, by all parties other than the bishop. At the time of these executions the date of the day and the month were left in blank, but the year 1899 was written out in full. The bishop executed the deed on Jan. 4, 1900 ; the blanks were then filled in and the date of the year- altered from 1899 to 190Q :— Held, that the alterations had no effect ou the validity of the deed. The rule in PigoVs Case, (1614) 11 Eep. 26 b, that any alteration by the obligee after execution invalidates the deed, ftiust since the decision of Aldous V. Cornwall, (1868) L. E. 3 Q. B. 573, be taken to apply only to material alterations. BisHoi? OP Crediton r. Bishop op Exeter Swinfen Eady J. [1905] W. N. 131 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 455 — Ancient deeds. Descriptive catalogncs of. (E. — Eecord Works). Can be obtained of Publishers. — Ancient reports to Government departments. iScr Custom. 1. 3. — Assignment for ralue — Defective title — Sulseg!uent acquisition of good title — Equitahle estoppel. If an assignor with a defective title purports and intends to assign property for value, any interest subsequently acquired by him in that property is available in equity to make the assignment effectual, even though the defect in title is apparent on the face of the assignment. Noel V. Bewley, (1829) 3 Sim. 103, 116, and In ( 867 ) DIGEST OF CASBS, 1901—1910. ( 8fi8 ) DEEDS, &c.—ountiimetl. re Hoffe's Estate Act, 1855, [1900] W. N. ll-t ; 82 L. T. 556, followed and applied. Ill re Bridgwater's Settlement. I^art- EiDGE V. Ward - - Swinfen Eady J. [1910] W. N. 188 ; [1910] 2 Cli. 342 — Correspondence. fSee under Correspondence. — Costs of deeds — Trustees. See under TRUSTEE — Title-deeds. — Custody of deeds. See under Custody. — Custody of deeds — Vendor and purchaser. See under VENDOR AND Purchaser — Deeds. — Deed of arrangement. See under Arrangement. — Deed of assigimient. See under ASSIGNMENT. — Deposit of title-dectls — Partnership real estate — Executor's lien — Notice — Priorities. See Partnership. — Discovery. See under DisOOVERy. — Equitable mortgage — " Notice " — Fraud of vendor's solicitpr — Possession of title- deeds — Priority. See Vendor and Purchaser — Priority. 1. — Execution of deed — Lunacy. See under Lunacy. — Maps and charts. See under Maps. 4. — Jllsrejn'eseatutioit as to chai'actei' nf deed — Validiti/ — Plea of noil est factum — Plea good as to x)art of deed. A married ivouian entitled to a reversionary interest was induced by her husband to execute a document which he represented to be a power of attorney enabling him to raise money at some future time. It was in fact a mortgage of a reversionary interest to which she was entitled for 12,0002. containing a personal covenant for payment by the wife. The wife knew that if her husband did eventually raise money under the document it would be raised out of her reversionary interest. She did not intend - to create a present charge or incur any personal liability. The mortgagees brought this action against the husband and wife for foreclosure and judgment in their covenants. The wife pleaded, among other defences, " uoii est factum " : — -?/eW, that the husband's misrepresentation was as to the nature and character of the deed, and the plea was good as to the whole deed, and that, even if the charge on the wife's rever- sionary interest were valid, the defence ought to prevail as to her covenant to pay principal and interest. liowatsvn v. Wehi [1907] 1 Ch. 537, distinguished. Bagot r. Chapman Swinfen Eady J. [1907] W. N. 138 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 222 Note. Dictum of Swinfen Eady J. in Bagot v< DEEDS, &B.—ooittinued. CJiaiiiiiaii [1907] 2 Ch. 222, 227, doubted by C. A. in HowaHsoiiv. Webh [1908] 1 Ch. 1. See next Case. 5. — MiaivjjreseHtutioii us to contents — Plea of II on est factum. The deft., a solicitor, who was formerly a managing clerk to one H., acted as his nominee in a building speculation relating to certain property at E. of which H. was the owner. Shortly after leaving H.'s employment he was reci nested by H. to execute certain deeds, and on asking what those deeds were he was told by PL that they were deeds trau.sferring the E. property. The deft, thereupon signed tlicm. One of the deeds so signed was a mortgage between the deft., as mortgagor, of the one part and W. of the other part, and contained the usual covenant by the mortgagor for payment of principal and interest. In an action by a transferee of the mortgage for payment of the principal debt and interest the deft, pleaded non est factum : — J/eld (afHrming the decision of Warrington J., [1907] W. N. 62 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 537) that, the misrepresentation being only as to the contents of a deed known by the deft, to deal with the property, the plea failed, and that the deft, was liable on the covenant. Dictum of Swinfen Eadv J. in Buqnt v. Chapman [1907] 2 Ch. 222, 227-8, doubted. Qiiifre whether the old authorities on the plea of non est factum extend beyond cases wliere the party is blind or illiterate. HOWATSON c. Webb C. A. [1907] W. N. 211 ; [1908J 1 Ch. 1 — Non-produetion of title-deeds — Fraudulent solicitor — Postponement of legal mort- gage. See Mortgage — Priority. 6. — Operation — All enfiite dausc — Cont-eij- anee hij liushaiid and wife of moiety of wife, s land, — JIushaiuVs rent-eliarf/e not mentioned — Ilelease or grant — Zaic of Propert ij Amendment Act, 1859 (22 .f' 23 Viet. e. 35), s. 10. By a voluntary settlement of 1868 a husband and wife and each of them did " grant release dispose of and confirm " a moiety of the wife's hereditaments " and all the estate right title interest property claim and duniaud " cither of them ill, to, and out of the same to trustees and their heirs on certain trusts. The husband was entitled to a rent-charge issuing out of the hereditaments, but it was not mentioned in the settlement. The settlement contained no covenants for title : — Jleld, exnlaining and applying Drew v, liarl ofNorbury, (1846) 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 171, 177^ 3 J. & Lat. 267, 28i ; 72 E. R. 62, and Jo/in>^on v. WcMer, (1854) 4 D. M. & G. 474, 488, that the settlement operated by way of release and not by way of grant of the rent-charge, and that as the husband and wife, the owners of the unsettled moiety of the hereditaments, had concurred, that moiety, by virtue of the Law of Property Amend- ment Act, 1859. s. 10, remained subject to the entire charge. Booth V. Smith, (1884) 14 Q. B. D. 318, 321, followed. Price v. John - Swinfen Eady J {1905] W, N. 75 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 744 ff2 ( 869 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( S70 ) DEEDS, &c.—coiiti7iued. — Possession of title-deeds — Equitable mortgage — Notice — Fraud — Forged receipt. See Vendoe axd Puhchaseb — Priority. 1. — Production of documents — Practice. See under Discovery. — Eectification — Mistake — Solicitor and clien t — Independent advice. See SoLioiTOH — Fiduciary Relation. — Registration — Equitable Mortgage — Convey- ance — Prioritj'. See Mortgage — Priority. — Settlement by deed — Construction — "Sur- vivors " read " others." See Settlement. — Signification to debtor of transfer of debt — Appeal from Quebec. See Canada — Debts. 1. — Solicitor — Lien. See under SOLICITOR — Lien. — Time — " Month " — Lunar month — Construc- tion of documents. See Contract. 29.- 7. — Title-deeds — Custody — Lease — Siiv- render. On the surrender of a term and the grant of a longer term to the same lessee, the lessee is entitled to retain the original lease. Kkight t. Williams Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] 1 Ch. 256 — Title-deeds — Possession of — Equitable mort- gage — Notice — Fraud — Forged receipt — Priority. Ser Vbsdok and Purchaser — Priority. 1. — Title-deeds — Possession of title-deeds — Pur- chaser for value without notice — Mort- gage — Prioritj-. See Trustee— Breach of Trust. 1. — Title-deeds — Solicitor — Partner, Liability for acts of. See Solicitor — Partnership. — Title-deeds — Trustee. See under TRUSTEE— Title-deeds. — Title-deeds — Trustee's negligence — Omission to get possession of title-deeds. See Mortgage — Priority. ■ — Vendor and purchaser. Siv. under VENDOE AND PURCHASER — Deeds. DEER— Larceny — Deer usually kept in a forest — Killing outside forest — Unlawful pos- session. See Criminal Law — Larceny. 3. DEFAMATION. Libel, col. 870. Fluralities Act, col. 876. Practice, col. 877. Slander, col. 877. Irade Libel. See under Trade Libel. DEFAM.&.TIO'S— continued. Libel. Libraries — Public Libraries Act, 1901 (1 Hdw. 7, u. 19), amends the Acts relating to public librariex, miiseums, and gymnasiums, and to regylate the liability of managers of libraries to proceedings for libel. R. S. C. July, 1903, Order III., r. 9. Reprint from W. H. 1903 (July 25) , p. 217. iSee Current Index, 1903, p. Isxvii. — Action in Chancery Division — Counter-claim for defamation — Trial by jury. See Practice— Trial. 1. — Company- — Official receiver — Absolute pririlege — Report of official receiver under Companies ( Winding-up") Act, 1890 (53 ^' 54 Vict. c. 63), s. 8, sub-s. 2. The absolute privilege attaching to the statement of judicial officers, advocates, and witnesses is not a privilege to be malicious, but a privilege that their statements in judicial proceediugs should be exempt from any inquiry whether they were prompted by malice or not, it being for the public interest that such state- ments should be made without any appre- hension of subsequent legal proceedings. The report of an official receiver made to the Court under s. 8, sub-s. 2, of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, is absolutely privileged. BOTTOMLEY T. BROUGHAM Channel J. [1908] W. N. 32 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 684 2. — Company ~ O.fficial receiver — Ab.iolute privilege — 0.tficinl Receiver in Compa nie^' Liquidation — Observations jmbliilicd to creditors and contributorics of company in liquidation — Inspector-General in Companies' Liquidation — General Annual Report of Board if Trade — Companies {JFiudinq-up) Act. 1890 (63(«5i Vict, c. 63), .M. 8, 27, 29 ; First Schedule, .s. 3. An action for libel will not lie against an official receiver in respect o; observations on the affairs of a co. in liquidation published by him to the creditors and contributories of the co. in the performance of his duty as prescribed by the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, Fii-st Schedule, s. 3, such observations being absolutely privileged. Where an officer appointed by the Board of Trade under the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, s. 27, had, in the performance of his duty, prepared for and delivered to that Board a report on matters within s. 29, sub-s. 2, of the Act, for the purpose of its being laid by them before Parliament as part of their general annual report as directed by that sub-section ; — Held, that an action for libel would not lie against him iu respect of statements contained in that report. BuER i'. Smith - C. A. [1909] W.N. 115; [1909] 2K.B. 806 — Corporation, Libel by servant of — Liability of company for malicious libel. Sec New South Wales. — Costs — Pleas of justification and privilege — Defendant successful on one and un- successful on the other — Practice. Sec Costs. 39. ( 871 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1!)01— 1910. ( 8t2 ) DEFAMATION (libel)— oo»«)m«i!. 3. — Criminal laio — Indictment — Obscene libel — Indictment for defamatory libel containing obscene matter — Deposit of document containinij alleged libel — Exhibit to depositioim — Laic of Libel Amcndmrni Act, 1888 (51 .t 52 Vict. c. 6-1), «. 7. An iodictment for publishing a libel, which was bad as a charge of publishing a defamatory libel for not setting out the passages relied upon (see Bradlaugh v. Beg., (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 607), contained an averment that the deft. " unlawfully " ... did .... publish .... a, . . . . libel .... in the form of a document .... which said document .... contains divers .... obscene .... matters and things." The judge at the trial held that this amounted to an indictment for an obscene libel, and the prisoner was convicted : — Held, that although it would have been better for the indictment to have followed the old forms; and to have averred that the tendency of the obscene matter was to corrupt the public morals, and that the libel had been published with that intent, the con.victiou might under the circum- stances be upheld. It is not necessary, in order to satisfy the provisions of s. 7. of the Law of Libel Amend- ment Act, 1888 — which provides that the obscene matter need not be set out in the indictment, but that it shall be sufficient to deposit the docu- ment " containing the alleged libel with the indictment or other judicial proceeding " — that the incriminated document should be handed in with the bill of indictment, if it is already in the custody of the clerk of assize as an exhibit attached to the depositions. Eex v. Baeea- CLOUGH - - C. C. R. ri905]W. N. 166 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 201 — Death of defendant — Abatement of action — Application by defendant's executors for payment out of money. See Peaotice— Payment, &c. — Discovery — Interrogatories — Libel — Names of Informants. See DiSCOVEEY. 8, 9, 10. 4. — Discovery — Libel — Justification — Parti- culars of justification — Allegations of misconduct — Inspection of plaintiffs' books — Practice. A deft, to an action for libel who pleads a justification must state in his defence or in his particulars of justification the specific facts or instances upon which he relies in order to prove his plea, and he can obtain inspection of the pits. ' books or documents only in respect of such specific facts or instances. To an action by a firm of stock and share dealers for a libel in a newspaper, the innuendo placed upon the alleged libel being that it meant that the pits, carried on their business in an improper manner and were fraudulent stock and share dealers and persons who could not be tiTzsted in business dealings, the deft, pleaded a justification and delivered particulars of the plea, in which he alleged that the pits, were not members of the London Stock Exchange, but were concerned in running a " bucket-shop," and that thgy did not carry on the ordinary and legitimate business of stockbrokers, but were DEFAMATION {Uhel)~contln ucd. entirely dependent for their profits upon the losses made by their customers. In a, further set of particulars the deft, gave the names of, and extracts from, certain pamphlets on methods of money-making issued by the pits. In neither set of particulars did the deft, give any specific instance of the commission by the pits, of any fraudulent or improper act, or the name of any person alleged to have been defrauded bj-, or to have suffered loss at the hands of the pits. The deft, having taken out a summons for an order that he should be at liberty to inspect the books of the pits, for a certain period : — Held that, as the particulars of justification contained no specific instances of the miscon- duct alleged, they were too general to entitle the deft, to inspection of the pits.' books. TorJi.t/iire Provident Life Assurance Co. v. Gilbert, [1895] 2 Q. B. 148, discussed and followed. Aenold & Bdtlee r. Bottomlet C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 161 5. — Fair comment — Literary work — Honest criticism — Withdrawal of case from jury. A " fair comment" upon a literary work, or other such production, submitted to the judgment of the public, that is to say, a comment which is the expression of honest opinion, and does not go beyond the limits of what may fairly be called criticism, is no libel, even although the comment be not such as a jury might think to be a just or reasonable appreciation of the work criticized. If in an action of libel there is no evidence of anything beyond such a comment as above mentioned, there is no case for the jury. McQdiee c. Western Morning News Co. C. A. [1903] W. N. 98 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 100 Xote. This case was commented on and distinguished by C. A., Joynt v. Cycle Trade Publishing Co., [1904] 2 K.'B. 292. 6. — Fair comment — Malice — Prii-ileged occasion. In an action of libel, where the defence is that the writing complained of is fair comment upon a matter of public interest, evidence that the deft, was actuated by malice towards the pit. is admissible, upon the ground that com- ment which is actuated by malice cannot be deemed fair on the part of the person who makes it, and, therefore, proof of malice may take a criticism that is prima facie fair outside the limits of fair comment. Cfimpbell V. Spottisivoode, (1863) 3 B. & S. 759 ; Ilenwood v. Harrison. (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 606 ; and J/ericale v. Carson, (1887) 20 Q. B. D. 275, discussed. Thomas r. Bradbury, Agnew & Co. . V. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 627 7. — Fair comment — Matter of jmbl ic interest — Personal imputations — Xew trial. If ill criticizing the conduct of a man in rela- tion to a matter of public interest the writer goes on to impute to him base and sordid motives, there being no facts to warrant the imputation, the defence of " fair comment " cannot be main- tained in an action for libel. ( 873 ) DIGEST OF CASKS, 1901— 1910. ( 874 ) DEFAMATION (Libel)— oo/itl/iued. Camphell v. Spnttiswoode, (1863) 3 B. & S. 769 ; 32 L. .J. 185, followed. Jle/^/iiii'e V. M'enteryi Marnby Keir.t Co., [1903J 2 K. B. 100, commented on and dis- tinguished. JoY-NT V. CycLE Trade Publish- INO Co. - C. A. [1904] "W. N. 92 ; [1904] 2K. B. 298 8. — Kewspaper, LiJ>el, in — PiMicatioii — Tixtpuiion fo defame jdiiUifijf. In an action foi- libel it is no defence to shew that the deft, did not intend to defame the pit., if reasonable people would think the language to be defamatoiy of the pit. The appellants, owners and publishers of a newspapei-, published in an article defamatory statements of a named person believed by the author of the article and the editor of the paper to be a fictitious personage with an unusual name. The name was that of the respondent, who was unknown to the aiithor and the editor. In an action for libel against the appellants it was admitted that neither the wi-iter nor the editor nor the appellants intended to defame the respondent, but evitlcnce was given by his friends that they thought the article referred to him. Held, that the pit. was entitled to maintain the action. Decision of the C. A., [1909] W. N. 133 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 444, affirmed. HuLTON in Co. ,-. Jones. H. I. (E.) [1909] W. N. 249 ; [1910] A. C. 20 — Obscene libel — Publication — Aiding and abet- ting — Advertisements in a newspaper. !6\)— continued. — Practice — Writs — Service out of jurisdiction — Libel in newspaper — -Injunction. See Practice— Service. 14. — Privileged communication — Publication — Post-card — Eriilcnce of malice. The deft, sent a post-card through the post on an occasion which, as between the deft, and the person to whom the post-card was sent, was privileged. The statements contained in the post-card had reference to the plaintiff, and would, if connected with him, have been de- famatory of him, but the post-card did not dis- close the name of the pit. or contain any indication that the statements in it referred to him, and no evidence was produced to shew that those statements were understood to refer to the pit. by any person through whose hands the post- card passed except the person to whom the post- card was sent : — Held, that the pit. had failed to shew publica- tion of a libel on him other than on a privileged occasion, and that, though the mere fact that a communication had been sent by a post-card instead of by a closed letter would generally be evidence of malice, in the present case, inasmuch as the communication would not be understood by the persons through whose hands it passed as referred to the pit., there was no evidence of express malice to avoid the privilege. Sad- grove r. Hole C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 1 15. — Privileged occasion — Publication to clerks of company exercising 2>rivilege — Meason- ahle and ordinary course of business. Where a business communication containing defamatory statements concerning the pit. was made by the defts., a co. to another cc, on a privileged occasion, and, for the purpose of, and incidentally to, the making of the communica- tion the defamatory statements were. In the reasonable and ordinary course of business, published to clerks of the deft. co. : — Held, that the privileged occasion covered such a publication of those statements, which was therefore not actionable. Boxdus V. Goblet Freres, [1894] 1 Q. B. 842, followed. Pullmans. Hill 4' Co., [1891] 1 Q. B. 524, discussed and distinguished. Edmondson c. Birch & Co., Ld., and Horner - C. A. [1907] W. N. 18 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 371 — Trade libel — False statement — Special damage — General loss of business. See Trade Libel. 1 . — Trade protection society — Communications to subscribers not privileged. See Australia. 5. Pluralities Act. 1. — Privilege — Absolute privilege — Beneficed clergyman — Inadequate performance of duties — Inquiry — Commission issued by bishop — Witness — Action in respect of evidence given — Pluralities Act, 1838(1 cf 2 Vict.c. 106),,?. n—Plurulities Acts Amendment Act, 1885 (48 4- 49 Vict. c. 54), .s. 3. A commission, issued by the bishop of a diocese under the Pluralities Act, 1838, and the ( 877 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— ] 910. ( ) DEFAMATION (Pluralities Act')—co)itin'u/repaTing proof — Defamntiun. The privilege which protects a witness from an action of slander in respect of his evidence in the box also protects him against the conse- quence of statements made to the client and solicitor in preparing the proof for trial. Judgments of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., Scotland, (1904) 42 S. L. E. 213, reversed. Watson r. M'EwAN. Watson c. Jones - - H. L. (Sc.) [1905] W. N. 130; [1905] A. C, 480 4. — Magistrate — " Judge " — Criminal charge — Withdrawal of prosecution — Defamatory words again.it prosecutor — Malice — Privilege — Bea.ionable caii.ie of action — StriTiing out pleading —R. S. C. 1883, Order XXV., r. 4. A magistrate, when sitting in the course of his judicial duties, is a "judge" within the meaning of the rule laid down by Munster v. La ml, (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 588, auAHodson v. Pare, [1899] 1 Q. B. 455 — that defamatory observations by a judge in the course of his judicial duties are not actionable. Thus a defamatory state- ment made by a magistrate, while sitting in the course of his judicial duties, respecting a prose- cutor upon or with reference to the withdrawal of a criminal charge before the Court, was held not to be actionable, even though it was alleged that the statement was made falsely and mali- ciously and without reasonable cause. Accord- ingly, the statement of claim in an action for slander brought by the prosecutor against the magistrate on the ground of that defamatory statement was ordered to be struck out under R. S. C, Order XXV., r. 4, as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. Decision of Channell J. affirmed. Allardice t. Robertson, (1830) 1 Dow. & CI. 4n.T, is not law in England. Law v. Llewellyn C. A. [1906] W. N. 50 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 487 5. — Special damage — Remoteness of damaqe. Where an action of slander was brought in respect of a statement made by the deft, to the plt.'s employers that the pit. had removed from premises, leaving rent due to his landlord, the pit. alleging that he had in consequence of that statement been dismissed from the service of his employers : — Held, that the ' action would not lie, the damage alleged being too remote. Speakb r. Hughes C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 138 6. — "Words actionable per se — Innuendo — Criminal offence — Punishment — Liability to summary nrresf. Words imputing that the pit. has been guilty of a criminal offence punishable by fine only, but which involves a liability to summary arrest, ( 879 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 880 ) DEFAMATION (Sla.ni6i)~continued. will not support an action for slander without special damage. Hellwig v. Mitchell Bray J. [1910] IK.B. 609 7. — Words /Hit aetionahle per se — Imputation of insolcsTicy aijii'inxt solicitor — Words sjjolienin relation to his 2>rofession. In an action of slander it was proved that the deft, spoke of the pit., who was a solicitor, upon one occasion : " Have you heard about our neighbour along here ? They tell me he has gone for thousands instead of hundreds this time " ; and upon another occasion : " Have you heard anything about Mr. Dauncey ? It seems to be a worse job than the other was. Miss Allen told me Mr. Dauncey has lost thousands " : — Held, that, in the absence of special damage, the words were not actionable, as they were not reasonably capable of being construed as convey- ing an imputation on the pit. in his business as a solicitor. Datjncey r. Hollowat C, A. [1901] 2 K, B, 441 Trade Libel. See under Trade Libel. DEFAULT — Decree absolute for — Reasonable excuse for default — Lunacy — Admissi bilitv ei's to the entire series iif the Liiir Reports, 1908. These copies were delivered with the Fehruari/ parts of tlie Law Reports. W. N. 1908 (Jan. 18), p. 45. Rules of the Supreme Court (^Patents aiid Designs'). 1908, dated June .3, 1908. Reprint from!w. N. 1908 (June 6), p. 161. See CnRREXT Index, 1908, p. cxviii. Patents and Designs Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 4), explains s. 92 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907. Designs Rules, 1908 (Second Set)— dated Xor.li, 1908. These Rules came into operation from and immediately after Dec. 1, 1908. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (Dec. 5), p. 337. See Current Index, 1908, p. cxix. — Copyright. See under Copyright- Designs. — Design — Registration as trade mark. See Trade Mark. 3. 1. — Registration — Infringement — "■ Xeir or original " — Patents and Desii/ns Act, 1907 (7 Mtc. 1, c. 29), .M. 49, 50, 93. Sect. 49 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, provides for the registration of " any new or original design not previously published in TyE,SlG'ei&— continued. the United Kingdom " ; and the Act gives protection to a design so registered. The word "original" in that section contemplates that the designer has by the exercise of intellectual activity conccivi?d an idea, wliich has not previously occurred to anyone else, of applying a particular pattern or shape or ornament to the particular article to which he suggests that it shall be applied. If that .state of things be satisfied, then the design may be ' ' original " althougli the actual pattern or shape or ornament under consideration be old in the sense that it has existed previously with reference to another article. The pits, were the owners of a registered design in class S for a pattern or ornament of hand grip for cycle handles. The design con- sisted of an engine-turned pattern in wavy lines applied to the hand grip, and broken up into panels by deep longitudinal gi'ooves, the hand grip terminating in a ring separating the panels from the smooth end of the cylindrical handle bar. The engine turning was of a, common pattern and none of the other details of the design were new. In action for infringement Warrington J. held th.at the design was •' new or original '" having regard to the kind of article for which it was registered : — Held, on appeal, that there was no novelty or originality in applying to a cycle handle a form of decoration which, as was proved, was in common use upon other articles of ii cylin- drical shape. Decision of Warrington J. reversed. Dover LD. r. NURNBEEGER CeLLULOIDWAREX Fabbik Gebeuder Wolpp . C. A. [1910] W. N. 127 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 25 2. — Registration — Infringement — Patent and registered design for same inrcntion — Estoppel — Infringement in igmirance of regi.it ra- tion — Liahilitg in damages — Defence of leant of noveltg — Application to riicate reglitration — Patents, Designs, and Trade JIarhs Art. 18S.S (46 4- 47 Vict. c. 57), .«.v. 13, 47, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 90. On Nov. 8, 1901, the pits, applied for a patent for improvements in frames for motor cycles, and delivered a provisional specification. On Xov. 18, 1901, the pits, obtained registration of a design for motor cycles. On Aug. 8, 1902. the pits, delivered a complete specification for the patent which was accepted on Oct. 2S, 1902, and the patent was afterwards granted bearing date Nov. 8, 1901. The complete specification con- tained a drawing indentical with the registered design. In an action b^'the pits, to restrain the infringement of the design^ : — Held, that tlie validity of the registration of the design was not afEocted by the subsequent grant ol: the patent of prior date. Until the service of the writ in the action the defts. were ignorant of the registration of the pits.' design, but after service of the writ the defts. sold some machines made according to the registered design, and claimed the right to do so, alleging that the registration was invalid, though upon an application for an interlocutory injunc- tion they offered to keep an account : — Held, that the pits, were entitled to an ( 887 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( ) HESIG^S— continued. iniunotion, but that they could not recover damages in respect of sales made by the de£ts. before the writ. Decision of Byrne J., [190-t] 1 Ch. 26i, affirmed. Whether in an action to restraint the infringe- ment of a registered design the defence of want of novelty can be maintained in the absence of an application to vacate the registration, qitcei'e. Per Vaughau Williams L.J. : A patent right in an article and a copyright in a design for the same article may co..exist, but the registration of a design which secures mechanical advantages may, as an anticipation, prevent the grant of a subsequent valid patent for the article, and that whether the applicant for the patent be the proprietor of the design or a stranger. A patentee, who registers a design for an article after he has applied for a patent for it, and before the delivery of a complete specifica- tion containing a drawing of the article iden- tical with the registered design, is not, by the subsequent grant of a patent bearing the date of his application, estopped from saying that the design was new and original at the date of registration. Pe)' EoMBB, L. J. : In most cases it will be very difficult for a patent rigbt in respect of a new article and a copyright in a registered design for the shape of the article to co-exist. But in such circumstances as those of the present case the two rights, being not necessarily the same, might co-exist, though the right which was second in point of date must be held subject to the first right. The grant of the patent in such a case does not destroy the effect of the registration of the design which was valid at the date when it took place, and this whether the owner of the patent and the owner of the design are the same person or different persons. Weknbb Motoes, Ld. v. A. W. Gamage, Lr>. C. A. [1904] W. N. 174 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 580 — Trade mark. See under TsADE Maek. DESPATCH MONEY— Gharterparty— Lay days. See Shippikg— Charterparty. DESTKTJCTION— Will — Intention — Executors according to the tenor — Universal legatees in trust — Form of grant. See Will — Destruction. 1. DESTETTCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ORDER. See under Insects and Pests. The Dexti-uctive Insecta and Pests Order, J/ai/ S, 1910. St. R. & 0. 1910, No. 467. Price Id. DETENTION OF GOODS— Action by wife against husband. See Husband and Wipe- Practice. 1. DETERMINATION- Lease. See under Landlobd and Tenant. — Option to determine — Lease by mortgagor in possession — Lease including land other than mortgaged land — Option to renew. See Mobtgaqe — Leases. DETERMINATION— cowiwjwcc?. — Partnership— Validity of notice of dissolu- tion. See Paetnekship. — Power of sale — Duration — Absolute vesting of estate. See PowBE OF Sale. DETINUE— Costs— Action founded on tort— Eeturn during progress of case of articles claimed — Practice. See Costs. 32. — Costs — Taxation — Implied authority to wife to pledge her husband's credit. See DivoECB — Costs. 6. DEVASTAVIT— Statute of Limitations— Claim on guarantee — Trustee. See Executoe — Devastavit. 1. DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT. See under Highway. DEVIATION— Limits of— Medium filum— Eail- way company — Statutory powers — Deposited plana. See Railway — Plans. — Shipping. See under Shipping- -Deviation. DEVIATION CLAUSE — Insurance (marine)— Premium — Subject to " due notice " of deviation — Notice given after loss. See INSUEANCE (Marine). 10. DEVISE. See under WILL. DEVISEE — Alienation by — Mortgage — Pur- chaser — Priority. See Administeation. 26. — Mortgage by devisee to raise legacies — Liability of mortgagee to see to applica- tion of money. See Will— Charges. 1. DEVOLUTION— Copyholds— Equitable interest — Person to convey — Vendor and Pur- chaser. See Copyholds. 2. — Freeholds — Mortgagee in possession — Realty or personalty. See MOETGAGE— Devolution. — Eeal and personal estate, Devolution of — Death of mortgagee intestate — Devolu- tion of mortgage debts. See Administeation. 18. DIAGRAM— Grant of land— Construction— Title — Terms of grant. See Cape of Good Hope. 6. DIGNITY — Jurisdiction — Non- alienability of office of Standard Bearer of Scotland — Sale of office — Prescription. See Scottish Law. ( 889 ) DIGEST OF CASEIN, 1901— 19Ui. ( 890 ) SmTSITY— CO lit in tied. — Married woman — Title of honour — Marriage with a peer of the realm — Divorce — Former wife marrying a commoner. Seo Husband and Wife — Title of Honour. 1. — Period of ab.solutc vesting — Will — Construc- tion — Bequest to descend with dignity. See Heielooms. 1. — Surrender of peerage to Sovereign — Grant by Sovereign of surrendered peerage. See. Peeeage. DILAPIDATIONS ~ Mansion-house — Salvage- Expenditure out of capital — Jurisdic- tion. See Settled Land — Mansion-house. — Mansion-house — Salvage — llepairs — Expendi- ture out of capital — Jurisdiction. See Will — Mansion-house. 10. DINNERS —Bequest for payment of annual dinners— Clerical society — Good chari- table gift. ,'suc of shares at a discount. Sec under Company. DISCOVERY. — Affidavit of ship's papers — Partial land transit. See Insurance (JIarinb). 1. — A/fidarit i>f dooiuncnts — Conxpiraeij — Criminal offence — Practice. In an action for damages for a conspiracy to induce workmen to break their contracts with the pit. the deft, cannot refuse to discover the material documents on the ground that they may tend to incriminate him. NATIONAL Association of Operative Plasterers r. Sjiithies H. L. (E.) [1906] A C. 434 Z. — Affidavit of diieumentu — Further affi- diivit — " Sjiecip'c documents " — Practice — It. S. C, Order XXXI., r. 19A (3). To justify an application for discovery of documents under rule 19A (^3) of Order XXXI., the party making the application must in his affidavit ( 891 ) DIGEST OF GASES, 1901—191(1. ( 8U2 ) DISCOVERY— c()?iim«e reduce office copy. In this case interrogatories had been delivered by the pit. to the deft., and on the trial of the action the question arose whether it was the duty of the pit. or of the deft, to produce the office copy of the deft.'s answer to the interroga- tories. Keferenee was made to a note in the Annual Practice (p. 40i of last ed.) under Order xxxi., r. 8. to the effect that the duty of producing the office copy " lies on party on whose behalf it is filed : Marshally. National Prucincial JSanh of England, (1892) 61 L. J. (Ch.) 46,5." Kekewioh J. said that the case cited was a decision of his own, and he had no doubt that he satisfied himself that the affidavit in that case was filed on behalf of the deft. In the present case he had sent for the original affidavit, and he found that it was described as the answer of the deft, to the interrogatories exhibited by the pit., and had a note on the back, " Filed on behalf of ( 893 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 89* ) BISCOVE'RY—co/tUiiued. the defendant." That settled the matter, and the deft, must pay the costs of producing the office copy. Levi i: Taylor Kekewicli J. [1903] W. N. 183 8. — Intei'rogatories — Defamation — L'Hiel in periodical publication — Defence of fair comnioit — Information on which defamatory statement founded — JS^imes of informants — Practice. In an action of libel against the publishers of a trade periodical, in respect of an article con- tained in an issue of their periodical, the defts. pleaded by way of defence that, in so far as the words complained of consisted of expressions of opinion, they were fair comment, made in good faith, and without malice, on a matter of public interest, and, in so far as they consisted of allegations of fact, they wore true in substance and in fact. The pits, administered to the defts., among others, interrogatories which were substantially as follows : (5.) What information had you, when you published the said words, which induced you to believe that the expressions of opinion in the said words contained, and which you allege to be fair comment, made in good faith, and without malice, were true ? Did you in fact believe that the said opinions were true? (7.) From whom did you obtain the information on which you relied in publishing the said expressions of opinion ? The defts. objected to answer these interrogatories : — Meld, that the fifth interrogatory was admis- sible, and must therefore be answered, but that, according to the general rule of practice in actions of libel against the publishers of news- papers, in respect of matter published in their newspapers, the seventh interrogatory was, in the absence of special circumstances, inadmissible, and the defts. ought not to be compelled to answer it. Plymouth Mutual Co-opbkative AND INDUSTEIAL SOCIETY, Ld. c. TEADERS Publishing Association, Ld. - C. A. [1906] W. N. 30 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 403 9. — Diterrofjatories — Defamation — Privi- lege — Malice — Information on which defamatory statement founded — Names of informants — Xames of persons to whom libel published — Practice. In an action of libel against a trade protec- tion society, in which privilege was pleaded, the pits, sought to administer to the defts. au in- terrogatory, askiDg what inquiries they made as to the truth of the statements complained of, before publishing them, and from whom they obtained the information on which they relied in publishing those statements : — Held, that such an interrogatory was admis- sible. Elliott y. Garrett, [1902] 1 K. B. 870, fol- lowed. The pits, further sought to administer to the defts. an interrogator}', requiring them, by refer- ence to their books, or otherwise, to give the names of the companies, firms, and persons to whom a certain publication of the defts., containing the statements complained of, had been supplied, or shewn, by or through the defts. or their agents : — Meld, that the interrogatory was oppressive DISCOVEKY— c'untJnaef^. and ought not to be allowed. WHITE & Co. c. Ceedit Eepoem Association and Ceedit Index, Ld. C. A. [1905] W. N. 30 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 653 See next Case. 10. — Interrogatories — Defamation — Pricl- lege — Information on which defamatory statement founded — Name of informant — Interrogatory not administered bona fide for purposes of action — Practice. In an action for libel, in which the defence of privilege was set up, the pit. sought to administer to the defts. an interrogatory inquir- ing what information the defts. received which induced them to make the statement complained of, and from whom that information was derived. The Court being of opinion from correspondence which had passed between the parties that the interrogatory as framed was not put bona fide for the purposes of the pending action, but in order to enable the pit. to bring an action against a person or persons from whom the information was derived : — Meld, that the part of the interrogatory which asked from whom the information was derived must be disallowed. Edmondson r. BiECH & Co. C. a. [1905] W. N. 119 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 523 Sec ^'receding Case. 11. — Interrogatories — Defamation — Slander — Malice — Pririlegc — Inquiry as to information inducing belief if defendant in trutib of words spoken — Imiuiry as to steps talien by defendant to ascertain truth. In an action for slander in imputing to the pit. that, being a member of a metropolitan borough council, he had accepted a bribe in con- nection with a matter that came before the council for decision, the deft., who was also a member of the council, pleaded that the words were spoken, if at all, in good faith, without malice towards the pit., and in the discharge of his duty as councillor, and on au occasion which was privileged. The pit. applied for leave to administer to the deft, au interrogatory asking what information the deft, had which induced him to believe that the words spoken by him were true, and what steps he had taken before speaking the words to ascertain whether they were true. On appeal from an order disallowing the interrogatory : — Meld, that the interrogatory should be allowed as being relevant to the issue of malice raised by the pleadings and directed to support the pit. 's case. Elliott u. Gakeett C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 870 Note. This case was followed by C. A., Vi'hite ^- Ou. V. Credit Reform, Association and Credit Index, Ld., [1905] 1 K. B. 653. — Interrogatories — Jurisdiction of county court judge — Workmen's compensation. See Master and Sebvaut — Compen- sation. — Interrogatories — Libel. See under DEFAMATION— Libel. ( 89.5 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 896 ) mSCOYE'RY--continued. 12. — Interrogatories — Libel — ■ Innuendo — Ittten'ogatory an to meaning in which defendant used words — Practice. In an action of libel in which the statement of claim attributed by an innuendo certain meanings to the words complained of, the pit. sought to administer to the deft, interrogatories, asking, in substance, whether the deft, intended by the use of those words the meanings attri- buted to them by the innuendo : — Held, that such interrogatories were inadmis- sible. Heaton v. Goldney - C. A. [1910] W.N. 92; [1910] 1 K. B. 764 • — Interrogatories — Shipping — Collision — Damage to cargo. See Shipping — Practice. 13. — Interrogatories — Statement of claim — Admission by defence — Leare to i)iierrogate defendant refused — Practice — H. S. 0. Order XXXI., rr. 1, 12. Action to obtain (inter alia) a declaration that the plalntifE was beneficially entitled to fifty fully paid-up shares in a certain railway com- pany. The statement of claim (amongst other things) set out the plt.'s title to the shares, and alleged that the shares wei-e at the commence- ment of the action registered in the boolcs of the company in the name of the deft. Stevens as mortgagee, and that the deft. Delap claimed to be beneficially entitled to them as against the pit. The deft. Stevens (who was the solicitor of the defendant Delap, and was made a deft, only with respect to these shares) by his defence admitted the allegations in the statement of claim in relation to these shares, and disclaimed all interest whatever in them. An application by the pit., by summons in chambers, for leave to administer interrogatories to the deft. Stevens with respect to these shares and other matters having been dismissed by the judge, the pit. now moved to discharge the order. Farwell J., without expressing any opinion on the rules, refused, in the exercise of his judicial discretion, to grant the application. There was now no issue between the pit. and Stevens, but the pit. desired to interrogate Stevens to see if his answers would help him. If the interrogatories were answered, the pit. could not read the answers at the trial against any of the other def ts. The pit., in fact, was seeking to obtain from Stevens a statement on oath of what his evidence would be at the trial of the action. It was a novel application, and must be dismissed with costs. CoDD v. Delap Farwell J. [1906] "W. S. 87 The C. A. dismissed the appeal from an order of Farwell J,. [1906] W. N. 57, upon the ground that the proposed interrogatories did not touch upon the only question on which the deft. Stevens, having regard to the admissions in his defence, could be interrogated, viz., the circum- stances attending the registration of the shares in his name. Codd v. Delap C. A. [1906] W. N. 78 14. — Interrogatory — Production of documents — Contents — Joint possession — PaHTwrshiji — Practice — Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883, Order XXXI., r. 2. mSCOVE^Y —continued. Procedure summons which raised the ques- tion of admissibility of an interrogatoiy. The action- was one by a lady against the def ts. as trustees of a certain mortgage, asking for a declaration that the deed in question might be cancelled so far as it afEected the pit's, property and interest. A joint affidavit of documents was made by two of the defts., stating that they had in their possession the documents relating to the matters in question in the action set forth in the first schedule thereto, and one of the two defts. stated that he had in his possession or power, jointly with his six partners in a firm of chartered accountants, the documents set forth in the second schedule thereto, but he objected to pro- duce the same on the ground that they were not in his sole legal possession or power. The pit. proposed the following interrogatory for the examination of the defts. : " What are the contents of the documents specified in the second sched. of the affidavit of documents ? . . . . Exhibit copies of the said documents in answer to this interrogatory." The Master struck out this interrogatory on the ground that the information sought was rather a subject-matter for discovery of docu- ments than for interrogatories. The Judge in Chambers adjourned the summons into Court. The question was whether, under the present practice of the Court, such an interrogatory was admissible. Eve J. said that there was very little authority on the point since tlie Judicature Act, except what was said in Kearsley v. Philips, (1882) 10 Q. B. D. 36, 37 ; [affirmed on appeal, (1883) 10 Q. B. D. 46.5, C. A.]. Not much assist- ance was derived from the older cases of Sadley V. JV'Bougall, (1872) L. B. 7 Ch. 312, Taylor v. Rundell, (1840) 11 Sim. 391, Stuart v. Lord Bute, (1841) H Sim. 142 ; but in the case of Swanston v. lAshman, (1881) 45 L. T. 360, which decided that discovery of the documents there asked for must be made, there were some interlocutory observations of the late Master of the Bolls which assisted the pit. He thought that in the present case the interrogatory ought to be allowed, and he made an order accordingly. Rattenbeeey V, Monro Eve J. [1910] W. N. 248 — Lunacy — Keceiver — Documents. See Lunacy. 22. — Names of probable witnesses — Order for dis- closure. See DivOECE— Practice. 26. — New trial refused — Practice — No application for discovery. See Jamaica. 1. 15. — Particulars — Directors' liability — Statements in prospectus — " Reasonable ground to believe" truth of statements — Practice — Direc- tors' Liability Act, 1890 (53 S,- 54 Vict. o. 64), .s. 3— jB. S. C., Order XXL, r. 6. In an action against directors of a co. claim- ing compensation under the Directors' Liability Act, 1890, in respect of untrue statements con- tained in the prospectus of the co., the defts. by ( 897 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 898 ) mSCO'V'EB.Y—coHtiimed. their defence said that they bona fide believed the statements to be true, and that they had reasonable grounds for their belief : — Ifelil, that the defts. must deliver particulars of the grounds of their belief. Decision of Day J. reversed. Alman v. Oppert - C. A. [1901] W. N. 135 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 576 — Partnership — Action by firm — Order for dis- covery — Eefusal of one plaintiff to obey. See Attachment. — Privilege. See Xijx. 9 — 11, ahuie. 16. — Pi-iidege — Communwafions tetweeii solicitor and client — ■ " ISrasion" of statute — Practice — Production of documents. An information against executors claimed duties under a Colonial statute, alleging that the defts.' testator had some time before his death executed voluntary conveyances of Colonial pro- perty " with intent to evade the payment of duty " under the statute. One of the defts., a member of the firm of solicitors whom the testator had instructed to prepare the conveyances, was ordered to produce the notes and records of these instruc- tions, but objected to do so on the ground that they were privileged communications between solicitor and client for the purpose of obtaining advice : — Held, first, that the privilege was not lost by death of the testator ; and secondly, that the word " evade " was ambiguous and capable of two meanings, one a perfectly innocent one, and that, without expressing any opinion as to the meaning in which it was used in the statute, there was no proof or even allegation of any fraud or illegality to displace the privilege. The decision of the C. A., [1900] 2 Q. B. 163, reversed. Bttllivant v. Att.-Gen". pob Victoria H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 96 ; [1901J A. C. 196 17. — Production, of documents — Practice — Action for Ireach of warranty of seatourthiness — Underwriters — Suirogation — Repmi, made to wnde?'ivr iters — JVoiii inal plaintiffs. Cargo owners sued shipowners for alleged breach of a warranty of seaworthiness contained in a bill of lading, by which the cargo was lost. The pits, were insured to the extent of three- fourths of the loss, and, after the commencement of the action, the underwriters paid to the pits, the amount so insured, and the action was thenceforward conducted by their solicitors. The underwriters had, during the loading of the ship, procured an inspection of her condition by a surveyor, who had made a report to them thereon, which was in the possession of their solicitors. The defts. claimed discovery of this document, and applied for a stay of the action until it should be produced : — Seld, that they were not entitled to such discovery. Willis Sj- Co. V. Baddeley, [1892] 2 Q. B.324, distinguished. Jambs Nelson & Sons, Ld. v. Nelson Line (Liverpool), Ld. C. A. 1 1908 I 3 K. B. 217 TUHCOTE&Y— continued. 18. — Production of documents between member of trade union and union authorities tvith a view to assistance in legal proceedings — Practice^Prifilege hetween solicitor and client. A member of a trade union who had been dismissed by his employers furnished the union authorities, as required by the rules, with information in writing to enable the authorities to decide whether he was entitled to bring an action for wrongful dismissal at the expense of the union and with the assistance of their solici- tor. The information comprised the evidence available in support of the action and the names of the witnesses. The union authorities sanc- tioned an action brought by the member, with their solicitor acting as solicitor for the pit. Upon a summons for discovery taken out by the defts. : — Held, that the letters containing the informa- tion did not fall within the established rule as to the privilege between solicitor and client and must be produced. Andersony.Banli, of British Columhia, (1876) 2 Ch. D. 644, approved. JONBS r. GREAT Centrai, Ey. Co. - H. I. (E.) [1910] A. C. 4 19. — Ship'spapers — Fire in.tu ranee — JR. S. C, Order XXXI., r. 12. The practice with regard to discovery of ship's papers is peculiar to cases of marine insurance, and cannot be extended so as to allow the making of analogous orders for dis- covery in other cases of insurance. Tannbn- BAUM & Co. r. Heath C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 1032 20. — Ship's papers — Practice — Marine in- surance — Action hy iinderwriiers — Recovery of money overpaid — Bights of plaintiffs to full discovery. The pits., who were underwriters of a policy of marine insurance entered into by them with the defts., paid a sum of money in respect of a claim arising out of the policy. They subse- quently brought this action to recover back a part of the money upon the ground that, owing to a fraudulent misrepresentation of the defts. as to the amount expended upon the repairs of the ship insured, the pits, had paid to the defts. a sum in excess of the amount actually expended upon the repairs. On an application by the pits, for discovery : — Held, that the pits, were entitled to full dis- covery by the defts., including the obligation to produce, or to give on oath reasons explaining their inability to produce, documents which were not in their custody, or which were in their custody as agents for other persons, and to give such information as to documents not produced as they could obtain by reasonable exertions on their part. Boulton v. Hotjlder Brothers & Co. - C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 784 — Trade-mark — Double registration — Non- essential particulars — Disclaimer — Time. See Trade-mark. 18. DISCBETION— Banki-uptcy. See under BANKRUPTCY. ( 899 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901 —1910. ( 900 ) JUBCRETIOTS— continued. — Compensation to officer on abolition of office — Practice o£ Treasury — Discretion of council. iSea Local Government. 7. — ConTict's property, Sale of — Administrator — Bona fides. See Felony. 1. — Costs. See under Costs. — County court — Costs. See under County Cottet— Costs. — County court judge — Workmen's compensa- tion. See under Master and Servant — Compensation. — Director — Prosecution — Payment of costs out of assets — Refusal of public prosecutor to prosecute — Discretion. See Company — Directors. 1.'). — Discovery of documents — Further affidavit of documents — Relevancy of documents — Practice. See Discovery. 2, 3. — Divorce — Practice. See under Divorce. — Evidence — Faculty — Superstitious reverence. See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 18. — Frivolous and vexatious applications — Inter- locutory proceedings — Costs — Form of order. See Practice — Frivolous, &c. , Applica- tions. — Improvements — Scheme approved by trustees — Discretion of Court. See Settled Land— Capital Moneys. — Injunction, Discretion to refuse — Right of way — Landowner uninjured. See Trespass. 3. — Justices — By-law — Reasonableness. See Local Government. 4. — Lunacy practice. See under Lunacy. — Maintenance — ■ Discretionary trust for — Remoteness. See Will — Eemoteness. 3. — Notaries. See under Notaries. — Ordinary, Discretion of — Grant of faculty for erection of second communion table. See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 8—10. — Perpetuating testimony — Examination, Order for — Discretion of Court. See Lb&itimacy. 2. — Public examination — Questions by creditors and contributories. See Company— WiNDiNS-UP— Exami- nation, 1. — Service. See under Practice — Service. DISCRETION— cowi'iHMeo!. — Solicitor — Annual oertiticate — Duty of regis- trar. See Solicitor — Certificate. — Solicitor — Striking ofE rolls— Punishment — Discretion of Court. See Solicitor— Striking off Bolls. — Ti-ade mark — Registration — Discretion of registrar — Costs. See Trade Mark. 19. — Trustees. See under Trustee- Discretion. — Workmen's compensation — Discretion o£ county court judge. See under Master and Servant — Compensation. DISEASE. — Workmen's compensation. &e under Master and Servant. DISEASE OF ANIMALS. See also under Animals. Diseases of Animals Act, 1903 (3 JSdw. 7, c. 43), amends the Diseases of Aniniah Act, 1894, in relation to sheep-soal). Diseases of Animals Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7 e. 26), is an Act to provide for the 2>ayment of fees to refer ilia ry surgeons and 2>ractitionersfvr notification of diseases of animals. Diseases of Animals Act, 1910 (10 Hdio. 7 u^' 1 Geo. 5, c. 20). is an Act to amend the Diseases of Animals ylrf.*, 1894 to 19C0, in respect of the exportation and shipment of horses. — Death caused by accident — Intervening cause — Disease directly caused by accident. See Insurance (Accident). 4. 1. — Inspector appointed by local authority — Detention of sheep iy inspector on suspicion of slieep-scab — Negligence of inspector — LiaMlity of local authority — Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 .f- 58 Vict. c. 57), ss. 2, ib— Sheep-Scab Order, 1898 — Local Government. Local authorities are not liable for the negli- • gence of an inspector appointed by them under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, where the alleged negligence is in respect of his having, whilst acting under the provisions of the Sheep- Scab Order, 1898, seized and detained in a market sheep suspected of sheep-scab. Stanbuey v. EzETEE Corporation. Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 838 — Sti'anded vessel — Expenses of burial — Diseases of Animals Act. See Shipping — Burial. DISENTAIL— Convict— Administrator — Estate tail — Power to disentail — Forfeiture. See Felony. 2. DISENTAILED, LANDS — Succession — Will — Residue of estate to heir entitled to succeed to entail — Intestacy. See SCOTTISH Law. GG2 ( 901 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 902 ) DISENTAILING ASSTTKANCE— .EvteCe tail— Biseidailiiuj assurance — Execvf'iun hy tenant in tail — Death of tenant in tail — Siiise^uent execu- tion iy j}rotector signifyiwj Ids consent — Inrol- ment — Finss and Hecoreries Act, 1833 (i ^ i Will, i, c. 74), ss. 15, 40, 42. A tenant in tail executed a disentailing assur- ance and died. The protector of the settlement subsequently signified his consent by executing the assurance, and the same was then duly inroUed within six months from the execution thereof by the tenant in tail. Seld, that the consent of the protector was effectively given notwithstanding the previous execution of the assurance by, and the death of, the tenant in tail, and that the inrolment after the tenant in taiFs death was good. tn re Piers, (1863) 14 Ir. Ch. rep, 4.J2, adopted. WhitmOee-Searle c. 'Whitmobe-Seahle Kekewich J. [leOf] Vf. N. 186 ; [1907] 8 Ch. 332 — Estate tail — Protector — Three persons appointed by settlor — Death of two. See vSettlement. — Of money not yet ascertained — Real estate limited in strict settlement. See Fines and Recoveeies. 2. — Protector of settlement — Consent where him- self the disentailing tenant in tail. See Estate Tail." 1. 2. — Pnitecfof of settlement — Legal estate in trustees — Trustees for accumulation — Void trust — Beiirfrial owner — Heir-at-law — Fives and Reeoceries Act, 1833 (3 ,|- 4 Will. 4, c. 74)— Accumulation-i Act, ISOO (T/ielliisson Act) {39 ^■ 40 Geo. 3, c. US), .«. 1. A testator who died on April 3, 1854, devised real estate to trustees during the lives of three persons and the survivor of them upon trust to pay certain annuities and accumulate the surplus rents and profits and hold them upon the trusts therein mentioned during the lives aforesaid. And from and after the termination of the estate limited to the trustees, the testator devised the same to his gi'andson, John Hughes, in tail. On July 14, 1875, John Hughes executed a disentailing deed in which the only survivor of the trustees joined as protector of the settle- ment. By an order of the Court dated Mar. 26, ] 879, it was declared that the trust for accumu- lation contained in the testator's will was void as from April 8, 1875, the expiration of twenty- one years from bis death, and from that date the surplus rents belonged to his heir-at-law, the father of John Hughes : — Held, that at the date of the disentailing deed there was no protector of the settlement. The trustee was not protector, for he had no beneficial interest. The beneficial interest created by the will had come to an end, and the heir-at-law, who was entitled to the beneficial interest, did not take under the settlement made by the will, and was also prevented from being protector by s. 27 of the Fines and Recoveries Act, which forbids an heir to be a protector. The disentailing deed was therefore valid. In re Hughes and London and North-Westeen Railway Act Sirinfen Eady J. [1906] W. N. 17^2; [1906] 2Cli,642 DISENTAILING ASSUEANCE—ctf?iii«?«!(?. — Succession — Will — Residue of estate to heir entitled to succeed under a deed of entail — Lands disentailed. See Scottish Law. DISENTAILING DEED— By way of mortgage- Infant — Maintenance — Tenant in tail in remainder — Order sanctioning mort- gage of real estate — Jurisdiction of Court. See Infant — Maintenance. 3. — Estates " in defeasance of" estate tail. iSee Fines and Recoveeies. — Mortgages of settled estates — Covenants for title. See Settlement. — Subject to alterior estates and powers annexed thereto — Portions — Mortgages — Priorities — AVhether power released. See Settlement. — Succession duty — Tenant for life — Remainder in tail — Alienation — Succession derived from alienee. See Revenue — Sncoession Duty. 5. — Tenant for life — Power to appoint portions — Mortgage of settled estates — Priority — ■ Implied release of power. See Settlement. — Tenant in tail in possession — Right to accumu- lations. See Accumulations, 2. DISMISSAL — Action for wrongful dismissal — Duty of the trial judge — New trial ordered. See New Zealand. — Assistant master — Endowed schools — Scheme — Wrongful dismissal. See Schools. — Assistant master — Power to dismiss " at pleasure " — Action against governoi-s. See Schools. — Employer and workman. See under Mastee and Seeva^vT — ■ Dismissal. — Right of bankrupt to sue for wrongful dis- missal. See Bankruptcy — Tlndisoliarged Bank- rupt. — Schoolmistress — Powci-s of manager — ■ Education. See Schools. — Servant — Company — Voluntary liquidation — Agreement of service — Resolution to wind-up. See Company— Servants. 1. — Wrongful — AVrit for service out of the juris- diction — Breach of contract. See Practice- Service. DISOBEDIENCE — Pauper — Disobedience to lawful order — " Misbehaviour." See Poor Law. ( 903 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 904 ) 'DISOB'EDIETUCE— continued. — Ship — Seaman — Desertion which is also wilful disobedience. See Shipping- -Seamau. Dis: ?'IITES— Friendly Society. See Friendly Society. 6. — Master and servant. See under Master and Servant — Disputes. — Trade union. See under Trade Union. DISPUTES (TBADE) ACT, 1906. See Trade Union. DISQUAIinCATION— Board of guardians- Member — Collection of rents — Reten- tion of commission — Vacancy. See Local Government. 14. — Councillor — Bankruptcy — Quo warranto. See Corporation. 9. — Councillor — Paid office under the council — Distress committee. See Local Government. 23. ■ Directors. See under Company- -Directors. — Disqualification — Removed before proxy is used — Shareholder only to be proxy — Nomination of unqualified proxy. See India. 2. — Election — Town councillor — Contract with council — Release by committee. See Corporation. 12. — Franchise — "Medical assistance." See Parliament. — G uardian of the poor — " Composition or arrangement with creditors." See Poor Law. — Justices — Bias, Likelihood of — Certiorari — Confirming authority, Order of. See Licensing Acts. 5. — Notice of disqualification — Election — Eight of opponent to claim seat. See Corporation. 12. — Personal interest or bias — Licence — Renewal. See Licensing Acts. 5. — Voting — Purchaser of forfeited shares dis- qualified from voting whilst calls remain due from original holder. See Company — Meetings. 7. DISSOLUTION — Company — Voluntary winding- up — Stay of proceedings. See Company — Winding-up — Prac- tice. 22. — Corporation. See under Corporation. ■ — Industrial and provident societies. See Industrial and Provident Societies. 2. — Life assurance company — Amalgamation — Repayment of deposit. See Insurance (Life). 5. DISSOLUTION— C()«rt.«Mf(?. — Marriage. See under Divorce. — Partnership. See under Partnership— Dissolution. DISTRESS. Zaw of Distress Amendment ^c<, 1908 (8 Mlw. 7, 0. 53), amends the law as regards a landlord's right of distress fur rent. — Appeal — " Criminal cause or matter " — Bailiff— Costs and charges — Practice. See Appeal. 6. — Bankruptcy. See under Bankruptcy — Distress. — Charges — "Keeping possession" of goods seized — " Man in possession." See Rates. — Committal — Non-payment of rates — Release — Jurisdiction — Punitive order. See Bankruptcy — Committal. 1. — Crown —Prerogative — Chattels belonging to Grown — Distress for rent — Privilege — Landlord and tenant. See Crown. 5. 1. — Exemption — Wearing apparel, bedding, and tools and implements of trade to ralue of fire pounds — Lam of Distress Amendment Act, 1888 (51 ^ 52 Vict. o. 21), s. i—Countij Courts Act, 1888 (51 4- 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 147. The protection from distress conferred by s. 4 of the Law of Distress Amendment Act, 1888, and s. 147 of the County Courts Act, 1888, is limited to wearing apparel, bedding, tools and implements of trade to the value of 51. in all. Boyd, Ld. v. Bilham - Channell J. [1908] W, N. 206 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 14 2. — Exemption from delivered to a person to be managed in the way of his trade — Snmple article sent to selling agent for exhibition jjurposes only. Action for wrongful distress. Pits., who were a co. carrying on business as manufacturers of motor cars, employed a, co. called the Simms Welbeck Co. as their agents in the London district for the sale of their motor cars. The Simms Welbeck Co. acted in a similar capacity as agents for certain other motor car manufactm-ers, and carried on the business of these several agencies in premises rented by them in Dover Street, Piccadilly. In the course of their business the pits, delivered to the Simms Welbeck Co. at their premises in Dover Street a motor chassis (that is to say, the framework and engines of a motor without the body) for exhibi- tion purposes only and as a model of the type of car that the pits, manufactured. While the chassis was still on the Simms Welbeck Co.'s premises the landlord of the premises distrained it for rent due. The pits, claimed that it was privileged from distress as having been delivered to persons exercising a public trade as motor car factors to be managed in the way of their trade. It was contended on their behalf that the privilege covered a chattels which, though not intended itself to be sold, was intended to conduce to the sale of similar chattels belonging to the depositor, ( 905 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 906 ) DISTRESS— co«is«KC(Z. Hamilton J. held that the chassis, beiug delivered for exhibition purposes only, was not privileged from distress. Judgment i'or the deft. SIMMS Makufacturing Co. r. White- head Hamilton J. [1909] W. N. 95 — Expenses of — Poor rate — Reasonable charges of taking, keeping and selling distress. See Xo. 17, lelow. 3. — Fixtures — Advertisement IwarAmgs — Might to distrain — Landlord and tenant. By an agreement in writing the defts. agreed to let and the pits, to take the exclusive right of putting up advertisement hoardings and posting bills thereon upon specified land of the defts. for seven years the pits, 'paying the defts. a fixed annual sum, payable quarterly ; rates and taxes to be paid by "the tenants." The pits, erected hoardings, which were affixed in a very sub- stantial manner to the land, and exhibited advertisements upon them. The pits, fell into arrear in their payments under the agreement, and the defts. levied a distress upon the hoard- ings and ultimately carried them away and sold tliem. The pits, brought an action to recover damages for wrongful distress, and the defts. counterclaimed for the amount of the arrears due under the agreement : — Held that, even assuming the agreement created the relation of landlord and tenant between the parties, the advertisement hoard- ings, although removable by the pits, at the end of the tenancy, were fixtures and not mere chattels, and were therefore not distrainable, and the pits, were entitled to recover damages for the wrongful distress. Darhy v. Harris, (1841) 1 Q. B. 895, approved and followed. Held, further, that, the pit. co. having gone into liquidation, it would be inequitable to set ofE the damages recovered by the pits, on the claim against the arrears recovered by the defts. on the counter-claim and to give judgment for the balance, and that separate judgments ought to be given on the claim and counter-claim respectively, Seiiible, that the agreement did not constitute a demise creating a tenancy, but amounted only to a licence to enter on the land and do certain specified things upon it. Pkovincial Bill Posting Co. r. Low Moor Iron Co. - C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 344 4. — Goods of underle.ssee — Distress for rent due from head lessee — Eremptions — Pro- jirietarij chih — Public trade — Pictures sent for c.cliibition and sale — '^Managed" in the loay of trade — Pririlegefrom distress. The pit. was the proprietor of the United Arts Club ; he was tenant from year to year of the club premises as underlessee ; he undertook all the liabilities of the club and received all the profits. One of the objects of the club was to hold exhibitions of pictures sent in by members of the club, mostly fur sale on commission, the pit, receiving a commission of 10 per cent, as his profit. The club was managed by a committee, of which the pit. was a member, and the exhibi- tions were managed by a picture committee. DISTRESS— continued. Only members or associates of the club could send pictures, and the exhibitions were not open to the public on payment, but to persons intro- duced by members or invited. The defts., as superior landlords, had put in a distress for rent due from the lessee, and had seized certain pictures then on the club premises, the property of members, which had been sent in for exhibi- tion and sale. In an action by the pit. to restrain the defts. from proceeding with the ci 1 h1" t*p^^ ■ Held, by Neville J., [1907] W. N. 199, that the pictures were liable to distress unless the pit. could bring his case within the excep- tions laid down in Simpson, v. Hartopp, (1744) ■\Villes, 612 ; 1 Sm. L. C. p. 437 (11th ed.), as " things delivered to a person exercising a public trade to be . managed in the way of his trade or employ." In the present case the pit. was not carrying on the trade of a commis- sion agent with all who chose to deal with him ; his trade was essentially a private trade, and for this reason the pictures were not within the exemption. Held, on appeal, that it was not necessary on the facts to consider the meaning of the words " public trade," but that the word " managed " must be taken to include, if not to be equivalent to, " disposed of " ; that the pictures were not delivered to the pit., but to the picture com- mittee, and even if they were delivered to the pit., they were not delivered to him "to be managed in the way of his trade," which was that of a club proprietor, and not that of a picture dealer ; that the pit. could not be said to " manage " the pictures, which, according to the rules of the club, were under the management of the committee. On these grounds, therefore, the plt.'s action failed, and the appeal must be dismissed. The words used by Willes C.J. in Simpson v. Hartojip must be talven to define and limit precisely the things privileged from distress, and the Court cannot go beyond the terms in which that privilege is defined. Challoxee c. Eobin- SON C. A. [1907] W.N. 217; [1908] 1 Ch. 49 5. — Imjdenienis of trade^Mrempted goods — Law of Jiittress Amendment Act, 1888 (51 ^• 52 Vicf. c. 21), s. i—Cotinty Courts Act, 1888 (51 S- 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 147. A commercial traveller, who was employed to sell typewriting machines on commission, was entrusted by his employers with one of their machines as a sample. While in his possession the machine was distrained by his landlord for rent due by him ; — Held, that it was not an implement of his trade and was not protected as such from dis- tress by virtue of s. 4 of the Law of Distress Amendment Act, 1888, and s. 147 of the County Courts Act, ISSS, ADDISON C. SHEPHERD Div. Ct. [1908] W.N. 102; [1908] 2 K. B. 118 6. — Liindlord and tenant — Covenant bij temud to pay rates and assessments — Local authority — Paring e.vpenses — Xotioc to tenant to pay rent to local authority — Payment by tenant ( 907 ) DIGEST OF CASKS, 1901— 1910. ( 9U8 ) SISTBESS — cu/itinued. to local autliority — Right of 1 andlord to dlstrahi — Metropolis Land Maiiagemerd Act, 1862 (25 ^ 26 Vict. d. 102), s. 96. Action brought by a tenant to recover damages for an illegal wrongful distress. The pit. was tenant and occupier of a shop under a lease for a term of twenty-one years at a rent of iOl. a year, payable quarterly. The lease contained a cove- nant by the lessee to pay the rent without deduction (except landlord's property tax), and also to pay all rates, taxes, and assessments whatsoever, and all charges imposed by any local authority upon the frontagers in respect of the taking over the roads and footpaths abutting upon the said premises or the making or repair thereof. On Dec. 18, 1902, the pit. received a notice in writing from the Wandsworth Borough Council not to pay his rent without first deduct- ing 34Z. 19«. 2d., due to the council under an apportionment of the estimated costs of paving the road and footpaths. On Jan. 20, 1903, the pit. paid the borough council 101., being one quarter's rent due on Dec. 25, 1902, and informed the landlord that he had done so. On Jan. 22, 1903, the landlord demanded payment of the rent due on Deo. 25, 1902, which was not paid, and on Feb. 12, 1903, he put in a distress for the rent upon the plt.'s premises. The pit. alleged that the distress was illegal, and brought the action for damages against the landlord and his baiHff. The Court held that the defts. were entitled to judgment. The Court said that the question was whether at the moment when the distress was levied any rent was due for which the land- lord could distrain. It was said the rent was not due, because by s. 96 power was given to the local authority to give notice to the tenant not to pay his rent without deducting from it the costs or expenses which the owner of the property was liable to pay, and to pay these costs and expenses to the local authority to the extent of the rent due, and it was said that the tenant, when he had made that payment, had discharged the rent, so that a distress could not be levied for it. The question was whether the tenant, having regard to the terms of his lease, had a right to deduct or set off this payment when he was called on to pay the rent. On the terms of the lease it was clear that, if it was a payment of the charges of the local authority, the tenant had not that right. It remained to consider the effect of s. 96. The proviso at the end of the section shewed clearly that the section did not affect the tenant's covenant to pay the charges imposed by the local authority. And as to the earlier part of the section, the Court came to the conclusion that the true construction of it was that the tenant did not make the payment to the local authority as rent. The payment was to be a payment of the costs and expenses, though it was to be measured by the amount of rent due. The local authority could not have given the tenant a receipt for the rent ; they could only give a receipt for the costs and expenses which they were entitled to demand, and which were paid to them in that way. There was nothing in s. 96 which took away the landlord's right of distress. The result was that the rent remained DISTRESS— £!0«?j« due, and the distress was lawful, and the dcfls. were entitled to judgment. Skinnbe r. Hunt C. A. [1904] W. H. 117 ; [19041 2 K. B. 482 7. — Liiadlord and tenant — Distress— Imple- ment of trade — Cah urer the nilue of 61. — Priri- lege — Lam of JJistre.HS Amendment Act, 1888 (51 ^- 52 Vict. c. 21), s. i~ County Courts Act, 1888 (51 .J- 52 Vict. 0. 43), s. 147. A distress having been levied on a stable, which was in the occupation of a cab-driver, for rent in arrear, the only article on the premises proved to be a cab of the value of more than bl., which was accordingly seized : — Held, that the cab was privileged fi-om seizure under s. 147 of the County Courts Act, 1888, as an implement of the man's trade, and that the fact that it was above the value of 51. did not exclude the operation of the exemption. Lavell V. EiCHiNGS Div. Ct. [1906] "W. N. 47 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 480 Note. See Boyd v. Bilham., Channell J., [1908] W. N. 206. 8. — Landlord and tenant — Distress — Pro- tected goods — " Goods comprised in liire purchase agreement " — " Possession, order or disposition " — JReputed ownership — Law of Distress Amend- ment Act, 1908 (8 JSdw. 7, u. 53), s. i. Sects. 1 and 2 of the Law of Distress Amend- ment Act, 1908, protect under certain conditions from distress the goods of under-tenants, lodgers, and other persons not being tenants and not having any beneficial interest in any tenancy of the premises. By s. 4 the Act is not to apply to goods .... comprised in any bill of sale, hire purchase agreement, or settlement made by the tenant, nor to goods in the possession, order, or dis- position of such tenant by the consent and permission of the true owner under such cir- cumstances that such tenant is the reputed owner thereof. The deft., a broker distraining for rent due to a landlord from his tenant, seized a pianoforte let by the pits, to the wife of the tenant on a hire purchase agreement in consideration of monthly payments and oil the terms that, in case of default in the punctual payment of the monthly sums, the pits, might retake possession of the piano. At the date of the seizure the monthly payments were in arrear. The pits, performed the conditions specified in ss. 1 and 2 of the Act. The deft, detained the piano. On appeal from a county court in an action for illegal distress : — Held, that the words " hire purchase agree- ment " in s. 4 mean hire purchase agreement to which the tenant is a party, and therefore that the piano was not "comprised in any hire pur- chase agreement " within the meaning of that section ; that on the facts there was no evidence that the piano was in the possession, order, or disposition of the tenant by the consent and per- mission of the pits, under such circumstances that the tenant was the reputed owner thereof ; and consequently that the piano was not within ( 909 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 010 ) DISTRESS— C(i«7 GeoA, c. 93), s. 1. Schediile^Bhtress {Costs) Act, 1827 (7 S,- 8 Geo. i, 0. n)~mstress for Rates Act, 18i9 (12 S,- 13 Vict. c. 14), s. 1. The schedule to 57 Geo. 3, c. 93, as applied by 7 & 8 Geo. 4, o. 17, to distress for poor-rate, in so far as it prescribes a maximum limit in respect of the costs of sale of the distress, is im- pliedly repealed by 12 & 13 Vict. c. 14, s. 1, which giyes the justices power to order that the levy shall include " the reasonable charges of taking, keeping, and selling of the said distress." Hill r. Pannipek Div. Ct, [1904] 1 K. B.811 Note. This case was overruled by H. L. (E.), Coster V. Headland, [1906] A. C. 286. — Bate, Form of — Statement of period for which estimated — Retrospective rate — Distress warrant. See Poor Law. — Rates, Recovery of — Illegal distress — Liability. See also under Rates. — Receiver, Use or occupation by — Loss of remedy by distress — Head-lease — Rent — Breach of covenant — Damages. See jMortgagb — Receiver. — Rent, Distress for — Lessee adjudicated bank- rupt the same day — Judicial act. See Bankruptcy — Distress. 1. — Bent Distress for — Rent due on Sunday — Legality of distress levied on following Monday. See Landlord and Tenant, 30. 19. — Sale by auction, of goods d lit rained — Purchase Inj landlord, — Landlord and tenant — 2 Will. Si 31. sess. 1, c. 5, s. 2 — Practice — Ajij/eal from county court — Zeare to appeal to High Court — Bi///i,t to appeal on leace to Court of Appeal — Supreme Court of JudicitPure (Proce- d,ure) Act, 1894 (57 4' 58 Vict. c. 16), s. 1, snl)-s. 5. A sale in pursuance of 2 Will, cfe M. sess. 1, c. 5, s. 2, of goods distrained must be a sale to a third party, and if the landlord purchase the goods himself no property passes. Judgment of the Div. Ct., [1903] 2 K. B. 168, and dictum of Blackburn J. in Kinq v. Enqlaud, (1864) 4 B.& S. 782, affirmed. In an action in the county court, where the leave of the judge to appeal to the High Court is required, the giving of leave creates a right of appeal within s. 1, sub-s. 5, of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Procedure) Act, 1894, and a further appeal lies to the C. A. by leave of the Div. Ct. hearing the appeal or of the C. A. MoOEB, Nbttlepold & Co. r. Singer Manupactubing Co. C. A. [1904] W. N. 76 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 8S0 — Statutory corporation — Borrowing powers — Appointment of receiver. See MoETOAQE— Validity. DISTRESS COMMITTEE— CounciUor— Disquali- fication — Urban district council — Paid office under the council. See Local Government. 23. DISTRIBUTION — Assets — Distribution of — Attorney — Administration . See Executor — Administration, 1. — Children dying before period of — Vesting — " Legal representatives." jSeeWiLL — Vesting. 1. — Contingent future liabilities — Ketnrn of assets — Rights of future creditor. See Administration. 4. — " Eldest son " — Portions — Period of distribu- tion postponed — Younger son after- wards becoming eldest son — Accele- rating period of distribution — Mortgage. See Settlement. — Period of — Advancements — Hotchpot — Interest. See Will — Advancements. 4. — Period of distribution — Will — Institution of heirs in specified proportions — Tenant for life. See Cape op Good Hope. 15. — Scheme for — Unexpended funds — Unregis- tered friendly society — Insolvency of society — Jurisdiction to wind up — Benefit society. See Friendly Society. 2. — Trade union — Branch — secession — Distribu- tion of funds — Ultra vires. See Trade Union. 3. DISTRIBUTION, STATUTE OF — Advances — Stipulation as to hotchpot — Deceased sister's children taking by representation. See Administration. — Executors — Express trust of residue — Partial failure of beneficial interest — Next of kin. See Will— Advances. 3. — Illegitimate children — Gift to children nominatim — Gift to next of kin. See Will — Illegitimacy. 8. 1. — Intestacy — Administration — Death of unirersal legatee and sole eicectitrix before te,stat0r — Advancements to children — Hotchpot — Statute of Di,itrilntiom, 1671 (22 S' 23 Car. 2, u. 10) .?. 5. The provisions of s. 5 of the Statute of Distri- butions, directing advancements made by the intestate in his lifetime by portions to his children to be brought into account, apply to an intestacy occasioned by a testamentary instrument be- coming wholly inoperative by the death of the universal legatee and executrix in the lifetime of the testator, as well as to a case of actual intes- tacy occasioned by the non-existence of any testamentary instrument. Decision of Buckley J., [1901] W. N. 218 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 218, affirmed. Harte v. Meredith, [18S4] 13 L. R. Ir. 341, followed. In re FOED. FOED v. FOED 0. A. [1902] W. N. 162 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 605 Xote. See In re Cufe. Joyce J., [1908] 2 Ch. 500 501. ( 91-' ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— inlo. ( !)16 ) DISTRIBUTION, STATUTE QT— continued. — Next of kin, According to the — Time iior ascertaining class. See Will— Class. 12. — Next of kin — Class — Joint tenancy or tenancy in common. See Will— ClaBS. in. — Partial intestacy — Next of kin — Hotchpot — Advancements made to children by testator. See Will — Advances. 3. DISTRICT COUNCILS — Contracts — Water supply to adjoining district — Sanction of Local Government Board. See Local Government. 13. DISTRICT NOTARIES ACT. See under NOTABIES. DISTRICT REGISTRY— Appeal from order made in chambers in. See Appeal. 7. DISTURBANCE— Ferry from vill to vill— Change of circumstances — New traffic. See Febky. 1. — Market rights — Intention — Injunction. See Markets. 1. — Statutory market — Injunction — Jurisdiction. See Markets. 2, .5. DISUSED BURIAL GROUNDS. See under Burial. DITCH — Alongside of highway — Whether part of highway — Extent of dedication. See Highway. 4. DIVERSION— Highway. iSee under HIGHWAY. DIVESTING—" Born in my lifetime "—Children ventre sa mfere — Will — Construction. See Will— Estate Tail. 1. — Class — Gift over on death coupled with a contingency — " Die leaving issue ' ' — Period of defeasibility. See Will — Class. 5. DIVESTING CLAUSE— "Born in my lifetime " — Child en ventre sa mfere. See Will — Words. 2. DIVIDED PARISHES AND POOR LAW. See under POOR LAW. DIVIDEND— Company. See under COMPANY — Dividends. ■ — Gas company — Income tax, Payment of divi- dend £eee of. See Revenue — Income Tax. 19. — Limitations, Statute of — Dividends unclaimed — Reduction of capital by return of money to shareholders. See Company — Limitations. 1. — Lunacy — Receiver — Accrued dividends — Form of order — Transfer into Court — Bank of England— Indemnity, See Lunacy. 24. DIVIDEND— C()«i!« «rr/. — Ownership of dividends — Mortgage of house and dividends in one mortgage — Fore- closure — Disclaimer by mortgagee of all interest in house — Liability for repair of house. /S'ee Will— Leaseholds. 2. — Receiving order — Scheme of arrangement. See Bankruptcy — Receiving Order. 7. — Settled land. See under Settled Land — Dividends. — Surplus assets — Preference shares — Revenue representing dividends never declared. See Company — Winding-up — Assets. 5. — Waterworks company. See under Water. DIVISIONAL COURTS— Practice. See under Practice- Divisional Courts. DIVORCE. Supreme Court. JUntrimonial Causes Pnles. AdditioTial rule and order, dated Aug. 20, 1904, for tlie Probate, Divorce, and AdmirciUy Division of Sis Miijestifs High Court of Justice in Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, to talte effect on and. after Oct. 24, 1904. Reprint from W. N. 1904 (Sept. 17), p. 263. See Current Index, 1904, p. cxvi. Matrimonial Cau-ies Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 12), amends the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 and 1866, hy extending tlie powers of the Court in relation to maintenance and. alimony and leave to inte'rvene. AUmonij, col. 917. Bigamy, col. 917. Channel Islands, col. 918. Colonies, col. 918. Condonation, col. 918. Confession, col. 918. Co-respondent, col. 918. Costs, col. 920. Custody, col. 927. Damages only, col. 927. Decree nisi, col. 927. Delay, col. 927. Desertion, col. 927. Domicil, col. 981. Foreign Jurisdiction, col. 932. Foreign Marriage, col. 932. Income Ta.v, col. 932. Ireland, col. 932. Judicial Separation, col. 935. Jurisdiction, col. 936. King's Proctor, col. 936. Maintenance, col. 936. Xallity {Xullity of Marriage), col. 936. Practice, col. 940. Restitution of Conjugal Rights, col. 954. ( 91^ ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( '-'IK ) DIVORCE— cowiiMMerf, Scotland, col. 955. Sei)arai\o)i, col. 955. Separation, deeds, col. 955. Sejiarution orders, col. 955. Sefilemenis, col. 956. Settlements {Variation of Settlements), col. 956. SninoMry Jurisdiction, col. 963. Title of Honour, col. 963, Alimony. 1. — Alimony pendeivtellte — Maintenance and education, of children — Separation agreement — Jurisdiction of Court — Matrinnmial Causes Arts, 1857 (20 4- 21 Vict. c. 85), s. 35 ; 1859 (22 ,5' 23 Vict. c. 61), s. 'i. A wife, having petitioned for the dissolution of her marriage, presented a petition for an allowance by way of alimony pendente lite and for the maintenance and education of the childi-en of the marriage. In answer to this petition the husband alleged that prior to the divorce petition he and his wife had entered into an agreement for separation, by which he had agreed to make her an allowance of 600?. a year. The wife denied the existence of the agreement : — Held, that the agreement (if it existed) would not afEect the jurisdiction of the Court under s. 35 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, and s. 4 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859, to make pro- vision for the maintenance and education of the children, and that the husband must make dis- covery of his means, Baeet p. Baeet C. A. [1901] W. N. 10; [1901] P. 87 — " Alimony,'' What is — Wife's need of sup- port —Discretion of Court, Sei DivoECB — Practice, 3, — Income tax. Deduction of — Divorce — Separa- tion deed — Alimony — Annuity, See Re^'enue — Income Tax, 18, — Judicial separation — Permanent alimony — Order of Probate and Divorce Division — Arrears — Action to recover — Husband and Wife. See DivOEOE — Judicial Separation. 1. — Restitution of conjugal rights — Alimony pendente lite — Discretion, See Divorce— Practice, 28. — Separation, deed — Annuity — Deduction of income tax. See Revenue — Income Tax. 18. 2. — Voluntary allowance — Income of Hus- hanil and wife — Computation — Practice — Sum- ■marij Jurisdiction {Married Vouien') Act, 1895 (5H 4' 59 Vict. c. 39). In estimating the respective incomes of a husband and wife upon a matter arising under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1895, a voluntary allowance is to be taken into account. NOTT v. NOTT Div. Ct. [1901] P. 241 Bigamy. — Second marriage performed abroad. See Bigamy, i. JilVO'RC'E—contimied. Channel Islands. 1. — Practice — Cicil marriageinthe Channel Islands — Fo'eign law — Ecidence. Where in the case of a marriage in the Channel Islands, the marriage ceremony has been celebrated elsewhere and otherwise than in a church in accordance with the rites and cere- monies of the Established Church of England and Wales, evidence of the validity of the marriage according to local law is still required. West- LAKB r. WBSTLAKE (OTHEEWISE WiLLIAlIS) Bargrave Deane J, [1910] P. 167 Colonies. — British Columbia, Law of^Divorce juris- diction of the Supreme Court. See Cakada — Divorce. 1. Condonation. 1. — Adultery — Desertion — Rerival — Decree of dissolution of marriage. Desertion for two years without reasonable excuse revives condoned adultery, whether the petitioner be husband or wife. Houghton v. Hovghton, [1903] P. 150, fol- lowed. COPSEY r. COPSEY AND EENEY Gorell Barnes J. [1905] P. 94 — Damages and costs against co-respondent — Subsequent condonation — King's Proc- tor's intervention — Effect of such con- donation. See Divorce — Costs. 2. — Desertion. See under DivoECE — Desertion. Confession. 1. — Confession of Adultery — Practice — Evidence. Although it is the general practice in matri- monial cases not to act and grant relief upon uncorroborated confessions of adultery, there is no absolute rule of practice and no rule of law precluding the Court from acting upon such uncorroborated evidence. The true test seems to be whether the Court is satisfied from the surrounding circumstances in any particular and exceptional case that the confession is true. If so satisfied, it is open to the Court to grant relief, notwithstanding the absence of indepen- dent corroborative testimony. Semite, a solicitor who has acted for the respondent is a compellable witness ; and his evidence as to statements made by the respon- dent may be accepted by the Court m coming to a conclusion as to the truth of a confession of adultery made by the respondent. Getty c. Getty . . . Bucknill J. [1907] P. 834 Co-respondent, — Costs — Jurisdiction — Consolidated suits — A[)peal — Final or interlocutory order. See Divorce — Practice. 6. — Costs — Practice. See Divorce — Costs. 3, 16. ( 919 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 920 ) DIVORCE (Co-respondent) — continued. 1. — Damages against co-respondent — Order far payment into Court — Death of co-respondent — Haiility of his executor — Jurisdiction of Divorce Court to enforce order. On the hearing of a petition for divorce by a husband against his wife the jury assessed damages against the co-respondent at 1500Z., a decree nisi was pronounced, and the co-respondent was ordered " within one month from the service of the order to lodge in Court the said sum of 1,500Z." "Within a month of the order the co-respondent committed suicide without having paid the money into Court. On an application by the petitioner for an order against the executor of the co-respondent to pay the damages and costs out of the assets of his testator : — Held, (reversing the decision of the President) that there was no provision in the Divorce Act or Rules enabling the executor of a co-respondent to be brought before the Court, the action was a personal action and the cause of action did not survive, and that there was no remedy against the executor of the Divorce Court, and no order for payment could be enforced against the executor in that Court. Beydges r. Beydgbs AND Wood - C. A. [1909] W. N. 93 ; [1909] P. 187 3. — Death of co-respondent after suit com- menced — Practice — Motion to strihe out his name — Order. When a co-respondent named in a petition dies after the commencement of the proceedings, the right form of application to be made by the petitioner is to strike his name out of the suit. Walpole r. Walpole G. Barnes J. [1901] P. 86 3. — Husland's petition — Person named and cited as co-respondent — 'Scotsman — Foreign domicil, allegiance, or residence of co-respondent — Liability for costs or damages — Discretionary power of Court to dismiss co-respondent from suit — Refusal — Co-respondent's motion dismissed loith costs. Whatever it is that determines the jnrisdic- tiou of this Court with regard to co-respondents, that jurisdiction does not depend upon the domicil of the co-respondent, nor is it to be determined by the question whether the co- respondent is or is not a British subject. So far as a co-respondent is concerned, the citation corresponds with what would have been, before the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, came into operation, the writ in an action for criminal conversation. Service of the citation and sealed copy of the petition upon a co-respondent, if out of E., places him on the same footing with regard to jurisdiction as a deft, properly served with a wiit out of the jurisdiction under Order xi. in the K. B. or Ch. Div. The claim against a co-respondent in a divorce suit is merely u. personal claim for money, and is not complicated with questions of international law arising out of status, as in the case of a petitioner and respondent. Although a judgment, following on a verdict for damages in a divorce salt in this Court, could DIVORCE (Co-respondent) — continued. not be enforced against a foreigner in a foreign country, it might possibly be enforced against a Scotsman or an Irishman, in Scotland or Ireland, by means of the Judgments Extension Act, 1868. The enactment in s. 42 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, providing for service of any person at any place is only a municipal law in favour of those who sue in this Court ; and the Legislature thereby does not concern itself with the question whether an order against a co- respondent for payment of damages or costs in a proceeding began by citation served abroad would or would not be enforceable as a foreign judgment in another country. The object of the provision is that this Court may make the order and may enforce it against any property which the person against whom the order is made may have within its own jurisdiction or within its own reach. As the Act gives power to serve anybody as co-respondent anywhere, it gives jurisdiction to make any order against the co-respondent, and to issue process of execution to enforce the order in this country ; and this can be done without in any way affecting any international comity or offending any international susceptibilities. Eatment V, Ratment an"D Stuart. Chap- man V. Chapman and Buist Samuel Evans, Pres. [1910] P. 271 Costs. — Attachment — Non-compliance with order to secure wife's costs — Subsequent com- pliance — Motion for release. See Attachment. 9. 1. — Bankrupt petitioner — Claim for damages — Security for costs. There is no settled practice in the Probate and Divorce Dlv. that a petitioner, who is an undischarged bankrupt and who claims damages from the co-respondent, must give security for costs unless he withdraws the claim for damages. Decision of Jeune Pres.; [1902] W. N. 70 affirmed. Blackbtt v Blackett and Feail. C. A. [1902] W. N. 91 ; [1902] P. 170 2. — Condonation — Practice — Susiand's _ petition — Decree nisi — Damages and costs against co-respondent — Subsequent condonation — Jiing'.s Proctor's interrention — Effect of such condonation on order for damages and costs. The effect of condonation of a wife's adultery by her husband, after decree nisi and before decree absolute, considered. If a petition is dismissed by reason of con- donation it is dismissed for all purposes, and cannot be kept alive temporarily for the purpose of enabling a petitioner to recover damages which have been awarded against a co-respondent in the suit, but the co-respondent may still be held liable for, and may be ordered to pay, the costs of the suit, which, on the intervention of the King's Proctor and by reason of condonation subsequent to decree nisi, has been dismissed. The petitioner, in such a case, may be ordered to pay the costs of the King's Proctor's inter- vention, but he may add the amount of these costs to the costs which he is still held entitled to recover from the co-respondent. ( 921 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 922 ) DIVOKCE (C08ta)~ciiiiti/iiied,. Lonij V. LoM/ and Juhnaoii, [1890] 15 P. D. 218, doubted. HYMAif r. Hyman and Goldmak Jeune Pres. [1904] P. 403 3. — Co-respondent — Costs — Pract'u'e. Where, upon an application to make a co- respondent liable for the costs of a petition, the only proof of scieutiter was an admission by him that within a fortnight after he first committed adultery with the respondent he became aware that she was a married woman ; — Held, that the petitioner was entitled to an order for costs against the co-respondent. BiLBT , . BiLBY AND Haekop Jeune Pres. [1902] P. 8 — Costs in Divorce Court — Order to pay — Default — .Judgment summons — Bank- ruptcy — Practice. See Bankruptcy — Eeceiving Order. 2. 4. — Date of niarrini/e auvnt/Ii/ stated hi petition and decrees — Motion to amend — Order — Practice. The petitioner and respondent, after having been married in a registrar's ofBce went through the form of marriage in a parish church. In a petition for dissolution of marriage, and in the decrees nisi and absolute pronounced thereon, the second marriage only was referred to. Upon affidavit of service of notice of motion upon the respondent, the Court ordered that the petition and decrees be amended by inserting therein the date of the first marriage. HAMP80N I. Hampson Gorell Barnes Pres. [1908] P. 365 5. — Desertion — PHition — Z'nfoiinded charges of cruelty and adultery — Finding of desertion — Immateriality — Befnsul of decree if judicial separation — Costs — Set-off. Upon a wife's petition for dissolution of marriage, the charges' of cruelty and adultery were negatived by a jury and held by the Court to be without foundation. The jury, in regard to a supplemental petition alleging desertion for two years and upwards, found that desertion was established as from Feb. 1901, whereas the petitioner's case put the desertion as having commenced when the parties ceased living together in July, 1900. The jury, from their iinding on the other issues, appeared to have believed the respondent's and disbelieved the petitioner's case. Upon the petitioner's application for a decree of judicial separation : — Held, that, inasmuch as the parties, at the date when desertion was found by the jury to have commenced, had been living apart for some time, the finding of desertion at the later date was bad in law and immaterial for the Court to consider ; that the petitioner was not entitled to a decree ; and that the petition and supple- mental petition must be dismissed. The filing and prosecution of a suit for dis- solution of marriage (or qiuere, for judicial separation) precluded the petitioner from suc- cessfully pleading that the period of desertion was running during the time while the suit was being maintained. Upon the question of costs : — Held, that the petitioner was entitled to the costs of the issue of desertion, but to no costs on DIVORCE (Costs) — continued. the other issues, and that the respondent was entitled to set ofi, pro tanto, against his costs of these other issues, the costs to which the peti- tioner was held entitled in regard to the issue of desertion. Kay v. Kay Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 382 — Divorce — Agile's costs. See Scottish Law. — Domiciled Irishman — Absolute appearance. See DivOECE — Domicil. 3. — Foreigner domiciled abroad. Alleged adul- terer a — Appearance — Dismissal from the suit. See DivoECE — Domicil. 2. 6. — Implied aidliority to wife to jiledge her husiand's credit — Divorce — .ludicial separation — Retainer — Ta.eation of cosf.s — Detinue — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 ,f 21 Vict. c. 85), s. 2fi. Sect. 26 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, absolutely puts an end to the right of a wife who has obtained a decree for judicial separa- tion to pledge her husband's credit or to con- tract on his behalf during the continuance of the judicial separation except where alimony has been decreed and has not been duly paid. Consequently, so long as the husband duly pays the alimony which he has been ordered to pay, the wife has no power to pledge his credit for necessaries which the alimony could not have been reasonably supposed to cover, as where the wife has been put to expense by the misconduct of the husband, and the principle of Turner v. Bookes, (1839) 10 Ad. & E. 47 ; 5(1 E. R. 320, no longer applies. So held by the C. A. (reversing Warring- ton J.). The provision ia the second part of the sec- tion with regard to the wife's contracts, that " the husband shall not be liable in respect of any engagement or contract she may have entered into, " is governed by the preceding part of the section, which provides that the wife, " whilst so separated, " shall be considered a feme sole for the purposes of contract, and is limited to engagements and contracts entered into by the wife during the period of separation. Consequently the husband is not relieved by a decree of judicial separation fi'om his liability under a contract which has been properly entered into by the wife on his account under her implied agency by reason of the coverture, and which remains in fieri at the date of the decree. A wife acting under the implied authority of the husband retained a solicitor to defend her in a divorce suit instituted by her husband, and also to commence an action of detinue against her husband in respect of her clothes. The divorce suit was dismissed against the husband with costs, and a decree of judicial separation was made in favour of the wife. After the decree of judicial separation the wife obtained, first, an order increasing the interim alimony which had been previously allowed her, and, afterwards, an order for permanent alimony, and the action for detinue was tried and decided in the wife's ( 923 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 921 ) DIVORCE (Costs)— cotifhtiied. favour. In the meautime the husband had insti- tuted a second divorce suit, which was also re- sisted by the wife and dismissed with costs. On the taxation of the wife's costs of these pro- ceedings under an order of course obtained by her solicitor against the husband, the husband, who had duly paid the alimony as required by s. 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, dis- puted his liability to pay any costs (beyond the party and party costs, which he had been ordered to pay) after the decree of judicial separation : — Seld, (1) as to the costs of the second divorce suit (reversing Warrington J.), that the husband was not liable ; (2) as to the costs of the action of detinue (affirming Warrington J.), that the husband was liable inasmuch as the retainer continued until the conclusion of the action unless expressly withdrawn by the husband ; (3) as to the costs of the alimony proceedings (affirming Warrington J.), that the husband was liable inasmuch as they were part of the pro- ceedings in the first divorce suit. Zii re Wing- field & Blew (Solicitors) C. A. [1904] W. N. 167 1 [1904] 2 Ch. 665 Note. This case was considered by Gorell Barnes P., Sheppard v. Stieppard, [1905] P. 185. 7. — Intei'verwr — Successful Defence — P^racticp. Upon a wife's petition for dissolution of marriage, the husband filed an answer denying all the charges made against him in the petition, but, when the case was in the paper for hearing, upon an application being made on behalf of the petitioner for a short adjournment, counsel for the husband stated that he was not in a position to defend the suit so far as the charges of desertion and adultery were concerned. An application was thereupon made on behalf of a person named in the petition that she might have leave to intervene and defend herself in respect of the particular charge of adultery with which her name was associated, and the Court gave leave accordingly. Dpon the case coming on for hearing, the charge of adultery was disproved, but the wife was granted a judicial separation on the ground of the respondent's desertion. Upon the question arising as to costs : — JB.eld, that, under the circumstances, the Court ought to place the intervener in the best possible position to obtain the costs of her successful intervention, and that an order should be made in her favour against both the peti- tioner and the respondent. WADE v. WADE (Brooke Intervening) Gorell Barnes J. [1903] P. 16 8. — King's Proctor — Unsuccessful interreu- f.ion — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878 (41 4' ^2 Vict. c. 19), s. 2 — Petitioner's costs to be paid by the King's Proctor — Practice. The Court possesses full power, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, to condemn the King's Proctor in the costs incurred by a petitioner in resisting an intervention by the King's Proctor. The mere fact that an intervention by the DIVORCE (Costs)— continued. King's Proctor is reasonable will not debar a successful petitioner from applying for costs. Each application for costs is to be considered by the light of the particular case before the Court, but the general principle is that a suc- cessful petitioner, like any other litigant who succeeds, is entitled to costs unless his or her own conduct has really brought about the inter- vention. Westcott v. Westcott Gorell Barnes Pres. [1908] P. 250 .Yote. Approved and followed by C. A., Higgins v. King's Proctor, King's Proctor v. Carter, [1910] P. 151. See "next Case. 9. — King's Proctor — Uiisin'ce.i.iJ'ul inter- vention — Practice — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878 (41 S,- 42 Vict. c. 19), s. 2. Sect. 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878, confers upon the Court a discretion as to tlie costs of an intervention, whether by the King's Proctor or a member of the public, and the King's Proctor stands in precisely the same position as to costs as any other intervener, except that the Treasury may recoup him for any costs which he may pay to a successful petitioner under order of the Court. There is no practice not to order the King's Proctor to pay the costs of an unsuccessful intervention, unless he has acted unreasonably in intervening. Westcott V. Westcott, [1908] P. 250, approved and followed. Higgiiis v. Higgins, [1910] P. 1, reversed by C. A., and Carter v. Carter, [1910] P. 4, affirmed by C. A. HiGGiNS v. King's Proctor. King's Proctor c Carter C. A. [1910] W. N. 50; [1910] P. 151 10. — King's Proctor — Unsuccessful plea — Matrimonial Causes A(e dismissed from the suit — Jurisdiction — Costs. Where, upon a husband's petition for divorce, the alleged adulterer is domiciled abroad, and so is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Divorce Court here, the proper practice is for the peti- tioner to move for leave to proceed without citing DIVORCE (Domicil) — continued. him as a co-respondent. Bakeb i;. Bakeb and DWYBK Bucknill J. [1908] P. 267 See Boger v. Bogcr, Bargrave Deanc J., [1908] P. 300 — DivoECE— Practice. Foreign Juriadictiou. — Putative marriage — Law of Scotland — Legitimacy of issue, Sec Maeeiagb. Foreign Marriage. — French marriage contract — Personal obliga- tion on divorced husband to pay, from date of divorce,' the annuity settled bj' the contract. See under Husband and Wife — French Marriage Contract. 1. — Proof — Expert evidence — Practice. Expert evidence is required to prove the validity of a foreign marriage, even though in a suit previously determined in this division, between the same petitioner and respondent, to annul that marriage, it has been proved and admitted that the marriage was valid upon the assumption that a decree of divorce, upon which the capacity of the parties to contract the marriage depended, was a valid decree. Batee V. Batee Buckaill J. [1907] P. 333 See Bater v. Bater G. A., [1906] P. 209— International Law. Income Tax. — Deduction of Income Tax — Separation deed — Alimony — Annuity. See Revenue — Income Tax. 18. Ireland. 1. ^ Adultery and cruelty. Bill to dissolve the marriage of Lida Eleanor Purcell FitzGerald, the petitioner, with Gerald Purcell FitzGerald, who, on coming into an estate in Ireland, adopted that country as his domicil \_see The Times, Feb. 5, 23, ]906]. Evidence was called. There was no opposition except to one clause in the BiU. The House being satisfied that the adultery and cruelty had been proved, passed the order for the second reading of the Bill. FlTZ- Gbeald's Divoece Bill (Second Reading) H. L. (Ir.) [1907] W. N. 60 2. — Adultery of loife — Standing Order No. 177. Bill to dissolve the marriage of C. E. Galwey, a captain in the Royal Irish Regiment, with A. L. Galwey, his wife. The House held that the adultery had been proved and passed the order for the second reading of the Bill. It appeared that the Court in Irelahd had not forwarded a copy of the judg- ment in the crim. con. proceedings against the seducer, and Standing Order No. 177 of the House of Lords having been read. Lord Lore- burn L. C. said it ought to have been forwarded to the House with the other papers in the pro- ceedings in Ireland. GALWEY DivOECE Bill (Second Reading) - - H. 1. (Ir ) [1907] W. N. 60 HH2 ( 933 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 934 ) DIVORCE (Iveland)— continued. 3. — Bill to talifhdi' English decree — Irish domicif. Petition by W. H. Murphy-Grimshaw for the second reailinu; of his Bill to remoTe doubts as to the validity of a decree nisi, dated Oct. 30, 1893, made in the English Divorce Court, dissolving his marriage in 1880 with Mary E. J. Murphy- Grimshaw, then Woodward. It appeared that in 1880 the petitioner was domiciled in Ireland as tenant for life of an estate in co. Antrim. That in 1883 he and his wife came to live in Loudon, and that in 1892 the petitioner com- menced in the English Divorce Court the pro- ceedings for divorce which culminated in the above-mentioned decree nisi. After 1893 the petitioner married again, and the respondent also married. Doubts, hmvever, have lately been raised as to the validity of the English decree on the ground that the petitioner had not ceased to have an Irish domicil. The House allowed the second reading on the ground that it had been sufficiently shewn that there was a doubt as to the validity of the Eng- lish decree. Muephy-Geimshaw's (Valida- tion) Bill H. L. [1907] W. N. 134 4. — Clilhh-e.n, Access to — Irish Dlcorce Bill — Prnftice, The H. L. will approve of a clause in a divorce Bill giving the. custody of the children of the marriage to the innocent party, but will refuse to order that a provision shall be inserted in the clause giving the guilty party access to the children. Any such provision must be left for arrangement between the parties. Killeey's DivoEOE Bill (Second Reading) H. L. (Ir.) [1907] A. C. 306 6. — Divorce — Decree nisi under the Mnglish Divorce Acts — Doult as to operation in Ireland — : Domicil. Where there are doubts as to the operation in Ireland of a decree under the English Divorce Acts, for the dissolution of the marriage of a domiciled Irishman, tlie proper course is to apply for an Act of Parliament confirming the decree and removing doubts. Malone's Divorce (Valid Action) Bill H. L. (D.) [1905] A. C. 314 JVote. See Murphy-Grim.shaw's Divorce ( Validation) Dill, H. L. [1907] W. N. 134. See No. 3, a,hove. 6. — Divorce Bill — Ireland — Practice — Alleged adulterer a foreigner domiciled abroad — Standing Orders, Souse of Lords, 177 ; House of Commons, 190. Where upon a husband's Bill for divorce it is proved to the satisfaction of the House of Lords that the alleged adulterer is domiciled abroad and cannot be found living within the jurisdiction of His Majesty's Courts of Law, the House will proceed with the second reading, notwithstanding that there was no action of crim. con. Bill to dissolve the_marriage of J. B. Torrens, a domiciled Irishman' with 15. M. Torrens, his wife. On Dec. 2, 1908, the King's Bench Division (Matrimonial), Ireland, found that Mrs. Torrens DIVORCE (Ireland)— <;o;rfi«Merf. had committed adultery with Baron J. L. de Kakucsi, of Susak, Fiume, Hungary, a foreigner domiciled abroad, and pronounced a decree a mensa et thoro. No action was or could be brought against the adulterer in Ireland, he never having since committing the said adultery (so far as could be ascertained) been living within the jurisdiction of any of His Majesty's Courts of Law. Since the proceedings in Ireland the respon- dent had resided abroad, and by an order of the House dated Mar. 2, 1909, substituted service of the Bill was made on her London solicitors. Counsel called evidence to prove that the marriage took place in 1902 ; that in 1907 and 1908 the respondent, unknown to the husband, went to reside with Baron von Liebner at his villa at Susak, Fiume, Hungary ; that the Hungarian servants knew her as " the Baroness." They also produced letters written by the re- spondent, in one of which she distinctly admitted the allegations against her. As to the absence of any report of a trial at nisi prius of crim. con. against the adulterer, counsel stated that the House for good cause dispensed with this where the adulterer died or was outside the jurisdiction : Eoberts on Divorce Bills, p. 17, citing Wehstefs Divorce Bill, (1851) 83 Lords' Journals, 403-430 ; Boileau's Divorce, 77 Lords' Journals, 96. And they called the husband's solicitor, who swore that he had made every effort to find whether the Baron von Liebner had been living within the jurisdiction, and found he had not. They also stated that by Standing Order 190 of the House of Commons evidence of an action for damages was dispensed with when sufficient cause was shewn why such action was not brought or such judgment not obtained. The Standing Order 177 of the House of Lords does contain this proviso. See also reported decisions on this question : Martin's Divorce Bill, (1847) 1 H. L. C. 79, and Sinclair's Divorce Bill. [1897] A. G. 469. The House held that the adultery was proved, and read the Bill a second time. ToBEENS' DivoECE Bill (Second Reading) H. I. (Ir)[1909J W.N. 72 7. — Leave to read evidence taken on commis- sion in the Hou^e of Lords. In this case the House granted the prayers of the petition that depositions taken on com- mission might be read to the House, and for substituted servide of a Bill for dissolution of marriage. HCELY's Divoece Bill H. L. (Ir.) [1908] ^W. N. 41 FtJETHBR EePOET OF THIS CASE. Divorce Bill — Evidence tahen abroad used on second reading. The petitioner was examined, and stated that her husband, short of actual violence, did all he could to injure her health, and succeeded to such an extent that at one lime she had three doctors at tending her. The House held that the adultery and cruelty had been proved, and read the B"ill a second time. The husband to have reasonable access ( 935 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 936 ) DIVORCE (Ireland)— co»««««etitioner. A petitioner is entitled to a reasonable time after the expiration of the time at which the decree could, at the earliest possible date, be made absolute, in order to determine whether to proceed further or to have the petition dismissed. Upon an adjourned motion by a respondent to dismiss a suit for want of prosecution, the Court allowed the petitioner to take a decree of judicial separation in place of the decree nisi previously obtained for dissolution of the marri- age. Parsons c. Parsons Buckaill J. [1907] P. 331 — Suit for judicial separation — Decree therein — Waiver of alimentary remedy under Act of 1884. See Divorce— Practice. 3. DIVORCE— coHrtMMflf^. Jurisdiction. — Damages against co-respondent — Death of co- respondent — Liability of his executor — Jurisdiction of Divoi-ce Court to enforce order. See Divorce — Co-respondent. 1. — Judgment in rem. — Foreign Court — Domicil — Jurisdiction — Decree of divorce Vjy J^ew York Couit — Validity of divorce in England. See International Law. 1. — Wife's petition — Effect of separation order under Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895. See Divorce — Desertion. 2, 5. King's Proctor. — Costs — Intervention of King's Proctor. See Divorce — Costs. 2, 8 — 10. Haintenance. — Husband and wife. See under Husband and Wipe — Main- tenance. 1. — Permanent maintenance — Lump sum — Matrimonhd Causes Act, 1857 (20 Si 21 Vict, c. 85), .s. 82. The Court has no power to order a lump sum to bo paid over to the petitioner by way of permanent maintenance. Twentvman r. TwENTYMAN Jeuue Pres. [1903] P. 83 Nullity. (Nullity of Marriage.) 1. — Bigamy — Marriage in Enyland between Englishwoman and, domiciled. Frenchman — Irregularity hy French law — Decree of nuUitij hy French Cmort on grounds unknown to English laiv — Conflict of laws — Lex loci contractus — JwriMiotiun. In Sept., 1898, a ceremony of marriage in English form was celebrated in England between a domiciled Englishwoman and P., a domiciled Frenchman. By a decree of the French Court in Nov., 1901, this marriage was annulled, on the ground that the consent of the parent, as required by French law, had not been obtained. P. subsequently married a Frenchwoman in France. In July, 1903, the Englishwoman insti- tuted a suit in England for the dissolution of her marriage with P. on the ground of his adultery and desertion. This suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In Oct., 1904, the Englishwoman went through a ceremony of marriage in England with 0., a domiciled Englishman, describing herself as a widow : — JSeld (following Simonin v. Mallac, (1860) 2 Sw. & Tr. 67, and Sottomayor v. De Barrax, (1879) 5 P. D. 94), that the lex loci contractus must prevail, and that this later marriage was bigamous and must be annulled at the suit of 0. Decision of Bargi-ave Deane J., [1907] P. 107, affirmed. Qiicere whether, in circumstances like the present, the Court ought not to have assumed jurisdiction in the wife's suit for the dissolution ( 937 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 938 ) DIVORCE (Sylnity)— continued. of her first rnarringc by treating her as having a domicil in her own country sufficient to support a suit of this kind. Ogden «. Ogdbn (othee- wisE Philip) C. A, [1908] P. 46 2. — Decree — Petition for an atlowance — Registrar^ sreport — Mothmtliereon — Matrimonial Climes Act, 1907 (7 Ww. 7, r. 12)—" Conduct of the parties " — Discretion of the Onirt — PetitioJt dismissed loith costs. After a decree of nullity, as well as after a decree of dissolution of marriage, the " conduct of the parties " is one of the material matters to be taken into consideration in dealing with any application for an allowance ; and the discretion of the Court, in ordering or refusing an allow- ance, must be exercised according to the circumstances of each particular case. Dun- bar 1. DUNBAE Gorell Barnes Pres. [1909] P. 90 3. — Decree nisi — Interrention hy King\i Proctor — Motion liy jJetitioner to rescind decree and dismiss jyetition — Costs — Consent — Motion granted. Upon the petitioner's application — the King's Proctor, who had interTcned and filed his plea, assenting — the Court (Jeune P.) rescinded a decree nisi for nullity of marriage and dismissed the petition. No order for the King's Proctor's costs was made, he having waived his right to ask for the same. A. r. A. Jeune Pres. [1901] P. 284 4. — Impotence — Marriage settlements — Petition for variation — "Property settled'' — 3Iatrimonial Cavscs Acts, 18.59 (22 S; 23 Vict, c. 61), .s. 5 ; 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 19), s. 3. The jurisdiction of the Court, conferred by the 5th section of the Itfatrimonial Causes Act, 1859, and extended by the 3rd section of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878, to inquire into the existence of nnte-nuptial and post-nuptial settlements, and to make orders varying the same, is not limited to any particular class of nullity cases, but includes all cases in which a decreee of nullity has been pronounced, upon whatsoever ground. Where, in a marriage settlement, property is charged in favour of the intended beneficiaries, the " property settled," within the meaning of s. 5 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859, is the charge and not the property charged. Where property is settled under a marriage settlement, conditionally on the happening of a future event, and the marriage has been pro- nounced to be void before the happening of the event, the Court cannot ignore the condition, and vary the settlement in respect of the property so settled. By a marriage settlement the respondent, the intended husband, covenanted with trustees to pay to them, if the marriage should take place, a yearly sum of 200Z., in trust to pay the same to the petitioner, the intended wife, during the joint lives of husband and wife. He also, in virtue of certain powers vested in him, appointed in favour of the petitioner, if she should survive him, a jointure rent-charge, to be charged on certain specified hereditaments, and secured by DIVORCE (^uWity')— continued. a term of years to commence from his death. He also, in exercise of powers vested in him, appointed certain other hereditaments to the use of the trustees for a term of years, to raise a capital sum, the interest of which was to be paid to him during his life, and after his decease the fund was to be held in trust for the issue of the marriage, and in default of issue for the intended wife, but subject to the proviso that no part should be raised during his lifetime without his consent in writing. The marriage took place, but, on the petition of the wife, a decree of nullity of marriage was made on the ground of the impotence of the respondent. On an application by the petitioner to vary the settlement : — Held, that, although the marriage had been declared void, and the covenant as to the pay- ment of 200Z. a year no longer took eflfect, the Court had jurisdiction under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859, on the application of the petitioner, to vary the settlement in respect of that settled property : Held, also, that the Court would have had power to vary the settlement as to the jointure rent-charge, and the capital sum directed to be raised, on the ground that they were " property settled " within the meaning of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859, but for the conditions that the former was only to commence after the death of the respondent, and that the latter could not be raised in his lifetime without his consent, neither of which events had happened. Decision of &. Barnes J., [1900] P. 130, reversed. Doembk v. Waed C. A. [1901] P. 20 5. — Insanity — Decree nisi — Application, on helinlf of respondent for an allowance — Matri- monial Causes Act, 1907 (7 Edio. 7, c. 12) s. 1. An application on behalf of a respondent for an allowance to be made by the petitioner is not confined or limited to the time when the decree nisi is pronounced, but may be made then or at any time up to and including the date when the decree is made absolute ; and such allowance, if ordered, for a monthly or weekly sum, under s. 1, sub-s. 2, of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1907, may not only be discharged, modified, suspended, or revived under the proviso (a) of that sub-section, but is also liable to be increased under proviso (V) of the same sub-section. It is open to the Court, by consent, to make an order at the time of the decree nisi, and to embody it therein, dealing with the whole ques- tion of settlement and allowance. K. r. K, (OTHEEWISB E.) Bargrave Deane J. [1910] P. 140 6. — Jeioi.ih marriage — Custom — Money lodged in ho nj:, in joint names, in nature of doiccr — Application under Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 S,- 46 Vict. c. 7.5), ,?. 11 — Petition to recall so-cnllcd dower — Order. In contemplation of the marriage of the petitioner and respondent, both of whom were of the Jewish persuasion, a sum of money, provided by the intended wife or her relations, was handed to the intended husband and was lodged in a bank in their joint names, in accordance with an ( 939 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 940 ) DIVORCE {Srdlitj')— continued. alleged custom in the Jewish community, the money being treated as in the nature of dower. A decree annulling the marriage having been granted upon the wife's petition, she presented a " petition to restore dower," the application being referred to the registrar under the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, s. 17. Upon the report of the registrar as to the facts and figures : — The Court confirmed the report and ordered that a sum of iOOl. standing in a bank in the joint names of the petitioner and respondent should be handed back to the petitioner for her sole and absolute use. Joseph (otherwise King) ■<-. Joseph Bigham Pres. [1909] P. 217 7. — Jurisdiction — Nullity suit — Matrimonial residence. Matrimonial residence within the jurisdiction is sufficient to give the Court power to declare a bigamous marriage nuU and void, even though the domicil of the respondent be Irish and the de facto marriage celebrated in the Isle of Man. Roberts (falsely called Bebnnan) V. Beennak Jeune Pres. [1903] P. 143 8. — J\vn-co?isu,mmatioii — Iin.2)otenoe presumed — Nullity of marriage. From the fact of non-consuramation of a marriage after a reasonable period of cohabita- tion, during which one of the parties was always willing and anxious and repeatedly urged that the marriage should be consummated, the Court may draw the inference that something more than seemiingly mere wilful refusal must have animated the other party, who has in fact per- sistently refused to consummate the marriage, and has also refused to obey the usual order to attend for medical inspection. In such a case, the Court may properly assume the existence of some latent impediment amounting to incapacity. The principle laid down by the Court (Jeune P.) in F. v. P. {falsely called J".), (1896) 75 L. T. 192, in the case of a female respondent, followed and extended to the case of a male respondent. B. v. B. Gorell Barnes J. [1901] P. 39 9. — Noii-coiisum,mation — No cohaMtation — Respondeytt' s refusal to suimit to inspection — Evidence of incapacity — Jln.ibmuV s petition. Where there had been entire absence of co- habitation, incapacity to consummate on the part of the wife was found as a fact, on positive evidence arising from a statement made by her- self, taken in conjunction with the general facts of the case and her refusal to submit to medical inspection. W. v. S. (otherwise W.) Gorell Barnes Pres. [1905] P. 831 — Settlement, Variation of — Order — Power of Court to rectify. See Divorce — Settlements. 8. — Settlements, Variation of — Nullity suit — Decree. See liivoRCB— Settlements. 7. 10. — Unsoundness of mind — Delusional insanity — Paranoia — Delusions of suspicion — DIVORCE (SvHiity)— continued. Decree— Custody of child— Cost of the official solicitor as guardian ad litem of the respondent — Form of order. Upon a petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of insanity, the question which the Court has to determine is not whether the respondent was aware tbat he was going through the ceremony of marriage, but whether he was capable of understanding the nature of the contract he was entering into, free from the influence of morbid delusions on the subject. The Court has to look at the nature of the alleged unsoundness of mind to see whether it is of a character which might come on suddenly, or whether it is a matter of progressive growth and development, and to ascertain whether the respondent's insanity can be traced back to an early period to such an extent as will justify the Court in coming to a conclusion that it existed before as well as after the marriage contract was entered into. In pronouncing a decree of nullity the Court ordered that the child of the union should be given to the petitioner. The costs of the official solicitor, as the guardian ad litem of the respondent, a person of unsound mind not so found by inquisition, were ordered to be paid by the petitioner, who was given leave to add the same to her own costs of suit, as against the respondent. Jacksok r. Jackson Bargrave Deaue J. [1908] 308 11. — Variation of .lettlement—.Vafrimonial Causes Act, 1907 (7 Mw. 7, c. 12)— Form of order. By indenture of settlement dated June 8, 189i, and made between the respondent, the petitioner, and trustees, the respondent, in con- sideration of the marriage then intended between himself and the petitioner, transferred to the trustees certain stocks, shares, and securities upon trust (inter alia) to pay the income arising therefrom to himself for life, then to the petitioner, if she should survive him, for her life, whether covert or discovert, without power of anticipation, and if there should be no child of the said intended marriage who should attain a_ vested interest, then in trust for the respondent absolutely. The marriage having been annulled at the instance of the wife, she presented a petition to vary the settlement. The income of the wife, as found by the registrar, was 197Z., and that of the husband 6Hl. per annum. The Court ordered that the matter be referred to one of the conveyancing counsel of the Court to prepare a deed to provide for the placing in the hands of trustees (to be appointed) a sum, which the respondent was by this order directed to provide, sufficient to produce 1001. per annum ; that this income bo paid to the respon- dent ; and that he be ordered to pay 1001. a year to the petitioner for her life dum sola vixerit. Sharpe /'. Shaepe Bargrave Deane J. [1909] P. 20 Practice. 1. — Act on petition — Mode of trial — .Jury— Discretion of Court — Matrimonial Causes Act, ( 9« ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( ^i2 ) DIVORCE (Pia.ctice)—continiied. 1857 (2(1 S- 21 Vict. r. 85), .«■. 28, Z6— Divorce Court Rules, Dec, 1865, r. 61. Notwithstanding rule 61 of the Divorce Court Eules, 1865, the Court has a discretion whether an act on petition shall or not be tried with a iury. Decision of the President (Sir F. H. Jeune, [1903] W. N. 90) affirmed. Lowenfeld r. LOWENFELD - C. A. [1903] W. N. 110 ; [1903] P. 177 2. — Affidavit in verif cation of petition — Proposed petitioner for judicial separation an inmate of an asylum, — Refusal hy Commissioners in Lunacy to authorize access hy solicitor and commissioner for oaths — HJotion — Order forth- with. A married woman, confined in an asylum, gave instructions to her solicitor to institute proceedings against her husband for judicial separation, and the solicitor attended with a commissioner for oaths in order to obtain from the proposed petitioner the necessary affidavit in verification of the petition, which had been approved and signed by her previously. The superintendent of the asylum, acting upon printed instructions purporting to be signed by the secretary and addressed from the Office of the Commissioners in Lunacy, refused to allow the solicitor and commissioner for oaths to see the proposed petitioner, and, upon application being made by the solicitor to the Commissioners in Lunacy, they upheld the refusal of the super- intendent. The Court, upon motion, and upon affidavit, proving notice, made an order, the Commissioners in Lunacy having notice and not opposing, that the Commissioners should forthwith authorize the superintendent of the asylum to permit the solicitor and commissioner for oaths to have access to the proposed petitioner. In re Petition for Judicial Sepaeation. Ex parte Beecham Jeune PreB. [1901] P. 66 3. — Alimentary provision for wife — Rr.ttitu- tion of conjuyal rights — Decree — yon-compliance —Jfatrimonial Causes Act, 188i (47 S' 48 Vict, c. 68), ss. 2, i—Biyhts of wife — Election — Suit for judicial separation — Decree th^'ein — Vaiver of alimentary remedy imider Act of 1884 — "Alimony," What is — Wifc^t need of suppoH — Discretion of Court as to directing inquiry with regard to or ordering or tvifhholding alimony — All the circumstances to ie considered in each case — Refusal of order. A wife, who has obtained a decree for resti- tution of conjugal rights, may, if the husband disobeys that decree, either apply for an alimen- tary provision and to have the same secured to her under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1884, or, if she elects to petition for a judicial separation, she may apply for alimony, and, after she has obtained a decree, may ask for permanent alimony to be alloted to her ; but it is not open to her, after she has elected, to proceed for a judicial separation, and, after .she has obtained a decree in that suit, to ask for an order and for security under the Act of 1884. The question what is alimony and the prac- tice which still guides the Court in dealing with DIVORCE (Practice) — continued. applications for alimony are the same as were laid down in, and which guided the old Eccle- siastical Courts in considering, applications for alimony. All the cu-cumstances are to be considered in dealing with each particular case. If the Court should find that the circum- stances are such as .shew that the wife does not require any order for alimony for her personal support in her normal position, it may refuse to direct the registrar to proceed with an expensive and harassing inquiry, or to make any order for alimony. Kelly V. Kelly, (1863) 32 L. J. (P.&M.) 181, not followed. Leslie v. Leslie Bargrave Deaue J. [1908] P. 99 4. — Appeal — Summary Jurisdiction (Mar- ried Women) Act, 1895 (58 ^- 59 Vict. c. 39)— i\'ofes of proceedings in Court helow and reasons for deci- sion — Duties of may i,st7-ates' and justices' clerks — Right of either paiiy to a copy of notes including the reasons for the decision — Cosf.s. Upon the hearing of an appeal from an order made under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, the following observations were mafle by the Court : — Gorell Barnes P. More than five years ago, in the case of CoH v. Cobb, [1900] P. 145, the late President and 1 pointed out the importance and necessity of having full and proper notes taken by the clerks to justices or by the justices themselves, and, further, of having properly and fully stated, at the end of the notes, the reasons upon which the justices arrived at their decision in each case under the Summary .lurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895. The present case is a very remarkable illus- tration of the fact that this Court, which is con- stituted the C. A. from decisions under that Act, is placed in extreme difficulty in arriving at a conclusion and in deciding any appeal unless an adequate note of the evidence and an adequate statement of the reasons which led the justices to give their decision is taken in the Court below at the time of the hearing. Unless this is done it is impossible for this Court to deal adequately or properly with appeals under this Act. In the present ca«e, for some reason or other, the note taken, and which has now been supplied to us, is extremely defective. Both sides agree that it is so, and they have endeavoured to remedy or supplement the defects by affidavits — a most unsatisfactory process, to mj mind. Consequently we are unable to arrive at a definite decision, and we have no alternative but to send the case back to the justices. It is most important that these observations should be brought to the attention of aU clerks to justices, as well as to the justices themselves. The orders which the Act of 1895 empowers Courts of summary jurisdiction to make are of the gravest moment, and involve lifelong conse- quences. They are not like the ordinary kind of orders in otlier and petty cases that come before them every day. It is because of the lifelong conseii nonces involved in the orders made under ( 943 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 94i ) DIVORCE (Via.etiee)— continued. this Act that it is so very important that this Court, which is constituted the G. A. in these cases, should have before it the notes, and also the reasons, properly and fuUy set forth. In Cobb T. Cobb this Court stated explicitly and definitely, for the information and guidance of Courts of summary jurisdiction and their clerks, what should be done upon the hearing of all summonses coming before them under the Act of 1 895. From our experience in the present case it would seem that there exists, even now, some misconception on the part of some clerks and justices as to their duties and responsibilities. A full note ought to be taken and a copy ought to be supplied on the application of either of the parties or their solicitors ; and the reasons for each decision should also be fully and clearly stated. Without adequate notes and a statement of the reasons for the decision, this Court cannot be in a position to judge with any reasonable cer- tainty whether the decision is right or wrong, or what order this Court ought to make on the appeal. In the present case there are some important points of fact which ought to be ascertained and determined before arriving at a decision. I say no more as to this, because the matter must go back to be dealt with again by the justices. The costs involved in this necessary rehearing are very heavy, and are the result of the inadequate materials supplied to us. The wife's costs will depend on whether she has separate estate. The costs wiU be reserved till we see what ultimately comes of the case after it has been fully and properly dealt with. Bargrave Deane J. I agree with every word which has fallen from the President. Baekbr v. Barkbk- Div. Ct. (P.) [1905] W. N. 70 5. — Appeal — Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895 (58 ^- 59 Vict. c. 39)— iVotes of proceedings in Court below — Duties of magistrates^ and justices' clerks. Where upon the hearing of a summons under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, the clerk of the justices allows a shorthand note to be taken in place, of the ordinary longhand note, he must certify the transcript of such note as correct, and cannot discharge his duty with regard to the making of the note unless he so certifies the transcript -of the shorthand note which he allowed to be taken. Unless the parties both agree to the taking of a shorthand note in place of the longhand note usually taken in such cases by the, clerk to the justices, such longhand note must be taken, and in any event no extra expense must fall upon the parties in case either of them should require a transcript of the note for the purpose of an appeal. On the facts proved, the wife was shewn to have been compelled to leave her husband under circumstances which, in law, amounted to desertion by him. An agreement not to take proceedings "for separation, or divorce, or maintenance," signed by the wife after the separation, held bad. KOTLE r. Boyle Div. Ct. [1909] P. 24 DIVORCE (Practice)— coMi!i/M«ee attachable as soon as the work was performed, even though the contract specified a future date for actual payment. The Eegistration Acts prescribe that the accounts of registrars are to be vouched by the superintendent registrar of births and deaths : — Held, that the fees earned by a registrar in respect of births and deaths actually registered were debts accruing due so as to be attachable before the accounts had been vouched or time for payment had arrived. Although at the date of garnishee proceedings an assignment by a judgment debtor may not have been executed or even assented to by the assignee, the assignment may, nevertheless, be valid against the claims of the judgment creditor, provided that the assignee afterwards assents to and executes the deed of assignment, where- upon the validity of the deed relates back to the date of its execution by the assignor. An assignment of choses in action, since these became subject to attachment by the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 (17& 18 Vict. c. 125), ss. 60 et seq., may be void under the statute of Elizabeth (13 Eliz. c. 5), as tending to defeat, hinder, or delay creditors. If one particular creditor only is, in effect, though not necessarily intentionally, defeated, hindered, or delayed by an assignment executed by the judgment debtor, such assignment may be void under the statute of Elizabeth as tending to defeat, hinder, or delay creditors : If a garnishee has aU-eady made payment to the judgment debtor by cheque before notice of a garnishee order nisi, he is, upon receiving notice, under no legal obligation to stop payment of the cheque. Edmunds r. Edmunds Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 362 21. — Tlearing — Suspicion as to truth of petitioner's eridence — Adjournment — Papers sent to King's Proctor — Bight of King's Proctor to intervene or to show cause before decree nisi — Practice, DIVORCE (Practice) — conti n ued,. At the hearing of a petition by the wife for dissolution of man-iage, her counsel, in opening, and the petitioner, in the witness-box, stated that she had committed adultery, but asked the Court to exercise its discretion in her favour ; but the Court, having a very strong suspicion that the petitioner's case was in material respects untrue, adjourned the further hearing, at the same time directing that all necessary papers in the matter should be sent to His Majesty's Proctor, in order that, under the directions of the Att.-Gen., the said Proctor should instruct counsel to argue before the Court all questions in relation to the cause which the Court might deem it expedient to have fully argued, and, for that purpose, to take such steps as might be deemed necessary or expedient. Upon motion by the King's Proctor for directions : — Held that, as the Court could not compel the Att.-Gen. to issue his fiat, the case would have to remain' in the reserve list until that list should be called over and dealt with in the ordinary course. Hudson V. Hudson ami Poole, (1875) 1 P. D. Bo, questioned. Jackson r. Jackson Bargrave Deane J. [1910] P. 230 22. — Husband's jiefition — Wife's adultery — Passire acquiescence on liusband's part — CoTiduct conducing to adultery — Refusal of decree. Where, in a petition for divorce by the hus- band on the ground of his wife's adultery, it appeared that he had taken no steps beyond mere verbal remonstrances to terminate a course of conduct on the part of his wife and the co- respondent which, if it did not bring about actual adultery at the time, eventually resulted in it : — Held, that the petitioner was not entitled to relief, and that the petition should be dismissed. Robinson r. Bobinson and Deabden BucknUl J. [1903] P. 165 23.. — Husband's petition for dirorce — Xew Rule, So. 220, 1905 — Interpretation — Practice. Summons before the judge in chambers that the petition as drawn by counsel, and as tendered by the solicitors at the Divorce Registry, might be filed, the registrar having refused to accept it on the ground that it did not comply with the ne«- rule, which was published in the Weekly SVotcs of Jul}' 8, 1905, and became operative on Oct. 24, 1905. After the formal heading and date, the word- ing of the heading and of paragraph 1 of the present petition was as follows ; — " The petition of Ernest Leathley Clark, of 139, Sterling Street, in the City of Bradford, in the county of York, sheweth : — " That your petitioner, being then and now a domiciled Englishman, was, on the 20th day of December, 1888, lawfully married to Jane Clark (then Jane Jackson, spinster) at the Parish Church, Bolton, in the county of York." It was pointed out in argument before the judge that by the law of this country the wife's domicil was that of the husband, and that it was entirely superfluous to insert anything as to the wife's domicil, especially in a petition where the ( 951 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 952 ) DIVORCE (Practice)— CO «i!i««e(?. husband was petitioner and where his domicil was, in terms, stated. Bargrave Deaue J. intimated that he would apeak to the President, who framed the rule ; and having done so, his Lordship acceded to the summons, and directed that the petition as pre- sented should be received and filed at the Divorce Eegistry. In re Clabk Bargrave Deaae J. [1905] W. N. 180 Note. — In consequence of several points raised and a number of petitions stopped under the rule in question, the following notice in explanation of the rule has been issued : — Principal Probate, Hegistry, Somerset House, London, W.C. DIVOECE Edle 220, 1905. By direction of the President the following matters as they stand at the time of the institu- tion of the suit must be inserted in the body of the petition : — 1. The description of the husband. 2. The place of residence of each of the parties to the marriage. 3. The domicil of the parties to the marriage — but, unless the petitioner is asserting a domicil for the wife different from that of the husband, it will be sufficient if the domicil of the husband is stated. 24. — Mar/isfrate's order for separation on the ground of "persistent cruelty" — Wife's petition for divorce — Absence of verbal corroboration of C7-uelty. It is the practice of the Court to require corroboration of the petitioner's evidence as to cruelty, and the mere production of a certified copy of a separation order previously made between the husband and wife by a Court of summary jurisdiction on the ground of his per- sistent cruelty is not, as a general rule, to be considered a sufficient corroboration. The Court, may, however, in an exceptional case, relax this rule of practice where the evi- dence of the petitioner accounting for the absence of the witnesses who corroborated her when before the magistrate, and the general cir- cumstances of the particular case, coupled with the production of a certified copy of the con- viction, commend themselves to the Court as satisfactory and sufficient, JUDD v. JUDD Bargrave Deane J. [1901] P. 241 25. — A'ew trial — Ajijteal to House of Lords — Co7npetency — Supreme Court of Judicaturf Act, 1881 (4i ^- 45 Vict. v. 68), s. 9. By s. 9 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. i;. 68), " .... The decision of the C. A. on any question arising under the Acts relating to divorce and matri- monial causes, .... shall be final except where the decision either is upon the grant or refusal of a decree on a petition for dissolution or nullity of marriage, ... . or is upon a question of law on which the C. A. give leave to appeal, and, save as aforesaid, no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords under the said Acts." Where the Divorce Court has granted a decree nisi after a trial before a jury, and the C. A. has DIVORCE (Practice)— continued. ordered a new trial, an appeal lies to the House of Lords against the order granting a new trial. BUTCHABT- V. BUTCHART AND HiLL H. L.(D.) [1901] W. N. 50 ; [1901] A. C. 266 26. — Particulars— Witnesses, Names of prob- able — ■ Order for disclosure. "Where in a petition by the wife against the husband he was, for the purpose of establishing cruelty, charged with using insulting language to her in the presence of servants and guests, with the object of humiliating and degrading her, the petitioner was ordered to give par- ticulars, setting forth the names of such servants and guests. Bishop t'. Bishop Jeune Pres. [1901] P. 325 27. — Pleading — Custody of children — Pater- nity. If a wife, respondent in a suit for dissolution of marriage, wishes to raise any question as to the paternity of any child or children whose custody is claimed by the husband (petitioner), she must file an answer in the suit specifically raising the question as to the paternity of such child or children ; and, unless she so plead, she will not be allowed at the hearing to raise any question as to the paternity, in opposition to her husband's application for custody of such child or children. Gordon v. Gordon Jeune Pres. [1903] P. 02 28. — Restitution of conjugal rights — Alimony pendente lite — Discretion — Allowance to wife under voluntary settlement — Covenant to accept allowance in full satisfaction. The wife having instituted a suit for restitu- tion of conjugal rights presented a petition for alimony pendente lite. By a voluntary settlement dated in Mar., 1899, the husband settled a sum of 35001. upon trust for his wife for life or until she should have broken her covenants thereinafter contained, and the wife covenanted (inter alia) that she would accept the provision thereby made in full satis- faction of her claim to be maintained at her husband's expense, and would not publish abroad the fact of her marriage, or take up her residence within fifteen miles of the husband's mansion- house. The husband's income was 2500?. a year. The wife was before marriage in a humble position, and since marriage, although there had been cohabitation, she never lived with her hus- band as his wife, or enjoyed the comforts of his mansion-house. She lived at a distance in a, small house worth about 501. a year provided by her husband, and on the income of the trust fund, which amounted approximately to 150Z. a year, with the addition of occasional presents from the husband. The registrar proceeded on the footing that there was a settled rule that a wife is entitled to alimony at the rate of one-fifth of the husband's average income, after allowing for any benefits taken by the wife under a settlement or separa- tion deed, and, estimating such benefits in this case at 200?., he allowed the wife alimony pendente lite at the rate of 300?. a year. 1 The Pres. set aside the order, being of opinion ( 953 ■) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 954 ) DIVORCE (Practice) -cuidiimcd. that the wife was not cutilledto anything beyond what she already enjoyed under the settlement. BiKCH r. BiBOH - C. A. [1908] W. N. 81 /Ste also under INFAKT — Custody. — Service out of the jurisdiction — Decree. See DivoBCE— Sestltution of Conjugal Bights. 2. 29. — Substituted serrice of citations and petition — Rcxjiondeiit lOid i:o- respondent resident in Lixljon— I'ortnyuese laio — Letters of request refused — Seroice by registered letters. Where, upon a citation and petition for dissolution of marriage, it appeared that the respondent and co-respondent were known to be residing at certain addresses in Portugal, the Court, after letters of request had been applied for and refused, dispensed with personal ser- vice and ordered substituted service to be effected by registered letter. Weay ,. Wkay AND d'Almeida Gorell Barnes J. [1901] P. 132 30. — ^\'ifr\ jjefHioH — Advltery uf petitioner brought iilMiii vndrr duress and by coercion of the livsbiind—Mnteriid fiict — Siqypression — Refusal of decree. If a petitioner withholds from the Court, on the hearing of a petition for dissolution of mar- riage, the fact that she has committed adultery, such withholding of a tact is of itself a ground for refusing to make the decree absolute, even though the adultery is found, on a full investiga- tion of all the facts of the case, to be such as would warrant the Court in granting the peti- tioner relief, and though, had the facts been fully 'disclosed to the Court in the first instance, it would, in the exercise of its discretion, have granted relief. Roche r. Eochb (the King's Pkoctok shewing Cause) Bargrave Deane J. [1905] P. 142 31. — Wife's ijetitionfor di.isolntion — Cruelty and adultery —Precious suit for judicial separa- tion on ground of same cruelty — Deed of separa- tion— Corenant not to rcrire suit — Suliscijuent adultery by hntbiiud. A covenant by a wife in a deed of separation, to the effect that nil proceedings in a suit which she had instituted against her husband on the ground of cruelty shall be stayed, and that she " shall in no wise attempt to revive the same in any manner whatever " : — Held no bar to relief in a subsequent suit by the wife for the dissolution of marriage on the ground of the husband's subsequent adultery coupled with the former cruelty. Ro.ie V. liose, (1882) 7 P. U. 225 ; 8 P. D. 98, distinguished. NoemAn r. NoKMAN Bargrave Deane J. [1908] P. 6 32. — M'ife'spetition — Queen's Proctor's inter rent ion — Wife forced by husband to earn money by prostitution — Separation — Habitual adultery subsecjuent to separation — Husliand's former mis conduct conducive to such adultery — Jlatri- monial Causes Act, 1857 (20 .J- 21 Met. c. 85), s. 31 — Visrretion of Court — Decree made absn' lite. Upon an intervention by the Queen's Proctor after the petitioner had obtained a decree nisi DIVORCE {TlT3.atite)— continued. for the dissolution of her marriage on the ground of the adultery and cruelty of her hnsband, it appeared that he had by his threats and iUtreal- ment forced her to prostitute herself for his pecuniary benefit, and that she, after she had left him on account of his continued illtreat- ment, resorted to other acts of prostitution to supplement her insufficient means of livelihood, and also cohabited for a period of three years with a certain man as his wife : — Held, that all her subsequent acts were the outcome of her husband's conduct, and that she was entitled to have the decree which she had obtained made absolute ; the three years' cohabi- tation and some other facts, very material to be considered by the Court and such as ought not to have been withheld at the hearing of the petition, being insufficient to bar the wife's claim to have her marriage dissolved on the grounds of her husband's adultery and cruelty, though amply sufficient to warrant and justify the intervention of the Queen's Proctor. Symons v. Symons, [1897] P. 167, dis- cussed. BURDON c. BUKDON Gorell Barnes J. [1901] P. 52 Restitution of Conjugal Eights. — ■' Alimony," What is — Wife's need of support. See DivoBCE — Practice. 3. — Alimony pendente lite — Discretion — Allow- ance to wife. See DivoECE — Practice. 28. 1. — Form of written demand before ifistitu- tion of proceedings — Practice — Divorce Court Mules, 1866, ;'. 2 — Additional Rules and Rei/ula- tions, 1869, ;■. 175. Upon an undefended petition by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights, the preliminary letter, put forward as in accordance with the rules, was in the terms following : — " Dear , — I write to you to express my desire to cohabit and live with you as your wife, and to require from you a fuU restitution of the conjugal rights of which you have deprived me for now over a year. "As you are stationed at , I suggest that 1 should come to you there, where we could live together, and 1 trust that you will see your way to fall in with this plan, and I hope to hear from you to that effect soon. "Yours affectionately, ." I'he President : This letter is not quite in the usual form. The word "require" is rather peremptory, and might possibly be taken excep- tion to as not being within the judgments of the C. A. : Field v. Field, (1889) 11 P. D. 26 ; Smith V. Smith, (1890) 15 P. D. i7. In my view, how- ever, it is not reasonable to expect a woman to write affectionate letters to her husband under circumstances such as are usually shewn to have existed in this class of cases. All that ought, iu my opinion, to be required is that a clear request should be shown to have been made, received and not complied with. I shall allow this letter to pass as a sufficient compliance with the rule, and there will be the usual decree. Elliott v. Elliott - Jeune Pres. [1901] W. N. 208 ( 955 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 956 ) DIVORCE (Restitution of Conjugal Rights) — continued. 2. — Service out of the jurmliatlon — Decree. A citation and petition in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, as well as the previous letter of demand required by the rules, may now be served out of the jurisdiction ; and where a decree is granted, the decree may likewise be served out of the jurisdiction. In any further proceedings arising out of a non-compliance with the decree, the petitioner must satisfy the Court that the respondent has been served therewith at a place from which he could reasonably have returned to his wife within the period named in the decree. BateMAK v. Batbmait - Gorell Barnes J. [1901] P. 136 — Wife's petition — No defence — Existence of deed of separation. See Restitution of Conjugal Rights. 1. Scotland. 1. — Desertion, Divorce for — HnshanA's action for divorce on ground of wife's desertion '■^ without reasonable cause" — Scottish Act, 1573, c. 55, as amended by the Conjugal Rights (_3cot- land) Act, 1861 (24 ^ 25 Vict. h. 85), s. 11. The House aiErmed with costs the decision of the Extra Division of the Ct. of Sess., dated Nov. 2, 1907, holding that the appellant's conduct was such as to form a complete defence against an action of adherence and justified the wife leaving her husband. Cooheanb v. Moeeison OE Cocheanb - H. 1. (So.) [1909] W. N. 81 Separation. — Divorce — Wife's petition — Effect of separa- tion order under Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895. See DivoECE — Desertion. — Magistrate's order for separation on the ground of " persistent cruelty " — Wife's , petition for divorce — Absence of verbal corroboration of cruelty. See DivOKCB — Practice. Separation Deeds. — Alimony — Annuity — Deduction of income tax. See RBVENaE — Income Tax. 18. Separation Orders. 1. — Petition T>y wife — Desertion and adul- tery — Siibsisting order against husband under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895 (58 ^- 59 Vict. c. 39) s. 5 sul-s. (a)— JSJfect of separation orders under that Act. A wife who takes a separation order under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, within two years from the time when deser- tion commenced, cannot subsequently, after the expiration of two years, allege that her husband has deserted her for the space of two years and upwards without reasonable excuse, so as to constitute the offence contemplated by the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. >:. 85). So held by Sir Gorell Barnes Pres., disagreeing with Smith V. Smith, [1905] P. 249. DoDD r. DoDD Gorell Barnes Pres. [1906] P. 189 DIVORCE (Separation Orders)— corfJ»aerf. Note. Distinguished by Bucknill J., Failesy. I'ailes, [1900] P. 326. Approved by C. A., Harriman v. Harrlman, [1909] P. 123. Settlements. — Post-nuptial settlement — Purchaser for valu- able consideration — Refraining from divorce proceedings. See Bankbuptcy— Settlement. 2. — • Variation of settlement. See DivoECE — Nullity. 11. Settlements, (Variation of Settlements.) — " Coverture " — Determination of coverture by decree for dissolution of marriage. See Settlement. 1. — Effect of divorce on children' s provisions — Income undisposed of — Marriage contract — Scottish Act, 1573, c. 55. By ante-nuptial contract of marriage the intended wife conveyed a sum of about 19,0002. to trustees, directing them to pay the annual income to her during her life, and after her death, in the event of her being survived by her husband, to pay the same to him during all the days of his life and survivance, and on the death of the said spouses to pay or deliver the fee or capital of the said means and estate to the child or children of the marriage. The marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce obtained by the wife against the husband on the ground of desertion. Thereafter the wife died survived by her husband and a daughter. The daughter and her marriage contract trustees claimed that in consequence of the wife's death and the husband being divorced she (the daughter) and her trustees became entitled to the funds in the hands of her mother's marriage trustees : — Held, affirming the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., Scotland, (1901) 4 F. 278 : (1) that the divorce of the father was not equivalent to his death in a question as to the vesting of the daughter's provision ; (2) that during her father's life nothing fell to the daughter ; and (3) that the income, which but for the divorce would have been paid to the father, fell into the executory estate of the wife. Dawson v. Smaet - - - H. L. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 138 ; [1903] A. C. 457 2. — Interests of 'next of Jdn — Petition to order reconveyance of settled jjro^ierty to petitioner — Refusal. By a settlement on his marriage with the respondent the petitioner settled certain property upon trust to pay the income to himself until he should alienate, or attempt to alienate, his interest therein, or until some event should occur whereby the income should become payable to some one other than himself, or until his death, whichever should first happen. The second interest was given to the respondent for her life or widowhood and (there being no children of the marriage) there was an ultimate trust in favour of the next of kin of the petitioner, but this ultimate trust ( 95-? ) DIGEST 01* CASES, 1901—1910. ( 958 ) iJIVORCE (Settlements) — continued. was only to take effect after the death of the respondent if she should have married again and again become a widow. In 1899 the petitioner gave a certain under- taking in the Chancery Division to the effect that he would apply forthwith to' vary the settle- ment so as to vest the remainder of the settled property in himself absolutely, and that he would in any event give a charge over all his interests under the settlement. After the decree absolute the petitioner contracted a second marriage, and at the present time, were he to die, the persons entitled to share in his estate under the Statute of Distributions would be the second wife, the mother, and a nephew and niece of the petitioner, the last two being also beneficially interested in the mortgage of his interest in the settled property. Upon motion to confim the registrar's report upon the petition to vary the settlement and to order the reconveyance of the settled property to the petitioner absolutely : — Held, distinguishing Meredyth v. Jleredi/th and Leigh, [1895] P. 92, and Wynne v. Wynne, (1898) 78 L. T. 796, that this would be going too far, and that the right order to make was simply to extinguish the respondent's interests in the settlement, so that subject to the engagement given by the petitioner in the Chancery Division, the petitioner's resulting life interest in the settled property would become operative. Walpolb v. Walpolb and Goddaed Jeune Pres. [1901] P. 196 3. — JurMiction — Meaning of " Settlement " — Absolute assignment by husband to wife — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859 (22 ^- 23 Vict. c. 61), s. 5. A husband executed a deed by which he assigned to a trustee a leasehold house and some furniture, upon trust to assign the same at once to the wife absolutely, and the trustee assigned the same accordingly. The wife afterwards obtained a decree of nullity of marriage : — Held, reversing the decision of the President, that the assignment was not a " settlement " within s. 5 of the Malrimouial Causes Act, 1859, and that the Court had no jurisdiction to vary its provisions. Chalmers v. Chalmers, (1893) 1 R. 50i L T. (N.S.) 28, approved. Hubbaed v. HUBBAED - C. A. [1901] -W. N. 70 ; [1901] P. 157 4. — Jurisdiction to entertain— Petitiim by guilty party. Semhle, the Court has power to entertain a petition for variation of settlements at the instance of the party through whose misconduct the marriage has been dissolved. If a wife is in receipt of an allowance derived from funds settled by the husband, and if out of that allowance she keeps up their joint establish- ment, the husband is not entitled to a reduction of the wife's allowance after she has obtained a divorce by reason of his cruelty and adultery. WOOTTON-ISAAOSON c. WOOTTON-lSAACSON Gorell Barnes J. [1902] P. 146 6. — Legitimacy of child. Hearing of issue as to — Proceeding not instituted in comeqnence of DIVORCE (ieitlemiiAa)— continued, adultery— Co-resjjondent in diooree suit— Com- petent and compellable witness on issue as to status of child. Upon the hearing of an issue, which had been directed for the purpose of determining the status of a child born of the respondent during wedlock, the co-respondent in the former proceedings was called as a witness by the petitioner, and a ques- tion was put to him as to adultery between him and the respondent : — Held, that he was bound to answer the question. Evans v. Evans and Bltth Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 378 6. — Legitimacy of child, Question of— Issue directed. On a petition for variation of settlements after a decree for dissolution of marriage, where a child had been bom between the date of the decree nisi and decree absolute, the paternity of which the petitioner denied, the Court, on the application of the petitioner, directed an issue to be tried to ascertain the status of the child, and postponed the further consideration of the variation of settlements until after the trial of the issue. In the Matter of tlie Petition of Chaplin, (1867) L. R. 1 P. & M. 328, Pryor v. Pryor and Shelford, (1887) 12 P. D. 165, and Douglas v. Douglas and Jreror, (1898) 78 L. T. 88, dis- cussed. Evans v. Evan-s GoreU Barnes J. [1904] P. 274 note. See also Ecans v. Erans, GoreU Barnes J., [1904] P. 378, preceding Case. 7. — Nullity suit — Decree. Without deciding whether an ante-nuptial settlement came to an end upon a decree absolute for nullity of the marriage being pronounced, the Court, being of opinion that all points affecting the settlement should be dealt with finally and forthwith, ordered that the interest of the respondent (husband) in the fund settled on behalf of the petitioner (wife) should be extin- guished, and that the fund settled by the respon- dent should, subject to payment thereout by the trustees of their costs and the costs of the petitioner, be handed over to the respondent. Attwood (otheewisb Pomekoy) r. Attwood Gorell Barnes J. [1903] P. 7 8. — Order — Power of Court to rectify — Nullity of marriage. Where a mistake has been made in drawing up an order the Court or a judge has power to alter it, even where it is under appeal and though the request for alteration be made by the party who has given notice of appeal against the order as drawn up. E. c. E. - - Jeune Pres. [1903] P. 88 — Order, Form of — Variation of settlements. See D I VOECE— Nullity. 11. 9. — Petition for niriiition of mart'iage settle- ment — Srrcicc — Be.ipondent an uncertificated bankrupt — One of the trustee.i also an uncerlifi'- cated banhrupt and his address unknown — Notice to official receiver in bankruptcy — Scrricc dis- pensed with. The Court dispensed with service of a petition ( 959 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 960 ) DIVORCE (Settlements)— COTiiwmefi. to vary a settlement, made on a marriage now dissolved, in a case where the respondent and one of the trustees were nncertificated bankrupts and the address of the said trustee was not known, and where notice of the motion to dis- pense with service had been given to the chief official receiver in bankruptcy. Smiling v. STielUng, (1890) 63 L. T. 263, followed. GOEDON v. Gordon Oorell Barnes J. [1905] F. 96 10. — Power of appointment in favour of petitioner'' s second wife and children of second marriage — Interest of child of dissolred marriage — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859 (22 <^- 23 Vict, c. 61), s. 5. The main object and intent of the Legislature in giving the Divorce Court power to vary marriage settlements is to place the parties in the same position, as far as possible, as if the marriage had not been put an end to through the fault of one of them. Where, upon a marriage which had been dis- solved, power had been given to the innocent party, if survivor, by the terms of the marriage settlement to appoint a portion of the settled fund in favour of a future spouse and the chil- dren by any future marriage, the Court, in vary- ing such a settlement, may, although issue of the dissolved marriage survive, permit such power to be exercised in the lifetime of the guilty party, to an extent, having due regard to all the facts, not detrimental to the interests of such issue. Hodg-son Roberts v. Hodgson EOBEETS AND WhITAKBJB Gorell Barnes Pres. [1906] P. 142 11. — Practice — AnMver to petition iefore decree absolute — Lis pendens — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859 (22 ^ 23 Vict. o. 61), s. 5. A petitioner who has obtained a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage cannot proceed with a petition to vary settlements until the decree has been made absolute ; and nothing done between the time when the decree is made' absolute and the hearing of the petition to vary can affect the power of the Court to vary the settlements. Constantinidi v. Constantinidi AND Lance C. A. [1904J W. N. 122 ; [1904] P. 306 Note. See Constantinidi v. Constantinidi, C. A. [1905] P. 253. 18. — Practice — Property of guilty loife — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1847 (20 ^ 21 Vict, c. 85), s. 15 — Settlement — Principles and extent of jurisdiction. The principles which should guide the Court in ordering a settlement out of the property of a guilty wife under the powers conferred by s. Vo of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, are similar to those adopted in cases of variation of settle- ments under s. 5 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859 (22 & 23 Vict. c. 61), but the Court has power, under s. 45 of the Act of 1857, to deal with capital, whether in possession or reversion, as well as with income. The Court, in ordering a settlement under s. 45, should have regard to the pecuniary position which the husband and child or children D.D. DIVOECE (Settlements) — continued. would have been in if the marriage had not been dissolved through the fault of the wife, and should endeavour, as far as may be, to adjust any alteration made in their pecuniary position by reason of the change in their circumstances due to the wife's misconduct and the consequent dissolution of the marriage. Loeriman v. LoEEiMAN AND Clair BuckniU J. [1908] P. 282 13. — Principle of quid pro quo — Power of appointment upon petitioner's second marriage — ■ Children's reversionary witerest affected — Extin- guishment of respondent's interest — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859 (22 Si 23 Vict. c. 61), s. 5. The Court has power to vary a marriage settlement so as to deprive infant children of the marriage of part of their interests secured to them by such settlement. Where a marriage settlement gave the petitioner (wife) power to appoint, after the death of the respondent, in favour of a second husband and the children of a second marriage, the Court recognizing the principle of quid pro quo in such cases, gave the petitioner power so to appoint, during the respondent's lifetime, a portion of the fund which had been settled for the ultimate benefit of the children of the mar- riage upon the ground that the extinguishment of the respondent's interests being part of the order would, while depriving them of that portion, accelerate their interests in the re- mainder. Whitton v. Whitton Jenne Pres. [1901] P. 348 — " Property settled " — Nullity — Impotence. See Divorce — Nullity. 14. — Remarriage — Variation of settlement — Restraint on anticipation — Remarriage — Matri- monial Causes Act, 1859 (22 ^ 23 Vict. c. 61), s. 5 — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878 (41 Si 42 Vict. 0. 19), s. 3 — Jurisdiction — Remarriage after petition hut before order — Practice. On a petition for variation of settlement, after decree absolute for dissolution of marriage, the Court has full power under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859, s. 5, as extended by the Matri- monial Causes Act, 1878, o. 3, to vary such settlement in such a way as to override the restraint upon anticipation clause and put an end to the restraint, notwithstanding the re- marriage of the innocent party before an order of the Court is made, though after petition filed. Churchward d. Churchward Samuel Evans Pres. [1910] P. 198 15. — Variation of settlements — Discretion of Court — Conduct of the parties — Interests of public morality — Retrospective order — Repayment of past income — Wife's protected life interest — Jurisdiction — Dissolution of marriage — Wife's advMery — Husband's adultery — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 ^ 21 Vict. o. 85), s. 45 ; Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859 (22 ^- 23 Vict. 0. 61), s. 5 ; Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878 (41 ^ 42 Vict. c. 19), s. 3. In exercising the jurisdiction conferred upon the Court of varying settlements after a dissolu- tion of marriage, regard must be had to the conduct of both the husband and the wife, and 1 1 ( 961 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 962 ) DIVORCE (Settlements) — continued,. not of one party only, and also to the interests of public morality and decency. A marriage had been dissolved at the suit of the husband on the ground of his wife's desertion and adultery, notwithstanding that the husband had, both before and after the presentation of his petition, himself been guilty of adultery, as was in fact admitted at the trial, he declining to tender himself for cross-examination. Both husband and wife had executed marriage settle- ments of their respective properties, the wife's settled property considerably exceeding the husband's. There were no children of the marriage. Upon a petition by the husband for variation of the wife's settlement, under the discretionary power given to the Court by s. 5 of the Matri- monial Causes Act, 1857, as amended by s. 'A of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878, with a view to obtaining !?■ direction for payment to him of part of the income of her settled property : — Held, that having regard to tlie admitted and unexplained misconduct of the husband himself and to the interests of public morality, the case was not one in which the Court should exercise its discretionary power by varying the wife's settlement in his favour. The principles which should guide the Court in exercising its discretionary power of varying settlements considered and stated. Clistwynd v. Chetwynd, (1865) L. R. 1 P. & M. 39, and March v. March and Palunibo, (1867) L. B. 1 P. & M. 440, considered and applied. Noel V. Noel, (188.5) 10 P. D. 179, distin- guished. The jurisdiction given to the Court to vary settlements under the Matrimonial Causes Acts cannot be exercised retrospectively ; as, for instance, by directing the trustees of the wife's settlement to recoup to the husband accumula- tions of past income received by her under the trusts of his settlement. A wife's protected life interest — that is, a life interest the personal enjoyment of which is to cease in certain events — is not an interest which the Court can control under s. 5 of the Matri- monial Causes Act, 1869, though the existence of such a life interest may be taken into considera- tion by the Court when making an order for variation of settlements. Decision of Jeune P., [1903] P. 246, reversed. CONSTANTINIDI 11. CONSTANTINIDI AND LANCE C. A. [1905] -W. N. 119 ; [1905] P. 263 Note. See also No. 11, above. Distinguished by BucknillJ., Wylte v. Wyle, [1904] P. 149. 16. — Variation of settlements — No issue of marriaqe — Practice — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859 (22 Ji- 23 Vict. c. 61), s. 5— Interests of unhorn persons — Consent of all lixing persons interested — Reconveyance of trust property to innocent settlor. Where the only living persons who could be Interested under the terms of a marriage settle- ment consented, the Court, upon the petition of the innocent settlor whose mai-riage had been DIVORCE (Settlements)— con. Gaskell H. I. (So.) [1906] W. N. 2 ; [1906] A. C. 56 — Administration — Grant to foreign adminis- trators — Executors passed over. See Probate — Foreign Somioil. — Conflict of laws. See under Conflict of Laws. ■ Divorce. /See under DIVOEOB- -Somicil. — Divorce Bill — Ireland — Practice — Alleged adulterer a foreigner domiciled abroad. See Divorce — Ireland. 6. — Divorce, Decree of, by New York Court — Yalidity of divorce in England. See International Law. 1. — Divorce — Scotsman — Foreign domicil, allegiance, or residence of co-respondent — Liability. See Divorce — Co-respondent. 2. — Domicil of origin — Abandonment — Ac- quiring fresh domicil — Evidence — Onus of proof . The onus of proving that a domicil has been chosen in substitution for the domicil of origin lies upon those who assert that the domicil of origin has been lost. The domicil of origin con- tinues unless a fixed and settled intention of abandoning the first domicil and acquiring another as the sole domicil is clearly shewn. An American citizen left the United States and lived many years in England, where he died, leaving by will a legacy on which the Crown claimed legacy duty, on the ground that the testator had acquired a domicil in England : — Seld, that the onus of shewing a change of domicil was upon the Crown, and (Lord Lindley dissenting) that the proof of a fixed and settled purpose was not clearly made out, and that legacy duty was not payable. The decision of the C. A. reversed. Winans i). Attorney-General H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 287 Note. See Winans v. Att.-Gen. (No. 2), H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 27. DOMICIL — continued. — Foreign domicil — Power of appointment — Personalty — Execution — Unattested will — Extrinsic evidence of intention. See Conflict of Laws. 7. — Foreign domicil, will and marriage — English domicil subsequently acquired. See Probate — Foreign Domicil. 3. — Foreign residence — English domicil of origin. Testator's original name was Emmanuel ; his domicil of origin was English. He carried on business in London as a jeweller for many years, up to 1872, under the name of Emanuel, when he sold his business. He married a Dutch lady in 1852 ; he had one son, who died in 1870 and was buried in the Jews' Cemetery, London. Emanuel resided till 1872 in London ; he was a member of a London synagogue ; he was a member of two London clubs tiU his death. He kept his London house till 1880, when he sold it ; but after 1872 he travelled till 1879_, spending a considerable part of his time in Paris. In 1874 he acquired a, Portuguese title ; he repudiated his former name, and was from that time known as Baron Emanuel de Almeda. In 1879 he took a lease of a house in Paris, on which he spent a considerable amount. Later he took a lease of another house, on which he spent large sums in improvements. This was his chief residence till he died. He sometimes visited England ; most of his property was in England ; he had a banking account in England and one also in France. In 1880 he was appointed Minister at Paris of the Eepublic of San Domingo. He held this appointment till his death, with the exception of a period when diplomatic relations between France and San Domingo were suspended. He procured this appointment for the sake of gaining social position in Paris. He belonged to several Paris clubs. He obtained various foreign distinctions, including an order of the Legion of Honour. He made several wills ; in some of these he described himself as a domiciled Englishman. He was buried, in accordance with directions given by himself, in the same grave as his son in the London Jews' Cemetery. His only daughter, the pit., was the wife of a Frenchman. Meld, that the testator had never lost his English domicil of origin. In re De Almeda. SouRDis v. Keysee Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 142 The Court dismissed the appeal stating that the law applicable to the case was settled, and that the decision of the learned judge Cozens- Hardy J., [1901] W. N. 142, on the facts was correct. In re De Almeda. Sourdis n. Ketsbe C. A. [1902] W. N. 55 — Holograph codicil signed but not attested — Codicil valid by law of domicil — Probate in England — Defective exe- cution aided. See Power of Appointment. — Ireland — Divorce. See under Divorce — Ireland. ( 967 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 968 ) DOMICIIi — oontmued. — Lunacy — Jurisdiction — Inquiry — Domiciled foreigner temporarily in England. See Lunacy. 11. — Marriage — Capacity — Italian subjects — Deceased husband's brother. See Conflict of Laws. 12. — Marriage — "Validity — Husband a British subject domiciled in India — Hindu — Personal capacity to contract marriage with an English Christian woman. See Maeriage. 7. — Marriage with foreigner — Law applicable. See Settlement. — Mortmain — Testator domiciled in England — Eesiduary bequest to charity — Colonial mortgages — Applicability of colonial mortmain law. See Conflict of Laws. li. — Next of kin — Sister of the half-blood — ■ Nephews and nieces — Foreign law. See Will— Next of Kin. 3. — Power of appointment — Personalty — Execu- tion — Foreign domicil — Unattested will • — Extrinsic evidence of intention. See Conflict op Laws. 15, 16. — Unattested will — Domiciled foreigner — Lease- holds. See Conflict of Laws. 17. DOMINION ACT— Power of Dominion Parlia- ment. See under CANADA. DOMINION RAILWAY ACT, 1906— Construc- tion — Laws of Canada. See Canada — Bailway. 1. DONATIO MORTIS CKMSK— Building society share oertifioate — Post Office Savings Bank deposit-iooh — Evidence — Delivery. W. was possessed of eight investment shares in a building society for 251. each, and IdOl. in the Post Office Savings Bank. Some two months before his death, and while ill in hospital, W. asked the deft., to whom he was engaged to be married, to go and get the certificates for his building society shares and savings bank book, gave her the key of the drawer in which they were placed, and told her to keep them ; the deft, went and obtained the certificates and savings bank book, took them and the key to the hospital, and offered them back to W., when he again said she was to keep them. On several subsequent occasions W. repeated his wish to the deft, that aU his property should belong to her in case of his death. The deft, claimed the building society shares and the money standing to the credit of the deceased at the Post OflBce Savings. Bank ; — Held, that the evidence of the deft, was suffi- cient to establish the gift, if the building society share certificates and savings bank book could be the proper subject-matter of a gift of this kind, and that there had been sufficient delivery to constitute a valid donatio : — Seld, also, that the gift of the building society shares failed as incomplete, but that the DONATIO MORTIS CAUSA- Post Office Savings Bank book was capable of being well given so as to create a donatio mortis causa. McGonwtll V. Murray, (1869) Ir. Eep. 3 Eq. 460, distinguished on this point. In re Weston. Bartholomew v. Menzies Byrne J. [1902] W. N. 36 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 680 Note. Approved by Kekewich J., In re Andrews, [1902] 2 Ch. 39i, No. 3, ielow. — Direction to pay testamentary expenses — Estate duty. See Will — Testamentary Expenses. 3. 2. — Gift of cheque drawn by deceased — Non- payment in his lifetime — Oxei'draxon account. On Feb. 19, 1901, B., who was very ill and in expectation of death, drew a cheque for 300Z. in favour of E., to whom it was at once handed. E. indorsed the cheque, and on Feb. 23 it was presented for payment at B.'s bank, where his account was overdrawn. The bank manager refused payment, stating that the signature of the drawer was not like the ordinary signature of B., and that he required some confirmation of the signature. The Court found that the manager was minded to "lend" the money to pay the cheque if he found that the signature was genuine. B. died on Feb. 25, 1901, without the cheque having been cashed : — Held, following Hewitt v. Kaye, (1868) L. E. 6 Eq. 198, and In re Beah's Estate, (1872) L. E. 13 Eq. 489, that there was not a valid donatio mortis causa. Observations on Bromley v. Briinton, (1868) L. E. 6 Eq. 275, and In re Billon, (1890) 44 Ch. D. 76, and as regards what amounts to constructive payment of a cheque. In re Beaumont. Beaumont r. Ewbank Buckley J. [1902] W. N. 50 ; [1902J 1 Ch. 889 3. — Suhject-matter — Post Office Savings BanJt — Beposit-took — Government Stock invest- ment certificate. The delivery of a Post Office Savings Bank deposit-book may constitute a good donatio mortis causa of the balance standing to the credit of the depositor ; but where a deposit is invested by the Post Office Savings Bank for the depositor in Government stock under the regu- lations contained in the deposit-book by having the stock placed on the Savings Bank Invest- ment Account of the National Debt Commrs. and credited to the depositor, the delivery of the investment certificate and the deposit- book can- not constitute a good donatio mortis causa of the Government stock. In re Andrews. Andrews V. Andrews - Kekewich J. [1902] W. N. 119 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 394 4. — Subseqtient will — Revocntion — Legacy'.of amount — Satisfaction. When a donor has made a donatio mortis causa, the mere fact that he subsequently makes a wiU by which he gives to the donee a legacy of equal amount does not raise the presumption that the legacy was intended as a satisfaction of the donation. Testator gave to the pit., who was hi ( 969 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 970 ) DONATIO MORTIS CAVSA— continued. housekeeper, certain deposit notes for sums representing in the aggregate 20001. under such circumstances as to constitute a valid donatio mortis causa of the sums thereby represented. Two days later he made a will by which he gave her a legacy of 2000Z. : — Held, that the will was not a revocation of the donation, and that, there being no circum- stances from which the Court could infer that the testator intended that the legacy should be a satisfaction of the donation, the pit. was entitled both to the donation and the legacy. Jones V. Seliy (1710) Free. Ch. 300, considered. Hudson r. Spencbr ■Warrington J. [1910] W. N. 167 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 286 Note. See Inre Hudson, Spencer v. Turner, [1910] W. N. 269 ; Will — Testamentary Expenses. DOWEE — Action for assignment of dower — Time for ascertaining value — Eecovery of land. See Limitations, Statutes of. 22. — Declarations against dower. Effect of. See Administbation. DRAINS. See under London — Sewers. Sewers. DRAINAGE— Land drainage. See under Land Deaixagb. DRAMATIC COPYRIGHT — Infringement — " Printed or cause to be printed " — Agent. See Coptkight — Book. 1. DRAWINGS — Designs — Assignment of copyright to intended company — Registration — Validity of assignment. See GoPYElGHT— Drawings. 1. DREDGER — Demurrage of — Measure of damages. See Shipping — Collision. DREDGING — Conservators — Navigation — Ripa- rian owner. See Thames. 1. DRIFTER — Shipping — Collision — Drifters and trawlers' lights. See Shipping— Collision. DRIFT-NET FISHING— Collision— 1 ncumbered by nets — "Special circumstances" — Lights — Standing by. See Shipping — Collision. DRIFTWAY — Private driftway — Conversion into public way — Persons whose consent necessary to. See Highway. 25.- DROWNING — Workmen's compensation — Sea- man — Unexplained drowning — Evi- dence — Presumption. See Master and Servant — Com- pensation. DRUGS — Sale of food and— Adulteration. See under Adulteration. DRXrNKENNESS. Inebriate Ekpormatories, England.] Regulations, dated Dec. 6, 1900, made by Secretary of State for the Some Department, in jmrsuance of s. 6 of the Inebriates Act, 1898, respectiTig the Absence under Licence of Inmates of Certified Inebriate Reformatories.' St. R. & 0. 1902, No. 632. Regulations, dated June 4, 1902, made by Secretary of State for Jlome Department, in pur- suance of S.& of the Inebriates Act, 1898, respect- ing the Tramsfer of Inebriates from a Certified Inebriate Reformatory to a State- Inebriate Re- formatory, from a State iTiebriate Reformatory to a Certified Inebriate Reformatory , and from one Certified Inebriate Reformatory to anoth-er. St. B. & 0. 1902, No. 658. Inebriate Retreats.] Regulations, dated Oct. 23, 1902, made by Secretary of State for tlie Home DepaHment; in pursuance [of s. 20 of the Inebriates Act, 1898, respecting the detention of Inebriates committed to a Retreat under s. 5 of tlie Licensing Act,l%02. St.R.&C, 1902,No.811. State Inbbriatb Reformatories.] Regu- lations, dated Dec. 29, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department prescribing the Diet for Ill-conducted or Idle Inmates of. St. R. & 0., 1904, No. 611. Regulations dated April 29, 190i, for St. E. & 0., 1904, No. 1218. Inebriate, England, Retreats. Rules and Regns. Feb. 28, ld07, for Retreats Licensed under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1899. Price l^d. St. R. & 0. 1907, No. 198. — Conviction — Evidence — Register of convic- tion in Court of summary jufisdiotion. See Justices. 8. — Criminal law. See under Criminal Law — Appeal. 1. — '^ Habitual drnnhard"' — Person incap- able of managing own affairs ichen drunk — Habi- tual drinhing to excess — Capacity to manage own affairs when sober — Habitual Drunhards Act, 1879 (42 S,' 43 Vict. c. 19), s. Z— Inebriates Act, 1898 (61 S.- 62 Vict. c. 60), s. 2, sui-s. 1. The expression "habitual drunkard" in s. 3 of the Habitual Drunkards Act, 1879, and s. 2. sub-s. 1, of the Inebriates Act, 1898, applies to a person who habitually drinks to excess, and who is, when drunk, dangerous or incapable of managing himself or his afEairs, even though when sober he is capable of managing himself and his afEairs. Eaton i\ Best Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 632 DRY-ROT — Rebuilding principal mansion-house. — Salvage. See Settled Land — Capital Moneys. DULWICH— Peckham and East Dulwich Tram- ways Acts. See Tramways, ( 971 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 972 ) OTTBAXIOK — Annuity to wife " so long as she remains unmarried" — Death of wife unmarried — Will. See Annuity. 8. — Power of sale — Determination — Absolute vesting of estate. 8ee Power of Sale. DURHAM— f7nii-e)'s«y of Burhavi Act, 1908 (8 JEdw. 7, a. 20), maJtes fuHher provision with respeot to the TJnive^-sity of Durham. DURESS — Adultery of petitioner brought about under duress and by coercion of the husband — Material fact — Suppression. See DIVOKCE — Practice. 30. DURESS — continued. — Contract obtained by, abroad — Threat of prosecution — Contract not illegal where made. See Conflict of Laws. 4. DUTCH LAW— Roman-Dutch law— Fidei com- missuni conditionale — Restraint on alienation. See Cape of Good Hope. 13. DUTY— Public revenue. See under Revenue. DYING DECIABATION — Admissibility of — Evidence. See Ckimihal Law — Evidence. 1, 2. ( 973 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 974 ) E. EAUNINGS — Workmen's compensation. See under MASTER AND Servant — Compensation. EASEMENT — " Accommodation works" — Level Accommodation Works. crossing. See Railway- — Air. See under Light and Aie. — Custody of title-deeds — Deeds shewing title to easement and to extinguishment. See Vendor and Purchaser — Seeds. 1. — Drain — Prescription — Acquisition of easement by public — Highway. See Prescription. — Lease — Principal mansion-house — " Park" — Easement over mansion-house — In- validity of agreement. See Settled Land — Mansion-house. — Level crossing — Agricultural land — Tennis club — Alteration of user. See Railway — Level Crossings. — Light and air. See under Light and Air. — Necessity, Right of support. See Support. — Power of executor to grant easements — Lands Glauses Acts. See Executor — Powers. 1. — Precarious easement — Implied grant — Arti- ficial channel — Temporary purpose — Severance of tenements. See Water. — Prescription — Enjoyment as between tenants — Dnity of ownership. See Way, Right of. 12. — Settled land — Tenant for life. See under Settled Land — Easements. — Tramway. See under TRAMWAYS. — Undisclosed easement — Defect of title appear- ing on conveyance. <5ee Vendor AND Purchaser — Title. 3. — WaUs. See under Walls. — Water. See under Water. — Watercourse. See under WATERCOURSE. — Way, Right of. See under Way, Right of. EAST INDIA. See under INDIA. EAST LONDON WATERWOKKS ACT. See London — Water. EASTER OFFERINGS— Income tax— Incum- bent of benefice. See Revenue— Income Tax. 8. ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. Advowson, col. 974. Bishops, col. 975. Burial. See under Burial. Chapel and Chapelry, col. 976. Clianty, col. 976. Church, col. 976. Churchwardens, col. 978. Churchway, col. 979. Churchyard, col. 979. Clergy, col. 979. Court of Arches, col. 979. Discipline {Chiirclt discipline'), col. 979. Biscipli'ns (Clergy discipline), col. 984. Dulie of Torh's School {Oiapel), col. 984. Evidence, col. 985. Faculty, col. 985. Fees QFoclesiastical fees), col. 1001. Franchise, col. 1001. Glebe Lands. See under Glebe Lands. Jffoly Communion, col. 1001. Income tax, col. 1003. Marriage. See under MARRIAGE. Xotaries, See under Notaries. Offences, col. 1003. Ordination, col. 1005. Pews, col. 1005. Practice, col. 1006. Bates, col. 1008. Rectory, col. 1008. Vestry, col. 1008. Vicar- General, col. 1008. Viciimgp, col. 1009. Advowson. — Charitable trust — Trust to appoint a fit and duly qualified person. See Charity. 1. 1. — Union of benefices — Single patron — Act of union — No provision for alternate presentation ( 975 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 976 ) ECCIESIASTICAI lAW (Ad.YOWBOn)—omtmued. — Order of exolmnge — Grant of old advowson — Construction. By an act of union or deed of consolidation, dated in 1738, the rectory and parish of P. were incorporated with the vicarage and church of D. to all intents and purposes in law whatsoever, constituting and appointing the church of D. to be the mother church to which (together with the rectory of P.) all future incumbents should be promoted, instituted, and inducted. At the date of the union there was only one patron of the two benefices, and no provision was made by the deed for alternate presentation or otherwise. By an order of exchange made in 1890 by the Board of Agriculture under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1878, and the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889, certain lands and hereditaments in the two parishes including "the advowson of the vicarage of D." were ordered to be exchanged : — Held, affirming the decision of Neville J., that after the union the old advowsons ceased to exist, and that what passed by the order of exchange under the description of "the advowson of the vicarage of D." was the advowson of the new united benefice of D.-cum-P. Mobimon v. Marquis of Bristol, (1851) 11 C. B. 241, distinguished. LOED Elcho r. Andebws - - C. A. [1910] W. N. 79 ; [X910] 1 Ch. 706 — Mortgage. See under Moktgaoe — Advowson. 2. — Patron — 'Infant — Trustees [to present during minority — Guardian — Statute — Construc- tion. An Act authorized the sale of glebe land with the consent of the patron, to be given in case of the infancy of the patron by his guardian. An infant was tenant in tail male under a settlement which gave trustees the right of presentation during the minority of the tenant in tail : — JSeld, that the trustees were not patrons within the meaning of the Act, and that the guardian of the infant was the proper person to give the consent of the patron to a sale of glebe land. Leigh v. Leigh Swinfen Eady J. [1902] ■W. N. 6 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 400 Bishops. SisJwprics of SouthwarJt and Birmingham Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 30), providts for the foundation of Bishoprics of Southwarh and Birming/iam and for matters incidental thereto. Order in Council founding Bishopric of Birmingham. St. E. & 0. 1905, No. 7. Order in Council foiimding Bishopric of Southwarh. St. E. & 0. 1906, No. 321. Order ijn Council appointing tlie Town of Woolwich the See of a Suffragan Bishop. St. E. & 0. 1905, No. 557. Price \d. each. Order in Council, dated June 2Sth, 1909, appointing tlie Town of Whallej the See of a Suffragan Bishop. St. E. & 0., 1909, No. 749. — Bishopric — Liabilities — Commuted first fruits and tenths. See Appoktionment. 1. ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Biahoi^B)— continued. 1. — Confirmation of hislwp-elect — Objections on grownd of doctrine — Jy/risdiction of archbishop and vicar-general — Mandamus— 2i Hen. 8, c. 20 — Costs in mandamus. Upon the confirmation of the election of a bishop-elect by the archbishop or his vicar- general, there is no jurisdiction to entertain objections to the confirmation founded upon questions of doctrine, and a writ of mandamus will not lie to the archbishop or vicar-general to compel them to hear and determine such objections. Beg. V. Archbishop of Canterbury, (1848) 11 Q. B. 483, discussed. Semble, a mandamus will not lie to the arch- bishop to compel him, before proceeding to con- firmation, to inform his mind of the fitness of the bishop-elect. The archbishop has jurisdiction to require notices of objection to be delivered before the date of the confirmation, and to hold a pre- liminary meeting in chambers for the purpose of considering the objections. Where the Crown is a party to the argument of a rule for a prerogative writ of mandamus, the Court has no jurisdiction to give costs either to or against the Crown. Bex v. Aeohbishop op Canteebuey Div. Ct. [1902] W. N. 62 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 503 See also Bex v. Archbishop of Canterbury. C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 289 Burial. See under BuElAL. Chapel and Chapelry. — Parish, Division of — Parochial chapelry or separate parish. See Paeish. — York's (Duke of) School (Chapel). ul Pai/mei/t.i. St. B. & 0., 1908, No. 326. Price 2d. Oi-dcr of the Pyiry Council, dated Oct. 6, 1908, approcing Tuhle of Ecclesio.tticul Fees and Puij- vients. St. R. & 6., 1908, No. 879. Price Id. Eranchise. — County vote — Qualification — Freehold benefice — Receipt of pew-rents by vicar. See Pabliament. 4. Glebe Lands. See under Glebe Lands. Holy Communion. 1. — Criminal .wit hy letters of request — Church Discipline Aet, IS'iO (3 S' i Vict. c. Sf!)— liefusal to adniini.ster the Ilohj Communion — Murriai/e with decea.%ed wife's sister — Deceased ^Vife's 'Sister's :Marriaffe Act, 1907 (7 Fdw. 7, c. 47), s. 1 — Persons not included iinder descrip- tion of " open and notorious eril liver so that the con(/ref/ation le thereby offended." Lay members of the Church of England who have been baptised and confirmed and between whom a marriage legalized by the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act, 1907, has been solemnized arc not, either bj' reason of such marriage or by their afterwards living together as husband and wife, open and notorious evil livers within the rubric in the Communion Service, and neither the solemnization of their marriage nor their subsequent cohabitation justifies the incumbent of the parish in which the parties reside in repelling them from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. A domiciled EngUshman who had gone through the form of marriage with his deceased wife's sister, a domiciled Englishwoman, in a Tresbyterian cliureh in Canada, after the passing ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Holy Communion)— coiitinued. of the Colonial Marriages (Deceased Wife's Sister") Art, 1906, but before the Deceased Wife's Sister'.s Marriage Act, 1907, had come into force, and after the nrarriage had returned to reside in England, applied, after the coming into force of (lie last-nicutioncd Act, to the incumbent of the parish in whieli he was residing together with his wife tliat, they being both members of the Church of England, and having been baptised and confirmed, should be admitted to the sacra- ment of the Holy Communion. The incumbent repelled the applicant and his wife from the Holy Communion, and on their promotion a criminal suit by letters of request was thereupon instituted against the incumbent : — Held, that the promoters had been illegally repelled from the Holy Communion, and that the incumbent must be admonished for having so repelled them and to refrain from similar acts in the future. Banistee v. Thompson Arches Court of Canterbury [1908] W. N. 189 ; [1908] P. 362 Faculty — Communion table. Sec under ECCLESIASTICAL LAW — Faculty. 2. — Bepulsion from Holy Communion — Law- ful cause — Open and Mitorious eril licer — Jlar- riage with deceased wifs sister — Criminal suit — Monition — Prohibition — 1 Fdtc. 6, c. 1, s. 8 — Dcceiised IVife's Si.'iter's Marriage Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 47), s. 1. Sect. 1 of the Deceased Wife's Sister's Mar- riage Act, 1907, validates a marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister for all pur- poses, whether the marriage is contracted within or without the realm, and whether before or after the date of the passing of the Act. The immunity granted by the first proviso in the section to any clergyman of the Church of England from any suit, penalty, or censure, whether civil or ecclesiastical, for anything done or omitted to be done by him in the performance of the duties of his office, to which suit, penalty, or censure he would not have been liable if the Act had not been passed, is limited to matters connected with the solemnization of such a marriage and does not extend to the performance of the general duties of his office. Since the passing of the Act marriage with a deceased wife's sister is not a lawful cause within s. 8 of 1 Edw. 6, u. 1, for repelling the parties to the marriage from Holy Communion. Where, therefore, the Arches Court of Canter- bury admonished a clergyman of the Church of England for having, since the passing of the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act, 1907, repelled the parties to such a marriage from Holy Communion, as being, by reason of their mar- riage and cohabitation, open and notorious evil livers, and to refrain from so repelling them in future : — Held by the Div. Ct. (Bray J. dissenting) and by the C. A., that there was no ground for a writ of prohibition to restrain the Ecclesiastical Ct. from proceeding further in the matter of the monition. Kex c. Dibdin C. A. [1909] W. N. 258 ; [1910] P. 67 DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1003 ) £CCI£SIASTICAL LAW— i Income Tax. — Clergy — Income tax— Incumbent of benefice — Easter offerings. See Revenue- Income Tax. 8. — Deductions by clergymen or ministers of religion in respect of dwelling-houses in certain cases. See Finance Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 28. — Incumbent of benefice — Grant by affiliated branch of Queen Victoria Clergy Sustentation Fund. See Eevende — Income Tax. 7. Notaries. See under Notaries. Offences. 1. — Deprivation — Offences hy olei'gyman — Separation order ly court of mnmiary jurisdic- tion — Persistent cruelty — Clergy Discipline Act, 1892 (55 ^- 56 Vict. c. 32), «. 1, subs. 1 (JC), (e) — Summary Jurisdiction (^Married Women) Act, 1895 (58 4- 59 Vict. c. 39), ss. 4, 5. The Clergy Discipline Act, 1892, s. 1, sub-s. 1, directs that, if either (d) an order for judicial separation is made against a clergyman in a divorce or matrimonial cause, or (e) a separation order is made against a clergyman under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878, any preferment held by him shall be declared by the bishop to be vacant. By the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878, a separation order could be obtained by a married woman against her husband upon the ground of his conviction for an aggravated assault upon her within the Offences against the Person Act, 1861. This provision was repealed by the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895 ; but s. 4 of that Act enabled a married woman whose husband had been convicted of an aggravated assault upon her under the Offences against the Person Act, 1861, or (aniong other things) had been guilty of persistent cruelty to her, to obtain from a court of summary jurisdic- tion a separation order against him, and s. 5 provided that the separation order while in force should have the effect in all respects of a decree of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty. A separation order having been made against a vicar under this Act on the ground of his persis- tent cruelty, the bishop declared the vicarage vacant under the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892 : — Held, that the declaration could not be sup- ported under clause (e), because the provision in the Act of 1895 enabling a married woman to obtain a separation order on the ground of persistent cruelty was not a re-enactment with modification within s. 38, sub-s. 1, of the Inter- pretation Act, 1889, of the repealed provision in the Act of 1878, so as to require the bishop to treat the separation order as a separation order under the Act of 1878 ; nor under clause (d), because a separation order under the Act of 1895 was not an order for judicial separation in a divorce or matrimonial cause. Sweet v. Bishop op Ely - Joyce J. [1902] W. H. 116 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 808 ( 1004 ) ECCLESIASTICAL LAW {(ifS.ea.tiW)— continued. 3. _ Jurisdiction — Clergy Discipline Act, 1892 (55 Si' 56 Viot.c. 32), s. 2—ClMrge of liaving been "convicted by a temporal court of hairing committed an act constituting an ecclesiastical offence " — Conriction by magistrates of indecent behaviour in a church of the Church of England during divine .service — llie Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act, 1860 (23 y chnrchioardens subject to control of Ordinary — Duty of cliurclnoardens — Appro2>riation of seats at all services — Seats not to be filled up before commencement of sermce. The churchwardens of a parish church have vested in them the allotment of seats in the body of the church amongst the parishioners subject to the control of the Ordinary and to the exemp tion existing in respect of faculty pews or seat s ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Vi^a)— continued. The allotment, however, in each case mtist be made in general terms so as to entitle the allottees to occupy the seats allotted to them at all the ordinary services held in the church ; the churchwardens not being entitled to attach to the allotment a condition excluding any allottee from the right to attend in the seats allotted any of the ordinary services of the Church prescribed by the rubrics. Thus persons to whom the churchwardens have allotted seats in the body of the church are entitled by law to occupy the seats so allotted to them not only during the Sunday morning service, but also during the Sunday evening service and at the early Sunday morning service held for the administration of Holy Communion, as well as at the ordinary services held on Christmas Day, Ash Wednesday, and Good Friday, and at any other ordinary service held in the church whether on Sundays or on weekdays. Moreover, up to the commencement of service the seats allotted by the churchwardens to parishioners cannot legally be occupied by other persons against the will of the persons to whom they have been allotted. Observations as to the circumstances which would at the present day justify the Ordinary in decreeing a faculty for appropriating pews or seats to private individuals. Clavbblby (ViCAB, &c.) V. Claveblet (Pabishionees, &c.). Claveblet (CHnECHWAEDENs) r. Clavbeley (Vioae, &c.). Gataceb and Legh v. Clavbeley (Vioae, &c.) Consistory Court of Hereford [1909] P. 195 Practice. Judicial Committee — Procedure in Eccle- siastical a7id Maritime Causes. Order in Couneil as to the charge of the Duties of t/te Office of Registrar of His Ifajesty in Eccles-iastical mid Maritime Causes. Reprint from W. N. 1904 (July 23), p. 231. See Cukeent Index, 1904 p. cxvli. See also under Peivt Council. 1. — Appeal on law — hwproper ad/mission of evidence in Court beloto — Leave to appeal on facts— Clergy Discipline Act, 1892 (55 it — LegaJitji of reservation — Effect on jurisdiction of vicar-general — Want of jvrisdietion apparent on face of proceedings — Prohibition. By letters patent appointing a Chancellor for a diocese the bishop gave him power, in the absence of the bishop from his Consistory Court, to determine certain causes, " Nevertheless first consulting us and our successors, and having our consent in case either party earnestly crave our judgment. ' ' A suit was promoted for the removal of certain ornaments from a church in the diocese, and the respondents in their reply asked that the bishop should be first consulted and his consent had, and earnestly craved his, judgment. The Chancellor heard the suit, and delivered a judg- ment in which he held that he had jurisdiction and dealt with the merits of the case. It appeared from the judgment, though not so stated in terms, that he had not consulted the bishop or obtained his consent either to the hearing of the suit or the terms of the judgment. On appeal from a refusal to direct the issue of a writ of prohibition : — Held, that the limitation in the patent was not illegal ; that it did not relate to procedure, but had the effect of excluding the jurisdiction of the Chancellor over the excepted causes ; that the absence of jurisdiction sufficiently appeared on the face of the proceedings ; and that, as the objection to the hearing of the suit by the Chan- cellor had not been abandoned or waived, a writ of prohibition should issue. Judgment of theDiv. Ct., [1901] 2 K.B. 141, reversed. Kbx v. Tbistbam C. A. [1902] 1 E. B. 816 — Costs. See Ecclesiastical Law — Paculty. 13, 15, 21. ECCLESIASTICAL LAVT— continued. Bates. — Burial ground. See under Bates. Rectory. 1. — Statute— Construction — Mischief— Pur- ricw — Residence of ^jarsons on benefices — Lease of rectory — Omission of statutory " condition for avoiding the same" on bishop ordering personal residence — Void or voidable-- Plnrajities Act, 1888 (1 4- 2 Vict. c. 106), s. 59. With the object of enforcing the residence of parsons on their benefices, if required by the bishop, s. 59 of the Pluralities Act, 1838, provides that " any agi-eement made for the letting of the house of residence .... belonging to any benefice, to which house of residence any spiritual person may be required, by order of the bishop as aforesaid, to proceed and to reside therein .... shall be made in writing, and shall contain a condition for avoiding the same, upon a copy of such order .... being served upon the occupier thereof, or left at the house, and other- wise shall be null and void." The section then provides for the service of the order and imposes a penalty of 406". a day on any person holding over after service. After enabling " the spiritual person so directed to reside" to obtain possession by summary pro- ceedings before a justice of the peace, the section proceeds : " Provided that any person who shall have been in possession of any such house of residence .... under a verbal agreement only or under any agreement in which the condition aforesaid for avoiding the same shall not be inserted, and who shall be turned out of posses- sion by virtue of this Act, shall be entitled to sue the person with whom he ... . had entered into such agreement for damages occasioned by his ... . being so turned out of possession, to be recovered in any of Her Majesty's superior courts at Westminster " : — Held, that a lease of a rectory for the term of the rector's incumbency, though not containing , the statutory condition of avoidance, was not absolutely void, but was good as between the rector and the lessee, and would only become void on the bishop ordering personal residence. Held, also, that the object of s. 59 in requiring the insertion of the condiition of avoidance was to bring the provisions of the law to the attention of the lessee, and the only effect of omitting it was to render the lessor liable in damages under the proviso if the lessee was turned out by reason of the bishop's order. Rickard c. Gbaham Swinfea Eady J. [1010] W. H. 85 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 722 Vestry. — Communion table with cross and candlesticks. Faculty for erection of — Chancel steps — Ketable — Chapel of ease — Vestry. See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty 7, Vicar-general. — Patent of commissary and vicar-general — Reservation to bishop of certain causes. See Ecclesiastical Law — Fractioe 2. ( 1 009 ) DIGEST OB^ CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1010 ) ECCIESIASTICAL LAW— conii?med. Vicarage. 1. — Sale — PiircJiage of new vicarage with proceeds — Loan of balance of jmi'chase-money — CnmpletioH of imr chase — Mortgage of revenues of benefice to secure loan — Validity — Lien — Clergy Residences Rejjair Act, 1776 (17 Geo. 3, c. 53), ss. 1, 4, and 10 — Parsonages Act, 1838 (1 If 2 Viet. c. 28), s. 1. Where under the provisions of the Clergy Residence Repair Act, 1776, and the Parsonages Act, 1838, money is borrowed by an incumbent upon the security of a mortgage of the revenues of his benefice, it is essential to the validity of the mortgage — (1) that the money should be borrowed prospectively for the purpose of paying for future works to be executed, and not for the purpose of repaying money already expended ; and (2) that the mpney should be paid into the hands of a nominee as required by s. 4 of the Act of 1776. The incumbent of a living, finding that the vicarage house was too small for his require- ments, sold it with the consent of the ordinary and patron, and the purchase-money was duly paid to the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty. He subsequently found a house more suitable for the purpose, and the purchase of it was api^roved by the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty and by the ordinary and patron. The money in the hands of Queen Anne's Bounty being insufiicient to provide the purchase-money, it was arranged that the incumbent should find the balance ; he accordingly did so by means of a personal loan from members of his own family, and sent a cheque for the balance to Queen Anne's Bounty. Shortly afterwards the purchase was completed. About a year after its completion the incumbent obtained from the ordinary his approval and consent to a mortgage of the revenues of the benefice in favour of the lenders, and that approval and consent were expressed in a memorandum of approval duly executed by the ordinary. A few days later a mortgage in the form scheduled to the Act of 1776, adapted to the case of a purchase, was executed by the incumbent. It purported to charge the whole revenues of the benefice with the repayment to the lenders of the money advanced by annual instalments of principal and interest as provided by the Acts. The incumbent subsequently exchanged his benefice for another, and, the new incumbent finding the vicarage house too large, it was sold and a new vicarage house bought with a part of the proceeds of sale and the balance paid into the hands of the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty : — ■ HeXd, that the mortgage having been executed to secure the repayment of money already expended, and the money not having been paid into the hands of a nominee as required by s. 4 of the Act of 1776, the mortgage was not in accordance with the Acts, and was, therefore, invalid. Held, also, that the mortgagees had no lien on the new vicarage or on the balance in the hands of the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty. LiDBETTBE V. HATCH Warrington J. [1807] W. N. 29 ; [1907] 1 Cli. 404 EDINBUEGH. See under Scottish Law. EDINBUEGH COEPORATION ACT— By-law— Ultra vires. See Scottish Law. 6. EDINBUEGH WATEE ACT— Right of suppoit for water pipe — Minerals under pipe. See Wateb. 20. EDUCATION. Sec under Schools. " EFFECTS "—Soldier's will—" Effects " to be " credited." See Peobatb — Soldier's Will. EGGS — Game — Seizure and detention by police officer of partridges' eggs — Poaching prevention. See Game. 5. EJECTMENT— Action of— Appeal as of right- Practice. See County Couet— Appeal. 2. — Forfeiture — Mortgagee of underlease — Relief — Parties — Costs. See Landlord and Tenant. 35. — Injunction — Mortgage — Power of attorney. See Tueks and Caicos Islands. 1. ' ' EJUSDEM GENEEIS "— Charterparty — Ex- ceptions — Demurrage — Construction. See Shipping— Charterparty. 34. " ELDEST SON " — Accelerating period of dis- tribution — Younger son afterwards becoming eldest son. See Settlement. 27. ELDEST SON— Exception of, entitled to other estates — Shifting clause -— Successive life estates. See Will— Shifting Clause. 1, 2. ' ELDEST SON OF MY SISTEE "- struetion — Lapsed gift. See Jamaica. 1. -WiU— Con- ELECTION — After-acquired property clause — Persons derivatively entitled — Will — — Satisfaction. See Will — Satisfaction. 1. — Alternative liability — Judgment signed against one of two defendants. See Husband and Wife — Liability. 1. — Appointment — To determine tenancy — Relief granted to lessee— Effect on under- lease. See Landloed and Tenant. 36. — Appointment — Validity — Remoteness — " Possibility on a possibility " — Equitable interests. See PowEE OP Appointment. 6. — Appointment void for remoteness — Will power — Settlement. See PowEE op Appointment. 6. 1. — Bequest hy married woman of husband's projieiiy to a third person — Married Women's ( 1011 ) DIGEST OF CASKS, IflOl— IfllO. ( ini2 ) ELECTION —contlitucd. PropeHy Act, 1882 (45 <)• 46 Viot. v. 75), s. 1, mis. 1 ; s. 5. If, having regard to the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, the will of a married woman would have passed property if it had been her own at the date of the will, her husband is in respect of that property, if it belongs to him, even by acquisition in her right, and is clearly identified, put to election where the will also confers benefits on him. Where the gift away from the husband Is of all the wife's property of a certain description, it is more difiioult to shew a case of election even where the wife has little or no property of that description. Observations on Rich v. Cochell, (1802) 9 Ves. 369. Ill re Hakeis. Leaceoft e. Haeeis Parker J. [1909] 2 Ch. 206 2. — Compensation — Eleotiontotahe jyvopert y as agabist will — Amount of compensation, at wIiM date to ie ascertained. Where a beneficiary under a vrill, being put to his election, elects to take against the will, the amount of the compensation payable to the legatees who are disappointed by the election is to be ascertained at the date of the death of the testator, and not at the time when the election is made. In re HANCOCK. HANCOCK r. Pawson Kekewich J. [1904] W. N. 194 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 16 3. — Compensation — Married woman — Restraint on anticipation — Removal of dis- uMlity. A testator, who owTied land in Turkey, by his will directed it to be sold and the proceeds treated as part of his residuary estate, and he gave an interest in his residuary estate to a married daughter coupled with a restraint upon anticipation. By the law of Turkey the testator had no power to dispose by will of the proceeds of sale of the Turkish property, which became divisible amongst his children. Pending an application for payment out of court of the pro- ceeds of sale, the married daughter became a widow : — Seld, that the testator by adding the restraint on anticipation shewed an intention inconsistent with the application of the doctrine of election, and that that intention was not affected by the fact that the daughter had subsequently become discovert : Held, therefore, that she was not bound to compensate out of her interest in the residue those who were disappointed by the Turkish property not being dealt with as directed by the will. Ilamiltun v. Hamilton, [1892] 1 Ch. 396, commented upon. Haynes v. Fostee Kekewich J. [1901] W. N. 22 ; [1901] 4 Ch. 361 4. — Compensation— Se\:eral persons electing to talie against will and tailing other henefits under it — Com2>ensation inter se — Benefits reeelced under will — Compensation received included in henefit. B. by his wiU purported to dispose of pro- perty comprised in a settlement, under which he took a life interest only without any power of 'ELECilQ^— continued. disposition, as well as of his own property. Some of the persons entitled under the settle- ment took other benefits under the will. They aU elected to take against the will. This election deprived some of the electing parties of shares in the settled property given to them by the will :— Held, that the persons electing to take against the will were respectively bound to make com- pensation to other persons so electing, as well as to persons who took under the will only, for any disappointment occasioned by the election to the extent of the benefits received under the will by the several persons electing to take against it. Held, also, that all compensation so paid to any person electing to take against the will must be included in the benefits received by him under the will. In re Booth. Booth v. Robinson Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 2 Ch. 321 — Costs — Taxation — Public body — Eight to elect. See SOLICITOE— Costs. 31. • Husband and wife. See under Husband Election. AND Wife — Writ claiming to determine — • Lease — Forfeiture — Relief ■ possession — Election tenancy — Underlease. See Landloed and Tenant. 36. — Liquidated damages — Injunction. See Peinoipal and Agent. 1. — Partner's share to co-partner. Sale of one^ Election by selling partner to affirm sale — Time for election. See Paetneeship. 24. — Perpetuity — Power — Appointment — Settle- ment. See PowEE op Appointment. 5. — Power — Appointment — Perpetuity — Settle- ment. See PowEE op Appointment. .1. — Power — Successive appointments — Cumula- tive or substitutionary. See PowEE op Appointment. 38. — Eeal estate — Grant — Exception — Uncertainty. See Conveyance. — Eeal estate — Eesulting trust— Eeconversion — Will — Election — Estate duty — Inci- dence. See Settlement. 23. — Eight of election — Estates in Scotland and Australia — Two separate wills. See New South Wales. 38, — To abide by contract with individual— Solici- tors — Fraud. See Paetneeship. 14. ELECTION LAW. See also under Paeliament. 1. — Ballot papers — Position of voter's marks on pajier — Sufficiency of — Election petition — Ballot Act, 1872 (35 | 36 Vict. c. 33), Sched. II. A ballot paper is not rendered void under the Ballot Act, 1872, by reason of the voter placing ( 1013 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1010. ( lOH ) ELECTION IkVf—conthiued. his mark outside the ruled compartments on the paper, within which compartments it is intended that the voter's mark shall be placed, if the mark is in such a position opposite to the name of a candidate as to leave no doubt for whom the voter intended to vote. In re Pontaedawe Bueal DiSTEiOT Council Election Petition Div. Ct. [1907] W. N. 130 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 313 — Disqualification — Town councillor — Contract with council — Release by committee. A'ce CoEPOEATION. 12. — Mayor — Validity of vote of disqualified person — Bight of chairman to vote — casting vote. See COEPOEATION. 11. — Parishioners' churchwarden — Right of incum- bent to vote at. See Ecclesiastical Law— Chnrch- wardena. 2. — Parliament. See under Paeliament. ELECTOEAI DISABILITIES ACT — Service franchise — Compulsory absence. See Paeliament. 20. ELECTEIC BELL SIGNALS— Telophone—Post- master-General — Monopoly — Private lines. Sec Telegeaph. 4. ELECTEIC CAES — Not real estate — Personal estate exempt from assessment. See Canada — Eailway. 2. ELECTRIC CTIERENT- Escape of— Disturbance to submarine cable. See Cape op Good Hope. 3. ELECTEIC LIGHT. Eledne Liglding AH, 1909 (9 Edio. 7, c. 34), is an Act to amend, the Acts relating to EJeetric L'ujJit'ing. Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1909. B.ules, in pursuance of s. 5offhe Act.oflSS2, ivith resjiect to Applications for Prorisionul Orders. 1910 (E.— Board of Trade). Price Id. Fur the Provisional Orders Confirmation ■tinder the Electric Lighting Acts, see the various Orders of the Bon rd of Trade stated in Table IV., Class XVI., in the Alphabetical List of Local and Pricate Acts .let out at tJic latter part of the ■various Volumes of the Sfntiitcs, 1901 to 1910. — By-law of corporation granting exclusive rights — Construction. See Canada — Electric Light. 1. — Capital money, Application of — Alterations and additions with a view to lotting — Leasehold house — Electric lighting in- stallation. See Settled Land— Capital Moneys. 3, i. — Corporation — Statutory powers — " Public duty " — Negligence. See COEPOEATION. 16. 1. — Company incoi-porated under Companies Acts — General pmvers — Special sfatiitorij 2iouvrs ELECTEIC JjlOKT—confin^ued. — Statutory prohibition against supplying eler~ fricity beyond statutory areas — Statutory povxr to erect generating station outside statutory areas — Supplmng electricity outside statutory areas — Metropolitan Electric Lighting Act, 1889 (52 ,$■ .53 Vict. c. c-ccvi.}, s. .5 — Metropolitan Electric Supply Company Act, 1898 (61 <)'• 62 Vict. c. ec.T.vxv.'), ss. 2, 16. In 1889 a limited co., formed under the Com- panies Acts for the purpose of generating and supplying electric energy, obtained a special Act and certain provisional orders of the Board of Trade empowering them to supply electric energy in three specified areas within the administrative county of London. The special Act and the orders contained clauses in identical terms prohibiting the undertakers from supplying energy or erect - ing electric works beyond their statutory areas, except by the authority of Parliament or under a licence from the Board of Trade. In 1898 the CO., being unable to supply the demands of their customers in their statutory areas from their generating stations in those areas, obtained another special Act authorising them to erect generating works in an urban district outside the county of London. In 1903, theco., purporting to act under the general powers in their memo- randum of association, commenced to supply energy from their works in the urban district t.i a ry. co. in that district. In an action by the Att.-Gen., at the relation of the local authority of the urban district, to restrain the co. from si) doing : — ileld, that the prohibition in the Act of 1889 was not limited to the administrative county of London, but was general, and that the co. were acting in contravention thereof. Decision of Faewbll J., [190.5] 1 Ch. 24. affirmed. Att.-Gen. r. Meteopolitan Elec- TEic Supply Co. . C. A. [1905] W. ». 61 : [1906] 1 Ch. 757 2. — Connecting tiro areas of supply of one company by mains — Sight to breiiTi up streets and lay mains outside companifs areas — Electric Lighting Act, 1882 (45 ^-46 Vict. c. 56), .ss. 12, 13 —Electric Lighting {Ctauses') Act, 1899 (62 ,?'63 Vict. r. 19), Schedule, .■,-. \2— London Electric Su272)ly Act, 1908 (8 Edir. 7, ,-. cl.rrii.'), s. 4. The deft. co. was a co. to which the London Electric Supply Act, 1908, applied. The co. had one area of supplj' north of and another south of the Thames and wished to connect the same by mains running through streets outside either area, including Loudon Bridge, a bridge belong- ing to the Corporation of the City of London as trustees of the Bridge House Estates, and repair- able by the Corporation as such trustees and not by any local authority. Held, that s. 4, s"ub-s. 3 (B), of the Act of 1908 gave power to the co. to break up the inter- vening streets and bridge for the purpose of laying therein the connecting mains, subject to the consent either of the Corporation or of the Board of Trade under s. 13 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, and s. 12, sub-s. 2, of the schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899. Sect. 4 of the Act of ]90Sc\-plaincd. Loxdo.n" ( 1015 ) DlGJiSl' OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1016 ) ELECTRIC LIGHT— continued. CoKPOBATiON «. County op London Electeic Supply Co. Parker J. [1910] 8 Ch. 208 — Contract, Coustruotion of — " Generating light " — " Actual cost." See Cape op Good Hope. i. 3. — Contract — Electric energy — Agreement to take the whole from tlie -plaintiffx — Implied contract imt to talie it from anijbody else — U/ulue preference — " Similar circumstances " — Injunc- tion— Me'ctric LiijMing Act, 1882 (45 .<■ 46 Vict, c. 56), .S-.V. 19, 20 — Electric. Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1889, (52 J\- 53 Vict. 0. el.rxxi.'), (Mid-London), se. 46, 47, 52. The deft, signed a form of request to the pit. CO. to supply him with electric energy subject to (inter alia) the following terms : (1) the consumer agrees to take the whole of tlie electric energy required for the premises mentioned below from the CO. for a period of not less than five years ; (2) the charge for electric energy to be i\d. per Board of Trade unit. There was no covenant by tlie CO. to supply, nor by the deft, to take, any energy. Similar forms of request had been signed by other persons for difEerent terms of years and at difEerent prices : — Held, that the request was in substance a contract not to take energy from any other per- son, and that it could be enforced by injunction ; that mider the Electric Lighting Orders Con- firmation (No. 5) Act of 1889, ss. 46 and 52, the contract was valid so far as it created rights between the parties for a term of years ; that the words " is entitled " in the last part of s. 19 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, meant entitled by agreement with the undertakers ; that in making such agreements the undertakers might have regard to " special circumstances" as men- tioned in s. 19, e.g., the amount of energy con- sumed, the expense of supplying it and getting payment, uniformity of demand, and the fact that some consumers required the energy by day and some by night ; that unless all the circum- stances were similar, agreements might therefore be made for different terms and at different rates ; and that in this case there had been no undue preference. Metropolitan Electhio Supply Co. c Gindeb • Buckley J. [1901] W. N. 93 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 799 4 Contract — Electric Lighting— Validity — Members of Corporation " directly or indirectly interested or concerned in" contract— Municipal corporation — Citg of London- City of London Sewers Act, 1848 (11 J(- 12 Vict. c. clxiii.'), s. 42. Contracts for lighting the City of London, made between electric cos. and the Commrs. of Sewers, are, like all contracts by companies with the Commrs., upon the true construction of s. 42 _ of the City of London Sewers Act, 1848, null and void if at the date of the contracts any of the Commrs., members of the Court of Aldermen or the Common Council were shareholders in the lighting cos. But a valid contract is not made invalid by the mere fact that after the contract was made it was with the consent of the Commrs. transferred to another co. in which Commrs. or members of the Court of Aldermen or of the Common Council were shareholders. The decision of the C, A., [1901] W. N. 42 ; ELECTEIC IIG'B.'S— continued. [1901] 1 Oh. 602, affirmed. City ov London Electeic Liohting Co., Ld. v. London Coe- POKATION - H. L. (E) [1903] W. N. 149 ; [1903] A. C. 434 5. — Default in payment iy consumer — Elec- tric lighting company — Power to cut off current — Change of occupancy — Existing supply of current — Receiver appointed by Court — Electric Lighting Act, 1882 (4.5 of 46 Vi'ct. c. 56), ss. 19, 21 — Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (jVo. 2) Act, 1889 (52 j- 53 Vict. u. clcxviii.'), Schedule (London Electric Supply"), s. 47. Under s. 19 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, no person within the area supplied with electric current by an electric lighting co. is entitled to a supply of current by the co. unless and until he has entered into a contract with the co. for the purpose. Therefore, iipon a change in the occupation of premises to which current is being supplied by an electric co., there being a debt due to the co. from the outgoing occupier in respect of current already supplied to him, the co. are entitled to discontinue the supply until the new occupier has entered into a contract with them for a supply to him. At the instance of debenture-holders of an hotel CO., the Court appointed a receiver of the undertaking and property of the co. The order directed the co. to deliver to the receiver pos- session of the hotel " so far as is necessary for the pm-pose of such receivership," and the receiver at once took possession of the hotel. At this time electric current for lighting the hotel was being supplied by an electric lighting co., and a large sum was due to them from the hotel CO. for current already supplied : — Held, that the electric co. were entitled to dis- continue the supply of current until the receiver had entered into a new contract with them for its supply. Decision of Kekewioh J. reversed. HusiiY r. London Electeic Supply Coepoeation C. A. [1902] W. N. 31 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 411 6. — Electric lighting — Municipal corpora- tion — Statutory powers — " Supply " of electricity — " Things necessary and incidental to such suju'ly" — Electric Lighting Act, 1909(9 Edw. 7, c. 34), ss. 6, 16 — Oasworlis Clauses Act, 1847 (10 Si 11 Vict. c. 15), ss. 6—12, 13, 14, 18—20— Gasworlts Clauses Act, 1871 (34 ^' 35 Vict. c. 41), ss. 38—41, 45, 46. The Electric Lighting Act, 1882, s. 10, pro- vides that undertakers authorized to supply electricity may "enter into such contracts and generally do all such acts and things as may be necessary and incidental to such supply." A municipal corporation under the provisions of the Act of 1882 and a provisional order of the Board of Trade were the undertakers for the supply of electricity within their area, and, purporting to exercise their statutory powers, supplied every description of electrical fittings and apparatus to consumers of electricity :— ^ Held, that the statutory powers of the under- takers ceased with the delivery of electrical energy at the terminals, i.e., the meter, on the consumer's premises and was complete at that ( 1017 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1018 ) ELECTEIC LIGHT -coidiniiA-d. point, and that the general power to do '' all such acts and things as were necessary and incidental to such supply" was limited to the generation and delivery of such supply. Seld, also, that the analogy of the supply of gas under the Gasworks Clauses Acts, 1847 and 1871, did not apply to the supply of electricity under the Electric Lighting Acts. Held, therefore, that the supply of electrical fittings and apparatus for the use of consumers was ultra vires the corporation, and b,n injunction was granted accordingly. Attoeney-Gbnbkal ■c. Leicester Cokporation - Neville J. [1910] W. N. 169 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 359 — Installation — Capital money — Engine-house. See Settled Land — Capital Money. 2. — Factory — Electrical station — " Public Build- ing " — Workhouse. .?«! Master and Sekvakt — Factory Acts. 1. 7. — Justices — Complaint — Limitation nftime — Laying electric lines near r/as mains — Arhitra- tinn — Award nf compensatinn — Conrictian — Pennlties — Summarij Jurisdictiim Act, 1848, (11 .>(■ 12 Vict. e. i^),s.n— Electric Lighting iCIaitsrs-) Act, 1899 (62 .5- 63 Vict. c. 19), Schedule, s. 18. By the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, schedule, s. 18, undertakers who lay new electric lines (other than service lines) near the mains of any gas co. shall conform with the reasonable requirements of the gas co. for protecting their mains from injury, and for securing access thereto, and repair any damage done thereto, any questioner difference which may arise under that section to be determined by arbitration ; and if the undertakers make default in comply- ing with any of the requirements of the section, they shall make full compensation to the gas co. for loss or damage incurred by reason thereof, "and in addition thereto they shall be liable for each default to a penalty not exceeding 10/., and to a daily penalty not exceeding 51." By s. 1, " the expression 'daily penalty' means a penalty for each day on which any offence is continued after conviction therefor." In Oct., 1903, an electric light co. were lay- ing in the streets of a town new electric lines (other than service lines) near the mains of a gas CO. On Oct. 2, 1903, the gas co. by letter to the electric light co. complained that the lines were being laid in a manner which was injurious to the gas mains, and required the lines to be rclaid in a proper manner. Correspondence then ensued between the two cos., in the course of which the gas co., by letters of Oct. 27 and Nov. 2, 1903, respectively, specified their require- ments with respect to the laying of the electric lines. Throughout the correspondence the electric light co., who completed the work of laying their lines on or before Oct. 31, 1903, dis- puted the reasonableness of the gas co.'s require- ments, and they did not at any time comply with them. The questions and differences which had arisen between the two cos. were, shortly after Nov. 'J, 1 903. referred to arbitration under s. 18 of the schedule to the Act of 1899, and on ELECTEIC LI&HT -co.diuiwd. Feb. 12, 190-t, tlie arbitrator made his award, finding in effect that the electric light co. had not conformed with the requirements of the gas CO., and awarding to the latter a sum as fuU compensation for the loss and injury they had thereby sustained. On April 29, 1904, the gas co.'s solicitors wrote to the electric light co.'s solicitors pointing out that the electric light co. had made no attempt to comply with the gas co.'s requii-ements, and threatening proceedings for penalties under s. 18 unless an undertaking were given that +hose requirements would be complied with. On May 31, 1904, a complaint was made on behalf of the gas co. alleging that '■ on and since Oct. 2. 1903," the electric Mght co. had made default in complying with certain requirements of s. 18 ; that they had laid their new electric lines too near the gas co.'s mains, and did not conform and had not conformed with the gas co.'s requirements for protecting from injury their mains, and for securing access thereto. On the hearing of the complaint before justices they convicted the electric light co. of the offence alleged in it, and adjudged that they should " forfeit and pay to the clerk of the Court the sum of \l., and the further sum of 1/. for every day during default " : — Held, that the complaint and conviction suffi- ciently alleged an offence completed within six months before the time when the complaint was made, and were, therefore, not bad on the face of them under s. 11 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848 ; nor did the facts proved before the justices and above stated show a completed offence before the stat\itory period of limitation began to run. \_Semble, that, whether the complaint was or was not made within the statutory period, the offence was a continuing offence, so that s. 11 did not apply.] Held, also, that the reference to arbitration and the award did not bar the right of the electric co. to proceed for penalties under s. 18 of the schedule to the Electric Lishting (Clauses) Act, 1899 : Held, further, that the conviction so far as it imposed the sidditional dally penalties was bad, but that it could be dealt with either by an amendment striking out the part which related to those daily penalties, or by directing that no effect be given to that part in the event of an attempt being made to enforce them, and that the other part of the conviction was good, and could be enforced. Chepstow Electric Light and Power Co. r. Chepstow Gas and Coke CoNsnMEBS' Co. - Div. Ct. [1905] I K. B. 198 8. — Local authoritg — Electric lighting — Land acr/uired under special Act for electric generating station — Erection of refuse destructor on part of land so acquired — Combined scheme — Ultra rires — Injunction — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 S- 39 Vict. c. 55). s. 176— Electric Lighting Art, 1882 (45 ,y 46 Vict. c. 56), s. 10 —Electric Lighting Clauses Act, 1899 (62 S,- 63 Vict. c. 19), .s. 1, sched., clauses 2, 8. A local authority, acting under the powers given to them by a provisional order duly con- firmed which incorporated the Electric Lighting ( 1019 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 10:30 ) ELECTRIC LlGST-~co>iti)iued. Acts, purchased land by agreement for the pur- pose of erecting thereon works for generating electricity. Before the purchase they had deter- mined to adopt a scheme, proposed by their engineer, under which they were to erect a refuse destructor on part of the land and use the surplus heat produced by the consumption of refuse in aid of their machinery for generating electricity. The council had power under the Public Health Act to acquire land for the purposes of erecting a refuse destructor : — Meld, as a matter of fact that the council had acquired the land in exercise of their powers under the Electric Lighting Acts, and not under the Public Health Act. Held, also, that the erection and use of the refuse destructor was not ancillary to the supply of electricity, and was therefore ultra Tires and must be restrained. Decision of Farwell J., [1905] 2 Ch. HI, affirmed. Att.-Gejt. i\ Ponttpkidd Ubban Council - - - C. A. [1906] W. N. 117 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 257 9. — Local Gocemment — Eleotrie lighting — Provisional order — Local authority iiamed as uiideHaliers — Contract ig undeHakers — Transfer of powers — Consent of Board of Trade — Corpora- tion— Medric Lighting Act, 1882 (4.5 Sf 46 Vid. c. 56), «. 11. A corporation obtained a provisional order for the supply of electrical energy within their dis- trict. They entei'ed into an agreement with the deft. CO. which provided that the co. should con- struct all necessary works for the manufacture, supply, and distribution of electricity within the area of supply, and should manufacture, distri- bute, and supply electricity therein ; carry on the business and indemnify the corporation against all expenses ; and that nothing in the agreement was to be deemed to transfer to the CO. any powers which the corporation were by the order or by the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, prohibited from transferring. No application was made to the Board of Trade to sanction this agreement. The co. did not con- struct the works, and the corporation brought an action against them for damages for breach of contract ; — Held, that the first part of s. 11 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, only authorized a corporation which had obtained a provisional order for the supply of electricity to enter into contracts for the construction of works and for .the supply to itself of electricity ; that the second part of the section prohibited corporations, and also cos. and persons who had obtained orders, from transferring to other persons or divesting themselves of any legal powers given to them, or any legal liabilities imposed on them by the Act or the orders, without the consent of the Board of Trade ; that the agreement was on its true construction a transfer of the duties and liabilities of the pit. corporation to the deft. co. ; that it was therefore prohibited by the section and could not be enforced. Sudbuet Cohpoba- TiON V. Empieb Elbcteio Light and Power Co. - Warrington J. [1906] W. N. 68 [190S] 2 Ch. 104 ELECTRIC hlGB.!:— continued. 10. — Nuisance — Statutory powers— Electric tpply— Leakage of electricity— Fusion of electric main— Explosion— Fire— Eledric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888 (45 .5-46 Vict. c. 56 ; 51 <|- 52 Vict, c. \2') — Ma7ichester Electric Lighting .Order, 1890. The def ts. were empowered by the Manchester Electric Lighting Order, 1890, made under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, and con- firmed by Act of Parliament, to supply electrical energy in their district, and for that purpose to lay down electrical mains, but it was provided by clause 70 of the order that nothing therein con- tained should exonerate them from any indict- ment, action, or other pioceediug for nuisance in the event of any nuisance being caused by them. One of their mains fused, and the bitumen in which the main was laid in consequence became volatilized into an inflammable gas, which accumulated for some time, and tlieu exploded, causing a fire by which the pits.' goods were damaged ; — Held, that, apart from any question of negli- gence, the defts. were liable to the pits, as for a nuisance by reason of the provisions of clause 70 of the order. Mid WOOD & Co. r. Manchester CORPOEATION C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 597 — Nuisance— Vibration— Noise— Electric gene- rating station. See Nuisance. 13. — Overhead wires— Road originally acquired by turnpike trustees. See Steeets. 7. — Public authorities protection — Costs — " Solici- tor and client " — Electric lighting. See COEPOBATION. 16. — Supply — Duty to supply electric power — ■ Penalty — Dam ages . See COBPOEATION. 16. — Supply of electricity — Loughborough Cor- poration. See Statute. 3. — Turnpike trustees — Road originally conveyed in fee — Vesting in urban authority — ■ Overhead wires^-Local Government. See Steeets. 7. — Victorian Electric Light and Power Act, 1896 — Powers of undertakers to vary rates of charge. See ViCTOElA. 3. ELECTRIC SWEEPER— Right to clear ice and snow into the streets. See Canada— Snow. 1. ELECTRIC WIRES — Negligence in exercising statutory powers — Evidence — Quebec Act, 1 Edw. 7, c. 66, s. 10. See Canada — Negligence. 1. ELEGIT — Writ of — Married woman — Separate estate— General power of appointment — Costs — Execution. 5ee Husband andWife — Execution. 1. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. See under Schools. ( 1021 ) UIUKST 01' GASES, 1901— lOlU. ( 1022 ) EMBANKMENTS— Gouuty council— Main road — Maintenance and repair — Mandatory order. See Local Goveenment. 9. EMBABBASSING— Pleadings. Hee Pkactice — Pleadings. 2. EMEBGENCY — Investment, Unauthorized, Change of — Sanction of Court— Juris- diction. See Tktjsteb — InveatmentB. 16. EMIGBATION— Charity— Gift— Charitable uses or emigration uses — Uncertainty. See Chaeity. 15. EMPLOYES AND WOEKMAN. See under Mastbe and Servant. EMPLOYEES' LIABILITY ACT— Insurance. See under Insukakcb (Employebs' Liability). — Master and servant. See under Master axd Servant. EMPTY BUILDING — Kates — Occupation — lutention to use when occasion requires. See Rates. 23. "EN AUTEE DBOIT"— Costs— Equitable set-ofi — Debts " en autre droit." See Vendor and Purchaser— Costs. 1. EN VENTEE SA MiiEE — Child— Will— Con- struction — Bequest to a class of children " born " previously to date of will. See Will — Words. 1. — Chila— WiU — Construction — "Born in my lifetime " — Divesting clause. See Will— Words. 1. — lUogitimatc children — Class gift — After-born children. See Settlement. 29. — Remoteness — Contingent remainder — Child en ventre sa mere. See Perpetuity. 2. ENCEOACHMENT — Leaseholds — Accretion to holding for benefit of lessor — Presump- tion. See Limitations, Statute of. 11. ENCYCLOPJEDIA — Author and publisher — Ownership of copyright in contribu- tions. See Copyright — Books. 2. — Ownership of copyright in contributions. See Copybight — Encyclopsedia. 1. ENDOWED SCHOOLS. See under Schools. ENDOWMENT— Ademption— Charitable legacy — Particular purpose. See Will —Ademption. 1. — Charity. See under Charity. ENDOWMENT— OTtti«iMerescriptirc period, but during time prisoner serving sentence for crime committed in England — Arrest nnder order of committal after e.ipirafion ofpre-icrijifire neriod— E.rtradition Act, 1870 (33 .?• 34 Virt. c. 52), .V. 3, svb-s. 3; ss. 10, U—Ei-tradition tre^rti/ between United Kiur/dom and Sehfium of Oct. 29, 1901, arts. 9, U—'Pelgium Penal Code, arts, 92, 96. Where a metrop. magistrate commits a fugitive criminal alleged to have been convicted in a foreign country of an extradition crime to prison there to await the warrant of a Secy, of State for his surrender under s. 10 of the Extra- dition Act, 1870, and by virtue of s. 3, sub-s. 3, of the Act the prisoner's surrender does not take place till after the expiration of a sentence EXTRADITION (Fugitive Criminals) — continued. inflicted on him in England for an offence com- mitted in England, the order of committal will, if made before exemption from punishment for the extradition crime takes place in the foreign country by lapse of time, be valid and remain in full force until the expiration of the sentence inflicted upon the prisoner in England, although exemption from punishment for the extradition crime may have then taken place in the foreign country by lapse of time ; and a writ of habeas corpus ,to bring up and discharge the prisoner upon the ground that the extradition offence is no longer punishable in the foreign country will not be granted. Kex r. GovEBNOB OF Beixton Pbison. Ex parte Van DEE AuwEEA Div. Ct. [1907] W. N. 88 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 167 2. — Criminal law — Committal — Additional charges more than two months after apprehension — Kvtradition Treaty with Germany, arts. 9, 12. By art. 9 of the extradition treaty with Germany, where a fugitive criminal is arrested upon a request for extradition, the preliminary investigation of the case is to be conducted as if the apprehension had been for a crime com- mitted in the same country, and by art. 12 the fugitive is to be sot at liberty if sufiicient evidence for his extradition is not produced within two months from the date of his appre- hension. A fugitive criminal was arrested on Dec. 15 on a warrant issued upon an information charging him with obtaining money by false pretences within the jurisdiction of the German Empire, and was remanded from time to time until the following Feb. 14, when evidence was given upon one charge, which, in the opinion of the magistrate, was sufficient to justify the com- mittal of the prisoner for trial if the crime had been committed in this country. The prosecu- tion having intimated an intention to prefer additional charges, tlie necessary papers iu whicli had only reached the magistrate on the previous day, the magistrate did not then commit the prisoner for extradition, but further remanded him until Feb. 21, when evidence w;is taken upon thirty-one additional charges, and the prisoner was committed for extradition upon the original charge and thirty of the addi- tional charges. Upon an application for a habeas corpus : — Held, that there was in fact upon the deposi- tions sufiicient evidence to justify the committal of tlic prisoner upon the original charge on Feb. 14, and that the prisoner was therefore not entitled to be set at liberty under art. 12. Semble per Chaunell and Bucknill JJ., that sufBcient evidence upon the origintxl charge having been produced within two months of the arrest to justify a committal upon that charge, the magistrate was entitled after the expiration of the two months to receive evidence upon charges other than that on which the prisoner had been arrested, and that the committal upon those charges was good. In re Bluhu Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 764 3. — DiscJiurge of criminal — Exemption from punishment acquired by lapse of time — Treaty between Great Britain and Germany for the ( 1063 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( lOGl ) EXTBABITION (Fugitive Criminals) — continued. Muttml Surrender of Fugitive Criminals of May 14, 1872, arts, i, 5. By art. 4 of the Treaty between Great Britain and Germany for the Mutual Surrender of Fugitive Criminals of May 14, 1872, it is pro- vided that extradition sliall not talce place if the person claimed has already been tried and dis- charged. By art. 5 of the treaty extradition shall not take place if exemption from prosecution or punishment has been acquired by lapse of time according to the laws of the State applied to. A criminal was by a competent Court in Germany sentenced to a term of imprisonment for several extradition crimes. Before the term had expired he was, under an article of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance of the German Empire, released from custody on account of his health, but with the liability to be called upon subsequently to serve the residue of the term of imprisonment. At a subsequent date, when the term of imprisonment, if it had been served continuously, would have expired, the criminal was called upon by the competent authority in Germany to serve the residue of the term : — Held, (1) that he had not been discharged within the meaning of art. 4 of the treaty ; and (2) that exemption from punishment had not been acquired by lapse of time according to the laws of the State applied to within the meaning of art. 5 of the treaty ; and that the criminal was liable to be extradited. Rex v. Governor OP Bbixton Prison. Hx parte Calberla Div. Ct. [1907] a K. B. 861 EXTRADITION (Fugitiye Criminals)— <;oMeivies of alterations necessary to oitain certificated suit- ability — Conenant by tenant to pay " outgoings " — Power of magiscrate to apportion expenses between landlord and tenant — Factory and Work- shop Act, 1901 (1 Fdw. 7, t. 22), s. 101, sub-s. 8. Although premises may have been let as a bakehouse, and although the certificate required by s. 101 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, cannot be obtained unless structural altera- tions are made, if the lease contains a covenant by the tenant to pay all " outgoings " a magis- trate has no jurisdiction to make an order under sub-s. 8 of that section apportioning the expenses of those alterations between the landlord and the tenant. Semble, per Kennedy J., that premises are not " let as a bakehouse" within the meaning of the section unless the terms of the lease impose an obligation upon the tenant to use them as a bakehouse, and not merely confer a permission so to use them. MOEEIS v. Beal ■ Div. Ct. [1904] W. TX. 158 ; [1904] 2 E. B. 685 Note. Discussed by C. A., Horjter v. Franklin, [1905] 1 K. B. 479. See No. 2, above. Discussed by C. A., Stuckey m. Hoolie, [1906] 2 K. B. 20. See No. 5. above. — Underground bakehouse — " Outgoings." See Nos. 2, 4, above. — Workmen's Compensation Act. See under Master and Servant. 9. — " Worltsliop " — '■ Adapting for sale " — Factory and WorJishap Act, 1878 (41 <^- 42 Vict. e. 16), s. 93. Premises which were used in the daytime as a shop for the sale of sweetmeats by retail were used at night after shop hours for the purpose of packing the sweatmeats into the ornamental boxes in which they were sold : — Held, that on those facts there was evidence to justify the finding that the premises were a " workshop " within the meaning of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878. Fuller's, Ld. v. Squibb - - Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 209 Tlie Factory and Workshop Act, 1878 (41 ^' 42 Vict. c. 16), ii repealed by the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. 22), 1th schedule. FACTOEY ACTS. See under FACTORY and under Master AND Servant— Factory Acts. FACTTLTY- Ecclesiastical law. See under ECCLESIASTICAL Law — Faculty. FAIB COMMENT— Plea of— Meaning and effect of — Misdirection — New trial — Libel. See Defamation — Litel. 7. FAIRS— Exempted. See Shop Hours Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, 0. 31), s. 2, sub-s. 4. — Franchise — Tolls— Stallage. See Markets. 3. FAIRWAY — " Fairway " — CoUision — Fog— " Fairway " of river — Duty to ring bell when at anchor — Medway Conservancy by-laws. See Shipping — Collision. 31. — Ship — Collision — Swansea New Cut — Lights. See Shipping — Collision. 30. FALSA DEMONSTBATIO-Foreshore- Convey- ance of laud " bounded by the sea- shore " — Parcels — Plan — Evidence — Admissibility. See Seashore. 1. — Specific devise — Complete general description. See Will — Specific Devise. 1. FALSE EVIDENCE— Action against witness for negligently giving — Criminal prosecu- tion — Conviction unreversed. See Criminal Law— Practice. 1. FALSE IMPRISONMENT- Action for— Contract as to entry on and exit from wharf — Toll — Unreasonable conduct of plaintiff — Nonsuit. See Australia. 6. — Evidence of implied authority — Manager of public-house. See Master and Servant — False Imprisonment. 1. — Railway company — Arrest by company's special constable — Liability of com- pany. See Eailway — False Imprison- ment. 1. 1. — Signing t/ie charge sheet — Effect of standing alone — Absence of evidence of causing imprisonment. The signing of a charge sheet, standing alone, is not evidence of anything directly causing the imprisonment of the person charged, and will not support an action for false imprisonment against the person who signs. Sewell v. National Telephone Co., Ld. C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 657 FALSE PRETENCES— Criminal law. See under Criminal Law — False Pretences. — Substitution of allegation of fraud for — Indictment — Debtors Act. See Criminal Law — Indictment. 1. FALSE REPRESENTATIONS— Obtaining a pass- port by — Conspiracy — Indictment^ Direction to jury — Criminal law. See Conspiracy. 3. FALSE STATEMENTS — Penalty for- Naval reserve — E nlistment. See Army and Navy. 1. ( 1073 ) DIGEST OJ? CASES, 1901—1910. C i^ri ) FALSE TRADE DE8CEIPTI0N. See under MbeohANDISE Maeks. — Jurisdiction of justices — Successive warran- ties. See Adulteeation. 10. — Limit o£ time for taking proceedings — Sale of foods and drugs. See Adulteeation. 24. FALSE WAERANTY. See also under Wabeanty. FALSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS. See under Ceiminal Law —Falsifica- tion. FAMILY AKRANGEMENT — Estate duty — Policy of life iasurance — Interest pro- vided by the deceased. See Revenue — Estate Duty. 17. — Stamp — Conveyance on sale. See Revenue — Stamps. 9. FARM — Ploughing up pasture — Good husbandry — Waste. See Landloed and Tenant. 62. — Poor rate — Assessment — Sewage farm. See Rates. 41. FARM BTTILDINGS — Improvements — Reim- bursement out of capital moneys. See Settled Land — Capital Moneys. 5. FARMING LEASE — Arbitration — Outgoing tenant — Sheep stocli valuation — Agri- cultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908. See Scottish Law. 12. FARMING STOCK— Things quEe ipso uau con- sumuntur — Construction of will — Gift for life. See Will— Absolute Gift. 5. FARMS — Ploughing up pasture — Good hus- bandry — Waste. See Landloed and Tenant. 63. FATAL AOCIDENTS. See under Accident. FEES. See under Costs. — Bankruptcy. See under Bankeuptcy — Fees and Percentages. — Burial ground — Erection of monuments. See BUEIAL. i. — Company- — Winding-up. See under Company — Winding-up — Fees. — County courts. See under County Courts —Fees. — Directors' fees. See under Company — Directors. — Incumbent, Fees to — Erection of monu- ments — Consecration. • See Burial. 4. '£'EiES— continued. — Licensing Acts. See under LICENSING AOTS. — Sheriff. See under Shbeipp. — Weights and measures — Verification and stamping — Inspector, Duty of, to take fees. See Weights and Measuees. 8. FELONY — Administrator — Convicfs property, Sale iif — Bona fides — Discretion — Action by con- vict against his administrator — Forfeiture Act, 1870 (33 Si 34 Vict. c. 23), ss. 12, 17, 18. Sect. 12 of the Forfeiture Act, 1870, which gives the administrator of a convict's property " absolute power to sell " any part of that pro- perty "as to him shall seem fit," imports that the administrator must exercise discretion and care in case of a sale ; and if he does so, then, under s. 17, any contract falling within s. 12 is binding and cannot be in any way impeached by the convict on his discharge. But if an administrator under the Act is proved to have exercised no discretion or care in the matter of a sale, and a loss thereby ensues to the convict's estate, the Court will hold the administrator personally responsible for the loss. Decision of Buckley J., [1902] W. K 201 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 90, aflBrmei. Caee v. Anobeson C. A. [1903] W. N. 77; [1903] 2 Ch. 279 2. — Convict — Administrator — Estate tail — Power to dise->aail— Forfeiture Act, 1870 (33 ^- 34 Vict. V. 23), ss. 8, 10, 12— " AlieJUiti^"— Dis- position of lands entailed — Actual tenant in tail —Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74), ss. 1, 15, 38, 40. The Forfeiture Act, 1870, provides that all the real and personal property of a convict shall vest in the administrator appointed under the Act " for all the estate and interest of such convict therein," and that the admiuistrator shall have " absolute power " to sell, convey, and transfer part of such property : by s. 8 the convict, while subject to the operation of the Act, is to be in- capable of " alienating " any property : — Held (aiiinning the decision of Kekewich J., [1906] W. N. 27 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 440), that the administrator had no power to bar the estate tail of a convict and convey the fee to a pur- chaser. Held, also, that a deed by which the convict simply granted the property to a grantee and his heirs to the use of himself, his heirs and assigns, was not an " alienation " within s. 8 of the Forfeiture Act, and consequently that the convict himself could bar his estate tail and thus enable the administrator to sell the fee. In re Gaskell and Walters' Conteact C. A. [1906] W. N. 88; [1906] 2 Ch. 1 — Hallway company — Special constable — Arrest on suspicion of felony — Liability of company. See Railway — False Imprisonment. 1. — Refusal to commit — Felony — Case stated — Non-service of notice of appeal and case on respondent — Jurisdiction to state case. See Justices. 9. ( 1075 ) DIGEST OF CASKS, ,1901— Ifllfl. ( 107fi ) FEMAIE TRUSTEE— Appointment by Court. See Tbtotee— Appointment. 3. FENCE— Duty to— Owner- Public well in shaft of abandoned mine — Vested in local authority. See Mines. 11. — Highway — Kemoval of protecting fence — Misfeasance — Liability of highway authority. See Highway. 2. FENCING— Machinery— Offence. See under Factoby. — Railway company — Defective fence — Turn- table —Infant trespasser — Invitation to danger. See Railway — Fences. 1. FEEBY — Disturbance — Ferry from, nil to rill — Change of eireumstanees — Keiu traffic. A franchise of ferry from vill to vill is a right known to the law. Under an indenture of lease from the Crown conveying a " ferry or right of passage across the river Medina between East Cowes and "West Cowes in the Isle of Wight," together with two landing-places, one in West Cowes and the other in East Cowes, the pits, claimed an exclusive right of feny between any point on the east bank and any point on the west bank of the river within East Cowes and West Cowes respectively. East Cowes and West Cowes were two populous dis- tricts. The termini of the ferry, which was an ancient ferry, had always been two defined points, though not always the same two points, one on each bank of the river : — • Held, that the indenture conveyed a right of ferry between the two landing-places, and not an exclusive right of ferry between any point on the east bank and any point on the west bank of the Medina within East Cowes and West Cowes respectively. Semble, that East Cowes and West Cowes are not vills in such a sense that an exclusive right of ferry between them could be sustained in point of law. The defts., a steamboat oo. carrying passengers in steamers between the mainland and Cowes, conveyed those and other passengers in steam- launches between East Cowes and West Cowes, embarking and landing them at two pontoons distant respectively 230 yards and 875 yards north of the landing-place of the pits.' ferry. The evidence showed that the defts.' launches dealt with a traffic which had recently come into existence, and which was different from that dealt with by the pits. : — Held, that there had been no disturbance of the pits.' ferry. Cowes Urban District Council AND East Cowes Urban District Council v. Southampton, Isle of Wight, and South op England Royal Mail Steam Packet Co. Kennedy J. [1905] 2 K. B. 287 2. — Franchise — Ancient ferry — Bridge — Traffic diverted— Distwiance of ferry. The franchise of a ferry is not a grant of an exclusive right to carry across a stream by any means whatever, but only a grant of the exclu- sive right to carry across by means of a ferry. 'i'E&B.X— continued. Where, therefore, a bridge was constructed by private enterprise connecting the same highways as the ferry, whereby the ferry owner lost all the income he used to receive from tolls : — Held, that the bridge was not a disturbance of the ferry, and that the ferry owner had no remedy. The dictum of Blackburn J. on this point in Meg. V. Cambrian My. Co., (1871) L. E. 6 Q. B. 422, 430, can no longer be supported. Hopliins V. Great Nortliern My. Co., (1887) 2 Q. B. D. 224, discussed and followed. Decision of Neville J., [1907] W. N. 30 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 437, affirmed. Dibden v. Skieeow C. A. [1907] W. N. 225 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 41 FEETIIIZEKS AND FEEDING STUFFS— False description — Guilty knowledge. See Adultebation. 1. FIDEI-COMMISSAEY SUBSTITUTION— Will- Direct substitution — Roman - Dutch Law. See Will— Subgtitutlon. 2. FIDEI COMMISSUM CONDITIONALE— Sale of property subject to restraint on aliena- tion. See Cape op Good Hope. 13. FIDEI-COMMISSUM PEIMOGENITUBA— Con- dition as to surname not authorized by the founder — Power to appoint. See Malta. 1. FIDELITY BOND— Surety— Default of trustee- Penal interest — Liability of surety. See Baukeuptcy — Trustee. 1, 2. FIDUCIARY CAPACITY — Contempt — Dis- obedience of order to pay money — Debtor executor. See Attachment. 3. — Stock Exchange, Usage of — Sale and repur- chase of shares by broker — Profit made by broker on transaction. See Stock Exchange. 10. FIDUCIARY RELATION— Director— Contracts with company— -Confliot of interest with duty. See Company — Directors. 9. — Lease — Renewal by one tenant in common. See Landlobd and Tenant. 77. — Limitations, Statute of — Express trust. See Limitations, Statute op. 4. — Solicitor and client. See under Solicitoe — Fiduoiary Rela- tion. — Misrepresentation — Concealment — Sale of one partner's share to co-partner. /Sfie Partnership. 24. 1. — Person in fiduciary relation — Gift — Inflnenee — Dual relations, one fiduciary, one not — Gift due to non-fiduciary relation. H. C. had assisted his father in his business of keeper of a retail ale store from the year 1897 until his death in July, iSiaS. The father owned ( 1077 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1078 ) FIDUCIARY ^ELAtlOS ^continued. a long lease of the business premises, and had, as the judge held, expressed a wish that H. C. should have the business after him, but by his will he left all his property to his wife, S. A. C. After his death H. 0. acted as manager for his mother in carrying on the business. On Sept. 28, 1905, S. A. C. assigned the lease of the business premises to H. C., and on the next day the licence was transferred to him. He also took possession of the stock in trade and chattels on the business premises. No consideration was stated on the face of this assignment except the usual covenant to pay the rent and perform the covenants of the lease. But it appeared from the evidence that H. C. had agreed to pay, and did pay, his mother 3Z. a week out of the profits of the business, and that he had promised to pay her more at the end of the year if she found she needed it. Mrs. C. died on July 23, 1906, having by her will left 600?. to her son A. B. C, certain leasehold houses to her daughter, Mrs. T., and the residue of her estate to her three children equally. This action was brought by A. B. C. against H. C. and Mrs. T. as defts., claiming that the assignment to H. C. should be set aside on several grounds, of which the only one calling for a report was that H. C, being in a fiduciary relation to his mother, as manager of her busi- ness, could not uphold a gift from her unless he proved that she had independent advice. In fact, the assignment had been prepared for Mrs. C. by the solicitor who had acted for her in proving her husband's will. He was not asked for and did not give any advice, but satisfied himself that she quite understood what she was doing. He prepared her will at the same time. Neville J. said that H. C. was in a fiduciary relation to his mother, as her agent, and the burden was on him to rebut the presumption that the gift was induced by that relation. He had failed to discharge that burden by proving that his mother was independently advised. The question was whether it could be discharged in any other manner. He thought it could. He thought the evidence shewed clearly that the gift by Mrs. C. was not due to any relation which the carrying on of the business by H. C. after his father's death had established between him and his mother. He thought it was wholly independent of that relation, and that Mrs. C. was induced to make the gift out of affection for her son and because she believed that she was thereby giving effect to her husband's wishes. Under these circumstances it would be irrational to hold that the rights of the parties at the time of the assignment were governed by a relation which did not in fact induce the transaction. 7« re COOMBBR. COOMBEB V. COOMBBK Neville J. [1910] W. N. 278 — Promoter — Fraudulent prospectus. See Company — Fromottrs. 1. — Secret commission — Sub-agent — Privity of contract — Money had and received. See Principal and Agent. 9. FIELD-BOOK ENTRIES — Evidence — Admissi- bility — Professional duty — Deceased surveyor. See Seashore. 1. FILING — Company — Shares paid for otherwise than in cash — Omission to file contract. See CoMPAxy— Shares. 17, 18. — Report of official receiver— OfEences by bank- rupt — Prosecution. See Bankruptcy — Offences. 1. FINAL JUDGMENT. See under Judgment. — Bankruptcy notice. See under Baukeuptcy — Notice. FINAL OR INTEKLOCUTOEY ORDER- Appeal — Compulsory winding-up order. See Company — Windixg-up — Prac- tice, i. — Appeal — Reduction of capital. See Company — Practice. 2. — Appeal — Final or interlocutory order. See Appeal. 10, 17. — Appeal to Court of Appeal — Time for appeal- ing. See Appeal. 30. — Consolidated suits — Appeal— Jurisdiction — Costs — Co-respondent. See Divorce — Practice. 6. — Order, whether final or interlocutory. See under Practice — Interlocutory Orders. FINANCE ACTS— Revenue. See under REVENUE. FINE ARTS COPYRIGHT. (SBfi under Copyright. FINES — On alienation — Ancient demesne — Statute Quia Emptores — Prescription. See Manor. 1. — Compensation — Copyholds — Enfranchise- ment. See Lands Clauses Acts. 2. — Copyhold — Arbitrary fine — Custom to take smaller fine on admittance from tenant of manor than from stranger. See Copyholds. 1. — Copyholds, Sale of — Costs — No tenant on court rolls — Fine on heir's admission- - Steward's fees. See Lands Clauses Acts. 16. ■ Costs — Sale of copyholds — Death of vendor before completion — Fine on heir's admission. See Lands Clauses Acts. 19. ■ Judgment summons — Default in appearance — Application of fine in reduction of judgment debt — Jurisdiction. See County Court — Fines. 1. ■ Lease — Covenant — Liability for rent after further assignment. See Landlord and Tenant. 19. — Lease — Licence to assign. See Landlord and Tenant. 13, 18. Lease — Renewal — Interest. Ser Landlord axd Tenant. 78. ( 1079 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901-^1910. ( lOSO ) TmCES -coniimeii. — Lease — Renewal " at costs of lessee "■ — Award. See Landlord and Tenant. 76. — Motor car — Appeal — Costs — Summary juris- diction. See Justices. 2. — Surrender of lease — Capital or income — Tenant for life and remainderman. iSee Settled Land — Leases, 2. — Truck Act — Contract for deductions in respect of fines. See Master and Servant — Truck Acts. ] . FINES AND SECOVZRIES ACT. See under Disentailing Assurance. — Actual tenant in tail — Restraint on barring estate. See Revenue— Estate Duty. 12. — " Alienation " — Disposition of lands entailed — Actual tenant in tail — Convict — Administrator — Estate tail — Power to disentail. See Felony. 2. — Disentailing assurance— Protector of settle- ment — Void trust for accumulations. See Disentailins Assurance. 2. — Disentailing assurance — Protector of settle- ment — Consent where himself the dis- entailing tenant in tail. See Estate Tail. 1. — Estate tail — Disentailing as-surance — Pro- tector — Three persons appointed by settlor — Death of two. See Settlement. 28. ■ Estate tail — Whether barrable- Crown. See Crown. 3. -Reversion in 1. — Estate tail — Will — Limitations of real estate — Disentailing deed — Estates " in defea- sance of" estate tail— Fines and Recme.ries Act, 1833 (3 Si i Will, i, c. 74), s. lo— Future rig/its — Unasceiiained 7^c?'«o«« — Representation — Trustees. A testator devised and bequeathed his real and personal estate unto and to the use of trustees, upon trusts for the benefit of his wife for life ; from and after her death, the surplus rents were to be accumulated for the purpose of paying off mortgages on the real estates ; and upon the expiration or other determination of the period of accumulation, but subject to the life interest of the wife, the trustees were directed to convey the real estates to the use of G. in tail male ; but if G. should be then dead, to the use of the person who should then be the first heir male of the body of G., with remainder to the use of the person who for the time being should be entitled to the dignity and title of Earl of Cardigan in tail male, with remainder to the use of the testator's right heirs. By a codicil the testator revoked the devise of the estate tail to G., and devised the said estates, after the death of his wife, to R., in tail male, "with all the limitations as in my said will mentioned." R., with the consent of the wife, as protector of the FINES AND RECOVERIES ACT continued. settlement, had executed a disentailing deed of 100,000?. Consols in court, representing proceeds of sale of the settled estates, and the trust for accumulations having now come to an end by the payment ofE of all the mortgages, R. claimed to be absolutely entitled to this fund, subject to the wife's life interest. On a petition for payment out of this fund by the wife and her incumbrancers, with the consent of R. : — Held, that as the petitioners and R. together were claiming immediate relief, on the ground that between them they were now absolutely entitled to this 100,000?. Consols, the question was ripe for decision, and the Court had jurisdic- tion to devise it ; and that all necessarily unascertained persons were sufiiciently repre- sented by the trustees of the will : Held, also, on the question of construction, that R. was now entitled to a vested equitable estate in tail male in remainder expectant upon the decease of the testator's wife, and that the subsequent estates had been barred by the dis- entailing deed, being estates to take efiect in a certain event after, if not in defeasance of, the vested estate in tail male of R., and that the 100,000?. Consols in court could be paid out to the petitioners. Lady Cardigan r. Curzon HovTE - - Byrne J. [1901] W.N. 147; [X901] 2 Ch. 479 — Married woman — Mortgage — Separate ex- amination — Acknowledgment — Burgage tenure — Custom — Reasonableness. See Husband and Wipe — Mort- gages. 1. 2. — Real estates limited in strict settlement — Income of personal estate to he paid to A. for life — Ondeath of A. capital to he invested in land to be held to the uses of the settlement — Disentail- ing assurance of money not yet ascertained — Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833 (3 ^- i Will, i, c. 74), ss. 1, 71. Personal estate the income of which is directed to be paid to A. for life, and the capital of which is on his death directed to be invested in the purchase of land to be settled to the uses of a strict settlement of real estate created by the same instrument, can be effectually disentailed in the lifetime ot A. by the tenant in tail under the settlement with the consent of the tenant for life under the settlement. Fordham. v. Fnrdham, (1864) 34 Beav. 59, discussed and followed. In re Haevby. Har- vey V. Harvey - Byrne J. [1901] W. N. 124 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 290 FIRE— Agricultural Holdings Act — Compensa- tion — Destruction by fire. See Landlord and Tenant. 4. — Escape from fire — Two factories in one house — Notice to construct works. See Master and Servant— Factory Acts. 2. — " Factory " — Means of escape in case of fire — Covenant by occupier to pay " out- goings " — County Court. See Factory. 2. ( 1081 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1082 ) FIEE —continued. — Fire-escape — " Tenement factory.'' See Faotobt. 7. ■ — Insurance. See under lusnKANCE (Fire). — Railway. See under Railway — Fires. — Railway company — Damages by fire — Admis- sibility of railway map by the Appellate Court — Right of way. See Canada — Railway. 3. — Shipping — Charterparty — Exceptions — Applicability to charterer. See Shipping— Charterparty. 47. — Shipping — Damage to cargo — " By reason of " fire — Warranty of seaworthiness. See Shipping — Fire. 1. — Trespass — Justification — Act done in preserva- tion of property — Extinguishing fire. See Trespass. 2. — Water for extinguishing — Obligation to allow use of water gratuitously. See Water. 3. FIBE-ESCAPE— " Tenement factory." See Factory. 7. 10. FIBE HYDRANTS — Capital moneys — Improve- ments — Irish estates — Principal man- sion-house — Water supply. See Settled Land— Capital Moneys. 10. FIRE INSURANCE. See under Insurancb (Fire). FIRTH OF FORTH— A "narrow channel"— Ship — Collision — Damages for loss of life — Ship in fault. See Shipping— Collision. 2.5. FISHERMAN — Workmen's compensation — Share in the profits. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 96. FISHERY. (Fishery and Fishings.) Board of Agricidtiire and Fisheries Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 31), transfers to the Board of Agri- culture powers and duties relating to the Industry of Fishing and to amend the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889 (52 Jj- 53 Vict. c. 30). Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 15), !.s an Act to enable Provisional Orders to be made for regulating Salmon and Freshwater Fis/teries. — Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. See under Agricultuke. — Custom — Validity — Fishing nets, Custom to dry. See Custom. 1. 1. — Fishery district — Definition of limits by Board of 'Trade certificate — Ricer — Reservoir — Salmon Fishery Act,'l865 (28 4' 29 Vict. c. 121), s. 35— Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1878 (41 ^- 42 Vict. 0. 39), ss. 6, 7. Sect. 6 of the Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1878, FISHERY -continued. which extends the provisions of the Salmon Fishery Acts relating to fishery districts to "all waters within the limits of this Act frequented by trout or char," does not give fishery boards jurisdiction over waters of a different character from those referred to in the Salmon Fishery Acts, and has, therefore, no application to an artificial reservoir although it is frequented by trout or char. Stead v. Nicholas - Div. Ct. [1901] a K. B. 163 2. — Fisliery district — Bicer — Tributary, What u — Mill dam — Stream — Zicetwe — Salmon FisJtery Act, 1865(28 4' 29 Vict: c. 121), s. 35— F-eshwater Fisheries Act, 1878 (41 Si 42 Vict, c. 89), ss. 6, 7. From a stream, which was a tributary of a salmon river, a mill race was conducted to certain mills. For the purpose of increasing the water-poAver to the mills a triangular mill pond was constructed opening out of the mill race, and the water flowed backwards and forwards from the pond to the mill race, the water in the pond and race being always at the same level. All the water ultimately, after turning the mills, returned to the stream : — Held, that the mill pond was a tributary of the stream, and that persons fishing in it required a licence from the fishery board of the district. MosBS r. IGGO - - Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 516 — Fishing — Grant from the Crown — Claim of grantee to exclusive right to fish fi'om the foreshore. See Canada — Fishing. 1. — Lease, Fishing — Construction — Covenant against assignment — Demise of exclu- sive right of fishing — Grant by lessee of limited licence to fish. See Landlord and Tenant. 17. 3. — Mussel fishings — Crown rights — Scottish law. Mussel scalps on the foreshore or the estuary of a navigable river form part of the patrimonial property of the Crown which it can convey or let in lease to a subject. The decision of the First Div. of the Ct. of Sess., Scotland, (1902) 4 F. 698, aflirmed. Parker v. Lord Advocate H. L. (So.) [1904] yr. N. Ill ; [1904] A. C. 864 4. — Oyster-beds — Property in oysters — Sen Fislteries Act, 1868 (31 <5' 32 Vict, c. 45), ss. 51, 53 — Juri-tdiction — Action in rem — "Danrngedone by ant/ ship" — Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (2i Vict, c. iO) i-<. 7. 35. The pits., owners of oyster-beds at the mouth of a navigable river, brought an action in rem against the defts., as owners of a vessel, for so negligently navigating her as to ground on the property of the pits., and thei'eby do damage to their oysters and oyster-beds : — Jleld, by Sir F. H.Jeune, P., that the damage was " done by a ship " within the meaning of s. 7 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, and therefore the action would lie. Secondly, that as the damage was not done by grounding in the ordi- nary course of navigation, or without notice of ( 1083 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1001— 191ii. ( 1084 ) TlSSSB,Y~coiUiimed. the existence of the oyster-beds, the defts. were liable for the negligence of those in charge of their vessel ; and, thirdly, that as the pits, had property in the soil, and by s. 51 of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, in the oysters, they were entitled to enforce their claim for damage not only in respect of the disturbance of the beds, but also in respect of the destruction of the oysters. The " Swift " - - Jeune P. [1901] P. 168 S. — Oyster ponds on foreshore — Anoient user — Presumption of legal origin — Right of occu- pier as against wrong-doer — Pablio health — Urban Sanitary Authority — Sewer — Discharge of sewage into tlie sea — JVuisanee from sewage — Acts of commission — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 ^- 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 19, 27. Oyster ponds or " layings " had existed as far back as living memory went upon the fore- shore of an arm of the sea. The purpose for which these ponds were used was the storage of oysters, which were brought from elsewhere and laid down in the ponds in order to be fattened for the market. Certain ponds of this kind, which were enclosed by boards or concrete, were, and for more than twenty years had been, used in the manner above mentioned by the pit., who had purchased them in 1879 from others who had for a period of between twenty and thirty years previously so used them. There was some evidence that the foreshore had formed part of the waste of a manor, the lord of which had a several fishery thereon. The defts. were an urban district council which had been constituted in 1894, their district being carved out of that of a previously existing rural sanitary authority. A sewer had been made in the district by the rural sanitary authority, from which an inconsiderable quantity of sewage had been discharged into the sea near the oyster ponds. The defts. made certain new sewers, and connected them with the first- mentioned sewer, and the quantity of sewage discharged from that sewer was thereby greatly increased. The sewage so discharged caused a nuisance to the plt.'s oyster ponds through pollution of the same with sewage to an extent which rendered them unfit for use. In an action by the pit. against the defts, in respect of the nuisance so caused : — Meld, that irrespectively of the question of title to the soil or to a several fishery, the pit., as occupier of the oyster ponds, was entitled to maintain an action for trespass to the same by wrong-doers ; that the defts., not having any right to discharge sewage into the sea so as to cause a nuisance, and having by their acts of commission caused such a discharge of sewage, were wrong-doers j and therefore that the action was maintainable. By Vaughan Williams L.J. : Semble, the pit. if necessary, could make a title as owner of the oyster ponds. By Fletcher Moulton L.J. : Under the cir- cumstances a legal origin ought to be presumed for the existence and user by the pit. of the oyster ponds. Query as to the defts.' liability for a nuisance to the plt.'s oyster ponds, if occasioned by their 'ElSSE&Y—cuntiiiued. mere nonfeasance. Foster d. Warblington Urban Council - C. A. [1906] W. N. 77 | [1906] 1 E. B. 648 6. — Oysters — Depositing oysters on fore- shore for purpose of storage — Incident of publia right of fishing — Municipal corporation — Power to acquire lease of foreshore — Sea F'lsheries Act, 1868 (31 <^- 32 Vict. c. 45), s. i\— Municipal Cor- porations Act, 1882 (45 ^- 46 Vict. c. 50), s. 250. The oysters in an oyster fishery were, when freshly dredged, unfit for consumption by reason of their being contaminated with impurities in the water, and the deft., a fisherman, after dredging, deposited his oysters in a particular portion of the foreshore indicated by boundary marks and left them there until they were ready for market : — Held, that the deft, had no right, as incidental to the exercise by him of the public right of fishing, to appropriate a portion of the foreshore for the storage of his oysters to the exclusion of the rest of the public. Where a municipal corporation, empowered by charter to hold lands, tenements and iieredita- ments, and goods and chattels, has obtained an order from the Board of Trade conferring a right of regulating an oyster fishery under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, it may lawfully take a lease of the foreshore of the fishery to enable it to carry out the purposes of the order. Decision of WiUs J., [1901] 2 K. B. 870, varied. Trubo Corporation ■;;. Eowb C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 709 7. — Poisoning fish in salmon river -^ Con- struction of statutes — Malicious Injuries to Property Act, 1861 (24 4' 25 Vict. c. 97), t. 32— Salmon Fishery Act, 1873 (36 i- 37 Vict. u. 71) s. 13. Although 3. 32 of the Malicious Injuries to Property Act, 1861, as amended by s. 13 of the Salmon Fishery Act, 1873, cannot be construed grammatically, the intention of the Legislature is plain, and the section as amended must be construed as making it a misdemeanour punish- able with penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years unlawfully and mali- ciously to put any lime or other noxious material in any salmon river with intent thereby to destroy the fish. Ebx v. Vaset and Lally C. C. B. [1908] W. N. 150; [1905] 2 K. B. 748 8. — Prescription in a que estate — Profit a prendre in aliens solo — Presumption of legal origin. A prescription in a que estate for a profit 4 prendre in alieno solo without stint and for com- mercial purposes is unknown to the law. Therefore, where by way of defence to an action of trespass by riparian proprietors, the alleged trespass consisting in fishing in a non- tidal reach of a river of which the pits, claimed to be tlie owners, the defts. set up a prescriptive right to a free fishery or common of fishery vested in the freehold tenants of a certain manor or hundred whose freeholds were situated in any of the parishes adjoining the river, and proved that they and their predecessors in title as such freeholders in exercise of such alleged right for three centuries past had openly and notoriously fished from boats with nets for salmon and other (- 1085:') DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1086 ) FISHERY -ooniiaiied. fish in the portion of the river in question and sold the fish so caught in the market : — Held, that the Court could not presume a legal origin for the alleged right. Decision of Neville J., [1907] W. N. 253 ; [1908] 1 Oh. 230 reversed. Lord Chesterfield r. Harris C. A. [1908] W. N. 159 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 397 9. — Riparian owners — River within limits of manor — Freeholdert of manor — Common of Miery— Prescription — Right to fish. Wills J. I think this appeal must be dis- missed. The magistrates have found that this claim is made bonS fide ; and that, therefore, we need not further discuss. The only other ques- tion is whether the claim is one which by law can be made. It may not have been put forward in very correct technical language before the magistrates, but we must not be nice about a matter of that kind if we see that in substance a right is claimed which is capable of existing and that there is some evidence about it. Now the right, as it seems to me, is capable of being claimed when it is expressed in proper phrase- ology. The allegation is that at some time or other, the epoch being lost in the mists of antiquity, the owner of the soil or bed of this river — the lord of the manor — granted to each of his freehold tenants the right to himself, his heirs and assigns, to fish in it. In the natural course of things, if such a grant as that were made, the freeholders who would enjoy the benefit of that grant might be multiplied ; and, if the right were originally granted in respect of 50,000 acres or 100,000 acres, it might very well be that by the present time there would be 100,000 persons competent to exercise the right. A good deal of the argument on behalf of the appellant has rested, I think, upon the failure to observe the proper -distinction between rights which are claimed by custom and rights which are claimed by prescription. A custom must be reasonable, and a custom which destroys the subject-matter of the grant would not be reason- able. A right claimed by prescription is subject to no limitation, as tar as its use and reasonable- ness is concerned, and the owner of the soil, that is, the owner of the bed of theriver, has a perfect right if he chooses, if the fishing belongs to him, to grant a right to fish to any number of persons although it may destroy his own right. There- fore the fact that the right may be exercised by an unlimited number of persons is not a circum- stance that is fatal to the prescription. It is a circumstance to be taken into consideration when one comes to consider, as a matter of fact, whether the prescription is made out by the evidence, and in dealing with each question of course you would always be apt to take, as one of the circumstances making against the probability of it, the fact that it is capable of indefinite multiplication. That goes no further than its being a matter of observation on the evidence. It seems to me it was perfectly competent for the lord of the manor at the outset, or the owner of the freehold, being at the same time the owner of the bed or soil of this part of the river, the part upon which this so-called right is FISHERY -co/i.';,.««/. claimed — and nothing could prevent him from granting the right in question if he chose — to grant the right to the owners of a particular freehold and to their heirs and assigns. Earl OF Chesterfield v. Fotjntaine (1895, Jan. 21) - - - Dlv.Ct. [1908] 1 Ch. 248, n. 10. — Salmon fishery — By-law — " Description of nets "—Salmon FiiJiery Act, 1873 (36 ^ 37 Vict. 0. 71), s. 39, suh-s. 3. By s. 39 of the Salmon Fishery Act, 1873, a board of conservators may make by-laws to determine (inter alia) " the length, size, and description of nets .... for taking salmon " : — Held, that a by-law made under this section which prohibited the use of particular kinds of nets was not ultra vires, since the word " descrip- tion" did not limit the boai-d of conservators to making regulations as to the characteristics of the particular kind of net. Clayton v. Peirsb Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 424 11. — Salmon fishing — Impeding passage of fish by abstraction of water. Interference with the free passage of salmon up a river is a wrong against the proprietors of the upper fisheries, and if it materially obstructs the passage of fish can be restrained by interdict. In 1882 mill owners on the Don river, which is a salmon river, increased their diversion of the water from its natural channel into artificial channels serving the uses of their mill. This was done to such an extent as to leave the natural channel in the neighbourhood of the mill at times bare of water. In 1900 the proprietors of the salmon fisheries in the upper reaches of the river objected to the mill owners' diversion of the water, and asked for an interdict : — Held (affirming the decision of the First Div. of the Ct. of Sess., (1904) 5 F. 818) that they were entitled to an interdict. Alex. PiKiB & Sons, Ld. v. Kintore (Earl) (bt 4 contra) - H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. U. 156 ; [1906] A. C. 478 — Stream, Pollution of — Injunction — Damages — Continuance of injury. See River. 1. — Tidal and navigable river — Public rights in sea and foreshore. See Foreshore. 2. 12. — Water bailiff—Powers of —Right to search suspected person's pocket — " Bag or other instrument -used in carrying fish " — Salmon, Fishery Act, 1873 (36 ^- 37 'vict. c. 71), s. 36, sub-s. 3. By s. 36 of the Salmon Fishery Act, 1873, " Any water bailiff appointed under the Salmon Fishery Acts, 1861 to 1873, acting within the limits of his district, may .... (3.) Search and examine all nets, baskets, bags, and other instru- ments used in fishing or in carrying fish by per- sons whom there is reasonable cause to suspect of having possession of fish illegally caught," and any person refusing to allow such search is to be liable to a penalty. On the hearing of an information against the respondent for a refusal to allow his pocket to be searched under the above section the justices found that the pockets of men's coats were ( 1087 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—19X0. ( 1088 ) TIS'SE^Y—eoiUi/iued. frequently used for the purpose of carrying fish : — Held that, having regard to that finding, the respondent's pocket was a '■ bag or other instru- ment" within tlie meaning of the section. Tayloe v. Peitohard - - Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 147 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 320 13. — " Wei7's" — Sereral fishery — Crown grarii •^Non-tidal, nun-iiaxigaMe, waters — Ownership of tail — Presumption — " Weirs" — Adierse acts of ownership — Right of way — Incorporeal here- Aitamient — Incmporeal right. A several fishery may exist either apart from or as incident to the ownership of the soil over which the river flows ; but where a several fishery is proved to exist, the owner of the fishery is to be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be the owner of the soil, whether it is a navigable river or a river neither public nor navigable. The use of the word " several " or " separalis piscaria " is not necessary to create a several fishery. The grant of "weirs" is a grant, not of a mere right of fishing, but. of a corporeal heredita- ment consisting not only of the soil on which any particular weir is constructed, but of the soil over which the river runs, and upon which there is the right to construct weirs for the purpose of taking fish. A grant purporting to give adetinite length of several fishery may still tie a good grant of a several fishery in part of the river so included, thouyh as to other part of it the Crown, at the time, had no several fishery to give. Constrnction to be placed on apparently adverse acts of ownership discussed. Sfmble, an incorporeal right of way along both banks of a river may be appendant to an incorporeal righi of fishing, the one being capable of union with the other without any incongruity. Co. Litt. 121 b considere I and explained, and note (7) (Hargr ive and Butler's edition) on this point adopted. Hanbuey r. Jenkins Snckley J. [1901] 2 Ch. 401 FISHING — Collision — Drift-net fishing — In- cumbered by nets — " Special circum- stance " — Lights — Sta'iiiing by. See Shipping— CoUision. 28. FISHING BOATS. See under Shipping — Fishing Boats. FISHING NETS— Custom to dry — Validity — Change in user — Recession of sea — Land added by accretion — Evidence. See Custom. 1. FISHING VESSELS (Begulations of 1884 relat- ing to) art. 10 (g)). See Shipping- Practice. FISHINGS. See under Kisheey. FIXTUEES— Advertisement hoardings — Bight to distrain — Landlord and tenant. See Distress. 3. — Distress — Landlord and tenant — Trade fix- tures — Hiring agreement— Gas engine. See DiSTEESS. 11, D.D. FIXTURES- — Gift of " furniture and other personal effects" ^Effect as regards fixtures and trade furniture. See Will— "Words. 6. — Glass-houses — Right to remove fruit trees — Agricultural holdings — Removable fixtures — Market gardener's compensa- tion. See Landloed and Tenant. 5. 1. — Hire-purchase agreement — Siiisequent equitaile mortgage — Priority. A CO. hired machinery, fixed on its busi- ness premises, from L. & H. on the terms of a hire-purchase agreement, which provided that the co. was to pay a monthly rent for the hire of the machinery, and should become the purchaser on payment of a certain sum, in which event credit would be given for the previous payments of rent. Until the purchase the CO. was to be a mere bailee of the machinery, and in case of default in making the monthly payments or breach of the conditions of the agreement L. & H. were empowered to enter and remove the machinery. Subsequently the co. gave to a bank an equitable mortgage of the business premises by ,1 deposit of the deeds thereof, accompanied by a written charge under the common seal of the CO. containing an agreement to give a legal mortgage on demand. The bank took without notice of the hire-purchase agreement. The CO. failed to pay the instalments and com- mitted breaches of the conditions of the hire- purchase agreement ; L. & H. demanded delivery up of the machinery, «nd a winding-up order was made against the co. The principal secured to the bank was due, with an arrear of interest i — Held, that the bank I'Cing merely an equit- able mortfjagee, and L. & H. having an equitable interest in the machinery under their hire-pur- chase atrreement, the interest und r that agree- ment had priority over the iiitere-t of the bank. Sough V. Wood 4- Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 713 ; ffoison V. Gorringe, [1897] 1 Ch. 182 ; and Reynolds v. Axhhi/ »; Son. [1903] 1 K. B. 87 ; [1904] A. C. 466, distinguished. In re Samuel ALLEN & Sons, Ld. - - Parker J. [1907] 1 Ch. 675 2. — Hiring agreement — Chairs fastened to floor of place of entertainment — Mortgage of building and fixtures — Entry (f mortgagee into possession — Right of removal by owner. Chairs were hired from the pits, for use in a hippodrome by the owner and occupier of the building under an agreement for hire containing an option of purchase which was never exercised. The chairs were fastened to the floor of the building by means of screws, in accordance with the.requirfmunts of the local authority : — Held,, that the chairs did not cease to be chattels because they were screweil down to the floor, and that the property in them did not pass as against the pits, to the mortjiagee of the free- hold under a mortgage of the buihling and fixtures. Lyon & Co. v. London City and Midland Bank - Joyce J. [1903J S K. B. 136 NN ( 1089 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1090 ) TlXIVSES—continwed. 3. — Landlord and tenant — Tenant for life and remainderman — Right of removal — Intention to improve inheritance. A tenant for life of settled estates granted a lease for twenty-one years of a steam-mill and machinery. The lessee covenanted that he would at the end of the tenancy seU to the lessor all machinery then on the premises other than the demised machinery ; and the lessor covenanted that he would pay for it. The tenant brought additional machinery into and affixed it to the mill. On the expiration of the tenancy the tenant for life bought this machinery under the provisions of the lease. He died, and his executrix claimed the machinery thus bought : — Held, that, as between tenant for life and remainderman, chattels affixed to the soil by the tenant for life for purposes of trade did not becomepart of the freehold, and might be removed by him. The question must be determined by the intention of the person by whom the chattels were attached ; and that, in the absence of evi- dence to shew that the tenant for life intended to make a present to the remainderman, his executrix was entitled to the machinery. In re Sir Edwabd Hulse, Baet. Bbattie v. Hulse Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 17 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 406 — Lease — Forfeiture — Tenant's fixtures — Re- moval — Mortgage of lease — Right of mortgagee. See Company — Leases. 1. 4. — Machinery attaclied to freehold — Pre- sumption of law — Trade fixtures — Mortgage — Hire-purchase agreement — Rights of mortgagee against owner of machinery — Licence to remove trade fUetures — Entry of mortgagee into possession — Tapestries — Right of removal — Tenant for life and remainderman. Machines were supplied by the owner of them to the lessee of a factory upon the hire-purchase system, the machines to remain the property of the owner till they had been wholly paid for ; upon default in payment the owner to have power to determine the hiring and remove the machines. They were affixed to the floor by bolts and nuts, and could have been removed without injury to the building or to the concrete bed in which the bolts were embedded. The lessee made default in payment, and the owner brought an action to recover the machines or their value from a mort- gagee of the term who had taken possession : — Held, that the machines had been so affixed as to pass by the mortgage to the mortgagee. The decision of the C. A., [1902] W. N. 218 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 87, affirmed. Reynolds ■«. Ashby & Son, Ld. - H. L. (E.) [1904] W. H. 166 ; [1904] A. C. 466 Note. Distinguished by Parker J., In re Samuel Allen S- Sons, Ld., [1907] 1 Ch. 575. No. 1 , above. Followed by Div. Ct., Crossley Bros., Ld. v. Lee, [1908] 1 K. B. 86. Distress. 11. 8. — Mortgagor or mortgagee — " Dog grates " substituted for fixed grate.^— Intention to improve in/teritance. The mortgagor of a house, subsequently to tlje mortgage, rercioved the ordinary fixed grates TIKTVRES— continued. from various rooms in the house and substituted for them " dog grates " which were of consider- able weight, but were not physically attached to the structure of the house in any way : — Held, that under the circumstances the true inference was that the mortgagor placed the dog grates in the house with the object of improving the inheritance, and that they were therefore fixtures which passed to the mortgagee. Monti V. BAENES - C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 205 Note. This case was distinguished by Buckley J., Inre DeFalbe, [1901] W. N. 87. See next Case. — Removal of — Action founded on tort— Costs — Agreement for lease of house. See Costs. 75. 6. — Statue — Bronze group — Tenant for life and remainderTnan — Right of removal. The question in this case, which arose between the executor of a tenant for life and a remainder- man, was whether a statue of Venus placed in the middle of a rose-garden, and a large bronze equestrian group placed on a pedestal in front of the principal entrance to the mansion-house, were in the nature of fixtures and so passed with the inheritance, or whether they remained chattels and belonged to the tenant for life as part of her personal estate. It appeared that the statue and bronze group had been purchased and placed in position by a previous owner of the property who had by his will devised the property to Madame de Falbe for her life, and had bequeathed all his personal estate to her absolutely ; also that the statue was merely placed on the ground, but by reason of its weight had sunk a few inches, and that the bronze group rested simply by its own weight on the pedestal, but that the pedestal was fixed in the ground : — Held, that the recent decision of the C. A. in In re De Falbe, [1901] 1 Ch. 523, as to the tapestry applied also to the statue and bronze group, and that they both belonged to the tenant for life as part of her personal estate. Monti V. Barnes, [1901] 1 K. B. 205, distin- guished. In re Dk Falbe. Waed v. Taylob (No. 2) Buckley J. [1901] W. N. 87 Note. See No. 9, below. — Taking possession with intention to steal fixtures. See Ceiminal Law — Larceny. 4. 7. — Tapesf7-ies — Right of removal — General scheme of decoratimi — Devise of lum-se— Bequest of chattels — Question between devisee and legatee — Will — Construction. The testator in his lifetime bought a house in which the former owner had fitted and decorated the dining-room as a perfect specimen of an Elizabethan room. As part of this scheme of decoration certain pieces of tapestry had been fixed to the walls by being nailed upon wooden frames which were kept in their place by the mouldings of an oak dado and frieze above it which were fastened to the wall by screws. A picture of Queen Elizabeth, attributed to Zucchero, painted on wood, was similarly fixed ( 1091 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1092 ) FIXTUEES— cowWreweA in its place over the fireplace by the mouldings of an overmantel which had apparently been constructed for the picture. The picture and tapestries were bought by the testator as part of the house and included in its price. The testator by his will gave his wife all the furniture and chattels in the house, and devised the house to trustees upon trust to permit her to reside there during widowhood, and then upon tmsts under which his grandson had become absolutely entitled : — Held, that the picture and tapestry, having been fixed as part of a general scheme of decora- tion and not for their better enjoyment as chattels, passed under the devise of the house and not under the gift of chattels. Leigh V. Taylor, [1902] A. C. 157, distin- guished. In re Whalby. Whaley r. KOBHKICH Neville J. [1908] W. N. 62; [1908] 1 Oh. 615 — Tapestries — Right of removal — Tenant for life and remainderman. No. 4, above. 8. — Tapestries — Right of removal — Tenant for life and remainderman. Valuable tapestries were afiSxed by a tenant for life to the walls of a house for the purpose of ornament and the better enjoyment of them as chattels. They could be removed without doing any structural injury. On the death of the tenant for life : — Held, that the tapestries, put up with that purpose and attached in that manner, did not pass with the freehold to the remainderman, but formed part of the personal estate of the tenant for life, and were removable by her executor. The decision of the C. A. in In re De Falhe, [1901] 1 Oh. 523, affirmed. Leigh v. Taylor H. L. (E.) [1902J W. H. 30 ; [1902] A. C. 157 Note. Discussed by C. A. in Beynolds v. Ashby ^• Son,Ld., [1902] W. N. 218 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 87 ; H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 466. See No. 4, ahove. Distinguished by Neville J., In re Whalley, [1908] 1 Ch. 615. See preceding Case. 9. — Tapestries — Right of removal — Tenant for life and remainderman — Costs — Shorthand notes of judgment. Chattels (such as tapestries) affixed by a tenant for life to the walls of a house for the purpose of ornament and the better enjoyment of them as chattels are, as against the remainder- man, removable by the tenant for life, or by his executor after his death, even though they have been fixed as firmly as they would have been if it had been intended to annex them permanently to the freehold. The purpose of the annexation is to be inferred from the circumstances of each ease. Tapestries purchased by the tenant for life of freehold estates were affixed by her to the walls of the drawing-room in the mansion-house. Strips of wood were placed over the paper which covered the walls, and were fastened by nails to the walls. Canvas was then stretched over the strips of wood and nailed to them, and the tapestries were then stretched over the canvas and fastened by tacks to i t and the pieces of wood. Mouldings, resting on the surface of the wall and fastened to it, were FIXTURES - -contimwd. placed round each piece of tapestry. Portions of the walls which were not covered by the tapestries were covered with canvas which was coloured or painted so as to harmonize with the tapes- trios : — Held, that the tapestries had been thus affixed for the purpose of ornamentation and the better enjoyment of them as chattels, and that on the death of the tenant for life they did not pass with the freehold to the remainderman, but formed part of the personal estate of the tenant for life and could be removed by her executor : Held, also, that the executor ought to pay the expense of making good the damage done in removing the tapestries, but that he was not bound to pay the cost of redecorating the room. Decision of Byrne J. reversed. Per Eigby L.J. ; D' Eyncmtrt v. Gregory, (1866) L. K. 3 Eq. 382, disapproved. Noiion V. Dashwood, [1896] 2 Ch. 497, ex- plained and distinguished. The cost of a shorthand writer's notes of a judgment appealed from are included in the costs of the appeal without any special order of the Court. In re De Palbe. Ward r. Taylor C. A. [1901] W. N. 32 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 583 j suh mm. Leigh «. Taylor, H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 157. And see preceding Case. Note. This case was followed by Buckley J., In re De Falhe (No. 2), [1901] ;W. N. 87. See also C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 523, No. 6, aiove. — Tenant's covenant to deliver up demised premises with fixtures — Surrender and creation of new tenancy. See Landlord and Tenant. 34. — Trade fixtures — Licensing Acts. See under Licensing Acts. — Trade fixtures — Hire and purchase agree- ment — Right of mortgagee against owner of fixtures — Mortgagor in posses- sion. See Mortgage — Fixtures. 1. 10. — Tradefixtures — Tenanfs right of removal — Lease — Covenant to yield up at end of term — ■ Comtruction — Genei'al words — Ejusdem generis — ■ Landlord and tenant. A lease to a tenant, who was therein described as a boot and shoe manufacturer, contained a covenant by the tenant to yield up the demised premises on the determination of the terra, together with all doors, locks, keys, &e., wain- scots, hearths, stoves, marble and other chimney- pieces, &c., " and all other erections, buildings, improvements, fixtures, and things which are now or which at any time during the said term hereby granted shall be fixed, fastened, or belong to " the demised premises. The word " machinery " did not occur in this covenant. There was also a covenant by the tenant that he would not carry on in the demised premises any trade or business, except that of a boot and shoe manufacturer, without the licence of the lessor, and that the tenant would not erect on the premises any If n2 ( lonn ) DTGKST OF CASKS, 1901—1010. ( 1094 ) TlXIVKES—eoiiHnueil. machinery other than that propelled by hand or foot without the consent of the lessor. The tenant placed in the premises for the purposes of his business various machines, which for their more convenient user were fastened by screws or nails to the floor or to the walls of the premises. The tenant having become a bankrupt, the trustee in the bankruptcy desired to sell the machinery separately from the premises : — Held, that the general words in the above covenant must be construed as applying only to things ejusdem generis with those described in the previous particular enumeration, which were of the nature of " landlord's fixtures " and that the tenant was not deprived of his ordinary right to remove trade fixtures, such as the machinery in question, and that consequently the trustee was entitled to sell the machinery. Decision of Kekewich J., [1903] W. N. .58 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 806, reversed. When in such a covenant the things parti- cularly enumerated belong to one genus — such as landlord's fixtures — general words which follow must be construed as applying only to things of the same genus. Bishop V. niiott, (1855) 11 Ex. 113, followed. LAMBonBN V. McLellait - - C. A. [1903] W. N. 109 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 268 FLATS— House let in — Liability of landlord for disrepair of roof. See Negligence. 6. — Interference with — Staircase overlooking bed- room — Privacy — Comfort. See Landlord and Tenant. 49. — Licence — " Male servant " — Porter employed at block of flats. See Revenue— Servants. 1. 1. — Negligence — Dangerous jn-emises — Building let out in fats — Staircase in possession of landlord — Staircase not lighted — Laiullord, Liatility of, to ]}ersons other than tenants — Absence of any undertalting to light staircase. The deft, was the owner of a building, the different floors of which were , let by him as separate offices to difEerent tenants, the staircase by which access to them was obtained not being let, but remaining in the legal possession of the deft. The agreements for the letting of the offices respectively contained no provision with regard to the lighting of the staircase. The tenants respectively had gas lights on the land- ings outside the entrances to their respective offices, which were supplied with gas from their own meters, and the practice was that each tenant on leaving his office for the night turned ofE his own light, but it did not appear that there was any agreement between the deft, and the tenants that they should light the staircase. The pit., who was in the employ of one of the tenants, upon coming down the staircase from his employer's offices on an evening in March at 8.15, when, all the lights having been put out, the staircase was in darkness, failed to find his way out through the street door into the street, and, going further down the stairs towards the basement, fell through a door opening upon a 'E'LkTa— continued. flagged courtyard at some distance above the level of the oagstones. This door was tLsed for hoisting goods into and out of the building. In an action brought by the pit. against the deft, in respect of injuries resulting from the fall : — • Beld, that there was no duty towards the pit. imposed upon the deft, to light the staircase, and consequently the action was not maintainable. Miller v. Hancoch, [1893] 2 Q. B. 177, dis- cussed and distinguished. Huggett c. Miers C. A. [1908] W. N. 115 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 278 — Poor rate — Valuation — Deductions from gross value. See London — Flats. 1. — Valuation (Metropolis) Act — Rateable value — Deductions from gross value. See London — Flats. 1. FLOATING CHAEGE— Company— Debentures. See under Company — Debentures. "FLOATING CHARGE "—Company— Winding- up — Debenture — " Floating charge " within three months of winding-up. See Company — Debentures. 10. — On foreign land — Debentures, Contract to issue — Clog on equity of redemption. )Se«,CoNPLicT op Laws. 3. FLOATINGSECUKITY— Company— Debentures. See under Company — Debentures. FLOODS — Eent-charges imposed for protection of lands from inundation — Poor rate — Rateable value. See Rates. 40. — Thames — Prevention of floods — Flood works —Alteration of bank — Repairs. See London — Floods. 1. FLOWERS — Workshop — Exercise of manual labour — " Article " — Natural flowers made into bouquets. See Factory. 1. FOG— Collision. See under Shipping- Collision. — Collision in dense fog — Negligence in not going with moderate speed. See China and Corea. 3. FOOD— Offences — Unsound food— Liability of vendor. See London — Offences. 1, 2. FOOD AND DRUGS— Sale of. See under Addltekation. FOOT PASSENGERS— Right for. See Highway 41. FOOTBALL PLAYER (PROFESSIONAL) — — Workmen's compensation — " Work- man." See Masteb and Servant — Compen- sation. 96. ( 1095 ) DIGEiST OK OASES, 1901—1910. ( 109« ) rOOTPATH — Water company — Unauthorized new waterworks — ^Ancillary main under public footpath — Trespass — Ultra vires. See Water. 24. FOOTWAY— Highway. See under HIGHWAY. — New street — By-laws — Footway forming principal access to cottages— Width and construction — Local government. See Streets. 9. — Private carriage-way along the same line — Presumption — Dedication. See Way, Ri&ht op. 2. — Streets — Tramway — Dedication to public — Boad authority — Powers. See London — Tramways. 1. rOS&OE — Supplied by direction of coachman — Authority to pledge credit of master. See Master and Servant — Liability. 1. FORCE MAJETJEE— Ship— Damage to jetty- Negligence — Onus of proof. See Shipping — Negligence. 1. FOBECLOSUBE. See under Mortgage — Foreclosure. FOREIGN ADMINISTEATOB— Full grant to— Practice — ^Administration — Intestacy — Limited foreign grant — Assets in England. See Proi^ATE — Practice. 2. FOBEIGN BONDS— Estate duty. See under Revenue — Estate Duty. FOREIGN CERTIFICATE- Limitation of lia- bility — Foreign steam vessel — Gross tonnage — Double bottom for water ballast. See Shipping — Limitation of Liability. 2. FOREIGN CO-DEFENDANT — Service out jurisdiction — Writ — " Necessary proper party." See Shipping — Practice. 12. of FOBEIGN COMMITTEE - English property. See Lunacy. 9. FOBEIGN COMPANY. See under Company — Foreign pany. English lunatic - Com- - Carrying on business temporarily in England — Service of writ within the jurisdic- tion. See Practice- Service. 3. ■ Company formed for purpose of trading in — Personal liability of shareholders under the foreign law — Conflict of laws. See Company — Foreign Laws. 1. • Sale to foreign company— Company— Wind- ing-up — " Company," Meaning of. See Company— WiNDiNG-UP-Sale. 1. FOBEIGN .CORPORATION— Income tax— Ke»i- dence — Company registered abroad — • Majority of directors in England. iSfee Ebvehub — Income Tax. 33. FOREIGN COUNTRY— Action in this country for declaration of rights to assist action in — Staying proceedings — Mortgage. See Shipping — Practice, 13. — British subject's holograph will in accordance with law of foreign country in which made — EfEect on English leaseholds. See Will — Leaseholds. 1. — Gaming in — Cause of action — Money lent for purpose of gaming. See Gaming. 3. — Eight of action in England for acts in — Lex loci — Lex fori. See Action. — Service of notice of motion to set aside award in foreign country out of jurisdiction — Practice. See Arbitration — Practice. 3. — Transfer in — Foreign country — Cheque stolen abroad — Forged indorsement — Conflict of laws. See Bill of Exchange. 2. FOREIGN COURT- Agreement to refer disputes to — " Submission " — Staying proceed- ings. See Arbitration — Submission. 1. — Divorce by New York Court, Decree of — Validity of divorce in England. See International Law. 1. FOBEIGN CREDITORS— Bankruptcy— English creditors — Agreement for pooling and distributing the assets — Sanction of Court. See Bankruptcy — Arrangement, i. — Claiming to prove — Security for costs — Voluntary winding-up. See Company— Winding-up — Costs. 7. FOBEIGN CUBATOR — shares— Transfer- in lunacy. See Lunacy, 12. English stocks and -Discretion of judge FOREIGN DEFENDANT— Writ— Notice in lieu of service — Breach of contract. See Practice — Service. 9. FOBEIGN DOMICIL. See under DOMICIL. FOREIGN DONEE OF POWER- Domiciled abroad — Will — Exercise of power — Power exercised in accordance with English but not with law of domicil. See Power of Appointment. 1 6. ( 1097 ) DIGJBST Oi' CASES, 19(il--l!)l(i ( 1098 ) FOKEIGN FIEM — Name o£ company — Registra- tion — Fraudulent purpose — Trade name — Form of injunction. See Company— Name. 2. FOREIGN GOVERNMENT— Treasury note of— Stamp — Promissory note or marketable security. See Revenue — Stamps. 14. FOREIGN JUDGMENT— Jwn'sfiiciioM of foreign Court — Ownership of property abroad — Contract of partership abroad ■ — Partner resident in Enijland — Agreement to submit to foreign, jm-is- diction. Neither the fact- of possessing property situate in a foreign country nor the fact of entering into a contract of partnership in that country to deal with that property is suificient to give the Courts of the foreign country juris- diction in an action in personam over a British subject not resident in the foreign country at the date of the action, who has neither appeared to the process nor expressly agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign Court. In 1895 the deft., who was then residing and carrying on business in "Western Australia, entered into a partnership for the working of a gold mine situate in the Colony and owned by the partnership. The deft, ceased to carry on business in Western Australia, and in 1899 he left the Colony permanently and came to live iu England. In 1901 the pits., being partners other than the deft., brought an action in the Supreme Court of Western Australia claiming a decree for dissolution of the partnership, sale of the mine, and the taking of the partnership accounts. The writ was served on the deft, in England, but he entered no appearance, and took no step to defend the action. The Court decreed a dissolution of the partnership and the sale of the mine, and on taking the accounts found a sum to be due from the partnership. The pits, paid the sum, and brought an action in England to recover the share which they alleged to be due from the deft. : — Held, that the deft., not being domiciled in Western Australia, nor resident there at the date of the action in the Supreme Court of that Colony, and not having appeared to the process or expressly agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of that Court, was not bound by its finding or decree ; and that the action in this country, which was based on that finding and decree, could not be maintained. Becquet v. MacCartky, (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 951, commented on. Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v. Rajah of Farid- Iwte, [189i] A. C. 670, followed. Judgment of Channell J., [1907] 1 K. B. 235, reversed. Emakubl v. Symon C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 302 — Partnership — Colonial firm — Agreement to submit to jurisdiction. Sec Pahtnbeship. 13. FOREIGN JURISDICTION. Fm' arranged lists of Statutory liulcs and Orders passed during the years 1901 — 1910, referring to Foreign Jurisdiction, sec the volumes igalile river, when iioi coveied by the tide, exoept such as are amillary to iheir lighis f fi.-hing ami navigation in the sea. When covered by the tide ihe foreshore is part of the sea, a d the only jights of the public ii. 01' over ii ate the rights of navigation and fishing ami rights ancillary thereto. The right claimed to kill and carry away wild duck is — whether wild-fowl are bi rds of warren or mere wild birds in which there is no property — a profit a pieudre and cannot be claimed by custom, but semble wild duck are birds of warren. Meld, also, that there was not sufficient evidence of user to enable the Court to presume the existence of a (rust, or to establish a prescriptive right. Lord Fitzhaedinge t. PUBCELL - Parker J. [1908] W. N. 119 ; [1908] 2 Ck 139 — Trespas-s — Title to foreshore under a Crown grant — Construction. See Tasmania. 1. •■ FORESTEY "- Workmen's compensation. See Master and Sebvant— Compensa- tion. 98. FORFEITURE — Administrator — Convict — Power to disentail the convict's estates tail. See Felony. 2. FORFEITURE— cu/ifi/iaefi. — Administrator — Sale of convict's property — Bona fides— Costs. See Felony. 1. — Assignment to trustees of marriage settlement — Dispose or attempt to dispose of. See PowEE OF Appointment. 30. — Bond — Arrest of debtor — Form of bond. See Bankeuptcy — Bond. 1. — Breach of covenant — Costs— Unnecessary de- tendanis — Weekly tenants — Practice. See Costs. 78. — Building agreement — Forfeiture of plant by builder after bankruptcy — Protected transaction. See Bankeuptcy — Order and disposi- tion. 3. — ^ Class gifts — Aliquot shares — Residue — Mode of division. See Will— Class. 11. • Company — Calls. See under COMPANY - -Calls. - Company — Shares — Alleged irregularities in call and foifeiture — British Columbia Companies Acts, 1890, 1892. See Canada — Company. 2. - Contract — Forfeiture of sum deposited — Liquidated damages or penalty. See Conteact. 11. - Convict — Administrator — Estate tail — Power to disentail. See Felony. 2. ■ Convici's property. Sale of — Administrator — Buna fides — Discretion. See Felony. 1. ■ Copyholder — Breach of obligation of copy- holder ti> re|iair — Manor. See Copyholds. 3. ■ Covenant not to sell a lease for building pur- poses — Breach — Law of the Transvaal. Sea Transvaal. 2. • Deposit — Judgment for specific performance against purchaser. See Vendob and Pueohasbk — Practice. 2. ■ Deposit — Specific performance — Default in payment by purchaser — Form of order. See- Vbndoe and Puechasee — Deposit, 3. ■ Landlord and tenant. See under Landlord and Tenant. Lease — Condition to take over sheep at expiratic n of lease. See &C0TTI>H Law. U. - Lease — Estoppel in pais — Mortgage by sub- demise. See Estoppel. 1. ■ Lease — Landlord and tenant. See under Lahdloed and Tenant. ■ Lease — New Zealand Property Law Act, 1908 — Relief against forfeiture on breach of covenant. ,See New Zbalaud. 11. ( 1103 ) DIGEST 01' CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1104 ) FOBFEITUBE— c««n«M«terest determinable on banltruptcy — Bankruptcy of settlor — Trustee in banlimptcy , Title of — Evidence — Admissibility of recital — 13 Eliz. c. 5 — Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), s. 4. By a post-nuptial settlement dated in 1873, to which the testamentary guardians of the wife, then an infant, were parties, after a recital that previously to the marriage the husband agreed to make such settlement of the wife's fortune as was thereinafter contained, it wag witnessed that the husband, being entitled in right of his wife to a" FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE— fltf«i;i»Me(/. reversionary interest in personalty, subject to the contingency of his* predeceasing her without re- ducing it into possession, covenanted that on the fund falling into possession he and his wife would assign it to the trustees on the usual trusts for the wife, husband, and issue of the marriage, the husband's life interest being determinable on bankruptcy. The iiusband was not indebted at the time, nor was he contemplating embarking in trade. In 1877 the wife died. In 1898 the husband was adjudicated "bankrupt. In 1899 the fund fell into possession. There was issue of the marriage : — Held, reversing the decision of Farwell J., [1902] W. N. 72 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 145, that the settlement was good against the trustee in bank- ruptcy, on the grounds (1.) that there was no evidence of its having been made with intent to defeat creditors so as to render it void under the statute 13 Eliz. o. 5, and no such intent ought, in the circumstances, to be inferred ; and (2.) that the deed was not voluntary, but, taken as a whole, constituted such a note or memorandum of the recited parol ante-nuptial contract in considera- tion of marriage as satisfied the Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), s. 4, and enabled the contract to be enforced both against the settlor who signed it and against his trustee in bankruptcy, the recital of the contract being ^idmissible in evidence as against the trustee setting up the statute. But whether the husband's life interest passed to the trustee in bankruptcy, qucere. In re Pearson, (1876) 3 Ch. D. 807, overruled. Barhwortli v. Young, (1856) 4 Drew. 1, approved. 7w re Holland. Gebgg r. Holland C. A. [190S] W. N. 90 ; [1903] S Ch. 860 FRAUDULENT DEVISES ACT— Real estate- Devise on trust — Mortgagee of equitable estate for life. See Administration. 26. FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE — Bankruptcy practice. See under BANKRUPTCY — Preference. 2,3. — Company — Winding-up. See under COMPANY — WiNDiNG-trp — Preference. — Transfer of property for past debt — Act of bankruptcy — Protected transaction . See Bani^edptcy — Preference. 2. — Winding-up — Powers of committee. See Industrial and Provident Society. 5. FRAUDULENT PROSPECTUS. See under Company — Prospectus. FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS — Publishing — Officers of public companies — Manager de facto. See Criminal Law — Larceny. 10. FREEHOLDS —Of manor — Heriot — Tenant — " Dying seised " — Mortgagor in posses- sion. See Heriot. 1. ( 1113 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1001—1910, ( 1111 ) FBEEMASONS' LODGES— Exempted. See Eegistration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. ?), s. 4. — Payment out of court — French subject entitled, — " Prodigal " — Frencli law. See CoNi'LiCT OF Laws. 11. FEEIGHT — Company — Receiver and manager Powers of — Sliipment of goods by receiTer — Bill of lading — Lien for pre- viously unsatisfied freight. See Company — Beceiver. 12. — Shipping. See under Shipping — Freight. FRENCH MAERIAGE CONTRACT. See under Husband and Wife — French Marriage Contract. FRESHWATER FISHERIES. See under Fisheey. FRIENDLY SOCIETY. Shop Clubs. Registration dated Jan. ], 1903, made by the Treasury under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, with reference to Friendly Societies desirous of being certified under the S!u>p Clubs Act, 1902. St. R. & 6. 1903, No. 1. Regulations dated July 1, 1903, made by the Treasury under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896. St. R. & 0. 1903, No. 537. . Outdoor Relief (_Fi'iendly Societies') Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 32), amends the Outdoor Relief Friendly Societies Act, 1894 (57 JJ- 58, c. 25). Friendly Societies Registry. Guide Booh. 1905. H.— Legal. Frice'ed. Regulations, Dec. 31, 1906, made by the Treasury under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896. Price Id. St. R. & 0., 1906, No. 949. Friendly Societies Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 32), amends the Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 i' 60, Vict. V. 25). 1. — Bankruptcy — Defaulting treasurer — Removal from office — Banhruptcy of treasurer — Preferential debt — Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 4- 60 Vict. u. 25), ss. 34, 35, 106. At the date when the treasurer of a friendly society ceased to be an officer of the society he was liable to account for moneys of the society which he had received and had improperly obtained. Shortly afterwards he was adjudicated a banlirupt : — Held, that the society was entitled, by virtue of s. 35 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, to be paid out of his assets the sum due from liim in priority to all his other creditors. In re Miller, [1893] 1 Q. B. 327, followed. In re Eilbeok. Ex parte Tkustbes op the " Good Intent " Lodge, No. 987 of the Geand United Ordee of Oddfellows. Phillimore J. [1909] W. N. 246 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 136 2. — Benefit society — Unregistered friendly society — Partnership — Insolvency of society — Action for dissolution — Jurisdiction towiitd up — Unexpended funds— Scheme for distribution- Notice of jwdgment—Sevrice— R. S. C, Orderly., rr, 35, 35fl. FRIENDLY iOClSXT—contiMUed. In the year 1817 a society for the benefit of the worltmen in a co. established by Royal Charter was founded, its main objects being to provide, by mutual assistance among its members, aid out of the society's funds towards a comfort- able subsistance in times of sickness and old age. Membership was confined to workmen and others in the employment of the co. The members on their admission paid fines varying in amount according to age, and a yearly con- tribution of 30«. to the funds of the society until they attained sixty-five, when they ceased to contribute and became entitled to a pension of 6s. a week for life. The society was managed by a general committee in accordance with printed rules, which were varied from time to time, the latest being those sanctioned in 1891. The funds stood in the name of the co. as trustee. The society was never registered under the Friendly Societies Acts, and there was no provision in the rules for a dissolution. The co. had ceased to carry on business, and no new members had been admitted since 1889. There were 439 members, of whom 88 had attained the age of sixty -five ; and it was admitted that, with no new members coming in, the society was insolvent, and that the younger members would probably receive nothiug if the former allow- ances for sick pay and pensions were continued. A large majority of pensioners and non-pen- sioners had voted for a dissolution by the Court, and an action was commenced, in which all classes of members were represented, claiming a dissolution : — Held, that the Court had jurisdiction to interfere and wind up the society, and to ascertain the rights of all the persons bene- ficially interested in its assets by a reference to chambers to settle a scheme for the equitable distribution of the remaining funds. Pearcey. Piper, (1809) 17 Ves. 1 ; 11 E. K. 1, examined and applied. Seld, also, following In re Printers and Transferers Amalgamated Trades Protection Society, [1899] 2 Ch. 184, that the principle to be adopted in calculating the amounts payable to the various members was, that the funds were divisible among existing members at the time of the dissolution in proportion to tlie amount contributed by each member for fines on admission and subscriptions, irrespective of any payments made in accordance with the rules, and without interest. Form of advertisement in lieu of service of notice of judgment. In re Lead Co.'s Work- men's Fund Society. Lowes r. Govern os and Co. foe Smelting down Lead with Pit AND Sea Coal - Warrington J. [1904] W. N. 107 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 196 3. — Company — Winding-up — Unregistered company — Friendly society — Judgment creditor — Execution before winding-up — Stay of sale — Companies (^Consolidation') Act, 1908, ss. 140, 268. This was a creditor's petition presented on Oct. 26, 1910, for the compulsory winding-up of a friendly society. The petitioner was the secretary of the co. and was a creditor for 87Z. 10.5, salary. The society had been registered ( 1115 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( me ) FRIENDLY SOCIETY— continued. under the Friendly Societies Act, 1875, under a dificerent name, and afterwards with its present name under the Act of 1896, but it had not been registered under the Companies Acts, and the petition asked for its winding-up as an un- registered 00. under s. 268 of the Act of 1908. It appeared that no order for winding-up a friendly society had been made under the present Act, and no such order had been made in England since 1863, when Kindersley V.-C. ordered the winding-up of the Alfreton District, ^-c, Co. (11 W. K. 300), but the case has been followed in Ireland (,In re Independent Protestant Loan Fund Society, [1895] 1 Ir. E. 1). A creditor had recovered judgment against the society for 3882. 6s. and issued execution, and on Oct. 17, 1910, the sheriff had seized the fixtures, furniture, and some extensive printing plant at the co.'s offices, and had advertised their sale for Nov. 10. There was evidence that a forced sale would be very injurious to the society and the other creditors. The petitioner's counsel asked for an order restraining the sale under s. 140 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, with provision for the protection of the judgment creditor in the form of the order made in In re Plas-yn-Mhowys Coal Co., (1867) L. R. 4 Eq. 688. Neville J. said that there was really no doubt about the jurisdiction, and made the order for a compulsory winding-up, but that any application to stay proceedings under an execution which was obtained before the winding-up order must be made to the King's Bench Division in which the action was pending. In re 20th Century Equitable Friendly Society - - Neville J. [1910] W. N. 236 4. — Conrersion into company — Enlargement of objects — Sjiecial resolution — Friendly Socie- ties Act, 1896 (59 ^- 60 Vict. c. 25), s. 8, sul)-s. 1; s. 70, srib-ss. 1, 2, 3 ; s. 71, sub-s. 1 ; s. 74. It is not competent for a society, registered under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, under the guise of converting itself into a limited co. pur- suant to s. 71, sub-s. 1, of (hat Act, to turn itself into a CO. with objects much more extensive than and widely differing from the objects specified by the rules of the society or by s. 8, sub-9. 1, of the Act. The procedure under s. 71 , sub-s. 1, is a mere matter of machinery under which a society can become a different legal entity having objects identical with the objects prescribed by its rules or by s. 8, sub-s. 1, though when converted it can exercise such powers of altering or enlarging its objects, as defined by its memorandum, as are conferred by the Com- panies Act on all limited cos. Decision of Joyce J., [1909] W. N. 252, affirmed. Blythe ii. Bietley - C. A. [1910] W. H. 12 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 228 Note. Keferred to by C. A., McQlade v. Royal London Mutual Insurance Society, Ld., [1910] 2 Ch. 169. See next Case. Referred to, In re Royal London MwtvM Immwnce Society, Ld., Eve J., [1910] W. N. 326. See Company — Memorandtmi. 12. FRIENDLY SOCIETY— e, 5. — Conversion into company — Enlargement of objects — Xntra vires — Registration of com- pany — Certificate of incorporation— Conclusive- ness — Injunction — Form of action — Representa- tive action by member of comjmny — Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 ^- 60 Vict. c. 25), ss. 8, 71, — Companies (^Consolidation') Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69), s. 17, sub-s. 1. Where a registered friendly society, in avowed exercise of the powers of s. 71 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, passed a special resolution to convert itself into a co. under the Companies Acts, with a memorandum of associa- tion annexed thereto, and obtained registration of itself as a CO., and a member of the co., who had been a member of the friendly society, suing on behalf of himself and all other the members of the CO., moved for an injunction to restrain the CO. from exercising any of the powers enumerated in the memorandum of association in excess of those allowed by the Friendly Societies Act, 1896 :— Meld by Eve J., [1910] W. N. 75, and the C. A., that the action was misconceived and that the motion ought to be refused. Per Cozens-Hardy M.R. and Buckley L.J. : Whether, notwithstanding the certificate of in- corporation, the validity of the special resolu- tion and of the registration could have been successfully impeached by a member of the old friendly society in a properly constituted action, qutere. McGlade v. Royal London Mutual INSUEANCE Society, Ld. - C. A. [1910] W. N. 130; [191012 Ch. 169 Note. This case was referred to In re Royal London Mutual Insurance Society, Ld., Eve J., [1910] W. N. 226. See Company — Memorandum. 12. — Conversion of friendly society into limited company — Notice — Sufficiency. See Company — memorandum. 12. 6. — Dispute — • Arbitration under rules — Order to pay costs — Jurisdiction — Ultra vires — ■ Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 4- 60 Viet. 0. 25), s. 68. The appellant, a member of a friendly society, claimed from the society sick pay on behalf of his son, who was also a. member, but was mentally afflicted and unable to claim it for himself. The court arbitration committee de- cided against the claim, and that decision was affirmed on appeal by the district arbitration committee, who charged the appellant with the expenses of the proceeding. The appellant having refused to pay the expenses was sus- pended and ceased to be a member. In an action by the appellant against the society claiming an injunction and damages for wrongful exclu- sion : — *" Seld, that the questions about sick pay and expenses were disputes within s. 68 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and therefore should be decided only in the manner directed by the rules of the society ; that the rules were not ultra vires ; that the decisions — even if erroneous in point of law — being given without misconduct were binding and conclusive and not removable into any Court of law or restrain- ( lln ) DTPfEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( ni8 ) FEIENDIY SOCIETY— C()/(;;«««/. able by injnnction and could be enforced with- out resorting to a county court ; and that the action was not maintainable. Decision of the C. A., [1908] 2 K. B. 458, affirmed. Catt v. Wood H. I. (E.) [1910] A. C. 404 — Disputes between society and members — Bules —Arbitration — Ultra vires acts — Stay of proceedings. See Industrial and Peovident Society. 1. 7. — Jurisdiction of arhitration committee — Dispute hetioeen memier and society — Expulsion —Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 * 60 Vict. .;. 25), s. 68, s^ib-s. 1. Sect. 68 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, which enacts that every dispute between a mem- ber of a friendly society and the society shall be decided in manner directed by the rules of the society, and that the decision bo given shall be binding and conclusive on all parties without appeal, does not apply to a decision given by the arbitration committee without jurisdiction, the rules having been disregarded upon a question of substance. A member of a friendly society was duly summoned before the arbitration committee for a breach of the rules, and was in his absence expelled from the society by a resolution of the committee upon a different charge, namely, of fraud and disgraceful conduct, of which no written notice had been given to him as required by the rules : — Held, that the decision was null and void. Andrews v. Mitchell H. L. (E.) [1905] A. C. 78 — Mortgage to — Sale under power — Purchase by oiEcer of society — Invalidity. See MOETAGE— Sale. 2. 8. — Objects exh-avsted — Surplus or unex- hausted funds — Charity — Cypris — Resulting ti'ust — Mond vacuniia. The Benefit Society for Girls educated at the School of Industry, Kendal, was established in 1808, and was registered as a friendly society under the Friendly Societies Act of 1792 (33 Geo. 3, c. 54), s. 2. It consisted of honorary members and benefited members. The honorary members were ladies who gave in their names when the society was formed or were afterwards elected according to the rules and paid a sub- scription. They could not in any case derive benefit from the funds of the society. The benefited members were girls educated at the School of Industry ; they paid weekly contribu- tions to the society from the age of seven to sixty-five, and were entitled to certain weeljly payments in sickness varying with age up to sixty-five and to an annuity of 2s. a week from fifty-six to sixty-five, 2s. %d. from sixty-five to seventy, and is. from seventy for the rest of their lives. All payments by the members and all sick allowances ceased at sixty-five. The annuities became payable automatically on a member attaining fifty-six without any inqury as to poverty. The rules of the society provided that the contributions of honorary members FEIEBTDLY SOClKIY—coiainued. should be appropriated, one half to raise a capital the interest of which would be suffi- cient to pay the allowance to children under fifteen ; the other half " to be under the special direction of honorary members for relief in extraordinary cases not provided by the general fund." The School of Industry was closed in 1845, and after ihat date no new members were admitted, but subscriptions continued to be received from both classes of members, sick allowances and annuities were paid, and the balance of the funds accumulated. This action was brought by the trustees to decide what was to be done with the accumulations, which amounted to 1901^. apportioned to the honorary members' fund and 'dOil. apportioned to the benefited members' fund. Tiie 1901 Z. appeared from the accounts to have arisen wholly from the first half of the honorary members' fund appropriated to provide for the allowances to children under fifteen. The only surviving benefited members were two women over sixty- five in receipt of annuities. Five persons who had claimed to be honorary members were made d efts. : — Held, that the society was not a charity, for the benefited members had a legal title to the benefits on making the payments without regard to their need ; that the contributions of honorary members were absolute gifts to the society, and that there could be no resulting trust in favour of the honorary members ; that the annuitants had no interest in the funds of the society other than the annuities which they had purchased ; and that therefore the surplus of the benefited members' fund, after providing for the annuities, and the whole of the honorary members' fund belonged to the Grown as bond ^vacantia. Braithwaite f. Att.-Gen. Swinfen EadyJ. [1909] W. N. 48; [1909] 1 Ch. 510 9. — Policy not assignable otherwise than by way of nomination — Friendly Societies ^ci. 1875 (38 4' 39 Vict. c. 60), s. \5—Frievdly Societies Act, 1^96 (69 ^- 60 not. c. 2.5), ss. 56. 57. Policies effected under the Friendly Societies Acts, 1875 and 1896, are not assignable otherwise than by nomination under the Acts. So held, following decision of Philliraore J. in Caddich v. Highton, [1899] 68 L. J. (Q. B.) 281 • 80 L. T. 527 ; 47 W. E. 668 ; 15 Times L. E. 182 (see [1901] 2 Ch. 476, n.). In re Redman Wahton v. Redman - - - Kekewieh J [1901] W. N. 136 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 471 Note. Overruled on this point bv 0. A., In re &riffin, [1902] 1 Ch. 135. See No. 11, below. 10. — Policy of life insurance — " Legal nominee" — Friendly Societies Act, 1875 (38 ^ 3i) Vict. c. 60), s. 15 — Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 4' 60 Vict. c. 25), s. 56. Caddick r. Highton - PMllimore J. [1901] 2 Ch. 476, n. Note. Followed by Kekewieh J., In re Redman, [1901] 2 Ch. 471. Seepreceding Case. Overruled on this point by C. A., In re Griffin, [1902] 1 Ch. 135. See iiext Case. ( 1119 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1120 ) FRIENDLY SOCIETY -, 11. — Policij of life insurance — Assignment — Nominatwn — Fnendly Societies Act, 1875 (38 ^• 39 Vict. c. 60), s. 15, sub-s. 3 — Fi-iendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 ^ 60 Vict. v. 25), ss. 56, 57. Policies effected under the Friendly Societies Act, 1875, and, semble, under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, are assignable in the ordinary way as well as by nomination under the Acts. Caddich t. Highton, [1901] 2 Ch. 476, n., and In re Bedman, [1901] 2 Ch. 471, overruled on this point. J» re Griffin. Gkifpind. Griffin C. A. [1901] W. N. 240 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 135 FKIENDS (SOCIETY OF)— Charitable trust- School — Trust for " civil or religious purposes " — Uncertainty — Scheme. See Charity. 19. FRIGHT — Nervous shock resulting from — Re- moteness of damage. See Ne&ligbncb.. 7. FRIVOLOUS AND VEXATIOUS PROCEED- INGS— Practice. See under PRACTICE— Frivolous, &o.. Proceedings. ■ — Dismissal of action as — Time for appealing — Practice. See Appeal. 29, 30, 31, 32. FROST-BITE— Workmen's compensation. See Master and Servant— Compen- sation. 99. FRUIT TREES— Right to remove— Compensa- tion. See Landlord and Tenant. 5. FUGITIVE CRIMINALS AND OFFENDERS. See under Extradition. FUND IN COURT — Payment out to person not entitled — Stop order — Liability to re- place fund. See Practice — Payment Out. 8. FUNERAL EXPENSES — Compensation — De- ceased workman — Dependants in part dependent upon his earnings. See Master and Servant — Compeu' sation. 100. " FURNITURE ''—Gift of " furniture and other personal eiiects " — EfEect as regards fixtures and trade furniture. See Will— Words. 6. FUTURITY— Words of— Will. See under Will — Futurity, Words of. CD, ( 1121 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1122 ) G. GAMBLING. See under Gaming. GAMBLING DEBT — Frivolous and vexatious action — Dismissal — Cause of action — Forbearance to sue — Hew considera- tion. See Practice — Frivolous, &c., Action. 1. GAME. Ground, Game (Amendment Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 21), is an Act to amend the Gfround Game Act, 1880 (43 .J- 44 Viet. c. 47). 1. — Ground, game — Right of Mlling ground game — •' Under this Act or otherwise" — Grantee of right not being occmpiei — Ground Game Act, 1880 (43 ^ 44 Viot. c. 47), s. 6. Sect. 6 of the Ground Game Act, 1880, after providing that no person having a right of killing ground game under the Act or otherwise shall use any tirearms for the purpose of killing ground game between certain hours, proceeds to enact that no such person shall, for the piiipose of killing ground game, employ spring traps except in labbit holes : — ifeld, that this enactment does not apply to a grantee of the right to kill and take ground game where the grantee is not the occupier of the land over which the right is grantei. Mat v. Waters Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 431 Note. Sep Waters^. FhiUiiis, Div. Ct. ri910] W.N. 171 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 465, next Case. 2. — Ground game — Occupier with sporting rights — Prohihition against .letting spring traps except in rabbit holes — Ground Game Act, 1880 (43 4- 44 Vict. c. 47), s. 6. (Sect. 6 of the Ground Game Act, 1880, after providing that no person having a right of killing ground game under this Act or otherwise shall use any firearms for the purpose of killing ground game between certain hours, proceeds to enact that " no such person shall, for the purpose of killing ground game, employ spring traps except in rabbit holes " : — Held, that this enactment applies to an occupier of land who, by reason of the owner not having reserved the sporting rights, has the right, apart from the Act, of killing and taking game upon the land. Saunders v. Pitfield, (1888) 58 L. T. 108, followed. Waters r. Phillips - Div. Ct [1910] W. N. 171 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 465 Note. See precedimg Case. 3. — Licence to deal in game — Sale of lire phm.wiih bred on p/ieasant farm — Whetlier ^ licence necessary— Gaming Act, 1831 (1 i- 2 Will. 4, u. 32), .IS. 4, 27. >- "J GAME — continued. The appellant was charged upon an informa- tion under s. 27 of the Game Act, 1831, with having, in Dec, 1909, bought twenty-five live hen pheasants from one W., who was not a person licensed to deal in game. The appellant and W. were both game farmers and made a business of breeding pheasants for profit. Neither W. nor the appellant had a licence to deal in game. The birds in question had been reared by W. and were tame birds. It was contended for the appellant that the Act did not apply to tame birds, which had never been at large, and that if a licence to deal in game were required in such a, case the in- dustry of pheasant farming would become impossible, inasmuch as d. 4 renders it illegal for a person licensed to deal in game to have in his possession any bird of game, whether alive or dead, during the close time for such birds respectively. The justices convicted the appellant. The Court held that the difficulty arising out of s. 4 must be dealt with, if at all, by the Legislature, and could not afEect the plain meaning of the word " game " in s. 27. Appeal dismissed. Cook r. Trbvbnbb - Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 211 4. — Xight poaching — Preriou^ convictions — Person "so offending" a third time — Criminal law— Night Poaching Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 69), ss. 1, 9. Sect. 1 of the Night Poaching Act, 1828, pro- vides that, if any person by night enters upon any land with any gun or other instrument for the purpose of taking or destroying game, he shall for the first and second offences be liable to certain penalties on summary conviction, and " in case such person shaU so offend a third time " he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour : — Held, that on an indictment for a third offence two previous convictions under s. 1 must be alleged and proved, and that a previous con- viction under s. 9 of the Act of the mis- demeanour of entering upon land by night armed and to the number of three or more for the purpose of taking g^ime was not a previous conviction within s. 1. Rex i-. Lines C. C. E. [1901] "W. N. 251 ; [1902] 1 K, B. 199 6. — Seizure and detention by police officer of partridges' eggs — Justification under statute — Subsegtient proceedings under different statute not giving power to seize eggs — Conriction of person from lohom eggs seized quashed — Liability of police officer in trover — Restoration of game or '■' value thm'eof"—Game Act, 1831 (1 S; 2 Will, i, c. 32), s. 2i— Poaching Prevention Act, 1862 (25 4- 26 Vict. u. 114), ss. 1, 2. ( 1123 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 112i ) GAMI! — oontinueil,. In 3. 2 of the Poaching Prevention Act, 1862, " the value " of the game which is to be restored to an innocent person from whom it has been taken by a police officer, in pursuance of the power of seizure given by the section, means the value of the game at the time of the termination In favour of the innocent person of proceedings subsequently taken against him by the police officer under the provisions of the section, and not the value of the game at the time it was seized. A police officer seized certain partridges' eggs in accordance with the provisions of s. 2 of tlie Act of 1862 (under which partridges' eggs are " game "), but subsequently took out a summons against tiie person from whom he seized them charging him before justices with an offence against s. 24 of the Game Act, 1831, which con- tains no power of seizure. A conviction under the summons was, on a case stated by the justices, quashed. By order of the justices the eggs were destroyed : — Held, that the police officer was liable for the value of the eggs at the time they were seized in an action founded on trover, inasmuch as it is a condition subsequent to any steps that a police officer takes under s. 2 of the Poaching Preven- tion Act, 1862, that he should continue to pro- ceed under that section in order to be entitled to its protection. If he seizes game with a bona fide intention of acting under s. 2 of the Act of 1862, but subsequently proceeds under a different statute, his act of seizure is thereby rendered unlawful and he becomes in law " trespasser. Stowe b. Bbnstead - - - Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 119 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 415 — Sporting right — Yearly hiring — Notice of determination. See Landlord and; Tenant. 82. G- AMINO — JBanhruptcy — Proof — Gaming Aebt — New comderation — Withdrawal of letter to debtor's club — Bankruptcy of debtw — Provable debt. After an action to recover a gaming debt had been dismissed, the creditor wrote to the com- mittee of the debtor's club complaining of his conduct in not paying his debts of honour. The debtor, in consideration of this letter of complaint being withdrawn, gave the' creditor bills in satis- faction of the debt. Before the bills were paid the debtor became bankrupt : — Held, that the bills were given for a good consideration, and that the creditor could prove for the amount due thereon. In re Bbowne. Ex parte Mabtingbll Buckley J. [1904] W. N. 69 ; [1904] 3 E, B. 133 — Betting. See under Betting. 2. — Cause of action — dieque given for racing bets — Forbearance to publish default — New consideration — Gaming Act, 1710 (9 Arvne, (,-. 14) ; Gaming Act, 1835 (5^6 Will. 4, c. 41), s. 1 ; Gaming Act, 1845 (8 S; 9 Vict. c. 109), s. 18 — Amendment of pleadings at trial. The pit. and deft., who were both book- makers, had betting transactions together, which GAMING — continued. resulted in the deft, giving the pit. a cheque for the amount of bets lost to him. At the request of the deft, the cheque was held over by the pit. for a time, and part of the amount of the cheque was paid by the dett. Subsequently a fresh verbal agreement was come to between the parties, by which, in consideration of the pit. holding over the cheque for a further time and refraining from declaring the deft, a defaulter and thereby injuring him with his customers, the deft, promised to pay the balance owing in a few days. The balance was never paid : — Meld by Sir Gorell Barnes Pres. and Farwell L.J. (Fletcher Moulton L.J. dissenting), that the forbearance of the pit. to sue, coupled with his forbearance to declare the deft, a defaulter, constituted a good consideration for the fresh agreement, and that the pit. was entitled to recover. The writ in the action was indorsed with a statement of claim upon an account stated, but at the trial the pit. set up, and recovered upon, the fresh agreement ; no formal amendment of the statement of claim was made at the trial, but all necessary amendments were taken as having been made : — Held, that in all cases where the pit. seeks to recover at the trial upon a different cause of action from that appearing in the pleadings, a formal amendment of the pleadings should be made by the judge. Htams r. Stuabt King (A FlEM) - C. A. [1908] W. N. 146 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 696 3. — Cause of action — Gaming in foreign country — Money lent for purpose of gamwig. Money lent in a foreign country for the purpose of being used by the borrower for gaming, the game not being illegal by the law of that country, may be recovered in the English Courts. Quarrier v. Colston, (1842) 1 Ph. 147, followed. Moulis V. Owen, [1907] 1 E. B. 746, dis- cussed. SAXBY 11. FtTLTON - - - C. A. [1909] W. N. 83 ; [1909] 8 K. B. 208 4. — " Coupon Competition^^ — Events relating to horse-races — Office used for betting — Betting Act, 1853 (16 ^ 17 Vict. o. 119), s. 1. The deft, was the occupier of an office and the proprietor of a newspaper published weekly at that office. Each number of the paper con- tained a notice of what was called a ' ' coupon competition " — that is to say, of a promise by the deft, to pay a certain specified sum of money to such persons as should correctly guess the result of a certain horse-race then shortly about to be run, and should write their guesses upon certain forms called "coupons," which were issued with each number of the newspaper, and should return the coupons so filled up to the deft.'s office, together with the sum of one penny in respect of each guess made. A large number of persons every week sent into the deft.'s office coupons filled up as aforesaid, accompanied by remittances of money. The deft, was upon these facts con- victed under the Betting Act, 1853, of having unlawfully kept the office for the purpose of money being received by her as the consideration 00 2 ( 1125 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1126 ) GAMING — co7iti lined. for undertaking to pay thereafter money on events relating to horse-races : — Seld, that the conviction was right. Beg. v. Stoddaet Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 177 Mte. This case was foUowed by Div. Ct., Sawhe v. MacUnzie (Xos. 1 and 2), [1902] 2 K. B. 22.5. See Ko. 7 ielow. See also next Case. 5. — ^'Coupon comj/etition" — House used for 'betting — Advertisement of — Betting Act, 1853 (] 6 4' 17 Vict. c. 119), is. 1,7 ; Betting Act, 1874 (37 Vict. c. 15), s. 3. The pit. was the occupier of an office situate in Holland, and also the proprietor of a news- paper published weekly in London. Each number of the newspaper contained a notice of what was called a " coupon competition," that is to say, of a promise by the pit. to pay a certain specified sum of money to such person as should correctly guess the result of a certain horse-race then shortly about to be run, and should write their guesses upon certain forms called "coupons," which were issued with each number of the newspaper, and should send the coiipons so filled up to the plt.'s office in Holland, together with the sum of one penny in respect of each guess made. The defts., who had made a contract with the pit. to publish the said newspaper on his behalf, refused to perform their contract upon the ground that the publication of the newspaper was illegal as being an infringement of s. 7 of the Betting Act, 1853, and of s. 3 of the Betting Act, 1874 :— Held, that, whether the fact of the plt.'s office being situate out of the jurisdiction was sufficient to prevent the business so carried on by the pit. from constituting an offence against the Betting Acts or not, there was nothing in the above- mentioned sections to render illegal the publica- tion by the defts. of the newspaper advertising the said business. Stoddart v. Argus Printing Co. Div. Ct. [1901] -W. N. 125 ; [1901] 3 K. B. 470 Note. This case was dissented from by Div. Ct., Haivhe v. Macltenzie (Xos. 1 .j- 2), [1902] 2 K. B. 225. See No. 7, below. See also preceding Case. 6. — "Coupon competition" — House used for betting— Betting Act, 1853 (16 4' 17 Vict. a. 119), ss. 1, 3. The appeUant was the occupier of an office in London and the proprietor of a newspaper, called Football Chat, published weekly at that office. T., the occupier of an office in Middelburg in Holland, conducted a " football coupon competi- tion," that is to say, a scheme in which there was a promise by T. to pay a sum of money to such persons as should correctly guess the results of certain football matches, and should write their guesses on certain forms called coupons. The competition was advertised week by week in the appellant's newspaper, and the coupons were printed as part of the advertisement and could be procured at the appellant's office ; they were, when filled up, to be out out of the paper and sent with the entrance money to " Football Chat, GAMING — continued. Middelburg, Holland " ; the names of the winners and the results of the competitions were also advertised in the appellant's newspaper. The appellant received for the insertion of these ad- vertisements a sum considerably more than the charge for ordinary advertisements, but he had no other interest in the competition, nor had T. any interest in the newspaper. Upon the hearing of summonses against the appellant under the Betting Act, 1853, for (a) unlawfully permitting the office to be used by T. for the purpose of money being received by T. as the consideration for an undertaking to pay money on events or contingencies relating to the game of football, and (S) unlawfully keeping the office for the pur- pose of money being received by or on behalf of T. for the like consideration, a magistrate found that T., by permission of the appellant, used the appellant's office for the purpose of money being received by him as the consideration for his promise to pay money on the result of football matches, and that the appellant opened and kept the office for the purpose of the user by T. ; he accordingly convicted the appellant : — Held, that there was evidence on which the magistrate could properly find that the office was used as an essential part of the machinery for receiving money for an illegal purpose, and that the conviction was right. Mackenzie v. Hawke Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 216 7. — "Coupon competition''' — House used for betting — Information or advice with respect to bet or wager — Adrertisement — Betting Act, 1853 (16 Ji- 17 Vict. c. 119), ss. 1, 1— Betting Act, 1874 (37 <)'■ 38 Vict. c. 16), s. 3, sub-s. 1. By s. 7 of the Betting Act, 1853, a penalty is imposed on any person publishing any advertise- ment whereby it is made to appear that any house, office, &c., is opened, kept, or used for the purpose of " making bets or wagers in manner aforesaid." The proprietor of a newspaper in England published an advertisement of an illegal football coupon competition conducted by a per- son resident abroad, the coupons for which were printed as part of the advertisement and were to be obtained at the office of the newspaper ; — Held, that the making of bets in "manner aforesaid" included all the modes of betting specified in s. 1 of the Betting Act, 1853, and was not limited to the class of betting described in the first branch of that section — that is, betting with persons " resorting to " The house, office, &c. — and that the proprietor of the newspaper was liable to be convicted upon a summons under s. 7. By s. 3, sub-s. 1, of the Betting Act, 1874, a penalty is imposed upon the publication of an advertisement whereby it is made to appear that any person will on application give information or advice with respect to any bet or wager or any event or contingency mentioned in the principal Act — that is, the Act of 1853. The proprietor of the same newspaper published in it advertise- ments by persons ofEering to give information as to the probable winners of the football matches dealt with in the coupon competition : — Held, that the proprietor of the newspaper was liable to be convicted of an offence under s. 3, sub-s. 1, of the Betting Act, 1874. ( 1127 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1128 ) &AIIIN& — continued. Reg. V. StoiAart, [1901] 1 K. B. 177, followed. Stoddart v. Argm Pi-inting Co., [1901 J 2 K. B. 470, dissented from. Hawkb i>. Mackenzie (Nos. 1 & 2) Div. Ct. [1902] 8 K. B. 2" 8. — Coujjon competitiuTis —House used for betting — Receipt of 'nionsy elsewhere than at house —Betting Act, 1 853 (16 1 17 Vict. c. 119'), ss. I, 5 —Gaming Act, 1892 (55 S^ 56 Vict. c. 9), s. 1. In order that a case may come within s. 1 of the Betting Act, 1853, it is suifioient that a house or office has been used by the occupier for an essential part of operations carried on for the purpose of money being received by him as the consideration for a promise by him to pay money on events or contingencies of or relating to horse-races or other games or sports, although the receipt of the money did not take place at that house or office. Sect. 5 of the Betting Act, 1853, is not re- pealed by s. 1 of the Gaming Act, 1892. StoddaH v. Hawlie, [1902] 1 K. B. 353, ap- proved of. Lennox v. Stoddabt. Davis v. Stoddabt C. a. [1902] 8 K. B. 81 9. — Credit betting — Place used for purpose of receiving deposit — Betting Act, 1853 (16 ^ 17 Vict. c. 119), s. 5 — '^ Such perso7i aforesaid^' — — Recovery of deposit. Deft, was a bookmaker, and pit., a foreigner residing in Germany, had remitted to the deft.'s, bank, in March and April, 1905, sums of money to be placed to the deft.'s credit, and to be used by him for making bets on the plt.'s behalf and according to his instructions, and to answer his liability in the betting that was to take place. Bets on the plt.'s behalf were made from time to time, with varying results, the deft, taking the bets himself ; and ultimately, after the plt.'s deposit had become exhausted, the deft, refused to make any more bets for him. The pit. now sought to recover the amount of his deposits, under s. 5 of the Betting Act, 1853. Joyce J. said that the money in question was clearly within the description in s. 5 of the Betting Act, 1853, " a deposit on any bet, or as or for the consideration for any such assurance, undertaking, promise, or agreement as aforesaid." The question to be decided really came to this — whether the deft, was "such person aforesaid" within the meaning of that expression in s. 5 of the Betting Act, 1853. Having regard to the authorities and the decided cases upon the con- struction of the Act, it was clear that the place was used by the deft, for the purpose of receiving deposits with a view to betting, and in particular for receiving the deposits from this pit. The repeal of the preamble to the Act in no way affected the construction of the clauses of the Act that were left' standing. The deft, was not caught by s. 4. But the deft., within the mean- ing of the second branch of s. 1, did use 51, Lexington Street for the purpose of money being received by him as consideration for an agree- ment, &c., relating to horses ; and he was also within 3. 3, because being a person using 51, Lexington Street, he kept or used the same for one of " the purposes hereinbefore mentioned," namely, receiving money in reference to horse- racing. Then what was the meaning of " such CrAHIITG — continued. person aforesaid" in s. 5? Was it limited to the person described in the immediately preceding s. 4, or did it include also persons using the office or place as mentioned in ss. 1 and 3 ? He thought the expression " such person aforesaid " in s. 5 was not confined to the persons described in s. 4, but included and extended to the persons described in ss. 1 and 2, and that the words used in ss. 1 and 2 applied to and correctly described the deft. It foUov/ed, therefore, that he was caught by s. 5, and that the pit. was entitled to succeed. VoaT v. Moetimeb Joyce J. [1906] W. N. 180 — Creditor — Proof for interest — Solvent com- pany — Gaming and wagering contract — Interest on sums deposited as eover. See Company — Winding-up — Proof. 2. — Discretion to deprive informer of portion of penalty. See Justices. 16. 10. — Foreign country , Qamingina — Gaming and wagering — Loan — Cheque — Consideration — '^Deemed to be illegal" — Gaming Act, 1710(9 Anne, c. 14), s. 1 — Gaming Act, 1835 (5 <|- 6 Will. 4, c. 41), s. 1. The deft, gave to the pit. in Algiers a cheque drawn by him on an English bank, partly in payment of money lent by the pit. to the deft, to enable the deft, to play at baccarat in a club at Algiers, and, as to the balance, to be applied by the pit. in discharging debts incurred by the deft, when playing at baccarat in the club. The consideration for the cheque was legal according to the law of France. In an action on th* cheque : — Seld, by Collins M.B. and Cozens-Hardy L.J. (Fletcher Moulton L.J. dissenting), that, inas- much as the transaction was governed by English law, the cheque must be deemed to have been given for an illegal consideration within s. 1 of the Gaming Act, 1835, and that the action was, therefore, not maintainable. Robinson v. Bland, (1760) 1 W. Bl. 234, 256 ; 2 Burr. 1077, followed. Mng V. Xemp, (1863) 8 L. T. 255, not followed. MoULis V. Owen C. A. [1907] W. N. 62 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 746 Mte. This case was discussed by C. A., Saxby v. Fulton, [1909] 2 K. B. 208. See No. 3, above. 11. — Souse used for betting — Receipt of money beyond the United Kingdom — Betting Act, 1863 (16 ^ 17 Vict. e. 119), s. 1. By s. 1 of the Betting Act, 1853, it is an offence to keep a house for the purpose of money being received by or on behalf of the keeper of the house as the consideration for undertakings to pay thereafter money on events relating to horse-races or games ; — BCeld, that to constitute an offence under that section it is not necessary that the money should be intended to be received at the house itself, nor need the intended place of receipt be within the United Kingdom. Stoddabt v. Hawke Div. Ct. [1901] W. N. 219; 1902] 1 K. B. 383 ( 1129 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1130 ) GAMING — cotttinued. Note. This case was approved by C. A., Lennox v. Stoddart, [1902] 2 K. B. 21. See No. 8, alove. — Place used for betting. See Nos. 17, 18, helow. 12. — Lottertj — Gratuitous dAstrilmtion by newspaper proprietor's of medals bearing numbers — Notification of winning number's in newspaper — Possibility of obtaining pri:e without actual purcliase oj chance — Gaming Act, 1802 (42 Geo. 3, 0. 119), s. 2. The proprietors of a weekly newspaper caused toedals to be distributed gratuitously among members of the public ; each medal bore a dis- tinctive number and the words, " Keep this, it may be worth lOOZ. Seethe Weekly Telegraph to-day " ; the winning numbers, which were arbitrarily selected by the newspaper proprietors and were unknown to the distributors, were published weekly in the newspaper. There were no coupons, and it was not necessary that the holder of a medal should purchase a copy of the paper as a condition of receiving a prize ; in- formation as to the winning numbers could be obtained without charge at the office of the newspaper. The object of the scheme was to induce persons to inspect or buy the paper, and the circulation in fact increased considerably during the progress of the scheme: — Held, that, although it was possible for an individual holder of a medal to obtain a prize without paying anything for his chance, the medal-holders as a body collectively contributed sums of money to the fund out of which the money came for the prizes, and that the scheme was a lottery within s. 2 of the Gaming Act, 1802. "Willis r. Young akb Stembrid&e Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K B. 448 13. — Loiter ij — Keeping a place for a — User on one occasion only — Gaming Act, 1802 (42 Geo. 3, c. 119), s. 2. The use of a room on one occasion for the drawing of tickets in a lottery is not an offence under s. 2 of the Gaming Act, 1802, which for- bids the keeping of any place for the purpose of a lottery. Maetin r. Benjamin - Div. Ct. [1906] W. N. 203 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 64 14. — Lottery — Offence — Corporation — Person — Joint stoch company\ — Lotteries Act, 1823 (4 Geo. 4, c. 60), ss. 41, 61—Interpi'etation Act, 1889 (52 ^- 53 Vict. c. 63), s. 2, sub-s. 1. The Lotteries Act, 1823, s. 41, enacts that if any person shall publish any proposal or scheme for the sale of chances in a lottery, not authorized by Act of Parliament, such person shall for every such offence be deemed a rogue and vagabond, and shall be punished as such in the manner thereinafter directed. By s. 67 the punishment is imprisonment, and for a second offence im- prisonment and whipping. By s. 4 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, a, fine maybe imposed instead of imprisonment : — Held, that a joint stock co. incorporated under the Companies Acts cannot be convicted of an offence under s. 41. Hawkec. E. Hulton & Co. Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 88 ; [1909] 2 E. B. 93 GAMING — continued. 15. — Lottery — Sweepstaltes on horse-race — Gaming Act, 1802 (42 Geo. 3, c. 119), s. 2. The respondent, the keeper of a beer-house, arranged for a sweepstakes on a horse-race to be held on his premises. Sixty-one persons entered, each of whom paid &d. to the i espondent ; and prizes amountir g in the aggregate to 30«. were paid by the respondent to the persons who respec- tively drew the first three horses in the race, less the price of a certain quantity of beer which by the conditions of the sweepstakes had to be bought from the respondent by the prize- winners : — Held, that the sweepstakes was a lottery within s. 2 of the Gaming Act, 1802. Habd- WICK V. Lane Div. Ct. [1904] W. N. 12 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 204 16. — Money paid inrespect of agreement void under the Gaming Act, 1845 (8 S)' 9 Vict. c. 109) — Agreement by way of gaming and wagering — Gambling partnership — Bets paid by one partner — Claim for contribution — Gaming Act, 1892 (55 S- 56 Vict. V. 9), s. 1. Where one person advanced money to another for the purpose of making bets on horses on their joint account, and the money so advanced was lost on such bets : — Held, that, by reason of the provisions of the Gaming Act, 1892, the person who had advanced the money could not maintain an action against the other for half of the amount so lost. Tatam. v. Reeve, [1893] 1 Q. B. 44, approved of. Sapfery v. Mayee - C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 11 17. — Place used for bettiiig — Bar ofpublic- — Betting Act, 1853 (16 ^- 17 Vict. c. 119), s.S. The appellant, who was a bookmaker, was in the habit of frequenting the bar of an inn at certain hours for the purpose of carrying on a business of ready-money betting with persons resorting thereto, and the fact of his carrying on that business in the bar was known to those persons. He carried on the business there by the permission of the landlord, but he did not for the purposes of it occupy any specific portion of the bar : — Held, that the above facts amounted to a "use " of the bar by the appellant for the pur- poses of betting in contravention of s. 3 of the Betting Act, 1853. Belton V. Busby, [1899] 2 Q. B. 380, followed, TEOMAfTS V. HODKINSON - Dlv. Ct. [1902] "W. N. 204; [1903] 1 K, B. 30 Note. This case was followed by C. C. K., Men; v. Beaville, [1903] 1 K. B. 468. See next Case. 18. — Place used for bettiiig — Bar of public- house— Betting Act, 1853 (16 |- 17 Vict. c. 119), s. 3. Where a bookmaker is in the habit of frequenting the bar of a public-house for the purpose of carrying on a business of ready-money betting with persons resorting thereto, but for the purposes of that business does not occupy any specific portion of the bar, the question whether he " uses " the bar for the purpose of ( 1131 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1132 ) OAKIIIG — continued. betting in contravention of s. 3 of the Betting Act, 1853, depends upon whether he so carries on his betting business there with the knowledge and permission of the occupier of the house. SeUon Y. Busby, [1899] 2 Q. B. 380, and Tromans v. SodUnson, [1903] 1 K. B. 30, fol- lowed. Rex v. Albert Dbaville. Eex d. John Deavillb. Eex v. Simpson C. C. S. [1903] 1 K. B. 468 — House used for betting. See No. 11, above. — Statutory defence — Notice — Gaming and wagering contract. See County Couet — Practice. 15. 19. — Unlawful gaming — Common gaming- house — Shop containing automatic machine — Gaming House Act, 1854 (17 ^- 18 Vict. c. 38), .5.4. The appellant, a shopkeeper, had in his shop an automatic machine which was worked on the following principle : A person desiring to use it put a penny in a slot and pressed and released a spring. According to the force with which this was done the penny fell into one or other of seven compartments. If it fell into either of two compartments it was automatically returned to the sender, and if it fell into the centre com- partment he received from the machine a ticket entitling him to twopennyworth of articles sold in the shop. If," however, the penny fell into any of the other compartments it was retained by the machine. It having been proved that a number of boys and me-u bad used the machine on certain days and had lost and won money by means of it, the appellant was convicted under a. 4 of the Gaming House Act, 1854, of having opened, kept, and used his shop for the purpose of unlawful gaming being carried on therein ; — Held, that the conviction was right. Fielding i: TUENBK Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 867 20. — Unlawful gaming — Stalling money's worth — Gaming Houses Act, 1854 (17 ^ 18 Vict, u. 38), s. 4. The appellant was convicted under s. 4 of the Gaming Houses Act, 1854, of keeping a room for the purpose of unlawful gaming. He kept in his shop an automatic machine of the kind known as slot machines for members of the public to play with. The machine contained three balls and three cups. The player placed a halfpenny in the slot and then pulled a lever which caused one of the balls to be thrown upwards. In falling it had to find its way into one of the cups. If it fell into one, the halfpenny was returned to the player ; if into another, the ball was returned and could be played again ; if into the third, the halfpenny was lost to the player. It was contended for the appellant that the game was played solely for amusement, that the player could not get more than his original halfpenny back or the right to continue playing, and that the element of wagering which is essential to constitute unlawful gaming was absent : — Held, that the right of a player who recovered his halfpenny with the first ball to continue playing with the two remaining balls was a GAMING- valuable thing which he had a chance of winning in addition to his stake, and that the use of the machine consequently amounted to unlawful gaming. Roberts v. Harrison Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 163 21. — Wltist — Absence of element of wagering —Licensing Act, 1872 (35 ^ 36 Vict. c. 94), s. 17. To constitute gaming the game played must be one which involves the element of wagering ; each player must have a chance of losing as well as of winning. A number of persons hired a room in an hotel for the purpose of playing whist. They played for prizes, which were not subscribed for by the playei'S, but were given by third persons : — Held, that the whist so played did not amount to gaming within the meaning of s. 17 of the Licensing Act, 1872. Lockwood v. Cooi'BR Div. Ct. [1903] W. If. 136 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 428 G-ABDENEB — Cottage — Improvements— Reim- bursement out of capital moneys. See Settled Land— Capital Moneys. 5. — Glass-houses — Market gardeners' compensa- tion — Fruit trees. See Landlord and Tenant. 5. — Market Gardeners' Compensation (Scotland) — Improvements— Retrospective effect of statute. See LAifDLORD and Tenant. 3. GARNISHEE — Attachment of debt— Balance in hands of garnishee — Practice — Garnishee summons. See Attachment. 8. — Attachment of debts — " Companies Liquida- tion Account " — Garnishee order. See Attachment. 7. — Attachment of debts — Execution — Rights of garnishor — Debenture-holder — ■ Priori- ties. See Attachment. 5. — Attachment of debts — Retired pay of officer in Army. See Attachment. 6. ■ Bankruptcy. See under Bankbuptcy- -Garuishee. • Company — Debenture-holder — Receiver — Attachment of debts — Garnishee order nisi — Priority. See Company — Eeceiver. 7. ■ Forfeiture clause — Gift of income to A. for life or until alienation —Garnishee order. See Will — Forfeiture. 5. Garnishee order — Company — Debentures — Floating security. See Company — Dehentures. 13. ■ Garnishee order nisi — Attachment of debt — Scotch judgment — Extension to England. See Attachment, i. ( 1133 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1134 ) G&KSISSEE—carttinued. — Garnishee order nisi — Stay of execution under judgment. See Bakeuptcy — Notice. 10. — Order absolute — Judgment creditor — Mistake — Setting aside. See Setting aside. — Payment by garnishee after notice of order nisi — Cheque — Duty to stop payment. See DivoBCE — Practice. 20. 1. — Practice — Garnishee order — Discre- tion to mahe order — Incomplete discharge of garnishee — Liability to pay a second time — Refusal of order— Debt—B. S. C, Order XLV., rr. 1, 7. The making of a garnishee order is dis- cretionary, and an order which would have the effect of leaving the garnishee liable to pay the amount of his debt a second time is inequitable, and will be refused. Martin i. Nadel ; DkesdneeBauk, Garnishees - - C. A. [1906] W. N. Ill ; [1906] 2 K. B. 26 — Trial of garnishee issue by Master — Appeal from decision of Master — Practice. See Appeal. 20. GAS — Arrears of gas rate — Right to recover from incoming tenant — Gas Worlts Clauses Act, 18i7, (10 4' 11 Vict. c. 15), s. 16— Metropolis Gas Act, 1860(23 4-2i Vict. c. 125), s. i%—Gas Light and Colie Company's Act, 1872 (35 d 36 Vict. c. .cxiii.), s. 18. When a consumer of gas supplied by the Gas Light and Coke Co. on premises within the CO. 's district leaves the premises without paying for the gas, and the incoming tenant continues the trade or business of the outgoing consumer and pays him a consideration for so doing, the CO. cannot under its special Act of 1872, c. xxiii., recover by legal process the arrears from the incoming tenant. The decision of the C. A., Gas Light and Cohe Co. V. Cannon Breivery Co., [1903] 1 K. B. 593, reversed, and the decision of Lord Alverstone C.J., Darling and Ohauuell JJ., restored. Gas Light and Cohe Co. v. Mead, (1876) iS L. J. (M.C.) 71, approved. Cannon Bebweet Co. V. Gas Lioht and Coke Co. H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 110 ; [1904] A. C. 331 — Company — Negligence — Article of dangerous nature — Contractor — Misfeasance. See Canada — Gas. 2. — Engine (Gas) — Distress — Landlord and tenant — Trade fixtures — Hiring agreement. See DiSTEESS. 11. — Gas company — Additional expense imposed on gas company by reason of existence of tramway — Liability of tramway company. See Tramways. 2. — Gasworks — Value of gasworks i as a going concern. See New Zealand. 8. — Income tax — Gas company — Standard rate of dividend. See Revenue — Income Tax. 19. GAS- — Laying electric lines near gas mains — Arbitra- tion — Conviction — Penalties. See Electric Light. 6. — Sewer gas — "Enteritis" — "Workmen's com- pensation. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 61. — Sewers rate — Gas mains liable to be rated as unsewered property — Law of Victoria. See Victoria. — "Supply" of electricity — Electric lighting — Municipal corporation — Statutoiy powers. See Electric Light. 6. — "Supply of gas" — "Supply of water" — Supplying water outside statutory limits — Ultra vires — Injunction. See Water. 25. 2. — Testing — Interpretation of statutes — " Daily" — Construing .statute iy long prevailing practice — Sunday testing — London — Gas Light and Coke and other Gas Companies Acts Amend- ment Act, 1880 (43 ^ 44 Vict. c. clxwxi.'), t. 7 — Practice — Parties — Injunction — Corpoi'oiion. — Statutory hody — Puilic duties — Attorney- General, Suing by. By the South Metropolitan Gas Co. 's special Acts of 1869 and 1876 provision was made for the public testing of the quality of the gas supplied by them to their customers. The mode of testing and the situation and number of the testing places, which were to be provided by the CO. and to be under the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works (whose powers subsequently became vested in the pits., the London County Council) were to be prescribed by gas referees appointed by the Board of Trade, and " daily " testings were to be made by gas examiners appointed by the Metropolitan Board. Similar provisions were contained in the special Acts of the other metropolitan gas cos. By an Act passed in 1880, which was applicable to all the metropolitan gas cos., the provisions as to " daily " testings were substantially re-enacted by a section which provided that a gas examiner should, at each costing place, " make daily " such number of tests as the gas referees should pre- scribe. Other sections gave the Metropolitan Board, as " the controlling authority," the control and management of the testing places. There was also a provision in the Act of 1869, which was to be read with the Act of 1880, defining " day " as twenty-four hours, beginning at nine o'clock in the forenoon of one day and ending at nine o'clock in the forenoon of the next. The practice under these Acts until 1902 had been to test on week-days only : — Held (affirming Joyce J.. '[1903] W. N". 90 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 532), that the word "daily" in the Act of 1880 must be construed literally, as including Sundays, and that the previous practice under that and the earlier Acts was not sufficient to justify the Court in departing from that literal construction ; and, accordingly, that the gas examiners appointed by the London County Council were entitled to test on Sundays the gas supplied by the oo. ( 1135 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1136 ) GAS — continued. Yewem v. Noahes, (1880) 50 L. J. (Q.B.) 132, considered. Held, also, that the London County Council, as the body entrusted by Parliament with the control and management of the testing places provided by the co., were proper pits, in an action for an injunction to restrain the oo. from preventing the gas examiners from making tests oil Sundays ; and, therefore, that it was not necessary that the action should be brought by the Att.-Gen. London County ConNCiL v. South Metropolitan Gas Co. [1903] W. S. 206 ; C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 76 — Tramway company, Liability of — Additional expense imposed on gas company by reason of existence of tramway. See Team WATS. 2. — Value of gasworks as a going concern. See New Zealand. 8. — Workmen's Compensation — Gas main in street at a distance from works. See Master and Servant — Compensa- tion. 92: GAS ENGINE, See under Gas. GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY. See Cases under Gas. GASWOBKS. See under Gas. GATE — Railway company — Level crossing — Obligation to maintain gate — Straying horse. See Railway — Level Crossings. 4. GAVELKIND — Descent — PartiUlity — Col- laterals. The partibility of lands held in gavelkind among the heirs in equal shares extends to col- laterals of every degree, and is not coniined to brothers and their issue or nearer relations. The custom of gavelkind is the common law of the land in Kent, and its extension to collaterals is, therefore, a question for the judge, and need not be proved by usage, as in the case of a manorial custom which is in contravention of the common law. In re Chenoweth. Ward v. Dwellby Earwell J. [1902] W. N. 133 ; [1902] 2Ch.488 GENERAL AVERAGE— Insurance. See Cases under Insurance (Marine). — Shipping. See under Shipping — Average. GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BAK. See under Counsel. GENERAL WORDS— Covenant —Construction- Trade fixtures — Ejusdem generis — Tenant's right of removal. See Fixtures. 10. — Easement — Tramway — Express or implied grant — Derogation. See Tramways. 6. — Royal charter — Grant of lands to subjects — Construction — Treasure trove. See CeoWN. 4. GENERAL WORDS— co«ii?we(i. — Ways enjoyed with the land sold— Permissive enjoyment. See Way, Right op. 10. GEOGRAPHICAL NAME— Trade mark— Regis- tration. See Trade Mark. 32. GERMANY — Practice — Service out of the juris- diction — Order of tlie Lord Chancellor., dated July 4, 1904, that Order XI., r. 8, of the Rules of tlie Sujireme Court shall apply to the German Empire. Reprint from W. N. 1904 (July 23), p. 231. See Current Index, 1904, p. cxxv. — Extradition — Treaty between Great Britain and Germany for the Mutual Surrender of Fugitive Criminals of May 14, 1872, arts. 4, 5. — Fugitive criminals. See under Extradition. GLASGOW — Bridge carrying public highway over railway. See Scottish Law. 3. — Insurance — Professional — Widows' fund limited to members of a society — Con- tributor expelled from society — Glasgow Faculty of Procurators' Widows" Fund Act, 1833. See Insurance (Professional). 1. — Streets — Glasgow Building Regulations. See Scottish Law. 24, 25. GLASGOW (CIIY OF) ACT, 1891. See Scottish Law. 3. GLASGOW COURT HOUSES ACT — Rates— As- sessment — Construction of statute. See Rates. 7. GLASGOW POLICE ACT, 1866. See Scottish Law. 3. GLASS-HOUSES — Agricultural Holdings — Removable fixtures — Market gardeners' compensation. See Landlord and Tenant. 5. GLEBE LANDS— Provision as to glebe lands. See Small Holdings and Allot- ments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 29. Qlele Lands Act, 1888 (51 ^- 52 Vict. c. 20)— The Sale of Glele Land Mules, 1909, dated Aug. 13, 1909 — Rules made pursuant to the provisions of the Oleic Lands Act, 1888 (51 ^ 52 Vict. c. 20), wiih the approval of the Lord High Chancellor of Ch'eat Britain, in relation to tlie sale of glehe land under the said Act-. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (Sept. 25), p. 317. See Current Index, 1909, p. cxviii. Purchase-money for gle'be lands to he paid to Ecclesiastical Commissioners. See Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 47), Sched. (6). Purchase-money for glehe land to be paid to Ecclesiastical Commissioners. See Hous-ing, Tomn Planning, SfC., Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 44), Sched. 1 (12). ( 1137 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1138 ) GLEBE LANDS — continued. — Land tax — Exemption — Glebe lands let on leases — User and occupation. See New South Wales. 18. GLOUCESTERSHIRE (WEST) WATEE ACTS — " Supply of Wiiter " — Supplying water outside statutory limits — Injunction. See Watee. 25. eOLDFIELDS ACT, 1886— Notice of forfeiture of lease to lessee — Appeal from Western Australia. See Australia. 10. GOODS —Dangerous goods — Common carrier — Duty of consignor to inform carrier of nature of goods. See Cabeibe. 3. — Sale of goods. See under Sale of Goods. 3. GOODS SOLD AND DELIVEEED— Action for— Liability of estate of deceased partner. See Paetnehship. GOODWILL — Debenture—" Property " — Juris- diction to appoint manager. See Company — Debentures. 18. — Partnership. See Paetneeship. 5. 1. — Sale of businesa — Soliciting old, cus- tomers. The rule laid down in Trego v. Sunt, [1896] A. C. 7, that the vendor of the goodwill of a business may not solicit any person, who was a customer of the old business prior to the sale, to continue to deal with the vendor, or not to deal with the purchaser, applies to all such persons, and ought not to be limited so as to exclude persons who before solicitation have of their own accord become customers of the vendor. CuEL Beothbks, Ld. v. Wbbstee - Farwell J. [1904] W. N. 66 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 685 — Stamp — Agreement for sale — Agreement " made " in the United Kingdom. See Revenue — Stamps. 1. GOOLE EEACH, EIVER OUSE— Navigation of — Collision — Local practice to swing — Helm signal. See SHIPPING!- — Collision. 38. GOVERNMENT STORES— Salvage— Negligence — Liability of charterers of salved vessel. See Shippinr— Salvage. 16. GRAHMAR SCHOOL. See under SCHOOLS. GRAMOPHONE- Copyiight. See under CoPYEiGHT^Gramophone. — Trade mark — Word directly referring to character of goods — Distinctive word. See Trade Maek. 16. GRANDCHILDREN- Gift to— Illegitimate child described as " son." See Will — lUegitimaoy. 5. GRANDCHILDREN — WiU— Construction— Words of futurity — Gift to grandchildren in case any child " shall predecease me." See Will— Futurity, Words of. 1. GRANT — Crown lands — Grant of foreshore by the Crown — Pier — Unauthorized con- struction — Public nuisance. See PiBE. 1. — Derogation from gi'ant — Disturbance induced by landlord — Action by tenant — Third party notice by landlord for in- demnity. See Landloed aot) Tenant. 67. • Derogation from gi-ant- power. See Settlement. -Implied release of 38. - Derogation from grant — Light — Trespass — Party wall — Landlord and tenant. See LoirooN — Buildings. 19. ■ Easement — Tramway — Express or implied grant — Derogation — General words. See Teamvtats. 6. - Grant of administration. See under Administeation. - Highway — Presumption of lost grant — Fee farm rent — Payment for long period. See under Highway. 18. ■ Land — Construction — Title — Terms of grant — Diagram. See Capb of Good Hope. 6. Letters of administration. See under Administeation. • Light and air. See under Light and Aie. ■ Lost grant — Pleading — Particulars — Date and parties. See Practice — Pleadings. 3. - Lost grant — Right of way. See under Way, Eight of. - Pier — Unauthorized construction — Rates for passengers — Rates for vessels " moor- ing " — Foreshore — Crown grant. See Pier. 1. - Presumption of lost grant — Presumption of legal origin to support long user. See Pbesgeiption. 2. - Probate. See under Peobate. - Railway — Severed lands — Grant of right to make "a tunnel" — Uncertainty — Per- petuity — Assignability. See Railway — Accommodation Works. 2. - Real estate — Exception — Uncertainty — Elec- tion. See Conveyance. 2. - Release or grant — Conveyance by husband and wife of moiety of wife's land — Husband's rent-charge not mentioned. See Deeds. 6. ( 1139 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1140 ) GBANT — cotitmued. — Eoyal charter — General words — '^ Franchises " —Title of Crown. See Crown. 4. — Support, right of — Presumed lost grant — Prescription. See SnppoET. 1. — Title to grant of way by the public — Law of the Channel Islands. See Gtteenset. 1. — Trustee — Befusal to act — Disclaimer by grantee — EeTesting of legal estate — Voluntary settlement. See Settlement. 48. — Water. See under Water. — Way, right of. See under Wat, Right of. — Will — Destruction — Intention — Executors ' according to the tenor — Universal legatees in trust — Form of grant. See Will — Destruction. 1. GKANT OF PROBATE. See under Probate. 0BATE8 — Mortgagor and Mortgagee — " Dog grates " substituted for fixed grates — Intention to improve inheritance. See Fixtures. 5. GEATUITIES— Company. See under COMPANY — WiNDING-UP — Gratuities. GBAT£L — Gravel pita — Exhaustion of subject- matter of assessment — Value of occupa- tion when rate made — Poor-rate. See Rates. 14. — Sand — Mines and minerals — Quarries— Regu- lation of railways. See Mines. 6. GEEAT SEAI (OFFICES) ACT, 1874— ^ioZiiion of fees — Order of the Loo'd Chancellor dated May 19, 1904. W. N. 1904 (June 4), p. 197. See CUEEENT Index, 1904, p. cxvii. GEEAT WESTERN EAIIWAY COMPANY (EATES AND CHARGES) OEDER CON- FIRMATION ACT. See Railway — Carriage. Railway — Rates. Railway — Trucks . GREECE — Declaration of trust in favour of the Greek Orthodox Church — Construction. See Canada — Ecclesiastical Law. 1. GEEENOCK HAEBOUE ACTS— Judicial factor — Receiver — Power to increase rates. See SCOTTISH Law. 20. GBENADA — Privy Council Appeals. See under Privy Council. GBOTTNO GAME. See under Game. GROUND-EENTS— Costs of lease creating— Re- investment in land. See Lands Clauses Acts. 22. — Investment by trustees — Breach of trust — ■ Purchase of leasehold ground-rents. See Will — Investments. 1 . GUARANTEE- Bank— Indemnity— Action quia timet — Joint and several guarantee of overdraft at bank — No demand by bank for payment. See Principal and Surety. 2. — Bond to secure fidelity of employee — Death of surety — Notice. See Principal and Surety. 1. — Company. See under Company — Guarantee. — Company — Winding-up. See under COMPANY — Winding-up — Guarantee. — Debentures by a municipality — Invalidity of by-law — Quebec Act. See Canada — Corporation. 1. — Devastavit — Statute of Limitations — Claim on guarantee. See Executor — Devastavit. 1. 1. Indemnity — Oral "promise to answer for the deU of another" — Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, 0. 3), s. 4. The deft., who was a director of and had a large interest as a shareholder in a co., which he had also financed, orally promised the pits., who were judgment creditors of the co., and who had delivered to the sherifi a writ of ii. fa., which they had issued upon their judgment, on which the sherifE had failed to levy because he could not efEect an entry, that he (the deft.) would indorse bills for the amount of the debt : — Beld, that this promise was not a contract of indemnity, but was a " promise to answer for the debt of another " within s. 4 of the Statute of Frauds, and that, as it was not in writing, an action for the breach of it could not be main- tained : Seld, also, that the case was not excepted from s. 4 by reason of the interest which the deft. had as a shareholder and otherwise in freeing the goods of the co. from the execution, he having no legal interest in or charge upon the goods. The authorities which have established ex- ceptions from s. 4 considered. Decision of Mathew J. reversed. Harbueg India Rubber Comb Co. v. Martin. C. A. [1902] W. N. 62 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 778 — Mortgage debt — Mortgage insurance policy — Indemnity — Guarantee — Co-suretyship — Contribution. See Principal and Surety. 3. — Signed by wife for debt of husband — Creditor procuring guarantee through husband. See Husband and Wife — Guarantee 1. GUARANTOR— Bankruptcy of— Principal and surety — Proof for future interest. See Bankruptcy— Proof. 8. ( 1141 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1142 ) OUABD — Eailway — Workmen's Compenaatiou — Earnings — Lodging allowance. See Master and Sebvant— Compensa- tion. 120. GTTABDIAN— Infant. See under INFANT — Qnardian. GUARDIAN AD LITEM— Appearing in Court in person — Infant defendant. See Infant — Guardian ad Litem. 1. — Costs — Taxation — Official solicitor — Practice. See Costs. 70. — Infant defendants — Costs — OiEcial solicitor. See Solicitok — Costs. 27. — Nullity of marriage — Lunatic — Decree — • Costs of the official solicitor as guardian ad litem of the respondent — Form of order. See Divorce- Nullity. 10. — Probate — Practice — Lunatic defendant — Position of official solicitor, if appointed guardian ad litem. See Probate — Lunacy. 2. GUARDIANS (BOARD OF) — Member — Collection of rent for the Board — Retention of commission — Disqualifica- 1 tion — Vacancy. See Local Government. 14. GUARDIANS (BOARD OF'y—conUnued. — Poor law. See under PoOB LAW. GUERNSEY — Law oftlie Channel Islartds — Title to right of way ty the piiilic — G-vant — Effect of delay in suing after attaining majority. In the Channel Islands, where the doctrine of dedication to the public is unknown, (1.) title to a right of way must be made out by the public as by a private individual, by either grant or prescription ; (2.) a grant must be matter of record ; and, qumre, whether prescription will avail without proof of title : — Held,, in an action by the appellant to have it determined that the public had no right of way over his property, that a registered minute of a resolution of the Seigneur and resident tenants of the Island of Sark, where it was situated, which did not duly record a completed trans- action of grant, being rather a note of an un- accepted offer, was neither in form nor effect sufficient to create a title in the public : Held, also, that a minor is not required to bring an action of title within a year of his majority. Godfbay r. Constables op the Island of Sark P. C. [1902] A. C. 534 GYMNASIUM— Library. See under LIBRARY ( 1143 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. (■ 1H4 ) H. HABEAS COBFUS — Appeal — Criminal cause or matter — Practice — ■ Fugiti ve offender — Juiica- ture Act; 1873 (36 ^ 37 Vict. e. 66), s. 47— Applicationto C.A. under Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881 (44 S' 415 Viet. c. 69),' 4-. 10— Estoppel hy judgment — Res judicata — Absence of adjudication as of record. An appeal will not lie to the 0. A. against the refusal of a Div. Ct. to issue a writ of habeas corpus in the case of a prisoner committed under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881. An order nisi for a habeas corpus was obtained in the K. B. Division on the application of a person in custody under the Fugitive Oilenders Act, 1881, but was afterwards discharged. The aflSdavit upon which the order nisi was obtained stated (inter alia") matters- material as grounds for the exercise of the power given by the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, s. 10, but the order nisi was in form simply for a habeas corpus, and not, in the alternative, for relief to the prisoner under s. 10. On the argument of the order nisi, the matters referred to in the affidaTit as afore- said were discussed, and the Oourt in giving judgment pronounced them insufficient as grounds for the exercise of the powers given by s. 10 of the before-mentioned Act in favour of the prisoner. The order ultimately drawn up was, however, simply for discharge of the order nisi for a habeas corpus. An application was subsequently made to the G. A. to exercise the powers given by s. 10, as having original juris- diction in that behalf under the Act concurrently with the High Court. A preliminary objection was taken to the hearing of the application on the ground that tbe matter had been previously adjudicated upon by the K. B. Division, and was therefore res judictta. Held by Vaughan Williams • L.J., Fletcher Moulton L.J., and Buckley L.J., that inasmuch as the only matter adjudicated upon by the order of the K. B. Division, as drawn up, was that the order nisi for a habeas corpus should be discharged, the matter of the application to the C. A. was not res judicata, and (Buclcley L.J. doubting) that the C. A. had original jurisdiction to entertain the application . Qurnre, whether, in a case where an applica- tion for relief under s. 10 of the Fugitive Ofienders Act, 1881, has been adjudicated upon, and an order has been made dismissing the same in the High Court, it is competent for the applicant to make a similar application to the C. A. EBX 1). GOVBENOE OF BEIXTON PRISON, Ex parte SAVABKAE - C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. ^ 1086 2. — Foreign country in which tlie Crown has jurisdiction — Protectorate — Foreign Jurisdiction HABEAS COTirV S—co7itinued. Act, 1890 (53 4- 54 Vict. c. ST)— Order in Council — Proclamation — Validity — Arbitrary arrest — Act of State — Person having custody of prisoner — Secretary of State for Colonies — " Foreign dominion of the Crown" — 16 Car. 1, c. 10, ss. 6, 9,— Habeas Corpus Act, 1862 (25 ^- 26 Tict. c. 20), s. 1. By an 0. in C. dated May 9, 1891, made " in exercise of the powers by the Foreign Juris- diction Act, 1890, or otljerwise in Her Majesty vested," the High Commissioner for South Africa was authorized to exercise in the Beohuanaland Protectorate the powers of Her Majesty, and to do all such things " as are lawful," and to pro- vide by proclamation for the administration of justice and generally for the peace, order, and good government of all persons within the Protectorate, including the prohibition and punishment of aU acts tending to disturb the public peace. One Sekgome, who claimed to be the chief of a native tribe in the Protectorate, was detained in custody at a place within the Protectorate by virtue of a proclamation authorizing his deten- tion, and expressed to have been made by the High Commissioner, under the powers con- ferred on him by the 0. in C, on the ground that the detention of Sekgome was necessary for the preservation of peace within the Protectorate. On an application by Sekgome for a writ of habeas corpus to the Secretary of State for the Colonies : — Held (affirming an order of the Div. Ct. dis- missing the application), that the Protectorate was a foreign country in which His Majesty had jurisdiction within the meaning of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890 ; that the proclamation was validly made under the powers conferred by the 0. in C. ; and that the detention of Sekgome was, therefore, lawful. Sprigg v. Sigcau, [1897] A. C. 238, distin- guished. Held, also, by Vaughan Williams and Kennedy L.JJ., that the Protectorate was not a " foreign dominion of the Grown" within s. 1 of the Habeas Corpus Act, 1862. Quaere, whether, in any event, the Secretary of State for the Colonies was a person having the custody of Sekgome, to whom a writ of habeas corpus could be issued. Ebx v. Cebwb (Eael OP). .En ^ffiiiie Sekgome - C. A. [1910] 2K.B. 676 3. — Jurisdiction to order issue of writ — Writ to person out of jurisdiction at date of order. There is no power in the Court or a judge to order the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directed ( 1145 .) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1146 ) HABEAS CORPUS — continued. to a person who at the dale of the order is out of the iurisdiction. Eex v. Pincknet C. A. [1904] W. N. 63 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 84 — Writs of habeas corpus — Extradition — Arrest and remand of accused — Jurisdiction — Procedure — Kelease. See Canada — Extradition. 1. HABENDUM — Words of limitation — Habendum to grantee ''in fee" — Supplying omis- sion from context. See Conveyance. 1. HABITUAL CEIMINAL. See under Geiminal Law. HACKNEY CABEIAGE— Carriages generally. See under Caeeiage. 1. — Licence — Carriage plying or driven for hire — Concealment of numier-jdate — Local Government — By-law — Toi07i Police Clauses Act, 18i7 (10 4- 11 Vict. V. 89), s. 38. A by-law made under the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, provided that "every pro- prietor of a hackney carriage" should cause the number of the licence granted to him in respect of that carriage to be marlced on a plate fixed on the outside of the carriage, and should not cause or suffer the plate to be concealed from public view " while such carriage may stand, ply, or be driven for hire." By s. 38 of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1817, every wheeled carriage "used in standing or plying for hire in any street ' ' shall be deemed to be a hackney carriage within the meaning of the Act. The proprietor of a hackney carriage licensed under the Act, having received an order for a carriage to take a person from his house to a ry. station, sent the licensed carriage direct from the yard with the number-plate concealed from view by a board placed over it, and in that condi- tion the carriage was driven from the house of the person who had given the order to the ry. station along a street within the district to which the by-law applied. The proprietor having been convicted by justices of an oifenoe against the by-law : — Meld, that the carriage, whilst it was so being driven along the street, was a " hackney car- riage " within the meaning of s. 38 of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847 ; that the by-law applied to it ; and that the conviction was, therefore, right. Hawkins v. Edwaeds Div. Ct. [1901] W. N. 88; [1901] 2 K. B. 169 — London. See under London — Carriages. 2. — Negligence of driver — Linlility of pro- prietor — Relation of master and servant — London Hackney Car?-ingrs Act, 1843 (6 .f 7 Vict. c. 86), ss. 2, 28, 35 — 2Ictropolitan Piihlic Carriage Act, 1869 (32 4-33 Virt. c. 115), s. 6. The deft, and her son were partners in the business of cab proprietors in London. A cab belonging to the partners, which was let in the ordinary way to a cabman, through his negli- gence came into collision with another vehicle, in which the pit. was riding, whereby injuries were occasioned to the pit. The licence for the HACKNEY CAB.'RI&G:^— continued. cab was taken out in the name of the deft.'s son, who appeared on the register of licences as the proprietor thereof. In an action by the pit. against the deft, in respect of the injuries occa- sioned to the pit. as aforesaid : — Held, that the action was maintainable on the ground that the liability imposed in such cases on cab proprietors, by virtue of the Acts relating to hackney carriages, is not confined to licensed proprietors, or that the deft, must be considered as being a licensed proprietor in respect of the cab. GATES v. U. Bill & Son C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 38 HALL-MAEK— Plate. See under Plate. HAEBOUE. (Harbours and Bocks.) Holy /lead Harbour.] By-laws dated .June 2, 1905, made for the regulation of the Harlour of Holyhead by Board of Trade in pursuance of the Act of 4 Geo. 4, c. 74. St. E. & 0. 1905. ifo. 685. 1. — Assessment — Puilic Health (^Scotland) Act, 1897 (60 c)'- 61 Viet. c. 38). The House reversed the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess. (.Tune 1, 1904) 41 S. L. E. 65S, with costs. Teustbes of Poet AND HAEBOUE of GEBENOCK v. GEEENOCK Magisteates H. L. (So.) [1905 ] W. N. 135 2. — Boundary — "Precincts" — Removal of sand from foreshore — Con-itruction of statute — JLisselhirgh Harbour Act, 1840 (3 J'ict.c. Ixj^iii.), ss. 2, 49, 76. By s. 2 of the Musselburgh Harbour Act of 1840 the word " harbour " shall be understood to mean the "harbour of Fisherrow," and shall include the whole precincts thereof as after specified. By s. 76 the said harbour shall be deemed to extend "along the shore" from the Magdalena Burn on the west to the Eavenshaugh Burn on the east, and to seaward to the extent of 100 yards beyond low water mark opposite to the shore between the aforesaid burns. The distance between the two burns was two miles. By s. 49 it shall not be lawful for any person to dig or take away from the said hai-bour or its precincts any sand, gravel, shingle, or stones except from such place or places as shall from time to time be appointed by the harbour com- missioners. In an action by the harbour com- missioners against persons who were proprietors of part of the foreshore between the two burns to restrain them from digging sand, &c. : — Held, affirming the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1903) 5 F. 387, that the harbour and its precincts included the whole foreshore between the two burns, and that the defenders were not entitled to remove sand from their land without the authority of the harbour commissioners. Aft.-Gen. v. Tomline, (1880) 14 Ch. D. 51, followed. MUSSELBDKGH EEAL ESTATE CO. i. Provost. &c., op Mdssklbuegh H. L. (So.) [1905] W. N. 130 ; [1905] A. C. 491 3. — Bock Bues — Right to detain vessel until dues paid — Maritime lien for erne's trages — ( 1147 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1148 ) S&R'BOVB.—oontinued. Priority — Men'sey DooTi Acts Consolidation Act, 1858, (21 ^- 22 Vict. c. wcii.), ss. 248, 253. Sect. 253 of the Mersey Dock Acts Consolida- tion Acts, 1858, which provides that while any dock tonnage rates remain unpaid in respect of any vessel liable thereto the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board may cause such vessel to be detained, until all such rates have been paid, gives the board a paramount right to detain a vessel until the doolk tonnage rates due in respect of her are paid, notwithstanding that the master and crew of the vessel have a maritime lien upon her for wages due before she entered the dock. The Emilie Millon - C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 817 — "Factory " — " Navigable river." See Mastbe and Sekvant — Compensa- tion. 149. — Greenock Harbour Acts — Judicial factor — Eeceiver — Power to increase rates. See Scottish Law. 20. 4. — Sarhour dues — Ports — Limits of port — Ships loading or unloading goods within the limits of pwt — Fiscal or customs port — Commercial or local port — Natural port artificially enlarged — Statute — Construction — 33 6eo. 3, c. cxxiii. — 49 Geo. 3, 0. xxir. By two private Acts trustees were authorized to levy rates add duties upon ships loading or unloading "within the limits of the port of Carnarvon " : — Held that, upon the true construction of the Acts, the words used meant the wider limits of the fiscal port, and not the limits of the local or popularly underst ood port of Carnarvon. The decision of the C. A., [1906] 1 Ch. 179, aflSrmed. Assheton Smith r. Owen H. L. (E.) [1907] W. H. 72 ; [1907] A. C. 124 — Justices — Jurisdiction — Ouster — Bona fide claim of right — Foreshore — Kemoval of shingle — Owner. See Justices. 11. — Liability of harbour board — Powers of har- bour-master — Negligence in removing and remooring vessels in port. See Cape op Good Hope. 5. — Pier. See under PlER. 5. — Ship — Damage — Defective berth — Duty of harioiir authority — Duty of wharf owner. In an action by the owners of a steamship against trustees, in whom a harbour was vested by statute with the usual rights as to tolls, and duties as to maintenance, and against a ry. co., owners of a wharf, to recover the amount of damage sustained by their v(!ssel by reason of the defective condition of a berth alongside the wharf in the harbour, the defence on the part of the trustees substantially was that as they had not received any report from the local pilots, upon whom the duty was imposed by their by- laws of making periodical inspections and taking soundings, they had not been negligent in being unaware of the defective condition of the berth. Secondly, that the defect was due to the wrong- ful act of those in charge of a steamer throwing the stokehold refuse overboard immediately prior KK&'&OV&^oontinued. to the aa-rival of the plt.'s vessel, and, therefore, it was not reasonably possible for the trustees to be aware of the defect, as periodical inspections would not have detected it. The defence on the part of the ry. co. was that as the responsi- bility of keeping the berth in proper condition rested with the trustees, who they knew em- ployed the pilots to take the necessary sound- ings, they were not negligent in being unaware of a defect due to a breach of the harbour by- laws by persons unknown : — Held, by the C. A., aiBrming the decision of the Court below, that both detts. were liable — the trustees because they had negli- gently omitted to perform the duty laid down in Mersey Doclis Trustees v. Gihhs, (1866) L. E. 1 H. L. 93, of taking reasonable care to see whether the harbour, including the berth in question, was in a fit condition, and they could not shift this duty on to the local pilots who were not their servants, and whose duty to sound was for the purpose of enabling them eificiently to navigate the vessels employing them. Secondly, assuming without evidence that the defect had been caused so shortly before the plt.'s vessel came in that periodical examina- tions would not have detected it, this defence was not open to them, because they had not performed their duty of examination of the berth by their servants, and, therefore, could not be heard to say that if they had done their duty the defect would not have been detected. The ry. CO. was liable under the rule in The Moorcoch, (1889) 14 P. D. 64, because as owners of the wharf they had invited the plt.'s vessel alongside for profit to themselves, and could not rely upon the pilots performing the duty cast upon them by the trustees, for, in their capacity as wharf owners, the ry. co. had the oppor- tunity of ascertaining the condition of the berth, and should, therefore, have either saiisfied them- selves that in was reasonably fit, or warned those in charge of the vessel that they had not done so. The Beaen C. A. [1906] P. 48 6. — Ship — Hariour Commissioners — Doch — Advertisement of depth of water on dock sill — Obligation to use reasonable care to provide for ingress and egress of ships — Warranty of accessibility. Where harbour commissioners, who are authorized and required by statute to execute works of improvement and maintenance in a har- bour, and are empowered to make and maintain docks in connection therewith, an A to take harbour and dock tolls and dues m respect of the u-e of the harbour and docks, advertise that there is a certain depth of water on the sill of a dock belonging to them, they th'ereby incur, towards shipowners who send their ships to the dock on the faith of that, advertisement, the obligntion of at least using reasonable care to provide for an access from and to the sea to and from the dock with a sufficient depth of water under the normal conditions of the time of year for all ships of such draught as to enable them to pass over the dock sill. Therefore, where in such a case the commis- sioners had not used such care, but had allowed ( 1149 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1150 ) HAR'BOVU—confi/med. silt to accumulate at the entrance of their har- bour, and a ship had consequently been detained for four days in the dock : — £Celd, that the commissioners "were liable to the shipowners in damages for the detention of their ship. Semhle, a warranty of the accessibility of a dock may be implied from such an advertisement, for ships of such draught, as before mentioned, so far as that accessibility depends on the condition of places within the harbour works or so situated that their condition is within the com- missioners' powers of inspection and control. Williams v. SwaTisea Hariour Tnistnes, (1863) 14 0. B. (N.S.) 845, discussed. Bbde Steam- ship Co. r. RivEE Weak Commes. C. A. [190T] 1 K. B. 310 — Shipping — Collision, Vessels crossing so as to involve risk of — Collision off the entrance to harbour. See Canada — Shipping. 2. HAaBOTTES, DOCKS, AND PIKSS CLAUSES ACT, 1847 — Negligent navigation — Damage to dock. See Negligence. 5. HAKDIABOTJB— Sentence— Practice— Common law forgery. See Ceiminal Law — Forgery. 1. HAREOGATE COEPOEATION — Building — Deposit of plans — Time limited for com- mencement of work. See Buildings. 2. HAKTEE ACT (Act of Congress of U.S.A., 1893), 88. 1, 2, 3. See Shipping— Charterparty. 3, 17. — Incorporation of Harter Act^ — Effect of. See Shipping — Charterparty. .3, 17. HAEWICH HAEBOUE — Collision — Damage- Compulsory pilotage — Trinity House Outport District — Termination of voyage. See Shipping— Collision. 19. HEAEING — Divorce — Suspicion as to truth of petitioner's evidence — Adjournment — Eight of King's Proctor to intervene or to shew cause before decree nisi. See DivOECE — Practice. 21. — Practice. See under Pbactice — Hearing. — Shippitif/ Casualties and Appeals and Re- hearings Rules, 1907. Reprinted 1910. See under SHIPPING. " HEAT " — Bill of lading — Damage to cargo — Negligence of carrier's servants — Lia- bility of carrier. See Shipping — Charterparty. 11. HEAT-STBOKE— Workmen's Compensation. See Mastee and Seevant— Compen- sation. 101. " HEIGHT "—Building not of uniform height — " Front or nearest external walU" See London — Buildings. 9. HEIELOOMS — Bequest to descend with dignity — Period of absolute vesting. A testatrix bequeathed diamonds to her son Viscount Hill (who survived her) " until he shall die, and after his death to each and every of the persons who shall in turn succeed to the title and dignity of Viscount Hill, severally and suc- cessively as they shall in turn sucoeed to such title and dignity as aforesaid, my intention being that the said diamonds shall descend as heir- looms as far as the rules of law and equity will permit." Held, that the case was governed by TollemacheY. Earl of Coventry, Q.?,M'), 2 Cl.&F. Gil ; 37 E. R. 260, and that, notwithstanding the words, " as far as the rules of law and equity will permit," on the death of Viscount Hill, the son of the testatrix, his successor in the title became absolutely entitled to the diamonds. Decision of Swinfen Eady J., [1902] W. N. 26 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 537, affirmed. In reHlLL. HiLLr. Hill C. A. [1902] VT. N. 72 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 807 8. — Direction in will for chattels to pass with real estate — Death of infant tenant in tail without having possession. E. was legal tenant for life in possession of a mansion house under a will, which limited the mansion house in remainder to his first and other sons in tail, and bequeathed cgrtain pictures as hen-looms, to pass with the house in the same manner as if they were land or other real property appendant or appurtenant thereto, and to con- tinue annexed to the house as long as the law would permit, and be inherited or enjoyed by the several persons who should sucoeed to the house under or by virtue of the limitations contained in the will. The eldest son of E. died in his lifetime, an infant and unmarried, but E. had two other sons, one of whom had attained twenty-one : — Held, that B. as next of kin of the deceased son, was entitled absolutely to the chattels settled as heirlooms. In re Lord Chesliam's Settlement, [1909] 2 Ch. 329, distinguished. In re Paekbe. Paekee v. Paekee • - Parker J. [1910] "W. N. 21 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 681 — Power of trustees to insure lieirlooms and pay premiums out of income of capital moneys. See Settled Land — Heirlooms. 1. — Settled land. See under SETTLED LaisT) — Heirlooms. 3. — Trust of chattels as heirlooms — Construc- tion — To he enjoyed with mansion house — Tenant in tail — Vesting — Intention— Actual possession. By a settlement of real estates made in 1877, plate, pictures, and chattels were assigned to trustees " upon trust to permit the same to be used, held, and enjoyed with the mansion house aforesaid by the person who for the time being shall be entitled to the said mansion house under the limitations thereof herein contained," yet so that for the effect of transmission they should not vest absolutely in any person thereby made tenant in tail male by purchase who should not attain the age of twenty-one years. The eldest son attained twenty-one years but died ip the lifetime of the tenant for life. On ( 1151 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1152 ) HEIRLOOMS— co»tt/me(f. the death of the tenant for life in 1907, the second son, an infant, claimed to he entitled to these heirlooms as tenant in tail male in posses- sion : — SM (reversing the decision of Eve J.), as a question of construction, that there was sufficient indication ot intention on the part of the settlor that these heirlooms should go vrith the mansion house and vest only i^i a tenant in tail male in possession, and consequently, that they vested in the second son, though liable to be divested in the event of his dying under twenty-one. Construction put upon this clause by Chitty J. in III re Lord Chesham (1886) 31 Ch. D. 466, adopted. In re Lokd Chesham's Settlement, Viscount Valentia v. Lady Chesham 0. A. [1909] 2 Ch. 329 — "Will. See under Will — Heirlooms. HEIBS — Trustees — Gift to persons upon trust to sell without adding "and their heirs " — Inability of executors of last surviving trustee to execute trust. See Trustee — Execution of Trust. 1. " HEREDITAMENTS "—Condition requiring re- settlement — Money held in trust for investment in land. See Will — Resettlement. 1. — Income tax — Sewer — Vested in local authority. See Revenue — Income Tax. 35. — Will. See Will— Resettlement. 1. HERIOT — Freehold of manor — Tenant — " Dying seised" — Mortgage — Mortgagor in possession. A mortgagor in possession of customary free- holds is not so "seised" thereof that on his death the lord of the manor is entitled to claim his best beast as a heriot, pursuant to the custom of the manor. Decision of Kekewich J., [1907] 1 Ch. 366 reversed. Copestake r. HfiPBU C. A. [1908] W. N. 129 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 10 HERITAGE— Right in security — Messenger-at- arms. See Scottish Law. 13. HIGH BAILIFF. See under Bailiffs. County Coubt — Bailiffs. HIGH TREASON— Practice— Motion to quash indictment — Expatriation in time of war — Katuralization . See Criminal Law— Treason. 1. HIGHWAY. under London— Streets. Steeets. Developrnent and Road Improvement Ihinds Act, 1910 (\0 Hdw. 7, 0. 7), is an Act to amend the iJevelopment a-nd Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 47). lights on vehicles — 0. in C, Dec. 21, 1907, exempting certain military service vehicles from D.D. HIGHWAY— coraiiMMe^?. the provisions of the Lights on Vehicles Act, 1907. Price Id. St. B. & 0., 1907, No. 1,042. Road Improvement Fvmd. Provisional Regns., June 8, 1910, for the purpose of s. 12 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, and s. 90 of tlie Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910. 1910 (I.— Statutes and Statutory Publica- tions — Various). Decelopment Fund. Regns., June 13, 1910, under s. 1 (2.) of Part I. of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, as to Applications fm- Advances. St. R. & 0., 1910, No. 592. Road Board. Regns., May, 13, 1910, under a. 7 (1.) of Part II. -fthe Development and Road Improvement Fwnds Act, 19o9, as to Constitution of Road Board. St. B. & C, 1910, No. 593. Price \d. each. — " Bridge " — Approaches — Public carriage road carried over railway — Width of bridge — Liability of railway company. See Railway — Bridges. 1. — Bridge carrying public highway over railway — Liability to maintain road. See Scottish Law. 3. 1. — Bridge, Construction of — Agreement between county council and surveyor of highways for a parish — Contract iy surveyor of highways for payment of money iy his successors — High- ways and Bridges Act, 1891 (54 ^ 55 Vict. c. 63) s. 3. A surveyor of highways for a parish, acting under the Highways and Bridges Act, 1891, s. 3, entered into an agreement with a county council by which he contracted, for himself and his successors, as highway authority for the parish, to contribute towards the building of a bridge a certain sum by two instalments, the second of which was to be payable after the expiration of his year of office : — Held, that he had power to make such a contract under the before-mentioned enactment. County Council op Hertfokdbhiee v. Rural District Council op Baknet C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 48 — Bridge — Liability — Bight to repair — Eight to abate nuisance — Trespass. See Bridges. 2. — Bridges — Approaches— Liability to repair 300 feet from end of bridge. See Bridges. 1. — Burgh — Charter — Prescription — Customs and rates — Roads and bridges. See Scottish Law. 4. — Conviction — Duplicity. See Criminal Law — Convictions. 2. — County council — Maintenance and repair — Embankments — Retaining and support- ing walls. See Local Government. 9. — Creation of urban district — Subtraction of parish from rural district — Highway expenses — Loss of income. See Local Government. 12. ( 1153 ) DIGEST OF GASES, 1901—1910. ( 1154 ) JimSWAY— continued. 2. — Dangerous locality — Removal of protect- ing fence — Misfeasance — Liability of highway authority — Local gorernment. A fence had been formerly erected, by the then existing h'ghway authority, to protect the public using a highway which was dangerous, owing to its liability to be flooded by a stream that ran by the side of the road. The stream was diverted, but the ditch where the former bed of the stream had been was still liable to be filled in time of flood, and the water then flowed over the road. After the fence had been in existence for a number of years, the def ts., adopt- ing the report of their surveyor that the fence was in bad repair, that it was no longer necessary, and that all that was required was the erection of a short length at each end, ordered that the work should be done. The fence was removed, and three weelcs later and before any new fence had been put up the road was flooded. A man driving along the road drove into the ditch and was drowned. In an action by his administratrix to recover damages for his death, the jury found that the removal of the fence under the circumstances, and in the way in which it had been done, was inconsistent with reason- able regard for the safety of persons using the road. Judgment was given for the pit. On appeal : — Held, that the defts. were liable. "Whtlbe 1-. Bingham Rural Council C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 46 3. — Dedication — Pullic user — Presumption — Settled land — Tenancy for life with remainder in fee — Churchway ■ — Diversion — Limited dedication. Where land is settled upon a tenant for life with an immediate remainder to a tenant in fee, both of whom are sui juris, it is competent for the tenant for life and remainderman together to dedicate to the public a road over the settled laud. Accordingly, where land was thus settled and was under the control and management of the remainderman, and a new road was laid out by him across the land and was treated by him as a public road, and since the date of its construc- tion, more than sixty years ago, the road had been used by the public in such a way as would have compelled the Court as against an owner in fee to infer dedication ; — Held, that the Court ought to infer from the facts that there had been a dedication to the public by the tenant for life and remain- derman. A landowner desiring to divert or improve a churchway by laying out a new road in substitu- t;ion therefor cannot confer on the public such rights only over the new road as existed over the churchway. Decision of Warrington J., [1908] 2 Ch. 586 affirmed. Faequhab v. Newbury Rural Council C. A. [1908] W. N. 213 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 12 4. — Ditch alongside of — Whether part of highway — JSxtent of dedication. There is no rule of law that a ditch running alongside a highway between the road and the SldHWAY— continued. fence cannot be dedicated as part of the high- way merely because it is not part of the roadway and cannot be used by the public for purposes of passage. Decision of Div. Ct., [1906] W. N. 174, 176 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 612, affirmed. Ghobley Cor- POBATION V. Nightingale - C. A. [1907] W. N. 167 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 637 5. — Diversion — Certificate of justices — Appeal, to qttarter sessions — Party injured or aggrieved — Findings of jury — Statute — Contradictory terms — Construction — Substitution of" and "for "or" —Highway Act, 1835 (5 ^- 6 Will, i, c. 50), ». 89. In construing a statute " or " may be read as " and " if the context makes that the necessary meaning. Sect. 89 of the Highway Act, 1835, provides that if, on an appeal to quarter sessions under s. 88 by a person who thinks that he will be injured or aggrieved by a proposed diversion of a highway, the jury find that the proposed new highway is more commodious to the public, or that the party appealing would not be injured or aggrieved, the Court should dismiss the appeal, but that if the jury find that the proposed new highway is not more commodious or that the party appealing would be injured or aggrieved, the Court shall allow the appeal. A jury at quarter sessions found (1.) that a proposed new highway would be mure commodious to the public, (2.) that the party appealing would be injured or aggrieved if the existing highway were stopped up and the proposed new one substituted : — Held, that s. 89 was contradictory and could only be construed by reading the word " or " in the first part of the section as "and," and that on the findings of the jury the appeal to quarter sessions must be allowed. Walker r. York COEPOKATION Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 724 6. — Diversion, Proceedings for — Certificate of justices — Period for which notice must be affixed at ends of highway — Highway Act, lSi5 (5^6 Will, i, c. 50), ss. 84, 85. In proceedings for the diversion of a highway under s. 85 of the Highway Act, 1835, it is not a condition precedent to the validity of a certificate of j ustices under that section that the notice of proposed diversion, which is thereby required to be affixed at each end of the highway intended to be diverted, should be first so affixed at such a date as to leave a period of twenty-eight days between the date of the affixing of the notice and the date of the issue of the certificate. Decision of the K. B. D. [1904] W. N. 113 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 349, reversed. Ekx v. Kent TUSTIOES C. A. [1904] W. N. 203 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 378 1.— Diversion — Sufficiency oj plan — High- way Act, 1835 (5 <)• 6 Will. 4, c. 50), s. 85. On proceedings being taken under s. 85 of the Highway Act, 1835, for the diversion of a highway, the justices certified that the proposed new highway would be more commodious to the public. The plan which it was proposed to enrol , together with that certificate consisted of a sheet DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1155 ) KWHWAY— continued. of the twenty-five inch ordnance survey map, upon which the lines of the old and new high- ways were marked in colours, and the width of the new highway was stated in writing, bat the lengths of the old and new highways were not so stated : — Seld — (1) that the plan did not sufficiently "describe the old and proposed new highways by admeasurement thereof," and that the quarter sessions were consequently right in refusing to enrol the certificate ; (2) that even if they had been wrong, mandamus would not lie under the circumstances to compel them to enrol it. Eex V. SnEKBY Justices Div. Ct. ("1908] W. N. 16 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 374 — Drain — Prescription — Acquisition of easement by public. See Pebsceiption. 1. — Drain vested before 1894 in highway authority not being a local authority. See Sbwees. 10. 8. — Drain — Water flowing from highway — Discharge on land of adjoining vivnei — Absence of defined channel at outlet of drain — Claim of right — JPresumption of legal origin — Highway Act, 1835 (5 <^- 6 Will. 4, c. 50) s. 67. The highway authority of a rural district had, for a time beyond living memory, maintained a pipe running through a bank which divided the highway from the deft.'s land adjoining, and had discharged, through the pipe and on to the deft.'s land, water which collected on the highway. There was no defined channel on the deft.'s land into which the water so discharged could flow. The deft, having stopped up the pipe, an injunction was claimed to restrain him from continuing the obstruction. On appeal from the refusal of the injunction : — Held, that the fact that the pipe was not connected with a defined channel into which the water conveyed by it could flow did not prevent its being a drain within the meaning of s. 67 of the Highway Act, 1835 ; and that in view of the length of time during which the drain had been used, a legal origin ought to be presumed for the right claimed of passing water through the drain on to the deft.'s land. Judgment of Lord Alverstone C.J. [1901] 2 K. B. 101, reversed. Attoeney-Gbneeal on Rblation of Beomley Eueal Disteict Council v. Copbland C. A, [1902] 1 K, B. 690 — Drainage, Preservation of — Eestriction of pasturage on road to sheep. See Pebsceiption, 2, — Extraordinary traffic — Repair. See Nob. 27 — 35, below. — Footpath — New street — By-laws — Footway forming principal access to cottages. See Stebets. 9. — Footway — Inclosure award — User of footway as cart road — Presumption of dedication. See Teespass. 4. ■ — Fowls straying on highway — Damage to passenger — Liability of owner — Re- moteness. See Teespass. 1. ( 1156 ) KIGKW AY— continued. — Inclosure Act —Repair of private or occupa- tion roads — Dedication as highway. See Inclosuee Act. 4. — ■ Water company — Ancillary main under public footpath— Trespass — Ultra vires. See Watbe. 24. 9. — Inclosure Act — Strip of land nmning alongside highway — Presumption — Disused tram- way — Railway company — Capacity to dedicate — Adjoining oiunei Right of Pre-emption — Combined dedication — Admissibility of evidence — Acts of ownership. A strip of land running alongside a high road and forming the site of a tramway, the user of which as such had been discontinued, was vested in a ry. co., with power for the co. at any time to use the strip for the purpose of their undertaking or to sell it, subject in the latter event to a right of pre-emption in the adjoining owners : — Seld, that the strip of land was capable of being dedicated by the co. to highway uses, and that the co., so long as they did nothing incom- patible with their statutory objects, were in a position to dedicate it for the purposes of a public right of way along it, and were not incapacitated from so. doing by the right of pre- emption vested in the adjoining owners : — Held, further, upon the evidence of public user, that dedication of the land in question must be presumed. On an inquiry whether part of a continuous strip of land has been dedicated to highway purposes, evidence that portions of the strip at each end of the part in dispute have been en- closed to the knowledge of or without inter- ference from the highway authority is not admissible. In appreciating the true effect of acts of ownership as rebutting an intention to dedicate, it is important to observe whether they are referable to the ownership of the soil rather than to any intention to exclude the passage of the public. In the former case they may tend to confirm the owner's general acquiescence in the continuous user of the surface by the public for highway purposes. When an owner, alive to the necessity of evidencing his continued possession by periodical perambulations, and active in preventing en- croachment upon or interference with his soil and in. warning ofE trespassing wayfarers from parts of his land, at the same time permits, without protest or interference, the unrestricted passage of the public over the surface of the very soil of which he is asserting his ownership, there are cogent grounds for attributing to the public user an origin which, as against the owner of the soil, has established public rights. Decision of Eve J. [1909] W. N. 129, affirmed. Coats v. Hbeefoedshieb County Council - C. A. [1909] 2 Ch, 679 10. — Interference under statutory powers — Canal company — Bridge over canal — Approaches to bridge — Liability to repair — 10 Oeo.i, c . mlviii., «. 26. pp2 ( ns7 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1158 ) B.mSVf AY— cotitimted. Action brought by tbe Att.-Gen. , at the relation of the Warwickshire County Council, and by the County Council, against the proprietors of the Oxford Canal Navigation, who were origi- nally incorporated under that name by some Acts passed in the reign of George III. In con- structing their canal under their statutory powers the co. had cut through and crossed a highway in the county of Warwick, and carried the highway over the canal by means of a bridge, called Tussess Bridge. The bridge was above the level of the ancient highway, and the co. constructed on each side of the canal an approach to the bridge by an inclined embankment or causeway, on which the substituted road was placed. This causeway was built upon the site of the ancient highway, but was narrower than it, and was contained entirely within the limits of the ancient highway. The question was whether the canal co. were liable to repair the fences at the sides of the causeways. The co. had not acquired any part of the site on which the causeway stood. Kekewich J. held, [1902J W. N. 119, upon the construction of the above Act, and in particular of s. 26, that the Legislature had distinguished between a bridge and the approach to it, that the co.were not liable to keep in repair the approaches or the fences which formed part of them. The C. A. affirmed the decision, and on the same ground. Att.-Gen. v. Oxford Canal Navigation C. A. [1903] W. N. 39 11. — Licence to surveyor to take materials from enclosed lands for repair of highways — Excepted lands — Jurisdiction of justices — Time for which licence may Tie granted — Highway Act, 1835 (5 A 6 Will, i, c. 50), ss. 53, 54. By the joint effect of ss. 53 and 5i of the Highway Act, 1835, the justices may licence the surveyor of highways to take materials for the repair of the highways "at such time or times as to such justices shall seem proper " from the enclosed lands of any person, " such lands . . . . not being a . . . park." On an application by a surveyor of highways for a licence under those sections the justices made an order authorizing him to take materials for a period of five years from certain enclosed land which in the opinion of the High Court was a park : — Held — (1) that the question whether the land was a park or not was one which was preli- minary to the exercise of the jurisdiction given by the statute, and that the justices could not by wrongly deciding that the land was not a park give themselves jurisdiction in the matter ; (2) That a licence, to be valid, must not pur- port to operate for a longer period than is necessary for the execution of repairs, and that the licence, being for a period of five years without reference to the necessities exist- ing at the date of its grant, was bad. Bex v. Bradford Div, Ct. [19081 W. N. 14; [1908] 1 K. B. 366 12. — Locomotives- -Crown prerogative — Ex- emption — Loconiotirc driven on service of Crown — Locomotives Act, 1865 (28 4' 29 Vict. c. 83). "KlQWfl AY— continued. By the Locomotives Act, 1865, power is given to local authorities to make regulations as to the speed (not in any case to exceed two miles an hour) at which locomotives may pass through the place subject to their jurisdiction ; and by s. 4 it is provided that, subject to those regulations, it shall not be lawful to drive any such locomo- tive along any turnpike road or public highway at a greater speed than four miles an hour, or through any city, town, or village at a greater speed than two miles an hour : — Held, that, in the absence of any express mention of the Crown in the Act, the section did not apply to a locomotive owned by the Crown and driven by a servant of the Crown on Crown service. Cooper v. Hawkins - - Div.. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 164 13. — Locomotives — Licence — Exemption — ^^Agricultural locomotive" — Locomotive used solely for agricultural purpose — Hauling wlieat to mill to ie grownd — Locomotives Act, 1898 (61' ^ 62 Vict. c. 29), i. 9, sul-ss. 1,9; s.W; s. 17. By s. 9, sub-s. 1, of the Locomotives Act, 1898, every locomotive to which the Act applies shall be licensed by a county council, provided that this enactment shall not apply to any agricul- tural locomotive, to any locomotive not used for haulage purposes, to any steam-roller, or to any locomotive belonging to a road authority when used by them within their district. Bys. 17, the expression "agricultural locomotive" Includes " any locomotive used solely for threshing, ploughing, or any other agricultural purpose." A threshing engine was let out on hire by the appellants to a farmer to thresh wheat and to haul the wheat, when threshed, in trucks to a mill to be ground. There was no evidence as to whether the farmer had sold the wheat or whether it was to be returned to the farm when ground. The trucks were the property of the appellants : — Held, that the engine, when being used for hauling the wheat to the mlU, was not being used for an agricultural purpose, and was therefore at the time not an agricultural locomotive within the exemption in s. 9, sub-s. 1, of the Act. Hoddell v. Parker - Div. Ct. [1910] "W. N. 146 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 323 14. — Locomotives — Light locomotive — - Vehicle under five tons in weight unladen propelled iy mechanical jmwer — Person employed to accompany locomotive — Exemption from re- strictions — Locomotives on Highicays Act, 1896 (59 S; 60 Vict. c. 36), s. 1, suh-s. 1 ; s. 6, sub-ss. 1, 2- Locomotives Ad, 1898, (61 .?• 62 Vict. c. 29), s. 5, siib-ss. 1, 5 ; s. 17, sub-s. 2 — Motor Car Act, 1903 (3 Ediv. 7, c. 86), s. 12, sub-s. 1 ; s. 20, siii-ss. 1, 3— Heavy Motor Car Order, 1904, arts. 2, 3. The effect of art. 3 of the Heavy Motor Car Order, 1904, is that a vehicle propelled by mechanical power, if it is under five tons in weight unladen, is a light locomotive within the meaning of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, s. 1, sub-s. 1. Therefore a person cannot be convicted under s. 5, sub-s. 1 (J), of the Locomotives Act, 1898, for not having three men in attendance on the locomotive, inasmuch ( 1159 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1160 ) KlOKVfAY— continued. as by s. 17, sub-s. 2, of the Act of 1898 nothing in that Act is to affect light locomotiTes within the meaning of the Act of 1896. Evans v. NiCHOLL - Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 25 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 778 — Locomotives on highways — Motor car. See under Motor Oak. — Motor Car. See under MoTOE Cae. 15. — Locomotive — Traction engiiie — JExces- sire weight — Injury to water main. The pits., who were the road authority within their district, were also the owners of the water mains beneath the roads. A duly licensed traction engine belonging to the deft., weighing upwards of ten tons, and drawing three truclis, brolse the water main under one of the streets for which the pits, were the road authority. The main had been laid at least thirty years, but was found as a fact to be sufficiently strong and well laid to withstand the pressure of the ordinary traffic of the district. The pits, had been guilty of no neglect or default in the execution of their duty as the road authority, and neither the deft, nor his servants had been guilty of any neglect or want of skiU or care in the construction or user of the traction engine. A county court judge found that the injury was caused by the excessive weight of the deft.'s traction engine, and that the deft, was liable for the cost of repairing the brolsen water main ; — Held, that in using an exceptionally heavy locomotive the deft, was exercising his right to use the highway in a way that was not necessary in order to enable him to enjoy it, and that the decision was right. Att.-Gen. v. ScoU, [1905] 2 K. B. 160, con- sidered. Chichbstee Cokpobation v. Foster Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 167 16. — Locomotives — Traction engine — Nuisance — Interim injunction — Locomotive Act, 1861 (24 ^- 25 Vict. e. 70), s. IS— Locomotives Act, 1898 (61 4- 62 Vict. c. 29), s. 6. In an action by the Att.-Gen., on the relation of a county council, for an injunction to restrain the deft, from using a traction engine upon a road in such a way as to cause a public nuisance : — Held, that nothing in the Locomotives Act, 1898, had affected the prohibition in s. 13 of the Locomotive Act, 1861, against causing a nuisance by the user upon a highway of a locomotive engine ; and that it was no answer to an appli- cation for an interim injunction that the damage to the road would not have happened but for the neglect of the county council to keep it in a proper state of repair. Att.-Gen and Mon- mouthshire CouNTT Council v. Scott. C.A. [1904] 1 K. B. 404 Note. A tt.- Gen. and Monmouthshire County Council V. Scott. C. A. [ 1905] i K. B. 160. See next Case. 17. — Locomotive — Traction engine — Nuisance — Extraordinary traffic — Injury to road — Default of local authority in maintenance of road—Locomotviie Act, 1861 (24 # 25 Vict. o. 70), Sm'BWAY—conti7tued. s. 13; Locomotives Act, 1898 (61 ,^ 62 Viot. c. 2H), s. 6. In an action by the Att.-Gen., on the relation of a county council, to restrain the deft, from using a traction engine upon a road in such a way as to cause a public nuisance, it was at the trial found by Jelf J. as a fact that the condition of the road was not caused primarily by the deft.'s traction traffic, but partly by the traction traffic, partly by stone haulage by carts and horses, partly by the ordinary traffic, and partly by the weather, but primarily and chiefly by the failure of the county council to maintain the road in a fit state to bear the traffic (including the traction traffic) which was not more unusual or onerous than they ought to have expected to come upon it : — Held, by the C. A. (affirming the judgment of Jelf J.), that upon the facts so found the pits, were not entitled to a perpetual injunction to restrain the deft, from bringing his traction traffic upon the road, and that an interlocutory injunc- tion which had been granted upon affidavit evidence must be dissolved. Att.-Gen. and Monmouthshire County Council v. Scott C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 160 Note. Att.-Gen. and Monmouthshire County Council V. Scott. C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 404. Si-e preceding Case. 18. — Lost grant — Presumption of lost grant — Ex-turnpihe road — Vesting in local authority — Land acquired for widening turnpike road — Fee farm rent — Payment for long period — ■ Liability of local authority — Public Health Act, 1848 (U ^- 12 Vict. c. 63), s. 68. For more than one hundred years a fee farm rent had been paid to certain charity trustees in respect of a piece of land acquired for the widening of a turnpike road and since forming part of the road, but no conveyance to the turn- pike trustees was forthcoming. The rent-charge was paid, first, by the turnpilce trustees, who had statutory power to buy land for widening the roads under their control, and, on the expira- tion of the turnpike trust in 1871 by virtue of tile Annual Turnpike Acts Continuance Act, 1870, by the deft, corporation, in whom as the highway authority the road had become vested under the Public Health Act, 1848. The cor- poration having refused to make any further payments, the charity trustees brought an action against them in the county court for arrears of the rent-charge : — Held, that the Court ought to presume that the land had been granted to the turnpike trustees as land subject to a perpetual rent- charge, and that the deft, corporation were liable as terre tenants for the payment of the rent- charge. Foley's Charity Trustees v. Dudley Corporation C. A. [1909] W. N. 250 ; [1910J 1 K. B. 817 — Meeting held in highway — Legality of — Public Meeting Act. See Meetings. 1. — Motor cars. See under Motoe Cabs. ( 1161 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1162 ) SlOKWAY—ooKtimied. — National monument — Public right of access — Public road — Dedication — Cul-de-sac. See Way, Eight op. 9. 19. ■ — Jfew or suistituUd highway — Formali- ties required hy Highway Act, 1835 — PresumjMon of compliance with^ after lapse of time — Highway Act, 1835 (5 S; 6 Will, i, c. 50), ss. 23, 84, 85. Upon thie hearing by a court of summary jurisdiction, under s. 8 of the Private Street Works Act, 1892, of objections to the proposals of an urban sanitary authority as to works to be executed by them under the Act, on the ground that the street was a highway repaira ble by the inhai itants at large, it appeared that in 1842 pursuant to a resolution of the vestry, a new road was substituted fc an older public highway repairable by the inhabit«nts at large ; the old highway was then closed, and from that date the new road had been used bv the public as a high- way. Upon one occasion the new road had been repaired by the surveyor lor the parish, though it was uncertain whether in so doing he had acted in his capacity of surveyor. No evidence was given that the formalities required by s. 23 of the Highway Act, 1835, in the case of new highways, or by ss. 84 and 85 in the case of substituted highways, had been complied wich :— Held, that there was evidence upon which the justices might propel ly find ihat the new road was a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large, and that the formalities required lythe Highway Act, 1835, might after the lapse of time be presumed to have been complied with. Leigh Urban Council v. Rex Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 747 20. — jS'on-repaxT — Indictment of inhabitants —Highway Act, 1835 (5^6 Will. 4, c. 60), ss. 94, 95 — Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878 (41 4' 42 Vict. c. 77), s. 10. Information having been laid before justices under s. 94 of the Highway Act, 1835, that a certain highway in the pari-h of Harkstead, within the rural district of Samford in the county of Suffolk was out of repair, the justices under s. 95 dii'ected an indictment to be preferred against the inhabitants of the said parish. A rule for a certiorari was obtained on behalf of the inhabitants to bring up the order to be quashed upon the ground, amongst others, that the procedure under the Act of 1835 had been impliedly repealed by the Highways and Loco- motives (Amendment) Act, 1878, s. 10, and that the proper parties to be indicted were the rural district council, whose funds were li tble to bear the expense of the repairs : — Held, that the procedure under the Act of 1835 was not impliedly lepealed, and the order of justices was upheld. Kex v. Morse Div. Ct. [1904] W. N. 114 21. — Ownership — Soil of highway — Street in tinon — New street — Crown lease — Presumption that soil of highway ad meditmi filiim passes to adjoining owner — Rebuttal of pivsumption. The Commrs. of Woods and Forests acquired a tract of land under an Act of Parliament passed for the purpose of executing a scheme of street improvementa in the metropolis. Under this Act they made Regent Street and leased HIGHWAY— co»rtnKe(Z. the houses in the street as they were built, including a house now sub-demised to the pit. The pit. claimed to be entitled to the soil of the moiety of the stret-t next to his house for the residue of his intfrest therein by virtue of the pre sumption that the conveyance of a house adjoining a highway passes the soil of the high- way usque ad medium filum. The head lease of the plt.'s house described the property by dimen- sions and abuttals and by a map, and referred to it as abutting on a street then forming. Upon the construction of the Act it was doubtfol whether the Commrs. had any power to lease the soil of the street : — Held, that apart from any question as to the powers of the Commrs., the presumption was rebutted by the surrounding circumstances, regard being had to the terms of the lease and the provisions of the Act. Mappin Brothers v. Liberty & Co. Joyce J, [1902] W. N. 209 : [1903] 1 Oh. 118 22. — Obstruction — Raised tramlines — Con- tractor — Liability — Contract to execute, works — Limitation of Action — Public Authorities Pro- tection Act, 1893 (56 4- 57 Vict. c. 61), s 1— London County Tramways (JElectrical Power') Act, 1900 (63 ^- 64 Vict. c. ccxx^riii.), s. 6— Tramways Act, 1870 (33 ^- 34 Vict. c. 78), ss. 25, 62. Raised rails laid down by contrfctors in a ihoroughfare for the temporary continuance of tramway traffic during the operation of recon- structing the tramlines for electric tracti, m are not authorized by s. 6 of the London County Tramways (Electrical Power) Act, 1900, as work " recessary for adapting" the line "to be bo worked." The protection given by the Public Authori- ties Protection Act, 1893, does not extend to an independent contractor doing under contract, and for his own profit, work which a public authority has been authorized to do. T. Tilling, Ld. r. Dick Kerr & Co. , Ld. - Warrington J. [1905] W. N. 38 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 662 23. — Obstruction of highway — Indictable nui.mnce — What amounts to. The deft, unlawfully erected and maintained in the middle of the roadway of a public street a cofEee-stall. The stall was of a permanent character, having gas and watrr laid on to it from the mains, and bein/ assessed to the rates at 32Z. There was sufficient room for the passage of traffic up and down the street on either side of the stall. On an indictment of the deft, for anuisanci in thereby obstructing the highway, the jury found that the coffee-stall was an obstruction, but that it did not appreciably interfere with the traffic in the street : — Held, that the findings did not justify the entry of a verdict of guilty. Rex r. Bartholo- mew C. C. B. [1908] W. N. 20; [1908] 1 K. B. 554 24. — Obstruction on highway — Lamp-post — Interference ivith trade — Adjoining owner — Public or prirate nuisance — Local authority — Individual interest in public right — Metropolis Ma^iagement Act, 1855 (18 .<■ 19 Tict. c. 120), «. 130. ( 1163 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1164 ) ^mSVAY—coiUi7iued. An owner of premises abutting on a highway enjoys as a private right the right of aoces-i from his own premises to the highway, and any inter- ference with I hat access is an interference with a private right. But his right to transfer goods from vans in the public roadway acr ss the public pavement to his premises is a riglit enjoyed by hiiu as one of the public entitled to use the highway. It is an individual interest in a public right, but is not a private right which entitles him to restrain a local authority, acting bona fide under statutory powers, from obstruct- ing the highn-ay adjoining his premises in a manner which affects his personal convenience. Chaplin (W. H.) & Co. r. Westminster Cob- POEATios Buckley J. [1901] W. N. 131 ; [1901] 2 Oh. 329 26. — Private driftway — Conversion into public way — Persons whose consent necessary to — " Occupiers ''—Highway Act, 1862 (25 ^ 26 Viet. e. 61), s. 36. Persons entitled to a right of passage, by way of easement or licence, over a driftway or other private road are not "occupiers" of the way within the meaning of s. 36 of the Highway Act, 1862, and their consent is not necessary to an application to justices for a declaration con- verting the way into a public highway. Rex V. SOMBES Div. Ct. [1906 J 1 K. B. 326 — Railway — Level crossing — Highway. See under RAILWAY— level Crossings. 26. — Rates, Exemption from — Liability to repair raiione tenuree — Proof of exemption from liability to contribute to repair of other highways —Highway Act, 1835 (5 <|- 6 Will, i, c. 50), s. 33. The existence of a liability ratione teuurse to repair a certain highway does not of itself shew that there is an exemption from liability to. con- tribute to the repairs of other highways in the same highway district ; there must be other evidence that the exemption exists in order to prove a legal exemption within b. 33 of the Highway Act, 1835, which provides that, when property, or the owner or occupier in respect thereof, has, prior to the passing of the Act, been " legally exempt " from payment of highway rate, that property and the owners and occupiers thereof shall be exempt from payment of the highway rate thereby imposed. Feerand v. BlNGLET UeBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL Div. Ct. [1903] 2K. B. 445 27. — Repair — Extraordinary traffic — Ex- cessive weight — Person by or in consequence of whose order such weight has been conductedr— Highways and Locomotives (^Amendmenf) Act, 1878 (4i 4' 42 Vict. e. 77), s. 2Z— Locomotives Act, 1898 (61 ^ 62 Vict. c. 29), s. 12. The deft., being about to build a house, entered into a contract with a brick co. to supply him with a quantity of bricks to be delivered at the place where he proposed to build. He gave no instructions as to the mannef, time, or amount in which the bricks were to be delivered, and the CO. without his knowledge delivered them by 'B.mKWKZ— continued. means of a traction engine and trucks, the exces- sive weight of which damaged the pits.' roads to an extraordinary extent. In an action to recover the amount of the- expenses to which the pits. had been put In repairing the roads, the county court judge held that the deft, was not, within s. 23 of the Highways and Locomotives (Amend- ment) Act, 1878, as amended by s. 12 of the Locomotives Act, 1898, the person " by or in con- sequence of whose order ' ' such weight had been conducted over the pits.' roads : — Held, that the facts justified him in coming to that conclusion. Egham Rural District Council v. aoEDON Div. Ct. [1902] S K. B. 120 28. — Repair — Extraordinary traffic — Light locomotives — Summary proceedings — Transfer of jurisdiction of justices — Jurisdiction of county court — Highways and Locomotives (^Amendment') Act, 1878 (41 S)' 42 Vict. c. 77), s. 2i— Loco- motives on Highway Act, 1896 (59 ^' 60 Vict, c. 36), .?. 1, sub-s. 1 ; .?. 6, sub-ss. 1, 2 ; Schedule —Locomotives Act, 1898 (61 Sf 62 Vict. c. 29), s. 12, sub-s. 1 ; s. 17, sub-s. 2 — Motor Car Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 36), s. 12, sub-s. 1 ; s. 20, sub-s. 3 — Heavy Motor Car Order, 1904, arts. 2, 3. An action lies in the county court to recover expenses of extraordinary traffic not exceeding 250Z. caused by light locomotives withia the meaning of s. 1 of the Locomotives on Highway Act, 1896, as extended by the Heavy Motor Gar Order, 1904, inasmuch as expenses of extra- ordinary traffic not exceeding 2h0l. ceased by virtue of s. 12, sub-s. 1, of the Locomotives Act, 1898, to be recoverable summarily under s. 23 of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, and became recoverable in the county court ; and s. 17, sub-s. 2, of the Locomotives Act, 1898, means that nothing in that Act is to affect light locomotives as distinguished from other vehicles, but it does not mean that light locomotives, as far as they have characteristics in common with other vehicles (one of which is that they may cause extraordinary traffic), are not to be dealt with by the new procedure established by s. 12, sub-s. 1, of the Locomotives Act, 1898. Rex v. Judge Jambs and Mid- land Rt. Co. Ex parte BATH Rural Council Div. Ct. [1908] 1 K. B. 968 29. — Repair — Extraordinary traffic — Repair of highway — Recovery of expenses — Limitation of time for bringing action — Locomotives Act, 1898 (61 S,- 62 Vict. o. 29), s. 12, sub-s. 1 (b). A municipal corporation, requiring road material for the general purposes of the main- tenance and construction of roads within their district, entered into contracts with two con- tractors, whereby the contractors agreed to supply and deliver to the corporation, during the twelve months from Mar. 31, 1904, to Mar. 31, 1905, flints and ragstone, in such quan- tities and numbers, at such times, and in such manner as the corporation should from time to time by order in writing direct. The pits., as the authority liable for the repair of highways in their district, incurred extraordinary expenses in repairing a highway in consequence of damage done to it by extraordinary traffic conducted ( 1165 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1166 ) S.IGHWAY—conthmed. over it in the haulage of stones by the contractors for the fulfilment of their coutracts with the corporation. The last load of stones was carried on Mar. 31, 190.5, and on Aug. 22, 1905, the pits, commenced an action against the cor- poration for the recovery of the extraordinary expenses : — Held, that the traffic was conducted in con- sequence of the orders of the corporation. Held, also (reversing the decision of Walton J., [1907] 2 K. B. 39), that the damage was not the consequence of " any particular building contract or work extending over a long period " within the meaning of s. 12, sub-s. 1 (6), of the Locomotives Act, 1898, and that therefore, under the first part of that sulj-section, the pits, could recover only the expenses incurred within twelve months before the commencement of the action. Bkomley Rdeal District Council t-. Croy- don COEPOEATION C. A. [19071 W. N. 244 ; [1908] 1. K. B. 358 30. — Repair — Mitraorditmry traffic — Action iliat could hare been hrovght in covnty court — Action in High Court — Costs on High Court scale —Zocomotires Act, 1898 (61 .5- 62 Vict. c. 29), s. 12, sub-s. 1 [a). A highway authority, acting on the certificate of their surveyor, brought an action in the High Court to recover the expenses incurred by reasnn of extraordina'y traffic for which the deft, was responsible. The amount certified by the sur- veyor and claimed in the action exceeded 250Z., but the verdict of the jury was for 601., and judgment was entered for that amount with costs. The costs were taxed on the High Court scale. On appeal from the refusal of a judge at chambers to Older a review of taxaticm : — Held, that the juiitdicti^'n of the High Court to try the action was not affected by the pro- vision I f s. 12. subs. 1 {a), of the Locomotives Act, 1898, that expenses not exceeding 2^01. may be recovered in the county court, and that the taxation of costs was rishtly made on the High Court scale. Chesterfield Rural Dis- TKicT Council v. Newton C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 62 31. — Sepair — Extraordinary traffic — Ex- penses — Excessive weight — Timber Haulage — Staple trade of district — Highway.': and Locomo- tire.1 {Amendment) Act, 1878 (41 ^-42 Vict.c.n), s. 23— Locomotive,'! Act, 1S98 (61 ^- 62 Vict. c. 29), ii. 12. The question whether traffic on any par- ticular load ia or is n >t extraordinary within the meaning of the Highways and Lncomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, as amended by the Locomotives Act, 1898, is a question of fact ; accordingly if, in an action by a highway authority to recrvver expenses of extraordinary traffic, it is proved that the traffic complained of was a recognized industry in the district and was carried on in the manner usual in the trade in that district, it ia still open to the Court to find that the traffic in question is extraordinary as regards any particular road in the district. Geirionydd Rural District Codnoil r. Green C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 845 HIGHWAY— coACJMuerf. 32. — Repair — ' Extraordinary traffic " — " Extraordinary expenses " — Limitaivm of time for bringing action — Highways and Locomotives {Amendment^ Act, 1878 (41 4-42 Vict. c. 77), s. 23 Locomotives Act, 1898 (61 ^ 62 Vict. c. 29), s. 12, sub-s. 1. By the Locomotives Act, 1898, s. 12 sub-s. 1 (a), extraordinary expenses incurred by a highway authority in repairing a highway by reason of damage caused by extraordinary traffic thereon are recoverable by an action in the High Court or county court, and by -ub-a. 1 (J) proceeHings for the recovery of such expenses " shall be commenced within twelve months of the time at which the damage has been done, or where the damage is the consequence of any particular building contract, or work extending over a long period, shall be commenced not later than six months after the completion of the contract or work." It being conceded, having regard to Kent County Council v. Folhestone Corporation, [1906] 1 K. B. 620, that where the damage was caused by work done under a building contract, or work extending over a long period, an action for recovery of expenses was in time if brought either within twelve months of the doing of the damage, or within six monttis after the completion of the contract or work : — Held, that "the comp'etion of the contract" meant the completion of the contract so far as it related to the work causing the damage which gave rise to the action. Therefore where the damage was caused bj' work done under a contract which the Court assumed to be a building contract, and the con- tract contained a maintenance ilause which provided that the entire work should be at the risk of the contractor for a certain period after completion : Held, that the contract was completed, within the meaning of sub-s. 1 (i), at the date of the completion of the work, and that the six months began to run from that date. Lancaster Rural Council v. Fisher and Le Fanu C. A. [1907] W. N. 150 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 516 Note. Explained and applied by C. A., Curlifle Rural Councils. Carlisle Corporation, [1909] 1 K. B. 471. See No. 34, below. Referred to by C. A., Reigate Rural Council V. SiMon District Water Co., [1909] W. N. 28. See next Case. 33. — Repair — Extraordinary traffic — E.rtra- nrdinary expenses — Limitation of time for bring- ing action — Building contract — Completion of contract or loorjt — Highway/ and Locomotives ^Amendment) Act, 1878 (41 .?■ 42 Vict. c. 77), ». 2S — Locomotives Act, 1898 (61 <5' 62 Vict, c. 29), s. i2,svb-s. 1 {b). The question in this ease turned upon the construction of sub-s. 1 (b) of s. 12 of the Loco- motives Act, 1898, which provides that proceed- ings for recovery of es.penses must be commenced within twelve months of the time at which the I damage is done, or where the damage is the con- [sequeucej^of any, particular building contract or ( 1167 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1168 ) 'KmSWAY— continued. work extending over a long period not later than six months after the completion of the contract or work. The deputy county court judge found that the reservoir was not comp'eted until it was made watertight and gave ju igment for the pits, for the full amount of the damage. The Div. Ct., [1908] W. N. 120, held that the county court judge had misdirected himself as to the meaning of " completion of the contract," and that the pita, were entitled in respect only of so much of the damage as was done within the twelve months. The C. A. allowed the appeal. The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion that there was no ground for saying that the learned county court judge had misdirected himself. It was quite open to the county court judge to find that the work of construction was not completed until the reservoir was made watertight, and there being evidence to -support that finding, their Lordships could not interfere with it. There was no difficulty in the case when the distinction was borne in mind betvieen work in the sense of constructional work and work in the sense of haulage which did the damage. In Lancaster Mural District Cuuncil v. Fishes- and Le ^wna, [1907] 2 K. B. 516, as explained in Carlisle Anral District Council v. Carlisle Corporation, [1909] 1 K. B. 471, this Court decided that the completion of the contract meant not the completion of the contractual obligations, but the completion of the construc- tional work in consequence of which the haulage occurred and the damage arose. Eeigate EnEAL Council v. Sutton Disteict Wateb Co. (EWAKT, Thied Paett) C. A. [1909] W. N. 28 Xote. Eeferred to by C. A., Carlisle Rural Council V. CarVUle Corporation, [1909] 1 K. B. 471, 477, 482. See next Case. 34. — Repair — Extraordinary traffic — Extra- ordinary expenses — Limitation of time for iring- ing action — Damage resulting from iuilding con- tract — '■^Completion of contract^' — Highways and Locomotives (Amendmenf) Act, 1878 (41 4" 42 Vict. V. 77), J. 2Z— Locomotives Act, 1898 (61^62 Vict. c. 29), ». 12, sui-s. 1 (*). In s. 12, sub-s. 1 (V), of the Locomotives Act, 1898, which provides that proceedings for the recovery of expenses of extraordinary trafSc, " where the damage is the consequence of any particular building contract, or work extending over a long period, shall be commenced not later than six months after the completion of the contract or work," the term " building contract " means a contract for the building of any physical construction and the term " com- pletion of the contract " means completion so far aa concerns the constructional work com- prised therein; and where the constructional work consists of several component parts so closely connected that each would be useless without the others, the period of six months begins to run from the compleiion of the whole work, notwithstanding that the damage to the roads may have been caused exclusively by the KIQWWPlY— continued. haulage of materials in connection with some or one only of the component parts of the work. Qumre whether different considerations may not apply to contracts compri-ing several inde- pendeut works ; also to contracts comprising work in several different districts where it is shewn that all the work within the district of the pit. authority has been completed more than six months before the commencement of the action. Accordingly, where the work comprised in a contract included the construction of a reservoir and the laying of a line of pipes therefrom within the plt.'s district, and damage was caused to the roads of the district ijy haulage in connection with the laying of the pipes, but not in connection with the construction of the reservoir : — Held, that the contract was a building- contract for one compound work, which was a work extending over a long period within the meaning of the sub-section, and that an action for recovery of expenses commenced more than six months after the completion of the line of pipes but before the completion of the reservoir was in time. Lancaster Rural District Council ■f. Fishes- and Le Fanu, [1907] 2 K. B. 516, explainei and applied. Caelislb Eueal Council i. Car- lisle Cokpokation C. a. [1909] W. N. 22 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 471 Note. Eeferred to by C. A., Reigate Rural Council V. Sutton District Water Co., [1909] W. N. 28. See preceding Case. 35. — Repair — " Extram'dinary traffic " — " Extraordinary expenses'^ — Action for recovery — Limit of time — Public Authorities'' Protection —Limitation of time for bringing action — Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 4- 57 Vict. c. 61), s. 1 — Highways and Locomotives (^Amend- ment) Act, 1878 (41 4- 42 Vict. c. 77), s. 23— Locomotives Act, 1898 (61 ^ 62 Vict. c. 29), s. 12, sub-s. 1. Sect. 12, sub-s. 1 (J), of the Locomotives Act, 1898, provides that proceedings by a highway authority for the recovery of the extraordinary expenses incurred by them in repairing a high- way by reason of extraordinary traffic thereon " shall be commenced within twelve months of the time at which the damage has been done, or where the damage is the consequence of any particular building contract, or work extending over a long period, shall be commenced not later than six months after the completion of the contract or work." Held, that, notwithstanding this limitation of twelve months, an action under this section against a public authority, in respect of damage to a highway caused by them "in pursuance or execution of any Act of Parliament, or of any public duty or authority," must be brought within the six months limited by s. 1 of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893. But, if the act which causes the damage to the highway is done by an independent contractor employed by a public authority in pursuance of his contract with them, he not being their servant or agent, the limit of six months fixed by s. 1 of ( 1169 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1170 ) SIG'EWAY— continued. the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, has no application. In such a case an action in respect of the damage can be brought against the public authority under s. 23 of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, as amended by s. ] 2 of the Locomotives Act, 1 898, as persons " in consequence of vfhose order " the damage has been done, and the time within which the action must be brought is that which is fixed by s. 12, sub-s. 1 C*)- The effect of the latter part of sub-s. 1 (S) of s. 12 is, " where the damage is the consequence of any particular building contract or work extending over a long period," to give a period of " six months after the completion of the con- tract or work," in addition to the twelve months fixed by the prior part of sub-s. 1 (i), within which the action may be brought. A corporation, in carrying out a scheme for the widening of one of their roads, entered into a contract with a contractor for the hauling of stone. The contractor used traction engines to haul the stone, and in so doing caused damage to some other roads which were repairable by the county council as the highway authority. The contract was for a year, commencing on April 1, 1902, and terminating on Mar. 31, 1903. The damage to the roads took place between Jan. 19 and Mar. 24, 1903. The work of widening the road was completed in Sept., 1903. On Feb. 11, 1901, the county council commenced an action against the corporation to recover the additional expenses of repairing the pits.' roads in conse- quence of the use of the traction engine : — Held, that the action could be maintained against the corporation as the persons " in con- sequence of whose order " the damage had been done ; But, held, that the limit of six months for bringing the action fixed by s. 1 of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, did not apply, because, the contractor not being the servant or agent of the corporation, the act was not done by them, and it was done by him in performance of his private obligations under his contract, and not in pursuance or execution of any public duty or authority : Held, therefore, that the time within which the action must be brought was that fixed by s. 12, sub-s. 1 (b), of the Act of 1898 : Held, also, that the hauling of the stone was a distinct work from the widening of the road, and that the pits, could only recover in respect of the damage done since Feb. 11, 1903, i.e., within twelve months from the issue of the writ in the action. Judgment of Darling J. varied. Kent County Council r. Folkestone Corpora- tion C. A. [1905] W. N. 30 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 620 Xote. Followed by Warrington J., T. Tilling, Ld. V. Dick Kerr .?■ Co., Ld., [1905] 1 K. B. 662. See No. 22, ahoir. 36, — Repairs — Neglect of duty — Damages — Misfeasa iice — Non-fea.tn iice — Corporation liable to indictment for non-repair of higliway — Liability to action for accident caused by non-repair — Local government. KmKWA'i—co7itiniied. By 9 & 10 Vict. c. cxxvii. the defendant corporation were declared to be the surveyors of highways for the borough of Liverpool ; the control of the streets was vested in them ; and they were empowered to form or pave streets with such materials as they should think fit. By s. 58 it was enacted that the corporation should be liable to be indicted at common law for the want of suflBcient repair of any highway in the borough in the same manner as any person or persons liable to the repair of such highways was or were before the passing of the Act. An action was brought against the corporation for injuries caused to the plt.'s horse by the negli- gence of the defts., in that they had not properly repaired a road. The want of repair was admitted, but there was no evidence of misfeasance on the part of the defts. : — Held, that the mere fact that a new body was created with the duty to repair roads did not of itself impose on the new body a liability to actions for damages caused by non-repair of roads ; and that if and so far as Hartnell v. Myde Commrs., (1863) 4 B. & S. 361, laid down a rule to the contrary, it must be taken to have been overruled. No fresh liability was created when the duty to repair was transferred by the Act of 1846 ; and the action could not be maintained. Under the modern authorities a transfer to a public corporation of the obligation to repair roads does not of itself render the corporation liable to an action for damages for non-feasance as distinguished from misfeasance ; and the question whether such a liability is imposed upon them must be determined by the language of the particular Act of Parliament. Maguieb c. Liverpool Corporation C. A. [1905] W. N. 34; [1905] 1 K. B. 767 — Res judicata — Decision that street is a high- highway. See Streets. 6. — Road — National monument — Public right of access — Public road — User. See Wat, Right op. 9. — Road raised to level of railway — Approaches to crossing — Repair of roadway of approaches. See Railway — Level Crossings. 3. 37. — Roadside strip — Right of passage — Land between fences separating highway from adjoining land — Presumption if dedication. In the case of an ordinary highway running between fences, although the space between them may be of a varying and unequal width the right of passage or way prima facie, and unless there be evidence to the contrary, extends to the whole of the ground between the fences, and the public are not confined to the metalled portion. All the space between the fences is presumably dedicated as highway unless the nature of the ground or other circumstances rebut that pre- sumption, and the owner of the adjoining lands is not entitled to inclose any portion of it. Mere disuse of a highway for any length of lime cannot deprive the public of their rights in respect of it. The mere consent of a highway authority to an obstruction or encroachment ( 1171 ) ■DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1172 ) HIGHWAY— con«««efl!. upon the highway is ineffectual for the purposes of legalising that obstruction or enroachment. Neeld v. Hendon Urban Council, (1899) 81 L. T. 405, distinguished. Habvey o. Truro EUEA.L DiSTHIOT COUNCIL Joyce J. [1903] W. N. 126 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 638 38. — Roadside waste — Dedication — Pre- sumption — Evidence. Where there are uninclosed spaces by the sides of a metalled highway there is no invari- able presumption that the highway extends to the fence on either side. The nature of the district, the width and level of the margins, and the regularity of the lines of fence are circumstances to be taken into account in determining the fact of dedication. COUKTESS OP BBLMOER V. KENT COUNTY COUN- CIL Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 65 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 873 39. — Roadside waste — Dedication — Presvmp- tion — Ecidence — Public authorities protection — Action for declaration of title— Delay — Continu- ance of injury — Cause of action — R. S. C. 1883, Order XXV., r. 5 — Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 4- 57 Vict. c. 61), s. 1. Fences by the side of a highway are prima facie the boundaries of the highway so as to raise a presumption that the public right of way extends over the whole space of ground between the fences. But the mere existence of fences on either side of a highway is -not conclusive. In order to raise the presumption it must be proved that there is nothing to shew that they were not put up as boundaries of the highway. The pit. claimed that a triangular piece of land abutting on and not fenced off from a highway belonged to him : — Seld that, in the absence of anything to shew the contrary, it must be assumed from the nature and position of the fence surrounding the land that it had been put up as a boundary of the highway ; that the presumption therfore arose that the land formed part of the highway ; and, on the evidence, that there was nothing to rebut that presumption. The pit. erected a fence round the piece of land. The local authority pulled down the fence and afterwards wrote a letter asserting their claim to the land. More than six months after this letter the pit. brought an action against them for a declaration that the land belonged to him and an injunction to restrain them from trespassing on it. By his statement of claim he alleged that the defts. had pulled down his fence ; that they claimed that the land formed part of the highway, and that this claim pre- vented him from selling the land : — Held, that the assertion of the defts.' claim to the land gave the pit. no cause of action, and, therefore, that he could not take advantage of the power given to the Court by the E. S. C, Order xxv., r. 5, to make a merely declaratory judgment ; that the only act of the defts. which gave him any cause of action was the pulling down of the fence ; that the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, applied ; the action was brought too late, and must be dismissed with HIGHWAY— eo«iiM«e(f. costs as between solicitor and client. Opfin v, ROOHPOED RUEAL DiSTEICT COUNCIL Warrington J. [1906] 1 Ch. 342 — Statutory corporation — Borrowing powers — Appointment of receiver. See liloETGAGE — Validity. 1. — Street — Overhead wires — Local government. See Streets. 7. — Streets. See under Stebbts. 40. — Subsidence cau.ied by viining operations — Action against wrong-doer — Measure of damages — Local Government — Urban Sanitary Authority —Public Health Act, 1875 (38 # 39 Vict. c. 55), •s. 149 — Highways and Locomotives (Amendment') Act, 1878) 41 4' 42 Vict. o. 77), ss. 10, 27. A mine extended under a highway which was vested under a. 149 of the Public Health Act, 1875, in the local authority. While working the mine the owners let down the surface of the highway, which the local authority, in good faith and on the opinion of skilled advisers, restored to its former level at great cost. An equally com- modious road might have been made at less cost : — Held, that the local authority were not entitled to raise the road to the old level, cost, what it might and whether it was more com- modious to the public or not, and were only entitled to recover from the mine owners what it would have cost to make the equally commodious road. Decision of the C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 78, reversed. Decision of Jelf J., [1905] 2 K. B. 823, restored. Lodge Holes Collieey Co. v. Wednesbuey Coepoeation H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 168 ; [1908] A. C. 323 — Subsoil of road^ Vesting in sanitary autho- rity — Misuse of statutory powers — In- junction. See London — Conveniences. 1. — Tramway company. See under Teamways. — Tramway company — Liability for damage from non-repair of road — Transfer of liability. See Teamways. 7. — Tramway, Obligation to keep surface of, in good condition— Liability in damages to individual. See Teamways. 15. 41. — Two roads— Right for foot passengers — Prescrijjtire use — Accumulated use attributable to two roads — Substituted roads — Right of way. By the law of Scotland, if it can be inferred from the evidence that a new road was taken as of right as a substitute for an old road, the years of use of both roads can be added together to make the prescriptive period. Young v. Kinloch H. L. (So.) [1910] W. N. 3 • [1910] A. C. 169 — Water company — Liability to reinstate pavement — Subsidence — Omission of road authority to rectify. iSee Water. ( 1173 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1171 ) SIGS-WAY—coniitiued. — Water highway. See under WATER HIGHWAY. ■ — Way, Right of — User by public — Laud in settlement — Possibility of dedication. See under Wat, Right of. — Within two jurisdictions — New street — Sewer — Recovery of expenses. See London — Streets. 2. — Workmen's compensation — Tramway on high- way — " Engineering work." See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 79. HINDU — Marriage — Validity — Husband a British subject domiciled in India — Personal capacity to contract marriage with an Enghsh Christian woman. See Marriage. 7. HIRE — Charterparty — Shipowners' lien for unpaid hire — Hire accruing due. See Shipping — Charterparty. 56. — Trade fixtures — Mortgage — Rights of mort- gageee against owner of machinery — Presumption of law. See Fixtures. 1. HIRE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT— Bill of sale. See under Bill of Sale. — Chairs fastened to iioor of place of entertain- ment — Mortgage of building and fix- tures. See Fixtures. 2. — Distress — Landlord and tenant — Trade fix- tures — Gas engine. See Distress. 11. — Liability to repair hired chattel — Lien as against owner. See Lien. 2. — Loan — Inference of fact — Registration. See Bill of Sale. 3. ■ — Option to purchase — Bailee for hire — Right of owner to sue for arrears of rent after retaking possession. See Bailment. 1. — Subsequent equitable mortgage — Priority. See Fixtures. 1. — Trade fixtures — Right of mortgagee against owner of fixtures — Mortgagor in possession. See Mortgage — Fixtures. 1. HIRING AGREEMENT. See under Co l'^ TRACT. Hire - purchase Agree- ment. HISTORICAL EVENT— Representation of, set up for the purpose of decoration only — Facull.y. ife Ecclesiastical Law— Faculty. 3. HOARDINGS— Advertisement hoardings— Right to distrain — Fixtures — Landlord and tenant. See Distress. 3. SOAKDITSIGS—contumed. — Restrictive covenants — Advertisement hoard- ing — " Building" — Mandatory injunc- tion. See Building Estate. 1. HOLDINGS — Small holdings and allotments. See under Small Holdings and Allotments. HOLIDAYS — Ship — Demurrage — Lay days. See Shipping — Charterparty. 39. HOLOGRAPH CODICIL See under Will — Codicil. HOLOGRAPH WILL. See under Will — Holograph Will. HOLY COMMUNION. See under ECCLESIASTICAL Law — Holy Communion. HOME SECRETARY— Order of— Appeal. See Criminal Law — Appeal. 2.5. HONG XOTSG— Bankers, Liaiilitu of~Comj>ra- dore's limited authority as t/ieir agent — Action against Tjaiikers to reeorer moneys improperly reeeived hy compradore. In an action by the respondent to recover from the appellant bank moneys paid to their compra- dore or Chinese agent at their Hong Kong branch for the purpose of a telegraphic transfer to the plt.'s nominee at Shanghai it appeared that the compradore, to the knowledge of the pit., had no authority without the express approval of the bank manager to receive the money or to fix the rate of exchange or other terms on which the transfer was to be effected : — Held, that the bank was not liable for the oompradore's misappropriation of the • said moneys. His authority was limited to arranging the details of the proposed transaction and did not extend to receiving money on account of the bank until a binding contract had been made with the bank manager. There had been no holding out through any negligent or improper act by the bank of the compradore as apparently invested with an authority greater than the limited authority which the pit. knew him to possess. Russo-Chinesb Bank i\ Li Yau Saji P. C. [1910J A. C. 174 2. — Company — Adoptioti of articles of assorin- tion — Registration of unsigned articles — Ac- quiescence, Although a special resolution is the statutory mode of enacting articles of association, the adoption thereof by a co. may be proved by a long course of acquiescence. The unsigned articles of a co. incorporated under Hong Kong Ordinance I. of 1865 (similar to the English Companies Acts, 1862) were irregularly registered along with its memo- randum of association ; but it appeared that they had for nineteen years been published, acted on without objection, and from time to time amended and added to by special resolu- tions : — Held, that they must be treated as valid and ( 117G ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1176 ) HONG KOiSG— continued. operative, and as haviag been adopted by the shareholders. Ho Tung v. Man on Insueanoe Co. P. C. [1902] A. C. 232 3. — ■ LimitaUvns , Statute of — Cause of action — Grant of letters of ad ministratwn — Powers of registrar — Hong Kong Ordinance's No. 13 of 1864, .1. 8 ; Sfo. 8 of 1860, s. 39 ; and No. 9 of 1870, s. 1 — Construction. Meld, in a suit for a partnership account brought by the administrator of a deceased partner, that the Statute of Limitations (Hong Kong Ordinance No. 13 of 1864, s. 8) ran from the grant of letters in 1897, and not from the grant of probate in 1886 of a forged wiU, which on rcTocation was void ab initio. By the true construction of s. 39 of Ordinances No. 8 of 1860, and No. 9 of 1870, s. 1, the regis- trar of the Court was merely placed in the position of a receiver of the intestate's estate pending the grant of letters, but without power to sue in respect thereof. Chan Kit San v. Ho Fung Hang P. C. [1902] A. 0. 257 4. — Right of appellants to shew cause before sentence — Song Kong Supreme Court OrdiTiance, 1873, s. 31 — ComtriijCtion. The appellants, having been summarily committed to prison by the Chief Justice under Hong Kong Supreme Court Ordinance 3 of 1873, s. 31, for wilful and corrupt perjury before the Bankruptcy Court, moved unsuccessfully for a discharge of the order on the grounds that they had not been informed by the Chief Justice what statements made by them constituted the perjury and that they had had no opportunity of shewing cause before sentence : — Held, (1.) that the Ordinance did not con- template the accusation being formulated in a series of specific allegations of perjury and that its gist had been made sufficiently clear ; (2.) that as the Ordinance did not dispense with giving the appellants an opportunity before sen- tence of explaining or correcting misapprehen- sions of their statements, it was essential that it should be accorded to them. In re Pollard, (1868) 5 Moo. P. C. (N.S.) Ill ; L. E. 2 P. 0. 106, followed. Chang Hang Kiu V. PiGGOTT. In re Lai Hing Fiem. P. C. [1909] A. C. 312 5. — Trade Marh — Assignment of trade mark — Breach of trade mark — Title to damages. In an action for infringement of trade marks it appeared that the business of selling watches in Hong Kong affected thereby did not belong to the pits., and was not carried on for their benefit, but that they as manufacturers supplied to it the watches sold : — Held, that they must be nonsuited for want of title to maintain the action, Ullmann & Co. v. Cesak Leuba P. C. [1908] A. C. 443 HOESE-EACE— Sweepstakes on— Lottery. See Gaming. 15. 'B.O'&i'Ei— Diseases of Animals Act, 1910 (10 (^Edw. 7^1 Geo. 5, c. 20). See under Disease. — Carcases of dead horses — -Eeceiving — Licence — Public yaid. See London — Dead Horses. 1. Irremovability — 'B.OSflTA.W— Isolation Hospitals Act, 1901, (1 Edio. 7. c. 8), amends the Isolation Hospitals Act, 1893 56 ^ 57 Vict. v. 68). — Ademption — Charitable legacy — Gift to endowment fund. (See Will — Ademption. 1. — Agreement by local authorities for joint use of hospital — Management expenses apportioned — Notice by one local authority to determine agreement — ■ Validity of notice. See Local Govebnmbnt. 15. — " Hospital " — Settlement - Residence. See POOK Law. 24. — Land tax — Exemption— Land in occupation of tenants. See Land Tax. 1. — " Medical charities." See Charity. 20, 21, 22, 31, 32. 1. — Negligence — Puilic Hospital — LiaHlity of gorernors — Operation — Injury to patient — Hospital staff — Relation of hospital to patients. The only duty undertaken by the governors of a public hospital towards a patient who is treated in the hospital is to use due care and skill in selecting their medical staff. The relationship of master and servant does not exist between the governors and the physicians and surgeons who give their services at the hospital, and the nurses and other attendants assisting at an operation cease for the time being to be the servants of the governors, inasmuch as they take their orders during that period from the operating surgeon alone and not from the hospital authorities. The pit. brought an action against the governors of a hospital for damages for injuries alleged to have been caused to him during an operation by the negligence of some member of the hospital staff. Held, that the action was not maintainable. HiLLYER V. UOVBENOES OF St.BAETHOLOMEW'S Hospital. C. A. [1909] W. N. 189 [1909] 2 E. B. 820 — Public building — " Public purpose." See London — Buildings. 11. 2. — Public health — Infectious hospital — Dis- charge of patient while still infectious — Liability of local authority — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 # 39 Vict. c. 551. ss. 124, 131, 132. The defts., a local authority, acting under the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, pro- vided for the use of the inhabitants of (heir district a hospital for the reception of persons suffering from infectious diseases. A visiting physician, who was a competent medical prac- titioner, was appointed to the hospital, and acted under the general directions of the hospitals committee of the defts., the rules providing (inter alia) that he should be responsible for " the treatment of the patients from the begin- ning to the end of their stay, and also for their freedom from infection when discharged." A son of the pit. was treated in the hospital while suffering from a mild attack of scarlet fever, and was ultimately discharged by the visiting ( 1177 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1178 ) KOSVITALS—contintied. physician while still in an infectious condition, and under circumstances which a jury found to amount to a want of reasonable skiU and care on his part in and about the discharge ; after the boy had returned home, he communicated the disease to three other children of the pit. The pit. then sued the defts. to recover the expense to which he had been put in regard to the illness of his other children owing to the premature discharge of his son from the hospital by the visiting physician : — Held, that the pit. was not entitled to recover, for the legal obligation of the defts. extended only to the provision of reasonably skilled and competent medical attendance for the patients, which they had discharged, and that there was no absolute undertaking or obligation on their part that no patient should be discharged by the visiting physician while still in a condition which might cause infection. Evans v. Liverpool COBPOEATION Walton J. [1906] 1 K. B. 160 — Smallpox — Quia timet action — Evidence — Admissibility. See Nuisance. 10. — Will — Charitable gift — Bequest " towards new building and equipment." See Chaeitt. 20. — Will — Construction — Charity — Legacy " to found a bed in a hospital" — Endow- ment. See Charity. 21. HOTCHPOT — Advancements to children. See under Will — Advances. - Advancements to children — Intestacy. See Distributions, Statute op. 1. 'B.QTEL—contin ucd. — Lessor and lessee — Quiet enjoyment. Implied obligation as to — Printing machinery and hotel bedrooms. See New Zealand. 6. — Lodger at — Arriving drunk — Admission of after closing hours. See Licensing Acts. 60. — Manager of — Undisclosed principal — Licence taken out in name of manager — Pre- sumption as to hotel being tied. See Principal and Agent. 15. — Noise — Early morning building operations — Injunction — Interference with sleep of guests. See Nuisance. 7. — Trade refuse — Removal — Dispute between occupier and sanitary authority — Appeal by special case. See London — Eemoval of Refuse. 1. HOUSE — Agreement for letting house to testator — Payment by instalments — Death of testator before payment — Debt. See Capital and Income. 1. — Part of a house or other building or manufac- tory, Prohibition against the compulsory acquisition of a. See New South Wales. 12. — Annuities immediate and reversionary — Deficient estate — Abatement — Appor- — tionment. See Annuity. 1. — Authorized Security — Loss — Period of account — Apportionment. See Settled Land — Apportionment. 2. — Date at which value of appointed stocks should be ascertained. iSee Settlement. 1. — Surrender of appointor's life interest — Imme- diate possesion — Death of appointor. See Settlement. 1. — Will — Construction. See under Will — Advances. HOTEL — Compensation fund — Relief from maximum charge. See Licensing Acts. 16. — Income tax — Deductions — Loss arising from negligence — Injury to guest — Damages. See Revenue — Income Tax. 37. — Innkeeper. See under INNKEEPER. Rating — " Inhabitant ' See Rates. 15. ' Occupier.' — Unfurnished house — Defective premises — Promise by landlord to repair — Accident See Landlord and Tenant. 89. HOUSE AGENT— Authority of— Agreement for lease. See Landlord and Tenant. 40. HOUSE DUTY — Income Tax— Premises let on lease. See Revenue- Income Tax. 20. HOUSE DUTY AND HOUSE TAX. See under Revenue — House Duty. HOUSE OF COMMONS— J//'. Stealer's Betire- mewt Act, 1905 (5 Hdw. 7, c. 5). — Costs — Taxation — Parliamentary agent — Solicitor. See Solicitor — Costs. 29. — Faculty — Window — Military colours. See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 3. HOUSE OF COMMMONS STANDING ORDERS, 190 — Divorce Bill — Ireland — Alleged adulterer a foreigner domiciled abroad. See Divorce — Ireland. 6. HOUSE OF LORDS— Appeal to— Competency- New trial. See Divorce. Practice. 25. — Appeal to — Evidence — Judge's notes— Copies for printing. See APPEAL. 9. ( 1179 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1180 ) HOUSE or LORDS— £ — Appeal to, from Scotland — Competency — Workmen's Compensation. See Master and Servant — Practice. 6. — Costs — Taxation — Parliamentary agent — Solicitor. See Solicitor — Costs. 29. 1. . — Costs of more than two counsel in appeals — Practioe. The Appeal Committee resolved that, except in special cases, no costs should be allowed in taxation for more than two counsel of a side in appeals ; and that appeals in the name of the Attorney-General or the Lord Advocate should be in the same position as all other appeals. Practice Note H. L. [1909] W. H. 184 Note as to postponement of appeals — Mouse of Lords. In an application on Monday, the 26th of July, 1909, to postpone the hearing of an appeal, Lord Loreburn L.C. said : — " We will allow this application in the present case, but I desire to say a word as to the practice of applying for postponements. Liti- gants complain of delay in Courts of Law. In this House we have desired to iinish every case before the vacation, so that the list might be entirely cleared. There are very few cases still left, some four or five, and we wished to finish them in the course of this week, though they have been put down only a few weeks ago. I think cases ought not to be put down unless the parties are ready to have them tried at once." Practice Note [1909] "W. N. 186 — Divorce — Leave to read evidence taken on commission in the House of Lords. See Divorce — Ireland. 7. — Leave to appeal to — Bankruptcy — Practice. See Bankruptcy — Preference. 2. 2. — Practice — Discharge of judgmeyit ty con- sent — Compensation — Employers' ZdaHlity Act, 1880 (43 4- 44 Vict. c. 42). Where upon an appeal to the House of Lords the respondent petitions that the judgment of the Court below should be discharged and the case sent back for trial, the consent of both parties to that course must be brought before the House itself. Hannah v. Hunter H. L. (Sc.) [1904] A. C. 379 3. — Practice — Peer's right to he heard at the bar — Barrister — Committee for privileges. A barrister who is also a peer may argue as counsel on an appeal at the bar of the House of Lords, but may not appear as counsel to argue before Committees of the House, or before the House when sitting under the presidency of the Lord High Steward on a criminal case. In re Lord Kinross H. L. (Sc.) [1908] A. C. 468 4. — Practice — Reversal — Point not argued. The defts. in an action relating to a piece of ground, and which involved questions of encroach- ment, right to the land, title to sue, and possess- sion, appealed to the House of Lords, against all the interlocutors of the Court below. At the HOUSE OF 10'&'D%— continued. hearing in the House, [1904], A. G. 73, one only of these questions was argued by the defts., and the appeal was allowed : — Held, by the Appeal Gommitte, that the defts. were not entitled to an order for the reversal generally of the interlocutors appealed from, but only for the reversal of the interlo- cutors so far as they related to the question raised in the House. Montgomerib & Co. v. Wal- lace-James H. L. (Sc.) [1904] A. C. 214 HOUSE OF LORDS STANDINa ORDERS, 177 — Divorce Bill — Ireland — Alleged adulterer a foreigner domiciled abroad. See Divorce — Ireland. 6. HOUSE REFUSE— London. See under London — Refuse. HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES. Homing of the Worldng Classes Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 39), amends the law. Order of the Loc. Govt. Bd., dated Jun.7, 1905, under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, 1890 to 1903, p'-escribing Forms. St. R. & 0., 1905, No. 3. Do. Local Authorities.] Jan. 9, 1905. Forms in Proceedings relating to Closing Orders under the Acts. St. R. & 0., 1905, No. '3a. Do. Circular.] Coui-ts of Summary Juris- diction. Formsin Proceedings relating to Closing Orders under the Acts. St. R. & 0. 1905, No. 3b. Order in Council transferring the powers and duties of the Secy, of State under tlie Housing Acts to the Loc. Govt. Bd. St. R. & 0. 1905, No. 136. Forms — Order, Jan. 11, 1910, under s. 41 of tlie Housing, Town Planning, ^c. Act., 1909, prescriiing forms of certain notices and other documents. St. R. & 0., 1910, No. 2. Appeals — Rules, Order, Jan. 11, 1910, under s. 39 of the Housing, Town Planning, S^c, Act, 1909, with reference to apjJeals. St. R. & 0., 1910, No. 3. Price Id. each. — Capital moneys. See Settled Land — Capital Moneys. 11. 1. — Closing m'der — Local government — Local authority — Powers — Dwelling-house unfit for human habitation — Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890 (53 ^- 54 Vict. c. 70), ss. 29, 32. By s. 32, sub-s. 1, of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, it is the duty of a local authority to take proceedings against the owner or occupier for the closing of a dwelling- house which is unfit for human habitation ; and by sub-s. 2, " any such proceedings may be taken for the express purpose of causing the dwelling- house to be closed whether the same be occupied or not." By s. 29, " In this part of the Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the expres- sion ' dwelling-house ' means any inhabited building. ..." A local authority applied for a closing order in respect of three dwelling-houses which were admittedly unfit lor human habitation. The ( 1181 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1182 ) HOUSING OF THE WOEKING CLASSES— cowiiZ. houses had been closed by the owner for five and a half years for all purposes of human habitation, and they had not been used for such purposes during that period, nor had the owner any inten- tion of allowing them to be so used in their present condition. A magistrate having refused to make a closing order : — Ilelci^ that the definition of " dwelling-house " in s. 29 did not operate to curtail the powers of the local authority under s. 32 : that the mere fact of nou-oooupancy was not in itself an objec- tion to the making of a closing order, and that the magistrate was wrong. Robeetson v. King Div. Ct. [1901] 2K. B. 265 2. — Land compulsorihj taken— Compensation — Tied house — Co tenant j'unning vAth land — Fair marjiet valtie — Housing of the Worliing Classes Act, 1890 (53 Iarriage,col.ll8i. Conflict of Laws, col. 1185. Contract, col. 1185. Conrersion, col. 1185. Costs, col. 1185. Covenant, col. 1186. Deceased Wife s Sister's Jfarriage, col. 1187. Peed, col. 1187. Desertion, col. 1187. Divorce. See under Dl VOECE . Election, col. 1188. Execution, col. 1189. Executor, col. 1189. Fraud, col. 1189. French Marriage Contract, col. 1190. Guarantee, col. 1190. Insurance, Life, col. 1190. Intestacy, col. 1192. Jointure, col. 1192. Judicial Separation, col. 1192. Liability, col. 1192. Maintenance, col. 1194. Marriage. See under Maeeiagb. Marriage Settlements, col. 1194 Mortgages, col. 1195. Paraphernalia, col. 1195. Partition Action, col. 1195. Poor Law, col. 1195. Power of Appointment. See under Power of Appointment. Practice, col. 1196. Probate, col. 1197. Property, col. 1197. Purchase, col. 1198. Bestralnt on Anticipation, col. 1199. Scottish Law, col. 1201. Separate Property, col. 1201 Separation, col. 1203. Separation Order, col. 1203. Settlenunts, col. 1204. Title, col. 1204. Title of Honour, col. 1204. Unfurnished House, col. 1204. Wearing Apparel, ^'c, col. 1204. n'ill, col. 1205, ( 1183 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1184 ) HUSBAND AND WIFE In General. — Acknowledgment (Separate) — Mortgage — Ee- oonveyanoe — Married woman — Trustee mortgagee — Concurrence of husband. See Deeds. 1. — Affiliation order — Application by married woman living with husband at date of application. See Bastardy. 1. — Caucelment for security by married woman for her husband's debts. See Jamaica. 1. — Cohabitation. See under COHABITATION. — Custody of child — Paternity — Evidence. See INFAUT — Custody. 2. — Election — Compensation — Married woman — Restraint on anticipation — Removal of disability. See Election. 3. — Franchise — Husband and wife living together — Wife, owner — Husband tenant. See Parliament. 11. — Fraudulent conveyance — Protection of cre- ditors. See under Fraudulent Convbyanob. — Legitimacy. See under Legitimacy. — Real property limitation — Action to recover land — Person under disability — Claim by husband in right of wife. See Limitations, Statute of. 21. — Solicitor and client — Independent advice. See Solicitor — Fiduciary Belation. 1. Acknowledgment. — Married woman — Contract. See HusBAKTD AND WlEE— Separate Property. 1. — Married woman — Mortgage — Separate exami- nation — Burgage tenure — Custom — ■ Reasonableness — Fines and recoveries. See Husband and Wife — Mortgages. 1. Authority. See also under Husband and Wife — Liability. — Implied authority to wife to pledge her hus- band's credit. See Divorce —Costs. 6. 6. — Principal and agent — Authority of wife to pledge husband's credit — Goods supjilied on order of wife — Contract by wife " otherwise than as agent " — Married Women's Property Act, 1893 (56 to retain her present solicitors. A preliminary objection was taken before the Master that this was contrary to the practice of the Court, and there was no authority for making any such order on the application of a defendant. The matter was adjourned to the judge on the question of whether there was jurisdiction to make tlie order. Wartnaby v. Wartnaby, (1821) Jac. 377 ; Blalte V. Smith, (1832) Younge, 594 ; Brangan V. Gorges, (1844) 7 Ir. Eq. 221, 225 ; PoHti'r v. Porter, (1888) 37 Ch. D. 420 ; and Didisheim V. London and Westminster Banh, [1900] 2 Ch. 15, cited. Eve J. said that, on the authority of the cases cited to him, and particularly that of Blahe V. Smith, Younge, 594, which resulted in an inquiry whether a nominal pit. was imbecile, he must hold that the Court had jurisdiction to direct such an inquiry, in a proper case, upon an application by a deft. He accordingly sent the summons back to chambers with that intimation. Pomert v. Pomeby Eve J. [1909] W. N. 158 3. — Appeal — Husband's appeal — Effect of withdrawal of previous summons — Technical ob- jection not talien in Court below — Ap2Jeal allowed — Wife's costs — Summary Jurisdiction {Married Women") Act, 1895 (58 ^' 59 Vict. c. 39). The withdrawal of a summons under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, has the effect of putting an end to the complaint in respect of which it is issued, and. ( 1197 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1198 ) HUSBAND AND WIFE (Practice)— coriimwe^Z. after the withdrawal, no fresh summons can be issued upon the same cause of complaint. A ground of objection, however technical, is not waived by the omission to take the objection on the hearing of a summons under the Act, but where such an objection is taken by the husloand for the first time on the hearing of an appeal and is allowed, the wife (respondent) will be allowed her costs of the appeal. Pickavance c. Pickavance Div. Ct. [1901] P. 60 — Costs. See under HuSBAND AND Wife — Costs. 4. — M'ifes tort — Actiofi against hushand and wife jointly — Liiel — Pleading — Payment into court — Denial of liability — R.S. C, Order XXII., r. 1. In a statement of defence in a common law action of tort against a husband and hia wife jointly for a libel published by the wife, the husband pleaded payment of money into Court in satisfaction of the claim, and the wife pleaded in denial of liability : — Held, that such a mode of pleading was inadmissible. Beaumont r. Kate C. A. [1904] W. N. 20 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 893 Probate. — Grants of administration. Form of oath to lead — Commorientes — Practice. See Peobate — Practice. 7. — Married woman — Intervener — " Proceeding instituted." See Peobate — Practice. 8. — Practice— Married woman — Separation order under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act — Will — Adminis- tration. See Peobate — Practice. 6. Property. 1. — Equitable assignmeivt — Priority — Trust fund — Fund in Court — Notice — Stop order. Upon the marriage in Morocco in 1865 of a Jewish husband and wife (the husband being domiciled in that country), a document called a "ketubah" was executed, under which it was alleged that the children of the marriage took an interest in the property of the wife. By the will of an English testator, who died in 1858, a sum of 10,OOOZ. Consols was bequeathed to trustees, upon trust for the wife's mother for her life, with remainders to her children in equal shares. At the time of the marriage the wife was, subject to her mother's life estate, entitled to one-fourth of the fund. The fund was in court in a suit to administer the testator's estate, and stood to the separate account of the mother and her family. In 1878 the wife died intestate, and the husband took out administration in England to her estate. He in 1885, as her administrator, assigned her share of the fund for value to a reversionary society, and they obtained a stop order upon that share of the fund. The society had no notice of the " ketubah," and no notice had been given to the trustees of the will, and no stop order had been obtained on behalf of HUSBAND AND WIFE (Property)— co««««e(Z. the persons entitled under it. In 1898 the tenant for life died. Upon a petition in the suit by the society for payment of one-fourth of the fund to them : — Held, that, the husband having the legal title to dispose of his wife's interest in the fund, the society had by means of the stop order obtained priority, and that the wife's share of the fund must be paid out to them. In re Freshfield's Trust, (1879) 11 Ch. D. 198, approved and followed. Decision of Byrne J. reversed upon a ground not taken before him. Montefioee i-. Guedalla C. A. [1903] W. N. 77 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 26 Note. — See also Montefiore v. Guedalla, Buckley J., [1901] 1 Ch. 435 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 723. Trustee — Appointment, i. s. See under Husband and Wife Uortgages. 2. — Purchase in navie of husband — Payment out of wlfe^s property — Resulting trust — Pre- iumption — JSmdence — Capital or income. In 1883 the deft, married Colonel Mercier. They kept a joint banking account almost entirely composed of the wife's income, and both husband and wife drew on this account. In 1S91 they bought some land, which was paid for out of the joint account and was conveyed to the husband. He died intestate in 1901, and his heir-at-law claimed the land : — Held (affirming the decision of Buckley J.), that Mrs. Mercier had not made a gift of the purchase-money to her husband, and that the land belonged to her. Per Eomer and Cozens-Hardy L.JJ. : There is no distinction in principle between the pre- sumption of a resulting trust in favour of the wife which arises when her income has been applied to a purchase in her husband's name and that which arises when the payment has been made out of her capital. Alexander v. Barnhill, (1888) 21 L. S. Ir. 511, explained. Meeoiee i>. Meeciee C. A. [1903] W. N. 86 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 98 Purchase. 1. — House, Purchase of — Joint tenancy — Purchase-money paid by husband — Resulting trust — Advancement — Rebuttal — Pecree of nullity of marriage. In 1896 the pit., then Miss W., was married to the deft. In 1897 the deft, bought a house for 654Z., which was conveyed to him and his wife as joint tenants. The deft, paid 354^. out of his own money and borrowed the remaining 300Z. on the security of a mortgage of the house. This mortgage was executed by both husband and wife and was in the ordinary form of a mortgage by joint tenants. In 1898 the pit. and deft, separated. In 1905 the deft, paid off the 300Z. mortgage debt and the house was recon- veyed to him and tlie pit. In 1907 the pit. instituted proceedings for a declaration of nullity of marriage, and in October, 1908, a decree absolute was made whereby the marriage was declared " to have been and to be absolutely null and void." The pit. brought this action for a ( 1199 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1200 ) HUSBAND AND WIFE (rvixcha,Be)—rontmued. declaration that she was entitled to the house as joint tenant in fee with her late husband : — Seld, that at the date of the purchase the husband intended the house to be an advance- ment for his wife ; that there was no implied condition that the marriage should continue ; and that the pit. was entitled to the declaration she claimed. Dunbar c Ddnbak. Warrington J. [1909] W. N. 203 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 639 Bestraiut on Anticipation. — Annuity — Release by married woman — Covenant not to sue — Acquiescence — Action by administrator for arrears of annuity. See Husband and Wife — Covenant. 1. — Power of appointment— Release of power — Married woman. See Power of Appointment. 22. 1. — Awte-nupiiul deit, Judgment for — JExe- cution — Separate property — Restraint on antici- pation — Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Vict. c. 75), s. 19. A judgment against a married woman in respect of a debt contracted by her before mar- riage cannot be enforced by way of equitable execution against her separate property subject to a restriction against anticipation, where the restriction is not contained in a settlement, or agreement for a settlement, of her own property, made or entered into by herself. BIRMINGHAM Excelsior Monet Society r. Lane. C. A. [1903] W. N. 196 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 35 2. — Class, Severance of — Married Woman — Rule against perpetuities. A restraint on anticipation imposed by a general clause in a will, upon all the shares of daughters of the testator's children, is good as to the shares of those members of the class who are born in the testator's lifetime, though void as to the shares of those born afterwards. Herbert v. Webster (1880) 15 Ch. D. 610, followed. In re Michael's trusts, (1877) 46 L. J. (Ch.) 651 ; In re Ridley, (1879) 11 Oh. D. 645, not followed. In re Fernblet's Trusts Swinfen Eady J. [1902] W. N. 27 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 643 Note. This case was followed by Warrington J., In re Game, [1907] 1 Ch. 276. See No. 5, below. 3. — Contract by married woman during coverture — Judgment after cessation if coverture — — Separate property — Restraint upon anticipa- tion — Married Women's Property Acts — Married Women's Property Act, 1893 (56 roxy is used. Where one of the co.'s articles of association provided that "no person shall be appointed or .... have authority to act as a proxy who is not a shareholder of the company " : — Held, that on its true construction it is no objection to a proxy duly lodged that an unquali- fied person is named therein, provided that the qualification exists when the proxy is lodged and continues when it is used : Seld, further, that as the articles did not require the shareholder using the proxy to be literally " named" therein, the proxy could not be objected to if he were sufficiently described for all business purposes, as for instance a member for the time being of a specified firm. BOMBAY-BUBMAH TRADING COEPOEATION, LD. i. DOEABJI CUESETJI SHEOPF P. C. [1905] A. C. 213 3. — Bomhay — Shipping, Law of — Time charter — Sub-charter — Bills of lading — Ooods within bill of lading not subject to charter lien — Construction of contract. Under a time charter with power to sublet the shipowners retained legal possession of the ship through the captain appointed and paid by themselves, who was to be the agent in several respects for the charterers, and in particular to sign bilk of lading at any rates of freight that they might direct "without prejudice to this charter," and they also were entitled to a lien INDIA — conti lived . upon all cargoes for freight or charter money due under the charter : — Held, that bills of lading granted by the captain to the respondent, a sub-charterer from the charterers with notice of the time charter, were not mere receipts for goods, but contracts which bound the shipowners, and that the re- spondent, having paid his bill of lading freight, was entitled to his goods free of lien for the time charterer's dues. Colrin V. Kewberry. (1832) 1 CI. & F. 283 ; 33 E. E. 437, distinguished. Held, further, that the words ' ' without preju- dice to this charter " mean that the time charter remains unaltered as between the owners and the charterers, notwithstanding the bills of lading. They do not limit the power of the captain to issue bills of lading at different rates of freight, or entitle the shipowner's to a lien on the goods comprised therein for freight payable under the time charter. Turner r. Haji Goolam Mahomed Azam P. C. [1904] A. C. 826 — Explosives — Eailway companies. Liability o£ — Loss of life from explosives in a rail- way carriage — Appeal from Bengal. See Eailway — Passengers. 3. — Extradition. See under Extradition. 4. — India stoch — Transfer of stock — Per- sonation of holder — Idemtification of transferor by stocJtbroher — Effect of transfer — Estoppel — Bequest to Bank to jierform ministerial duty — Liabilittj to indemnify — Obligation of Banh to replace stock. Under the statutes authorizing the issue of India stock, transfers of that stock are invalid unless they are entered and registered in a book kept at the Bank of England, and are signed therein by the transferor or his attorney. For the purpose of enabling the Bank to be satisfied that the party claiming to transfer India stock is the person entitled to it, it is the custom of the Bank to keep a list of stockbrokers whose identification of intending transferors will be accepted by them. The Bank will also accept identifications made by some of their own officials, or by the representatives of private banks. In the case of transfers of amounts exceeding 2,000Z. the Bank usually makes an independent inquiry as to the identity of the transferor, but in the case of smaller amounts it is practically impossible to do so. The deft, was on the above-mentioned list of stockbrokers. A woman fraudulently personated another who was a registered holder of India stock, and, having procured herself to be introduced to the deft, as the holder of that stock, instructed him to prepare a transfer. The deft, accordingly sent to the Bank a " ticket," that is, a statement of the names of the transferor and transferee, the nature of the stock, and the amount to be transferred, from which ticket the Bank pre- pared a transfer in the transfer book, and the personator attended and forged the holder's sig- nature in the book, the deft, identifying her as being the holder. The transfer being for a nominal consideration, the deft., according to ( 1219 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1220 ) INDIA — cantinued. the usual practice in such cases, received a, fee of one guinea for his services and attendance at the Bank from the transferor. The stock was subsequently transferred to G., vi'ho purchased it bona fide and for value. On discovery of the forgery the original stockholder claimed to be reinstated on the register as the holder of the stock , and the Bank, in satisfaction of that claim, purchased stock of a like amount and transferred it into her name. The Bank then sued the deft. for indemnity in respect of their loss as upon a breach of warranty of the identity of the trans- feror : — Held by Farwell L.J. and Kennedy L.J. (Vaughan Williams L.J. dissenting), aiBrming the judgment of A. T. Lawrence J., [1907] 1 K. B. 889, that there was evidence on which the Court could find, and that the proper inference of fact vfas, that the deft, requested the pits, to permit the entry and registration of the forged transfer, which involved the legal consequence tkat the deft, contracted to indemnify the pits, against any liability resulting therefrom ; and that the pits, were entitled to recover as damages the loss to which they had been put by having to purchase stock as aforesaid. Bank of England v. Cutlee C. A. [1908] W. N. 98 ; [1908] 2 E. B. 208 — Indian Succession Act, 1865 — Will — Execu- tors in England — Will — Executors — Indian assets — Letters of administration obtained in India by stranger — Sup- pressing the will. See Administbation. 15. — Indians — Canada, Law of — Treaty of Oct. 3 1873, extinguishing the Indian interest in lands. See Canada — Land. 4. — Lands taken for public purposes — Compensa- tion — Indian Land Acquisition Act, 1894. See Zanzibar. 1. • — Practice — Staying action — • Case of action arising out of jurisdiction. See Peacticb — Staying Proceedings. 4. INDICTMENNT— Criminal Lavy. See under Chiminal Law — Indict- ment. INDOESEMENT— By way of security. See Bill of Exchange. 4. — Cheque — Forged indorsement — Payee — " Fictitious person." See Bankee. 4. INDUSTRIAL AND PEOVIDENT SOCIETY— Regn. Dec. 31, 1906, made hy the Treasury under the Industrial mid Provident Societies Act, 1893, St. R. &. 0. 1907, No. 948. 1. — Disputes between society and members — Rules — Arbitration — Ultra vires acts — Stay of proceedings — Friendly Societies Act, 1875 (38 ^' 39 Vict. c. 60), s. 22 — Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893 (56 ^ 57 Viet. c. 39), s. 49. The rules of an industrial and provident society, which substantially followed the terms of 3. 49 of the Industrial and Provident Societies INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETY— continued. Act, 1893, provided for the reference of all disputes between the society and its members to arbitration. A member of the society commenced an action against the committee of management of the society for a declaration that certain resolu- tions passed by them were ultra vires the society, and for consequential relief ; — Held, that the plt.'s claim was a dispute within the arbitration rule and s. 49, and that the proceedings in the action must be stayed. Where the rules of a registered society con- tain a, provision for the reference of disputes between a member and the society and its officers to arbitration it is not an answer to an application for a stay of proceedings that the question at issue is whether or not the act complained of is ultra vires. Stcne T lAverpool Marine Society, (1894) 63 L. J. (Q.B.) 471, applied. Cox r. Hutchinson Warrington J. [1910] W. N. 36 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 513 2. — Dissolution — Advertisement of instru- ment while assets vested in society — Ap2ioiniment of iiew trustee — Vesting order — Crown — Bona vacantia — Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893 (56 ^- 57 Vict. c. 39), ss. 58, &l— Trustee Act, 1893 (56 |- 57 Vict. u. 53), s. 25, suh-s. 1 ; s. 26 ; s. 35, sub-s. 1. The property of an incorporated industrial or provident society dissolved by instrument of dissolution under ss. 58 and 61 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, is subject to a trust for appropriation and division (after pro- viding for the claims of creditors) in accordance either with the provisions of the instrument or with the award of the chief registrar. Where dissolution took place before the society had handed over some of its property to the person nominated by the instrum.ent of dissolution to realize its assets, the Court (the Crown not claim- ing the property as bona vacantia) appointed him a trustee in the place of the society, and made an order vesting the property in him on the trusts applicable thereto under the instru- ment. In re Euddington Land Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. 701 3. — Special remedy for debts due from "members" — Determination of 7nembership — Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893 (56 4- 57 Vict. c. 39), s. 23. By 8. 23 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, "All moneys payable by a member to a registered society shall be a debt due from such member to the society, and shall be recoverable as such either in the county court of the district in which the registered office of the society is situate, or in that of the district in which such member resides, at the option of the society." Held, that where a member has contracted a debt to the society of an amount in, excess of the ordinary jurisdiction of the county court, the society may recover it in the county court under the above section, although the debtor had ceased to be a member at the the time of action brought. E K 2 ( 1221 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1222 ) INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETY— continued. GWBMDOLEN FREEHOLD LAND SOCIETY r,. Wicks - Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 622 — Will — Nomination — Paper. See Will — Nomination. 1. 4. — Windiiig-ujj — Cimtributm'ies — With- drawal of subscriptions — Liability in resiiect of withdrawals — Death of member before winding- up — Industrial and Prorident Societies Act, 1893 (56 Si- 57 Vict. 0. 39), ss. 10, 34, 58, 60 ; Sclied. II., clauses 7, 9. The rules of a society registered under the Provident and Industrial Societies Acts provided that its capital should be raised by shares of hi. each : that the subscription should be not less than 2s. fid. on each share per month, but that a member should not be bound to pay any subscrip- tion after the first unless required by the directors ; and that a member might withdraw all or any part of his subscriptions. They also provided that a member whose interest in the society was less than WOl. might nominate persons to whom his shares were to be paid on his death, but in default of such nomination, or if a member whose interest exceeded lOOZ. should die, his interest was to be payable or transferable only to his executors. Certain members had paid up the subscriptions on their shares in full, and then withdrawn part, and in some cases afterwards paid up part of the subscriptions so withdrawn. All these transactions were entered in the pass-books of members and the books of the CO. as payments and withdrawals on account of their shares. Some members had subscribed for one share only in order to obtain an advance and paid the first subscription of 2s. 6rf. and had repaid the whole of the advance, but had not formally withdrawn their shares or obtained repayment of the 2s. %d. Other members had died, having at the date of their death some sub- scriptions to their credit in respect of shares, and their executors had not withdrawn the whole The society was being wound up cora- pulsorily. The Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, requires that the rules should make pro- visions as to withdrawal of shares and provides that a member shall cease to be a member on withdrawal : — Held, (1.) that so long as a member left any subscriptions standing to his credit in respect of shares, he was liable to pay, on calls made by the directors, or in a winding-up, the difference between the amount so standing to his credit and the nominal amount of the shares including subscriptions which he had paid up and then withdrawn ; (2.) that the liability of a member was not terminated by his death : in this respect societies under this Act are to be distinguished from building societies ; (3.) that the advanced members were liable for the difEerence between the Zl. nominal amount of their share and the 2s. &d. paid notwithstanding that they had repaid their advances. In re United Service Share Purchase Society, Ld. - Neville J [1909] W. N. 169 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 526 5. — Winding-up— Powers of committee — Lien on shares — Set-off agai7i.it debts due from member INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETY— continued. — Creditor — Fraudulent preference — Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893 (56 A' 57 Vict, c. 39), s. 23, sub-s. 2~Companies Act, 1862 (25 ^• 26 Vict. c. 89], s. 164. By the rules of a co-operative society for sup- plying goods to its members, which was regis- tered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, each member was required to hold a certain number of shares in the society, and was at liberty to withdraw his share capital under certain conditions upon giving notice to the manager. The appellant, a member of the society, being unable owing to a strike to pay for goods supplied to him, the managing com- mittee on four occasions debited the amount standing to his credit as a shareholder with sums due from him to the society for goods, the total amount so debited being about equal to the amount of his share capital ; no notice under the rules to withdraw his capital had been given by the appellant. The society was in financial difficulties, and was at the date of the last two transactions hopelessly insolvent to the know- ledge of the managing committee ; but the com- mittee, who had adopted the same course with other shareholders, acted bona fide and without intent to prefer any particular shareholder. Upon a summons taken out by the liquidator of the society to set aside the transactions : — Held, that the transactions were not to be treated as withdrawals of capital by the appel- lant, but were vaUd under s. 23, sub-s. 2, of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, which gives to a, society registered under the Act a lien upon the shares of a member and a right to set off any sum credited to a member upon his shares towards the payment of any debt due from him to the society : — Held, further, that the last transaction, although within three mouths of the passing of a resolution for winding up the society, was not void under s. 164 of the Companies Act, 1862. as an undue or fraudulent preference of a creditor, the appellant not being a creditor of the society within the meaning of that section. In re GVITAWR-Y-GWEITHYR INDUSTRIAL AND PRO- VIDENT Society, Ld. Dovby r. Morgan Div. Ct. [1901] 2K. B. 477 INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY. — Disputes — County court jurisdiction. See Justices. 10. INDUSTRIAL DISEASES— Workmen's compen- sation — Seamen — Certifying surgeon. See Master and Servant — Com- pensation. 104. INEBRIATE. See under Drunkenness. INFANT. Intoxicating Liquors (Sale to Children} Act 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. 27), prevents tlie sale if in- taxicating liquors to children. Youthful Offenders Act, 1901 (1 Mw. 7, 20), amends the law relating to youthful offender with and for other purposes connected tliere- .( 1223 ) DiaBST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1224 ) nSFAST—oontinued. Prevention of Cruelty to CInldren Act, 1904 (4 Edto. 7, c. 15), amends the law relating to the prevention of cruelty to children. Children Act, 1908 (8 Mdiv. 7, v. 67), consoli- dates and ri mends the law relating to the protec- tion of children and young persons, reformatory and industrial schools, and juvenile offenders, and otlhen-wise to amend the law with respect to children, and young persons. Juvenile Offender. Detention and Main- tenance. Rnles, May 21, 1909, for places of Detention under s. lOd of the Childnsn Act, 1908, St. R. & 0. 1909, No. 891. Children Act, 1908 (8 IJdw. 7, c. 67).— 77te Summary Jurisdiction (Children Act) Rules, 1909, dated March 23, 1909, and May 27, 1909. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (April 3), p. Ill ; (July 10), p. 269. See Current Index, 1909, p. xciT. Cliildren Act (1908) Amendment Act, 1910 (10 Edw. 7^-1 Geo. 5, c. 25), is an Act to amend ss. 17 a7id 18 of t!ie Children Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, 0. 67). Ap2}renticeship, col. 1224. Betting Circular, col. 1224. Building Society, col. 1224. Company, col. 122.3. Compromise, col. 1225. Conditions, col. 1225. Conversion, col. 1225. Corporation, col. 1225. Costs, col. 1226. Criminal Law. See under Criminal Law — Infants. Custody, col. 1226. Delay, col.\227. Divorce. See under Divorce. Employment, col. 1227. Guardian, col. 1227. Guardian ad Litem, col. 1228. Heirlooms, col. 1228. Illegitimacy. iSfee under ILLEGITIMACY — Will — Illegitimacy. Interest, col. 1229. Mainten/inee, col. 1230. Managemeni, col. 1232. Mortgages, col. 1232. Necessaries, col. 1232. Xext friend, col. 1233. Police CouHs, col. 1233. Poor Law, col. 1233. Practice, col. 1233. Prevention of Cruelty to Children. See under Criminal Law — Cruelty to Children. Prolate, col. 1233. Railway, col. 1233. Real Property, col. 1233. Restraint of Trade, col. 1233. INFANT — continued. Seduction, col. 1233. ' Settled Land. See under Settled Laitd — Infants. Settlement, col. 1234. Vesting Orders, col. 1234. Workmen's Comjtensation. See under Master and Servant — Infants. Youthful Offenders. See under CRI- MINAL Law — Youthful Offenders. Apprenticeship. 1. — Ap2Jrenticeship deed — Covenant not to carry on iusiness within certain area after cessa- tion of apprenticeship — Breach of covenant after attaining full age — Injunction. By a deed of apprenticeship, dated May 7, 1902, and made between the deft. Robert Thompson (then an infant of between 14 and 15 years of age) and his father of the one part, and the pit., an architect and surveyor carrying on business at Bromsgrove, of the other part, the deft, bound himself to serve the pit. in the pro- fession of an architect for four years. The deed contained a joint covenant by the deft, and his father that the deft, would not within ten years from the expiration of the term practice the pro- fession of an architect or surveyor within a radius of ten miles from Bromsgrove. The deft., subsequently to his attaining full age, committed a breach of the covenant. The action was brought for an injunction to restrain the deft, from committing further breaches. The pit. and another architect practising in Bromsgrove both swore that they would under no circumstances accept an articled pupil who declined to enter into a similar restrictive covenant. The county court judge held that the cove- nant was reasonable and valid, and granted the injunction asked for. The Court (Phillimore and Lord Coleridge JJ.) held that the principle of the cases cited only applied to the enforcement of the appren- tice's covenants during his infancy, and that where an infant has entered into a covenant in an apprenticeship deed, to do or abstain from doing something after the cessation of the apprenticeship, there is no objection to enforcing such a covenant by action, provided that the deft, at the time of action brought has attained full age. Appeal dismissed. GylheH v. Fletclier, (1629) Cro. Car, 179 ; Farneham v. Atkins, (1682) 1 Sid. 446 ; and De Francesco v. Barnum., (1889) 43 Ch. D. 165, cited. Gadd v. Thompson . Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 268 Betting Circular. — ■ Circular sent to undergraduate— presumption of knowledge of infancy. See Betting Circular. 1. Building Society. — Borrowing member — Mortgage for advances — Repudiation on attaining twenty-one. See Building- Society. 2. — Power to mortgage for advances— Purchase of land by infant — Lien for purchase- money. See Building Society. 2. DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1225 ) ITXTANT— continued. Company. . — Shares — Transfer to infant nominee — Winding-up — Contributories. See Company — Shares. 27. Compromise. — Guardian ad litem — Appearing in Court in person . See iNPAifT — Guardian ad Litem. 1. 1. — Trustee — ArrangemeM altering trust proxierty for benefit of infants — Cumjiromise — Jurisdiction of Court to approxe — Trust ad- ministration. Henry Wells, who died in 1883, gave his residuary estate to trustees upon trust, to pay certain annuities to his two daughters and other persons for their lives, and, after the death of the last surviving annuitant, for such of the children of his two daughters as should be then living and should attain twenty-one or marry. In 1902 the two daughters, their surviving childi-en, and all other parties interested under the will, executed a deed whereby, subject to the approval of the Court, it was agreed that the trusts of the will should be put an end to, and instead thereof the trustees should hold the property upon trust to purchase Government annuities for the annuitants, and pay the residue to tlie children then living or the trustees of those who had settled their shares, making their interests absolute instead of contingent. Two of the children had executed settlements under which infants were or might become in- terested ; — Held, that the Court had jurisdiction to approve the scheme on behalf of the infants. Peto V. Gardner, (1843) 2 Y. & C. Oh. 312 ; 60 R. E. 166, and Day v. Bay, (184.5) 9 Jur. 785, not followed. In re Wells. Boybe v. Maclean Tarwell J. [1903] W. N. 68 ; [1903] \ Ch. 848 Conditions. — Name and arms clause — Infant. See Settlement. 3. Conversion. — Real estate — Sale by order of Court for costs — Surplus proceeds — Realty or per- sonalty. See Conversion. 2. Corporation. 2. — Memhership — Local Act —Construction — '■'Any person" — Royal Xaral School Act, 1840 (3 Vict. c. Ixxrvi.), s. 3. By an Act of 1840 (3 Vict. c. Ixxxvi.) passed for the establishment and government of an institution called the Royal Naval School, it was provided by s. 3 that " any person " who should pay to the treasurer of the institution the amount therein fixed should be a member of the corporation. One of the defendants, on whose behalE the required subscription had been paid, was an infant and a pupil at the school, and voted at a meeting of the institution at which an important proposal affecting the future of the school was debated. Upon a summons raising ( 1226 ) INFANT (Corporation) — continued. the question whether the expression " any person " included an infant so that he could become a member of the corporation and vote at meetings : — JHeld, that there being nothing in the statute in question to show that the word " person " included an infant, and having regard to the fact that the corporation was formed for the establishment and management of a school, and that every member of the corporation was eligible for appointment to the council of the institution, the Legi.slature could not have intended that the membership of the corporation should include minors ; and the infant, therefore, was not eligible as a member. In re EoYAL Naval School. Seymour v. Royal Naval School Eve J. [1910] W. N. 88 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 806 Costs. — Costs — Next friend — Infant plaintiff's con- tingently entitled — Immediate pay- ment. See Administeation. 5. — Guardian ad litem of infant defendants — Costs— Official solicitor. See Solicitor — Costs. 27. — Next friend — Unsuccessful action. Ser Infant — Next Friend. 1. — Solicitor — Costs — Lien — Compromise Judg- ment — Form of Order. See Solicitor — Costs. 18. Criminal Law. See under CRIMINAL LAW — Infants. Custody. — Child above the age of sixteen — Adultery of mother — Order against child — Wishes of child — Jurisdiction. See Divorce — Custody. 1. 1. — Illegitimate child — 'i'oid contract — Con- tract by mother to gire up possession of child — Contract to relieve motlier of responsibUity for maintenance of child. A contract between the mother of an illegiti- mate child and another person for the transfer to that person of the rights and liabilities of the mother in respect of the child is invalid. HUMPHBYS v. POLAK C. A. [1901] W.N. 128 ; [1901] 2 K. B, 385 2. — Paternity — Evidence — Custody of child. In the case of a child born in wedlock, as to whose paternity questions are raised upon an application as to the child's custody, if the hus- band could, from circumstances of time, place, and health, have had nuptial intercourse with his wife, the mother of the child, and it be not proved that he did not have such intercourse, he must be considered the father of her child, even if she were shown to have committed adultery with any number of men. Sexual intercourse between man and wife must be presumed, and nothing except evidence that the husband did not have such intercourse at the period of conception can bastardize a child born in wedlock. ( 1227 ) DIGEST OF CASES, I9OI— 1910. ( 1228 ) INFANT {Cuaioiy)— continued. Upon the authority o£ Favard v. Favard, (189S) 75 L. T. 664, a writ of attachment and a committal order were directed to be issued, upon the ex parte application of the petitioner, against the respondent, who had taken the child out of the jurisdiction. Goedon t. Goedon AND Granville Gordon Jeime Pres. [1903] P. 141 ]fote. See Gordon t. Gordon, [190i] P. 163. — Practice — Pleading — Paternity — Custody of children. See Divorce — Practice. 27. Belay. — Effect of delay in suing after attaining majority. iS?e Guernsey. 1. Divorce. See under Divorce. Employment. — Employer and workman. See under MASTER AND Servant- Infants. Fmployment of Children Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7. 0. 45), makes better pi'ovision for regulating t/te employment of children. Guardian. — Advowson — Patron — Trustees to present during minority. See Ecclesiastical Law — Advowson. 1. — Infant tenant for life — Trustee. See under Settled Land — Infants. 1. — Practice — Guardian ad litem — Appear- ing in Court in person. In this case one of the defts. was an infant appearing by S., his guardian ad litem. S. had briefed counsel to appear on behalf of the infant, but subsequently withdrew the briefs. He now claimed to be heard in person. S. in person, on the question whether he was entitled to be heard, said that he was not com- petent to argue this question ; and ultimately he undertook to instruct other counsel on behalf of the infant. Kekewich J. said that it had become unneces- sary to decide the very important question which had been raised, but he was strongly of impres- sion that a next friend or guardian ad litem of an infant was not entitled to appear in person on behalf of that infant. Murray v. Sitwbll Kekewich J. [1902] W. N. 119 NoU. This case was followed by Kekewich J., In re Berry, [1903] W. N. 125. See Infant — Guardian ad IMem.. 1. — Step-children — Liability to maintain. See Husband AJfD Wife — Mainten- ance. 3. 2. — Ward of Court — Guardian — Religious education — Welfare of the infant — Religion of father — Change of religious education — Discre- tion of Court — Form 0/ ordei' as to education. INFANT (Gruardian) — continued. By an order of April, 1904, the son and daughter of a Jewish father, then aged respec- tively ten and eight years, were directed to be brought up in their father's religion, and, both parents being dead, were placed in a Jewish household for this purpose. In Mar., 1907, the boy wrote to his guardian that he no longer wished to be educated as a Jew. This letter was sent to the judge, who, after interviews with the boy and further inquiries, came to the conclusion that the welfare of the boy demanded his sanc- tion to a change in his religious education, and he accordingly made an order that both infants should be henceforth brought up in the Christian religion : — Held (affirming Kekewich J. on this point), that it would be morally injurious to the welfare of the boy not to give effect to his wishes, but as there was no evidence to justify any order changing the religious education of the girl, this portion of the order must be varied. In all orders relating to the religious educa- tion of a ward of Court the words " until further order" must, from the nature of the case, be deemed to be inserted. In re W. W. v. M. C. A. [1907] W. N. 204; [1907] 2 Oh. 557 3. — Ward of Court — Testamentary guardian — Guardian's change of religion — Removal of A testator, who died in 1896, by his will appointed his sister guardian of his infant daughter, then aged eleven. The testator was a Protestant, and the infant was brought up in that faith. In 1900 the sister, from conscientious motives, became a Roman Catholic : — Held, that, under the circumstances, it was for the benefit of the infant that the testator's sister should be removed from her guardianship. F. V. P. - Farwell J. [1902] 1 Ch. 688 Guardian ad Litem. 1- — Practice— Infant defendant — Guardian ad litem — Appearing in Court in person— Com- promise. In this action some of the defts. were infants who appeared by their father as guardian ad litem. The pits, now applied to obtain the sanction of the Court to a compromise of the action. The guardian ad litem appeared in person, and claimed to be heard on behalf of the infants on the question of the compromise. Kekewich, J., following the opinion which he had expressed in Murray v. Sitwell, [1902] W. N. 119, held that the guardian ad litem was not entitled to appear in person on behalf of the infants. In re Berry. Berry v. Berry. Kekewich J. [1903] W. N. 126 Heirlooms. — Death of infant tenant in tail without having possession. See Heirlooms. 2. Illegitimacy. See under Illegitimacy —Will— Illegitimacy. ( 1229 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1230 ) IS'SKST—contmued. Interest. 1. — Contingent legacies to son at twenty-five and thirty — Interest ty way of maintenance — General rule — Exception — Share of residue settled in trust for son — Extram'diTiary contin- gency — Son not entitled to interest. By his will the testator bequeathed to each of his sons who should be living at his death and attain or have attained the age of twenty-four years the sum of 5,000Z., and a further sum of 10,0002. to each such son living at his death who should attain or should have attained the age of thirty years. He also bequeathed three fourteenth parts of his net residuary estate in trust for his son Frank, in case and when he attained twenty- one, the said share to be settled upon the usual trusts making Frank the tenant for life with remainder to his children and issue. By a codicil he revoked the legacies of 5,000Z. and the further legacies of 10,000Z. to each son, and, instead, bequeathed to each son of his who should be living at his death and should attain or should have attained the age of twenty-five years the sum of 15,000Z., and a further sum of 15,000Z. to each such son living at his death who should attain or should have attained the age of thirty years. The testator died in Sept., 1909, leaving two sons, the elder of whom had attained twenty-five in Feb., 1909. Frank, the younger, was then only thirteen years of age. The pits., as executors and trustees, took out this summons for the determination (inter alia) of the question whether the above-mentioned legacies to the younger son of 15,0002., and of the further 15,0002., carried interest. Eve J. referred to the statements of the law by James L.J. in Inre George, (1877) 5 Ch. D. 837, 8i3, and by Cozens-Hardy L.J. in In re Bowlby, [1904] 2 Ch. 685, 712, that a contingent legacy given by a father to an infant was an ex- ception to the general rule that a contingent legacy does not carry interest while it is in sus- pense, and that that exception was itself subject to a further exception and did not take effect where the testator had provided another fund for the infant's maintenance, so that the income of the legacy was supposed not to be required for the purpose. Dealing first with the exception to the exception, a precisely similar point had been considered in -Zm re il/oorf^, [1895] 1 Ch. 101, where Kekewich J. had held that the gift of a share of residue to an infant on attaining twenty-one, the income of which was subject to the provisions of s. 43 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, did not create a fund for maintenance such as would lead to the presumption that the income of the legacy was not required for the maintenance of the infant, and was not such a provision of another fund as would bring the case within the exception to the exception. He confessed that he would not have come to the same conclusion himself, but the decision in In re Moody had stood for sixteen years, had been cited before the Court of Appeal, and had not been dissented from in any reported case, and he felt himself bound by it, and accordingly must hold in the present case that the gift of the share of residue did not bring this case within the INFANT (Interest) — continued. exception to the exception to the general rule. Was the case, then, within the exception itself ? From an historical examination of the cases it was clear that the exception had its origin in the desire of the Court to give effect to what the Court presumed must have been the intention of the testator, namely, to provide for the mainten- ance of his child ; and in all the cases cited the contingency had been the attainment of fall age or previous marriage, and there was no case where the exception had been held to apply to any other contingency. He did not think he ought to be the first judge to hold that the ex- ception extended to contingencies outside the attainment of full age. He thought that where the contingency had no reference whatever to the attainment of full age the general rule ought to apply, and the case ought not to be treated as coming within the exception. He therefore held that neither of the legacies carried interest. It had been contended that at least until the legatee attained twenty-one the legacies should carry interest, but he thought it the safer course to hold that this present case was altogether outside the class of case which formed the exception to the general rule. In re Abeahams. Abeahams ■V. Bendon Eve J. [1910] W. N. 237 — Will — Legacy — Interest — Bequest of income to legatee subject to obligation of maintaining infants. See INTBEEST. 2. Maintenance. Youthful Offenders Act, 1901 (1 Bdw. 7, c. 20), amends the law. 1. — Acoumulatiohs — Contingent life interest — Right of accumulations — Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (45 S,- 46 Vict. c. 41), s. 43, suTi-s. 2. A testator gave his residuary property to trustees, upon trust for conversion and to hold a portion of the proceeds upon trust for his children who being sons should attain twenty- five, or being daughters should attain twenty-one or marry, to be divided between them in equal shares, and he directed his trustees to retain the share of each daughter, upon trust to pay the income to her for life, and after her death for her children. Two of the daughters, having attained twenty-one, claimed payment of the accumula- tions of such part of the income in the mean- time of their shares as had not been applied for their maintenance : — Held, that they were the persons who had become ultimately entitled to the property from which the accumulations had arisen within the meaning of s. 43, sub-s. 2, of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, and that the accumulations must be paid to them. Semble, that the meaning of sub-s. 2 is as follows : The trustees shall hold the accumula- tions for the benefit of the person who in the events which happen becomes entitled to the income from the accumulation of which the accumulations arise. In re ScOTT, ScoTT r. Scott - - Buckley J. [1902] W. N. 72 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 818 ( 1231 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1232 ) INFANT (Maintenance) — ormtinved. Note. This case was disapproved by C. A., In re Bowlby, [1904:] 2 Ch. 685. — Allowance for up-keep of family mansion — Subscriptions to local charities. See Settled Land— Infants. 2. — Annuity to widow for benefit of infants — Maintenance and education — Trustee — Death of widow — Annuity continued. See Will— Children. 1. — Contingent life interest — Right to surplus income and accumulations. See Accumulations. 1. — Husband and Wife — Maintenance. See under Husband and Wife — Uaintenance. — Interest by way of maintenance — General rule — Exception. See Infant — Interest. 1. 8. — Proteetion of trustees — Life iTiterest — Defeasible on }>anhr%])tcy — Payment to leneji- claries till forfeiture — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 4- 45 Viet. o. 41), s. 43. A testator directed his trustees to pay the income of his residuary estate to eighteen named persons for life, with a proviso that any life interest should be forfeited on bankruptcy or alienation ; and in this event the trustees were authorized to apply the same for the benefit of the persons so forfeiting the same. The will contained no maintenance clause. One of these eighteen persons was an infant. The trustees now applied for the advice of the Court to know whether they ought to make searches or inquiries to ascertain whether any beneficiary had for- feited his interest, or obtain a statutory declara- tion from each beneficiary before paying him any income ; and, secondly, in the case of the infant beneficiary, whether they might pay his share of this income to his mother and guardian, or otherwise apply it for his maintenance and education : — Held, that, unless the trustees had notice or reasonable cause to suspect that a forfeiture had been incurred, they might safely from time to time pay the income to the adult beneficiaries on a form of receipt stating that no forfeiture had been incurred by the beneficiary giving the same. That as to the income payable to the infant, the trustees, on the authority of 3P Creight V. M'Creight, (1849) 13 Ir. Eq. 314, could pay it to the mother and guardian of the infant, who could give a valid receipt for the same ; and that under s. 43 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, the trustees also had power to apply the income, when it had accrued, for the maintenance and education of the infant. In re LONG. LovB- GEOVB V. Long Byrne J. [1901] W. N. 166 3. — Tenant in tail in remainder — Order sanctioning mortgage of real estate — Remainder- men not parties — Jurisdiction of Court — Vis- entailing deed iy way of mortgage — Trustee Act, 1893 (56 4- 57 Vict. c. 53), ss. 30, 33. The Court has no jurisdiction to authorize a mortgage of the interest of an infant tenant in INFANT (Maintenance) — continued. tail in remainder for the purpose of raising money for his maintenance. ■ In re Samilton, (1886) 31 Ch. D. 291, and Cadman v. Cadman, (1886) 33 Ch. D. 397, followed. In re Howarth, (1873) L. K. 8 Ch. 415, explained and distinguished. Where, therefore, in an action, to which none of the remaindermen were parties, the Court by a first order directed trustees to raise money for the maintenance of an infant tenant in tail in remainder by means of a mortgage of his interest in the settled estate, and by a second order the Court declared that the infant was a trustee of his interest directed to be mortgaged within the meaning of s. 30 of the Trustee Act, 1893, and directed certain persons to convey that interest by way of mortgage to secure the money, and in pursuance of the second order a disentailing deed by way of mortgage was executed : — Held, that the orders were made per incuriam and without jurisdiction, and were therefore of no effect. Seld, also, that the first order, being made without jurisdiction, was not an order directing a mortgage within the meaning of o. 30 of the Trustee Act, 1893, and that the second order, being founded on the first, was equally made without jurisdiction, and the provisions of the Trustee Act, 1893, could not support it. Held, therefore, that, notwithstanding the orders and the mortgage, the land remained limited to the original uses of the settlement. In re Hambrough's Estate. Hambeough v. Hambeough Warrington J. [1909] 2 Ch. 620 — Trustees. See under Teusteb — ^Infauts. 1. — Appointment of trustees — Practice — Management of land during minority — Infant tailing by descent — Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (44 ^ 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 42, sub-s. 1. Sect. 42, sub-s. 1, of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, enabhng the Court to appoint trustees on the application of a guar- dian or next friend of an infant beneficially ehtitled to the possession of any land, applies to the case of an infant taking by descent. In re Glover, [1899] 1 I. E. 337, followed. In re Cowley - Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] 1 Ch. 38 Mortgages. — Building society — Mortgage by infant member invalid — Lien of building society. See Building Society. 2. — Infants. See under Moetgage — Infants. Necessaries. 1. — Actual requirements — Evidence — Onus of proof— Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict, c. 71), s. 2. In an action against an infant for necessaries the onus is on the pit. to prove, not only that the goods supplied were suitable to the condition in ( 1233 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1234 ) INFANT (Necessaries) — continued. life of the infant, but that he was not sufficiently supplied with goods of that class at the time of the sale and delivery. Nash c. Inman C. A. [1908] W. N. 68 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 1 Next Friend. 1. — Vnsiiccessful action — Costs and damages — Indemnity — Declaration. Where an action, properly instituted under the advice of counsel, and conducted with dili- gence and propriety by a next friend in the interest of an infant, has been dismissed with costs and damages to b^ paid by the next friend, the infant will be held bound to indemnify the next friend against such costs and damages, and the costs, charges, and expenses properly in- curred by him on the infant's behalf in relation to such action ; but no declaration of charge in respect of such costs wiU be made upon the infant's property where such property is not being administered by the Court. Stebdbn v. Walden Eve J. [1910] W. N. 182 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 393 Police Courts. — Metropolitan police court — Juvenile Courts. See under LoxDON — Police Courts. Poor Law. — Pauper infant — Maintenance — Right of poor law guardians to recover against pro- perty of infant. See Poor Law. 7. Practice. — Infant defendants — No defence — Motion for judgment — Evidence by affidavit. See Peactice — Infants. 1. Prevention of Cruelty to Children. See under CRIMINAL Law — Cruelty to Children. Probate. — Probate action — Contract by parties that costs shall be paid out of the estate — Illegality — Infant co-contractor. See Contract. 16. Railway. — Railway company — Defective fence — Negli- gence — Turntable — Infant trespasser — Invitation to danger. See Railway— Fences. 1. Eeal Property. — Infancy of claimant. See Limitations, Statutes op. 8. Bestraint of Trade. — Newspaper reporter — Unusual stipulation — Reasonable protection of covenantee. See Restraint of Trade. 7. Seduction. 1. — Children — Girl tinder the age of sixteen years — Encouraging seduction — Children Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 67), s. 17. INFANT (Seduction) — oontiimed. By s. 17 of the Children Act, 1908, it is pro- vided that if any person having the custody, charge, or care of a girl under the age of sixteen years causes or encourages the seduction or prostitution of that girl, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour : — Held, that the word " seduction " in the above enactment means inducing a. girl to surrender her chastity for the first time. Therefore where a father having the custody of his daughter, a girl under the age of sixteen years who had already been seduced, subsequently encouraged an illicit intercourse between the girl and her seducer : — Held, that he did not thereby encourage the seduction of the girl within the meaning of the enactment. Rex r. Fkedbriok Moon ; Rex r. Emily Moon C. C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 818 Settled Land. See under Settled Land — Infants. Settlement. — Settlement. See under Settlement. Vesting Orders. 1. — Vesting order — Practice — Infant — Stocli in name of infant and another to which infant is entitled— Trustee Act, 1893 (56 S,' 57 Vict. c. 53), •s. 35, sub-s. 1 (ii.) {ti)— Infants Property Act, 1830 (11 Geo. i 4' 1 WiU. i, c. 65), o-. 32— Form of order. Where stock to which an infant was bene- ficially entitled had been invested in the joint names of himself and another person t — Held (reversing the decision of Joyce J.), that the Court had jurisdiction under s. 35, sub-s. 1 (ii.) (a), of the Trustee Act, 1893, not- withstanding some slight difference in the language of this section ajid sub-sections as compared with s. 3 of the Trustee Extension Act, 1852, to make an order vesting the right to transfer such stock in the infant's guardian. Per Farwell L.J. : The words " (ii.) Where a trustee entitled alone or jointly with another person to stock or to a chose in action — (o) is an infant," apply to a case where one of the trustees is an infant and the stock is held in trust for the infant. In re Harwood, (1882) 20 Ch. D. 536, and In re Sarnett's Extate, [1889] W. N. 216, approved. In re Dehaynin (Infants) - C. A. [1909] "W. N. 251 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 223 — Will— Children. See under Will — Children. Workmen's Compensation. See under MASTER AND SERVANT — Infants. Youthful Offenders. See under Criminal Law- Offenders. -Youthful ( 1235 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1236 ) INFECTIOUS HOSPITAL. See under Hospital. Order in Council enscluding the Jurisdiction of the Salford Hundred Court in certain cases. Reprint from W. N. [1909J (June 26), p. 259. See CuBKBNT Index, 1909, p. cxxii. INFLUENCE — Gift — Person in fiduciary relation. See under FiDUOiART Relation. IN FOEMA PAUPERIS— Appeal— Opinion of counsel. See Appeal. 14. — Appeal — Security for costs. See Appeal. 13. — -Married woman— Leave to sue — AiSdavit by husband. See Husband and Wife — Poor Law. 1. INFOSMATION- Dismissal of— Case stated on application of informant — " Either party to the proceeding." See Justices. 6. — Execution of work in contravention of by-law — Continuing offence. See Local Govebnijent. 16. — Factory — Fencing of machinery— Offence — Limitation of time for laying informa- tion. See Factoby. 3, i. — Hearing of information — Practice. See Justices. 18. INFOKMEE — Discretion to deprive, of portion of penalty. See Justices. 16. INFEINGEMENT — By-laws — Injunction — Special remedy — Streets. See Local Govebntsibnt. 3. — Copyright. See under CoPYBIGHT. — Design. See under Design. — ■ Patent. See under Patent. — Trade-mark. See under Teade-maek. ' INHABITANT " — Rating — " Occupier." See Rates. 15. ' House " INHABITED HOUSE DUTY — Income tax Premises let on lease. See Revenue — Income Tax. 20. ■ Inland Revenue. See under Rbvenue- -House Duty. INHERITANCE- No words of— Real estate- Limitations — Equitable estate in fee. See Settlement. 34. 1. — Moot of desoent—'' Purc/uiser "—Devise to testator's ^^ right heirs" Co-heiresses — Joint INHEEITANCE— co«ii»Kerf. tenancy or co-parcenary — Inheritance Act, 1833 (3^4 Will. 4, c. 106), s. B. Under a devise to or in trust for a testator's " right heirs," the person who at the time of the testator's death is his heir-at-law takes now, by virtue of s. 3 of the Inheritance Act, 1833, as devisee, and not by descent as before the Act. The word "heir" in that section includes " heirs." And s. 3 operates also to alter the quality of the estate taken by the heir ; so that; if a testator leaves co-heiresses, they, under such a devise, take as joint tenants, not as bo-parceners. Decision of Farwell J. affirmed. Re Baker, (1898) 79 L. T. 343, approved. Owen v. Gibbons C. A. [1902] W. N. 43; [1902] 1 Ch. 636 Words of inheritance — Absence of. See PowEB OF Appointment. 28. INHIBITION — Churchwarden, admission oE ^- Archdeacon, Duty of — Power of bishop to inhibit. See Ecclesiastical Law — Church- wardens. 1. INJUNCTION— Ancient lights. See under LIGHT AND AlB. — - Breach of injunction — Motion — Conflicting affidavits. See Attachment. 2. — Brewer's lease — Breach of covenant — Injunc- tion at suit of assignee. See Landloed and Tenant. 21. — Building scheme — Alteration of character of neighbourhood — Acquiescence in breaches — Covenant. See Buildings. 4. — Burial Acts. See under BUEIAL. — By-laws — Infringement — Injunction — Special remedy — Streets. See Local Govbenmbnt. 3. — Clock, Erection of, affixed to outside of house. See Landlobd and Tenant. 7. — Club — Alteration of rules — Raising subscrip- tion — Expulsion of member. See Club. 1. — Company. See under Company. — Consent — Motion for interlocutory order — Written consent to judgment. • See Consent. 1. — Conspiracy — Wrongful acts — Injury. See Conspiracy. 6. — Contract for benefit of infant — Restraint of trade — Severable stipulations. See Master and Seevant — Infant. 3. — Contract. See under Contract. ( 1237 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1238 ) VilJVSCTlOS-~contmued. — Copyright. See under COPJBIGHT. — Corporation. See under CORPOBATION. — Corporation — Parties — Attorney-General, Suing by. See Gas. 2. — Costs — " Action founded on tort " — Judgment for nominal damages and injunction. See Costs. 76. — County court — Costs — Scale— Claim for in- junction. See County Coukt — Costs. 9. — County court — Jurisdiction — Claim for in- junction only. See County Court — Jurisdiction. 3. — Covenant not to assign a lease without consent of lessor. .s'c« Australia. 9. — Dentist — Use of word " dentist " — Deceiving public. See Dentist. 1. — Ejectment — Mortgage — Power of attorney. See Turks and Caigos Islands. — Electric lighting. See under Electric Light. — Ferry. See under Ferry. — Foreshore — Crown, Eights of — Encroachment — Adverse possession. Title by. See Seashore. 2. — Hotel — Early morning building operations — Noise. See Nuisance. 7. — Interlocutory — Undertaking. See Peacticb — Undertakings. 2. — Jurisdiction of Divorce Court — Slarried woman — Title of honour. See Husband and Wife — Title of Honour. 1. — Jurisdiction of High Court o£ Justice. See Practice — Motion for Judgment. 3. — Landlord and tenant. iSfee under Landlord and Tenant. — Letters —Biography — Authority to write — Use of information contained in letters. See Letters. 1. — Libel in newspaper — Writ — Service out of jurisdiction — Judicial discretion. See Practice— Service. 5. — Light and air. See under Light and Air. — Liquidated damages — Election. See Principal and Agent. 1. — Liverpool Sanitary Amendment Act, 1864 — Demolition of buildings — " Court " — Public authorities protection. See Local Government. 2. INJUNCTION- — Locomotive — Traction engine — Nuisance — Interim injunction. See Highway. 16. — Mandatory injunction — Restrictive covenants — " Offensive " trade or business " — Bill- posting — Advertisment hoarding. See Building Estate. 1. — Market rights. See under Market. — Mines — Overlying and underlying seams of coal — Right to support — Subsidence. See Mines. 10. — Name — Company. See under Company — Name. — Name — Dnauthorized use of. See under NAME. — Nuisance. See under Nuisance. — Partnership. See under Partnership. — Patent law. See under Patent. — Patented chattel — Sale under distrest for rent — Right of purchaser to use the same. See Distress. 16. 1. — Practice — Ex parte injunction — Equit- able execution — Receiver — B,. S. C, Order L., r. 15 (o), App. £., Form No. 61 (a). Where on the issue of a summons for the appointment of a receiver of property by way of equitable execution an order was made ex parte in the form App. K, No. 61 (a), for an injunction to restrain the judgment debtors from dealing with the property until after the hearing of the application : — Held, that the injunction ought not to be granted in the absence of anything to shew that there was danger of the property being made away with by the judgment debtors before the hearing of the application for a receiver. Lloyd's Bank, Ld. v. Medway Upper Navi- gation Co. C. A. [1905] "W. N. 102 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 359 2. — Practice — Motion hy defendant before pleading — Mandatory interlocutory injunction against plai)diff — Order to dolirer up possession of a house. Per Buckley J. : A deft, may before deliver- ing a counter-claim apply by motion for an in- junction against the pit. if he and the pit. are both suing upon the same contract. An interlocutory injunction was, on the deft.'s motion, granted to restrain the pit. from interfering with or disturbing the deft, in his possession and occupation of a house. Spurgin v. White, (1860) 2 Giff, 478, fol- lowed. Decision of Buckley J., [1901] W. N. .5.5, affirmed. Collison v. Warren C. A. [1901] W. N. 65; [1901] 1 Ch. 812 — Railway company — Parliamentary deposit — Agreement — Breach. See Railway — Deposits. 2. ( 1239 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1240 ) INJUNCTION— cOM^iMMfirf. — • Railway company — Statutory powers — Un- reasonable use. See Railway — Powers. 3. — Receiver, Interference with possession of — Proceedings in other Courts — Juris- diction. See Rbcbivbe. 8. — Restraint of trade. See under Restraint of Trade. — Restrictive covenants — Building scheme — Rights of purchasers inter se. See Vbndoe and Purchaser — Cove- nants. 1. — Sanitary conveniences— Misuse of. See under London — Conveniences. — Sewage nuisance — Practice — Execution — Enforcing order against corporation — Writ of sequestration. See Sequestration. 2. — Sewers. See under London — Sewers. Sewebs. — Solicitor — Restraint on trade. See under SOLICITOR — Eestraint on Trade. — Specific performance. See under Specific Perfoemanoe. — Stream— Pollution of. See under Stream. — Streets. See under LONDON— Streets. Streets. — Timber — Contract for purchase of, to he cut and removed by purchaser— Mutuality. See Specific Performance. — Timber— " Planted or left for ornament or shelter — Evidence. See Waste. 1. — Trade mark. See under Trade Mark. — Trade name. See under Trade Name. — Trade — Restraint of. See under RESTRAINT OF Trade, — Trade union. See under Trade Union. — Transfer of stock. See Practice — Motions. 2. — Trespass. See under Trespass. — Undertaking. See under Practice — Uudertakingrs. — Veterinary surgeon. See under Veterinary Sueqeon. — Waste, Equitable— Ornamental timber — Evi- dence. See Waste. 1. — Water and waterworks. See under Water ISJVTSC'nOTS— continued. — Water from river, Diversion of — Canal com- pany — Statutory powers. See Canals. 1. — Watercourse. See under STREAM . — Way, Right of. See under Way, Right of. INJURED ANIMALS ACT, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 6). See under Animals. INJURY — Conspiracy — Wrongful acts — Injunc- tion. See CONSPIEAOY. 6. — Workmen's Compensation Act. See under Master and Servant. INLAND REVENUE. See under Revenue. INN — Intoxicating Liquors [Sale to Children') Act, 1901 (1 Mdw. 7, c. 27), prerents the sale of intoxicating liquors to children. — Betting, Place used for — Bar of public- house. See Gaming. 17. — Brewer's lease. See under Landlord and Tenant. — False imprisonment — Manager. See Master and Servant — False Im- prisonment. 1. — Forfeiture — Relief of underlessee against — Rent — Tied house — Discretion of Court. See Landloed and Tenant. 39. — Hotel. See under Hotel. — Innkeeper. See under Innkbepeb. — Lands compulsorily taken — Compensation — Tied house. See Housing op Woeking Classes. 2. — Licences in peril — Appointment of receiver — Delivery of possession. See Receiver. 11, 12. — Licensing Acts. See under Licensing Acts. — Mortgage — " Clog " on redemption — "Tied " public-house. <9ee Mortgage— Redemption. 6. — Re-entry on liquidation — Lease — Forfeiture — Solvent company. See Landlord aotj Tenant. 75. — Sale of intoxicating liqours to children. See under Ceimimal Law — Intoxicat- ing Liqnors. — " Tied " public-house—" Clog " on redemption. See Mortgage — Redemption. 6. INN OP CHANCERY— Study of the law— Failure of object — Disposition of property. See Charity. 23. ( 1241 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1242 ) INNKEEPER— Hotel. See under Hotel. — Inn. See under iNN. 1. — Liaiility nf, for goods deposited " ex- pressly for safe custody " — Innlieepers'' LiaHlUy Act, 1863 (26 4- 27 Vict. c. 41), s. 1. By the Innkeepers' Liability Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 41), s. 1, " No innliieeper shall be liable to make good to any guest of such innkeeper any loss of ... . goods or property brought to his inn .... to a greater amount than the sum of SOI. except in the following cases : (1.) Where such goods or property shall have been stolen .... through the wilful act, default or neglect of such innkeeper or any servant in his employ. (2.) Where such goods or property shall have been deposited expressly for safe custody with such innkeeper" : — Seld (affirming the decision of the Extra or Third Division of the Court of Session, Lord CoUins dissenting, (1908) S. C. 218), that to con- stitute an express deposit for safe custody within sub-s. 2 it must be proved that something was said or done by the guest whose property the goods were that would convey to the innkeeper the fact that the goods were being deposited with him for safe custody ; and that the innkeeper received them into his charge with the intention of making himself liable for their safety. White- house n. K. & W. Pickett. - H. L (Se.) [1908] W. N. 1S8 ; [1908] A. C. 357 2. — Ohlicjation to lodge traveller — Shelter and accommodation for the night — Demand of traxeller to pass night inpuhlio room of inn when tedrooms full. If all the bedrooms of an inn be full, the inn- keeper is under no obligation at common law to provide a traveller with shelter and accommoda- tion for the night, although the coffee-room be unoccupied and the traveller demands to be allowed to pass the night there. Beownk r. Beandt - Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 696 3. — Traveller — Cost, of accommodation de- frayed iy another person — Iioss of property — Cfuest — Customary liability of innkeeper. Where a traveller is provided with accommo- dation and refreshment in an inn, the fact that the expenses thereof are by agreement between the innkeeper and another person to be paid for by that other person does not prevent the relation of innkeeper and guest from arising, and the innkeeper, therefore, incurs the cus- tomary liability for the sate custody of the traveller's goods in the inn. Wright r. AUDBETON Div. Ct. [1908] W. N. 258 ; [1909] 1 K. B, 209 INNOCENT POSSESSION—" Concealed fraud " — Third party. See Limitations, Statute of. 7. INNOCENT PTTECHASEK — Infringement of patent — Exposing for sale — "Using and vending " the invention. See Patent — Infringement. 2. INNUENDO— Discovery — Interrogatories — Libel — Interrogatory as to meaning in which defendant used words — Practice. See DISCOVEBY. 12. I'S'SV'ES'DO— continued. — Slander — Words actionable per se — Criminal offence — Punishment — Liability to summary arrest. See Defamation — Slander. 6. INQUISITION- Eight of lunatic to traverse — Discretion of judge in lunancy. See Lunacy. 10. INSANITARY HOUSE— Negligence of landlord — Eight of wife and children of tenant to claim damages for illness. See Landlokd and Tenant. 43. INSANITY. See under Lunatic. INSCRIPTION — On tombstone in parish church- yard — Control of incumbent. See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 21. INSECTS AND 'S'&SXi—Destructire Insects and Pests Order, June 18, 1908. St. R. & 0., 1908, No. 494. Price Id. The Destructire Insects and Pests Order May 3, 1910. St. R. & 0., 1910, No. 467. Price Id. — Damage by insects — Construction of police — Liability of underwriter. See Insueancb (Maeine). 19. INSOLVENCY. See under Bankruptcy. — Contribution — Insolvent estate — Will. See Will — Contribution. 1. — Debtor — Cause of action. See Canada — Practice. 1. — Distribution of insolvent estates — Landlord's privilege — Law of Quebec. Ses Canada — Insolvent Estates. 1. — Eetaiuer — Judgment creditor — Judgment against executor — Subsequent adminis- tration decree. See Executor — Retainer. 6. — Eetainer — Loan by wife to husband — Wife appointed executrix of husband. See Executor — Retainer. 7. — Eetainer — Right of — Claim of trustees of settlement — Insolvent estate. See Executoe — Retainer. 5. - Slander — Words not actionable per se — Im- putation of insolvency against solicitor. See Defamation — Slander. 7. - Unregistered friendly society — Jurisdiction to wind up — Benefit society. See Feiendly Society. 3. - Voluntary debt — Creditors — Priorities — Bank- ruptcy rule — Administration — Insolvent estate. See Executoe — Administration. 3. ( 1243 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 12W ) INSOLVENT PLAINTIFF— Security for costs- Trustee of deed of assignment. See Costs. 55. INSPECTION— Banlcruptoy. See under BANKRnPTCY— Books. — Books and accounts — Right of partner to inspect — Inspection by agent. See Partnership. 1. — Company — Register of members — Right to take copies. See Company — Register. 1. — Deceit — Action of — Probability of deception — View by judge — Practice. See Trade-mark. 1, 2. — Discovery. See under DISCOVERY. — Ship — ConstructiTe total loss — Practice — Order to bring within jurisdiction. See Shipping — Practice. 14. — Trade union — Books and accounts — Right to employ agent to inspect. See Trade Union". 2. INSTALMENTS— Annuity— Settled estate— Past and future instalments. See Annuity, 12. — Debt due from beneficiary to testator payable by instalments — Right of executors to retain share to answer debt. See Administration. 32. — Income tax — Annuity — Sale of railway — Purchase-money — Payment by annual instalments with interest. See Revenue — Income Tax. 4. — Payment by instalments, Order for — Judg- ^ ment debt — Execution — Necessity for leave — Practice. See Execution. 2. — Payment by instalments — Bill of sale — Con- struction of statutory form. See Bill of Sale. 4. — Repayment by instalments — Form in schedule, Deviation from. See Bill op Sale. 7. — Stamp — Sale of goods. Agreement for — Price to be paid by instalments — Liability to ad valorem stamp duty. See Revenue — Stamps. 26. ■ — Will — Direction to set apart and pay by instalments on legatee's attaining specified ages — Vesting. See Will — Legacy. 2. — Will — Latent ambiguity — Name — Misde- scription — Extrinsic, evidence — Admis- sibility. See Will — Name. 1. INSTITUTE— General charitable intention— Use for purposes not strictly charitable. See Charity. 24. INSURANCE. (In General.) Order, June 6, 1910, makmff Rules and Regu- latiom and prescribing forms imder the Assurance Companies Act, 1909. St. R. & 0., 1910, No. 566. Price \^d. — Accident. See under iNSURAifOE (Accident). — Burglary. See under Insurance (BueglabY). — Capture. See under Insurance (Capture). — Contract by seller to insure cattle " against all risks "- — Liability of seller. See Sale op Goods. 9. — Contract of — Limitations clause imported from original policy — Construction. See Canada — Insurance. 1. — Employers' liability. See under Insurance (Employees' Liability). — Fire insurance. See under Insurance (Pieb). — Inhabited house duty — Exemptions — ' ' Pro- fit " — Mutual insurance society. See Revenue — House Duty. 1. — Life insurance. See under Insurance (Life). — Marine insurance. See under INSUEANCE (Marine). — Mortgage debt — Mortgage insurance policy — Indemnity — Guarantee — Co-suretyship — Contribution. See Principal and Surety, 3. — Professional insurance. See under Insurance (Professional). 1. — Public policy — Insurance of products of mine in foreign country — Declaration of war — Seizure by enemy's Government of things insured — Validity of insurance. The pits, were registered as a joint stock co. in Natal, their only property being a gold mine owned and worked by them in the Transvaal. Before Oct., 1899, when war was declared between the Transvaal Republic and this country, the pits, had effected with the deft., a British subject, a policy of insurance of certain gold products of their mine, the perils insured against including " enemies," and " arrests, restraints, and detain- ments of kings, princes, and people." A few days after war was declared the agents of the Transvaal Government seized and carried away some of the gold products insured. The pits, had ■ shut down their mine when war was declared, and there was nothing to shew that they intended to continue their business or mining operations in the Transvaal afterwards. In an action on the policy to recover in respect of the gold products so seized : — Held, that there was no ground of public policy which prevented the policy of insurance from continuing in force after war was declared, and therefore that the pits, were entitled to recover. Nigel Gold Mining Co. v. Hoadb Mathew J. [1901] 2 K. B. 849 ( 1245 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1246 ) INSURANCE— co«fm«e(Z. Nate. See also Brief ontein Consolidated Gold Mines, Zd.,Y. Janson, H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 484. See Insurance — Capture. 1. — Securities— Contract whether of suretyship or insurance — Co-sureties. See Pkincipal and Subett. 3, — Workmen's compensation — Appeal — Eefusal to order payment by insurers into savings bank. See Master and Servant. — Practice. 3. INSTIKANCE (ACCIDENT)—" Accidentalmeans" — Policy — Comtruction — Injury caused by " fio- lent, accir/ental, external and rlsiMe meam " — Death from heart failure brmigM on by physical exertion. A policy of insurance provided for the pay- ment of a sum by the insurers in caste the assured should " sustain any bodily injury caused by violent, accidental, external and visible means," and the injury so sustained should be " the sole and immediate cause of death of the assured " within three months of the occurrence of the accident. The assured died on Jan. 25, 1904, whilst the policy was in force, the following circumstances having led up to his death : On the morning of Dec. 26, 1903, he was in the apparent enjoyment of good health and able to discharge the duties of his employment, which were duties requiring some bodily activity. In fact, however, on that day and for a considerable time prior thereto his heart was in a weak and unhealthy condition, although he did not know that fact. During the morning of Dec. 26, being apparently in his usual state of health, he attempted to eject a drunken man from his master's premises, using some physical exertion for that purpose for pushing or pulling in order to overcome the man's passive resistance. The effect of this physical exertion was to cause a strain on the assured's heart, and the increased work of the heart under this strain rendered it, owing to its weak and unhealthy state, incapable of recovering its ordinary condition when the immediate strain ceased, the consequence being that the heart began to dilate, and the dilatation so set up was the cause of death. But for his exertions in attempting to eject the drunken man the assured might have lived a considerable time longer. A claim to receive the policy moneys having been made by the assured's personal representative : — Held, that the injury which resulted in the death of the assured was not caused by " acci- dental means" within the meaning of policy, and the insurers were therefore not liable. In. re ScAEE AND General Accident Assurance Corporation, Ld. Bray J. [1905] 1 K. B. 387 2. — Condition in 2Jolicy — Claim to he made within a year of registration. In a copy of Letts's Diary for the year 1906, of which the respondent's husband was owner, there was a coupon policy of insurance which stated that a thousand pounds would be paid to INSURANCE (ACCmi.'ST)— continued. the executors of any owner of the diary fatally injured in a ry. accident if he had caused his name to be registered at the head office of the appellants, an insurunce co., and if the claim was made within twelve months of the registra- tion. The respondent's husband filled up the form of application for registration by inserting his name and address and the date, Dec. 25, 1905, and forwarded it to the appellants' oflSce. The appellants kept no register, but date stamped and filed the applications. The respondent's husband received a letter from the appellants, dated Jan. 3, 1906, enclosing an oiEcial acknow- ledgment dated Dec. 29, 1905, of the registra- tion of his name as being insured against acci- dents in the terms of the coupon. He was injured in a ry. accident on Dec. 28, 1906, and died the next day. The respondent, his executor, gave notice of the claim on Jan. 2, 1907. The appellants denied liability, on the ground that the date of registration was Dec. 27, 1905, and that the Insurance ended on Dec. 27, 1906 : — Seld (affirming the decision of the Ct. of Sess., (1909) S. C. 344), that the twelve months within which the claim must be made had not expired when the claim was made, Jan. 2, 1907, for, there being no regular register, the date of registration must be taken to be the date when the bundle of applications, containing that of the deceased, were arranged alphabetically and filed ; and that, in the absence of any definite proof of this date, it must be held, as against the respondents, to be Jan. 3, 1906, the date of the letter containing an official acknowledgment of the registration, and that the claim was accordingly made within the prescribed period. General Accident, Fire and Life Assde- ANCB Corporation v. Robertson or Hunter H. L. (So.) [1909] W. N. 163 ; [1909] A. C. 404 3. — Condition in policy — Immediate mtice of accident — Omission to give notice — Insurer's liability. A policy of insurance covering the liability of an employer to compensate his workmen for injuries by accident in the course of their em- ployment was made subject to a condition that the employer should give immediate notice of any accident causing injury to a workman, and to a further condition that the observance and performance by the employer of the times and terms set out in the policy, so far as they con- tained anything to be done by the employer, were the essence of the contract. On Dec. 28, 1904, the employer signed a proposal form for the insurance and received a covering note, to which no conditions were attached. On Jan. 3, 1905, the insurers sealed, and on Jan. 9 delivered to the employer, the policy in question, which expressed that it was to be in force from Jan. 1, 1906, to Jan. 1 in the following year. On Jan. 2, 1905, a work- man in the employ of the assm-ed was injured by an accident which was believed to be slight, and of which notice was not given at the time to the insurers. Dangerous symptoms super- vened, and the injured workman died on ( 1247 ) DIGEST 01'' CASES, 1901— I9l0. ( 1248 ) INSURANCE (ACCIDENT)— c'o/.'/i'rtfjerf. Mar. 15 ; notice of the accident was given by the employer to the insurers on Mar. 14, the day before the workman's death. The insurers repudiated all liability under the policy, on the ground (among others) that immediate notice of the accident was not given by the employer in accordance with the condition in the policy, and that the condition was a condition precedent to the right of the employer to recover. A claim for compensation by the widow was properly settled by the employer for a reasonable sum, and the claim of the latter against the insurers was referred to an arbitrator under the arbitra- tion clause in the policy. The arbitrator held that the condition as to giving immediate notice of injury was a condition precedent, but stated his award in the form of a special case for the opinion of the Court, which reversed the arbitra- tor's decision. Upon appeal by the insurera : — Held, by Vaughan Williams L.J. and Buckley L.J. (B'letcher Moulton L.J. dissent- ing), that, in the absence of evidence that the employer either knew of, or had the opportunity of knowing of, the existence of the condition at the date of the accident, the condition was one with which it was impossible to comply ; that, as regards a risk which resulted in a claim before the insured had knowledge of the condition, the true inference was that the insurers never im- posed the condition on the employer, and that the latter was therefore entitled to recover on the policy. Qiuere, whether upon the construction of the policy as a whole, apart from the particular circumstances, the condition was a condition precedent. In re Coleman's Dbpositobies, Ld. and Life and Health Assurance Association C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 798 4. — Death caused iy accident — Tntercenlng cause — Disease directly caused by accident. By the terms of a policy an accident insurance CO. undertook, if, at any time dm'ing the con- tinuance of the said policy, the insured should sustain any bodily injury caused by violent, accidental, external, and visible means, then, in case such injury should, within three calendar months from the occurrence of the accident causing such injury, directly cause the death of the insured, to pay to the legal personal repre- sentatives of the insured the capital sura of lOOOi. The policy contained the following proviso : — " Provided always and it is hereby as the essence of the contract agreed as follows : That this policy only insures against death where accident within tlie meaning of the policy is the direct or proximate cause thereof, but not where the direct or proximate cause thereof is disease or other intervening cause, even although the disease or other intervening cause may itself have been aggravated by such accident, or have been due to weakness or exhaustion con- sequent thereon, or the death accelerated thereby." The assured, while hunting, had a heavy fall, and, the ground being very wet, he was wetted to the skin. The effect of the shock and the wetting was to lower the vitality of his system, and being obliged to ride home afterwards, D.D, INSURANCE (ACCIDENT)- c»«i while wet, still further lowered his vitality. The effect of this lowering of bis vitality was to cause the subsequent development of pneumonia in his lungs of which he died. The pneumonia was not septic or traumatic, but arose as a direct and natural consequence from the fact that the diminution of vitality caused through the accident as above mentioned, allowed the germs called " pneumococci," which in small numbers are generally present in the respiratory passages, to multiply greatly and attack the lungs : — Held, affirming the judgment of Channell J., that the death of the assured was directly caused by accident within the meaning of the policy, and that the case did not come within the proviso therein, and the co. were consequently liable on the policy. In re ETHBEiNaTON AND Lancashire and Yorkshire Accident Insurance Co. C A. [1909] W. N. 35 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 591 of 5. — "Intervening cause " — Constru policy. A person insured himself with the def ts. under a policy whereby the defts. agreed to pay him a certain sum in case he should be injured by accidental violence and should die within three months of its occurrence, if the injury should be the " direct and sole cause" of his death. The policy was subject to the condition that it should not apply to " death .... caused by or arising wholly or in part from" any "intervening cause." The assured on July 2 accidentally inflicted a wound on his leg with his thumb-nail. His leg became infiamed.and on July 2 erysipelas had set in. This was followed on July 12 by septicaimia, and on July 16 by septic pneumonia, of which complaint he died on July 22. It was conceded by the defts. that the septic germs, the development of which resulted in the man's death, were introduced into his system at the time of the infliction of the wound : — Held, that the erysipelas, septicaemia, and septic pneumonia were not " intervening causes " within the meaning of the policy, but merely different stages in the development of the septic condition which was immediately brought about by the introduction of the poison, and that the man's death was directly and solely caused by the accidental injury to his leg. Mardorf t. Accident Insurance Co. - Wright J. [1903] W. H. 42; [1903] 1 K. B. 584 6. — Prinuipal and agent — lUisstatements in jjroposal made by agent of insurers imthout know- ledge of insured — Authority of agent. A policy of insurance against accidental injury was effected with an insurance co. through their local agent. The proposal form was filled up by the agent, many of the answers filled in by him being false in material respects ; the false answers were inserted without the knowledge or authority of the applicant, who signed the proposal form without reading it. The proposal contained a declaration in which the applicant agreed that the statements in the proposal should form the basis of the policy, and the policy contained a proviso that it was granted on' the express con- dition of the truthfulness of the statements in SS ( 1249 ) DIGEST Of CASES, 1901—1910. ( 12.->0 ) INSURANCE (ACClH-ETXTy-coMiimed. the proposal. Shortly after payment of the premium the insured was accidentally injured : — Held, first, that it was the duty of the appli- cant to read the answers in the proposal before signing it, and that he must be taken to hare read and adopted them ; and, secondly, that in filling in the false answers in the proposal the agent was acting, not as the agent of the insur- ance CO., but as the agent of the applicant ; and that therefore the policy was void. Biggae v. EocK Life Assurance Co. - Wright J. [1902] 1 K. B. 516 INSURANCE (^■V&Gil.hS.Y)— Theft— Exception — Theft ly memter of business staff — Burglary volicy. The pits., who were jewellers in the Strand, insured their stock of jewellery at Lloyd's against burglary and theft. The policy stated that the pits, had paid to the defts. a certain premium to insure them from loss — damage by theft or robbery, ivith or without violence, or burglary of the property therein specified or any part thereof from the pits.' premises during the period therein mentioned, " Provided always that there shall be no claim on this policy .... for loss by theft, robbery, or misappropriation by members of the assured's household, business staff or other inmates of the insured premises." On a certain day in Jan., 1910, a member of the pits.' business staff, in pursuance of a precon- ceived scheme, admitted to the premises one of a gang of thieves. He then locked up the premises, as it was his duty to do, and departed, leaving the thief within, and the thief, with other confederates, afterwards cleared the pre- mises of goods to the value of 1200Z. The pits.' servant subsequently shared in the plunder. The pits, brought an action on the policy. Walton J. ([1910] W. N. 147) held that the servant was an accessory before the fact, but that, whether he was an accessory before the fact or a principal in the second degree, the theft was a theft by him, and therefore the proviso applied and the defts. were exempt from liability. The 0. A. dismissed the appeal, and held that the proviso applied upon the ground that the servant was guilty of theft as a principal. Saqui & La WHENCE i\ Stearns - - C. A. [1910] W. N. 267 INSURANCE (CAPTURE). — Property of alien enemy. See Insurance (Marine). 1. 1. — Property of alien enemy — Loss before Icgimiimg of war — Intention to wage war — Seizure hy enemy's Government of property of its own subject — VulidUy of insurance — Public jiolicy. Where a subject of a foreign Government insures treasure with British underwriters against capture during its transit from the foreign State to this country, and ihe foreign Government seizes the treasure during the transit, and war is afterwards declared between the foreign and the British Governments, the insurance is valid, and an action may be maintained in this country against the underwriters after the restoration of peace, though the seizure is made in contempla- INSURANCE (CASTVU^)— continued. lion of war, and in oi'der to use the treasure in support of the war. The important date is the seizure before the declaration of war. Such an insurance is not against public policy. Public policy is not a safe or trustworthy ground for legal decision. , The decision of C. A. [1901] W. N. 134 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 419, affirmed. Janson r. Deibfontein Consolidated Mines, Ld. H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 187; [1902] A. C. 484 Mte. See Nigel Gold Mining Co. v. Hoade, [1901]^ 2 K. B. 849 ; Insurance (in General). 1. Ses Bobinson Gold Mining Co. v. Alliance Insurance Co., [1904] A. C. .859 ; Insurance (Marine). 1. INSURANCE (EMPIO'XEBS' LIABILITY). The Employers' Liability Insurance Cirni- panies (Adaptation of Enactments) Order, 1907. St. B. & 0. 1907, No. 838. Price \^d. Rules dated Jan. 17, 1908, made by the Board of Trade under the Employers' Liability Intur- aiice Companies Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, r. 46), as to ileposits made by members of Lloyd's. St. R. & 0. 1908, No. 1187. With respect to deposits by Employers' Liability Insurance Companies. St. R, & 0. 1908, No. 1188, L. 86. 1. — Company's obligation to deposit money in Court — Company registered in Ireland. — Petition for investment — > Court having jurisdiction — Securities authorized hy Irish but not by English Court — Enqiloyers' Liability Insurance Com- panies Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 46), s. 1 — Employers' Liability Insurance Companies (^Adaptation of Enactments') Order, 1907. The CO. was incorporated in 1902 as a co. limited by shares, under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1900, having amongst its objects the carrying on the business of fire insurance and all other kinds of insurance (except insurance upon human life within the meaning of the Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870), but including all kinds of guarantee and indemnity business. The registered office of the co . was in Ireland. By an extraordinary resolution passed in May, 1908, the co. resolved to carry on, in addition to its existing business, the business of insuring employers against liability to pay com- pensation or damages to workmen in their employment, bringing itself expressly within the Employers' Liability Insurance Companies Act, 1907, which applies whether the co. was established before or after the passing of the Act. By the joint effect of the Act of 1907 and an 0. in C. made Nov. 2, 1907 (Statutory Rules and Orders, 1907, No. 838), which incorporated, with modifications, the Life Assurance Companies Acts, 1870 and 1872, the CO. had " to deposit the sum of 20,0002. with the Postmaster-General for the time being for and on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature, to be invested by him under the direction of the Court in one of the securities usually accepted by the Court for the investment of funds placed ( 1251 ) BIfrEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1252 ) INSURANCE (EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY) irom time to time under its administration, the CO. electing the particular security," and the term " Court " was to mean, as to a co. registered in England, the Clianoery Division of the High Court, and as to a co registered in Ireland, the Chancery Division of the High Court in Ireland. There being no such official in Ireland as the Paymaster-General of the Supreme Court of Judicature, the co. in June, 1908, deposited with the Paymaster-General in England the sum of 20,OOOZ! The C. A. in Ireland ordered that the 20,000Z. should be invested in certain securities, some of which were not accepted by the Chancery Division in England for the invest- ment of funds under its administration, although they were recognized by the Irish Courts as proper investments, and the Assistant-Pay- master-General in England refused to act on the Irish order, and said that he could only recog- nize an order of the High Court in England. The CO. accordingly petitioned for the invest- ment of the 20,0002. in the securities sanctioned by the Irish C. A. Parker J. held that the definition clause of the 0. in C. must, as regarded the term " Court," be construed, as was usual in such cases, as being subject to the words " except where there is an indication of a contrary intention." There was here such an indication ia the words " Supreme Court of Judicature," as read into the Act of 1870 by the O. in 0. The efiect was, therefore, that this Couit had jurisdiction. But the word " Court " could not be construed differently in respect of the securities authorized, and the Court could not recognize that certain stocks not recognized by the Court here as proper securities were approved of by the Irish Court. The petition must therefore be amended by asking for the substitution for those stocks of other stocks. In re IRISH CATHOLIC Chukoh Propeety Insurance Co. Parker J. [1909] W. N. 69 INSURANCE (FIRE)— Award condition prece- dent to suit. See Jersey. 1. 1. — Contract of fire insurance made iy agent wlthmct authority — Satification by principal after and with hnowledge of loss iy fire — W/ietlter ratification valid in law. Where a contract of fire insurance is made by one person on behalf of another without authority, it cannot be ratified by the party on whose behalf it is made after and with know- ledge of the loss of the thing insured. Grover & Grover, Ld. v. Mathews - Hamilton, J. [1910] 2 K. B. 401 — Discovery — Ship's papers — Practice. See Discovery. 19. — Heirlooms — Power of trustees to insure heir- looms and pay premiums out of income of capital moneys. See Settled Land— Heirlooms. 1. J ' — Income tax — Covenant by lessor to pay fire insurance premium — Deduction. See Revenue — Income Tax. 12. INSURANCE (FIRE)— coniOTW^Z. — Income tax— Deduction for unexpired risks. Fire insurance company. See REVENtj B— Income Tax. 21. — Notice required of additional insurance — Premium. See China and Corba. 1. — Policy — Protection from liability while gaso- line is stored or kept in the building insured — Construction — " Stored or kept." See Canada — Insurance (Fire). 2. 2. — Settled land — House in Deoonshire — Settled ckKtteh — Infant life tenant — Imurances by trustees under statutory powers — Premiuim paid out of income — Eebuilding after fire — Title to and application of policy moneys — Convey- ancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (4i Jf 45 Vict. c. 41), «. is,— Trustee Act, 1893 (56 ^ 57 Vict. c. 53), .s. li— Fires Prevention (^Metropolis) Act, 1774 (14 Geo. 3, c. 78), s. 83. Dui'ing the minority of a life tenant of settled estates in Devonshire, the trustees, acting under the powers of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, s. 42, and the Trustee Act, 1893, s. 18, insured (a) the mansion-house and (i) certain settled chattels and furniture against fire. The policies were taken out in the names of the trustees, and the premiums were paid out of income. The house and chattels were for the most part destroyed by fire, and the trustees recovered 7000?. on the house policy and 12HI. on the chattel policy. The trustees, the infant life tenant (aged " twenty), and the remaindermen all desired the house to be rebuilt and refurnished, but the infant life tenant, who was not bound to insure, claimed that, as the premiums had been paid out of his income, the policy moneys in the hands of the trustees were his, and that he was entitled to a charge for any amount expended. The remaindermen appeared, but took no part in the argument : — Held, that under the Fires Prevention (Metro- polis) Act, 1774, s. 83, the remaindermen were entitled to have the 7000Z. recovered on the house policy applied in rebuilding, and that the infant life tenant was not entitled to a charge. But held, that the infant life tenant was entitled to the 12442. recovered on the chattel policy, to which the Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act, 1774, a. 83, did not apply. 'Seymour v. Vernon, (1852) 16 Jur. 189, War- loicker V. Bretnall, (1882) 13 Ch. D. 188, and Gaussen v. Whatman, (1905), 93 L. T. 101, distinguished on the lirst point and (senibW) followed on the second point. In re Qoicke's Trusts. Poltimobe v. Quicke ■ Swinfen Eday J. [1908] 1 Ch. 887 3. — ■ Subrogation — Notice to treat for insured property — Loss by fire after notice to treat — Pay- ment by insurers to assured — Menmmcement of aS'iured's rights in respect of insured 2^'operty — : Right of insurers to recover from assured the amount 2)aid. The deft, insured her buildings against fire with the pit. CO. During the currency of the policy a corporation gave the deft, a notice to S82 ( 1253 ) DIGEST Of CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1254 ) INSURANCE iJlTR'E.')— continued. treat for the buildings under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. Before anything had been done under that notice the buildings were destroyed by tire, and the pits, paid to the deft, an agreed sum as the amount of her loss. Sub- sequently the amount to be paid by the corpora- tion on taking over the property pursuant to their notice to treat was agreed between the deft, and the corporation at a sum arrived at by taking into account the money paid by the pits, to the deft, under the policy, the corporation agreeing to indemnify the deft, against any claim which might be made against her by the pits. : — Held, that, the contract being one of mere indemnity, the pits, upon payment of the agreed amount of the loss became entitled to all the rights of the deft, in respect of the destroyed property ; that those rights included a right to be paid by the corporation the value of the pro- perty as it existed at the date of the notice to treat ; that the deft, could not by any agree- ment with the corporation deprive the pits, of that right ; and therefore that the pits, were entitled to recover from the deft, the amount paid by them to her in respect of the loss insured against. Phcenix Assurance Co. v. Spooner Bigham J [1905] 2 K. B. 753 — Will — Accumulations — Leaseholds. Sec ACCUMUIiATIOKS. 5. IN STTRANCE FUND— Land Transfer Act. See Lanb Transfer. 4. INSURANCE (J,lTEy— Agreement that stiitement should ie the I/axis of the contract— E feet of answers to /jvestiims jmt ii/ medical referee of insnred to assured — Kon-dischisure of material facts — Absence of fraud. One B. M. effected with the deft, an insur- ance upon her own life in pursuance of a pro- posal in which she made certain statements, the truth of which was not disputed. She signed a declaration that the statements so made were to the best of her knowledge and belief true, and by which she agreed that " this proposal and declaration" should "be the basis of the con- tract" between her and the deft. Subsequently to the proposal, but before the execution of the policy, certain questions contained in a printed form were put to her by a doctor, who was instructed by the defts. to put these questions with any necessary explanation and fill in her a]iswers thereto, and to report upon her health, and these questions were answered by her. Many of these questions related to matters of health, the answers as to which could only be matter of opinion, even if given by ». medical expert. Among these questions she was asked to give the names of any medical men consulted by her, and to state when and for what she con- sulted them ; and whether, among other com- plaints, she had ever suffered from mental derangement. The answer to the last-mentioned question was in the negative, whereas in fact she had, though not aware of the fact, been in con- finement for ncate mania ; and, in the answer to the first-mentioned question, as filled in by the doctor, the name of one Dr. K. M., whom she had consulted for nervous breakdown following INSURANCE (LIFE)— m/rf/« ued. influenza, was not mentioned. She signed a second declaration, contained in the before- mentioned form, wherein she declared, " with reference to the proposal for assurance " on her life and her previous declaration, that the answers to the foregoing questions were all true. This declaration did not state that the answers were to form part of the basis of the contract. The policy did not refer to the proposal or either of the declarations. The assured subsequently committed suicide. An action having been brought on the policy by the executrix of the assured, the defts. resisted the plt.'s claim upon the ground that the accu- racy of the answer's to the above-mentioned questions was made a condition precedent to the validity of the policy, and upon the ground of misstatement and non-disclosure of material facts by the ast^ured. The doctor who put the ques- tions to the assured was not called as a witness at the trial. The juiy found in answer to the following questions as follows : — Did the assured fraudulently conceal from the defts. that she had consulted Dr. K. M. for nervous depression ? Answer. — She foolishly, but not fraudulently, concealed this fact. Was the fact that she had consulted Dr. K. M. for nervous breakdown material for the co. to know in considering whether they would insure the .assured'^ life .' Answer. — Yes. Upon these answers judgment was entered for the defts. : — Held, on appeal from the judgment of Lord Alverstone C.J., [1908] W. N. 142; [19CS] 2 K. B. 431, that although the terms of the fljst declaration signed by the assured did not exclude the possibility of the truth of her answei'S to the questions referred to in the second declara- tion being material to the validity of the policy, yet, having regard to the nature and purpose of those questions, the truth of the answers to them was not, on the true construction of the docu- ments, made part of the basis of the contract. Held, further, that under the circumstances of the case, without the evidence of the doctor who put the questions to the assured as to what took place when he put the questions to her, and what explanation of them he gave to her, the second declaration signed by the assured as above mentioned was not per se sufficient evidence to prove that there had been any such non-disclosure of material facts by the assured as would, in the absence of fraud, render the policy voidable. Joel t. Law Union and Crown Isurance Co. - - C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 863 — Antecedent debt — Security — Policy of assu- rance — Interests based on valuable consideration. See Consideration. 1. — Bankruptcy — Life policies — Payment of premiums from date of receiving order — Salvage — Interest. See Bankruptcy — Secured Credi- tors. 1. — Bankruptcy — Mortgage of life policy — Voluntary payment of premiums by third party. See Bankruptcy— Third Fartiea. 2, ( 1255 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1256 ) INSURANCE (LIFE)— co««Mme«?. — Company— Alteration of regulations — Power of company to alter rights of policy- holder. See Company — Memoraudnm. 11. 2. — Compaiii/ — Tea and life insurance business combined, — Life assuranoe fund — Aeeumulated jirojits — Separate accounts — Sclieme, Form of — Life Assuranoe Compames Act, 1870 (33 S, 34 Vict. c. 61), s. 4. Form of scheme enabling a life insurance co. to carry on other business (such as that of selling tea, &c.) besides that of life insurance so as to comply with s. 4 of the Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870, by the required separation of the two businesses. In re British Widows' Assurance Co. - C. A. [1906] W. N. 90 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 40. 3. — Company — Windim/-up — Life assurance company — Separate aecimnt of preminms wli^re other business carried on — Reduction of contracts — Life Asstirance Companies Act, 1870 (33 ^' 34 Vict. c. 61), ss. 4, 22. A CO. carrying on business as tea-dealers offered to customers who purchased tea from it consecutively for certain periods pensions pay- able during widowhood. In order to form the premium income to support the pension contracts the price of the tea was loaded with a sum of Sd. per pound, the total price per pound being 2s. id. :— Held, that s. 4 of the Life Assurance Com- panies Act, 1870, was disregarded, for the Sd. per pound was not a separate sum capable of being carried to a separate fund appropi'iated for the exclusive benefit of the assured pensioners (as required by that section in the case of " a CO. transacting other business besides that of life assurance "), but that the 2(i. id. per pound was a contributory sum for securing two benefits — namely, the present receipt of one pound of tea, and the expectation of a future sum of money contingent upon widowhood. The N. Co., which carried on the joint busi- ness of tea-dealing and granting pensions to insured customers in case of widowhood, became insolvent and unable to pay the pensions. On a petition to wind up the N. Co., that co. sub- mitted, as an alternative to winding-up, a scheme which involved that a new co. called the N. T. Co. should sell its tea through the agents of the N. Co. to the insured customers, and should pay 75 per cent, of the loading {6d, per pound) to the N. Co., which should, as between the two COS., be the insurer of the insured customers : — Held that the scheme, being a provision by which the insured customers were to enter into new contracts with a new co. and as tlie result should be entitled to a reduced benefit from their contracts with the old co., was not autho- rized by s. 22 of the Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870. Semble, that although absolute arithmetical equality is not required by s. 22, what the section allows is the reduction of all the contracts of the CO. to the relief of the common debtor, and that a scheme which proceeds upon a principle of inequality of reduction is not within the Act. In re Nelson & Co. Buckley J. [1905] 1 Ch. 661 INSURANCE (LIFE)- — Company — Winding-up petition — Bond in- vestment holder—" Contingent or pros- pective creditor." See Company — Winding-up — Assur- ance Company. 1. — Consideration — Antecedent debt — Policy of insurance. See Consideration. 1. 4. — Contract — Illegality — Policy on the life of anotlisr — Absence of insurable interest — Se- covery of premiums — Life A.<, aboce. — Life assurance company — Winding-up peti- tion by bond investment holder. See Company — Winding-up — Assur- ance Company. 1. 9. — Lost policy — Payment into court — No sufficieitf disc/large otherwise obtainable — Practice — Life insurance company — Life Assuranoe Com- panies [Payment iido Court) Act, 1896 (59 cf 60 Vict. c. 8), .?. 3— Order LIV. (c). Where an action was brought against a life insurance co. upon a life policy which had been lost, and the directors of the co. were of opinion ( 1239 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1260 ) INSURANCE (LIFE)— coreii««e(f. that no sufficient discharge could otherwise be obtained : — -HeW, that the provisions of the Life Assurance Companies (Payment into Court) Act, 1896, were applicable, and therefore leave should be given to the detts. to pay tlie amount of the policy into the High Court under Order liv- (c), r. 3. Haerison v. Alliance Assurance Co. C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 184 — Mortgage of life policy — Covenant to pay premiums — Bankruptcy of mortgagor. See Bankruptcy — Mortgages. 1. — Mortgage of policy — Indemnity — Bankruptcy of principal — Proof of surety — Double proof. See Bankruptcy — Proof. 9. 10. — Mwtgages — Priorities — Notice — Life policy. Where a person lends money on the security of a policy of life assurance which is not handed over to him, he has, if it is in the hands of a prior mortgagee, constructive notice of the prior mortgage, and cannot obtain priority by giving hotice to the assurers before the prior mortgagee gives notice. Spencer v. aarke, (1878) 9 Ch. D. im, followed. A mortgagee of a life policy is not under any obligation to give notice of his mortgage to a prior mortgagee of whose security he has notice, and if the latter makes further advances to the mortgagor in pursuance of a fresh bargain and a further charge, the security in respect of the further advances has not priority over that of the subsequent mortgagee if he gives prior notice to the assurers. Qumre whether the prior mortgagee would have priority in respect of his further advances if they were made, without notice of a subse- quent mortgagee's security, under a contract for security tor a present advance and further sums to be advanced. In re Wenioer's Policy Parker J. [1910] 2 Ch. 291 Note. See In re Weniger's Policy, Warrington J., [1910] W. N. 278. See No. 14, helow. Mortgages of policies — Equitable interests — Notice — Priorities— Bankruptcy. See Mortgage — Priority. 9. New South Wales Life, &c., Insurance Act, 1902 — Crown not bound by Act — Priority of payment. See NbV South Wales. 14. Policy for benefit of wife and children — Death of wife — Second marriage of assured. See Husband and Wife — Insurance. 2. Policy not assignable otherwise than by way of nomination. See under Friendly Society. 11. Policy ef insurance made payable to another — Purchase in name of a stranger — Pre- sumption of intention — Resulting trust. A policy of insurance was taken out by A. on his own life " for behoof of B.," his wife's sister, INSURANCE (hlY'E.)— continued. and the policy provided that B., her ejcecutors, administrators, and assigns, should be entitled to receive the policy moneys on A.'s death. A., who survived B., retained the policy, and paid the premiums till his death : — Held, that the legal personal representatives of B. were trustees of the policy moneys for the legal personal representatives of A. In re A Policy No. 6402 of the Scottish Equitable Life Assurance Society - - Joyce J. [1901] W. N 249 ; [1902] 2 Oh. 282 — Policy of life insurance — Estate duty — Interest provided by the deceased — Family arrangement. See Revenue— Estate Duty. 17. 12. — Policy — Proposal basis of contract — ■ Hffect of absence of sigiied proposal — Estoppel. The pit. effected with an insurance co. a policy of insurance under the seal of the co. upon the life of her husband, therein called the assm-ed. The policy was expressed to be issued in consideration of the pit. having signed a pro- posal, such proposal being the basis of the contract, and it being stipulated that if the proposal contained any untrue statement as to the state of health of the assured the policy should be void. Upon the death of the assured the pit., who had duly paid the premiums, claimed the amount insm'cd. The co. resisted the claim on the ground that the proposal on which the policy had been issued contained misrepresentations as to the assured's health. At the hearing before justices of a complaint for non-payment of the sum insured the pit. satis- fled the justices that a proposal produced by the CO. and purporting to be signed by her was not signed by her or with her authority, and she further stated that no proposal at all had been signed by her or with her authority : — Held; that the co. having issued the policy and received the premiums were estopped from contending that in consequence of the want of a proposal there was no contract ; that the mere fact that the pit., instt-ad of confining lier evidence to the disproof of the proposal put for- ward by the co., made the admission, irrelevant to her own case, that there had been no proposal at all did not prevent her from taking the benefit of that estoppel ; and that the co. were liable on the policy. Pearl Life Assurance Co. ■/•. Johnson. The Same ■». Greenhalgh Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 288. 13. — Practice — Life assurance company — Deposit in Court — Application for payment of dividends — Whether by petition or summorts — Practice — Assurance Companies Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 49), ss. 1, 2 — Board of Trade Order, 1910, rr. 2, 4, 9— i?. S. C, Order LV., r. 2, sub-r. 3. In this case the corporation had in pur- suance of ss. 1 and 2 of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, and of r. 2 of the Board of Trade Order, 1910, transferred into Court a sum of Bank of England stock equivalent in value to the sum of 20,000Z. cash required by the Act to be lodged in Court in respect of its life assurance business, and now petitioned under r. 4 of that Order for payment to them of the dividends on ( 1261 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. C 12G2 ) INSURANCE (LIFE)— continued. the stock as they from time to time accrued. Rule 9 of the ISoarrt of Trade Order, 1910, pro- Tides : " Any applications under these Rules to the Court shall be made in such manner as shall from time to time be prescribed by Rules of Court, and until otherwise prescribed in the like manner in which similar applications under the Life Assurance Companies Acts, 1870 to 1872, and the Employers Liability Insurance Com- panies Act, 1907, were made immediately prior to the commencement of the Act." Neville J. : I think it clear that Order LV., 1. 2, sub-r. 3, does not apply, and that in these cases the application must be by petition in accordance with the practice under the Acts of 1870 and 1872 until a new Rule of Court is made dealing with the matter. Yoa may take your order. In re Royal Exchange AssnK- AKCE COEPOBATION - Neville J. [1910] W. N. 211 14. — Practice — Life polioj — Payment into Court — Indemnity — Costs — Life Assurance Com- panies (Paym-ent into Court) Act, 1896 (59 \ict. c. 8)— i?. S. C, Order LIV.C, r. 2. Summons issned for the purpose of settling various questions between incumbrancers on money secured by a policy of insurance. The priorities between the parties had already been decided by Parker J. in In re Weniyer's Policy, [1910] 2 Ch. 291. See precedino Case. W. had a policy by which the R. Insm-ance Co. assured payment to him, if alive on Nov. 20, 1909, of 1^01. with certain additions. W. created several charges on the policy, and was alive on Nov. 20, 1909. The insurance co. declined to pay the money into Court under the Life Assur- ance Companies (Payment into Court) Act, 1896, unless they received an indemnity in respect of their costs. The first mortgagees accordingly gave them an indemnity, and the money was paid into Court. The claimants now asked to have the money paid out to them. Warrington J. said that to allow the iirst mortgagees these costs would be to introduce a most mischievous practice. The insurance co. claimed that they could by this process get out of the funds the costs, which the rule said they were not to get, by merely insisting on having an indemnity. If any one chose to give an indemnity to an insurance co. he must do it at his own risk, and not with the hope of getting the costs paid out of the funds in Court. The insurance co.'s costs could not be allowed. In re Wenigee's Policy Warrington J. [1910] W. N. 278 — Premium — Income tax — Deductions. See Revenue — Income Tax. 22. 15. — Proposal — Misrejiresejitation — A void- ance — Mistalm as to age of assured — Acceptance of 2>remiums after knowledge of mistake — Afirm- ance of contraH — Policy. A policy of life assurance was granted upon the basis of a proposal which concluded with a declaration that the answers given in the proposal were true to the best of the proposer's knowledge and belief, and an agreement that the i)roposal and declaration should be the basis of the INSURANCE (LISE)— continued. contract, and that if it should thereafter appear that the proposer had made any untrue statement therein the policy should be void and the pre- miums forfeited. In the proposal the assured made a mistake as to her age, and stated that she was three years younger than she was. The policy, after reciting the declaration and the statement by the assured as to her age, evidence of which the insurance co. required to be pro- duced, provided for the payment by the co. of the policy moneys upon proof of the death of the assured, or of her having attained the age of sixty years, and it contained a proviso for avoid- ance of the policy and forfeiture of the premiums in the event of the policy having been obtained by wilful misrepresentation. After discovery of the mistake as to the age of the assured the co. accepted two annual premiums : — Held, (1) following Foickes v. ManclieMer and London Assurance Association, (1863) 3 B. & S. 917, that the declaration was to be read with the policy, and that the co. were not entitled to avoid the policy and forfeit the premiums unless the statement in the proposal was designedly untrue, although upon the discovery of the mistake they might have declined to continue the policy upon returning the back premiums ; (2) that by accept- ing premiums after knowledge of the facts they must be taken to have affirmed the policy as it stood, and that consequently they were bound to pay the policy moneys upon the assured actually attaining the age of sixty years, and were not entitled to postpone payment until the assured had attained that age upon the assumption of her age at the date of the proposal having been as therein stated. Hemmisgs r. Scepteb Life Association, Ld. - . Kekewieh. J. [1905] W. N. 16 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 365 16. — Sale of life policy — Mistalte — Death of assured before contract — SuhSequent knowledge by one party — Assignment — Rescission after comple- tion — Contract — Vendor and purchaser. A contract for the sale of a life policy was entered into by both parties in the belief that the assured was alive, and the contract was completed by assignment. Between the dates of the contract and the assignment the purchaser received information which led him to believe that at the date of the contract the assured was dead, which after the date of the assignment was ascertained to have been the fact, but the purchaser never disclosed his information to the vendor : — Held, affirming Kekewieh J., [1903] 1 Ch. 153, that the vendor was entitled to have the transaction set aside notwithstanding that it had been completed by assignment. Scott r. COULSON - C. A. [1903] W. N. 88 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 249 — Settlement — Covenant for payment to trustees — Satisfaction. See Settlement. 30. — Stamp — Old age endowment policy. See Revenue — Stamps. 15. 17. — Suicide, Warranty against — Condition prccfdcnt — Policy for benefit of third party. An application for a policy of insurance on ( 1263 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1264 ) INSURANCE (LITE)— coMimed. the life of the applicant for the benefit of credi- tors stated that it was the basis and a part of the contract ; and the applicant thereby warranted and agreed that he would not commit suicide, whether sane or insane, during the period of one year from the date of the contract. The policy subsequently issued in pursuance of the applica- tion stated that it was made in consideration of the application, which was thereby made a part of the contract. The applicant committed suicide within the year while temporarily insane. In an action on the policy : — Jleld, aifirming the judgment of Bigham J., [1904] 1 K. B. 832, that the warranty against suicide was a condition of liability, and that the action was therefore not maintainable. Ellingur & Co. ( . Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York - - - C. A. [1904] W. N. 184 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 31 18. — 'Jrans/er to another eomjjany — Nutlce of trcbiisfn' — Person sought to he transferred — Collectaig Societies and Indnstrial Assurance Compameji Act, 1896 (59 ^' 60 Viet. c. 26), s. 4, sui-s. 2 ; s. 14, suh-s. 1. The respondents, a collecting society within the Collecting Societies and Industrial Assur- ance Companies Act, 1896, were charged, under 5. 1 4, sub-s. 1 , with failing to give notice to the appellants, an industrial assurance co. within the same Act, of an application of a person insured with the appellants foe admission to the respondent society, contrary to s. 4, sub-s. 2. A collector, who had collected for the appellants, aslsed the assured to transfer to the respondents. The assured signed a proposal form in the respondent society, and gave up to the collector his policies in the appellant co., receiving policies in the respondent society. The collector had left the appellants and become collector to the respondents. No notice was given. The magistrate held that, as the policies in both societies were co-existent, there could be no legal transfer, or seeking to transfer, within the Act, and therefore no offence had been com- mitted : — JSeld, that the assured was a person sought to be transferred, within the meaning of s. 4, sub-s. 2, and s. 14, sub-s. 1, and therefore the respondents had committed an ofEence under the Act. Pearl Life Assurance Co. i: Scottish Legal Life Assurance Society, Ld. Div. Ct. [1901] W. N. 33 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 628 19. — Voidable policy — Principal retainlmi lenejit ohtained ly fraud of agent — Recovery of paid pi'emiums. The holder of a policy of insurance being minded to give up paying the premiums was persuaded to continue the payments by a false representation of the insurance co.'s agent that if she paid the premiums for a certain time she would receive a free policy. The repre- sentation was made without the authority or knowledge of the co., and the co. refused to grant a free policy, but retained the premiums : Held, that the holder of the policy was entitled to recover from the co. the premiums paid upon the faith of the representation. INSURANCE (LlSWj—contmued. Decision of the C. A., [1908] 1 K. B. 545, affirmed. Refuge Assurance Co. ■». Kettle- well - - - - H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 64 ; [1909] A. C. 243 20. — Yearly insurance — Quarterly payments of premium — Days of grace — Pay^neiit of premium after death of assured — Payment within days of grace. The pit. was assignee of a policy of insurance on the life of another person. The policy was for ayear, and the premium was payable quarterly, the first quarterly payment being made at the date of the policy. One of the conditions of the policy was that it should be of no effect if, at the time of the death of the assured, any quarterly premium should be more than thirty days in arrear. The assured died during the year after one of the dates fixed for payment of a quarterly premium, but within the days of- grace, and the premium was paid after his death by the pit., but also within the days of grace. In an action to recover the amount insured : — Jleld, that the policy being for a year, subject to defeasance on non-payment of any quarterly premium, no question arose as to the revival of the policy by payment during the days of grace, but that the policy was prevented from lapsing by such a payment, and that the pit. was entitled to recover. Pritchard v. Merchants' Life Assurance Society, (1858) 3 C. B. (N. S.) 622, distinguished. Stuart v. Freeman C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 47 INSURANCE (MARINE). Marine Insurance Actj 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 41), codifies the law relating to marine insurance. Marine Insurance [Ganiblxng Policies) Act, 1909 (9 JEdw. 7, c. 12), is an Act to j'rohihit gambling on loss by maritime perils. 1. — Alien enemy. Property of — Policy — ■ Loss before commencement of war — Seizure by enemy's Government of jjroperty of its own subject in anticipatioji of war — Warranty free of capture, seizure, and detection. Gold, the property of a co. registered under the laws of the South African Republic, was insured against " arrests, restraints, and detain- ments of all kings, princes, and people " during transit from the mines to the United Kingdom, subject to a warranty " free of capture, seizure, and detention, whether before or after declaration of war." During transit the gold was taken pos- session of by the Government of the Republic on its own territory in anticipation of war with Great Britain, and in accordance with the laws of the Republic, and was afterwards appropriated by the Government : — Held, that there was a " seizure " of the gold within the meaning of the warranty, and that the insurers were not liable on the policy. The decision of the C. A., [1902] W. N. 140 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 489, affirmed. Robinson Gold Mining Co. r. Alliance Insurance Co. H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 144 ; [1904] A. C. 369 ( 1265 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1266 ) INSURANCE (MARINE)— co»««M»(i. Note. See Janson t. Driefontein Consolidated Mines, Ltd., H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. iU ; Insurance {Capture'). 1. — Associated insurance club — Agreement by owners to render mutual assistance — Eights of crew. See Shipping— Salvage. 8. 2. — Average — Oerwral average — 07W oivner of Khip and cargo — Insurance of cargo — Liability of underwriter.'!. A loss caused by the cutting away of a ship's mast for the safety of the whole adventure is a general average loss to which the underwriters of a policy of insurance on cargo against perils of the sea are bound to contribute, although the assured is owner of both ship and cargo, and, therefore, as between those interests, there can be no contribution to general average. Decision of Mathew J., [1901] 1 K. B. 147, affirmed. Judgment of Gorell Barnes J. in The BrigeUa [1893] P. 189, disapproved. Montgomery & Co. r. Indemnity Mutual Marine Insurauob Co. - C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 734 3. — Aoerage — General average — Sacrifice made on outward voyage of ship in ballast — Lia- bilitij of chartered freight to contribute. A ship was chartered to proceed to a foreign port, there load a cargo and bring it home, the chartered freight being payable on delivery of the cargo. While the ship was proceeding in ballast to her port of loading she grounded, and a general average sacrifice was made. She sub- sequently continued her voyage, loaded her cargo, delivered it and received the freight : — Held, that the chartered freight was liable to contribute to the general average sacrifice. Judgment of Mathew J., [1901] 2 K. B. 861, affirmed. Steamship "Cabisbrook" Co. v. London and Provincial Marine and Gene- ral Insurance Co. - C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 681 4. — Aeerage — General average — Time char- ter — Voyage charter — Bamage by water in extin- guishing fire — Delay — Time freight — Practice of a terage adjusters. By the practice of average adjusters, loss of time freight — resulting from detention under repair of general average damage— is not allowed in general average : — Held, by Gorell Barnes J., that the practice is right, being in accordance with legal principles, for the loss of freight under a time charter caused by the delay is the result of an accidental circum- stance peculiar to the shipowner and time char- terer, and arising out of the contract between them, with which the cargo owner is not con- cerned, and where the loss of time is common to all the parties interested, and all suffer damage by the delay, the damage by loss of time may be considered proportionate to the interests, and, therefore, left out of consideration. The words " all loss " in the definition of a general average sacrifice in Birhley v. Presgiave, (1801) 1 East, 220, at p. 228 ; 6 R. R. at p. 26B, explained. The " Leiteim " Gorell Barnes J. [1902] P. 266 INSURANCE (KAUI^'E)— continued. 6. — Average — General average loss — Valued policy — Ship valued for policy of less than real value — Salvage — Liability of underwriter. In an insurance on ship, cargo and freight the ship was insured for the sum at which she was valued in the policy. During the currency of the policy a general average loss occurred and a sum awarded in a salvage action had to be paid. In the salvage action the value of the ship was proved to be above the policy value. In the average statement the proved value was taken as the contributory value of the ship, and the rights of all parties were adjusted on that footing. In an action on the policy : — Held, that the underwriters were liable only for that proportion of the salvage and general average losses which the policy value bore to the proved value. The decision of C. A., [1901] 2 K. B. 896, affirmed. Steamship " Balmoral " Co. r. Martin H. I. (E.) [1902] W. N. 156; [1902] A C. 6H 6. — Average — " General average payable according to foreign statement''' — Special pro- vision in charterparty as to general average- Foreign law. The pit., a shipowner, effected with the defts. a time policy of insurance upon his ship contain- ing the following clause : " General average payable according to foreign statement if so made up." The pit. chartered the ship to third persons, and by the terms of the charterparty it was provided that the ship might carry a deck- load of timber, and that " In case of average . . , . jettison of deck cargo for the common safety shall be allowable as general average." The ship sailed for Antwerp with a deckload of timber, and in the course of the voyage and dm-ing the currency of the policy she suffered damage, so that it became necessary for the common safety, in consequence of perils insured against, to jettison part of the deck cargo. On her arrival at Antwerp an average statement was there made up, and the average adjuster, in accordance with the terms of the charterparty, included the jettison of deck cargo in general average. By the Belgian law, apart from con- tract, the jettison of deck cargo is not the subject of general average ; but that law recognises any special provisions in a charterparty as to what shall be the subject of general average :— Held, applying the rule in Harris v. Scara- manga, (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 481, that as the statement had been made up iu good faith and the charterparty imported no terms of a special and unusual character such as could not reason- ably have been contemplated by the parties to the policy of insurance, the defts., the under- writers were bound by the statement, and were therefore liable to indemnify the pit. against the ship's proportion of the loss on the jettison of the deck cargo. Decision of Kennedy J., [190.S] 1 K. B. 109, affirmed. De Hart 1'. ComPaSia Anonima dk Seguros " Aurora " C. A. [1903] W. N. 142 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 503 — Canada. Sie under Canada — Insurance (Marine). DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. (^ 1267 ) INSVBANCE (MABINE) — Capture — Property of alien enemy — Loss before beginning of war. See Insurance (Captube). 1. 7. — ChavterpaHij — Freiffht — Zoss — Saving of chaHerpaHy hire — Commission. Appeal from a decision of Chaunell J., whose judgment on two of the questions raised in the action is reported [1007] 1 K. B. 259. The sole question argued and decided on the appeal was one of fact, and the case, therefore, does not call for a report. The Court dismissed the appeal. United States Shipping Co. r. Empress Assurance Corporation - C. A. [19071 W. N. 219; [1908] 1 K. B. 115 8. — Collision between vessels, Whi/t is — Vessel riding at anchor — Collision with anelwr — Con- struction of policy. A policy of marine insurance provided that the insurers would pay to the assured the amount of any damage caused to any of his tugs " owing to actual collision between any such tug and any vessel, bridge, wharf, mooring pier, or similar structure." One of the assured's tugs, whilst coming up the river Thames, was damaged by striking upon a vessel's anchor, to which the vessel was riding attached by a chain : — Held, that the tug had come into collision with a "vessel" within the meaning of the policy, and, therefore, that the insurers were liable. In re Maroetts AND Ocean Accident AND Guarantee Corporation, Ld. Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 792 — Collision — Total loss — Division of amount received from wrong-doer between ship- owner and underwriter. See Shipping — Collision. 77. 9. — Constructire total loss — Policy on ship — Cost of repair — Value of wreeh. By a policy of marine insurance a ship thereby insured was valued.at 23,000i., and that sum was to be taken to be the " repaired value," in ascertaining whether the vessel was a con- structive total loss. The ship ran upon the rocks off the coast of Sicily, and the owner thereupon gave notice of abandonment, which was not accepted by the underwriters. A salvage association, acting by the consent, and for the benefit, of all parties concerned, got the ship ofF, and she was temporarily repaired, so as to enable her to be brought to an English port. The shipowner having brought an action on the policy, claiming as for a constructive total loss, the judge at the trial found that, if the ship were permanently repaired, the total cost of repairs would amount to 22,559?., and he refused to take into consideration the value of the wreck. He therefore held that there was not a con- structive total l»ss of the ship : — Held (by Vaughan Williams L.J., Stirling L.J., and Mathew L.J., the first mentioned doubting), that the shipowner was not entitled -to add the value of the wreck to the cost of repair, in determining whether there was a con- structive total loss of the ship. Dictum in YouTig v. Turing, (1841) 2 Man. & G. 593, at p. «01 ; 58 B. R, 477, 484, not followed. ( 1268 ) INSURANCE QILASXS'E)—oorainued. AuGEL V. Merchants' Marine Insurance Co. - - C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 811 Xote. This case was overruled by H. L. (E.), Macbeth S; Co. v. Maritime Insurance Co., [1908] A. C. 144. See No. 35, helow. — Contract of carriage — -Liability of shipowner — Unseaworthiness. See Shipping— Charterparty. 26. 10. — Deriafion clause — Agreement: that vessel shall he reoocered at a premium to ie arranged — Siiiject to the " notice " of deviatioyi — Notice given after loss. Where a policy of marine insurance contains a clause to the effect that in the event of the vessel making any deviation it shall be held covered at a premium to be arranged, "provided due notice be given by the assured on receipt of advice of such deviation " : — Senible that, if the assured is not advised of the deviation until after loss of the vessel, a notice given by him after loss will be sufficient to satisfy the proviso. Mentz, Decker & Co. V. Maritime Insurance Co. Hamilton J. [1910] 1 E. B. 133 — Discovery — Ship's papers — Action by under- writers — Kecovery of money overpaid — Practice. See Discovery. 20. 11., — Freight — Lump chartered freight — In- surance — On "freight chartered or as if char- tered" — Loss not iy perils insured agai-mt— Cesser of liability clause — Lo.HS of bill of lading freight — Waiver of lien for chartered freight. Shipowners chartered a ship for a voyage at a lump freight, the charterers' liability to cease upon shipment of the cargo, provided the cargo was worth the freight, dead freight, and demur- rage on arrival, and the vessel to have a lien on the cargo for the recovery of all freight, dead freight, demurrage, and all other charges. The shipowners and charterers jointly insured the lump freight "chartered or as if chartered value" at the lump sum "on board or not on board." The charterers loaded the ship with a general cargo, and the master signed bills of lading by which the goods mentioned in each bill were made deliverable upon payment of the bill of lading freight payable in respect of those goods. The aggregate of the bill of lading freight exceeded the chartered freight. On the voyage part of the cargo was lost by jettison upon the ship running aground. The cargo which arrived was worth the freight, dead freight, and demurrage. Owing to the loss of cargo the bill of lading freight payable on the cargo delivered was less than the chartered freight. To recover the difference an action was brought on the policy by the shipowners and charterers jointly : — ■ Held, that the action was not maintainable the loss having been caused not by perils of the seas, but by the master's not having reserved in the bills of lading the lien over the whole cargo for the chartered freight. The decision of the Court of Appeal (reported as BranUelow Steamship Co. v. Canton Insurance ( 1269 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1270 ) INSURANCE (MARINE)— Ctfm«»i4e^. Office, [1899] 2 Q. B. 178) affirmed. Williams & Co. AND BKANKBLOW STEAMSHIP CO. ('. Canton Insukance OrFiCE, Ld. H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 167 ; [1901] A. C. 463 — Inland transit, Policy on — Damage by insects. See Ko. 19, below. 12. — ■ Inland voyage on river — Goods carried on dec7i — Policij on goods — Liability of under- writers. The pits, insured goods with the defts. against all risks during transit from London to Neuenahr on the Rhine via Amsterdam. The goods on arrival nt Amsterdam were transhipped on to a Ehine steamer and there stowed on deck for carriage up the river to N(5aenahr. While the goods were so stowed on deck a fire broke out on the steamer, and the goods were burnt. There was evidence that it was a common practice for Ehine steamers to carry goods on deck : — Held, that the general rule, which exempts underwriters on cai-go from liability for loss of goods carried on deck during a, voyage by sea does not apply to an inland voyage upon a particular river contemplated by the policy, upon which river there is a usage to carry cargoes on deck. Qur/'re, whether the above general rule applies in any case to an inland voyage upon a river. Apollinaris Co. r. NORD Dedtsche Insurance Co. Walton J., [1903] W. N. 208 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 252 13. — Insurable interest — Agents in Viiltea Kingdom of foreign ship- — Advanoesfor neoessaries —Admiralty Court- Act, 1840 (3 S,- 4 Viet. c. 65), S.6. The pits., the agents in the United Kingdom of a foreign ship, effected an insui-ance for a named voyage " on disbursements against the risk of total and constructive total loss of ship only," the perils insured against including perils of the seas. At the date of the policy the ship- owners were indebted to the pits, to a consider- able amount for advances for the ship's disburse- ments, part of which had been made for the purposes of the particular voyage and part at prior dates. The ship reached her port of desti- nation in the United Kingdom, but suffered severe damage on the voyage from perils of the seas, and, the estimated cost of repair exceeding her estimated value if and when repaired, it was admitted that she was li, constructive total loss within the meaning of the policy. The freight, which was received and retained by the pits, under their lien, was insufficient to recoup the pits, the amount of their advances, and the [pits., who had no lien upon the ship brought an action on the policy of insurance to recover the balance of their advances : — Held, that the pits, having a right under s. 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1840, to enforce their claim for advances, so far as they were in respect of necessaries supplied to the ship, by an action in rem, and for that purpose to arrest the ship, had an insurable interest in the ship to the extent of the unsatisfied balance of those advances. Moran, Galloway & Co. v. Uzielli [Walton J. [1905] 3 K. B. 666 INSURANCE (JS^SilS-E.)— continued. 14. — Insurance on adtanees for dAsturse- ments — " Warranted free of all average " — Loss of slap hy perils of sea — Ohligatwn of master con- ditional on arrival of sliip — Pledge of freight not conditional — Part of freight payable — Partiul loss. The captain of an Italian ship, in considera- tion of advances made by bankers for ship's dis- bursements at the port of loading, signed and indorsed to the bankers a document in the following terms : ' ' Ten days after arrival at port of destination of the steel barque Cimpte, of which I am master, now lying at Pensacola, Fla., and ready to sail for Southampton, I promise to pay to the order of myself the sum of 760Z. 12s. 9d. British sterling, in approved bankers' demand bills on London, value received for necessary disbursements of my vessel at this port, for the payment of which I hereby pledge my vessel and freight ; and my consignees at the port of destination are hereby directed to pay the amount of the obligation from the first amount of freight received for account of my said vessel." The bankers effected an insurance of the advances so made against perils of the sea by a policy warranted free of all average. The ship never arrived at the port of destination, but became a constructive total loss on the voyage. Part', however, of the cargo was salved, upon which by Italian law distance freight became payable. In an action by the assured upon the policy as for a total loss : — Held, that the pledge of freight took effect, although the ship did not arrive at the port of destination, and there was therefore not a total loss of the subject-matter of insurance, and con- sequently that the action on the policy was not maintainable. Price v. Maritime Issueancb Co. C. A. [1901] W. N. 128 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 412 — Mortgage of ship together with policies of insurance thereon — Repairs by mort- gagor. See Shipping — Mortgages. 2. 15. — Mutual insurance associatimi — Meniber- ship — Ship mortgaged not to be considered insured — Concealmeui of mmigage — Liability for calls. The pits, were a mutual insurance association duly registered under the Companies Acts. On Feb. 12, 1903, the defts. delivered to the pits, a properly filled up and signed policy of insurance requesting them to insure a certain steamship belonging to the defts. This proposal was accepted, and the defts. were entered in the register of members of the pit. association, and pursuant to the rules of the association calls were made upon the defts. from time to time for the payment of existing claims. These calls having remained unpaid, the present action was brought. By one of the rules of the association, " A ship which is mortgaged by a member shall not be or be considered as insured so far as his shares are concerned, and a ship insured which shall after an insurance thereof is effected be mortgaged by a member shall not be or be considered as in- sured, so far as his shares as aforesaid are con- cerned, against losses which shall happen to the ship after the mortgage, unless and until the mortgagee or other person to be approved by ( 1271 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1272 ) INSUflAMCE (JIULRm-E)—coidi>med. the directors guarantee the payment of all contributions which are or may become due to the company in respect of the insurance of the ship, and the directors in their discretion accept such guarantee." At the time of the proposal by the defts., to insure the steamship in question it was, as they knew, mortgaged ; but they did not give notice of this fact to the pits., nor had the pits, any such guarantee for the payment of contributions as was required by this rule. The defts. relied on this fact, and contended that since by the rule their ship under the circumstances was not and was not to be considered as insured so far as their shares were concerned, they were not members of the pit. association, and were there- fore not liable for the calls. Channell, J. gave judgment for the pits., holding that when a person proposed an insurance to the pits, and his proposal was accepted he became a, member of the association, and so liable to calls, independently of any fact peculiar to his case which prevented his proposed in- surance fi-om becoming effective. The question entirely depended on the words of the particular rules ; but in his opinion the proper construction of them was that membership and consequent liability to pay calls was not necessarily dependent on a valid insurance. North Eastbkn 100 A Steamship Insukancb Asso- ciation r. Red " S " Steamship Co. Channell J. [190S] W. N. 124 16. — Open corer slip — Damages —Frandu- leitt representations — Reinsurance — Subrogation ■ — Costs — Solicitor and client costs. The pits, gave the defts. an open cover slip by which they undertook to reinsure the defts. to the extent of one-half their interest up to wool, on certain shipments of lumber. Pur- suant to the cover slip, the pits, reinsured the defts. by two policies respectively on interests by two vessels. Under the policies the defts. claimed and were paid by the pits, sums amounting to 1351/. is. lOd. The defts. subse- (]^ucntly recovered from the shipowners damages by reason of having been induced to pay losses on the two vessels by fraudulent misrepresenta- tions of an ofScial in their employment. The measure of the damages so recovered by the defts. was the sum which upon inquiry appeared to flow from the liability of the defts. as insurers in respect of the two vessels, and included the 1354i. 4.5. lOd. The pits, then sued the defts. for the repayment of the 1354?. 4s. lOd. as money received by them to the use of the pits. : — Held, (1.) that the pits, were entitled, upon the principles laid down by Brett, L.J. and Bowen L.J. in Castellain v. Preston, (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 380, to recover the I354Z. is. \0d. upon the ground that the money was obtained by the defts. by enforcing a right which diminished the defts.' loss, and that therefore the doctrine of subrogation applied ; (2.) that the defts. were entitled to deduct from the 1354Z. is. \0d. the reasonable expenses of recovering that sum froin the owners. Hatch, Mansfield 4' Co. v. Weingott, (1906) INSUBANCE (MARINE) -continued. 22 Times L. R. 366, followed. AssicUEAZlONI Genbkali db Trieste r. Empress Assukascb Corporation, Ld. - - Pickford J. [1907] 2 K. B. 814 17. — " Pirates,^' Meaning of in policy — Sei:ttre of goods bg political malcontents — " Warranted free of capture, seizure, aiid deten- tion, j)iracy excepted." Goods wore shipped upon a vessel for carriage from a place at the mouth of the Amazon to a place far inland upon a tributary of a tributary of that river, situated in a remote territory belonging to Bolivia on the boundary between that country and Brazil. These goods were insured for the voyage by a policy in the form of a marine policy against, among other risks usually specified in such a policy, " pirates " and " all other perils " that should come to the hurt, detriment, or damage of the subject-matter of insurance. The policy contained the following clause : — " Warranted free of capture, seizure and detention, and the consequences thereof, or any attempt thereat, piracy excepted, and also from all consequences of riots, civil commotions, hostilities, or warlike operations, whether before or after declaration of war. The goods insured consisted of provisions and stores which belonged to the Bolivian Government, and were intended for Bolivian troops engaged in establishing the authority of that Government in the before-men- tioned territory. Certain malcontents, mostly Brazilians, who were desirous that the authority of the Bolivian Government should not be estab- lished there, had fitted out an expedition which ascended the Amazon in armed vessels for the purpose of resisting the Bolivian troops and establishing an independent republic in the before-mentioned teiTitory. Those on board one of these vessels stopped the vessel on which the goods insured were shipped and seized those goods. In an action on the policy claiming as for a loss through pirates : — Jlrld, affirming the decision of Pickford, J., that, even assuming that the acts of those who seized the goods came within the legal definition of piracy for some purposes, the word " pirates " as used in the policy must be oonstnred in its uopular sense, and in that sense it meant persons who plunder indiscriminately for their private gain, not persons who simply operate against the property of a particular State for a public political end, and, therefore, there had not been a loss through " pirates " within the meaning of the policy. Held, also, that, having regard to the terms of the wan-anted free clause, the seizure of the goods could not be treated as coming within the general words " all other perils " as being ejnsdem generis with piracy. Republic op Bolivia r. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Co. C. A. [1909] W. N. 34 [1909] 1 K. B. 786 18. — Policy effected hy owner of ship fw all persons to whom the subject-maffer miglit apper- tain — Right of chaHerer to benefit of policy — liatificatAon. The appellants chartered a ship from the owners. Brokers, instructed by the owners' ) agents, effected with the respondents a policy of ( 1273 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1274 ) INSURANCE (KARITHE)— continued. insurance on the ship, "as well in their own name as for and in the name and names of all and every other person or persons to whom the subject-matter of this policy does may or shall appertain in part or in all. " The policy contained a collision clause. The appellants, having been compelled to pay damages to the owners of another vessel for a collision between the two ships, sued the respondents on the policy. There being no evidence of any inten- tion by the owners to insure on behalf of the appellants : — • Held, that the appellants were not entitled to sue on the policy. The decision of the C. A., [1905] 1 K. B. 637, affirmed. Boston Frdit Co. r. Beitish AND Foreign Marine Insurance Co. H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 110 ; [1906] A. C. 336 19. — Policy on inland transit — " All risks ii/ land and by water " — Damage by insects — Coti- stnicfion of policy — Liability by underwriter. By a policy of insurance in tlie printed form of an ordinary Lloyd's policy, with the addition of the following clauses in type or writing, goods were insured at and from " on board the import vessel at Savanilla -— Cartagena to any place or places in the interior of the Eepublic of Colombia with liberty to proceed to any place or places in the interior irrespective of what may be stated in the invoices — elsewhere ■^ or Including all risks of robbery with or without violence, all risks of damage by insects and all clauses as attached." The attached clauses contained (inter alia) the following provisions : " Including .... all risks by land and by water " and " Including risk from the act of God, the King's enemies, fire and all other dangers and accidents of the seas, rivers and navigation, and error and default thereof " : also " Including all risks excepted by the negligence clause which may be inserted in or attached to charterparty bill of lading.'' During the transit between Savanilla, a port in the Republic of Colombia, and Medellin, a town in the interior of the Eepublic, fourteen bales of the goods were damaged ; twelve of them by an abnormal delay in the transit which necessarily involved exposure of the goods to damp, one by accidental wetting, and another by accidental wetting and injury by worms : — Held, that the words " all risks by land and by water " must be read literally as meaning all risks whatsoever. The words wore intended to cover all losses by any accidental cause of any kind, and as the damage to the goods was a loss within that category the underwriters wci-e liable for it. Pinh T. Fleming, (1890) 2.5 Q. B. D. 396, dis- tinguished. RcHLOss Brothers r. Stevens Walton J. [1906] 2 K. B. 665 20. — Practice — Discmrry — Affidavit of slii/s papers — Partial land transit. In an action against an underwriter upon a policy of insurance, which is substantially a marine insurance, the fact that a part of the INSUKANCE (MARINE) -coivtiuued. transit is by land doe.s not aHect the right of the deft, to an aflSdavit of ship's papers. I£enderson v. Vnderwriting and Agency Asso- ciation, [1891] 1 Q. B. 5.57, questioned. Hard- ing- V. BussELL C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 83 — Practice — Third-party procedure — Insurance (Marine) — Policy of reinsurance. See Practice — Third Parties. 2. 21. — Rctmnrance — Consfructite total loss — " 7(1 pay as may be paid thereon'' — Suing and labouring — Salvage charges. Shipowners insured their ship with the pits, for a voyage against partial as well as total loss, the sound value of the ship being expressed in the policy to be agreed at a specified sum. The pits, reinsured with the deft, against the risk of total or constructive total loss only, the ship being valued as per original policy. The policy of reinsurance was in the form of an ordinary Lloyd's policy, containing in print the usual undertaking by the assurers to contribute to suing and labouring charges. It also contained in writing the following clauses : " Being a rein- surance subject to the same clauses and condi- tions as the original policy and to pay as may be paid thereon " ; and, " No claim to attach to this- policy for salvage charges." During the course of the insured voyage the ship stranded and suffered damage. The probable cost of getting her afloat, taking her to a port of repair, and repairing her, exceeded the agreed value of the ship as expressed in the policy, but as it was in fact less than her real repaired value the owners elected not to give notice of abandonment. The ship was floated and placed in a condition of safety, and subsequently taken to a port of repair and repaired. The owners recovered from the plls. upon their policy 107?. per cent, of their proportion of the agreed value of the ship, that sum being made up partly of the expenses of repairs and partly of the expense of floating her. The pits, then sued the deft, for the full auiount underwritten by him as in respect of a construc- tive total loss, or in the alternative for his pro- portion of the suing and labouring charges : — Meld, (1) that, there being, in the absence of a notice of abandonment by the owners, no original liability upon the pits, to pay as for a constructive total loss, the mere fact that they had paid, in respect of a partial loss and suing and labouring charges combined, upwards of lOOZ. per cent, did not entitle the pits, to recover that sum from the deft, as for a constructive total loss under the words " to pay as may be paid thereon " ; and (2) that the clause providingthat no claim was to attach for " salvage charges " excluded the deft. 's obligation to contribute to the suing and labouring charges, notwithstand- ing the omission to delete the printed clause imposing that obligation. Uzielli V. BO'iton Marine Insurance Co., (1884) 15 Q. B. E. 11, discussed. Western Assurance Co. OF Toronto r. Poole - - Bl^ham J. [1903] W. N. 14; [1903] 1 K. B. 876 22. — lieiiisioraiice — ^^ Excess" policy — Craft risk — " iiicli craft to be deemed, a separate insurance " — Ia'SS in craft — Calculation qf excess, i ( 1275 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901^1910. ( 1276- ) INSUEANCE {VLA'RI'SE)—eoidhmed. The pit. CO. having insured a cargo of wheat to the extent of 1914?., reinsured with the defts. by a policy for " 1000?. excess of 5001." Both the original and the reinsurance policies covered risk of craft, and contained a clause that each craft was "to be deemed a separate insurance." Owing to the sinking of a craft containing a portion of the cargo a loss occurred which the pit. oo. sought to recover from the dcfts. under the reinsurance policy. The interest of the pit. co. in the cargo in the particular craft did not amount to 600?., and the defts. repudiated liability on the ground that, as each craft was to be deemed a separate in- surance, there had been no loss of any "excess of 500?." :— Held, that the clause had no application to the circumstances of the case ; that the " excess " for which the defts. were liable ought to be calculated on the value of the pit. co.'s whole interest at risk, and not on the co.'s interest in the particular craft only ; and that the defts. were therefore liable for their propor- tion of the loss. South British Fieb and Marine Insurance Co. of New Zealand r. Da Costa - Bigham J. [1906] 1 K. B. 486 23. — Reinsurance — Insurance of goods — Un- reasoitable delay of voyage — Material alteration of risk. The pits., who had insured all shipments of coal by certain merchants for twelve months by a cover-note at premiums varying according to the date of sailing and port of destination, on July 30 received notice from the merchants of a proposed shipment by a certain vessel from the Tyne. The premiums payable to the pits, would be 12s. 9d. for Aug. and 15s. for Sept. On Aug. 2 they effected a reinsurance for 1500?. at a premium of 6s. Sd. with the deft, and others at Lloyd's, by a slip which named the vessel and purported to be subject to the reinsurance and deviation clauses. The vessel was then, as the underwriters ascertained, near the Tyne, but she did not sail on the proposed voyage until Sept. 25, and was lost on Oct. 2. The policy of reinsur- ance was issued on Oct. 5, and the pits., having paid the merchants for a total loss, claimed pay- ment from the deft. : — Held, that the risk was materially altered by the delay of the voyage, and that the under- writers were not liable. Maritime Insurance Co. V. Stearns Mathew J. [1901] 2 K. B. 912 24. — " Mestraint of princes and people " — Policy — Prohibition against entry into country of diseased cattle — Warranty against " capture, seizure and detention" — Operation on clause as to restraint. The operation of the ordinary municipal law of a country affecting or preventing the delivery of insured goods at their port of destination is a " restraint of princes or people " within the mean- ing of a Lloyd's policy of marine insurance. A warranty in a policy of marine insurance against "capture, seizure, and detention " operates to release the insiirers from liability under the words " arrests, restraints, and detainments of kings, princes, and people" in the body of the policy. INSURANCE (MARINEJ— (•««/;;«!««/. Appeal from the judgment of Bigham J., [1902] 2 K. B. 694, dismissed. Miller ». Law- Accident Insurance Co. - - - C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 712 yote. See YiiiU ar- ticular average and loss " — Meaning of— Under- standing amongst underwriters. A policy of marine insurance upon frozen meat expressed the period of the risk to be as follows : " Bisk commencing at the freezing station works and includes a period of not ex- ceeding sixty days after arrival of the vessel." It also contained the following clause : — " War- ranted free from particular average and loss unless caused by stranding sinking burning or collision of the ship or craft." Owing to causes arising during the voyage other than the strand- ing, sinking, burning, or collision of the ship the meat arrived in such a condition that it had to be condemned as unfit for human food, and was consequently a total loss. Hamilton J. found as a fact upon the evi- dence of underwriters that the words " War- ranted free from particular average and loss " were a weU-known formula used in connection with the insurance of frozen meat ; that the words "and loss" in that formula were well undei-stood amongst underwriters to mean all loss, t^tal as well as partial ; and that the clause, however inapt to express that meaning, was in fact intended to mean that the underwriters only undertook the marine risks of stranding, sinking, burning, or collision. He held that, notwithstanding the provision as to the risk commencing before and continuing after the termination of the voyage, the clause had that meaning in this policy, and he accordingly held that the underwriters were not liable for the loss. Otago Farmers' Co-opekative Association op New Zealand v. Thompsox Hamilton J. [1910] 2 K. B. 145 — Warranty against " capture, seizure, or deten- tion " — Property of alien enemy. See Insurance (Capture), "l. 31- — Warranty against " contraband of war" — Persons not contraband — Breach of loarranty. Semhle, the term " contraband of war," in its nattiral sense, and in the absence of special circumstances, or of something in the context pointing to another meaning," is applicable to goods only, and not to persons ; and therefore the transport of military officei-s of a belligerent State as passengers on board a neutral ship is not a breach of a warranty against " contraband of war " in a policy of marine insurance. Judgment of Bigham J., [1908] W. N. 64 ; ( 1279 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1280 ) INSTJSANCE (MARINE)— mrfwaei. [1908] 1 K. B. 910, affirmed. Yakgtszb Insue- ANCB Association v. Indemnity Mutual Maeine Assueance Co. - - C. A. [1908] W. N. 145 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 504 32. — Warra7it)j of freedom from capture — Capture of neutral ship iy belligerents — Subse- quent loss by perils of tlie sea — Condemnation, — Relation bacli of title of captor. In a policy against perils of the sea the risk insured was only against total loss and "war- ranted free from capture." A neutral ship thus insured during the Kusso-Japanese war was captured by the Japanese, and while being navi- gated towards a court of prize was wrecked and became a total loss. She was afterwards con- demned in the prize court : — Held, that there was in fact a total loss by capture and that the owner could not recover on the policy. Decision of the C. A., [1908] W. N. 7 j [1908] 1 K. B. 601, affirmed on the above ground. ASBERSENi;. Marten - H. L. (E.) [1908J W. H. 164; [1908] A. C. 334 33. — Warramty of seaworthiness, Breach of — Smmd voyage by stages — Steamship iTisufficiently provided vnth coal — Burning ship's fittings and cargo — Wegligence of irmste/i- — "Held covered" clause in policy — Fixing amount of premium after breach of warranty. In the case of a voyage policy upon a steam- ship, where the contemplated voyage must, from its length, be necessarily divided into stages for coaling purposes, the shipowner is, as between himself and his underwriter, under an implied warranty that the ship shall, at the commence- ment of each stage of the voyage, be seaworthy for that stage, by having on board a sufficiency of coal for that stage. The pits, insured their steamship with the defts. for a round voyage from the United King- dom to port or ports on the west coast of South America and back again, with leave to call at any ports or places on the east coast of South America, &c. The insurance included general average. The perils insured against were of the seas, &o., subject to clauses annexed to the policy which provided (inter alia) : " This insurance is also to cover loss through the negligence of the master, &c.," and " Held covered in case of any breach of warranty, &c., at a premium to be hereafter arranged." During the voyage the ship called at Monte "Video, and through the negligence of the master sailed thence without having sufficient coal on board to take her to St. Vincent, her next place of call, where in ordinary course she would coal again. Her coal supply failing between Monte Video and St. Vincent, the master burnt for fuel some of the ship's fittings, spars, and some of the cargo, and if he had not done su she would have been in danger of becoming a total loss. The pits, did not know until after the ship reached St. Vincent that she had left Monte Video with- out sufficient coal, and no premium had been arranged under the " held covered " clause. In an action on the policy to recover in respect of the loss of the fittings, spars, and cargo : — Held, that the policy was a " voyage policy," P.D. INSURANCE (MARINE)— flo«i!maefeglect to clean and scour channel — Injury to other land — Water mill. See Land Drainage. 1. — Larceny — Criminal law. See under Criminal Law, — Licences— Revenue. See under Revenue — Licences. — Licensing Acts. See under Licensing Acts. — Live larks recently taken— Wild birds. See BlEDS. 1, 2. — ■• Local government. See under Local Government. — Locomotives. See under Locomotives. JVSTIC^S— continued. — London— Generally. See under London. — Lottery. See under Gaming. — Lunacy. See under Lunacy. — Master and servant. See under Master and Servant. — Merchandise marks — "Trade description" — Unintelligible writing explained by oral statement. See Trade-Mark. 7. — Milk — Adulteration. See under Adulteration. — Minerals and mines. See under Mines. — Money-lenders. See under Monbt-lbndees, — Motor cars. See under Motor Cab. — Music, Seizure of pirated copies of — Summons, Necessity for. See Coptbight — Music. 9. — Navy — Enlistment — Penalty for making false statement. See Armt and Navy. 1. — Nuisances. See under Nuisance. 15. — • Offence punishable upon summary con- viction' — Information ~- Principal offender — Conviction for aiding and abetting — Evidence — Summary Jurisdiction Act. 1848 (11 i5' 12 Vict. 0. i3), s. 5— Motor Car Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 36), s. 1. A person who has aided and abetted the com- mission of an ofEence punishable on summary conviction may, under s. 5 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, be convicted upon an information which charges him with having committed the ofEence as principal offender. Benford v. Sims, [1898] 2 Q. B. 641, foUowed. The appellant appealed to quarter sessions against a conviction for unlawfully driving his motor car at a speed dangerous to the public. At the hearing of the appeal there was a conflict of evidence as to whether the car was being driven by the appellant or by a lady seated by his side in the car. The quarter sessions, without deciding whether the appellant . was himself driving the car, dismissed the appeal, finding as facts that if the lady was driving she was doing so with the consent and approval of the appel- lant, who must have known that the speed was dangerous, and who, being in control of the car, could, and ought to, have prevented it : — Held, affirming the decision of quarter ses- sions, that there was evidence on which the appellant could be convicted of aiding and abetting the commission of the ofEence. Du Cros v. Lambouenb Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K. B. 40 — Offences. Sec under Local Government. — Pawnbroker. See under Pawnbboeek. ( 1327 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1328 ) JVSTlCSS—oontmued. 16. — Penalty — • Informer — Discretion to ieprive informer of portion of perialty — Metro- politan Police Courts Act, 1839 (2 J- 3 Vict. c.n],s.^i-— Betting Act, l?i5?, (16 * 17 Txct. c. 119), s. 9. Under s. 34: of the Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1839, a metropolitan police magistrate has a discretion to deprive an informer of any share in a penalty inflicted under the Betting Act, 1853, although s. 9 of the latter Act expressly directs that one-half of the penalty is to be paid to the informer. Hawkb v. Mackenzie (No. 3) Dlv. Ct. [1902]2K. B. 234 "^ Pharmacy Acts — Sale of poisons. See under Pharmacy Acts. ■™ Pistol — Sale^Conditious — For use by pur- chaser in his house — Reasonable proof. See Pistol. 2. — Police. See under Police. — . Poor law. See under Poor Law. •— Poor rate. See under Rates. — Practice — Appeal — " Criminal cause or matter " — Distress — BailifE — Costs and charges — Practice. See Appeal. 6. 17. — Practice — Form of case stated — Find- ing facts — FMdence set out — Costs — Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 (20 ^- 21 Vict. c. 43), s. 2. Case stated by justices. The facts are not material for the purpose of this report. The Court (Lord Alverstone G.J., Darling J., and BuckniU J.) dismissed the appeal. Lord Alverstone said that the case brought out in strong relief the necessity of the Court insisting that cases stated by justices should set forth the facts found by them. In the present case the Court was asked to review the finding of the justices on the evidence given before the justices which was set out in the case. If in future cases came up in which the evidence was stated instead of the facts being found, they would be sent back, and Ihe costs would not be allowed. The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857, s. 2, provided that the case should set forth the facts. On the merits the Court was of opinion that there was evidence to support the justices' finding, and dismissed the appeal. Stak Tea Co. v. Keale - Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 200 18. — Practice — Hearimg of information — Advocacy by police officer — Absence of informant — Offer of justices to adjourn — Refusal of offer — Waiver of irregularity — Objection to convic- tion — Summary Jurisdiction Act, 18iS (11 ^ 12 Vict. u. 43), s. 13. An information was preferred by the re- spondent against the appellant under s. 1, sub-s. 1, of the Motor Car Act, 1903, for driving a motor car at a speed which was dangerous to the public having regard to all the circumstances of the case. The appellant appeared before the justices with his solicitor at the hearing of the information, but the respondent was not presen,t either personally or by counsel or solicitor. I SVhTlGE,^— continued. A police officer, who was one of the witnesses for the prosecution, examined the other wit- nesses for the prosecution, and during the course of the case the appellant's solicitor requested the justices' clerk to make a note of the police officer's name. The justices thereupon announced that the case was adjourned. The appellant's solicitor, however, said that he preferred that the case should proceed. Accordingly the hearing proceeded and the appellant was convicted : — ■ Held, that the offer to adjourn having been declined by the appellant's solicitor, neither the absence of the respondent nor the fact that the police officer, although a witness, conducted the examination of the other witnesses for the prose- cution invalidated the conviction. Mat v. Bbbley - - Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 722 19. — Practice — Institution of prosecution — • Consent in writing — Bread Act, 1822 (3 ffeo. i, c. COT.), s. 16 — Sunday Observation Prosecution Act, 1871 (34 ^- 85 Vict. c. 87), s. 1. The provision of s. 1 of the Sunday Observa- tion Prosecution Act, 1871, that no prosecution or other proceeding shall be instituted for any offence committed under 29 Car. 2, c. 7 (The Sunday Observance Act, 1677), except by or with the consent in writing of the chief officer of police of the district or with the consent in writing of two justices of the peace or a stipen- diary magistrate, has no application to prosecu- tions under s. 16 of the Bread Act, 1822, for selling or exposing for sale bread on the Lord's Day. Rex v. Mead Div. Ct. [1902] 8 K. B. 213 20. — Practice — Institution of prosecution — Consent in writing of chief officer of police — Absence of chief constable — Consent by police superintendent — Sunday Observance Act, 1677 (29 Chas. 2, c. 7) — Sunday Observation Prosecu- tion Act, 1871 (34 ^- 35 Viet. v. 87), ss. 1 and 2, and Schedule. By ss. 1 and 2 and the schedule to the Sun- day Observation Prosecution Act, 1871, no prose- cution shall be instituted against any person for an offence committed by him under the Sunday Observance Act, 1677, except with the consent in writing of the chief officer of police of the police district in which the offence is committed, or of two justices or a stipendiary magistrate having jurisdiction in the place where the offence is committed ; and the " chief officer of police " is defined as meaning in a county " the chief constable .... or other officer having the chief command of the police in the police district." In the county and city of Kingston-upon- HuU a superintendent of police was in fact in chief command of the police in the police dis- trict during the temporary absence of the chief constable. He consented to the institution of a prosecution against a person for an offence alleged to have been committed by him under the Sunday Observance Act, 1677. At Kingston- upon-HuU there is no office of deputy chief constable : — ■ Held, that the superintendent of police had no power to give the consent, inasmuch as the Sunday Observation Prosecution Act, 1871, refers ( 1329 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1330 )] JVSTIC^S—continued. to the " chief officer of police " as a person de- signated by name, and the superintendent of police did not necessarily come within the defini- tion of that expression contained in the Act. Rbx v. Halkett Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 205 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 50 — Prohibition without costs, Rule absolute against justices for — Appeal does not lie as to costs — South Australia. See Australia. 11. — Public authorities' protection. See under Public Authorities' Peo- TECTIOSr. — Publication tending to prejudice fair trial — Jurisdiction of High Court to attach. See Contempt op Couht. 1. — Railway company. See under Railway. — Rates. See under LONDON — Kates. Rates. — Recognizances. See under Ckiminal Law — Eecog- nizauces. — Res judicata — Affiliation proceedings — Judg- ment of quarter sessions — Action for seduction. See Estoppel. 3. 21. — Rule against justices — Refusal to do aet relating to duties of office — Practice — Appli- cation by counsel — 11 A'' 12 Vict. c. 44, s. 5. A motion for a rule against justices under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 44, s. 5, must be made by counsel. Ex parte WALLACE C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 488 ■ — Sale of food and drugs. See under Adulteeation. Sanitary authority — Sewage flowing into river Thames — Local government. See Thames, Rivek. 2. — Sanitation — House let in lodgings or occupied by members of more than one family. See Aetisans' Dwellings. 1. — Schools. See under Schools. — Schools — Blind or deaf child — Liability of guardians of union. See Schools. 6. — Seamen. See under Shipping — Seamen. — Sewers. See under Sewees. — Shipping. See under SHIPPING. - — Shops. See under Shop. — Shops — By-law — Ultra vires — Power of magistrates to close shops at 10 p.m. See Scottish Law. 23. ■ — Slander — Words uttered after withdrawal of case. See Defamation — Slander, 4. JTJ STICE S — continued. ■ — Slaughter-house. See under Slaughtbe-hOUSE. — Stamp — Medicinal preparation — Exemption. See Revenue — Stamps. 17. — Statutory rules and orders — Validity — Condi- tion precedent. See Statutoet Rules aud Oedees. 1. — • Streets. See under London — Streets. Steeets. — Summary jurisdiction. See under Jueisdiction. — Summary jurisdiction. See under specific Titles. 22. — Summary jurisdiction — Summmis — Appearance of defendant hy cownsel — Warrant to compel personal attendance of defendant — Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848 (11 Sf 12 Vict, c. 43). Where in answer to a summons issued by a Court of summary jurisdiction the deft, has appeared by counsel there is no obligation upon him to appear personally, and the justices have no jurisdiction to compel his personal appearance by warrant. REX v. Thompson - Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 150 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 614 — Thames navigation — Navigation of barges — Hauling barges out of dock — " Navi- gated." See Thames (Rivbe). 3. — Trade union. See under Teade Union. — Tramways. See under Teamwats. — Truck Act. See under Master and Servant — Track Acts. — Vaccination. See under Vaccination. — Vagrancy. See under POOE Law. — Veterinary Surgeons Act — Qualified person — " Canine specialist." See Veteeinaet Suegeon. 1. — Wages. See under Master and Servant — Wages. Shipping — ^Wages. — Water. See under Watee. — Water-closets. See under Watbe-CLOSETS. — Water rates. See under Watee. — Weights and measures. See under Weights and Mbasuees, ( 1331 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1332 ) JVSTlCES—oontmued. — Whist — Absence of element of wagering — Licensing Act. See Gaming. 21. — Wild birds — " Eecently taken " — Larks — Evidence. See Birds. 1, 2. — Workshops. See under Paotoet Acts. Master and SBEVASfT — Factory Acts. JUSTICES' CLEEKS ACT — Claim by clerk to justices to fees in respect of witnesses called in opposition to grant. See Licensing Acts. 26. JTJSTinCATION — Discovery — Libel — Particu- lars of justification — Allegations of JUSTIFICATION— oo?!tte««(?. misconduct — Inspection of plaintiffs' books — Practice. See Discovert. 5. — Plea of — Action for wrongful dismissal — Duty of the trial judge — New trial ordered. See New Zealand. 1. — Procuring breach of contract — Cause of action — Interference with legal right — Malice. See Contract. 26. — Stipendiary magistrate — Petition for inquiry into a licensing poUl See New Zealand. 14. — Trespass — Act done in preservation of pro- perty — Extinguishing fiTe. See Trespass. 2. ( 1333 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910 ( 1334 ) K. KING'S PROCTOE— Costs. See under DlvoBCB- -Costs. - Hearing — Suspicion as to truth of petitioner's evidence — Adjournment — Eight of KING'S F'ROCIOU— continued. King's Proctor to intervene or to shew cause before decree nisi. See DivoKCB — Practice. 21. ( 1335 ) DIGEST OF GASES, l90l— I9l0. ( 1336 ) L, LABEL — On wrapper — Butter blended with milk ■ — Notice in shop. See Adulteeation. 7. ■ — Trade mark — Colourable imitation. See TeADE Mabk. 5. LABOTIE. See under Mastee and Sbevaut. LABOTIE BTJREATJX (LONDON) ACT (1902). See under London — Labour Bureaux. LABOUR EXCHANGES ACT, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 7), 'U an Act to promde for tlie estailishmenc of Zaiour Exchanges and fur other' purposes incidental tliereto. LACHES — Action by Attorney-General — ^Manda- tory injunction — Delay. See Canals. 1. — Advowson in gross — "Land" — Limitations, Statute of. (See Moetgage — Advowson. 1. — Attorney- General — Delay — London Building Act. See London — Buildings. 9. — Jersey, Law of — Jurisdiction of Boyal Court — Laches of plaintiff. See Jeeset. 2. — Street — Infringement of building line Penalty ■ — Conviction — Subsequent action by Attorney-General for injunc- tion. See Steeets. 8. LACHINE CANAL— Priority of passage into— Duty of vessel lying by — Canadian Canal Eegulations, 1895. See Canada — Canals. 1. I.ADDEE — " Scaffolding " — Workmen's com- pensation. /See Mastee AND Seevant — Compensa- tion. 136. — Ship — Workmen's compensation. See Master and Seevant — Compen- sation. 158. LADING-BiU of. See under Bill oe Lading. Shipping— Charterparty. LAMBETH WATEEWOBKS COMPANY — " Money invested in " — Bequests — Transfer of undertaking to Water Board — Compensation. See Will — " Money invested in." 1. LAMP-POST— Obstruction on highway— Inter- ference with trade — Adjoining owner. jSee Highway. 24. LANCASTER CHANCERY GOXS'B.T—Regulatio'ns as to investments to ie made from the surplus suitors" fund deposit interest accounts directed iy the Cliancellor of tlie Duchy and Cownty Palatine of Lancaster, with the advice and consent of the Vice- Chancellor of the said Cownty Palatine, to ie observed from and after Dec. 17, 1909. Ee- print from W. N. 1910 (Jan. 29), p. 69. See ante, p. cix. LANCASTER, DUCHY OF— Probate— Death of holder of title — Administration boud^ Sureties dispensed with. (See Pkobate — Administration, 1. LAND — ^Advowson in gross — "Land" — Limita- tions, Statute of — Laches. See MoETGAGB-^AdvowBon. 1. — Canada, Land in. See under CANADA — Crown lands ; Land. — Claim to take lands for railway purposes^ Compensation. See Cape op Good Hope. 7. — Common lands. See under CoMMoisr. — Company — Licence to hold lands. See under Company — Licence to hold Lands. — Contract of sale — Specific performance refused — Uncertainty as to considera- tion. See Teansvaal. 1. — Crown grant. Construction of — Confirmation of doubtful title — Laws of New South Wales. See New South Wales. 8. — Crown land in New Brunswick — Grant by Grown during adverse possession valid ■ — Eights of grantee. See Canada — Land. 2. — Crown lands— Inquiry as to falsity of state- ments of applicant for conditional purchase. See New South Wales. 10. — -Improvement of land. See under Impeovement of. Land. — Injury to other " land " — Water miU. /See Land Deainagb. 1. ( 1337 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 1838 ) LAND — continued. — " Interest in land " — Mortgage — Priority. See Teustee — Breach of Trust. 1. — ''Land " — Direction to accumulate — Purchase of real estate — " For the purchase of land only." See Accumulations. 3, 4. — Land in British Columbia — Military reserve. See Canada — Land. 1. — Lands taken for public purposes — Compensa- tion. SeeZANZIBAE. 1. — Mortmain and charitable use — Vesting in official trustee. See Ghaeity. 36. — Native title to possession of land — Jurisdiction as to cession to the Crown. See New Zealand. 13. ■ — New South Wales Acquisition Act. See New South Wales. 15. — New South Wales Crown Lands Act, 1861. See New South Wales. 9. — Poor rate — Assessment — Railway — Signal- box. See Rates. 33. — Sale of land for arrears of taxes — Rights of purchaser who has obtained certificate of sale. See Canada — Land. 2 . — Sale of lands under Assessment Act, 1897 — Notice in writing — Waiver — Law of Ontario. See Canada — Land. 3. — Trial — Right to have action tried with jury — Amount claimed not exceeding 5Z. — Enforcement of right relating to land. See County Coukt — Trial. 2. LAND APPEAL COTTET— Jurisdiction of— New South Wales Crown Lands Acts. See New South Wales. 11. LAND DRAINAGE — Neglect to clean and scorn- channel — Injury to other " laTid" — Water mill — Land Drainage Act, 1847 (10 S,- 11 Vict. u. 38), ss. .14, 15. By the Land Drainage Act, 1847, where by reason of the neglect of an occupier of land to cleanse and scour the channel of a stream lying in or bounding his land injury is caused to any other laud, the occupier of that land, after due notice, may take steps to cleanse and scour the channel, and recover the expense from the occu- pier whose neglect had caused the injury. The respondent was the owner of a water mill, and the appellant was the occupier of adjacent land through or along which the water passed after it had gone over the mill wheel. A quantity of silt formed in the stream where it passed the appellant's land, and in consequence of the appellant declining to cleanse and scoui- the channel at that point the water was penned back so as partially to submerge the mill wheel. Proceedings having been taken by the respon- dent under the Land Drainage Act, 1847 : — Held (affirming the decision of a Div. LAND 'D'B.MSiiG'E— continued. Ct., [1908] 1 K. B. 485), that the provisions of the Act were confined to injury done to the land itself, and did not apply where the injury complained of was injury to a mill. Finch v. Bannistbe - - C. A. [1908] W. N. 75 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 441 LAND JUDGE— Jurisdiction — Appeal. See lEisH Law. 2. LAND REGISTRY. See also under LAND TBAIv'SPEE. Pending the erection of new offices work of Middlesex Seeds Department carried on at Bishop's Court, Chancery Dane. Reprint from W. N. 1902 (June 14), p. 181. See Cdeeent Index, 1902, p. Ixxix. Middlesex Deeds Department — Removal to Land Registry, Lincoln's Inn Fields. Reprint from W. N. 1907 (May 11), p. 151. See Cueeent Index, 1907, p. Ixxvii. 1. — Restriction on register — Giarity — CoM- pany with charitable oijects incorporated under Companies Acts — " Endowment " — Exemption — Jurisdiction of Cliarity Commissioners — Chari- table Trusts Act, 1853 (16 <|- 17 Vict. u. 137), ss. 62-66 — Land transfer. The Church Army were incorporated in 1892, under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890, as an association limited by guarantee, and were licensed under s. 23 of the Act of 1867 to be registered vrithout the use of the word " limited." The objects of the co., as stated in their memorandum of association, were to carrj' on the work previously undertaken by an unincor- porated society of the same name, and generally to promote the welfare of the poor and the relief of distress by combined social and spiritual agencies, and the co. were empowered to acquire real or personal property convenient for their purposes, to erect, maintain, and alter any buildings upon any land held by them, to borrow or raise money by mortgage or charge, and generally to sell, improve, manage, lease, mortgage, exchange, dispose of, turn to account, or otherwise deal with all or any part of their property. The co. from time to time appealed to the public for subscriptions, and had recently acquired certain leasehold properties for the purposes of new headquarters by means of the subscriptions and donations given for that object. From the time when it was determined to acquire the new headquarters it had been the practice of the Church Army to insert " com- pletion of new headquarters" in its list of objects for which funds were required. On applying to,the Land Registry to register the lease of this recently-purchased property, the registrar took the objection that the Church Army was a charity and could not dispose of its property without the consent of the Charity Commissioners, and suggested that a restriction to that effect ought to be entered on the register. The Church Army then applied under the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897, that the registrar might be directed to register the applicants as proprietors of the leasehold land in question, without any restriction on the register, ( 1339 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1340 ) LAND REGISTRY— coreiiwmefi. to the efieot that no disposition of the laud was to be registered without the consent of the Charity Commissioners. Kelsewich J. held ([1905] W. N. 127) that the applicants were entitled to registration without any restriction. The C. A. /leld that the only question raised turned on the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, the point being ' whether the Church Army was exempted from the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners by virtue of the provisions of s. 62 of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, as interpreted by the various decisions on that subject. No question of law arose, as the law applicable to the present case was clearly stated and laid down by the C. A. in In re Clergy Orphan Corporation, [189i] 3 Ch. 145, and the appeal failed on the facts. By its memorandum of association the society reserved to itself full power to deal with its property as it pleased and as occasion should arise ; the whole scheme of the society's work involved a subdivision of places and purposes, but everything was worked with a, common object and for a common purpose, and funds subscribed for headquarters or for labouf homes could be applied for the general purposes of the society. Every person who sent his subscription or donation for headquarters must be taken to be aware of the way in which the society did its business, and with the knowledge that the donation or subscription was part of the general property of the society and so liable to be dealt with in the ordinary way of their business. In re Chtjbch Aemy, Att.-Gbn. ■». Chdkch Aemt C. A. [1906] "W. N. 73 Note. Followed by Joyce J., In re Wesleyan Metho- dist Chapel in South Sto'eet, Wandsworth, [1909] 1 Ch. 454. See next Case, — Restriction on register — Charity — " Endow- ment " — Exemption. See Charity. 28. 2. — Restriction on register — Religious society — -Purchase of land^-Wesleyan Methodist chapel — Model deed — Power of sale — Proceeds applic- able as income — Charitable Trusts Act, 1853 (16 ^ 17 Vict. 0. 137_), s. '62 — Endowment — Crnisent of Charity Commissioners — ISxemption — Registration wnder Land Transfer Acts, 1875 (38 ^ 39 Vict. c. 87) amd 1897 (60 Sj- 61 Vict. c. 65), Part II. By a conveyance on sale dated Feb. 13, 1906, a piece of land in the administrative county of London and contiguous to other land already held by them was conveyed to the trustees of a Wesleyan Methodist chapel upon the trusts of the model deed for Wesleyan Methodist chapels. Clause 36 of the model deed provided that upon a sale of land subject to the trusts thereof the trustees should apply the net proceeds " either for or towards promoting the preaching of the Gospel amongst the said people called Metho- dists, in the circuit in which the said chapel or place of religious worship shall, for the time being, be situated, or" otherwise as therein mentioned : — Held, that inasmuch as the case came within LAND REGISTRY— ooniiraMefi. the exemption provided by s. 62 of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, the trustees were entitled to be registered as proprietors of the piece of land so conveyed to them, without the entry on the register of any restrictions on their right to deal with the land. In re CUrgy Orphan Corporation, [1894] 3 Ch. 145, and In re Church Army, [1906] W. N. 73 ; 94 L. T. 559, followed. In re Wesleyan Methodist Chapel its South Street, Wandswoeth - - - Joyce J. [1909] 1 Ch. 454 LAND REVENUE RECORDS AND ENROL- MENTS. Treasury Orders, dated Bee. 21, 1903, jore- scribing the fees payable. Keprint from W. N. 1904 (Jan. 3), p. 2. See Curebnt Index, 1904, p. cxvii. Treasury Order, dated Mar. 18, 1903, deter- mining under the Public Offices Fees Act, 1879, as to the taking of fees by stamps. St. R. & 0. 1903, No. H69. — Record Office. See under Eecosd Office. land Revenue Records and Mnrolments, Office of — Notice under the Public Offices Fees Act, 1879, dated Mar. 14, 1903. Reprint from W. N. 1903 (Mar. 28), p. 88. • See Ctjeebnt Index, 1908, p. Ixxii. LAND TAX. Land Tax Commission Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 52), appoints additional Commissioners for executing the Aots granting a land tax and otliei- rates arid taxes, and to remove the qualification by estate required in the case of all such Com- missioner's, whetlier appointed undei' this or any other previous Act. — Annual sum payable by way of interest — Charge ou premises. See Limitations, Statute of. 9. — Covenant by lessor to pay land tax — Con- struction — Yalue of land improved by building. See Laitdloed and Tenajtt. 45. — Glebe lands let on leases — Exemption — User and occupation. See New South Wales. 18. 1. — Sospitals — Exemption — Land in occupa- tion of tenants — Land Tax Act, 1797 (38 Geo. 3, c. 5), s. 25. Any houses or lands, which on or before Mar. 25, 1693, belonged to any of the hospitals mentioned by name in s. 25 of the Laud Tax Act, 1797, are exempt from land tax, whether they form part of or are appurtenant to the sites of the hospitals or not, and whether they are in the occupation of the hospitals themselves or are let on lease to tenants. Govbbnoes of St. Thomas's, St. Baetholomew's, and Beide- WBLL Hospitals •«. Hudgell - Wills J. [1901] 1 K. B. 364 2. — Public underground lavatory — ■ Vesting of subsoil of road in sanitary authority — Liability to tax land — Land lax Act, 1797 (38 Geo. 3, ( 1341 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1342 ) lAND TAX- c. 5), s. i — Public Health (JLo'ndon) Act, 1891 (54 4- 55 Vict. c. 76), ss. 44, 45. A sanitary authority who, under the powers conferred by the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, provide and maintain a public lavatory under a road, have, by reason of the vesting in them, by s. 44 of the Act, of the subsoil of the road, such right of ownership in the lavatory as to render them liable to be charged with land tax in respect of it. Judgment of Wright J., [1904] 1 K. B. 19, reversed by CoUins M.E. and Stirling L.J., Mathew L.J. dissenting. Westminster Coe- POBATION «. Johnson. The Same v. Fuller C. A. [1904] W. N. 156 ; [1904] 2KB. 737 ■ — Lease — Covenant by lessor to pay land tax — Construction — Value of land improved by building. See Laudloed and Tenant. 45. — Eedemption — Interest, Recovery of — Lapse of time. See Limitations Statute op. 9. 3. — Redemption of land tax on lands — Liability to assessment of coal mines under re- deemed lands — Construction of redemjMon con- tract—Land Tax Act, 1797 (38 Geo. 8, c. 5), s. 4. In redemption contracts the word "lands" must be construed as having its natiu-al meaning, including everything down to the centre of the earth, unless at the time of redemption there is in existence a separate and distinct hereditament liable to be separately assessed ; and, if there is such a separate hereditament, all the circum- stances of the case existing at the time of redemption must be looked at in order to see whether the intention of the registered certificate was that the surface only should be redeemed or the land and everything beneath it. As coal and the profit to be derived from mining are nothing but the natural production and profit of the land, unopened seams of coal under land belonging to the same owner, in respect of which the land tax is redeemed, are Included in the redemption. Newton, Cham- bers & Co., Ld. 1). Hall Bray J. [1907] 2 E. B. 446 LAND TRANSFER. Land Transfer ^ci, 1897 (60 Krchase>- that, mortgagee should procure registration of himself as proprietm- — '^ Rci/istcred land" — " Charr/e" — Land Trans- fer Act. 1897 (60 Si 61 Yid. c. 65), s. 16, sub-s. 2, In this case the purchaser delivered requisi- tions, of which the following were material : — 16. " An authority to inspect the Register of Title No. 62,788 at the Land Registry must be given." 22. " In order to be in a position to execute a proper transfer of the property on the register to the purchaser the vendor must at his own expense get himself put on the register at the Land Registry as the registered proprietor of the property, in accordance with rule 151 of the Land Rules, 1903, 1907 and 1908 (Consoli- dated)." In answer to requisition 16 the vendor stated : " The vendor is not selling a registered title and can give no authority," and in answer to requisi- tion 22 he stated : " The vendor will not. He has not contracted to sell a, title on the register." The purchaser thereupon took out the present summons for a declaration that requisitions 16 and 22 had not been sufficiently answered. Warrington J. said that it was contended that in a case like the present s'. 16, sub-s. 2, of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, applied, and in order to see whether that was so or not it was ( 1347 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 1348 ) LAND TRANSFER- necessary to ascertain what was meant by " charge " in the sub-section. It was obviously a charge giving a power of sale over the land. In the present case, did the charge give a power of sale over the land within the meaning of the sub-section ? That led to the question, what was the " registered land " under the sub-section ? and for that one must look at the register and see what it was in respect of which the proprietor was registered. The proprietor was registered as proprietor of the leasehold premises in question for the whole term of 99 years, but the present vendor was not the holder of that term, but of a part only. He could not think that the sub- section rendered it incumbent on a person where there was a paramount title to procure the regis- tration of himself as proprietor. What the sub- section meant was that where land was on the register and a person was registered as the proprietor of that land, then, if the vendor was the vendor of the property in respect of which the proprietor was registered, it might be his duty to have himself put upon the register. But here the vendor was not selling the property in respect of which Abrahams was registered as proprietor under the lease of 1885. He was only selling a portion of the term. The answer to the purchaser's claim was that the vendor was not the proprietor of registered land, or of a charge giving a power of sale over the laud, within the meaning of the sub-section. There must, there- fore, be a declaration that requisitions 16 and 22 had been sufficiently answered. In re Voss AST) Saunder's Contract - Warrington 3. [1910] W. N. 217 8. — Registered title — Mortgage by deed — Contemporaneous instrument of charge — Order foreclosing mortgage, iut not charge — Rectifica- tion of register — Form of order — Zaiid Transfer Act, 1875 (38 ^- 39 Vict. c. 87), s. 95. Form of order under s. 95 of the Land Trans- fer Act, 1875, rectifying the register in a case where a forclosure order had forclosed a mort- gage by deed of registered land without fore- closing the contemporaneous instrument of charge. WBTMOtrTH v. Davis Swiafen Eady J. [1908] W. N. 139 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 169 — Registered title to land — Unregistered deed — Registerd charge. See Mebgee. 9. — Registration — Conditions annexed to title — Building restrictions — Modification — Consent — "Persons principally interested" — Land Transfer Act, 1875 (38 I 39 Via. c. 87), s. 84. Certain building land in Middlesex, forming part of a larger estate belonging to the defts. and registered with an absolute title, was sold by them to the pit. oo; Thei defts., in order to protect their remaining property, enacted from the CO. certain restrictive conditions as to the class of houses to be built upon the purchased land, and these conditions were registered against the title of the co. The co. applied under s. 84 of the Land Transfer Act, 1875, with the consent of the defts., for an order modifying these conditions by reducing the minimum size and value of the houses. The I AND X'RA'SSFER— continued. 00. had mortgaged the purchased land, and had also sold off several plots to various purchasers, and the defts. had contracted to sell their re- maining property. The consent of all parties, except the purchasei-s of three outlying plots, had been obtained : — Held, (1.) that the Court ought to accept the consent of the parties interested if competent to consent, as sufficient proof within s. 84 that the modifications would be beneficial to them ; (2.) upon the evidence, that, in the absence of consent, this fact was not proved to the satis- faction of the Court ; (3.) that all the persons who took with notice of the conditions were bound by them and were " persons principally interested " in the enforcement of them within the section, and that the order could only be made subject to their consent being obtained. Observations as to the meaning of " persons principally interested." Ground Rent De- velopment Co. ■;;. West Kekewioh J. [1902] W. N. 64 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 674 — Restriction of register — Charity. See Land Ebgistrt. 1. — Restrictive covenants — Building scheme — Right of purchasers inter se — Registra- tion — Conditions annexed to title. See Vendor and Pdkchasbb — Cove- nants. 4. — Retainer — Personal representative — Real representative — Eight to retain out of real assets. See Administration. 27. — Stamp duty — Conveyance or transfer — Devise of real estate — Assent in writing of executor. See Ebvenite — Stamps. 12. — Western Australia Transfer Land Act. See under Australia. — Will — Mixed fund — Express charge of debts — Period of limitation. See Will — Charges. 2. — Will — Sale by general executors — Concur- rence of special executors — Vendor and purchaser. See Executor — Sale. 1. LANDED ESTATES COURT, IRELAND— Rights of jointress — Incumbered Estates Court (Ireland) Act. See Irish Law. 1. LANDING STAGE — Collision - " Vessel " — Preliminary acts. See Shipping — Collision. 39. LANDLORD AND TENANT. See also under Lease. Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 56), amends the law relatiTig to Agricultural Holdings. Agrioultv/ral Holdimgs Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 28), consolidates tlie enactments relating to agricultural Iwldings in England and Wales. XX 2 ( 1349 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 1350 ) Tenancy from year to - Revocation — Notice — LANDLORD AND TESAST— continued. Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908 (8 Udio. 7, c. 36), consolidates the enactments with respect to Small Holdings amd Allotments in ^ England and Wales. And see under Small Holdings Km> Allotments. Dhtressfor rent — Law of Distress Amendment Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 53), amends the law as regards a landlord's right of distress for rent. — Advertising station- year — Licence Agreement. See Licence. 1. — Advowson — Lease of rectory — Pluralities Act, 1838. See Ecclesiastical Law — Eectory. 1 . 1. — Agreement for tenancy —Failure as pre- sent demise — Operations as a^jreement for future lease — Specific performance. The agent of the owners of a house signed a document by which he purported to " have let " the house to the deft, at a weekly rental, and which continued : . " I agree not to raise Mr. Abrahams any rent as long as he lives in the house and pays rent regular. I shall not give him notice to quit. Any time Mr. Abrahams wishes to move out, I promise to return to him the 62. he has paid me on taking possession of the house." The pits., treating the deft, as a weekly tenant, gave him notice to quit, and brought this action to recover possession of the house : — Held, that the document could not, having regard to its terms, be treated as creating a weekly tenancy, and that whether it purported to be an attempt to create an immediate demise for the life of the deft., which was void at law as not being by deed, or an agreement to grant a lease for the life of the deft., he was entitled to specific performance. . Browne r. Warner, (1807) 14 Ves. 15S, 409 ; 9 R. R. 259, and Parlier v. Taswell (1858), 2 De G. & J. 659, followed. Cheshire Lines Committee v. Lewis, (1880) 50 L. J. (Q.B.) 121, considered. Zimblbe d. Abrahams - C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 677 2. — Agreement of ten/incy — Construction of. A tenant entered into possession of premises under an agreement of tenancy " for a period of twelve months with the option of a lease after the aforesaid time at a rental of SOI. per annum" : — Held, that under that agreement the tenant had a right to claim a lease for a further period of at least one year after the expiry of the first twelve months. Semlle; per Kennedy J., he had a right to claim a lease for his Ufe. Austin v. Newham Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 167 — Agreement to let from year to year — Written ofiier containing two alternatives — Verbal acceptance of one. See Specific Pbefokmanob. 3, 3. — Agricultural holdings — Compensation for improvements — Eetrospective effect of statute — Agr-' cultural Holdings^ {Scotland) Act, 1883 LANDLORD AND TETH AST— continued. (46 ^ 47 T'ict. c. 62} — Market Gardeners' Com- pensation (Scotland) Act, 1897 (60 ^- 61 Vict, c. 22), a. 4. The Market Gardeners' Compensation (Scot- land) Act, 1897, is not retrospective, and does not entitle tenants under leases current at the commencement of the Act to compensation in respect of market garden improvements executed prior to the commencement of the Act. Decision of Ct. of Sess., (1900) 2 F. 1140. Smith v. Callaudbr H. L. (Sc.) [1901] W. N. 192 ; [1901] A. C. 297 Note. This case was followed by Cozens-Hardy J., Mears v. Callender, [1901] 2 Ch. 388. See No. 5, below. 4. — Agricultural holdings — Farming agree- ment — Covenant to stack and consum,e hay and xfraiv on the premises — Destruction hy fire — Compensation for manurial value — Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 (63 S, 64 Tict. c. 50), s. 1. By an agreement for the letting of a farm the tenants agreed to stack upon the premises all the crops of hay and straw arising from the farm, and to consume on the farm aU the hay, straw, chaff, and green crops arising therefrom, and to carry out and spread upon the farm in regular succession all the dung and manure arising therefrom. During the continuance of the tenancy a quantity of hay and straw stacked on the farm was destroyed by an accidental fire : — Held, that, upon the termination of the tenancy, the landlord was not entitled, in answer to a claim by the tenants under the AgriculturalHoldingsActs, 1883 — 1890, in respect of unexhausted improvements, to claim com- pensation for the loss of the manurial value of the hay and straw so destroyed as a breach of the agreement. In re Hull and Lady Mbux's Aebiteation. C. A. [1905] W. N. 15 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 588 — Agricultural purposes. Lease of land for — Covenant not to sell a lease for build- ing purposes — Breach — Forfeiture — Law of the Transvaal. See Teansvaal. 2. 5. — Agri-cultural holdings — Fitetu/'es, JRe- movalle — Glass-houses — Right to remove fruit trees — Compensation — Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1S83 (46 S,' 47 Vict. c. 61), ss. 1, 3, 34, 64, 55, 60 — Market Gardeners' Compensa- tion Act, 1895 (58 .5' 59 Firf. v. 27), s. 4. A landlord in 1887 demised a farm to deft, for a term expiring in 1901. The lease provided (clause 13) that in the last year the landlord might enter and sow certain seeds, and that the tenant should also leave gratis for the landlord " all the roots remaining unconsumed in the ground, and also all improvements made by the tenant, and aU. cultivations, dressings, and manures in, consideration of no claim being made by the landlord for similar matters on the tenant now entering" ; and (clause 14) that the tenant might, at his own cost, convert into an orchard so much of certain meadow land as he thought proper : and (clause 21) that the Agricultural ( 1351 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1352 ) LANDLOBD AND T^ETit ATHT— continued. Holdings (England) Act, 1883, should not apply to the contract of tenancy. Shortly after the tenancy commenced deft, turned part of the meadow land into an orchard in which in 1901 were over 1200 trees (apple, pear, plum, and cherry) in good bearing condition, and, though not capable of removal, worth some hundreds of pounds to an incoming tenant. Deft, also erected ten glass-houses. One had concrete sides, and its glass span-roof substantially rested on the sides and could be removed without damaging the walls. In the case of the other houses the glass span-roofs were supported by and nailed to wide sills which in turn were nailed to and supported by wooden piles driven into the ground. In these houses deft, grew grapes, peaches, nectarines, tomatoes, and strawberries, which he sold in Reading and Covent Garden, carrying on the trade of a market-gardener with his land- lord's knowledge ; — Seld— (1.) That at common law deft, could not cut down or remove the orchard trees. (2.) (Following Peiaoii v. Mohart, (1801) 2 East, 88 ; 6 K. E. 376, notwithstanding the criticism of it in Elwes v. Maw, (1802) 3 East, 38 ; 6 E. E. 523), that at common law the deft, could lawfully remove the glass-houses unless precluded by clause 13 of the lease. (3.) That clause 13 did not preclude him, and on the construction of it " improvements " did not include glass-houses. (4.) (following Smith v. Callander, [1901] A. 0. 297, as to the meaning of the similarly worded s. 4 of the Market Gardeners' Compensa- tion (Scotland) Act, 1897), that s. 4 of the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895, only applied to improvements made after Jan. 1, 1896, and did not assist deft. (5.) That as the glass-houses were erected without the landlord's written consent required by s. 3 of the Act of 1883, deft, was precluded from obtaining compensation for them. (6.) That the common law right of deft, to remove the glass-houses was left untouched by the Act of 1883, s. 34 of which was lawfully excluded by clause 21 of the lease. (7.) That as the orchard was planted with the landlord's consent in writing, which was held to be given by the lease, deft, was entitled to compensation for the trees under ss. 1 and 3 of the Act of 1883, there being nothing in clause 13 of the lease to exclude him from compensation. (8.) That if clause 13 must be construed as excluding deft, from statutory compensation, the attempted exclusion was inoperative by reason of s. 55 of the Act of 1883. The deft, was therefore held to be entitled (a) to compensation for the trees, (J) to remove the glass-houses. Mbaes v. Callbndbk Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 114 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 338 6. — Agricultural lu)ldings — Notice to quit — Service — Begidered letter — Agricultural Hold- ings Act, 1883 (46 # 47 Vict. c. 61), s. 28. The provisions of o. 28 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, as to the service of " any notice, request, demand, or , other instrument , LANDLORD AND TENANT— CTO&« MoETGAGE — Eedemption. i. 23, — Building estate — Mestrictive covenant — Lessor's covenant not to infringe the iuild- in^ line on plot adjoining demised p9'flmises — Covenant rminin^ icith the land — ^^ Assign" — Breach — Damages. A covenant in a lease that the lessor and his assigns will not erect or permit to be erected any buildings in front of the building line on the land adjoining the demised premises is a covenant that " touches or concerns the thing demised " within the second resolution in Spencer's Case, (1582) 5 Eep. 16 b ; 1 Sm. L. C, 11th ed. p. 55, and therefore runs with the land. A corporation, owners of a building estate, granted a lease of a plot of land to A. for ninety-nine years, and entered into a restrictive covenant as above with A., his executors, ad- ministrators, and assigns, in respect of the plot of land adjoining the demised premises. After- wards they entered into a building agreement with B. in respect of the adjoining plot of land, under which B. was to submit his building plans to them for approval, and on approval was to build forthwith in accordance with the plans, and on completion of his buildings was to have a ninety-nine years' lease of the plot. On B.'s plan (which did not shew the building line) being approved, he forthwith erected his build- ings, which infringed the building line. On complaint by the assignee of A.'s lease, the corporation served B. with a notice to observe the building' line, but took no further steps against him, and subsequently proposed to grant him his lease : — Held, that the covenant in A.'s lease touched or concerned the thing demised and ran with the land so as to entitle his assignee to sue the corporation on the covenant. Held, also, that B. was an "assign" of the corporation and that they were liable in damages for his breach of the covenant. Semble, that even if B. was not an "assign" the corporation had under the circumstances " permitted " a breach of the covenant. EicKETTS r. Enfield Chuechwakdens Neville J. [1909] W. N. 43 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 644 — Club, Liability of trustees of, in respect of leases. See Clubs. 1. — Company — Leases. See under Company — Leases. LANDIOBD AND T'ESAST—coniintced. — Compensation — Colliery — Eight of lessee to sink shaft in land of lessor not demised — Purchase by railway company. See Lands Clauses Acts. 6. — Compensation — Condition precedent — Tenant —Title. See Lands Clauses Acts. 9. — Compensation — Suspension of pastoral lease. See New South Wales. 19. — Condition, Unreasonable — Licence to assign — Lessor and lessee. See J\«s. 9 — 19, aiove. — Conditions. See also under Assignment. — Constructive notice — Adverse title — Notice by tenancy. See Vendoe and Puechasee — Title. 2. — Corporation — Dissolution — Lease — Bona vacantia — Chattels real — Limited com- pany lessees — Sureties for payment of rent during the term. See CoEPOEATiON. 10. — Costs — Action founded on tort — Agreement for lease of house — Eemoval of fixtures. See Costs. 75. 24. — Costs — Lease — Xfnderlease — CocenMritsto repair — Breach ty lessee — Forfeiture — Relief — Breach by underlessee — Bamages — Remoteness. A lease made in 1887 contained covenants by the lessee to repair in general terms, and to repair within three months after notice in writing, and a proviso for re-entry on breach of the lessee's covenants. This lease shewed on its face that the reversion was a leasehold reversion. The head lease, made in 1855, contained covenants to repair and a proviso for re-entry in substantially the same terms as those of the covenants and proviso in the lease of 1887. The head landlord served on his lessee a notice in writing to repair ; the lessee served a similar notice on his under- lessee, who failed to do the repairs in three months. The head landlord thereupon brought an action for the recovery of the demised premises. The repairs were subsequently executed, and the lessee under the lease of 1855 commenced pro- ceedings for and obtained relief against forfeiture. In an action by the lessee against the under- lessee for breach of the covenant to repair in the lease of 1887, Lord Coleridge J. held, following a dictum of Lindley L.J. in Ebhetts v. Conquest, [1S95] 2 Ch. 377, that the pit. could not recover the costs of the proceedings for relief. Claee t\ Dobson lord Coleridge J. [1910] W. N. 227 — Costs — Taxation — Preliminary negotiations — Third party. See Solicitoe — Costs. 20. — Costs — Unnecessary defendants — Weekly tenants — Practice. See Costs. 78. ( 1363 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1364 ) LAHDLORD AND T'ETSMI'C—contmued. — Costs o£ lease — Taxation — Concurring parties — Separate solicitors — Collective bill. (See^SoLiciTOB — Costs. 22. 25. — Covenant — Past ireaches of — Power to lessee to deterviine lease on notioe given — Avoidance of covenants — Omission to reserve lessor's rights — Liability of lessee for past breacloes of covenant. A lease for fourteen years provided that the lessees should have power to determine the lease at the end of the first seven years upon giving six months' notice in writing, and that " in such case this present indenture and every clause, matter, and thing herein contained shall, upon the expiration of the said notice, cease and deter- mine and be void, anything hereinbefore con- tained to the contrary notwithstanding"; the proviso, however, did not contain the usual reser- vation or the lessor's rights in respect of existing breaches of the lessee's covenants : — Held, that, upon the determination of the lease by the lessees under the above power, the lessor was entitled to sue them for existing breaches of their covenants notwithstanding that his right to do so was not expressly reserved. Bloee v. Gitjlini Wright J. [1903] W. N. 14 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 356 26. — Covenant runniiig loith the land — Cove- nant iy underlessor with UTiderlessee to perform covenants of head lease — Collateral covenant. There is no authority for the proposition that a covenant in a leasee to do an act not in respect of the demised premises, but which will protect from forfeiture the estate of the lessee in those premises, is a covenant which runs with the land. A lease for years' of land contained a covenant by the lessee to keep in repair all buildings erected on the land and a proviso for re-entry for breach of that covenant. Of several houses erected on the land two were demised by an underlease in which the underlessor covenanted for himself and his assigns with the underlessee and his assigns (1.) for quiet enjoyment ; (2.) for the performance of the covenants of the head lease by the lessee thereof so far as they affected the land included in the head lease and not demised in the underlease ; (3.) to indemnify the underlessee and his assigns against breaches of those covenants. The underlessor's assignee (in whom the head lease had vested) failed to perform the covenant to repair in the head lease, and the head lessor re-entered on all the land demised by the head lease, and ejected the assignee of the underlessee from the two houses demised by the underlease : — Held., that the covenant in the underlease to perform the covenant in the head lease relating to premises not demised by the underlease, being a covenant not touching or concerning the land demised in the underlease, did not run with the land, and that the assignee of the underlessor was not liable for breaches of the above-named covenants in the underlease. Decision of the 0. A., [1908] 1 K. B. 94, affirmed. Dewar v. Goodman - H. L. (E.) [1908] W. ■&. 260 ; [1909] A. C. 72 LANDLORD AND TENANT— coffltiwae^?. — Covenant running with land— Option during whole term ' to purchase freehold — Executory interest in land — Perpetuity — 32 Hen. 8, c. 34 — Lessor and lessee — ■ Lease. See Covenant. 4. — Crown, Chattels belonging to — Prerogative — Distress for rent — Privilege. See Ceown. 5. — Crown lands. See under Ceown. — Crown, Lease vesting in the — -Corporation — ■ Dissolution — Bona vacantia. See COKPOEATION. 10. — Death of lessee — Administrator ad colligenda bona — Power to sell — Entry into posses- sion — Rent. See Administeation. 20. — Determination of lease— Liability of lessee for past breaches of covenant. See No. 25, above. 2t. — Determination of lease — Proviso en- abling lessees to determitte lease by notioe — Notice by one of two lessees — Validity. Where a lease contains a proviso enabling the " leseees " to determine the lease by notice, a notice given by one of two lessees will not, in the absence of evidence of authority from the other lessee to give it or of circumstances from which the Court can infer such authority, be effectual to determine the lease. Doe V. Summersett, (1830) 1 B. & Ad. 135, distinguished. In re Viola's Indbntuee op Lease. Hampheey v. Stenbuet Warrington J. [1908J W. N. 255 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 244 28, — Determination of tenancy — Lease for term of years — Express tenancy at will created on expiration of term — Implied incorporation of terms of lease — Arbitration clause — Action for occupation rent — Staying proceedings — Arbitra- tion Act, 1889 (52 ^- 53 Vict. c. 49), ss. 4, 27. A colliery lease, which empowered the lessees to carry foreign coal over the surface, provided that all disputes relating to the lease should be referred to arbitration. Shortly before the expiration of the term the lessees by letter requested the lessors to grant an extension of the lease on the existing terms for six months, and the lessors wrote in reply that the lessees might consider themselves tenants at will of both mine and way-leave pending further arrange- ments. The lessors having brought an action against the lessees in respect of their exercise of the way-leave during the tenancy at will, the lessees applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1889 : — Held, upon the construction of the letters, that the terms of the lease, including the arbi- tration clause, applied to the tenancy at will, so far as applicable to such a tenancy, and that the proceedings ought to be stayed. Per Cozens-Hardy M.E. : Where on the expira- tion of a lease the lessee is expressly authorized to continue in possession as tenant at will, in the absence of evidence of a contrary intention, ( 1365 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1366 ) LANDLORD AND TENANT— coreiiMwe*?. the terms and conditions of the original lease apply to the tenancy at will so far as they are consistent with such tenancy. Morgan v. "William Haeeison, Ld. C. A. [1907] 2 Cli, 137 — Disclaimer — Lease — Mortgagees by demise — Option to take vesting order or be excluded — County court — Jurisdiction. See Bankeuptcy — Jurisdiction. 1. Distress for Eent — Zaw of Distress Amend- ment Act, 1908 (8 JSdw. 7, c. 53), amends the law as regards a landlord's right of distress for rent. — Distress for rent. See also under Disteess. 28. — Distress — Beerhouse — Covenant by lessee to use premises only as ieerJtouse — j\'oii-re newal of licence — ImjiossiMlity of performing covenant — Continuance of lease — Compensation — Licen^sing Act, 1904 (4 Mdw. 7, c. 23), s. 2, sub-s. 1. By an indenture of lease made in 1895 the pit. demised to the deft, certain premises de- scribed as " all that beerhouse and premises with the bakehouse in the rear " for a term of twenty- one years. The lease contained covenants by the deft, to continue the premises as a beerhouse at all times during the term and not to use the premises or permit them to be used in any other manner than as a beerhouse without the consent of the pit. The house had been licensed as a beer- house since before the passing of the Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869. In 1905 the renewal of the licence was refused under the Licensing Act, 1904, on the ground that it was not necessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood, and in Aug., 1907, compensation was paid to the pit. and the deft. In an action to recover a half-year's rent due in Jan., 1908 :— Held, that the non-renewal of the license had not the eflfect of putting an end to the lease, and that the deft, was therefore liable for the rent. Geimsdick v. Swkbtman - Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 182 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 740 — Distress — Fixtures — Advertisement hoardings — Eight to distrain. See Disteess. 3. — Distress — Protected goods — Reputed owner- ship. See Distress. 8. ■ — Distress for rent — Exemption — Goods let to wife of tenant — Hire-purchase agree- ment. See Distress. 10. 30. — Distress for rent — Rent due on Sunday — Legality of distress levied on following Monday. At common law Sunday is not a dies non. Rent may lawfully be paid by a tenant on a Sunday. Therefore where it is due on that day, and is not paid, it will be in arrear on the following Monday, and the landlord may then lawfully levy a distress for it. Child v. Edwai^ds Ridley J. [1909] W. N. 172 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 753 Kote. See also Milch v. Franlmn 4' Co., Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 100 ; London— Mayor's Court. 2. LANDLORD AND T'ESMST— continued. — Distribution of insolvent's estate — Landlord's privilege — Law of Quebec. See Canada — Insolvent Estates. 1. 31. — Drains — Collateral agreement — Parol warranty that drains are in order. The pit. and the deft, negotiated for the lease of a house by the latter to the former. The terms were arranged, but the pit. refused to hand over the counterpart that he had signed unless he received an assurance that the drains were in order. The deft, verbally represented that they were in good order, and the counterpart was thereupon handed to him. The lease contained no reference to drains. The drains were not in good order, and an action was brought to re- cover damages for breach of warranty : — Held, that the representation made by the deft, as to the drains being in good order was a warranty which was collateral to the lease, and for breach of which an action was maintainable. Db Lassallb v. Guildfoed - - C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 215 — Estoppel in pais. See Estoppel. 1. 32. — Evidence, Inadmissibility of — Col- lateral agreement — Lease under seal — Covenant to pay rent in advance — Antecedent agreement to take bill for rent — Contract. Where, in an action by lessor against lessee for a quarter's rent upon a covenant in a lease for payment of the rent quarterly in advance, the deft, set up by way of defence that by a parol agreement made between the pit. and the deft, antecedently to the execution of the lease the deft, agreed to take a bill pay- able at three months by way of payment of each quarter's rent in advance as it became due, and that the deft, had tendered such a bill to the pit. in respect of the rent sued for, which the pit. refused to take : — Held, that evidence of such an agreement as alleged was inadmissible. Hendbeson r. Arthur - C. A. [1906] W. N. 207 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 10 Note. Dictum of Farwell J. in, followed by War- rington J., In re J. Defries Sc Sons, Ld., [1909] 2 Ch. 423. See Company — Debentures. 51. 33. — E.eecntion — Judgment creditor — Arrears of rent — " Landlord " — " Rent" — Landlord and Tenant Act, 1709 (8 Anns, c. 18), s. 1. In 1896 a brewery co. who were lessees of a public-house granted an underlease of the same to I., who mortgaged his interest to the pit., and gave a second mortgage to the co. In 1901 I. became banlcrupt, and the deft, was appointed his trustee in bankruptcy. In 1902 the co. went into possession as second mortgagees and let the public-house to a tenant who agreed to pay a rent of 150Z. a year for the premises and an additional yearly sum of 1250Z. in lieu of premium for goodwill. On Mar. 8, 1909, the CO. obtained judgment against their tenant for 960Z. and gave him a month's notice to deter- mine his tenancy. On Mar. 9, 1909, before the tenancy expired, the pit. commenced a fore- closui-e action against the deft, and the co., and ( 1367 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1368 ) LANDLORD AND TETH &.1!!T— continued. on Mar. 12 a reoeiverand manager was appointed, to whom the co. was directed to give up posses- sion. Later on the same day the sheriff levied execution in respect of tlie oo. 's judgment debt :— Held by Joyce J., [1909] W. N. 244, that the receiver was " landlord " of the premises within the meaning of s. 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1709, and as such was entitled to be paid by the execution creditor one year's arrears of the rent ; and Jield by Joyce J. and the 0. A., that the rent comprised the 150^. only, the 1250Z. not being rent within the meaning of the statute. Cox r. Haepeb - - C. A. [ 1910] W. N. 34 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 480 — Factory — Expense of complying with require- ment of sanitary authority — Jurisdic- tion. See CO0NTY CouEX — Jurisdiction. 5. — - Factory Acts — Covenant by lessee to dis- charge outgoings — Unde]'ground bake- house. See Factoet. 8. — Farming lease — Outgoing tenant — Arbitra- tion — Sheep stock valuation — Agricul- tural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908. See Scottish Law. 12. — Fine on surrender of lease — Tenant for life and remainderman — Capital or income. See Settled Land— Leases. 2. — Fixtures. See under Fixtuees. 34. — Fixtures — lenaTit's covenaint to deliver up demised premises with fixtures — Surrender and creation of new tenancy. A lease of houses made in 1851 for a term of seventy years contained a lessee's covenant at the expiration or determination of the term to deliver up the demised premises " with all and singular the fixtures and articles belonging thereto." In 1907 the lease was vested in A., and the premises were occupied and used as a common lodging-house by W., who held as a weekly tenant from A. In June, 1907, the lessors served on A. a notice to repair the premises, and A. in writing made an offer to surrender the premises at once and to pay 1001. towards the repairs, and this offer was accepted by the lessors. W., who had affixed to the premises things alleged to be tenant's or trade fixtures, was aware of what was going on, but the lessors did not know of his sub-tenancy until July 1, 1907. The lessors and A. wished to get rid of the sub-tenancy, and W. knew that this was their intention, and early in Aug. A. gave, and W. accepted, a notice to quit on Aug. 19. By an agreement in writing dated Aug. 7 between the lessors and "W., the latter became the weekly tenant of the lessors as from Aug. 12, but no agreement was entered into with reference to W.'s fixtures. By a surrender by deed executed on Aug. 9 (but dated Aug. 6 so as to make it precede the agreement with W.) A., as beneficial owner, surrendered and assigned the demised premises LANDLOED AND T'ETHASX— continued. to the lessors, " to the intent that the residue . . . . unexpired of the term of years " therein might merge and be extinguished in the freehold and inheritance. On Sept. 12, 1907, the lessors served W. with a notice to quit on Sept. 23 : — Seld — (1.) that the lessee's covenant to deliver was binding on W., and was not confined to landlord's fixtures, but extended to tenant's and trade fixtures ; (2.) that an agreement to surrender precluded the lessee from removing fixtures then upon the demised premises, although they were tenant's or trade fixtures, but would not affect his sub-tenant's right of removal without the consent of the latter, although the exercise of that right might make the lessee unable to coihplete his contract with the lessor ; (3.) that a contract to surrender a lease was a contract to surrender in possession free from sub-tenancies ; (4.) that if W. consented to the surrender, his tenancy was thereby surrendered and his rigfit to remove fixtures was gone ; (5.) that if W. did not consent to the surrender, he was between Aug. 9 and 12 the tenant of the lessors under the sub-tenancy grated by A., and even a rightful removal during this period by W. would have been a breach of the covenants for title implied by A.'s surrender ; but (6.) that by accepting the tenancy commencing on Aug. 12 W. surrendered such tenancy as he already had and with it any right to remove fixtures. Semtle, that if a tenant, on surrendering his lease in order that a new lease be granted, makes no stipulation to the contrary, he loses his right to remove fixtures, inasmuch as the surrender prima facie includes fixtures, and the subject of the new lease is prima facie what is surrendered in order to be re-demised ; although in excep- tional cases a termor remaining in possession after the expiration of his term under circum- stances shewing that there is merely a prolonga- tion of the term is allowed to remove fixtures after the term is ended. Leschallas v. Woolf Parker J. [1908] 1 Ch. 641 — Fixtures, Tenant's — Removal — Determination of lease by forfeiture — Mortgage of lease — Bight of mortgagee. See Company — Leases. 1. — • Fixtures, Trade. See under Fixtuees. — Flats, Building let out in — Negligence — Staircase not lighted — Landlord, lia- bility of, to persons other than tenants. See Flats. 1. — Flats, House let in — Liability of landlord for disrepair of roof. See Negligence. 6. 35. — Forfeiture — JE^ectmewt — Mortgagee of underlease — Relief — Costs — Parties — Common Law Procedure Act, 1852 (15 „f 16 Vict. c. 76), ss. 210, 211, 212 — Common Law Procedure Act, 1860 (23 4- 24 Vict. o. 126), .s. 1. A lessor having ejected an underlessee for non-payment of ground-rent, mortgagees by sub- demise of the underlease applied for relief under the ordinary equitable jurisdiction and the Com- mon Law Procedure Acts, claiming a direct ( 1369 ) DIGEST OF GASES, 1901^1910. ( 1370 ) lANDLOBD AND TES AST—continued. lease for their mortgage term, on the usual conditions. The lessor opposed the application on the ground that the lessee and the assignee of the head lease were not parties, and on other grounds which failed. It appeared that the lease had been assigned by the lessee's trustee in bankrupcty twenty- seven years ago, and that the assignee had rot been heard of for twenty-six years, and could not be traced : — Held, that the above circumstances afforded sufficient reason for not malting the lessee and assignee parties as prima facie required by Hare V. Mms, [1893] 1 Q. B. 604, and that the mort- gagees were entitled to the relief claimed : Held, also, that the mortgagees must pay the costs of the action, except so far as they had been increased by the lessor resisting their claim to relief, which increased costs must be paid by the lessor. Howard v. Fanskawe, [189.5] 2 Ch. 581, 592, followed. Nemlolt Y. Bingham, (1895) 72 L. T. 852, distinguished. Humphreys v. Moktbn Swinfen Eady J. [1905] W. N. 66 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 739 36. — Forfeiture — Relief — Writ claiming possession — Election to determine tenancy — Underlease — Relief granted to lessee — Effect of underlease — Conregancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (44 ^- 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 14. A lease of premises contained a covenant by the lessee to repair, and a proviso for re-entry upon breach of any covenant in the lease. The lessee sub-let to the deft. , the underlease con- taining a covenant to repair similar to that in the head lease, and a similar proviso for re-entry. The premises having become out of repair, the lessor issued a writ against the lessee to recover possession. The lessee thereupon assigned the lease, subject to and with benefit of the under- lease, to an assignee, who obtained an order, under s. 14, sub-s. 2, of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, that all further pro- ceedings in the action should be stayed, and that the assignee should have relief from the forfeiture and should hold the premises according to the old lease without any new lease. The assignee then brought an action against the deft, for rent due upon the underlease subsequent to the issue and service of the writ to recover possession : — Held, affirming the decision of Darling J., [1909] 2 K. B. 894, that though the issue and service of the writ to recover possession operated as a final election by the lessor to determine the lease, the effect of the order for relief was to restore the lease as if it had never become for- feited, and therefore the underlease also re- mained in existence, and that the pit. was entitled to recover. Dendy v. EvAifS C. A. [1909] W. K. S58 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 263 — Forfeiture, Eelief against — Lease— Counter- part referred to for explanation of ambiguity — Covenant — Breach. See No. 8, above. LANDLOBD AND TSS&S'i—cowtiMued. 37. — Forfeiture, Relief from — ConditioTial ordei — No7ifnlfilment of conditions — Lease — R. S. a. Order XLII., r. 2. Where an order granting relief against the forfeiture of a lease was expressed to be made upon the defts. performing certain conditions, and the defts. having performed part of the con- ditions declined to perform the remainder and desired to waive the relief : — Held, that there was no power to compel the defts. to perform the conditions, and that the order for relief must therefore be treated as abandoned. Talbot r. Blindell Walton J. [1908] W. N. 84 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 114 38. — Forfeiture for non-payment of rent — Lease — XInderlessee — " Tenant " — Relief against forfeiture — Common Law Procedure Act, 1852 (15 <5- 16 Vict. c. 76), s. 212. On an application under s. 212 of the Com- mon Law Procedure Act, 1852, for relief against forfeiture of a head lease for non-payment of rent by an underlessee, it is not necessary for the applicant to prove his title as underlessee or assignee of the original lessee ; the fact that the applicant is "tenant" in possession is sufficient. Dictum of Erie J. in Boe d. Wyatt v. Byron, (1845) 1 C. B. 623, at p. 634, applied. MOOBE r. Smbb and CoRinsH - - - C. A. [1907] W. N. 84 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 8 39. — Forfeiture for non-payment of rent — Underlessee — Relief against forfeiture — Conrey- ancing and Law of Property A cf, 1892 (55 Jj- 66 Vict. 0. 13), s. 4 — Conxeyancing and Law of PropeHy Act, 1881 (44 S; 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 14, sub-s. 8 — Common Law Procedure Act, 1860 (23 4- 24 Vict. 0. 126), s. 1. Sect. 4 of the Conveyancing and Law of Pro- perty Act, 1892, is not a mere amendment of s. 14 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, extending the provisions of that section to uuderlessees, but an independent provision for affording relief to uuderlessees against forfeiture tor breach of any covenant in the head lease, and therefore relief can be given under s. 4 to an underlessee against a forfeiture of the head lease for non-payment of rent. Geay v. Bonsall C. A. [1904] W. N. 63 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 601 — Foreshore — Power to acquire — Municipal cor- poration — Oysters. See FlSHEBY. 6. — Forfeiture — Notice of forfeiture to lessee. See AUSTEALIA. 10. — Forfeiture of lease— Condition to take over sheep at expiration of lease. See Scottish Law. 40. — House agent, Authority of — Agreement fm- lease. Action brought for specific performance of an alleged agreement to grant a sub-lease of a flat, or in the alternative for damages for breach of the alleged .igreement. The claim for a specific performance was abandoned at the bar ; no special damage was alleged ; and the only claim, if any, sustainable was for nominal damages. The pit., in search of a flat, applied ( 1371 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1372 ) LANDLORD AND rSS&'ST—eo'ntwmed. to a firm of house agents who had been instructed by the deft, to endeavour to find him a tenant for his flat. The pit. sued on a letter written by the agents to himself. The deft, pleaded that he never authorized the house agents to enter into any agreement on his behalf for a sub-lease of the flat. Parker J. said that estate agents, as such, had no authority to enter into contracts for their employers ; they had only to find persons who were willing to contract, and submit their names and offers to the principals employing them. If any authority to contract was given in any case it must be proved, and could not be inferred from the mere fact that the estate agent had been employed by his principal. In the present case the pit. had not shewn a contract containing all the material terms necessary in order that he might succeed, and the action must be dismissed.* * Ifote : — " A house or estate agent has no implied or general authority to conclude a contract for sale ; his duty is to find a pur- chaser or tenant, or communicate his offer to his principal." Per Chatterton V.-C. in Wilde V. Watson, (1S78) 1 L. E. (Ir.) 402, 405. TH0MAS V. Best - Parker J. [1907] W. N. 170 — Impositions — Outgoings. See No. 56—61, lelow. 41. — Impositions — Covenant ly lessee to pay and discharge impositions — " Impositions charged or imposed in, respect of the premises " — Order iy sanitary autliority on lessor to do structural worlis. A lease for years contained a covenant by the lessee to " pay and discharge aU taxes rates including sewers main drainage assessments and impositions whatsoever which now are or may at any time or times hereafter during the continu- ance of the said term hereby granted be taxed rated assessed charged or imposed upon or in respect of the said premises or any part thereof on the landlord tenant or occupier of the same premises by authority of Parliament or otherwise howsoever (landlord's property tax and tithe only excepted). " There was no repairing covenant in the lease. Notice was given to the lessor by the sanitary authority of the district, under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, to abate a nuisance caused by a foul and offensive privy on the premises, by removing the privy, and con- structing a water-closet in accordance with the by-laws of the London County Council. The lessor thereupon did the work required by the notice, and subsequently sued* the lessee to re- cover the expense incurred by him in so doing. Beld (reversing the decision of a Div. Ct., ■ [1901] 2 K. B. 151), that this expense was covered by the words " impositions charged or imposed upon or in respect of the said premises on the landlord tenant or occupier of the same " in the covenant, and therefore that the action was maintainable. Fotjlg-br v. Abding- C. A. [1902] W. W. 55 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 700 Note. This case was applied by Swinfen Bady J., In re Warrinei; [1903] 2 Oh. 367. See No. 56, ielow. LANDLORD AND T'ETH AST— continued. — Income tax — Covenant by lessor to pay fire insurance premium — Deduction. See Revenue — Income Tax. 20. 42. — Injury happe^iing to stranger dy,ring tenancy, Iji.ability of landlord for — landlord under no contractual liability to repair — Repairs in fact done by landlord — -Negligence of land- lords servants in executing repairs — Nuisance. The defts., who were the owners of consider- able house property, let a house to a tenant who subsequently sub-let it to a oo. whose manager resided on the premises with his' wife (the pit.) and his family ; the defts. were not liable to do any repairs in the house. In the lavatory of the house was a water tank, which became insecure, owing, as was alleged, to the vibration caused by an engine and machinery upon adjoining premises of the defts., which were used by them for the purpose of generating electricity for the lighting of their property. Complaints of the insecurity of the water tank were made by the pit. and her husband to the tenant, who forwarded them to the defts. Ulti- timately the defts. sent two workmen, who were their own servants, to do the necessary repairs, and an iron bracket was fixed underneath the tank to support it. Three months afterwards the bracket fell upon the pit. and seriously injured her. The jury found that the bracket fell by reason of the working of the defts.' engine, that the working of the engine amounted to a nuisance, and that the work of repair in putting up the bracket was done in an improper and negligent manner and the apparatus left in a condition dangerous to persons properly using the lavatory : — Held, first, that the pit. had no cause of action against the defts. on the ground of nuisance, because she had no interest in the premises or right of occupation in the proper sense of the term ; secondly, that she could not recover on the ground of negligence, for there was no contractual relation between the pit. and the defts., and the doing of the repairs was a voluntary act on the part of the defts. not done in the discharge of a duty to the pit. ; and that as the defts. had no control of the premises, there was no invitation on their part to the pit. , but at the utmost an innocent representation as to the state of the premises, which, as they had employed apparently competent men to do the repairs, gave the pit. no cause of action. Malonb V. Lasket - C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 141 43. ' — Insanitary house — Negligence of land- lord — Right of loife and cJiildre?! of tenant to claim damages for illness. In Scotland, as well as in England, the wife and children of the tenant of a dwelling-house are not entitled to recover damages from the landlord for loss and injury through illness caused by the insanitary state of the premises, inasmuch as they were not parties to the contract of tenancy. Cavalier v. Pope, [1906] A. C. 428, followed. Hall V. Hubner, (1897) 24 R. 875, dissented from. Decision of the First Division of the Ct. of ( 1373 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1374 ) LANDLORD AND T'EShST—oontinued. Sess., (1907) S. C. 475, aflSrmed. CAMEEON v. YOTOG - - H. L. (So.) [1908] W. N. 61 ; [1908] A. C. 176 44. — Insure, Covenant to — " Bmldingswldch at any time during the said term may ie erected or placed ujpon or flawed upon the said demised premises.'''' By an indenture of lease dated Jan. 21, 1901, the pit. let to the predecessors in title of the deft, certain warehouses and sale-rooms, yard, outbuildings, and premises in the county of Lonrlon. The lessees' covenants included a covenant to paint at certain fixed periods the outside wood, iron, and cement work " of the said premises hereby demised, and any additional buildings which may at any time during the said term be erected thereon," and also to keep in repair " the said buildings, and all new buildings which may at any time during the said term be erected on and all additions made to the said demised premises," and after other covenants the indenture went on : " And also that the lessees wiU at their own cost insure and at all times during the said term keep insured against loss or damage by fire all buildings, erections, and fixtures of an insurable character which at any time during the said term may be erected or placed upon or fixed upon the said demised premises to the amount of the full value thereof, to be determined by the surveyor for the time being of the lessor." No new buildings were erected on the premises, after the commencement of the lease, and the deft, contended that under this covenant he was not bound to insure the buildings then existing on the premises. The action was brought for breach of the covenant to insure, and the county court judge gave judgment for the pit. The Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that, \inless the language of the covenant was too strong for the construction put upon it by the county court judge, the onus lay on the appellant to shew that he was wrong. The view taken by the county court judge was reasonable, and the opposite construction would have the unreasonable result that while the lessees would be bound to insure under the covenant all new buildings erected on the premises and also any new fixtures placed by them on the old buildings, the burden of in- suring the old buildings would be left to the lessor, which would be extremely inconvenient. It was impossible, therefore, to say that the view taken of the section by the county court judge was wrong. Sims v. Castiglione Div. Ct. [1905] W. N. 112 — Irish Land Purchase Acts — Redemption of liability for rent out of estate indemni- fied therefrom — Eight over indemnify- ing lands. See Ibish Law. 2. 45. — Land tax — Lease — Covenant by lessor to pay land tax — Construction — Value of land improved l>y luilding. Where in a lease of premises at a ground rent the lessors covenanted to pay the land tax chargeable on the demised premises ; — Held, that the covenant must be construed as LANDLOED AND TENANT— coMii»j««(«. referring only to so much of the total land tax chargeable on the premises as was proportionate to the benefit derived therefrom by the lessors, i.e., the amount of the ground rent. Watson v. Some, (1827) 7 B. & C. 285, and Smith V. SumUe, (1854) 15 C. B. 321, followed. Mahsfield v. Eelp C. a. [1907] W. N. 235 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 71 Note. This case was discussed and distinguished by 0. A., Salaman v. Holford, [1909] 2 Ch. 602. See Jfo. 70, ielow. 46. — Leaseholds — Breach of covenant — Trustee of leaseholds — Lien — Bight of indemnity — Bankruftcy of trustee — Debt provable in banh- ruptcy — Property held by the banltrupt as trustee for any other person — Position of trustee inbank- ruptcy ^Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 ^ 47 Vict, c. 52), ss. 37, 44. Where a trustee who holds property to secure his own right of indemnity in priority to all claims of his cestui que trust becomes bankrupt, and the retention of such property — e.g. , lease- holds with onerous covenants — is necessary to give full effect to such right, the legal estate in the property and right to possession vest in the trustee in bankruptcy to the extent to which they were vested in the bankrupt. In 1894 R. was the assignee of leaseholds with onerous covenants as trustee for his wife ; in 1895 R. was adjudicated bankrupt ; in 1896 the trustee in bankruptcy assigned the leaseholds back again to R. as trustee for his wife, and R. obtained his discharge. In 1908 the lessors, who had had no notice of the fact that E. was a trustee or of his bankruptcy, brought an action against R. for arrears of rent and for damages for breach of covenant to repair. R. pleaded the bankruptcy proceedings as a defence : — Held, reversing the decision of Hamilton J., that the leaseholds vested in the trustee in bank- ruptcy, who held them, subject to satisfying his own lien and right of indemnity, for fi.'s wife ; that the leaseholds passed back again to E. by the assignment of 1896 ; and that the bankruptcy was no defence to the action, and E. was liable as assignee. Governors of St. Thomas's Hospital v, Richardson C. A. [1910] 1 K.B. 271 — "Let," Implication from the word^Quiet enjoyment. See No. 67, below. — Letting — Quiet enjoyment. See Nos. 64 — 68, below. 47. — Letting — Shop — Agreemetit — Eestric- tire covenant — Corenant by tenant not to can-y on other than a specified business — Coveiiant by land- lord "not to let" adjoining premises for a similar business — Subsequent letting — Ooerlapping busi- ness — Action against landlord — Breach of cove- nant — Injunction — Damages — Lessor and lessee. T., the landlord of an arcade containing shops, agreed in writing, binding himself and his " assigns," to grant to B,, a "fine art dealer," a lease of one of the shops for a term of twenty- one years, determinable on notice at the end of the seventh or fourteenth year ; the lease to con- tain a covenant by the lessee not to carry on ( 1375 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1376 ) LANDLORD AND TEN SlSX— continued. upon the premises any other trade or business than such as was therein specified, including that of an " artistic and heraldic stationer " ; and also a covenant by the landlord "not to let any other portion of the arcade for the trade or busi- ness hereinbefore mentioned to be carried on by the tenant." B. thereupon entered into posses- sion of the shop and carried on his specified trade or business there. Subsequently T. let a stall forming part of another shop in the arcade to G. , a " bookseller and stationer," on ■-■ tenancy determinable on three months' notice, and it was agreed that the tenant should not carry on any business other than that of a librarian, newsagent, bookseller, or stationer. G. then proceeded to sell at his stall certain articles commonly included in a business such as that described in his agreement, but which were also included in a business such as that described in B.'s agreement. G. had notice of B.;s agreement. In an action by B. against T. and G. for an injunction to restrain T. from "letting" and G. from "using" the stall or any other portion of the arcade for any of the purposes of the busi- ness described in B.'s agreement : — Seld, (!.■) that T. had committed a breach of his covenant with B. " not to let " for which he was liable in damages, and that although, in the circumstances, an immediate injunction against T. was not necessary, B. might apply for an ■injunction in the event of any future breach ; but (2.) that, as the covenant restrained "letting" only and not " using," B. had no remedy against G. either by injunction or damages. A restrictive covenant as to the letting or user of property will be construed strictly, and not so as to create a wider obligation than is imported by the actual words : Kemp v. Sird, (1877) 5 Ch. D. 974. Bbigg ■». Thoenton C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 386 48. — lAeemed PremUes, Lease of — Conttruc- tion of covenant — Covenant to Iceep and conduct premises in a regular and proper manner — Under-lease — Offence by uiider-lessee against licensing laws — Befusal to renew licence — ZiiabUity of lessee. A lease of licensed premises to a co. contained the following covenant : " Provided always that the CO. will not at any time during the continu- ance of the said term, without the consent of the lessor first had and obtained, convert the said demised premises into a shop, warehouse, or place of sale for goods or merchandise, or into a private dwelling-house, or open or use, or suffer the same to be opened or used, for any other purpose than as a beer-house, and also wiU at all times during the said term keep and conduct the same in a regular and proper manner in every respect, and will apply for and use his best endeavours when required to obtain a renewal of the existing licences or permission of Her Majesty's justices of the peace for the vending of' wines, ale, beer, and tobacco on the said demised premises ; and shall not knowingfly or wiUingly do or suffer any act whereby the same may become indorsed, forfeited, or the renewal thereof refused ; and will not commit LANDLORD AND T'ES ATHI— continued. any offence against the licensing laws for the time being in force." The lessees having under- let the premises, the under-lessee was convicted of an offence against the licensing laws, by reason of which the renewal of the licences was revised. In an action by the lessor against the lessees for breach of the covenant : — Seld, that there had been a breach of the covenant at all times during the term to keep and conduct the premises in a regular and proper manner in every respect, for which the lessees were liable. Bryant v. Handooolt, [1899] A. C. 442, dis- tinguished. Palethobpb v. Home Bebwbby Go. C. A. [1906] W. N. 96 ; [1906] S K. B. 5 — Licensing Acts. See under Licensing Acts. 49. — Light — Basement — Quiet enjoyment — Derogation from grant — Staircase overlooking iedroom — Privacy — Comfort — Injunction — Flats, Interference luith. In Sept., 1905, a flat consisting of twelve rooms on the ground, first, and second floors of P. Mansions was let to Mrs. L. for five years. In Nov., 1907, a flat on the ground floor of the mansions was let to the pits, for five years. Both flats had windows overlooking a garden belonging to the lessors. Mrs. L.'s agreement contained a clause prohibiting the use of her fiat otherwise than as a dwelling-house, and the pits, were prohibited from using theirs otherwise than as a private residence. Each agreement contained a stipulation that the tenants would not do anything on the demised premises which might be a nuisance to the lessors or to the occupiers of adjoining premises or which might tend to lessen the value thereof. In 1909 Mrs. L. sub-divided her flat and, with the consent of the lessors, erected an open-work iron staircase from the garden to an entrance to her flat on the first floor ; and in 1910 let it and the part of her flat to which it gave access to K. Her tenancy was also extended for two years. The staircase was situated between the windows of two of the bedrooms in the pits.' fiat, and the fact that it was used as the only access to K.'s flat seriously affected the pits.' privacy, for persons using the staircase could see directly into the rooms. The pits, brought this action claiming to have the staircase removed, or compensation. They did not contend that the staircase interfered with their light so as to be actionable within Colls v. Some and Colonial Stores, [1904] A. C. 179, but said that in order to ensure their privacy they would have to use curtains of suificient thickness seriously to affect their comfort. Parker J. held that Mrs. L. had done nothing on her premises in breach of her covenant ; what she had done was on adjoining land of the lessors. The fiats in question were not affected by any building scheme. Easements might be impliedly created on the principle that a man must not derogate from his own grant. The law did not recognize any easement of privacy ; but the principle covered obligations on the part of the grantor which did not amount to easements. Thus, if land were granted for a particular pur- pose the grantor must not make the land unfit ( 1377 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1378 ) LANDLOBS AND TESKTSlT—coittmued. tor that purpose. The staircase in the present case did not make the pits.' flat materially less fit for the purposes for which it was demised. There had been no physical interference with the flat, so there had been no breach of the cove- nant for quiet enjoyment ; an interference with comfort was not enough. Action dismissed. Beownb r. Flowee - Parker J. [1910] W. N. 261 Light and air. See under LlGtHT and Air. Merger. See under Mesgbe. — Merger, Question of — Lease — Claim arising out of bankruptcy — Jurisdiction — County court. See Bankruptcy — Jurisdiction. 1. 50. — Mill — Landlord's liability — Room in mill let with macMne — Contract to supply powerr to worh machine — Implication of reasonaile fitness for 2'i''>'J>ose — Excexxire supply eaunng damage. The defts. were tenants of a mill, and they let to the pits., under an oral contract, a room in the mill with the machine therein, and agreed to supply power for the working of the machine. The power was supplied by an engine upon the premises, and owing to a defect in the goTcrnor of this engine, it ran at an excessive speed, and caused the drum of the machine in the plt.'s room to revolve at such a speed that it burst, and killed a workman of the pits.' who was working the machine. The pits, paid com- pensation to the widow of the workman. In an action to recover from the defts. the amount that the pits, had been obliged to pay and the costs incurred by them : — Seld, that the obligation of the defts. to supply power did not arise upon a demise, but upon a specific contract which involved, in the absence of special conditions, that the power supplied should be reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was supplied, and that the defts. were liable for the consequences of a breach of that contract. Bbntlby Bros, t . Metcalfe & Co. C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 848 — Mining leases. See under MINES. 51. — Mortgagee "as agent," Lease hy — Lessee's covenamt iis to selliiu; or removing hay or manure — Covenant: running with land. B,., being the mortgagee of a farm belonging to B. and the collector of the rents thereof for B., but not in possession of the land, entered into an agreement under seal, expressed to be made between B,. " as agent, hereinafter called ' the landlord ' " and S., " hereinafter called ' the tenant,' " whereby E. let the farm to S. from year to year. The agreement provided that the tenant should consume on the premises all hay and fodder, spread upon the land, all manui'e and compost produced on the farm, not sell off any hay or fodder, nnd at the end of the tenancy leave all manure and compost. R. subsequently sold and conveyed the farm to C, who brought an action to restrain S, from LANDIOKD AND TENANT- acting in contravention of the above-mentioned provision : — Bleld — (1) on the construction of the agree- ment, and having regard to the surrounding circumstances, that the demise was by the mort- gagee ; (2) that, in a demise under seal by a mortgagee, the description of the person letting " as agent " was not sufficient to prevent the demise operating on the legal estate vested in him ; (3) that C., as assignee of the reversion, could enforce any covenant in the lease which ran with the reversion ; and (4) that the cove- nant as to hay and manure did so run. CHAP- MAN r. Smith Parker J. [1907] 2 (a. 97 — Mortgages. See under Mortgage — leases. — Mortgagor — Lease by — ^Affirmance by mort- gagee — Estoppel in pais. See EsTOPPBli. 1. 52. — Kegative covenants — Alt^ajtions — As.Hgnment of lease — Lessor and lessee — Covenant ' ' to perform and observe " original covenants — Rigtit of assignee to enforce negative covenant — Indemnity. The true object of the covenant by the assignee usually inserted in the assignment of leaseholds is merely to indemnify and protect the lessee against breach of covenants contained in the lease, and consequently a lessee is not entitled to enforce by injunction the specific performance by his assignee of the negative covenants contained in the original lease by means of the covenant " to perform and observe " the covenants and conditions contained in the lease, and to indemnify the assignor from and against all claims and demands on account of the same. Observations in In re Poole and Clarice's Contract, [1904] 2 Ch. 173, discussed and applied. Semble : A covenant to perform and observe the negative covenants in a lease is not of itself a negative covenant within the rule which binds the Court to grant an injunction on evidence of its breach. Harris v. Boots, Cash Chemists (SouTHEEN), Ld. - ■Warrington J. [1904] W. N. 141 ; [1904] 2 CI. 736 See Vendor and Pukchasee — Cove- nants. 3. ■Suit the — New Zealand Property Law Act, 1908 by lessee on a covenant to renew lease — Specific performance. See New Zealand. 11. — Notice to determine — Sporting right. See yo. 82, helow. 63. — Notice to quit — Tenuwy at yearly rent — Sabendvm " nntil such temincy shall be deter- mined as liereimiffer mentioned " — Provision for three montlis' notice to quit — Expiration of notice. By an agreement of tenancy a public-house was let from a certain date " until such tenancy shall be determined as hereinafter mentioned ' ' at a yearly rent of 101. clear of all deductions except laud and property tax payable quarterly on certain named days, the tenant agreeing (inter alia) to keep the premises in repair. The ( 1379 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1380 ) LANDLORD AND TEN ATSIT— continued. agreement contained a provision that it should be lawful for either party " to determine the tenancy hereby created by giving to the other of them three calender months' notice in writing for that purpose : — Seld, that the agreement created a yearly tenancy determinable by three months' notice expiring with any year of the tenancy, and not a tenancy for an indeiinite term determinable by a three months' notice expiring at any time. Judgment of Jelf J., [1905] 2 K. B. 576, affirmed. Lewis v. Bakek - C. A. [1906] W. N. 151 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 599 54. — jVotioeto quit — Tenancy at yearly rent three months' notice — Expiration of notice. By an agreement of tenancy premises were let " at an inclusive rental of 252. per annum from Oct. 1 ; the tenant to pay rates and taxes in addition ; three months' notice on either side to terminate this agreement" : — Held, that this agreement created a yearly tenancy determinable by three months' notice expiring with a year of the tenancy and not at any other time. Dixon v. Bbadfoed asd District Railway Sbbvajtts' Coal SurpLY Society Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 444 55. — Notice to quit — Validity of notice. An agreement of tenancy provided that the tenancy should commence on May 1, 1895, and that the rent should be payable quarterly on May 1, Aug. 1, Nov. 1, and Feb. 1, " subject to three months' notice on either aide at any time to terminate this agreement." The lessor on Jan. 24, 1901, gave the tenant three months' notice to quit on April 25 : — Held, that the notice to quit was good. SoAMES V. Nicholson Div. Ct. [1901] W. N. 219 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 157 56. — Outgoings — Covenant — " Impositions " — Corenamt by tenant to pay — Three years' ienaiicy — Notice by sanitary authority to re- construct drains. A landlord let a house to a tenant tor three years at the " clear yearly rent " of 54Z., to be paid " free and clear of and from all deductions whatsoever," property tax excepted. The tenant covenanted 'to pay the rent and to pay and discharge " all rates, taxes, assess- ments, and impositions whatsoever," whether " parliamentary, parochial, or otherwise," that might become due or assessed in respect of the premises during the tenancy, property tax excepted, and to keep the premises in as good repair as at the commenoemeut of the tenancy, fair wear and tear excepted. The landlord covenanted to keep the main walls and roof in repair during the tenancy : — Held, that the daty and expense of com- plying with a notice from the sanitary authority to reconstruct the drains constituted an " imposi- tion " within the agreemeat which fell on the tenant notwithstanding the absence of such words as " imposed on the landlord or tenant," and notwithstanding the shortness of the tenancy : — Foulger v. Arding, [1902] 1 K. B. 700, 710, and StocUale v. Ascherberg, [1903] 1 K. B. 873, LANDLORD AND TENANT— eo« Metropolitan Rail- ways - Eve J. [1910] W, N. 145 ; [1916] 2 Ch. 314 — Surrender — Title-deed — Custody. See. Deeds. 7. 84. — Surrender by operation of law — Accept- ance of surrender under mistaJie of fact induced ly tenant — lAalility of tenant for rent. Tlie pit. let a house to the deft., a naval officer, for a term of years subject to a proviso that " should the tenant be ordered away from Portsmouth by the Admiralty he may determine this agreement by giving to the landlord one quarter's notice in writing." During the con- tinuance of the tenancy the deft, received an order from the Admiralty to join a ship for foreign service, but shortly afterwards that order was cancelled. Subsequently to the cancellation the deft., purporting to act under the terms of the agreement and in the belief that he was thereby entitled to do so, gave the pit. a quarter's notice of his intention to give up possession. The pit., in the belief that the deft, was at that time under orders from the Admiralty to leave, resumed possession of the house on the expiry of the notice and advertised it for sale. Subsequently the pit. discovered the true facts, and brought the action to recover the rent which had accrued in the interval : — Held, (1.) that the deft, was under the circumstances not entitled to give the notice to terminate the tenancy ; (2.) that, as the non disclosure of the cancellation of the Admiralty's order was not fraudulent, the fact that the pit. accepted the notice under a mistake induced by the act of the deft, did not prevent that acceptance from working a surrender by opera- tion of law ; but (3.) that the giving of the notice was a breach of an implied contract in respect of which the pit. was entitled to recover the amount of the rent due as damages. Gray V. Owen - Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 46 ; [1910] 1K.B.622 LANDLORD AND l^'SKSr—oonUnued. (1888) 22 Q. B. D. at p. 72, applied. Bobbins r. Whyte Warrington J. [1906] 1 K. B. 125 — Suspension of pastoral lease — Compensation. See IjfEw South Wales. 19. — Tithe rent-charge — Agreement by tenant to repay amount of to landlord — Validity of agreement. See Tithe. 1. 87. — Trade — Lease— Restrictive covenant — Covenant iy lessor not to carry on or permit a particular trade on adjoining premises — Lessee — Assigns — Injunction. The lessee of a person bound by a restrictive covenant can be sued, whether " assigns " are mentioned in the covenant or not. In a lease by H. to the pit. co., the lessor covenanted that he, his heirs, executors, adminis- trators, and assigns, would not carry on, or permit to he carried on by others, in certain named shops the business of a tailor ; H. subse- quently demised one of the shops to B. for a tailoring business. In an action by the pit. co. against H. and B. for an injunction to restrain H. from permitting, and B. from carrying on, this business : — Held, on the construction of the covenant, that the mention of assigns, without mentioning lessees, afforded no ground, standing alone, for holding that the covenant was not binding upon B. ; that though " lessees " were not mentioned eo nomine, the words of the covenant were suffi- cient to bind B. not to carry on the particular business referred to, and that an injunction ought to be granted. Bryants. Hancocli ^- Co., [1898] 1 Q. B. 716, distinguished. The decision in Kemp v. Bird, (1877) 5 Oh. D. 549, 974, is not inconsistent with that of Fitx v. lies, [1893] 1 Ch. 77. HoLLOWAY BROTHERS, Ld. v. Hill Bryne J. [1902] W. N. 149 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 612 — Tramway — Statutory powers — Ultra vires — Agreement for lease to adjacent owner — Licence to work. See Tramways. 17. — Trespass ab initio — Second distress for same rent. See Distress. 12. • Trustees. See under Trustee- ■Leases. 12. 85. — Surrender of lease to mortgagor- iy moi-tgagor in possession — Rights of mortgagee — Conveyancing and Law of Fi'operty Act, 1881 (44 4- 45 Viet. c. 41), s. 18, sub-ss. 1, 11. A mortgagor in possession who has granted a lease under the statutory power conferred on him by s. 18, sub-s. 1, of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, has no power to accept a surrender of the lease without the concurrence of his mortgagee. Observations of Fry L.J. in Municipal^ Per- manent Investmeiit Building Society v. 88. — Underlease — Covenant for renewal — Personal comnant — Covenant rv/nniiig with land — Perpetuity — Assignee of reversion — 32 Ifen. 8, c. 34, s. 2. D. A., who was sub-lessee of certain premises, demised the same to F. for the residue of the term then vested in him less the last days thereof, and covenanted for himself, his execu- tors, administrators and assigns, that in case he should obtain from the freeholder, his heirs or assigns, any extension of the term for which he then held the premises, then he, his executors, administrators, or assigns, would grant to F. a new lease for such extended term as would include the unexpired residue of the original term granted to F., and the further term, less ( 1397 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— 19iO. ( 1398 ) tANDLORD AND TETH A^HT—continiier!. the last days thereof, which might be granted to D. A. by the freeholder, his heirs or assigns. D. A. died, and his reversion became vested in the deft., who surrendered his term to the free- holder and obtained from him a new lease for an extended term, subject to existing underleases. F. having died, the pit. acquired from his execu- tors his interest in the premises, and then claimed specific performance of D. A.'s covenant with P. :— Held; (1.) on the coustructio'n of the covenant, that it was personal to D. A. alone, and did not bind his representatives ; (2.) that the covenant was not strictly a covenant for renewal, and did not on that account run with the land ; but assuming that it did run with the land, the doctrine of perpetuity had no application ; and (.3.) following BreretOH \. 'Inoliey, (1858) 8 Ir. G. L. Eep. 190, Kent v. Stoney. (1859) 9 Ir. Ch. Kep. 249, and Coey v. Pascoe, [1899] 1 1. K. 125, that the covenant ran with the reversion which was vested in the covenantor at the time when he entered into the covenant ; and, consequently, that the statute 32 Hen. 8, c. 34, s. 2, did not apply. On these grounds the action was dis- missed. Mtjllek v. Trafford Farwell J. [1901] 1 Ch. 64 Note. This case was referred to by Warrington J., Woodall V. Clifton, [1904] W. N. 205 ; C. A. [1905] 2 Ch. 257. See Covenant. 89. — Unfurnished house — Defeetice premises — Promise by landlord to rejyair — Pei'sontil injury to tenant's irife — Landlord not liable. The owner of a dilapidated house contracted with his tenant to repair it, but failed to do so. The tenant's wife, who lived in the house and was well aware of the danger, was injured by an accident caused by the want of repair : — Held, that the wife, being a stranger to the contract, had no claim for damages against the owner. The decision of the C. A., [1905] 2 K. B. 757, affirmed. Cavaliee v. Pope H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 140 ; [1906] A. C. 428 Note. This case was followed by H. L. (Sc.)., Cameron v. Young, [1908] A. C. 176. See No. 43, above. — ' Waterworks company — Covenant not to assign without consent — Power of re- entry on breach — Alienation — Statutory powers. See London — Water. 1. — Will — Construction — Devise of real estate — Lease. See Will — Words. 1. LANDLORD'S PROPERTY TAX— Exemptions— "Almshouse" — Home for ladies in reduced circumstances. See EEVBNnE — House Duty. 5. LANDS CLAUSES ACTS— Charity land— Com- pulsory sale — Pai/ment into cuui't — Interim in- vestment — Costs — Land Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 4- 9 Vict. c. 18), ss. 69, 76, 80. The price of charity land taken compulsorily LANDS CLAUSES A.CTS—contiHU£fJ. by a corporation was settled by arbitration. The corporation, after tendering the purchase-money to the official trustees of charitable funds, paid it into court. The corporation was ordered to pay the costs of a petition for investment. In re Leeds Geammae School Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] 1 Ch. 228 — Common lands — Lands taken for public undertaking — Compensation for ex- tinguishment of commonable rights. See Common. 2. — Commonable rights, Compensation for ex- tinguishment of — Apportionment. See Common. 1. 2. — • Com2>ensation — Copyholds — Enfran- chisement. — Fines — Lands Clauds Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 4'- 9 Vict. c. 18), ss. 95, 96, 97. Copyholds conveyed to a ry. co. by a conveyance subsequently enrolled under s. 95 of the Lands Clauses Consohdation Act, 1845, pass as freeholds on enrolment, but neverthe- less, until enfranchisement by the CO., they continue subject (inter alid) to fines payable on the deaths of the vendor and his successors be- fore or after enrolment, and these fines must be included in the compensation for enfranchise- ment. In re Wilson's Estate, (1862) 2 J. & H. 619, 628 ; (1863) 3 D. J. & S. 410, 417 ; In re Marquis of Salisbury and London and North Western Ry. Co. (1879), [1892] 1 Ch. 7.5, n. ; and Lowther v. Caledonian My. Co., [1892] 1 Ch. 73, 82, 83, 85, applied. LoED Leconpield v. London and Noeth Western Et. Co. Swinfen Eady [1906] W. N. 192 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 38 3. — Compensation — Compulsory sale of land — Interest in land — Might to supply refreshments in a theatre — Land Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 . INLAUD Ebvenue Commes. Rex i'. GrLAMOEGAN JUSTICES. JSa; parte Davies Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 861 18. — CompeTisation on non-renewal of licence — Mode of ascertaining vahie of licence — Evidence of trade done iy the house, admissibility of — Consideration of Ucence-holdei'^s interest— Licens- ing Act, 1904 (4 Hdw. 7, c. 23), s. 2 — Finance Act, 1894 (57 4- 58 Via. c. 30), s. 7, sui-s. 5. By the joint efEect of s. 2 of the Licensing Act, 1904, and s. 7, sub-s. 5, of the Finance Act, 1894, where the renewal of a licence is refused under the former Act the amount of the com- pensation payable on such non-renewal is, in the absence of agreement, to be based on the price which the licensed premises " would fetch if sold in the open market " : — JETeld — (1.) That as amongst the possible pur- chasers in the open market would be brewers, and as the price which they would be willing to pay would depend upon the profits which they might fairly expect to make by the supply of liquor to the licensed premises, it is material to inquire into the quantity and quality of the trade previously done by the house under normal con- ditions and apart from any considerations of a personal or special character, such as the popu- larity of the licence-holder or the proximity of the licensed premises to the brewery. (2.) That there cannot, in addition to the brewer's profit arising from the ownership of the premises and the supply of liquor thereto, be taken into consideration the possible profit which his tenant might expect to make by retailing the liquor so supplied. AsHBY'S COBHAM Beeweky Co. ; In re The Ceown, Cobham. Ashby's Staines Beeweey Co. ; In re The Hand and Speae, Woking Kennedy J. [1906] 2 K. B. 764 19. — Compensation on refusal to renew licence ■ — Tenants in common of lease of licensed premises — Action for sale of premises in lieu of partition — Judgment by consent for sale, and payment of proceeds into Court — Refusal of licence under licensing Act, 1904, before sale — Award of com- pensation — Division of compensation among per- sons interested — Whole of compensation in respect of leasehold interest apportioned to one tenant in coTnmon— Licensing Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 23), ss. 1, 2 — Licensing Rules, 1904, rr. 21 — 27. The pits., who claimed that they and others being the children of one J. B., deceased, were interested as tenants in common with the deft, in a lease of certain licensed premises, of which the deft, was in possession through his tenant, brought an action in the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Durham, asking for a sale of the property in lieu of partition. In that action the deft, consented to judgment for an inquiry as to who were the persons interested in the property, and for an account of the rents and LICENSING MaiS—conimued. profits received by him ; and by this judgment by consent it was further ordered that, if it were certified by the registrar of the Court that all persons interested in the property who were necessary parties were before the Court, the property should be sold with the approbation of the registrar, and the money to arise by the sale should be paid into Court to the credit of the action, subject to further order. By the certi- cate of the registrar made in pursuance of the judgment, it appeared that the pits, and the other children of J. E. were entitled to one moiety, and the deft, was entitled to the other moiety, of the leasehold interest. Before any sale of the property was effected, the renewal of the licence in respect of the premises was refused by the compensation authority under the Licens- ing Act, 1904, ss. 1, 2, and the amount to be paid as compensation to the persons interested in the premises was determined by the Inland Eevenue Commrs. under s. 2, sub-s. 2, of that Act to be 900L A supplemental meeting of the compensation authority was subsequently held under the Licensing Eules, 1904, to deter- mine the shares in which the compensation money should be divided among the persons interested in the premises. The Eccles. Commrs., who were the owaers of the reversion on the lease, made no claim to any portion of the amount. A claim was made at the supplemental meeting on behalf of the children of J. R., who had not sent to the compensation authority any notice of claim as required by r. 21 of the Licensing Eules, 1904, to be treated as interested in the licensed premises, but the compensation authority refused to entertain their claim, or to hear them, on the ground that they had not complied with the provisions of r. 21, and pro- ceeded to apportion the amount of the compensa- tion as follows, namely, 835Z. to the deft., who had been registered as the owner of the premises in the register of licences, and 65Z. to the holder of the licence, his tenant. The deft, having received the 835?. so apportioned, an application was made on behalf of the children of J. E. for an order that he should bring that sum into Court, and the Chancellor of the County Palatine granted that application : — Meld, affirming his decision, that the deter- mination of the compensation authority with regard to the shares in which the compensation was to be divided between the various interests in the premises did not determine the rights of the co-owners of the leasehold interest in the licensed premises inter se, and that the deft, was bound to bring the amount paid to him into Court to the credit of the action. Bibkin r. Smith C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 112 20. — Conditional licence — Sours of opening — Application for occasioTial licence — Licensing Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 23), s. i — Licensing Act, 1872 (35 ^ 36 Vict. c. 94), s. 29. The respondent was granted in 1906, under 3. 4 of the Licensing Act, 1904, a licence in respect of certain premises for the period of two years, upon the condition that the premises should only be open for the sale of intoxicating liquors between the hours of noon and 2 p.m. ( 1433 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1434 ) LICENSING ACTS— contitiued. During the currency of the licence the respondent applied to justices in petty sessions, under s. 29 of the Licensing Act, 1872, for an occasional licence exempting him from closing the premises on Dec. 17, 1906, between the hours of 7 p.m. and 11 P.M. The justices granted the occasional licence asked for. IfeM (affirming the decision of a Div. Ct., [1907] 2 K. B.232), that they had power to do so. Gboh r. Hbskbth C. A. [1908] W.N. 27 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 654 21. — Costs — Justices — Quarter sessions — Jurisdiction — I/icensing appeals — Costs of licens- ing justices— Alehouse Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 61), *. 2d— Licensing Act, 1902 (2 JEdw. 7, c. 28), .v. 20. Upon the hearing of an appeal to quarter sessions from licensing justices, the licensing justices are entitled in the case of an unsuccess- ful appeal to an order under s. 29 of the Alehouse Act, 1828, upon the appellant for payment of such sum by way of costs as in the opinion of the Court will indemnify them from all costs and charges to which they may have been put ; in the case of a successful appeal to a like order under s. 20 of the Licensing Act, 1902, upon the treasurer of the county or place for which the licensing justices acted. Upon any such appeal the licensing justices are entitled to retain any solicitor whom they select to act for them, ^nd they cannot be com- pelled to appear by the county solicitor, although it may be part of the duties of that officer to act for licensing justices upon the hearing of appeals from their decisions. Where licensing justices appear by their own solicitor, the Court of quarter sessions has no jurisdiction, in making an order under either s. 29 of the Alehouse Act, 1828, or s. 20 of the Licensing Act, 1902, to attach to it a direction to the clerk of the peace that in ascer- taining the amount of the costs he is to exclude the personal professional charges of the solicitor employed by the licensing justices. Rex v. West Biding Justices - - - Div. Ct. [1904] W. N. 41 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 545 22. — Costs — Refusal to renew liceiwe — Compensation — Appeal from decision of Inland B^venus Commissioners — Discretion to order payment of costs hy Commissioners — Practice — Licensing Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 23), s. 1 ; s. 2, sub-ss. 2, i— Finance Act, 1894 (57 S,- 58 Vict. c. 30), s. 10, sui-s. 3. Upon a successful appeal from a decision of the Inland Revenue Commrs. fixing the amount of compensation to be paid upon the refusal to renew a licence under the Licensing Act, 1904, s. 1, a judge of the High Court has a discretion to order the Commrs. to pay the appellant's costs ; but the mere fact that the appeal has succeeded to a substantial extent is not, per se, a sufficient ground for making such an order. In re Hakdt's Ckown Bkeweey, Ld., and St. Philip's Taveen, Manchester C. A. [1910] ■W. N. 103 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 257 23. — County liorouglb-,—Comp>e7Uatioit autho- rity — Refusal to renew licence — Appeal to guaHer sessions of county — Licensing Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, C.23), s. 8, sui-s. 2. Where the whole body of justices of a county LICENSING kCTi—ciMnued. borough acting as the compensation authority under the Licensing Act, 1904, refuse to renew an on-licence subject to compensation, no appeal lies from their decision to the quarter sessions of the county under s. 27 of the Alehouse Act, 1828 Rex i: Southampton Justices - Div. Ct. [1906] W. N. 54; [1906] 1 K. B. 505 — Drunkenness, Permitting. See SVos. 59, 60, below. — Excise — Beer — Soliciting or taking order at place other than that specified in licence li'ee Revenue — Excise. 1. 24. — Executor of deceased licensee — Pullic- house — Incensed premAses — lAcensing Act. 1872 (35 S; 36 Vict. c. 94), ss. 3, 17. The executor of a deceased licensed person who continues to carry on the business under the provisions of s. 3 of the Licensing Act, 1872, until the next special sessions is himself a licensed person within the meaning of the Act. M'DoNALD V. Hughes Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 94 25. — Extinction of licence — Compensation — Division among parties interested — Prin&iple of computation — Determination by county court — Appeal — Dlcensing Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 23), «. 2. Where, under s. 2, sub-s. 3, of the Licensing Act, 1904, the quarter sessions having referred the division of the sum fixed as compensation to be paid for the extinction of a licence among the persons interested in the licensed premises to the county court, and the amount to be received thereout by the licence-holder having been settled by agreement between the parties, the residue had to be apportioned between the lessees of the premises for a term of years, who were brewers, and the freeholders, which appor- tionment the county court judge made on the basement of the 8 per cent, interest table : — Held, reversing the judgment of a Div. Ct., that there was no rule or presumption of law, either general or applicable to the circumstances of the particular case, by which the county court judge was bound to treat the respective interests of the parties as 4 per cent, investments, or to adopt the 4 per cent, interest table for the pur- pose of making the division ; that the valuation of the respective interests in the compensation money was entirely a question of fact to be determined by him upon the circumstances of the particular case ; and that his determination of that question was not subject to review by the High Court. Qu/ere, whether in such a case there is any right of appeal from the county court judge. Judgment of a Div. Ct.. reported [1907] W. N. 214 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 28, reversed. LIVERPOOL CoRPOEATioN r. Peter Walker & Son, Ld. C. A. [1908] W. N. 79 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 33 26. — Fees — Apjdication for grant of new licence — Claim by clerk to justices to fees in respect of witnesses called in opposition to grant —Justices' Clerks Act, 1877 (40 ^- 41 Viot.c. 43), s. 8— Alehouse Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 61), s. 15. Sect. 15 of the Alehouse Act, 1828, which providse the sums which are payable by the ( U3o ) DIGEST, OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1436 ) LICENSING ACTS— 00 ntimed. person to whom a licence is granted, is exhaus- tive. Therefore the clerk to the justices of a petty sessional division is not entitled to receive a fee for the administration of the oath to a witness called at an adjourned annual licensing meeting of the justices to give evidence in opposition to an application for the graat of a licence. Whitttjck v. Withy - Div. Ct. [1907] W. N. 108 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 526 27. — Forfeiture of liceiioe — Application for grant or transfer — Discretion of licensing justices to refuse — Licence — Conviction — Alehouse Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 61), s. li— Wine and Beer- house Act, 1869 (32 ^' 33 Vict. c. 27), ss. 8, 19— Ucensing Act, 1874 (Zl 4' 38 Vict. c. 49), s. 15. A beerhouse licence, which had been con- tinuously renewed in reepect of premises licensed prior to May 1, 1869, was forfeited by reason of the conviction of the holder for selling spirits without a licence. The owners subsequently applied at a special licensing sessions under s. 15 of the Licensing Act, 1874, for a grant of a licence in respect of the premises to another tenant : — Beld, that the licence was not " in force " within the meaning of s. 19 of the Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869, at the date of the applica- tion, and that therefore the licensing justices had a general discretion to refuse the application, and were not limited to the four grounds of refusal specified in s. 8 of that Act. Ex parte Flinn ^ Sons {No. 2), [1899] 2 Q. B 607, discussed and disapproved. Toweb Justices V. Chambees - . C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 903 — Hotel, Manager of — Undisclosed principal — Licence taken out in name of manager — Presumption as to hotel being tied. See Peinoipal and Agent. 15. — Income tax — Deductions — Profits of brewery — Tied licensed house — Compensation charge. See Keventjb — Inoome Tax. 9. — Income tax — Interest of money — Compen- sation fund — Deposit at Bank — Assessability of quarter sessions. See Revenue — Income Tax. 23. — Inebriates Act — Consent of defendant. See Justices. 8. — Jurisdiction of stipendiary magistrate — Peti- tion for inquiry into a licensing poll. See New Zealand. 14. 28. — Justices — Junsdiction — Renewal of on licences — Reference of g^uestion, of 7'enewal to quarter sessions — Notice to licensed person — Evidence on which justices entitled to act — lAcensing Acts, 1872 (35 ^- 36 Vict. c. 94), s. 42 ; 1904 (4 Fdw. 7, c. 23), s. 1. Sect. 1, sub-s. 1, of the Licensing Act, 1904, provides that the power to refuse the renewal of an existing on licence on grounds other than certain specified grounds (which do not include the ground that the licensed house is not required for the needs of the neighbourhood) shall be vested in quarter sessions instead of the justices of the licensing district, but shall only be LICENSING ACTS— coiitiiiwc'!. exercised ou a reference from the justices and on payment of compensation. Sub-s. 2 provides : " Where the justices of a licensing district, on the consideration by them, in accordance with the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1902, of applications for the renewal of licences, are of opinion that the question of the renewal of any particular existing on licences requires consideration on grounds other than those on which the renewal of an existing on licence can be refused by them, they shall refer the matter to quarter sessions, together with their report thereon." At an adjournment of the general annual licensing meeting the renewal of an existing on licence was objected to on the ground that the licensed house was not required for the needs of the neighbourhood. An inspector of police gave evidence on oath as to the number of licensed houses within a short distance of the house in question, the amount of population, and the character of the neighbourhood. The licence- holder had been served with notice to attend, and was present, but called no evidence. The justices had been supplied with plans of all the licensed houses in the district, and were acquainted with the locality and accommoda- tion of the house in question and of the other licensed houses in the neighbourhood, and, aeting upon the evidence and upon their own know- ledge, they referred the question of the renewal of the licence to quarter sessions, with their report thereon : — Hfeld, that there was evidence upon which the justices could form the opinion that the question of the renewal of the licence required considera- tion, and refer the matter to quarter sessions under,sub-s. 2. Licensing justices cannot refer to quarter sessions, under s. 1, sub-s. 2, the question of the renewal of an existing on licence if no notice of objection has been given to the hoence-holder, and he has not been given the opportunity of attending at the hearing of his case before the justices and of tendering evidence. Where the ground of objection to the renewal of a licence is that the licensed house is not required for the needs of the neighbourhood, the justices must have some evidence ou oath that it is not so required before they can form the opinion that the question of the renewal requires consideration on that ground. It is not necessary however, in all cases, that they should have before them detailed evidence difiEerentiatiug the house in question from the other licensed houses in the neighbourhood ; nor are they bound in forming their opinion to exclude their own knowledge of the locality upon such questions as the character of the neighbourhood, the amount of population, and the habits of the inhabitants. Bex v. Tolhubst. Fx parte Faeeeli. Eex V. Cox. Fx parte West Div, Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 478 29. — Justices — Licensing justices — Pro- msional licences ivith a view to compensation — Bias on part of justices — Qualification of appli- cant for licenofi — Person heeping or about to Iteep alehouse — Beerhouse — Real resident holder and occupier — Zdeensin^ Act, 1904 (4 Fdw. 7, e. 23), ( H37 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1438 ) LICENSING ACTS~ eo Id hiued. s. I— Alehouse Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 61), s. 1— Bee^-house Act, 1840 (3 ^ 4 Vict. c. 61), s. 1. A county borough corporation under statu- tory powers for the improvement of a district, bought land in the borough, including licensed premises, dismantled the premises and put oai-e- takers therein with a view to suppressing un- necessary licensed premises on payment of compensation to the corporation under the Licensing Act, 1904. At the next annual licensing sessions the caretakers, in pursuance of an arrangement between the corporation and the justices, applied for renewal licences, some under the Alehouse Act, 1828, and some under the Beerhouse Act, 1840. The licensing justices provisionally granted renewal licences subject to a reference to quarter sessions, the compensation authority under the Licensing Act, 1904, s. 1. It was contended that the renewals were void because the caretakers were not persons keeping or about to keep alehouses under the Alehouse Act, 1828, or real resident holders and occupiers under the Beerhouse Act, 1840, and because some of the justices who granted the renewals were members of the corporation and parties to the arrangement : — Held, that, the justices having honestly exer- cised their discretion and the transaction being bona fide and for the purpose of carrying out the object of the Licensing Act, 1904, the renewals were valid. Decision of the C. A., S. f. Woodhause {Leeds Justices), [1906] 2 K. B. 501, reversed, and decision of the King's Bench Division restored. Leeds Coepoeation v. Kydee H. I. (E.) [1907] "W. N. 195 ; [1907] A. C. 420 — Lease — Beerhouse — Non-renewal of licence — Impossibility of performing covenant — Continuance of lease — Compensation. See Landlord and Tenant. 29. — Lease of licensed premises — Covenant — Underlease — Refusal to renew licence — Liability of lessee. See Landloed and Tenant. 48. — Lease of public-house — Act of sub-lessee through which renewal of licence refused. See Landloed and Tenant. 63. 30. — Lessor and lessee— Improvements during termSpedal agreement — Value of premises — Xon-renewal of licence — Compensation— Appor- tionment — Action in High Court to effect a redivision — Jurisdiction — Licensing Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 23), s. 2. In this case Eve J. said that he had no juris- diction to review what the justices had done, and in his opinion it was not competent for the pits, to maintain an action to bring about a redivision of the compensation fund, or to invite the Court so to construe the contract as to give them a larger interest in the premises than the justices, construing the same contract, had held them entitled to. Accordingly, he held that the deft, was not bound to bring a certain sum of lOOOZ. into account, and in so holding he did not consider he was doing anything contrary to LICENSING AC1S— continued. the principles laid down by Kekewich J. in Law Guarantee and Trust Society v. Mitcham and Cheam Brewery Co., [1906] 2 Ch. 98, and adopted by Neville J. in jfoakes v. JVoakes 4" Co., [1907] 1 Ch. 64. Indeed, as to some of the relief to which he held the pits, were entitled, he was in effect following those decisions. He would make a declaration that the pits, were entitled as equitable mortgagees to a charge on the premises and the sum of lOOOZ. as security for the payment by the deft, under the lease and supplemental deed of such sums as thereby should become due, namely, the difference between 910Z. and the value of the premises at the expiration of the lease, but not including the lOOOZ. Bent's Beeweet Co. r. Dykes Eve J. [1909] W. N. 51 31. — Licence — Cliange of occupation — Tran.s- fer of licence — Jurisdiction of justices — Inn — Alelwuse Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 61), ss. 4, 14. By 3. 4 of the Alehouse Act, 1828, justices are given jurisdiction in special sessions to license by way of transfer " persons intending to keep inns theretofore kept by other persons being about to remove from such inns." By s. 14, " If any person so licensed " — ^that is, duly licensed under the Act — "shall remove from or yield up the possession of the house specified in such licence," the justices may transfer the licence "to any new tenant or occupier of the house having so become un- occupied." The licence-holder of an inn having become bankrupt, the premises were assigned to W., who applied at the general annual licensing meeting for a renewal of the licence to him. The renewal was granted, but the justices at the same time stated that W. was not a fit and proper person to hold the licence, and that they only granted it on the terms that he would not sell liquor under it, but would proceed to transfer it to some" one else. W. occupied the house by putting furniture into it, and he let some of the rooms for club meetings, but he sold no liquor there. He subsequently applied at special sessions for a transfer to S., he having in the meantime given up possession to S. : — Held, that the fact of the justices having stated at the time of granting the licence to \V. that he was not a fit and proper person to hold it did not prevent the grant from being valid, and that consequently W. was at the time of the application for the transfer a "person so licensed " within the meaning of s. 14 ; that the requirement of s. 4 that the person removing from the licensed premises should, as a condition of the exercise of jurisdiction under that section, have theretofore kept them as an inn, applies as well to a case in which the licence-holder has already removed from the house at the date of the application for the transfer, as to one in which he still remains in possession at that date, but that W. had sufficiently kept the premises as an inn to satisfy the provisions of the section, notwithstanding that he had sold no liquor there ; and that under the circumstances the justices had jurisdiction to grant the transfer to S. ( 1439 ) DIGEST 01<' CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1440 •) LICENSING ACTS— coMtimicd. Meg. T. CotJiam, [1898] 1 Q. B, guished. Wilson 802, distin- V. Cebwe Justices Div. Ct. [1905] 1 K. B. 491 32. — Licence — ProeisioTial licence — &rant for seven years from final order — Validity of — Licensing Act, 1874 (37 4- 38 Vict. c. 49), s. 22— Licensing Act, 1904(4 Hdw. 7, c. 23), s. 4, sitb-s. 3. Sect. 4, sub-s. 3, of the Licensing Act, 1904, which provides that " the justices may, if they think fit, instead of granting a new on-licence as an annual licence, grant the licence for a term not exceeding seven years," applies as well to a provisional licence under s. 22 of the Licensing Act, 1874, in respect of a house about to be built as to an ordinary licence for an existing house. Such a provisional licence is not operative as a licence until the house has been completed and the final order made, and conse- quently a grant of - provisional licence to be in force for seven years from the date of the final order is a grant of a licence " for a term not exceeding seven years " within the meaning of the above section. Kex i\ Johnstone Div. Ct. [1906] W, N. 17; [1906] I K. B. 228 33. — • Licence — Renewal — Discretion of jus- tices — Preliminary inquiry as to number wnd con- dition of licensed houses — Objection to renewal taken by justices or by their direction — Disquali- fication from adjudicating on application — Personal interest or bias — ■ Alehouse Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 61)— Licensing Act, 1872 (35 ^ 36 Vict. c. 94), s. i2— Licensing Act, 1874 (37 ,<;■ 38 Vict. c. 49), s. 26. The attention of licensing justices having been called to the number of licensed houses in their district, they appointed some of their number a committee to investigate and report on the condition, position, and circumstances of the licensed houses. A detailed report was made, and a recommendation that all applications for renewal should be objected to, and notice given to each of the licensees to attend at the hearing. The report was adopted, and the justices at the annual licensing meeting objected through their chairman to the renewal of all the licences, and directed that notice should be given to each holder of a licence to attend at an adjourned meeting. At that meeting evidence was heard upon oath in each case, and the justices decided against the renewal of nine of the licences. On appeal against a decision of the K. B. Div. refusing an application for a mandamus to the justices to hold a, further adjournment of the licensing meeting, and to hear and determine according to law the applications for the renewal of the nine licences : — Held, that since the justices were entitled to take, or direct their officer or agent to take, objection to the renewal of licences, they were within their rights in making a preliminary investigation as to the licensed houses in their district ; and the fact that they had done so, and adopted the report of the committee appointed for the purpose of making the investigation, did not debar them from hearing the applications and deciding on the question of renewal. Rex V. Howard - C. A. [1902] 3 K. B. 363 D.D. LICENSING ACTS -continued. 34. — Licence — Renewal— Alehoiise — Licence for sale of excisable liquors— Change of occupancy — Expiration of licence — Subsequent removal — New toiant — Application for licence — Alehouse Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 61), ,s-. 14. The Alehouse Act, 1828, enacts, with regard to persons duly licensed under that Act, " If any person so licensed, or the heirs, executors, ad- ministrators, or assigns of any person so licensed, shall remove from or yield up the possession of the house specified in such licence," the justices may grant a licence to any new tenant or occu- pier of any house having so become unoccupied. The tenant of an. alehouse who was duly licensed under the Alehouse Act, 1828, applied for a renewal of his licence, which was refused, lie continued in occupation of the house after his licence had expired, and then removed. A new tenant took possession of the premises, and applied for a licence under s. 14 of the Alehouse Act, 1828. The justices refused the application on the ground that, as the outgoing tenant was not licensed at the time of his removal, they had no jurisdiction to entertain the application : — Held, afSrming a judgment of the King's Bench Division, that the decision of the justices was right. SimpMn V. Birniingkam Justices, (1872) L.E. 7 Q. B. 482, approved. Hex v. London County Justices - C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 19 36. — Licence — Renewal — VaUie of premises — Disqualification — Breah in continuity of licence — Beerhouse — Licensing Act-, 1872 (35 J(-36 Vict, c. 94), .s. 45. To justify an objection to the renewal of a beerhouse licence on the ground that the premises are not of the annual value required by s. 45 of the Licensing Act,' 1872, it must be shown that the premises were not at the date of the passing of that Act licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors for consumption thereon. The fact that there was a break in the continuity of the licence between that date and the application for the renewal is immaterial. The decision of the C. A., [1902] 2 K. B. 467, reversed, and the decision of the K. B. Div., [1901] 2 K. B. 740, restored. IGOB v. Shann. H. L. (E) [1903] W. N. 132 ; [1903] A. C. 320 36. — Licence — Renewal — Discretion of justices — Many public-houses in locality — Selec- tion of particular house, and refusal to renew On appeal to quarter sessions against the refusal of a licence a map of the locality was produced, and it was proved that within a short distance of the house in question there were a very large number of licensed houses. No notice of objection had been served on any of these houses ; but jiotice of objection had been served on the house in question by the direction of the borough justices, the ground of objection being that the licence was not required in the locality. The house had been a fully licensed house for ten years, and the character of the locality had not. altered except that the population had increased. No further evidence was adduced by the respondents : — ■ Held, by Lord Alverstone C.J. and Lawrance 3a ( IWl ) DIGEST OF OASES. lnni---l!)10. ( .1W2 ) LICENSING ACTS— continued. J. (Kennedy J. dissenting), that tliis evidence did not entitle the quarter sessions to refuse to renew the licence. Eavbn r. SOUTHAMPTON Justices. [1904] 1 K. B. 430 37. — Licence — Renewal — Order of licensing justices for structural alterations — "Part of the premises where intoxicating liquor is sold, or consumed.'" — Jurisdiction — lAcensing Act, 1902 (2 Hdw. 7, 0. 28J, s. 11, suli-s. 4. By s. 11, sub-s. 4, of the Licensing Act, 1902, licensing justices, on renewing a licence, may by order direct that, withia a time fixed by the order, such alterations as they think reasonably necessary to secure the proper conduct of the business shall be made in " that part of the premises where intoxicating liquor is sold or consumed" : — Held, that under this sub-section licensing justices had jurisdiction, upon granting an application for renewal, to make an order that the back entrance to the licensed premises should be closed and kept locked, and that the passage leading from the back entrance to the bars where intoxicating liquor was sold and con- sumed should be closed, their power Including the right to decide what alteration in the means of access was reasonably necessary to the proper conduct of the business. Bushbll v. Hammond C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 863 Note. This case was distinguished by C. A., Smith V. Portsmouth Justices, [1906] 2 K. B. 229. Sec No. 58, beloiv. 38. — Licence — lleneical — Reference to quarter sessions — Report of renewal avthoriUj — JEcidence at quarter sessions — Cross-examination as to licensed Iwitses not included in report — Licensing Act, 1905 (iEdw. 7, c. 23), s. 1. Where the question of the renewal of an existing on-licence is referred to quarter sessions by the renewal authority, with their report thereon, under s. 1 of the Licensing Act, 190i, the Court of quarter sessions ought not, on the hearing of the matter, to refuse to allow a cross examination on behalf of the licence-holder of the witnesses called by the renewal authority if the ground of that refusal be merely that the questions sought to be put in cross-examination relate to other licensed houses in the neighbour- hood which are not included in the report of the renewal authority. MoKGAN r. Atlbsfoed Licensing Justices - - - Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 437 39. — Licence — Renewal of on-licence — Con- ditions attached to renewal — Licensing justices — Rigid to retiuire reasonable undertaking — Refusal to deliver licence without undertaking — Mandu- mm.i^Licensing Act, 190-1 (i Ediv. 7, c. 23), ss. 1, 9. The justices of a licensing district have no authority, under s. 9 of the Licensing Act, 1904, to make the renewal of an existing on-licence conditional on the applicimt giving an under- taking as to the conduct and management of the business, in respect of matters not covered by the gi-ounds for refusing the renewal of such LICENSING ACTS-^continn^id. a licence specified in a. 1 of the Act. Kbx e. DoDDs (Birkenhead Licensing Justices) C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 40 40. — Licence — Renewal of on or off licence — Conditions attaclied to renewal ■ — Licensing justices — Mandamus. Application for the renewal of a licence to a house, in respect of which a licence to consume beer either on or off the premises was in existence before May 1, 1869, and had been con- tinuously renewed. The licensing justices, upon the application being made, required that the tenant should give an undertaking that no intoxicating liquor should be supplied to any customer unless such liquor should be paid for at the time of delivery. A rule nisi was obtained by the tenant for a mandamus to the justices to issue the renewed licence to him without requir- ing him to enter into the undertaking. The j ustices did not appear, but they filed an affidavit in which they stated that they had not refused to grant the renewal of the licence, and that they considered that the undertaking which, under the powers given them by the Licensing Act, 1904, they required the tenant to give was a reasonable one. The Div. Ct. made the rule absolute on the ground that the provisions of s. 8 of the Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869, were expressly kept alive by s. 9, sub-s. 3, of the Licensing Act, 1904, and that there was nothing in that Act which 'added to the jurisdiction of the justices under the former Act. Rex v. Grimwadb Div. Ct. [1905] 1 K. B. 50, n. 41. — Ldcence — Renewal of — Power of licensing justices to attach conditi^>ns — Mono- poly value — Licensing Acts, 1872 (35 jf- 36 Viet, c. 94), s. 50 ; 1874 (37 remises — Land Tax Redemption Act, 1802 (42 Geo. 3, c. 116), .w. 123, 125— ijeai Property Limitation Act, 1874 (37 ^- 38 Vict. v. 57), ss. 1, 8. The lessee of premises redeemed the land tax LIMITATIONS, STATUTE 0¥— continued. charged thereon under the Land Tax Redemp- tion Act, 1802, which by s. 123 provides that, where any person having any estate (other than an estate of inheritance) in any lands, tene- ments, or hereditaments redeems the land tax charged thereon, such lands, tenements, or here- ditaments shall be chargeable for his benefit with the amount of the moneys paid as the considera- tion for the redemption of such land tax, and with the payment of a yearly sum of money by way of interest thereon, equal in amount to the land tax redeemed. In 1879 the lessee assigned to the pit. the beneiit of the contract for redemp- tion of the land tax. No yearly sum having been paid by way of interest on the money paid for redemption of the land tax since 1879, the pit. sued the deft., in whom the lease of the premises had become vested in 188.5, to recover 91. as a yearly payment due Jan. 1, 1900, under s. 123 of the before-mentioned Act, by way of interest on the money paid for redemption of the land tax : — Held, that the case came either within s. 1 of the Beal Property Limitation Act, 1874, or within s. 8 of that Act, and therefore the plt.'s claim was barred. Judgment of a Div. Ct., [1901] 2 K. B. 7. affirmed Skene c. Cook C. A. [1902] W. N. 60 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 682 10. — Lease — Action to recover land — Tres- passer — Title against les.'ice — Surrender' of lease — E.cpiratioii of term — Lessor's right of re-entry — Real Property Limitation Act, 1833 (3 4" 4 Will. 4, c. 27), .1. 34 — Period of Limitation — " Future estate " — Real Property Limitation Act, 1874 (37 S,- 38 Vict. c. 57), s. 2. Where a tresspasser on land let on lease has as against the lessee acquired a title under the Statutes of Limitations, and the lessee sub- sequently surrenders the lease to the lessor, the lessor has no right of re-entry, and the period of limitation does not begin to run, until the expiration of the term for which the lease was granted. A reversion in fee simple expectant on the determination of a lease for years or lives is not a "future estate or interest" expectant on a particular estate within s. 2 of the Beal Property Limitation Act, 1874. Walker r. Yalden Div. Ct. [1902]2K.B.304 11. — Leaseholds — Settlement by lessee— Mi- oroachment by cestui pie trust on other land included in the same settlement — Accretion to holding ftyr benefit of lessor — Presumption — Pei'son claiming through a tru.'itce — Real Pro- perty Limitation Act, 1833 (3 S,- 4 Will. 4, c. 27), ss. 7, 25. Two adjoining pieces of land, herein referred to as the foundry and the stable, were in 1819 and 1831 respectively demised by the same lessor to the same lessee for ninety-nine years or three lives. The leases contained a covenant by the lessor to renew in certain events. In 1846 both pieces and certain other lands of the lessee were assigned by him to trustees to hold in trust for the lessee for life, and thereafter as to the foundry upon one set of trusts, and as to the residue upon another set of trusts. From some date prior to ( H71 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 1472 ) LIMITATIONS, STATUTE 0¥—oontmued. 18i3, and down to the death of the lessee in 1858, two portions of the stable property were occupied by the lessee as part of and in con- nection with the business carried on by him on the foundry property. After his death these two portions continued to be so occupied by the cestuis que trust of the foundry, and the defts., their successors, without any acknowledgment, down to the date of this action. In March, 1856, the foundry lease, and in Aug,, 1856, the stable lease, were renewed, new leases on the same terms for ninety-nine years or three lives being granted to the trustees of the settlement. In July, 1890, a new lease of the foundry was granted to the then cestui que trust occupying the foundry and the two portions of the stable property. This lease was subsequently sold to the- defts. In 1894 a new lease of the stable was granted to the trustees, which was again renewed in 1898. This renewed lease was in 1901 sold to the pits., who on July 18, 1901, commenced this action, claiming to recover from the defts. the two portions of the stable property which had been occupied as part of the foundry pro- perty :— Held, that the plt.'s claim was not barred ; that at the date of the stable lease of Aug., 1856, the possession in law of the disputed portions was in the trustees so as to enable them to sur- render them to the lessor and to obtain a regrant from him, and that the Statute of Limitations did not begin to run against the lessor in 1856, but only in 1894, on the determination of the stable lease of Aug., 1856 ; that the occupiers of the disputed portions were persons claiming through a trustee within s. 25 of the Statute of Limitations, 1833, and that the statute, therefore, did not run in their favour : Held, also, that, assuming that the statute began to run in 1856 against the lessor, the dis- puted portions became an accretion to the pro- perty comprised in the foundry lease, and on the determination and surrender of that lease in July, 1890, i.e., within twelve years of the com- mencement of the action, the lessor acquired a new right of possession, there being nothing to rebut the presumption that the encroachment enured for the benefit of the lessor. East Stonbhotjse Ueban Distkict Council v. ■WlLLOUGHBY BeOTHEES, LD. Caianuell J. [1902] 2 K. B. 318 — Legacy, Action to recover — Duty of executor to give notice of legacy. See Limitations, Statute of. 4. — London building — Fees of district surveyor- Liability — Period of limitation. 8ee London — Buildings. 5. — Lunatic pauper — Maintenance — Lunatic's estate. See PooE Law. 10. — Minerals, Conveyance of land with. — Parcels — Wrongful working under colour of title. See Vendor and Puechasee — Uinerals. 1. — Mines — Tenants in common— Working of part of mine by one co-owner — Adverse possession — Account. See Mines. 14. D.D. LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OY—ooiitintiei. 12. — Money paid imder a mistake of fact — MlMalie sliared by both parties — Aotiun to recore-r back — From what date statute begins to run — Whether notice to defendant of mistake is necessary to complete cause of action. Where in answer to an action to recover back money paid, under a mistake of fact the deft, relies on the Statute of Limitations the statute must be taken to have run from the date of payment, and not from the date of the discovery of the mistake, nor from the date when the pit. might have discovered it by the exercise of reasonable diligence. Broohsbamlt, v. Simth, (1836) 2 Y. & C. Ex. 58, explained. Where money has been paid under a mistake of fact which was shared by both the party paying and the party receiving it, in order to entitle the payor to maintain an action for the recovery back of the money so paid it is not necessary that he should have given the payee notice of the mistake and demanded repayment. In such a case the cause of action is complete the moment the money is paid. Freeman v. Jeffries, (1869) L. E. 4 Ex. 189, distinguished. Bakee w. Courage & Co. Hamilton J. [1910] 1 K.lB. 56 — Mortgage. See under Mortgage — Limitations, Statute of. 13. — Mirrtgage — Aclmowledgment — Payment of interest " by tlie person by whom the same shall be payable" — Person "bound to pay" — Real PropeHy Limitation Act, 1874 (.87 ^ 38 Vict-. 0. 57), s. 8. The solicitor who acted for a mortgagor and after his death for his executors, and also for the mortgagees, paid the interest upon the mortgage debt to the mortgagees regularly up to a period within twelve years before the commencement of an action to enforce the mortgage : — Held, that this was prima facie a payment within s. 8 of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874, " by the person by whom the same shall be payable," so as to throw on the representatives of the mortgagor the onus of proving that the statute had run and the mortgage debt had not been kept alive. Held, also, that the payment of interest by a person who, as between himself and the mortgagor, was bound to pay it, though he was under no contract with the mortgagee to do so, was a payment, " by the person by whom the same shall be payable " within the meaning of s. 8, so as to prevent the statute from running. Decision of Buckley J., [1901] W. N. 148, affirmed. Harlooh v. Ashberry, (1882) 19 Ch. D. 539, considered and explained. Beadshaw v. Wid- drington - C. A. [1903] W. N. 107 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 430 - Interest — Arreajs, Mortgagee's ■•-■'-^-right to recover. '-~~ See Mortgage — Interest. 1. 3b ( 1473 ) DIGEST OF GASES, 1901—1910. ( 1474 ) LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OT— continued. 14. — jyiortgage — Real edate subject to trust for conversion — Rents and profits of unconverted real estate — Payment into Court iy trustees under Trustee Act, 1893 — Payment out — Mortgagee's claim fm' principal and interest — Res judicata — Real Property Limitation Act, 1833 (3^4 Will, i, c. 27), s. 34 — Real Property Limitation Act. 1874 (37 S; 38 Vict. c. 57), .s-. 8. A testator, who died in 1878, by his will gave the residue of his real and personal estate to trustees upon trust to convert at their discretion, and to divide the proceeds among his four children in equal shares. Part of the testator's residuary real estate consisted of an estate pur autre vie in a freehold house, which the trustees, in the exercise of their discretion, retained. In 1889 two of the children mortgaged their interests in this property and the proceeds thereof. More than twelve years later, namely, in 1905, the trustees paid into Court under the Trustee Act, 1893, certain sums representing the shares of the mortgagors in the rents and profits of this property. Up to this time no steps had been taken to enforce the mortgage, nor had any part of the principal or interest ever been paid, nor had any acknowledgment been .given. Subsequently in 1905 the mortgagees applied for payment out of the fund in Court to them and other incumbrancers or the mortgagors in order of priority ; but this summons was dismissed, and no appeal was brought from that dismissal. The mortgagors then applied for payment out of the fund to them : — Held, that the mortgagors were entitled to have the fund paid out to them without satisfy- ing the mortgage debt, inasmuch as (1.) the mortgagees were precluded by the dismissal of their summons from asserting any claim against the fund ; (2.) the effect of s. 34 of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1833, was to extin- guish their title to the mortgage. In re iZoyrf,-[1903] 1 Ch. 385, explained and distinguished. Decision of Warrington J., [1907] 1 Ch. 686, reversed. In re Hazeldinb's Trusts C. A. [190T] "W. N. 218 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 34 15. — Mortgage deed, Action on corenant in — Deiise of land in trust for sale — Mmigage of reversionary intei'est in proceeds ■ — " Money charged upon or payable out of land " — R^al Property Limitation Act, 1874 (37 ^- 38 Vict, c. 57), s. 8. A testatrix died having devised her real estate to trustees in trust for A. for life, and after A.'s death in trust to sell and divide the proceeds among the defts. The defts. joined in executing a mortgage of their reversionary interest in the property to the pit. to secure an advance. The mortgage deed contained a joint and several covenant to repay the loan with interest. More than twelve years and less then twenty years after the last payment of interest or acknowledgment by the defts. the pit. brought his action to recover the amount of principal and interest due under the covenant in the mortgage deed. A. was still living at the date of the action : — Held, that the money payable under the LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF- covenant was money " charged upon or payable out of land " within the meaning of s. 8 of the Eeal Property Limitation Act, 1874, and that the limitation of twelve years imposed by that section applied to the personal action upon the covenant even though the subject-matter of the mortgage was a reversion, and though that reversion had not yet fallen into possession at the date of the action. Kiekland r. Pbatpield Wright J. [1903] W. N. 70 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 756 16. — Mortgage — SHinguishment of title of second, mortgagee — Effect of possession of first mortgagee — Non-susjiennon of statutory period — Real Property Limitation Act, 1833 (3^4 1I7M. 4, c. 27), ss. 2, 3, 5 — Real Property Lim,ita- tion Act, 1874 (37 S,- 38 Vict. c. 57), ss. 1, 2. When the right of action of a mortgagee to recover land has accrued, the possession of the land by a prior mortgagee does not suspend the running of the period of limitation against the subsequent mortgagee. The dictum of Romer J. in Kibble v. Fair- thorne, [1895] 1 Oh. 219, foUowed. Trustees, JExecutcrrs, and Agency Co. v. Short, (1888) 13 App. Oas. 793, explained. Samttbl Johnson & Sons, Ld. ; . Beock - Parker J. [1907] W. N. 189 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 533 — Mortgagee in possession — Devolution of mort- gaged estate — Realty or personalty. See MoETG-ASE — Devolution. 1. 17. — Mortgages — Entry or action within twelve years after last payment of interest — Real property — Mortqagee — Real Property Limitation Act, 1837 (7 Will. 44-1 Vict. c. 28). The Real Property Limitation Act, 1837, which provides that a person entitled to or claiming under a mortgage of land may make an entry or bring an action at law or suit in equity to recover such land at any time within twenty [now twelve] years next after the last payment of any part of the principal or interest secured by such mortgage, applies, not only as against the mortgagor and persons claiming under him, but also as against a person who has acquired a good title by virtue of the Statute of Limitations as against the mortgagor and those claiming under him. LuDBEOOK r. LUDBEOOK C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 96 — Negative covenants— Title by adverse posses- sion. ^eVBITDOB AND PUECHASEE — Title. 2. 18. — Part payment — Jud^gment, Action on — Real Property Limitation Act, 1874 (37,t;- 38 Vict. 0. 57), .V. 8. In 1884 the pit. recovered judgment against the deft, in England for 15,067?. 9s. \ld. ; in 1886 he brought an action upon the judgment in the Courts of the South African Republic, where the deft, was domiciled. The foreign Court refused to enforce the judgment in full, but gave judg- ment for the pit. for the sum (including interest) of 9635Z. is. &d. Sequestration proceedings were then taken against the deft, in South Africa, and eventually the 9635?. 4s. M. was paid to the pit. by the curators under the deft.'s sequestration ( 1475 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1476 ) LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF and insolvency, and the deft, was released from all debts claimable against his estate. In 1900 the pit. brought an action in England against the deft, to recoTer the balance remaining due under the original judgment and interest thereon :— Held, that, the action not having been brought within the period of twelve years prescribed by s. 8 of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874, the plt.'s right to recover was barred by that section, and that the part payment of the 9635Z. 4s. 6d. did not operate to take the case out of the statute, it not having been made under circumstances from which an acknowledgment of liability and a promise to pay the balance could be inferred : Held, further, that the pit. had elected to take the foreign judgment in discharge of his whole cause of action, and could not afterwards sue for the residue of the original judgment debt in England. Tayloe v. Hollaed Jelf J. [1908] 1 K. B. 676 19. — Part paymeTtt — Solicitor's Mil — Re- cot'ery of moneys due to client — Retainer on account with assent of client. A solicitor brought in a claim for costs against a deceased client's estate which was being administered by the Court. Most of the costs were incurred more than six years before the judgment in the administration action. The solicitor, who had acted for the client in various matters for many years, during the whole of which period the client was heavily indebted to him, on several occasions recovered moneys for the client and made certain payments thereout on the client's behalf and, with the assent of the client, retained the balance on account of the client's indebtedness to him. On another occasion he received from an interested party a contribution to the costs of an action which formed the principal item of the claim, and, with the assent of the client, placed the sum so received to the credit of the cUeut's account : — Held, that these transactions did not consti- tute part payments so as to take out of the operation of the Statute of Limitations the items which were barred at the date of the judgment : — Whether, when a payment on account is made by the debtor and there has been no appropriation by either the debtor or the creditor, the law will appropriate it to the earliest of the items which at the date of the payment were not statute-barred, or will treat it as attributable pari passu to all such items so as to take them out of the operation of the statute, qucere. In re Boswell: Mbekitt v. Boswell Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 22 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 3S9 On Appeal : — Settlement arrived at under which the appeal was to be dismissed without costs. In re Boswell. Mebhitt v. Boswell C. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 331 — Pauper lunatics — Maintenance — Lunatic's estate — Payments on account, See PooE Law, 10, LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF— o 20. — Principal and agent — Moneys remitted to aqentfor special purpose and not accounted fm' — Express trust — Action for aobount. In 1882 the deft, went to the United States as the agent of the pit. co. to buy timber lands for the CO. ; but finding that the timber lands had been already acquired by third persons, the deft, in 1883 proposed to the co. as an investment certain prairie lands of which he had secured the ■ refusal. The co. instructed the deft, to buy the lands, and from time to time in 1883 on his request remitted to him moneys for that purpose. The deft, purchased the lands and paid for them out of these moneys, and conveyed the lands to the CO. In 1901 the co., having then for the first time discovered that the deft, had charged the CO. more than he had paid for the lands, brought an action to recover from the deft, the balance of the moneys remitted to him and not accounted for: — Held, "hj Kekewich J., [1903] W. N. 206 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 242, that, the moneys having been remitted by the co. to the deft, as their agent for investment in a specified manner, the deft, was an express trustee for the co. of those moneys, and that the Statute of Limitations was not a bar to the action. Burdich v. Garrick, (1870) L. K. 5 Ch. 233, and Soar v. Ashwell, [1893] 2 Q. B. 390, followed. Watson V. Woodman, (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 721, and Friends. Tounri, [1897] 2 Ch.421, explained and distinguished. Decision of Kekewich J., [1904] 1 Ch. 242, affirmed. Noeth Ameeica Lakd and Timber Co. r. Watkins - C. A. [1904] W. N. 144 [1904] 2 Ch. 238 — Railway company Ultra vires. See Vendor Minerals 1. Possession of minerals- AND PUECHASEE - — Rates, Recovery of — Limitation of time — " Complaints." See Rates. 1. 21. — Real property — Action to recover land — Person vmden- disability — Claim T>y tiusiand in right of wife — Real Property lAmitation Acts (3 me,d. as the remedy against the land on which the money was charged. Shaw r. Ceomptok Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 370 — Restrictive covenants — Title by possession — Notice — Acceptance of less than forty year.i' title. See Vbndoe and Purchaser — Title. 9. — Set-oil — Payment — Solicitor's bill. i5''e Appropriation. 1. - Shares of intestate's estate. See Admixisteation. 19. 24. — Simple contract deht — Acknowledgment — Vnconditio7ial admi.s.'iion of liability coupled with expression of hope to pay — Conditional or limited promise. To an action for recovery of a debt due on a bill of exchange the deft, pleaded the Statute of Limitations. Shortly before the commence- ment of the action and after the time fixed by the statute had run. the deft, wrote, in answer to a formal demand for pajnnent by the plt.'s solicitors, " I admit I owe your client the sum of 210Z. 5.S. but I cannot meet this liability at the moment although I hope to call upon you within fourteen days to make a definite proposal for repayment of that amount with interest from date of loan" : — Held, that this was a sufficient acknowdedg- meut to prevent the operation of the statute. Tainier v. Smart, (1827) 6 B. & C. 603, and Smith Y. Thome, (1852) 18 Q. B. 134 ; 21 L. J. (Q.B.) 199, distinguished. CooPEK v. Kendall C. A. [1909] W. N. 23 ; [1909] I K. B. 406 — - Solicitor — Bill of costs — Taxation — Submis- sion to pay — Items barred by Statute of Limitations. See Solicitor — Costs. 5. — Statute-barred debt owing to estate — Eesidu- ary legatee of debtor's estate also a legatee of creditor's estate — Bringing into account. See ADMuriSTBATlOK-. 30. — Street — Paving expenses — Apportioned amount — Demand. See London — Streets. 10. — Superfluous land — Tunnel — Space above usque ad coelum — Telegraph wires. See Eailway — Tunnel. 1. — Tenants in common — Coal mines — Working by one tenant in common — Adverse possession . See Mines. 14. - Trustee. See under Trustee — Limitationi, Statutes of. - Trustee — Breach of trust — ■ Action to which no existing Statute of Limitations applies." See Trustee — Breach of Trust. 5. Vendor's lien — Personal estate — Interest — Arrears, Recovery of. See Vendor and Purchaser — Lien. 1. ( H79 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 1480 ) LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OH— continued. — Will — Mixed fund — Implied charge of legacies — Express charges of debts — Period of limitation. See Will — Charges. 2. LIQ1TIDATED DAMAGES. See under Damages. "LIQUIDATED SUM "—Act of bankruptcy- Debt—" Notice." See Bankruptcy — Act of Bankruptcy. i. LIQUIDATION- Bankruptcy. See under Bankruptcy. • — Condition for re-entry on liquidation — Lease — Solvent company — Voluntary liqui- dation — Forfeiture. See Landlord and Tenant. 75. LIftUIDATOR—Company— Winding-up . See under Company — Windins-up — Liq^aidator. LIS ALIBI PENDENS — Collision in foreign waters — Service out of jurisdiction. See Shipping —Practice. 4. LIS PENDENS— Divorce— Settlements, Varia- tion of — Answer to petition before decree absolute. See Divorce — Settlements. 11. — Registration of in England — Liability of Scotch real estate. See Practice — Pleadings. 1. LISTS — Copyright — Infringement — Lists of brood mares — Competition. See Copyright — Lists. 1. LITEEAEY AND SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS — TJsei- for social purposes — Billiards — Repairs — Borrowing powers — Literary and Scientific Institutions Act, 1854 (17 X,- 18 Vict. c. 112), ss. 18, 19, 33. The Literary and Scientific Institutions Act 1854, does not authorize the establishment of institutions for the purposes of recreation or enjoyment, e.g., the playing of billiards as dis- tinguished from the literary, scientific, and other instructional purposes specified in s. 33 of the Act. An institution established under the Act has no implied general power of mortgaging or borrowing money, and its power to mortgage or charge its property is limited to the purposes mentioned in s. 19. Money cannot be borrowed on mortgage by a literary or scientific institution for the purpose of erecting a billiard-room, although it may be so borrowed for the purpose of making necessary repairs of the institution's buildings. In re Badger. Mansbll i\ Viscount Cobham Buckley J. [1905] W. N. 37 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 568 LITIGATION — Pending — Conditions of sale — Kescission — Costs — Jurisdiction. See Vendor and Purchaser — Ee- scissiou. 2. — Liverpool Court of Passage — Interpleader issue — New trial. See Bill of Sale. j LIVEBPOOL. Ihuversltji of Liverpool Act, 1904 (4 Mdw. 7, c. 11), extends the privileges of the graduates of the tliiirerxify of Liverpool. High Court nf Justice — Liverpool district registrars — Order dated Feb. 29, 1908, directing that the present district registrar and the district prolate registrar l)e joint district registrars, Repriot from W. N. 1908 (March 7), p. 73. See Current Index, 1908, p. cxv. — Compulsory pilotage — Port of Liverpool — Limit of compulsion outwards. See Shipping — Pilotage. 4. — Compulsory pilotage — Vessel passing through port of Liverpool — Limits of port — Port of Manchester. See Shipping — Pilotage. 4. — Public park — Poor rate — Rateable value — Beneficial occupation. See Rates. 25. — Special Act — Liverpool Sanitary Amendment Act, 1864 — Demolition of buildings — " Court." See Local Govbenment. 2. LIVERPOOL COURT OF PASSAGE. The Lirerpool Court of Passage Mules, 1909, dated March 16, 1909, and which came into operation on April 1, 1909. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (April 10), p. 123. See Current Index, 1909, p. cxxii. LIVERY COMPANY— Gift to Livery Company of City of London — Devise for general purpose of company. See Charity. 30. LOADED ARMS— Criminal law. See under Criminal Law - Arms. - Loaded LOAN — Debentures — Issue — Deposit of blank debenture to secure loan, fe Company — Debentures. 21. — Excessive interest. See under Money-lenders. — Gambling in foreign country — Cause of action. See Gaming. 10. — Hire and purchase agreement — Inference of fact — Registration. See Bill op Sale. 3. — Mortgage of revenues of benefice to secure loan — Validity. See Ecclesiastical Law— -Vicarage. 1. LOANS— i(jon« Act, 1902 (2 Edw. 7, v. 4). — Trustee — Investments — Nominal debentures under Local Loans Act. &•« Trustee— Investments. 11. LOCAL AUTHORITY. See under Local Government. ( 1481 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( li82 ) LOCAI GOVERNMENT. Local Goivi-nment Act, 1888 (51 4'- .52 Vict, c. 41 — BtUe under s. 89 (3). Eeprint from W. N. 1902 (Dec. 6), p. 317. See Curbknt Index, 1902, p. Ixxx. Local Govm-nment Ql¥ansfer of Powers') Act, 1903 (3 Mw. 7, c. 15), amends s. 10 of the Local Government Act, 1888 (51 <;$■ 52 Vict. o. 41). Local Authorities (Admission of the Press to Meetings') Act, 1908 (8 mw. 7, <;. 43), provides for the admission of representatives of tlie Press to the meetings of certain Local Autlwrities. Local Authorities (Treasury Powers) Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 33), is an Act to transfer to the Local Government Board the powers of the Treasury under enactments relating to Local Authorities, 1. — Auditor — London — Metropolitan horough — Audit of accounts — Powers and duties — Sur- charge — Certiorari to quash — Jurisdiction of Court — London Government Act, 1899 (62 .<• 63 Vict. e. 14), s. U— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 J)- 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 247— Pouc Law Amend- ment Act, 1844 (7 4' 8 Vict. v. 101), s. 35. On an application for a certiorari under 8. 247, sub-s. 8, of the Public Health Act, 1875, to remove and quash disallowances and sar- eharges made by an auditor acting in pursuance of that section, the jurisdiction of the Court is not confined to error in point of law, but extends to error in point of fact. So held by the C. A., affirming the decision of the Div. Ct., [1907] 2 K. B. 878. Reg. V. Haslehurst, (1887) 51 J. P. 645, followed and approved. Per Cozeus-Hardy M.B.. and Farwell L.J. : An auditor appointed by the Local Government Board under s. 247 of the Public Health Act, 1875, to audit the accounts of a metropolitan borough council is authorized and required by sub-s. 7 to decide whether any member or officer of the council has been guilty of negligence or misconduct in relation to the accounts whereby loss has been occasioned to the council, and to assess the amount of the loss. Per Fletcher Moulton L.J. ; The powers and duties of the auditor under sub-s. 7 of s. 247 are strictly confined to auditing, and the words " person accounting '' in the latter part of that sub-section, which requires the auditor to " charge against any person accounting the amount of any deficiency or loss incurred by the negligence or misconduct of that person," mean the person who brings in accounts for audit. Therefore, where the accounts submitted for audit are the accounts of a metropolitan borough council, the person accountiug Is the council, and the auditor has no power to inquire into the negligence or misconduct of the indi- vidual members or servants of the council. Rex V. Caeson Roberts C. A. [1908] W. N. 9 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 407 — Baths and washhouses. See under Baths and Washhouses. — Borrowing powers exhausted — Illegal bor ing — Overdraft at banker's. See COEPOEATION. 4. TOW- LOCAL GOVERNMENT— cortiiMwerf. — Buildin.gs. See under BUILDINGS. London — Buildings. 2. — Uuildnigs — Local Government — Special Act — LAcerpool Sanitary Amendment Act, 1864 (27 S; 28 Vict. c. Ixxiii:)— Public health — Demoli- tion of buUdimgs — " Cou7t " — Public Authmntiei Protection Act, 1893 (56 4' 57 Vict. c. Ixariii.), s. 1 (a) — Jurisdictimi — Lnjunction — Proceedings before justices. The pit. was the owner of No. 6 Court, Great Homer Street, Liverpool, containing on one side six houses witli odd numbers and on the other side six houses with even numbers. In 1904 the grand jury presented by presentment '■ A " that No. 6 Court, and by presentment •' B " that the six houses with odd numbers, were unfit for liuman habitation and ought to be demolished. Copies of the presentments were served on the pit. together with notices referring to s. 23 of the Liverpool Sanitary Amendment Act, 1864, which provided that the owner should within three months take down the premises, and that in default the corporation should take down and in either case should pay compensation. The pit. elected to retain the site of the court and of the odd-numbered houses, and compensation was paid to her in respect of the six houses, which were subse- quently demolished. In Mar., 1909, notices were served on the pit. under ss. 32 to 34 (which make no provision for compensation) of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, in respect of the six houses with even numbers, and summonses for closing orders in respect of each house were issued. The pit. then commenced this action for (1.) a mandamus commanding the defts. to take down No. 6 Court pursuant to the provisions of the Act of 1864, and to have compensation assessed, on the ground that presentment " A " extended to the whole court and aU the houses therein, and that the defts. had been guilty of statutory neglect in not taking down all the houses, and (2.) an injunc- tion to restrain the defts. from proceeding with the applications for closing orders before the magistrates on the ground that the demolition was really part of a scheme for reconstruction or ventilation projected by the defts. which ought to be dealt with under the parts of the Act of 1890 entitling the pit. to compensation, and not under ss. 32 to 34 : — Held, that under the Act of 1864 the word " court " meant the passage or place on to which the houses opened, and did not extend to include also the houses themselves, and that the plt.'s claim to a mandamus failed. Even if the plt.'s interpretation of the word " court " had been correct, s. 1 (a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, would have been a complete answer to her claim, inasmuch as she had elected to . accept the status quo in preference to enforcing her statutory rights. Held, also, that there were no special circum- stances to warrant interference with the pro- ceedings before the magistrates, and that the claim for an injunction must be refused. Chand Junction Waterworks Co. v. Hampton ( 1483 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— 1910. ( 1484 ) LOCAL GOVEENMEHT— C(//(;i«aerf. TJrlan Cmncil, [1898] 2 Ch. 331, followed. Mebeiok v. Liverpool Corporation Eve J. [1910] W. W. 302 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 449 — Building line — Approval of plans— " Written c&nsent " of urban authority. See Streets. 2. 2a. — Burgh county — Area within ancient royalty. The House reversed the decision of the First Division of the Gt. of Sess., (1901) 38 Sco. L. E, 467. Lower Ward of County Lanark v. kutheeglen magistrates - h. l. (sc.) [1902] W, N. 157 — Burial Board — Powers of. See under Burial. 3. — By-laws — InfriTigemeiii — Erection of houses ahuttimg on puilio highway — " jVew street," Laying out — Injunction — Pitblic body — Statutory remedy — Justices, Proceedings before — Information, Proceedings by — Attorney -General, Absence of — Jurisdiction — TJrba/n authority. The defts. were the owners of a triangular piece of laud within the pits.' borough. Two sides of the triangle abutted upon public high- ways within the borough. The defts., in pur- suance of a building scheme, commenced erecting houses on their land fronting the highways. The pits, alleged that the defts. were laying out the highways as " new streets " which did not comply with the requirements of the borough by-laws as to width, and they claimed, first, an injunction, and, secondly, a declaration that the pits, were entitled to remove or pull down any work begun or done by the defts. in contraven- tion of the by-laws. The by-laws which were framed under the PubKc Health Act, 1875, prescribed a penalty for infringement, to be recovered by summary proceedings, and pro- vided that the pits, might, subject to any statu- tory provision in that behalf, remove, alter, or puU down any work begun or done in contra- vention of the by-laws : — Held, affirming Joyce J., [1902] W. N. 73 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 182, (1.) that the facts were not sufficient to justify the inference that the defts. were laying out the highways as " new streets " within the meaning of the by-laws ; and (2.) that the action was not maintainable in the absence of the Att.-Gen. Att.- Gen. v. Ashborne Reoi-eation Ground Co., [1903] 1 Ch. 101, approved. Dbvonpoet Cor- poration V. TOZEB C. A. [1903] W. N. 38 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 759 Mte. See Att.- Gen. v. Ashbm'iie Recreation Gromid Co., [1903] 1 Ch. 101. See Streets. 13. Referred to by Farwell J., Att.- Gen. v. Wim- bledon House Estate Co., [1904] 2 Ch. 34. See Streets. 3. Followed by Warrington J., Att.-Gen. v. Pontypridd Waterworks Co., [1908] 1 Ch. 388. See Water. 18. 4. — By-laws — Reasonableness — Rural dis- trict — Discretion of justices^Public Health Act, 1875 (38 ^ 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 157. A rural sanitary authority, invested with LOCAL GOVERNMENT— coraiimwiZ. urban powers, made a by-law under s. 157 of the Public Health Act, 1875, prohibiting the erec- tion within their district of a new building not constructed of brick, stone, or other hard and incombustible material : — Held, that the fact that the by-law did not reserve to the sanitary authority any power to exempt exceptional oases from its operation, as for instance where the building was remote from other dwellings and had all its rooms on the ground floor, did not make the by-law unreason- able and void ; but that if, upon the hearing of an information for a breach of the by-law, the justices were of opinion that, having regard to the purposes for which the by-law was made, it was not necessary to enforce it under the special circumstances of the case, they might in the exercise of their discretion under s. 16 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, notwithstand- ing that a breach of the by-law had in fact been committed, dismiss the information or impose only a nominal penalty. SALT v. SOOTT HALL Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 245 5. — By-law — Validity — Reasonableness — Prohibition of sale of papers denoted to racing tips — Local authority. A by-law made by a. county council imposed a penalty on any person frequenting and using any street or public place " for the purpose of selling or distributing any paper or written or printed matter devoted wholly or mainly to giving information as to the probable result of races, steeplechases, or other competitions : — Held (by Lord Alverstone C.J. and Kennedy J., Phillimore J. dissenting), that the by-law was unreasonable and could not be supported. Soott V. PILLINBE Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 855 — Carriage plying or driven for hire — Conceal- ment of number-plate. See Haoknby Caer'iagb. 1. — Cesspools, Cleansing of privies and. See Ms. 27, 28, below. 6. — Cliairman — Urban district council — Retirejnent of members — Election of new mem- ber's — Position of former chairman — -Appoint- ment of new chairman — Inherent right to appoimt — Chairman' absent — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 ^ 39 Viet. c. 55), s. 199 ; Sched. I., rr. 3, 5 — Local Government Act, 1894 (56 ^' 57 Vict c. 73), ss. 23, 59. By s. 199 of the Public Health Act, 1875, every urban authority (not being the council of a borough) is to hold an annual meeting, and meetings of local boards are to be held and con- ducted in accordance with the rules as to meet- ings and proceedings contained in Sched I. to the Act. By r. 3 of those rules every local board shall at their annual meeting appoint one of their number to be chairman for one year at all meetings at which he is present. By r. 5, if the chairman is absent from any meeting, the mem- bers present shall appoint one of their number to act as chairman thereat. By s. 59 of the Local Government Act, 1894, it is enacted that s. 199 and Sched. I. of the Public Health Act, 1875, shall apply in the case of every urban district council (other than a ( 148J ) DIGEST OF CASE.s. 1901—1910. ( 1486 ) LOCAL GOVEENMENT— co;rfim««(Z. borough council) as if such district council were a local board. By s. 23, sub-s. 6, o{ the last- mentioned Act it is provided that a county council may in certain circumstances direct that the members of an urban district council shall retire together on April 15 in every third year, and that such order shall have full effect. The members of an urban district council, in pursuance of an order so made by the county council, retired together on April 15, 1910. ^STew members of the council were elected on April 4, 1910. Among the newly-elected councillors was one who had been on May i, 1909, appointed chairman of the council composed of the retiring members. At the first meeting of the newly- elected members on April 19, 1910, this member claimed to act as chairman until a new chairman was appointed, on the ground that by r. 3 of the rules in Sched. I. to the Public Health Act, 1875, his appointment as chairman lasted for one year ; and, acting as chairman, he gaye a casting vote on the election of a new chairman to the council ; — Seld, that the former chairman had no right as such to act as chairman at the meeting of the newly-appointed councillors on April 19, 1910 ; for that by the order of the county council the former members of the council, including their chairman, retired on April 15 ; and conse- quently that the new chairman was not validly appointed. Seld, also, that the proper course for the newly-elected councillors to adopt was to appoint one of their number to act as chairman for the first business of the meeting, including the appointment of a chairman for the year ; and that this might be done either in pursuance of the inherent right of a corporation to appoint one of their number to act as chairman, or under and by virtue of r. 5 of the rules in Sched. I. to the Public Health Act, 1875, on the ground that the chairman of the council was absent within the meaning of that rule. Rex r. Rowlands. Ex 2iarte Bebslet Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 930 — Chairman of justices — Borough justices — County justices — Mayor of borough. See Justices. 3. — Compensation. ^ See also under Compensation. 7. — Compensation, — Transfer of powers of Lo'O.don School Board to London County Council — Direct pecuniary loss — Officer of authority whose powers not transferred — Education Act, 1902 (2 Edw. 7, c. 42), Sched. II., rr. 16, 21— Local Govermuent Act, 1S8S (51 ,<• 52 Vict.c. 41), «. 120. Before the Education Act, 1902, came into operation in London the expenses of the London School Board were defrayed out of the consoli- dated rate, which was raised in the City of London by a precept directed to the Corporation of the City, and was collected for the Corporation by the applicant, who received a commission on the amount collected. When the Act came into operation the powers of the London School Board were transferred to the London County Council, and the education expenses were de- frayed out of the poor-rate which khh collected LOCAL GOVEB,linilLEST— continued. by the overseers. The applicant, having thus lost a proportion of the commission he formerly earned, claimed compensation under i. 21 of Sched. II. of the Education Act, 1902, and s. 120 of the Local Government Act, 1888 : — Held, by Lord Alverstone C.J. and Ridley J. (Darling J. dissenting), that he was not entitled to compensation from the London County Coun- cil, since none of the powers or property of the Corporation of the City of London, whose officer he was, had been transferred to the County Council. Rex v. London Cotjntt CotiNciL. Ex parte NOERIS Div. Ct. [1906] W. N . 17 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 346 — Corporation, Municipal. See under COEPOEATION. 8. — C^^sts of unsuccessful prosecutions — Borough Imving separate commission of the peace — No separate Court of quarter sessions — Prose- cutions iefore horough justices — Justices' Clerlts Act. 1877 (40 4- 41 Vict. c. 43), s. 6— Municipal Cmpm-ations Act, 1882 (45 4' 46 Vict. c. 50), s. 140 ; Sched. V., Part II. A borough with a population exceeding 10,000 had a separate commission of the peace with a justices' clerk, but not a separate Court of quarter sessions. It had the right to provide and pay for its own police, but by agreement the borough was for police purposes consoli- dated with the county, and the county supplied the police for which the borough paid. The county rate was leviable in the borough : — Held, that the costs of prosecutions under- taken by the police before the borough justices in cases in which such costs were not remitted or were not paid by the parties chargeable were chargeable to the borough fund and not to the funds of the county in which the borough was .situate. Geoegb t. Thomas - Sorutton J. [1910] 2 K.' B. 951 9. — County council — Maiti road — Main- tenancr and repair — Emhanhments — Betaining and supporting trolls — Mandatory ordei' — Local Government Act, 1888 (51 A 52 Vict. c. 41), s. 11. The liabilitj' imposed upon county councils by s. 11 of the Local Government Act, 1888, of maintaining and repairing main roads is general, it being left to them to determine the best means of discharging that liability. The Court will not prescribe what particular works or repairs are necessary for the maintenance of the roads. No mandamus will lie against a local autho- rity to do any particular works. Whether any liability, as distinct from duty. is imposed upon county councils by the section, qurere. ATT. -Gen. r. Stafpordsh'iee County Council Joyce J. [1906] W. N. 6 ; [1905] 1 Oh. 336 10. — Creation of county borough — Loss of borough' .1 contribution to county expenses — Adjnstment of Jina7icial relations — Compensation to county — Local Gorrrnment Act, 1888 (51 S' 52 Vict, r.'il), ss. 32, 62. When a new county borough is created by separation of the borough from the county the financial adjustment between the borough and the county must not include compensation from C 1487 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1488 ) liOCAL GOVEKNMENX— coftiMWiSii. either to the other for the loss of a contributing area. Upon the true construction of the Local Government Act, 1888, the meaning of s. 32 is not that the entire financial position of tlie county and the county borough is to remain the same relatively to each other, but that it is to be so as regards the distribution of the Exchequer contributions ; and that in adjusting the finan- cial relations between the two bodies an equitable provision shall be made for imposing upon each its fair share of the burden, which was a joint burden and is no longer to be joint. Decisions of Channell J., [1905] 2 K. B. 340, and of the C. A., [1906] 2 K. B. 186, reversed. The reasoning of Caten'liam Urhan Council v. Godstone Rural Counoil, [1904] A. C. 171, adopted and applied. , West Hartlepool CORPOKATION 1). DdBHAM COUNTY COUNCIL H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 137 ; [1907] A. C. 246 11. — Creation of uridn district — Subtraction of parish from rural district — Highway expenses — Iioss of income — Matter requiring ad^mtment —Local Government Act, 1888 (.51 ^- 52 Vict, c. 41), ss. 57, 62 — Local Guverninent Act, 1894 (56 S- 57 Vict. u. 73), ss. 54, 68. By order of a county counoil under s. 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888, a parish which was part of a rural district was separated from that district and made an urban district, and the parish ceased to be rated for the highway expenses of the rural district : — Held, that the loss of this contribution was not a matter which required to be adjusted between the rural district and the new urban district under s. 62 of the Local Government Act, 1888. That section does not give com- pensation for any such loss of profit. The word " income " in s. 62 means existing income, and does not include income which may afterwards be derived from making rates. The decision of the C. A., In the matter of Godstone Rural District Council and, Caterham Urban District Council, [1903] W. N. 48 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 554, reversed. In re Rochdale Union and Haslingden Union, [1899] 1 Q. B. 540, and Rucks County Council and Herts Comity Council, [1899] 1 Q. B. 515, overruled on the above point. Caterham Ueban District Council v. Godstone Eueal District Council - - - H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 96 ; [1904] A. C. 171 Note. Eeferred to by Warrington J., Holswoiihy Urban Council v. Holsworthy Rural Council, [1907] 2 Oh. 62. See next Case. Reasoning of, adopted and applied by H. L. (E.), West Hartlepool Corporation v. Durham County Council,, [1907] A. C. 246. See preceding Case. 12. — Creation of urban district — Subtraction of parish from rural district — Loss of rateable area — Compensation — Compromise of claims, including claim for loss of rateable area — Validity — Local Government Act, 1888 (51 S; 52 Vict. c. 41), ss. 57, 62 — Local Government Act, 1894 LOCAL GOVEENMENT- (56 4' 57 Vict. c. 73), ss. 54, 6?,—Costs—Pu,blio Autltoriti-es Protection Act, 1893 (56 4' 57 Vict^ c. 61), s. 1. It is no ground for setting aside a compromise that the claim, or one of the claims, made by one of the parties was not well founded in law, provided that it was put forward boiia fide. On the formation in 1900 of an urban district out of a rural district an adjustment had to be made between the two councils under the Local Government Act, 1894, of the property, income, debts, liabilities, and expenses affected by the formation of the m-ban district. A number of claims were put forward by the two councils against each other, including one by the rural council in respect of loss of income owing to the transfer of rateable area from the district of the rural counoil to that of the urban council. After considerable negotiations the two councils entered into an agreement of compromise by which the urban council covenanted to pay to the rural council a sum of 1500Z. by thirty annual instal- ments of 501. each, in consideration of which the rural council released the urban counoil from certain specified claims, including the claim for compensation for loss of income owing to the transfer of rateable area, and all other claims (if any) which the rural council had or might have against the urban council in respect of any property, income, debts, liabilities, or expenses, and the urban council also released the rural council from all claims in a similar way. At the time when the agreement was made it was considered that loss of rateable area was a matter of adjustment, but in 1904 the House of Lords decided in Caterham Urban Council v. Godstone Rural Coimcil, [1904] A. C. 171, that loss of rateable area was not a matter of adjustment. In 1906 the urban council brought an action for a declaration that the agreement was ultra vires the urban council and not binding on it : — Held, that the agreement, having been entered into bona fide by both councils, was not rendered invalid by the fact that one of the claims included in the compromise subsequently proved to be unfounded in law. Held, also, that the case was not one which fell within s. 1 of the Public Authorities Protec- tion Act, 1893, and, therefore, that the rural council was not entitled to solicitor and client costs. Holsvcobtht Urban District Coun- cil r, Holsworthy Sural District Coun- cil ■Warrington J. [1907] W. N. 108 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 62 13. — District councils — Contracts — Water supply to adjoining district — Sanction of Local Government Hoard — Particular area — Penalty clause— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 ^ 39 Vict, c. 55), ss. 61, 174. Sect. 61 of the Public Health Act, 1875, merely empowers the Local Government Board to sanction the supply of water by the local authority of one district to the local authority of an adjoining district, and does not require them to consider the terms of the agreement between the local authorities. An agreement for the sale of water by an urban authority to a rural authority does not ( 1489 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( U90 ) LOCAX GOVESNMENT~co««»«e(?. require a penalty clause under s. 174, sub-s. 2, as that sub-section is confined to cases where work, materials, matters, or things are to be furnished, had, or done to or for an lu'ban authority for a price to be paid by that authority. Soothill Upper Uebaij" District Council v. Wake- field Rural District Council Swinfen Eady J. [19041 W. N. 200 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 63 On Appeal : — The C. A. lield that under s. 61 the Local Government Board had power to give a limited sanction, namely, to sanction a supply of water by one local authority to a specified area of the district of an adjoining local authority. This was what had been done in the present case. The Local Government Board had only sanc- tioned the .supply of water by the pits, to the parishes of East and West Ardsley, and an agreement for the supply of water to a larger area of the same district required the sanction of the Local Government Board. This sanction had never been given to the agreement of Jan. 31, 1895, and consequently that agreement was invalid, as indeed was provided by clause 9. The pits, were, therefore, thrown back upon the earlier agreements of July 17, 1882, and Sept. 29, 1885. The defts. then took the objection that those agreements were invalid, because they did not contain a penalty clause in accordance with =,. 174, sub-s. 2, of the Public Health Act, 1875. The Court affirmed the decision of Swinfen Eady J. on this point. Romer L.J. was of opinion that sub-s. 2 of s. 174 is directory only, not imperative, and that the omission of a penalty clause did not render the contract invalid. Stirling J. agreed with Romer L.J. Vaughan Williams L.J. differed, being of opinion that the provision of s. 174, sub-s. 2, was imperative. The decision of the questions of the form of the judgment to which the pits, would be entitled and how the costs should be borne was postponed to the Michaelmas Sittings. Soot- hill Upper Urban District Council r. Wakefield Rural District Council and Urban District Council of Ardsley, East AND West C. A. [1905] W. N. 138 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 516 — Drains. See under Sewers. — Dwelling-house unfit for human habitation — Closing order. See under Housing of Working Classes. — Electric lighting. See under Electric Light. 14. — Oiiardiam, Board of — Meinier — Col- leotion of vent for the Board — Retention of commission — Subsequent jiai/iiient to the Board — Termination of emploi/inent — Bixquidificatioa — Vacancy — Local Gorernwrnt Act, 1894 (66 .5- 57 Viet. c. 73), «. 46, svh-s. 1 (e), 7. A member of a board of guardians agreed with the board to collect on their behalf rent LOCAL GOVEKNMENT— <;o/rfi'«i/i'(?. receivable by the board in respect of a, certain house. There was no express agreement as to any fee or commission to be paid to the member for so doing. He collected the rent until the house was sold, and then paid to the board the amount of the rent received by him, less a sum which he claimed to be entitled to retain as commission, but he subsequently paid to the board the sum which he had retained. After receiving it the board declared the member's office of guardian to be vacant, ou the ground that, by reason of charging commission for the collection of the vent, he had become disqualified under s. 46, sub-s. 1 (e), of the Local Govern- ment Act, 1894, for being a member of the board ; — Held, that the fact that before the declaration of vacancy the employment had terminated, and the amount of commission had been paid by the member to the board, did not prevent him from being disqualified, and that the office was, there- fore, vacaat. Rex ;•. Rowlands Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 292 — Guardian of the poor — Disqualification for office — Bankruptcy. See Poor Law. 5. — Highway. See under Highway. 15. — Hospital — Agreement by local autho- rities for joint use of hospital — Managemeixt ex- penses apportioned — Kotice by one local authority to determine agreement — Validity of Twtice — Judgment for arrears of management expenses — E^'Cusaile delay — Mandamus to levy retrospective rate— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict-, e. 55), s. 210 — Adjustment of liabilities — Local Gocernment .4(f,'l888 (51 4-52 Vict. c. 41),.s. 62. Under s. 210 of the Public Health Act, 1S75, which corresponds with s. 89 of the Public Health Act, 1848, and enacts that a retrospective rate may be levied to pay charges and expenses incurred within six months of the making of the rate, a judgment, obtained in an action brought to enforce a liability incurred more than six months before the commencement of the action, itself operates as a charge within the meaning of the section, and a mandamus may go to levy a retrospective rate to satisfy such judgment where the delay in bringing the action was under the circumstances excusable. Under the terms of a deed made in 1885 the predecessors in title of the pits, and of the defts., and the corporation of B., were entitled to the joint use of a hospital, and the expenses of main- taining the hospital were yearly apportioned between and paid by the several authorities. In 1898 another deed was made between the same authorities or their successors by which the pro- visions of the deed of 1885 as to the management of the hospital were varied, and it was provided that that agreement might be determined by a six months' notice in writing. Under the terms of a third deed made in 1905 between the pits, and the defts. and the corporation, and stated to be supplemental to the two previous deeds, the corporation withdrew and were released from all liability under the deeds of 1885 and 1898, and ( U91 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901-0 910. ( 1492 ) lOCAL GOVERNMENT— 6'0«<™?te(?. the provisions for the management of the hospital were again varied. In April, 1906, the clefts, gave notice under the deed of 1898 to determine the three deeds and ceased to use the hospital and to contribute to its maintenance. After long negotiations which terminated in Nov., 1909, the pits, in Deo., 1909, brought an action to recover from the defts. their proportion of the manage- ment expenses of the hospital for the three years prior to Mar. 31, 1909 :— Held, that the notice was invalid and that the deeds of 1885 and 1905 were still subsisting, and constituted an agreement adjusting liabilities and expenses within the meaning of s. 62 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and that the defts. were not entitled to have the questions between themselves and the pits, referred to arbitration under sub-s. 2 of that section. Jield, also, that the delay in commencing the action was in the circumstances excusable, and that the pits, were entitled to judgment for the arrears and a mandamus ordering the defts. to levy a rate to satisfy the judgment and interest. Principle of Reg. v. Sotherham Local Board, (1858) 8 E. &B. 906, and Worthlngtony.HiMon, (1865) L. E. 1 Q. B. 63, applied. Wolstanton Ukitbd Ueban District Coukcil r. Tun- stall Ubbajt District Council Neville J. [1910] W. N. 144 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 347 On Appeal : — After the appeal was opened the following order was agreed : — By consent discharge the judgment of Neville J., after the declaration that the deeds dated June 1, 1885, and Aug. 2, 1905, were valid and subsisting, and that the defts. had no power to determine them, and, subject thereto, refer the matters in difference in the action to an arbitrator for adjustment. Wol- stanton United Urban District Council 1'. Tunstall Urban District Council C. A. [1910] W. N. 232 — Housing of the working classes. See under HOUSING OF THE WORKING Classes. — Inclosnre Act — Award — Herbage on land — Eight of action — Injury to limited section of public. See Inclosure. 1. 16. — Information — Execution ofworlt in con- trareTction of ly-law — Cmitinuing offence — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 4" 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 158. Where an information charged the appellant with executing certain work in contravention of the by-laws of a local authority, and it was proved that he was responsible for the continued existence of the work after receiving notice that it was in contravention of the by-laws : — Held, that he might be convicted on this information by virtue of b. 158 of the Public Health Act, 1875, of a continuing offence as well as of the ofience specifically charged. Aieby v. Smith - - - Div. Ct. [1907] W. N. 96; [1907] 2 K. B. 273 17, — Inspection hy local authority — Admis- sion to private po-emises — Right of entry without permission of occupier — Puilie Health Act, 1875 (38 ^ 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 102, 306. LOCAL GOVERNMENT— ca)«;iB«e<^. Sect. 102 of the Public Health Act, 1875, provides that a lecal authority or any of their officers " shall be admitted into any premises for the purpose of examining as to the existence of any nuisance thereon," and if admission is refused application may be made to a magistrate for an order to admit. By s. 306, any person who wilfully obstructs any member of a local authority in the execution of the Act is liable to a penalty. Members of the appellant council, purporting to act under s. 102, entered a yard on the respondent's premises in his absence without having first requested or obtained his permission so to do, and, while there, were locked in by the respondent : — Held, that a. 102 does not authorize an entry on private premises without the permission of the occupier being first requested ; that the members of the appellant council while on the premises of the respondent were, therefore, not engaged m the execution of the Act ; and that the respondent had not committed an offence under s. 306. Consett Urban District Council v. Crawpoed Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 183 18. — Justices — Justices' clerh — Power to appoint — Payment of salajy — Fines and fees payable to county treasurer — Borough without separate commission of the peace — Justices'' Clerhs Act, 1877 (40 S,- 41 Vict. c. 43), s. B-^Municipal Cmyorations Act, 1882 (45 ,,?■ 46 Vict. c. 50), ss. 154—159. Courts of petty sessions cannot be held for a borough without a separate commission of the peace except as courts for the petty sessional division in which the borough is situate. A separate clerk cannot be appointed by the justices usually acting in a borough in which petty sessions are so held, but the justices of the petty sessional division may appoint a separate clerk in respect of each place appointed for holding petty sessions in the division, under s. 5 of the Justices' Clerks Act, 1877. The salary of every clerk so appointed is payable by the county council ; and the unappro- priated fines and fees must be paid to the county treasurer. Huntingdon Corpoeation V. Huntingdon County Council Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 257 ■ Local Government Board — Approval of- porate lands — Sale. See Corporation. 8. -Cor- — Local Government Board — Consent of — Pur- chase-money paid into Court — Payment out. See Lands Clauses Acts — Payment Out. 30. 19. — Local inquiry — Person appointed by county council — Remuneration — " Uxpenses " — Liability of district council — Local Government Act, 1894 (56 ^ 57 Vict. c. 73), s. 72, mJ-s. 4. Sect. 72, sub-s. 4, of the Local Government Act, 1894, provides that where a county council holds a local inquiry under that Act or under the ( 1493 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1494 ) lOCAI aOVES.'SMEU'r—coiamued. Local Government Act, 1888, on the application of any inhabitant of a, diatrict, the expenses iucurred by the county council in relation, to the inquiry (including the expenses of any committee or person authorized by the county council) shall be paid by the council of that district : — Seld, that a district council is not liable under that section to pay for the remuneration of a barrister appointed by a county council to hold a local inquiry under s. 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888. Middlesex County Council i-. Kingsbuey Ueban Council C. A. [1909] W. N, 23 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 554 — Lodging-houses. See under London — Lodging-houses. — London building. See under London — Buildings. 20. — Meetings — Local Authorities {Admission of the Press to Meetings') Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 43), proridps for the admission of representa- tives of tlie Press to the meetings of certain Local Authorities. — "Nuisances. See under Nuisance. London — Nuisances . 21. — Offences — Diseased meat — " Depositing for the purpose of sale" — PuVlic Health Act, 1875 (88 ^- 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 116, m~Pullic Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890 (53 Ji' 54 Vict. c. 59), s. 28, sui-s. 1. A person who has deposited, on premises other than his own, for the purpose of sale, diseased meat belonging to him and intended for the food of man, does not thereby commit any of the offences in respect of dealing with diseased meat which are specified in s. 1 1 7 of the Public Health Act, 1875, as amended by s. 28, sub-s. 1, of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890. FiETH r. McPhail Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 300 Mte. This case was referred to by 0. A., Holis V. Winchester Corporation, [1910] 2 K. B. 471. See next Case. 22. — Offences — Sale of unsound meat — Seizure — Prosecution — Acq uittal — Compensation for damage from exercise of statutory poivers — Costs of defending prosecution — Default of claimant — Mens rea — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 4- 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 116, 117, 308. Where meat intended for human consump- tion is exposed for sale and is condemned as unsound, the person in whose possession or on whose premises the meat is found is liable to conviction under s. 117 of the Public Health Act, 1875, whether he is or is not aware of the unsoundness of the meat. Accordingly, where a summons was taken out by a local authority under s. 117 against a butcher for selling for human consumption meat condemned as unsound, but was dismissed, and the butcher claimed compensation under s. 301 against the local authority for damage sustained by him by reason of the exercise by the local authority of the powei-s of the Act, and, upon the matter being referred to arbitration, the umpire found that a small portion of the meat LOCAL G0VERNMENT~C0Ki;iOT«<^. was unsound, but that the butcher and his assistants were unaware of the fact, and could not have discovered it by any examination which they could reasonably have been expected to make : — Held, that the butcher sold the unsound meat at his peril, and that this was a matter as to which he was himself in default within s. 308, and, consequently, that he was not entitled to compensation. Decision of Channell J., [1910] 2 K. B. 46, reversed. HoBBS v. Winchester COEPOEATION. - - C. A. [1910] W. N. 162 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 471 23. — Office — Councillor — TJrltan district councillor — Disqualification — Paid office undej- the council — Distress committee — Registrar and inquiry ageni — Local Govemvient Act, 1894 (56 4- 57 Vict. c. 73), s. 46, sub-ss. 1, 8 — Unsmployed Workmen Act, 1905 (5 Pldw. 7, c. 18). By s. 46 of the Local Government Act, 1894, a person is disqualified for being a member of a district council if he holds any paid office under the council. A distress committee established for an urban district under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, and the Urban Distress Committees (Un- employed Workmen) Order, 1905, is by virtue of that Act and Order constituted a committee of the council of the urban district for which it is established ; and the person who holds a paid office under such a committee holds a paid office under the district council within the meaning of s. 46 of the Local Government Act, 1894. Ceump r. Lewis Div. Ct. [1908] W. N. 51 : [1908] 1 K. B. 858 Note. SeeAtt.-Gen.v.Ashborne Hecreatimi Ground Co., [1902] W. N. 208 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 101. Streets. 13. 24. — Officer on abolition of office. Compensa- tion to — Practice of Treaswry — Discretion of council — Metropolitan borough — London Gorern- m.ent Act, 1899 (62 J^- 63 Vict. c. 14), s. 30— Local Government Act, 1894(56^-57 Vict. c. 73), s. SI— Local Government Act, 1888 (51 4' 52 Vict. 0. 41), s. 120. By s. 120 of the Local Government Act, 1888, which is incorporated by reference in the Loudon Government Act, 1899, and which regulates the amount of compensation to be paid to an officer who suffers loss by the abolition of his office, it is provided that regard shall be had to the nature of his office, the duration of his service, &c., "and to all the other circumstances of the case, and the compensation shall not exceed the amount which under the Acts and Eules relating to Her Majesty's Civil Service is paid to a person on abolition of office," and the section goes on to give the person aggrieved an appeal to the Treasury. The council of a metropolitan borough having resolved to abolish the office of vestry clerk to a local authority which had been transferred to them, considered that they were bound by an ascertained practice' of the Treasury to make a deduction of one-fourth of the amount of com- pensation where the officer had not been required - ( U95 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— 1910. ( U9fi ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT— oo?jiJ?iite(i. to devote his whole time to the duties of his office : — Held, that a mandamus would lie to compel them to take the facts of the case into considera- tion, and to exercise a discretion in the matter. Kex v. Stepney Coepoeation Div. Ct. [1908] 1 K. B. 317 25. — Oivfseers — Hiifal district council — Special expenses — Precept to overseers — Appeal against- apportionment — Change of oivrseers pending appeal — 1/iabiliti/ of oivrseers to loliom precept directed — Pvhlic Health Act^ 1875 (3s S; 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 229, 230. A rural sanitary authority made an appor- tionment under s. 229 of the Public Health Act, 1875, of the special expenses of a drainage scheme among certain contributory places in their district, including the parish of B., and issued to the respondents, who at that time were the overseers of B., a, precept fur the amount of the contribution payable by that parish. The respondents appealed to the Local Government Board against the apportionment. While the appeal was still pending a summons was issued against the respondents for non-payment of the amount of the precept, and the justices adjourned the hearing until the appeal should be decided. The Local Government Board eventually con- firmed the apportionment, but in the interval the respondents had gone out of office as over- seers. On the summons coming on for healing the justices refused to issue their distress warrant against the respondents for the amount of the precept : — Held, that they had jurisdiction to do so. PLYMPTO>f St.Maet Rural Disteict Council V. Eeyholds Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 768 — Plans — High building — Deposit of plans. See London — Bnildings. 10. 26. — Flams — Malicious refusal of local awtho^'ity to approve plans — Action. An action will not lie against a local authority for maliciously refusing to approve of building or drainage plans deposited with them. If the local authority in rejecting the plans has been actuated by improper motives, and has merely pretended to exercise its power without address- ing its mind to the question before it, the remedy of the person aggrieved is by a mandamus to the local authority to hear and determine his appli- cation. Davis v. Beomlby Coepoeation C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 170 — Poor law. See under PooE LAW. — Poor-rates. See under Kates. — Privies. See also under Watee Closets. 27. — Privies — Cleansing of primes and cess- pools — Power of local autlwrity to undei-talie duty of— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 ^ 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 42. A local authority may, under s. 42 of the Public Health Act, 1875, undertake the cleansing of earth-closets, privies- and ashpits in their district without at the same time undertaking LOCAL GOVEENMENT— c. 164. An iron framework, filled In on the front and sides with leaded glass and covered on the top with zinc, about 10 feet 6 inches long, and about 5 feet 6 inches high from the bottom to the top of the gable, was fixed to the front wall of a building by means of bolts at the bottom and stay-rods at the top. It came forward about 5 feet 6 inches from the front wall of the building, and at its lowest point was 11 feet above the pavement : — L/eld, that the framework was not " a struc- ture erected beyond the general line of buildings " within s. 22, sub-s. 1, of the London Building Act, 1894, and was not a " projection" within s. 73, sub-s. S. JIvllT. London County Council, [1901] 1 K.B. 580, followed. London County Council v. Schewzik - Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 695 26. — T/ieatres and music luills — Structural defects causing danger from fire — Xotice to remedy — Comj)liance — Power to give subsequent notice — Metrojnilis Manaz/ement and Building Act, 1878 (41 S- 42 T TcC. c. 32), s. 11. Where a notice has been served upon the owner of a building, under s. 11 of the Metro- polis Management and Building Act, 1878, requiring him to remedy structural defects from which special danger from fire may result, and the requirements of that notice have been com- plied with, there is no power subsequently to serve another notice under that section in respect of the same building. ST. James's Hall Co. V. London County Council Channell J. [1901] 2 K. B. 250 27. — Wooden structure — Transfer of powers from county council — London Building Act, 1894 (57 o<- 58 Tier', c. crriii.), s. 84 — London Gorern- ment Act, 1899 (62 cV 63 Vict. c. 14), s. 5 ; Sched. II., Part I. A structure made wholly of wood, except so far as nails are used in its construction, and erected for the temporary purpose of enabling persons to view a public procession or spectacle, is a wooden structure within the meaning of s. 84 of the London Building Act, 1894, and the power to license the setting up of such a struc- ture, and to take proceedings for default in obtaining or observing the conditions of a licence, is transferred by the London Government Act, 1899, from the London County Council to each of the borough councils established by that Act ( 1515 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910 ( 1516 ) LONDON (BviiliingB)~-e(miinued. as respects their borough. Council op the City op Westminster v. London County Council - - Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 326 Burial. See under BuEIAL. Cabs. See under London — Carriages. Carriage Boad. 1. — Mepairs — Carriage road not repairable iy inliabitants at large — Repairs by local autlwrity — Recovery of expenses — Jurisdiction of metropolitan police magistrate — " Court of competent jurisdiction " — Metropolis 3Ian/igement Amendment Act, 1890 (63 S,- 54 Viot. c. 66), s. 3. A metropolitan police magistrate is a " court of competent jurisdiction" within the meaning of s. 3 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1890, and has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for the recovery from the frontagers of the expenses of repairs done by a borough council under the provisions of that section to a carriage road which is not repairable by the inhabitants at large. Hex v. Gakkbtt C. A. [1907] W. N. 43 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 881 Carriages. Metropolitan and City Police Districts, Hacli- ■)iey and Stage Carriages. Order, dated Dec. 26, 1905, made by the Secretary of State in pursu- ance of tlte Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869 (32 S,- 33 Vict. c. 115). St. ». & 0., 1906, No. 97. Price Id. London Cab and Stage Carriage Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 55), arnends the laws relating to stage carriages in London. Metropolitan and City Police Districts, Hackney and Stage Carriages. Order, Mar. 15, 1907, made by the SetTetary of State in jmrsu- ance of tJie Metropolitan Public; Carriage Act, 1809. Price Id. St. R. & 0., 1907, No. X99. Metropolitan and Citg Police City Districts, Ha^ilmey- Carriages. Ordei; Dec. 20, 1907, exemjriing all .stations of tlie Metropolitan Rail- way from the operation of s. 2 of the London Cab and Stage Carriage Act, 1907. Price Id. St. E. & 0., 1907, No. 1001. Metropolitayi and City Police. Districts, Hackney and Stage Carriages Order, Dec. 30, 1907, in 2>ursuance of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869, and the London Cub and Stage Carriage Act, 1907. Price lid. St. ». & C, 1907, No. 1035. Metropolitan and City Police Districts, Hacltney and Stage Carriages. Additional Order, June 29, 1909, made in pursuance of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1839 (^Licences). St. R. & 0., 1909, No. 721. Price Id. 1. — Hachney carriage — Breach by driver of regulations for enforcing order at standings — Offence against statute — Incorporation of statute — Effect of repeal of section — London Hachney Carriages Act, 1843 (6 ^- 7 Vict. c. 86), *. 29— London Hachney Carriages Act, 1850 (13 Ji" 14 LONDON (Carriages) — continued. Vict. c. 7), ,is. i, S— London Hacltney Carriage Act, 1853 (16 4- 17 Vict. a. 33), s. I'd—Statute Law ReviMon Act, 1874 iKo. 2) (37 4'- 38 Vict. G. 96), s. 1 ; Schedule. Where a s'atute gives power to an authority to make regulations, a breach of the regulations so made is an offence against the provisions of the statute. A breach of regulations made under s. 4 of the Hackney Carriages Act, 1860, for enforcing order at standings for hackney carriages, is sub- ject to the penalty of 40.?. provided by s. 19 of the Hackney Carriage Act, 1853, for offences against that Act ; inasmuch as the effect of s. 21 of the Act of 1853, which provides tnat the Acts of 1850 and 1853 are to be construed as one Act, is that s. 4 of the Act of 1850 has the same operation as if it were in fact contained in the Act of 1853, and therefore an offence against regulations made under s. 4 of the Act of 1850 is an offence against the Act of 1853. Qucere whether the effect of s. 8 of the Hackney Carriages Act, 1850, which provides that that Act is to be construed as one Act with the Hackney Carriages Ant, 1843, is to make the penalty provided by s. 29 of the Act of 1843 for disobedience by the driver of a hackney carriage of- regulations made under that section applicable to a breach by him of regulations of II different kind made by virtue of s. 4 of the Act of 1850, which imposes no penalty for a breach thereof. Seinble, the Statute Law Revision Act, 1874, which partially repeals s. 29 of the London Hackney Carriages Act, 1843, does not, so far as the London Hackney Carriages Act, 1850, is concerned, affect the operation of s. 29 of the Act of 1843. WiLLINGALE V. NOKEIS Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 87 City of London Court. Style and title of the judges of the City of London Court. Reprint from W. N. 1902 (March 8), p. 73. See Cukrbkt Index, 1902, p. Ixxix. Commons. — Scheme for regulation under Metropolitan Commons Acts — Limits of common — Binding effect of scheme. See Common. 4, 6. Compensation. — Abolition of office — Emoluments — Period for calculation — Jurisdiction to fix amount. See Compensation. 1. Conveniences. 1. — Sanitary authority — Power to provide sanitary canreniences — Bona Jide use of statutory powers — Local government — Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 alue — Deductions from gross value — Poor Rate — Valuation — Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 (32 ,<■ 33 Vict. c. 67), Sched. IIP. By s. 52 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, it is enacted that, in calculating the rate- able value of hereditaments for the purposes of the Act, the percentage or rate o£ deductions to be made fi-om the gross value is not to exceed the amounts in the Third Schedule to the Act. The Third Schedule, which shews the several LONDON (JlaXe,')— continued. classes into which the hereditaments inserted in a valuation list in the raeiropolis are to be divided, contains in a footnote a provision to the effect that the maximum rate of deductions prescribed therein sha.l not apply to houses or buildings let out in separate tenements, but that the rate of deductions in such cases shall be determined in each case according to the cir- cumstances and the general principles of law. VV. was the owner and occupier of a building in the metropolis consisting of two shops on the ground floor, a flat on the first floor extending over both the shops, and two similar flats on the second and third floors. Each shop consisted of one room with a yard and small offices in the rear, and a basement. Each flat consisted of a suite of rooms reached by a common staircase approached from the street by a passage at the side of one of the shops. Each flat had its own outer door opening on to the staircase. The passage wav had a door opening on to the street. The two shops and three flats were five separate rateable hereditaments : — Held, that the building was a " house or building let out in separate tenements " within the meaning of the footnote to the Third Schedule to the Act, notwithstanding that the shops and flats were separate rateable heredita- ments ; and that therefore, in arriving at the rateable values of the shops and flats, the assess- ment committee might allow deductions from the gross values at a rate greater than the maximum rate of deductions specified in the Third Schedule. Decision of a Div. Ct., [1907] 2 K. B. 323, aflirmed. Western r. Kensington Assess- ment Committee C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 811 Floods (Prevention of Floods). 1. — River Thames — Prevention of foods — Flood loorks — Alteration of bank — Repairs — Metropolis Management (Thames River Preven- tion of Floods) Amendment Act, 1879 (42 ^- 43 Vict. c. cxcviii.^, s. 23. Sect. 23 of the Metropolis Management (Thames Eiver Prevention of Floods) Amend- ment Act, 1879, provides that if any person make any alteration to any bank of the river Thames so as to affect the security of adjoining premises from flooding, without the previous sanction in writing of the London County Council, he shall be liable to a penalty. The respondents in the course of and for the purpose of carrying out the duty imposed on them ,by the Act of repairing a portion of the bank removed certain timbers forming part of the bank in oriler to replace them by new timbers, and in so doing caused the height of the bank during nine days to be two feet lower than the height sanctioned under the Act. During the progress of the work, flood water flowed through the gap caused by the removal of the timbei's, doing damage to adjoining premises. The re- spondents had not before commencing the Avork of repair obtained the sanction in writing of the London County Council : — Held, that the respondents had not made an alteration to the bank within the meaning of s. 23, and were not liable to a penalty under that ( 1519 ) DIGEST 01? CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1520 ) LONDON (Floods (Prevention of Floods))— cowW. section. London County Council v. London, Brighton and South Coast Ky. Co. Div. Ct. [1906] 3 K. B. 72 Gas. See under GAS. Hackney Cariiages. See under LoNDON^Carriages. Insurance (Fire). — Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act, 1771 — Settled land — Kcbuilding after fire — Title to and application of policy moneys. • See INSUEANCK (Fire). 2. Land Tax. See under Land Tax. Land Transfer. See under Land Transfer. Light and Air. See under Light and Air. — " Open space " — Disused burial ground — Adiacent landowner — Eight to access of light. See Burial. 5. Lighting. — Electric lighting. See under ELECTRIC Light. Livery Company. — Li-very company of City of London, Gift to — Devise for general purpose of company. See Charity. 30. Local Government. See under Local Government. Lodging-houses. 1. — Cleamina — Duty on " Landlm-d" — Validity of by-taw — Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 4' 56 Vid. c. 76), s. 9i, sabs. 1 (e) ; s. 116. A by-law made by the council of a metropoli- tan borough under s. 91 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, required the landlord of a lodging-house to cause every part of the premises to be cleansed in the month of April, May, or June in every year. '■ Landlord " was defined as the person for the time being receiving the rack-rent of the lodging-house, whether on his own account or as agent or trustee for any other person, or who would so receive the same if such premises were let at a racli-rent ; and " lodging- house " was defined as a house or part of a house let in lodgings or occupied by members of more than one family, where the rent payable per weeli; was below a certain sum. A penalty was imposed for breach of the by-law, but pro- ceedings, were not to be taken against the landlord until he had failed, after notice, to comply with the by-law : — Held, that the by-law was unreasonable and LONDON (Lodging-houses) — contin-wd. bad, inasmuch as it applied to the case of a landlord who had let the house and had no right of entry, and who would therefore commit an act of trespass if he complied with the require- ments of the by-law. Arlidge i\ Islington Corporation Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 137 — ■ Common lodging - house — Registration — Licence — Charitable institution — Pay- ment by inmates. See Lodging-houses. 2. 2. — Lime-washing — Validity of by-law — Public Health ^London) Act, 1891 (54 ^' 55 Vict, c. 76), s. 94, sub-s. 1 (rovides for t/ie improrement and better adminis- tration if the Port of London and for purposes incidental thereto. Port of London Act, 1908. The Port of London Stock Begs., Mar. 22, 1909. St. E. & 0., 1909, No. 284. Bates. Note. — As to cases relating to places outside the County of London, See under RATES. 1. — Deficiency in assessment to poor-rate — Liability of promoters of undertahing — General rate — Poor-rate — Lands tahen compulsorily — Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 Ji' 9 Vict, c. 18), 6. 133 — London Government Act, 1899 (62 <$• 63 Vict. c. W), s. 10, suh-s. 2. By s. 133 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 18i5, promoters of undertalcings to whom that Act applies who become pos.sessed of lands liable to be assessed to the poor-rate are to make good the deficiency in that rate caused by their taking or using the lands for the purposes of their works until their works are completed and assessed to the poor-rate. By s. 10, sub-s. 2, of the London Government Act, 1899, the general rate and the poor-rate are to be assessed, made, and levied together by the boroiigh council as one rate, termed the general rate, which is to be assessed, made, collected, and levied as if it were the poor-rate, and all enact- ments referring to the poor-rate are (subject to the provisions of the Act as to audit) to be con- strued as referring also to the general rate : — IJeld, that promoters who in the exercise of their statutory powers had compulsorily taken land in London since the coming into operation of the London Government Act, 1899, were only LONDON (RateB)—coiiftii.u.ed. liable to make good the deficiency in so much of the general rate as represented the poor-rate or anything chargeable on that rate, and were not liable to make good the whole of the deficiency in the general rate. Decision of Wright .J., [1902] 2 K. B. 701, affirmed. IsLiNQTON Boeough Council r. London School Boaed - - C. A. [1903] W, N. 134 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 384 — Gas — Testin2' — '■ Daily." See Gas. 2. 2. — Partial exem2)tion of land covered, with water in " Woolwich — London Government Act, 1899 — Continuation of exemption — Land covered ivith water not separately assessed in valuation list — Rate made v/ion full value of the whoU hereditament — Right of appeal to quarter sessions without objection before assessment committee — London Government Act. 1899 (62 S,- 63 Vict. c. 14), ss. 10, 19—17 Geo. 2, c. 38, s. 4. Before 1 900 general district rates were made in Woolwich under the Public Health Act, 1875, under s. 21 1 of which the o\vner3 and occupiers of land covered with water were liable to be assessed to certain rates upon one-fourth part only of the annual value thereof. The London Government Act, 1899, by s. 10, provided that a scheme under the Act should provide for pro- tecting the interests of owners and occupiers of any hereditament exempt from any rate or liable to be assessed thereto at a less amount than other hereditaments ; and, by s. 19, that a scheme under the Act should provide for placing Woolwich under the general law applicable to metropolitan boroughs and for the repeal of the application thereto of the Public Health Acts ; and the scheme made under the Act provided accordingly. The owners of land in Woohvich, part of which was covered with water, were asses.sed in the valuation list in one amount for the whole hereditament, and in 1901 were rated in respect thereof to the general rate upon the full annual value and to the fuU amount of the rate. The owners appealed to quarter sessions against the rate ; — Held, that the partial exemption of land covered with water in Woolwich was preserved, and that the owners were liable to be assessed in respect thereof upon one-fom-th part only of the annual value : Held, also, that the owners were entitled to appeal to quarter scs>,ions a.uaiiist the rate with- out first objecting to the valuation list before the assessment committee. London and India Docks Co. ■!. Boeough of Woolwich Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 750 — Poor rate — Public-house — Quinquennial valuation — Mandamus to assessment committee to appoint valuer. See Rates. 47. — Poor rate — Railway company — Reduction of value of railway through competition of tramways and tube railways. Sec Rates". 36. — Statutory exemption from liability to poor rate" — Insertion of rateable value of excepted premi.ses — Mandamus. Sec Rates. 2!I. ( 1.-27 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— iniO. ( 1528 ) LONDON (Rates)— co«i!Jn«e(Z. — Water rate — Eailway station — Sanitary con- veniences — Metropolitan Water Board (Charges) Act, 1907. See Rates. 37. Bemoval of Offensive Matter. Remm-al of Offeiisire Matter Act, 1906 (6 Edic. 7, c. 4.5), repeals the 2>roi-isions of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839 (2 Si 3 Vict. c. 47), *. 60 (4), with respect to the Removal of Offensive Matter in places within the Metropolitan Police district. Bemoval of Befase. 1. — Iltrtel — Trade refuse — Dispute between occujner and sanitarij authority — Srci-siou of 2>ettij sessional Court " shall ie final " — Appeal by special case — Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 S,- 43 Vict. c. 49), s. ii— Public Health (Lundori) Act, 1891 (54 ^ 55 Vict. c. 76), s. 33, sub-s. 2 — Metropolis Management Acts. In any dispute between the occupier of premises and the sanitary authority as to what is to be considered trade reiluse, the decision of the magistrate under s. 33, sub-s. 2, of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, is final, and no appeal will lie to the High Court, notwithstand- ing the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, s. 23, which provides for the stating of a case upon a point of law upon the application of any person aggrieved by a decision of a magistrate. Decision of C. A., [1907] 1 K. B. 910, affirmed. WESTMINSTER CORPORATION' V. Gordon Hotels, Ld. - - - H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 67; [1908] A. C. 142 Note. Distinguished by H. L. (E.), Kydd v. Liter- pool Watch Committee, [1908] A. C. 327. See Police. Applied by Div. Ct., J. Lyons 4' Co. v. London. Cmporation, [1909] 2 K. B. 588. See No. 3, below. ,[N0TE. — Westminster Corporation .v. Gordon Hotels, Ld., [1906] 2 K. B. 39, was affirmed on another point in the Court of Appeal, [1907] 1 K. B. 910, and in the House of Lords, [1908] A. C. 142.] 2. — Itemoral of house refuse — Failure of sanitarij atitlutritij to remove — Ileasonable cause —Public ir,-alth\Lo7idon') Act, 1891 (54 ^ 55 rict. 0. 76), .?. 30. By a by-law of the London County Council, made under s. 16 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, it was provided that, %vhere a sanitary authority arranged for the daily removal of house refuse in their district or in any part of it,, the occupier of any premises therein should, at such hour of the day as the sanitary authority should fix and notify by public announcement, deposit on the kerbstone or outer edge of the footpath immediately in front of the house or in a con- veniently accessible position on the premises as the sanitary authority might prescribe by written notice served upon the occupier, a movable recep- tacle in which the house refuse should be placed for the purposes of removal. A sanitary autho- rity, desiring to start a system of daily removal of LONDON (Bemoval of ^Bietase)— continued. house refuse, and assuming to act under the by- law, gave notice by means of a printed notice to all the occupiers of houses within a specified area, requiring them to deposit on the Icerbstone or edge of the footpath immediately in front of their respective houses a movable receptacle in which should be placed for the purposes of removal the house refuse which had accumulated since the preceding collection ; the notice contained a statement that the dustmen were prohibited from going on the premises for dust in the streets within the prescribed area. Ah occupier of a detached house standing back forty feet from the highway, and approached by a carriage drive, who had a conveniently accessible position on his premises in which he was willing to put his house refuse in a movable receptacle for the purposes of removal, refused to comply with the notice by placing his house refuse in a receptacle on the kerbstone, and the sanitary authority refused to remove his house refuse from his premises, notwithstanding the service upon them by him of a written notice, under s. 30 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, requiring them to do so. A summons was taken out under s. 30, sub-s. 2, of that Act by the occupier against the sanitary authority for un- lawfuEy and without reasonable cause failing to comply with the notice to remove the house refuse from his premises, and the sanitary authority were convicted of the offence charged : — Held, that the notice was not a proper pre- scription of a conveniently accessible position as contemplated by the by-law, as it went beyond the by-law in prescribing that every occupier within a given area must place his house refuse in a receptacle on the kerbstone ; that the sani- tary authority had therefore failed without reasonable cause to discharge their statutory duty of securing the removal of the house refuse from the premises of the occupier, he being willing to place it in an accessible position from which they could conveniently remove it, and that the con- viction was right. Wandsworth Cokpoea- TION V. Baines Div. Ct. [1906] TV. N. 22 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 470 3. — Restaurant — House or trade refuse — ■ Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 S,- 55 Vict, c. 76), ss. 30, 33, 141. The refuse of a restaurant, consisting of ashes, clinkers, coffee grounds, egg shells, dust and general -dirt, broken crockery, tea leaves, parings and scrapings, &c., is house recuse within the meaning of s. 30 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1 891 , which the sanitary authority is bound to remove without payment. WestminMer Corporation v. Gordon Hotels, Ld., [1906] 2 K. B. 39, applied. J. Lyons & Co. v. London Corporation - Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 588 Sanitary Conveniences. See under London — Conveniences. Sanitary Works. — Cost of sanitary works— Eepairs — Capital or income. See Settled Land— Capital Moneys, 14, ( lo29 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1530 ) LOTHDO'S—contiitueJ. Sewers. Note. — As to canes and cross-referenoes re- lating to places outside tlie County of London^ Se-e under Sewees. — Drainage — Buildings. See also under London — Buildings. — Covenant by tenant to pay outgoings — Yearly tenancy — Defective drain. See Landlord and Tenant. 61. 1. — Drain or sewer — Nuisance — " Intima- tion " notice — Service on person not liable — Compulsion — Recovery of expense of abating nuisance. A nuisance having arisen from the obstruc- tion of a pipe which carried off the drainage from the pits.' premises, the defts.' sanitary inspector served on the pits, an " intimation " notice under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, requiring them to abate the nuisance. The pits, contended, and it was the fact, that the pipe was a sewer, and therefore repairable, not by them, but by the defts. ; but the pits, did the worlc necessary to abate the nuisance under protest, and sued the defts. to recover the expeuse incurred by them in so doing as money paid by them under compulsion which the defts. were compellable to pay : — Held, that the pits, were entitled to recover. Oliver v. Camberwell Borough Council, (1904) 68 J. P. 165, distinguished. Wilson's Music AND General Printing Co. r. Finsbhry BOROUSH Council Channell J. [1908] 1 S. B. 563 — Drainage of houses on low-lying land. See London— Buildings. 3. — Drainage of two houses by combined opera- tion. See Sewers, i. 2. — Drains — Publio health — Nuisance — " Acts or defaults " of two or Tnore persons — Right to contribiUion — Publio Health (^London) Act, 1891 (Si 4- 55 Vict. a. 76), ss.'i, 5, 120. The deft.'s premises were drained through a drain running under the plt.'s premises, which drain for part of its length carried only the deft.'s drainage, and for the rest of its length carried the drainage of both premises. The defts. had a right so to use the drain, A nuisance having arisen on the plt.'s premises owing to the whole of the drain being defective and per- mitting sewage to escape, the sanitary authority took proceedings against him, under ss. 4 and 5 of the Pu"blic Health (London) Act, 1891, and obtained an order upon him to do the work necessary to abate the nuisance. The pit. did the work and abated the nuisance, all the work being done upon his own premises : — Held, that the pit. could not recover from the defts. a proportionate part of the costs of abating the nuisance as being one of two or more persons "by whose act or default" the nuisance had been caused, within the meaning of s, 120 of the Public Health (London) Act; 1891, Nathan r. EousE Div, Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 527 — New street — London. See under London— Streets. LONDON (BeyreTB)— continued. — Recovery of expenses — Highway within two jurisdictions — New street. See London — Streets. 2. — Settled land— Tenant for life and remainder- man — Sanitary work, Cost of. See Settled Land — Capital Moneys. 14. 3. — " Sewer " — Drain — Drain receiring drainage from more than one building — Main icatei — Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 ^' 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 250. Where a drain was used for drainage of two adjoining houses, not being a drain for the drain- age of a block of houses by a combined opera- tion under the order of a vestry or district board : — Held, that it was a "sewer" within the definition given by s. 250 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, although from one of the houses it carried away rain water only. SiLLES r. Fulham Borough Council C. A. [1903] 1 E. B, 829 Note. This case was discussed by Channell J,, Heaver v. Fulham Borough Council, [1904] 2 K. B. 383. See Sewers. i. 4. — Storm-water overflow — Main drainage system — Sewers — Discharge into tidal navigable creek — Riparian owners — Interference with private rights — Trespass — Nuisance — Injunction — Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 4' 19 Vict. c. 120), ss. 135, 150, 151 — Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 1858 (21 if 22 Vict.c. 104), «s, 1,2,23, 31. The pit. CO. owned lai-ge manufacturing works on both sides of a navigable tidal creek forming part of the Thames within the metropolis, and also the bod and banks of the creek subject to the public right of navigation therein. By the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, a brook which discharged into the creek and which had become an open sewer was with otlier sewers vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works, the predecessoi-s in title of the defts., with power to alter, divert, or discontinue such sewers when necessary. By that Act and the Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 18.^8, the bd. were authorized and required to construct, according to such plans as should to them seem proper, all neces- sary sewers and works for the improvement of the main drainage of the metropolis and for preventing as far as practicable the sewage of the metropolis from passing into the river within the metropolis ; but they were to cause the authorized works to be constructed and kept, and to exercise their powers of disposing of the sewage, so as not to create a nuisauce. Under these Acts a vast system of sewers w-as con- sti'ucted so as to carry the sewage down the Thames beyond the limits of the metropolis, and the brook in question was culverted and con- nected with a low level sewer so that it no longer discharged into the creek. In 1907 the defts., as part of the main drainage system and to relieve the pressure in the low level sewer in times of heavy rains, erected a pumping station at the mouth of the creek, and when occasion ( 1531 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1533 ) LONDON (SeweiB)—oo>itmueS. required pumped the storm, overflow mto_ the creek. The storm-water was heavily charged with sewage matter, which adhered to the banks of the creek and created a nuisance : — Held, that the defts. could not justify their acts on the plea that they were carrying out their statutory obligations, and that the pits, were entitled to an injunction both on the ground of nuisance and (Kennedy L.J. doubting) on the ground of trespass. Dixon V. Metropolitan Board of Worlis, (1881 7 Q. B. D. 418, distinguished. Decision of NeviUe J., [1908] W. N. 131, affirmeii. Price's Patent Cajidle Co. v. London County Council - - - C. A. [1908] W. N. 188 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 626 5. — Thames — Pollution of river by sewage — Duties of eownty council — Metropolis Manage- ment Act, 1855 (18 ^- 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 135— Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 1858 (21 4- 22 Vict. c. '104), s. I— River Thames. Under s. 135 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, and s. 1 of the Metropolis Manage- ment Amendment Act, 1858, the London County Council, as successors of the Metropolitan Board of Works, have a discretion to decide what sewers and works are necessary in carrying out their duties with regard to the prevention of the sewage of the metropolis from flowing into the Thames ; and therefore they are not bound to construct sewers which would be properly dis- trict sewers for the purpose of intercepting the drainage of every house in the metropolis that in 1855 (fiained into the Thames. Wkstminstee COEPOEATioN V. London County Council Bray J. [1906] W. N. 123 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 379 Shipping. See under Shipping. Streets. Metropolitan Streets Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 17), amends the Metropolitan Streets Act, 18G7 (30 I 31 Vict. 0. 134). Note. — As to cases and cross-riferenoes re- lating to places outside tlic County of London, See under Highway. Streets. 1. — Building — General line of buildings — Superintending architect's certificate — Appeal to tribunal of appeal — London Building Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.), ss. 22, 182. "Where under the London Building Act, 1894, the superintending architect has by his certifl- cate defined the general line of buildings in a street, the tribunal of appeal under the Act has no power to define a general line of buildings in that part of the street other than the general line defined by the certificate, if the certificate has not been appealed against and no buildings have been erected since the date of the certificate which altered or might alter the general line defined by it. The object of the Act was to secure general lines of building to which all must conform. LiLLEY v. London County Council H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 1 LONDON (Streets) — continued. 2. — .Highway within two juHsdictioiis — Neio street — Sewer — Recovery of expenses — Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 ^- 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 105 — Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 1862 (25 4- 26 Vict. c. 102), ss. 52, 112. The boundary between two parishes, one of which was in the county of London and the other in Middlesex, ran along the middle of an old highway 2993 feet in length. At the time when the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, came into operation, buildings had been erected on the Middlesex side of the highway, along nearly the whole of its length, but on the London side there were only seven or eight buildings situated at various points. A number of buildings having recently been erected along the London side of the highway, the vestry of the parish to which that portion of the highway belonged laid down a sewer under it for the purpose of draining those buildings, and apportioned the expenses of making the sewer among the frontagers upon that side of the highway on the ground that it was a new street. One of the frontagers having refused to pay the amount apportioned upon him, application was made to justices by the vestry for an order for payment by him of that amount. The justices found as a fact that, at the time when the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, came into operation, the highway, as a whole, had already become a street ; and, that being so, they decided that they could not deal with the Loudon side of the highway by itself for the purpose of determining whether it was a new street, and therefore they dismissed the application : — Meld, affirming the judgment of a Div. Ct., [1901] 1 K. B. 264, that, upon the finding of the justices as above mentioned, their decision was right. Clerkenwell Vestry v. Edmondson & BON C. A. [1902] W. N. 8 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 336 3. — " Ifew street " — Widening of old street — Paving expenses — Liability of froyitagers — Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 ^'- 19 Vict, c. 120), *. 105 ; 1862 (25 ^' 26 Vict. c. 102), ss. 77, \\2— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 ^- 39 Vict. c. 55), *. 150 — London Building Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.'), ss. 9, 215. Where an old street repairable by the inhabi- tants at large, and having houses upon one side of it, is widened by the addition of a longitudinal strip of land of a substantial width upon the opposite side, the strip so added becomes itself a new street, and the expenses of paving the added strip, whether under the Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 and 1862, or the Public Health Act, 1875, must be apportioned solely among the owners of property abutting upon that strip, and not upon the owners of property abutting upon the old street. Richards v. Kessich, (1888) 57 L. J. (M.C.) 48, and White v. Pu-lliam, (1896) 74 L. T. 425, approved. Property Exchange, Ld. v. Wandsworth Board op Works - C A [1902] 2 K. B. 61 — Obstruction — Raised tramlines — Contractor — Liability — Highway. See Highway. 23. ( 1533 ) DIGKST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1.-.34 ) LONDON (StieetB)—co!ithiued. — Ownership — Street in town — Soil of highway — Crown lease — Rebuttal of presump- tion. See Highway. 21. 4. — Paving expenses — Apportionment — Xew street — Frontager — Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 S, 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 105— Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 1862 (25 ^' 26 Viet. 0. 102), .s. 77. The cases which decide that in the absence of mala fides the Court will not question the principle upon which the expenses of paving a new street have been apportioned amongst the adjoining owners by a vestry or district board under the JMetropolis Management Acts, 1855 and 1862, apply only to an apportionment made upon the persons properly chargeable ; and if any owners are omitted by the authority under a mistaken view of the facts, it is competent for the Court in a proper case to entertain an action by an aggrieved owner for a declaration that the apportioinnent is invalid whether any consequen- tial relief can be claimed or not. Semile, an apportionment ought to refer to the ovvners by name, or at least ought to specify the properties to be charged in such a way as to preclude the possibility of mistake. Elsdon t. Hampstead Coepoeation Joyce J. [1905] W. N. 149 ; [1905] 2 Cli. 633 5. — Fating expenses — Laying out street without sanction of London County Council — ^^ New street laid out or made^^ — Charging estimated expenses on frontagers — Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 4' 19 Vict. e. 120), s. W5— London Building Act, 1894 (57 4' 58 Viet. c. eexiii.'), .^s. 7, 213. By s. 105 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, the vestry or district board of a parish or district (now the metropolitan borough council) may pave " any new street laid out or made or hereafter to be laid out or made," and charge the frontagers with the estimated ex- penses thereof. By s. 7 of .the London Building Act, 1894, "no person shall commence to form or lay out any street for carriage traffic or for foot traffic without having obtained the sanction of the" London County Council; and s. 200 imposes a penalty for a breach of the above provision. By s. 213, " nothing in this Act shall take away or interfere with the powers of the local authorities with respect to the paving of new streets under the Metropolis Management Acts." A public road, which before 1907 had been widened, with the sanction of the London County Council, to a width of 20 feet, was in 1907 further widened to a total width of 40 feet, and was laid out as a street without the sanction but with the knowledge of the London County Council, and houses were erected on each side. The appellants, within whose district the street lay, thereupon decided to pave the street as a new street under s. 105 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, and apportioned the estimated expenses among the frontagers. The respondent, who was one of the frontagers, contended that, as the street had been formed and laid out without the consent of the London LONDON (Streets) — continued. County Council, it had been Illegally formed and laid out, and that therefore s. 105 of the Act did not apply sn as to entitle the appellants to apportion the expenses : — iSeld, that as the ^treet was in fact a new street the appellants had power under s. 105 of the Act of 1855 to pave it and to apportion the estimated expenses among the frontagere. Cambeewell Coepoeation v. Dixon Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 424 6. — Paring expenses — " Owner " — Open spaces — Mftropolis Management Acts — Land- capable of ieinq made a .source of profit — 18 4' 19 Vict. c. 120, 6-.'250— 25 S,- 26 Vict. e. 102, s. 77— 40 ?f 41 Vict. c. 35, s. 1—44 S,- 45 Vict. e. 34, s. 5 — 56 <$■ 57 Vict. 0. Ixx-i. Land was conveyed to a vestry in fee simple " to the end and intent that the same premises should be at all times thereafter kept and main- tained as an open space for the perpetual use thereof by the public ror exercise and recreation." The land was an open space abutting on a new street, and was acquired under the powers con- ferred on the vestry by the Open Spaces Acts, 1877 and 1881, by which the land was held in trust for the perpetual use thereof by the public for exercise and recreation, and for no other purpose. By the London Open Spaces Act, 1893, the vestry might erect on the land convenient and ornamental buildings, and such appliances as they might think fit for purposes of exercise and recreation, and for other like purposes. They erected a band stand, a cloak-room, and a re- freshment stall. The refreshment stall was let at a rent to a caterer. The band stand was not let, but seats for the public were let by the vestry to a contractor at a rental. The vestry assessed i!ne respondent, as owner of houses on the opposite side of the street, upon the basis that the cost of paving the new street should be defrayed by the owners of the houses and lands on the opposite side of the street, and not in any part by the ovvners of the land which included the open space. A summons to recover the amount appor- tioned on the respondent was dismissed on the ground that the apportionment was inv.ilid, because a part of the cost of paving ought to have been apportioned on the vestry as owners of the open space. Held, that the open space was not land which was incapable of becoming a source of profit, and therefore the vestry were the persons who would receive the rent of the land if the same were let at a rack-rent, and were owners of the open space within the definition in the Metropolis Manage- ment Act, 1855, s. 250, and were liable as owners to contribute to the cost of paving the new street, and the summons was rightly dismissed. Fulham Vestey 1. MiNTER Div. ct. [1901] W. N. 25; [1901] 1 K. B. 501 Xote. This case was overruled by C. A., London County Council y. Wand.iwort?i Borough Council, [1903] 1 K. B. 797. See No. 9, ielow. 7. — Paring expenses — " Owner " — Building agreeme-nt — New street — Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 S- 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 250. ( 1535 ) DIGEST OF CASE^, 1901—1910. ( 1536 ) lONDON iStTeets)—ooiitiiiued. The owner in fee of land made an agreement with a builder whereby it was agreed thnt the builder might enter upon the laud and should build houses thereon, and that a lease should be gi-anted of each house when erected, and that the builder should in the meantime pay 2001. a year (which was not a rack-rent) until the leases were granted, and that " this agreement is intended to operate as an agreement only and not as an actual demise of the premises, or to give the intended lessee any legal interest therein until the leases hereinbefore agreed to be granted shall have been executed." The land had not been used, and no houses had been erected by the builder ;— Meld, that the builder was not the owner of the land within the meaning of s. 250 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855. Holland v. Kejisingtoa Vestry, (1867) L. K. 2 C. P. 565, followed. Deiscoll r. Battbesea Borough Council Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 881 8. — Pamiuj expenses — ^^ Owner" — yeiOHtreet — Land abutting on street — Itestrietiitns oil use?- imposed by special Act — Metropolis Manaqement Act, 1855 (18 4- 19 Viot. c. 120), ss. 105, 250 — Metropolis Matiagement Act, 1862 (25 Jy 26 Vict. d. 102), .-,. 77. By the provisions of a special Act of a ry. co., inserted for the protection of a landowner, the CO. were bound to acquire all his land adjoining a certain street, and to leave a strip of land along the whole length of the street, and to plant the strip with trees and shrubs and fence it off from the street, and to maintain it in that condition. The CO. acquired the land, and planted and fenced a strip along and contiguous to the whole length of the street : — Held, that the ry. co. were " owners " of the strip of land within s. 250 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, and therefore were liable to contribute to the e'^pense of paving the street as a new street. Decision of Bigham J., [190i] 2 K. B. 802, afiBrmed. Hampstead Cobpokation c. Mid- land Ry. Co. - - C. A. [1905] W. N. 31 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 338 9. — Paving expenses — " Owner " — Sack-rent — Public recreation ground — Metropolis Manage- ment Act, 1855 (18 .J- 19 Vict. a. 120), ss. 105, 250 — Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 1862 (25 4- 26 Vict. u. 102), s. 77. By virtue of a scheme certified by the In- closure Commrs. pursuant to the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, and afterwards confirmed by the Metropolitan Commons (Supplemental) Act, 1873, a common was vested in the Metro- politan Board of Works, whose successors are the London County Council, for the purpose of being dedicated to the public as a recreation ground. By the scheme it was provided that the common should be regulated and managed by the Board, and that no house or other buildings should be erected on it, except such lodges or other buildings as might be necessary for the maintenance and management of the common or recreation ground. The county council derived small annual profits from the) D,D. lONDON (Streets)— -c(7«ii»«ci. herbage on the common and from certain build- ings erected thereon for purposes subsidiary to its use as a public recreation ground, but the expenses annually incurred by the county council in the management and regulation of the common far exceeded the amount of any profits so received by them. The Wandsworth Borough Council claimed from the London County Council, as owners of the common, a sum of 319Z. as their proportion of the estimated expenses of paving a new street, on which the common abutted to the extent of 474 feet, under the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, s. 105, and the Metro- polis Management Amendment Act, ] 862, s. 77 : — Held, that the London County Council were not "owners" of the common within the defini- tion of the word "owner" contained in the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, s. 2-'i0, and therefore they were not liable to pay the amount claimed. Ftilham. Vestry v. 3linter, [1901] 1 K. B 501, overruled. London County Council v. Wandswokth Boeough Council C. A. [1903] W. N. 72 j [1903] 1 K. B. 797 10. — Paving expenses — Otvner of house — Neic street — Action to recover apportioned amount — Demand — Statute of Limitations (21 Jac. \,c. 16) — Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 4' 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 105 — Metropolis Management Act, 1862 (25 S- 26 Viot. u. 102), s. 77. in 1891 a vestry paved a new street in the metropolis and apportioned the expenses ; in the same year they demanded payment of an appor- tioned part of the expenses from the then owner of a house in tne street, but he did not pay. In 1896 the deft, became owner of the house, and in 1808 the vestry demanded payment of the amount from him. In an action brought in 1903 to recover the amount : — Held, that, under s. 105 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, as amended by s. 77 of the Act of 1862, an action would lie to recover the apportioned part of the expenses, and that the Statute of Limitations would not begin to run in favour of the deft., if at all, untQ payment was demanded from him. Hampstead Cok- POEATION V. Caunt - - - Wright J. [1903] 2 K. B. 1 11. — Pa cing expenses — "Owner '' — Sack-rent — -Conservators of navigation — Land %sed as embankment of river — Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 4" 19 Vict. c. 120), ss. 105, 250— Metropolis Mamaqemeitt Amendment Act, 1862 (26 Si 26 Vict. V. 102), s. 77. The conservators of a public navigable river purchased under their statutory powers a strip of land, which they used for the purpose of a retaining bank for the waters of a cut forming part of the navigation. They were empowered to take tolls for the use of the navigation, but any moneys received by them under their Acts were applicable only to payment of the expenses of carrying out their Acts, and of moneys bor- rowed for the purposes of those Acts, and interest thereon, and not to any purposes of profit beyond what might be necessary for such payment. They had power to construct docks, wharves, and other works on the river, and to sell any lands 3d ( 1537 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— I9l0. ( 1538 ) LONDON (Streets)— coKiiniiff/. vested in them which they might not require for the purposes of their Acts. Ti appeared that it would be possible, if a retaining wall were sub- stituted for the bank, that the residue of the before-mentioned laud might be otherwise applied for purposes of profit : — Held, that the conservators were " owners " of the land within the definition given by the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, s. 250, and therefore liable under the Metropolis Manage- ment Acts to contribute in respect of it to tne paving expenses of a new street on which it abutted. Haofojet Coepoeation v. Lee Con- SEEVANCT BOAED - C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 641 13. — Paving expetises — Fayment hy occupier — Right of deduction, from rent — Landlord and tenant — Distress for rent — Covenant iy tenant to pay charges imposed by local authority — Metro- polis Local Management Act, 1862 (25 S, 26 Vict. c. 102), s. 96. Sect. 96 of the Metropolis Local Management Act, 1862, empowers a local authority to require the payment of any expenses, which the owner of any premises may be liable to pay, from the owner or occupier of the premises, and provides that the owner shall allow the occupier to deduct what he so pays "out of the rent from time to time becoming due in respect of the said pre- mises, as if the same had been paid to such owner as part of such rent." And there is a proviso that nothing in the section contained shall be taken to afiect any contract whatsoever between landlord and tenant : — Held, that a payment made by a tenant to a local authority under this section is not a pay- ment of or on account of rent, but a payment of or on account of expenses. Held, therefore, that when a tenant has cove- nanted with his landlord that he Avill bear the expenses which he has under s. 96 paid to the local authority, he has, by reason of the proviso, no right to deduct from the rent the amount which he has so paid, and the landlord's right to distrain for unpaid rent is unafEectod. Decision of Ridley J. reversed. Skinnee v. Hunt - ■ 0. A. [1904] W. N. 117 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 452 — Sanitary conveniences. Power to provide — Subway — Subsoil of road. See LoNDOSf — Conveniences. 1. — Street in to-\vn — Soil of highway — Ownership — Crown — Lease — Rebuttal of presump- tion. See Highway. 21. 13. — Widening — Comimlsory powers — Home — Separate ownership of separate floors — Adjudi- cation to talte lohole — Pait to he thrown into street — Prior-agreement to resell surplus portion of ground floor subject to owner's right of ^J)'e- emption — Bona fides — Michael Angela Taylor's Act, 1817 (57 Geo. 3, c. .v.rix.), ss. 80, 96. "Where a local authority are taking a house, let in separate floors, for the purpose of widening a street under s. 80 of Michael Angelo Taylor's Act, the owner of the ground floor is not abso- lutely and in all circumstances entitled to restrain them from taking more than the part to bo thrown into the street. LONDON (Streets) — continued. Tlwmas v. Daw, (1866) L. R. 2 Ch. 1, 7 ; Teuliere v. Vestry of St. Mary Abbotts, Kensing- ton, (1885) Ch. D. 642, 648 ; and ffordon v. Vestry of St, Mary Abbotts, Kensington, [1894] 2 Q. B. 742, 754, foUowed. If for any reason, such as danger or excessive cost of severance, it is in fact essential for the local authority to acquire the whole building, an adjudication to that effect is not vitiated by a prior agreement to resell the surplus portion of the ground floor subject to the owner's right of pre-emption under s. 96. Pescod r. West- MiNSTBE CoEPOEATiON - Swinfen Eady J. [1905] W. N. 142 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 475 14. — Widening — Power to talie part of house — Metropolis management — Michael Angelo Taylor's Act, 1817 (57 Geo. 3, c. xxi.v.'), ss. 80, 82. Pits., knowing of a scheme of a municipal corporation for widening a street which would affect premises about to be taken by them, took a lease of a house and became liable under the covenants therein to make substantial alterations in the premises (with a view to the same being used by pits, as an outfitters' and tailors' shop). The premises at the date of the lease con- sisted of an old house in the middle of the front of which stood a large chimney stack connected with several fireplaces, and the building had three floors. The alterations to be made by pits, involved the destruction of the stack (so as to give a greater space for the new shop on the ground floor) and the fireplaces, the conversion of the three floors into two floors, raising the ceiling of the ground floor, and throwing the remains of the house into a first-floor room running from back to front. The corporation, for the purpose of widening the adjoining street, gave notice to treat (purporting to be under s. 82 of Michael Angelo Taylor's Act) for part of the house, consisting of frontage of from 5 ft. 2 in. to 7 ft. 2 in. in depth, the result of taking which would have been to destroy the stack and fireplaces, to render practically useless rooms on the first and second floors, to absorb the space acquired by removing the stack into the street, and (unless the adjoining houses were both thrown back to a like extent, a change which had not yet been effected) to throw the frontage of the pits.' building back from the main line o£ frontage : — Held, that the proposed acquisition, it allowed, would result in destroying the house as a house, that their knowledge of the scheme did not preclude the pits, from relief, and that an injunction must be granted restraining the cor- poration from proceeding under the notice to treat. Observations on the judgment of Kindersley V.-C. in Tlwmas v. Daw, (1866) L. E. 2 Ch.2, n. Thompson r. Hammeesmith Coepoeation Buckley J. [1906] 1 Ch. 299 15. — Widening street — Kotice to treat for " 2>art of " a factory — Inralid notice — Injunc- tion — Sictropol is- manageme^it — Michael Angelo Tayhrr's Act, 1817 (57 Geo. 3, c. .r.n>.), ^. 80. A local authority requiring part of a factory for the purpose of widening a street cannot under ( 1539 ) DIGEST 01' CASES, 1901— I9l0. ( 1340 ) LONDON (Stieets)—coiaiiiiwd. Michael Angelo Taylor's Act compel the owner to sell such part only, if the removal of that part will substantially injure the factory so that it can no longer be used and enjoyed as it was before, even i£ the part that would be left would be a substantial building which would with some alteration and rearrangement be capable of being efficiently used as a factoi-y, though with some diminution in area and output. The ruling of Stirling J. in Gibbony. Padding- ton Vestry, [1900] 2 Ch. 791, 802, discussed and applied. Geebn c. Hackney Coeporatton NevUle J. [1910] W. N. 124 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 106 — Width of street — Method of measurement — " Front or nearest external wall." See London — Buildings, i). Tramways. 1. — Footway — Dedication to public — Road authority — Powers — Widening of roadway — Narrowing of footway — Tramway — Delegation of statutory powers — 57 Geo. 3, o. xxlx. (^Michael Angelo Taylor\i Act), ». 52. In 1883 building land in the metropolis was demised to C. for a term of eighty-two years, and L., under an agreement with C, built several shops on a part of the land which fronted a highway. The shops were not built to the edge of the demised land, but u, strip of land tliree feet wide was left between the front wall of the shops and the public footway. Subse- quently in 1883 L. applied to the local authority to pave the footway in front of his shops right up to the building line, and the local authority informed him that on the slip of land being given up to form part of the public footway the footway would be paved. L. made no reply, and tlie footway was paved up to the wall of the shops. In the meantime C, who had no knowledge of L.'s application to the local authority, had granted L. separate underleases of the shops for eighty years, and had also assigned to him for value the head lease with a proviso against merger. In 1898 C. repurchased the head lease for value from L.'s successors in title. In 1906 the London County Council under the powers of a special Act converted a horse tramway in the highway in question into an electric tramway, and in connection with this work they widened the road and reduced the width of the footway and took up the pave- ment (including the pavement of the three-foot strip of land) in front of the shops. This work was done under an agreement made in. May, 1906. with the borough council, whereby the borough council, in consideration of the recon- struction of the tramway, consented to the narrowing of the footway and agreed to pay part of the cost of paving, which was to be done by the county council. C. and the assignees of some of the underleases then brought this action against the London County Council for an injunction and damages in respect of (1) the taking up of the pavement of the strip of land ; (2) the reduction of the width of the footway. In answer to the first claim the defts. alleged that the strip of land had been dedicated to the public by L. in 1883 and was part of the public LONDON (Tt&mvrayB)— continued. footway, and in answer to the second that the borough council had power to authorize the defts. to make the reduction in the width of the footway, and that the work was done by the defts. under the authority of the borough council given by the agreement of May, 1906 : — ffeld, first (affirming the decision of Neville J., [1907] 1 Ch. 704), on the evidence, that, what- ever claim the local authority might have had against L., the pits, were purchasers for value without notice of any claim for dedication, and were entitled to relief in respect of trespass ; secondly (reversing the decision of Neville J.), that s. 52 of Michael Angelo Taylor's Act empowered the borough council, as the road authority, to alter the division of the roadway into footway and carriageway, that they must be taken by their agreement to have authorized the defts. to execute these alterations on their behalf, and that this was not a delegation of their statutory powers ; consequently that in respect of the narrowing of the footway the pits.' claim failed. Corsellis v. London County Council C. A. [1907] W. N. 227 : [1908] 1 Ch. 13 — Obstruction — Raised tranirails— Contractor. See Highway. 22. Urinals, — Conveniences. See under London — Conveniences. ■ Water-closets. See under LoNDON- Walls. -Water-closets. See under London— Buildings. "Water. Note. — As to cases relating to j^laces outside the County of London, See under Water. Metrox>olis Water Act, 1902 (2 Edw. 7, c.il), is an Act for establishing a Water Board to manage the supply of loater within London and certain adjoining districts, for transferring to the Water Board themidertahings oftlieMetropolitan Water Companies, and for other purposes con- nected therewith. Order of Local Govt. Board, dated Dec. 24, 1902 (No. 44, 950), 2Jroriding for the constitntioii of the Metropolitan Water Board. St. B. & 0. 1902, No. 973. Order of Local Govt. Board, dated Jan. 9, 1903, under the Metropolis Wafer Act, 1902, pro- vidimj as to tlie constitution, tfc, of Joint Com- mittees for ajtpointing members of the Metro- politan Water Board. St. R & 0. 1903, No. 3. Order of Local Govt. Board, dated March 12, 1903, under Metropolis Water Act, 1902, pre- scribing Regulations as to First Meeting and Pro- ceedings of Metropolitan Water Board. St. S. & 0. 1903, No. 176. Order in Council confirming tlie Metropolitan Water Stock Regulations, 1903. Price 2d St. B. & 0. 1903, No. 673. Metropolitan water area — The Metropolitan Water Board (^Appoitvtment of Members) Order April 6, 1907. St. E. & 0. 1907, No, 267. Price id. 3d2 C 1641 ) DIGEST 0]? CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1542 ) London (Water)— continued. — " Building" — Reservoir authorized by special Act — SuperTision of district surveyor. See London— Buildings. 1. — Main drainage system — Sewers — Storm-water overflow — Discharge into tidal navi- gable creeli. See London — Sewers. 4. 1. — j}/etroj)oUfan Water Board — Water- ionrk-1 conqiany — Transfer of undertalthui — Leasehold 2>i'oiitises — Statiitonj zesting — Coce- iiant not to assign without consent — Power of re-entry on hreach — Alienation — Statutorg jyowers — Metropolis Water Act, 1902 (2 Edw. 7, c. 41), s. 2, svh-s. 1 ; s. 24, sub-ss. 1 and 2 ; s. 37 — Metrojwlitan Water Board {Various Powers) Act, 1907 (7 Hdw. 7, cclx-rir.-), s. 53. By virtue of the provisions of the Metropolis Water Act, 1902, the undertaking and property of the Grand Junction WaterworlvS Co., com- prising (inter alia) leasehold premises demised to the CO. by a lease of Mar. 14, 1881, were transteiTed to and became vested in the pit. Bd. The lease contained a covenant on the part of the CO., its successors and assigns, not to sell, assign, or underlet the demised premises without the previous written consent of the lessors, and also a power for the lessors to re-enter on breach of any of the covenants in the lease. The pit. Bd. did not require the premises in question, and proposed to underlet them to an intended tenant for tlie residue of their term less three days. The defts., in whom the leasehold reversion was vested, refused their consent. In an action by the pit. Bd. for a declaration that, notwith- standing the covenant, they were entitled, in exercise of their powers under the Metropohs Water Act, 1902, and the provisions of the Public Health Act, 187."i, incorporated therein, and the Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Act, 1907, to sell, assign, or underlet the premises without the previous consent in writing of the defts. : — Held, that what the pit. Bd. possessed was not an absolute term of years, but only a lease liable to be determined in the event (inter alia) of an assignment or underletting without the previous written consent of the defts. ; that the pit. Bd.'s statutory powers only enabled it to dispose of s«ch estate and interest as it might have, and did not deprive the defts. of their right to re-enter for breach of the covenant against assigning or underletting without the necessary consent ; and that, consequently, the action failed. METROPOLITAN Watbb Boakd 1. Solomon - Joyce J. [1908] W. N. 98 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 214 — Neglect or refusal to supply — Defect. See WATER. 17. 2. — Sujiply of water hy meter — ' ' Prem iscs " ^Land used for building operations — Water- wovlis Clauses Ad, 1847 (10 4'- 11 Vict. c. 17), .s. 43 — Mast London Waterworks Act, 1853 (16 c)'- 17 Vict. V. clrvi.),s.79. The word "premises" in s. 79 of the East London Waterworks Act, 1853, does not include land upon which the owner and occupier pro- poses to conduct building operations. Therefore LONDON (yfaXer)— continued. the Bast London Waterworks Co. are not liable to conviction under s. 43 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, and s. 79 of the Act of 1853, for neglecting to afford to the owner or occupier of the land a supply of water by meter for pur- poses other than the purposes in respect of which water rates are, by the Act of 1853, provided or limited. Metropolitan Water Board r. Paine Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K. B. 285 — Water rate — " Domestic purposes '' — " Rail- way purposes " — Railway station — Sanitary conveniences. See Rates. 37. 3. — -Water rate — " Dotnestic purposes" — '• Bailway purposes " — Mailway station — Sani- tarij conveniences — Metropolitan Water Board (Charges) Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. clxu-i.), ss. 8, 1(), 25. The Metropolitan Water Board (Charges) Act, 1907, provides by s. 8 for the supply of water for "domestic purposes" at the request of the owner or occupier of any house or building occupied as a separate tenement within theb'mits of suppty of the Metropolitan Water Board at a rate based on the rateable value of the house or building. The same Act by s. 16 provides for a supply of water by measure for " purposes other than domestic " at the request of any owner or occufiier of any premises situate as therein described at rates varying with the quantity supplied. By s. 25 " domestic purposes " are deemed to include water-closets and baths of a certain capacity, but are not to include a supply of water for " railway purposes." A xy. CO. owned a station as described in s. 16 and within the limits of supply of the Bd. The station was separately rated ; it contained no statlonmaster's house, but contained waiting- rooms, a porter's room, and a booking office; on the up and down platforms were urinals and two water-closets, one for passengers and one for the staff ; there was also on each platform a tap from which water was drawn for drinking and for cleansing the platform : — Held by the Div. C't. (Phillimore and Buck- nill JJ.), that water supplied by the Bd. for these purposes was not supplied for "domestic purposes" within the meaning of s. 8, but was supplied for " purposes other than domestic " within the meaning of s. 16 of the Act. Per Bucknill J., that the water was used for "railway purposes" within the meaning of s. 25. Metropolitan "Water Board r. London, Brighton and South Coast Rt. Co. Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 804 Xote. This case was aifirmed by C. A., [1910] 2 K. B. 890. *6' Rat4!S. 37. 4. — Water rate — Trade premises — Sanitary eonreniences — " Domestic purposes " — Water- icorks Clauses Act, 1863 (26 S,- 27 Vict. c. 93), s. 12 — Metropolitan Water Board (Charges) Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. clirxi), ss. 8, 9, 13, 16, 25. The Metropolitan Water Board (Charges), Act, 1907, s. 8, provides for a supply of water for " domestic purposes " to any house or build- ing within the limits of supply of the Bd. at a ( L-i3 ) DIGKST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( laii ) LONDOJI (yfa,t6r)—eonU}iued. rate based on the annual rateable value of the houre or building ; ss. 9 and' 13 prescribe the machinery for ascertaining such rate ; s. 16 pro- vides for a supply of water to any premises by meter when required for " purposes other than domestic " at rates varying with the quantity supplied ; and s. 25 detiues " domestic purposes " lo include water-closets and baths of a certain capacity, but not to include " a supply of water for . . . any trade manufacture or business." A gas CO., whose works were within the limits of supply of the Bd., provided at their works in pursuance of their statutory obligations under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, aU neces- sary sanitary conveniences for their workmen. No one resided at the works, which were exempt from inhabited house duty. The co. claimed to be entitled under s. 16 of the Act of 1907 to a supply of water by meter for the sanitary con- veniences on the ground that such supply w.as "for purposes other than domestic," i.e., for trade purposes, and that their works were within the exception of " any trade manufacture or business " in s. 25 of the Act : — Seld, that the question was not the character of the premises, but the character of the purpo.ses for which the water was used ; that the supply in question was for domestic purposes ; and, therefore, that the co. were not entitled to a supply under s. 16, but were entitled to a supply under ss. 8, 9, and 13 of the Act. SonTH SuBDEBAN Gas Co. t: Meteopolitan Watee Board - Neville J. [1909] W. N. 199 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 666 — Will — Bequest — " Money invested in " Lam- beth Waterworks Company — Ademp- tion — Transfer of unilertaking to Water Board. See Will — " Honey Inveeted in." 1. Water-closetB. — Lodging-houses. See London — Lodging-liouseg. 3. — Order by sanitary authority on lessor to construct. See Landlord and Tenant. 41. 5. — RepairiTig aigparatus of existing water- closets — Requirements of notice to sanitary autho- rity hefore doing so — Public Health (London') Act, 1891 (54 ^- 55 Vict. c. 76), s. 39, By-laws under — By-laws 5, 14. By by-law 14 of the by-laws made under s. 39 of the Public Health (London)Act, 1891, " Every person who shall intend to construct any water- closet .... or to fit or fix in connection with any water-closet any apparatus or any trap or soil pipe shall, before executing any such works, give notice in writing to the clerk of the sanitary authority " : — Held, that the by-law applied to a person intending to renew the pan or trap of a water- closet constructed before, as well as of a water- closet constructed after, the making of the by-law. London and South Western Ey. Co. v. Hills Div. Ct. [1906] W. N. 60 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 612 — Sanitary conveniences. See under Lonpon— Conveaience*. lONDON AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY COMPANY ACT, 1833. See Railway — Mines. 2. LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY— Carriage of goods in traders' trucks — Delay jn transit — Demurrage. ^ee Railway — Carriage. 9. LONDON AND ST. KATHARINE DOCKS. See Shipping — Docks. 1. LONG VACATION. Ciiinicil of Judqes of Supreme Court. W. N. 1904 (May 14), p.l57. Supreme C'nurt of Judicature — The Long Vacation for thf future to commence on Any. 1 and terminate mi Oct. 11. W. N. 1907 (March 16), p. 79. LORD CAIRNS'S ACT— Vesting order— Criminal lunatic. See Lunacy. 27. LORD CHANCELLOR— Sitting alone in Court of Appeal — Court of Appeal, Decision binding on. See Mortgage — Interest. 1. LORD OF THE MANOR. See under MANGE. LORDS, HOUSE OF. See under House op Lords. LOSS — ^Apportionment — Settled fund. Sec under Settled Land — Apportion- ment. — ■ Shipping — Collision. See under Shipping — Collision. LOST GRANT— Pleading— Date and parties. See Peacticb — Pleadings. 3. LOTTERY. See under Gamikg. LOXTGHBOROUGH CORPORATION -- Elec- tricity. See Statute. 3. LUGGAGE — Railway company. See under Railway — Luggage. Ship — Passengers' luggage — Contract of eairiage — Theft by shipowners' servants. See Shipping— Passengers. 1. LUNACY. Lunacy Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 47), amends the Lunacy Acts, 1890 (53 4' 51) Vict. c. 5) and 1891 (54 S,- 55 Vict. c. 65). 1. — Accounts — Committee and receii>er — De- fault — Death of lunatic — Subsequent receipts — Surety — Liability. The committee or receiver of the estate of a lunatic is not accountable in the lunacy, in his character of committee or receiver, for rents and profits received by him after the lunatic's death ; and consequently, where the committee or receiver has made default, bis surety is not ( 1545 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1546 ) LUNACY— eo«!!;««w7. liable in respect of any suoli receipts. In re Walker - C. A. [1907] W. N. 123 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 120 2. — Avtioiihiihiiiiilir — Parties — Committee of estate — Inquisition — Special finrlinii — Iricajmhte of managing affairs — Capahlc of managing him- self— Lunacy Art, 1890 (53 \ 51 Vict. c. 5), s. IIS, sub-s. 2 ; s. 108, snb-s. 3— ii. N. C, 1883, Order XVI., r. 17. Where a lunatic so found by inquisition sues bj' the committee of his estate under Order xvi., r. 17, the committee must be a co-plaintiff: FarnhaniY. J/Uuurd <<■ Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 730, 735, followed. A special finding under s. 98, sub-s. 2, of the Lunacy Act, 1890, that the alleged hmalio, the subject of the inquisition, " is of unsound mind, so as to be incapable of managing his affairs, but that he is capable of managing himself, and is not dangerous to himself or to others," con- stitutes him a lunatic so found by inquisition within the above practice. In re Lo»D Towns-, hbnd's Settlement. Loed Townshend v. Robins - Swinfen Eady J. [1907] W. N. 252 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 201 3. — Administration of estate — Alteration of character of jiroperty — Mepairit — Permanent improvements — Payment of expenses out of person- alty — Charge on realty — Charge for general eosis in lunacy — Jurisdiction — Di-icret ion — Benetit of lunatic— Lunacy Act, 1890 ( 53 X- 51 Vict. 'c. 5), s. 118. In exercising the power given to the judge by s. 118 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, to charge money expended or to be expended under his order for the permanent improvement of the property of a lunatic upon the improved property, the judge may take into consideration, not only the benefit of the lunatic personally, but also what is fair and right as between his real and personal estates. Regard ought also to be had to the nature and extent of the estate and to the difficulty in drawing a clear line between ordinary repairs and permanent improvements. A new tenant of a farm, part of a large agricultural estate belonging to a lunatic, agi'eed to take the fai'm on condition that an old malt- house should be converted into cottages for labourers. An order was made in the lunacy authorizing the committee to carry out the eon- version and to pay the expense of it out of the lunatic's personal estate. The work having been canned out and paid for, the next of kin of the lunatic applied for an order charging the expense upon the real estate in favour of the personal estate : — Held, that this expense might properly be regarded as incurred in the course of the ordinary management of the real estate, and that it ought not to be charged upon the real estate in favour of the personalty. Under s. lis there is jurisdiction to order money already expended under a previous order in permanent imi)rovements to be charged on the improved property, but an application for such a charge should be made promptly. As a general rule, when an order is made LVSACY— continued. authoriziDg the expenditure of money in perma- nent improvements, the order should at the same time say whether the expenditure is or is not to be charged on the improved property, or, if not, the order should be made expressly without prejudice to the question how as between the real and personal estates the expenditure is ultimately to be borne : — ■ Held, al.s'o, that an order made by the Master charging part of the general costs in the lunacy upon the lunatic's real estate ought to be dis- charged. In re GIST C. A. [1904] W. N. 26 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 398 — Appeal, Special leave to — Practice — ^'ietoria Lunacy Act. See J\'o. 23, helow. — Bankrupt, Lunatic — Solicitor's undertaking to refund money to bankrupt's estate — Enforcing undertaking. See Bankruptcy — ^Undertaking. 1. 4. — Banliruptcy — Lunatic debtor — Cu7n- mittee in England — Curator bonis in Scotland — Heceivi/ig 07'der in England — Application by curator bonis to rescind receirincj oi'der — Locus standi— Bankniptcy Act. 1883 (46 j- 47 Viet. c. 52), ss. 35, 1U4. In Nov., 1898, R. D. was appointed curator bonis in Scotland of the Scottish estates of A., who was in failing health. A. owed considerable debts in London, where he was residing. Subse- quently A. became of unsound mind, and in Jan., 1900, one H. was appointed committee of his estate by the Master in Lunacy. In Jan., 1 901 , H. on behalf of the lunatic tiled a declaration of insolvency pursuant to leave granted by the Lord Justices in Lunacy. In i'eb., 1901, certain English creditors filed a bank- ruptcy petition against the lunatic grounded on his declaration of insolvency. R. D. , as curator bonis, opposed this petition ; but the C. A. held he had no locus standi in the matter : see In re R. S. A., [1901] 2 K. B. 32 :— Held, that although R. D. might be interested in the estate as a creditor, 5'et in substance he was applying as curator bonis under the order of the Scottish Court. The application was covered in principle by the decision of the C. A. in the case of In re R. S. A., [1901] 2 K. B. 32. R. 1). therefore had no locus standi, and his application must be dismissed with costs. The lunatic was then adjudicated bankrupt on the application of the official receiver. In re Attoun -Wright J. [1901] W. N. 165 5. — Sanhruptcy — Lunatic debtor — English lunacy — Committee — Curator bonis — Scottish jurisdiction — Loa(s standi — Bankruptcy pro- ceedings by committee — Right to repre^ient lunatic — Lunacy jurisdiction — Procedure — Consent of Court in Lunacy to banliruptcy proceedings — Directions, Summons for — Banliruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 148. Where, in an English lunacy, a committee has been appointed, a curator bonis appointed by the Scottish Court of the lunatic's estates in Scotland (especially where appointed, prior to the lunacy, on account of physical incapacity) has no locus standi,under s. 141 o£ the Bankruptcy DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 1547 ) LV:XACY—co,iti,med. Act, 1883, — which provides that, for the purposes of the Act, " a lunatic may act by his committee or curator bonis '' — to interyene in English bank- ruptcy proceedings by the committee in the name and on behalf of the lunatic. The committee is, when appointed, the only person entitled under the section to represent the lunatic in the pro- ceedings, and the curator bonis is only entitled to act therein for the lunatic where there is no committee. Where the committee of a lunatic debtor has been authorized by the Com-t in Lunacy to take preliminary proceedings with a view to making him bankrupt, by filing in his name a declaration of insolvency, no subsequent steps such as admitting the debt of a creditor who may have presented the bankruptcy petition, or consenting to an adjudication, should be taken by the com- mittee without first obtaining the sanction of the Court in Lunacv. In re R. S. A. - C. A. [1901] W. H. 68 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 32 Mte. This case was followed by Wright J., In re jlj'ioMra, [1901] W. N. 165. See preceding Ca«e. — Bankruptcy of donee of power — Incapacity of trustee in bankruptcy to release the power — Settlement — Limited power of appointment. See Power op Appointment. L 6. — Committee — Person of %monnd mind not so found it/ mquisition — Power exercisable hy committee undei' m'der of judge — Power of sale — Land vested in lunatic as tenant for life — Lunacy ^ci, 1890 (53 ^- 54 Vict. o. 5), ss. 116, 120, 1 28 — Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 Ji" 9 Vict. c. 18), s. I—Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 Sj 46 Vict. c. 38), ss. 3, 62. The Lunacy Act, 1890, s. 116, does not empower the Judge in Lunacy to authorize the quasi-committee appointed under that section with regard to the estate of a person of unsound mind not so found by inquisition to exercise, on behalf of that person, in respect of land of which he is only tenant for life, the power of sale given by s. 7 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. In re Baggs, [1894] 2 Ch. 416, n., followed. InreX., [1894] 2 Ch. 415, and In re Salt, [1896] 1 Ch. 117, discussed. In re S. S. B. (A Person of Unsound Mind not so found by Inquisition) - - C. A. [1906] W. N. 88 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 712 — Condition that devisee should " take and use " testator's name. See Will — Conditions. 1. — Consent by guardian ad litem — Practice — Evidence — Aifidavit. See Consent. 2. 7. — Criminal lunatic — Kecessaries — Past maintenance — Implied obligation — Debt — Claim by Crown fur arrears — Criminal I/unaiics Act, 1884 (47 3,- 48 Vict. e. 64) s. 10, sub-ss. 1, 3— Lunatic Asylums Act, 1853 (16 ^- 17 Vict. e. 97), *. 104. Under the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1884, o. 10, sub-3. 3, which incorporates by reference the language of s. 104 of the Lunatic Asylums Act, ( 1548 ) IMTSfiSiY— continued. 1853, the cost of tlie maintenance of a criminal lunatic can be recovered by the Crown against property to which the lunatic has become entitled, as being due under an implied obliga- tion to pay for that maintenance as a necessary ; and this is a statutory liability for the whole amount expended in respect of which there is no limitation against the Crown. In re J, (A Person of Unsound Mind) C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 874 — Criminal law. See under CRIMINAL LAW — lunacy. — Criminal lunatic — Person totally deaf — In- capacity to understand proceedings. See Criminal Law — Lunacy. 3. — Divorce — Affidavit in verification of petition — Refusal by Commissioners in Lunacy to authorize access by solicitor and commissioner for oaths. See Divorce— Practice. 2. — • Divorce — Nullity — Decree nisi — Application on behalf of respondent for an allowance. See Divorce— Nullity. 5. — Divorce — " Unreasonable delay " — Respon- dent's insanity — Decree. See Divorce — Delay. 1. — Estate duty — Lunatic entitled to both real and personal estate — Merger of charge. See Revenue — Estate Duty. 25. — Evidence — Admissibility — Decree absolute for default — Reasonable excuse for default. See Ceylon. 5. 8. — Execution of deed — Power of Court to direct trial of validity or' perpetuation of testimony — Lunatic so found — Lucid interval — Power to disjjose of property— Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 i' 54 Vict. c. 5), ss. 123, 341. When a person has been found lunatic by inquisition, so long as the inquisition has not been superseded, but continues in force, he cannot, even during a hicid interval, execute a valid deed dealing with or disposing of his property. The Court will not recognize such a, deed even by directing proceedings to be taken to try the question of its validity or to perpetuate testi- mony as to the state of the lunatic's mind when it was executed, but will treat the deed as entirely null and void. The difference between the execution of a deed and the execution of a will by a lunatic so found explained. Ex parte Sir Benjamin Wright, (1683) 1 Tern. 155, considered. In re Walker (a Lunatic so found) - - C. A. [1904] W. N. 186 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 160 9. — Foreign committee — English lunatic— Eng lish property. A foreign committee of the property of a domiciled Englishman resident abroad and found to be a lunatic in the forum of his residence cannot as of right recover personal property of the lunatic in this country. The widow of a domiciled Englishman, who and whose relatives resided in New York, was ( 1549 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( ir,r>o ) LUNACY — continued. found on a New York inquisition to be insane. A New York tribunal appointed a co. committee of both the person and property of the lunatic. The Court, in its discretion, though the lunatic's income was more than sufficient for her maintenance, ordered English trustees of personal property of the lunatic to pay accrued income, and gave the trustees liberty to pay future income to the committee. Didishcim y. London, and Westminster Hank, [1900] 2 Ch. 15, considered. New Yoek SECUEITY A2TO TEnST CO. V. KEYSEE Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 14 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 666 ^Franchise — Disqualification — ' ' Medical assist- ance. ' ' See Parliament. 5. 10. — Inquisition — Traverse of inquisition — Mifflit of lunatic to travene — Discretion of Judge in Lunacy — Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 ^' 54 Vict. e. 5), .s. 101. Upon the petition under s. 101 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, of a person found by inquisi- tion to be of unsound mind for leave to traverse the inquisition : — Held, that leave to traverse the inquisition was a matter of right, but that this does not prevent the Judge in Lunacy from exercising such a control in the matter as may be necessary for the protection of the person and estate of the alleged lunatic by satisfying himself (e.g., by a personal interview) that the application is bona fide, and that the alleged lunatic is competent to exercise an act of volition upon the subject. In re Cumming, (1852) 1 D. M. & G. ."iS?, applied. n re Gilchkist C. A. [1906] W. N. 199 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 1 10a. — Insolvent estate— Proof of deht — Rate of interest. The old rate of interest on debts has not been altered. Four per cent, is allowed on a judg- ment debt. In re Hunt. Haevet's Claim Mathew L.J. [1902] 2 Ch 318, n. 11. — Jurisdiction — Inquiry — Domiciled foreigner temporarily in England. The Court in Lunacy has juri-sdiction to order an inquiry into the state of mind of a domiciled foreigner who is temporarily resident in England. JnrlBDEBIDGE - C. A. [19021 W. N. 141 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 426 12. — Jurisdiction — Luna'ic out of the juris- diction — Fweign curator — English stochs and shares — Transfei- — Discretion of Judge in Lvnacy — Special circumstances — Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 .5' 54 Vict. c. 5), s. 134. Order made under s. 134 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, upon the application of the curator of a lunatic resident in France, and under the special circumstances of the case, for the transfer of stocks and shares in England to which the lunatic was entitled, although the same were not required for his maintenance. In re Elias, (1851) 3 Mao. & G. 234, followed. In re .J. L. S. Db Laeeagoiti (A Peeson Or Unsound Mind) - C. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 14 13. — Jurisdiction — Pei'Son of unsound mind not so found — Management and administration LUNACY — conti nued. — ' ' Lawfully detained " — Jurisdiction — Idiots Act, 1886 (i:i ^ 50 Vict. c. 25), s. 5 — Lunacy Act 1890 (53 ^- 54 Vict. c. 6), s. 116, suh-s'. 1 (c). The expression " lawfully detained as a luna- tic though not so found by inquisition," as used in s. 116, sub-s. 1 (c), of the Lunacy Act, 1890, means " lawfully detained " under the provisions of the Acts of Parliament of this country ; and consequently there is jurisdiction to make ad- ministrative orders in the ca.5e of a person of unsound mind not so found who is detained in accordance with the Idiots Act, 1883. In re Wathins, [1896] 2 Ch. 336, explained and distinguished. In re Maek Whalley and In re W. E. Whalley - C. A. [1906] W. N. 42 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 565 — Lunatic pauper — Maintenance. See under PooE Law. 14. — Lunatic who is not a pauper — Order for reception into asylum — Classijication as private patient — Application of lunatic's property to his maintenance — Jurisdiction of justice to order — •' Chargeable to any union or local authority " —Lunacy Act, 189U (53 Vict. c. 5), ss. 13, 299— Lunacy Act, 1891 (54 <)'■ 55 Vict. c. 6.5), s. 3. A person for whose reception and detention in a county lunatic asylum an order has been made under s. 13 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, is a person " chargeable to a union or local authority " within the meaning of o. 299 of that Act, and a justice has jm-isdietion under the latter section to order any property of the lunatic to be seizeuty to " maintain " school — Negligence. See Schools. 14, l."). MAINTENANCE conf, nucd . — Discretionary trust for — Validity — Remoto- MAINTENANCE— Alimony See under Divorce. — Assignment of debt — Cliose in action- rect motive on part of assignee. See Assignment. 2. -Indi- Bastardy. See under Bastardy. ■ Churchyard, Gift for maintenance of — Mort- main — Statute — Implied repeal. See Charity. 35. ■ County council ■ — Main road — Maintenance and repair — Mandatory order. See Local Government. 9. ness. See Will — Remoteness. 3. — Divorce. See under Divorce. — Husband and wife. See under Husband and Wife. — Infant. See under Infant — Maintenance. — Infant — Right to surplus income and accumu- lations. See Accumulations. 1. — Lunacy. See under LUNACY. — Poor law. See under PoOK LAW. — Residue to individuals in shares at twcuty- ono — Vested or contingent. See Will — Vesting. J . — Shipwreck — "Distressed seaman " — Expenses of maintenance, &c., abroad. See Shippino — Seaman. 9. — Tenant for life — Will — Gift to widow during widowhootl for the maintenance of her- self and tier children. Sec Settled Land— Powers. 4. -- Will -Legacy payable at twenty -one — General intention to provide maintenance. See Will — Interest. 1. — Will — Vesting gift to son at thirty-five— Discretionary trust for maintenance. See Will— Vesting. 2. MAINTENANCE OF SVIT— Charity huhiccd hj relifficms sympathy — Conniwn interest. Although there is an inducement based on a common religious belief which leads a rich person out of charity to assist a poor one in defending a suit, the a.ssistance given is none the less chari- table, and the ease falls within the specifie excep- tion from the law against maintenance estab- lished by the authorities founded on the interest arising out of charity. Holden v, Thompson biv. Ct. [1907] W. N. 129 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 489 2. — Common intereHt— Trade rivals — Protec- tivii of customers — Contract of indemnity. The pits, and the defts. iN-cre rival manufac- turers of an apparatus for conveying cash from one part of business premises to another. The defts. obtained contracts for the hire of their apparatus from three of the pits," customers, who ( 15G1 ) TJIGEsT 01' CASES, 1901— ISlO. ( lo62 ) MAINTENANCE OF SVlT—co/ttiiui,ed. were under contracts to use the pits.' apparatus at the time, and they agreed to indemnify the customers against any claims by the pits, against them for breach of contract. Two of these customers were originally customers of the dcfts., and the third gave a contract to the pits, in the belief that he was dealing with the defts. The pits, in each case sued the customer for breach of contract and in two instances recovered damages and costs, which the defts. paid under their contract of indemnity. The pits, claimed relief against the defts. on the ground of maintenance : — Jleld, that the defts. in giving these contracts of indemnity were acting in the legitimate defence of their commercial interests ami were not liable for maintenance. British Gash and Parcel 'Conveyohs, Ld. r. Lamson Store Service Co., Ld. - C. A. [1908] W. N. 73 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 1006 MALE SERVANTS— Revenue. See under Bevenue — Male Servants. — Execution creditor — Wrongful seizure — Debt paid before issue of writ — Absence of malice — Trespass. See Shbbifp. 3. — Libel. Sec under Defamation — Libel. — Libel by servant of corporation. Liability of company for malicious libel. See New South Wales. 20. — Plans — Malicious refusal of local authority to approve — Action. See Local Government. 20. — Slander. See under Defamation — Slander. — Trade union. See under Trade Union. MALICIOUS DAMAGE— Criminal law. See under Criminal Law— Malioioas MALICIOUS INJURIES TO PKOPEKTY — Fisheries — Poisoning fish in salmon river — Construction of statutes — Crimi- nal law. See Fishery. 7. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION- Action for— Onus probandi — Law of Ceylon, See Ceylon. 2. — Action for — Verdict set aside — New trial. See Queensland. 3. MALTA— r»^t' (/ Rohan, hli. 1, c. 2, .v.v. 3 and i ■ — Fldei-coinmisxum priiiwi/enltiira — Duration of tenure until fourth (/radiis — Condrnctivn of f/raduii — Conditions afi to anrnuin^ not authtyrized hfi the founder — ■ Puu'er to luwoint — Lniv of .VaJf,,. The entailed Maltese property in suit was sub- jected by will in 1790 to a fidei-commissum unto the fourth degree in terms of the Code of Rohan (bk. 4, c. 2, ss. 3 and 4), which directed that after the fourth degree every tie and burden shall cease, and the property shall pass unburdened to the heir of the fourth and last substitute, the MALTA —continued. four degrees being counted in capita and not in stirpes without including therein the instituted heir. The testator's son in 1839, having no children, under a power of appointment contained in the said will, created a primogenitura in favour of his universal heir and gi'and-nephew P. " in terms always of the said paternal will and unto the fourth degree contemplated in the said paternal will and allowed by the laws now in force " to endure as long as the fidei-commissum founded by his said father "under the fetters pacts laws and conditions hereinafter stated." One of these conditions was that in the event which happened of failure of male descent the primogenitura should pass to his only daughter, whose male child when bom was to enjoy the primogenitura during his natural life, and after his death it was to pass to his male descent until the exhaustion of the four degrees, with the proviso " that any holder of the said primogenitura descended from a female shall be bound to add the surname ' Bonici ' to his own on penalty of forfeiting the possession of the said primogenitura, which on such contingency occurring shall pass, ipso facto, to the person next called thereto." 'The said only daughter had sons living at her father's death, including the appellant and respondent, so that the en- tailed property never came into her possession, but into that of the appellant, her first-bom son. In a suit for a declaration that the appellant, who had been in possession of the property in suit for twenty-two years without taking the name of Bonici, had forfeited his right thereto, and that the same had developed ipso facto on the respondent, his younger brother, it was pleaded that the condition as to name was not warranted by the will of 1790, and that the appellant, as holder in the fourth degree after that of the instituted legatee, was entitled to keep the property free from any burden : — Held, that there was no indication in the will of 1 790 of a desire on the part of the founder of the fidei-commissum that the beneficiaries should bear his name, and that the power of appointing a primogenitma given thereby did not include an authority to impose that condition on its successive holders. Held, also, that on the true construction of ss. 2 and 3 of the code the four degrees men- tioned therein are degrees of generation and not of actual possession, and therefore include the generation to which the mother of the parties belonged, so that the appellant was the fourth and last substitute. But qncere, whether under the like construction he holds the property un- burdened, or whether it remains burdened until after it has passed to his heirs. Strickland r. Strickland - P. C. [1908] A. C. 551 — Colonial marriage — Evidence of validity — Practice. oration hy charter — General powers — Tramicays — Power to use tramways for the ptirjiose of conveying and delivering parcels — Ultra vires — Ancillary husiness — Business of cominon carriers — Manchester Corjyoration Tram- ways Act, 1899 (62 4' 63 Vict: c. ccliv.^— Muni- cipal Cmyorations Act., 1882 (45 ,^-46 Vict.c. 50). By virtue of various provisional orders and private Acts of Parliament the Manchester Cor- poration had power to use all tramways belong- ing to or in lease to the corporation, or on which they had power to place or run carriages, " for the purpose of conveying and delivering animals, goods, minerals, or parcels." The corporation worked a large system of tramways, of which they were owners or lessees, extending all over the city and suburbs of Manchester, and a con- siderable surrounding district. They had com- menced, or advertised their intention to commence, a general parcels delivery business within and beyond the area covered by their tramways, not confined to parcels and goods carried on their tramways. This action was brought by the Attorney-General on the relation of Manchester ratepayers, to restrain the carrying on of such a business : — Held that, under the power given by the Act of 1899, the corporation had power to carry on the business of common carriers upon their tramways, and as ancillary to that business to do all things nccessaiy for the collection and delivery of parcels carried on their tramways. For this purpose they had power to maintain stations or warehouses for receiving and storing parcels or goods, to provide horses, vans, carts, and to employ servants, messengers, and agents for the purpose of collection and delivery. But all these services must be confined to parcels or goods carried or to be carried on the tramway^ ; the corporation had no power to carry on a general parcels delivery business apart from their tramways. Held, also, that the part of the general busi- ness which was in excess of the statutory powers of the corporation must cause some expense to the city funds, and therefore the corporation were prevented by the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, from carrying it on under their general powers as a corporation by chartei'. Att.-Gbn. 1'. Manchester Cokpoeation Farwell J. [1906] W. N. 39 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 643 — Compulsory pilotage— Vessel passing through port of Liverpool — Limits of port — Port of Manchester. &e Shipping— Pilotage. 4. — Manchester Ship Canal — Collision — Fog. See Shipping— Collision. 43. MANDAMUS— Board of Education— Decision- Want of jurisdiction — Certiorari. See Schools. 16. ( 1665 ) bIGEST Of CASES, 1901—1910. ( 15^5 ") MAND AMU S—oonti imed. — Costs — Confirmation of bishop-elect — Objec- tions on grounds of doctrine — Juris- diction. &e Ecclesiastical Law — Bishops. 1. — County court to state case, Mandamus to — Appeal from Victoria. See Tramways. 14. — Hospital — Mandamus to levy retrospective rate — Agreement by local authorities for joint use of hospital — Excusable delay. See Local Govbknment. 15. — Licence — Conditions attached to renewal. See Licensing Acts. 39. — Poor rate. See under Rates. 1. — Prerogatiee writ — (Justs — Jurisdiction of Court to order payment of costs iy or to the Crown. Rules nisi had been granted at the instance of two different prosecutors calling on the Arch- bishop of Canterbury and the Vicar-General of the province to shew cause why a prerogative writ of mandamus should not issue commanding them, or one of them, to Irear opponents of tlae confirmation of the bishop-elect of "Worcester. Notice of the rules was directed to be served on the Dean and Chapter of Worcester ; there was no similar direction to serve the Treasury on behalf of the Crown, but, as the application aiiected the rights of the Crown, the law ofljcers appeared at the hearing on belialf of the Crown without objection, and shewed cause against the rules. After argument the rules were discharged and costs were allowed to the Archbishop, who was represented by separate counsel, the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to order the pro- secutors to pay costs to the .Crown being reserved for further consideration. The Court held that the contention of the prosecutors was correct, and that the Court had no jurisdiction to order them to pay costs to the Crown. They expressed no opinion as to their power to order payment of costs by or to the Crown in matters other than the prerogative writ of mandamus, or even as to that writ when it is applied for by or against the officers of executive departments of the public service in relation to their statutory or other duties. Rex r. Akch- BiSHOP OF Canterbury - - Div. Ct. [1902] W. N. 88 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 503 MANDATORY INJUNCTION. See also under INJUNCTION. — Alteration to demised premises — Erection of clock affixed to outside of liouse. See Landlord and Tenant. 7. — Ancient lights — Prescription — Measure of right — Angle of 45 degrees. See Light and Air. 11. — Canal company — Diversion of water from river — Statutory powers. See Canals. 1. — Clock fixed to outside of house — Breach of lessee's covenant — " Alteration." See Landlord and Tenant. 7. MANDATORY INJUNCTION— comiwaeA — Restrictive covenants — " Offensive" trade or business — Bill-posting — ^Advertisement hoarding. See Building Estate. 1. MANDATORY INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION — Practice — Motion by defendant before pleading. See Injunction. 2. MANDATORY ORDER— County council- Main roads — Maintenance and repair. See Local Government. 9. — Shareholders' address book — Right of share- holders to copy — Motives. See Company — Books. 1. — To pulldown — Street — Infringement of build- ing line — Penalty — Conviction. See Streets. 3. MANITOBA— Laws of. See under CANADA. — Privy Council appeals. See mider Privy Council. MANOR — Ancient demesne — Freelwld — Custom — JPi'fie on alienation — J^Wei-gner — Efidence — Prescription — Statute Quia Emjitores Terrarum (18 Edm. 1, c. 1). The freehold of laud held in socage of a manor of ancient demesne is in the tenant. A manorial custom in a manor of ancient demesne to exact a fine on alienation to a foreigner (of arbitrary amount in its origin) held bad, under the statute Quia Emptores Terrarum and otherwise, as being a restriction on the right of a freeman to alienate. The pit. sued as lord of a manor and soke in ancient demesne, formerly vested in Henry VIII. The present existence of and the plt.'s title to the manor and soke were disputed. The rolls of courts held on behalf of the plt.'s predecessors going back to 1576 were produced : — The Court held the plt.'s title to the manor established, if necessary by the presumption of a lost grant. Merttbns r. Hill Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 47 ; [1901] ICh. 842 — Copyhold — Obligation of copyholder to repair — Breach of obligation — Forfeiture. See Copyholds. 3. — Custom to take smaller fines on admittance from tenant of manor than from stranger. See Copyholds. 1. — Customary churchway — Manorial custom — Evidence — Inhabitants of parish at large. See Way, Right op. I. 2. — Heriot — Freehold of manor — Tenant — " I>ying seised " — Mortgage — Mortgagor in possession. A mortgagor in possession of a freehold tene- ment within a manor is so "seised" of that teuemmt that, on his death, the lord of the manor is entitled to claim his best beast as a ( 1567 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1668 ) ^SASOR— continued. heriot, pursuant to the custom of tke manor. CoPESTAKE ti. HoPEE - Kekewich J. [1907] ■W.N. 43; [1907] 1 Cli. 366 On Appeal ; — Beversed by C. A. Copestake v. Hopbe [1898] W. N. 129; [1908] 2 Ch. 10 See under Heeiot. 3. — Zord of the maiior — Steward — Solicitor — Custody of court rolls. Both the lord of a manor and the steward have a qualified right to the custody of the court rolls. The steward is entitled to keep them for the purpose of discharging the duties of his office ; and there is no rule that the lord is entitled as of right, in the absence of miscon- duct, to call upon the steward to give them up to him. The decision in Rawes v. Baioes, (1836) 7 Sim. 624 ; 5 L. J. (N.S.) (Gh.) 114 ; 40 E. K. 191, must be understood as addressed to a case where the steward had misconducted himself. Jn re Jbs-nikgs, a SoLioiTOE - - Buckley J. [1903] W. N. 69 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 906 — Market — Extent of franchise. See Maeket. 4. — Eeseryation of manorial rights — support — See INCLOSUEE Act. 3. — Stone quarry — Bight to get stone — Court rolls — Evidence. See Common. 3. MANSION-HOUSE— Capital money— Improve- ments — Irish estates. See Settled Land— Capital Moneys. 10. — Heirlooms — Trust of chattels as — Construction — To be enjoyed with mansion-house. See Heielooms. 8. — Settled land. See under Settled Land — Mansion- honse. • Will — Construction. See under WlLL- -Mansion-house. MANSLAXTGHTEK. See under Ceiminal Law — Appeal. MANUSCEIPT—Book— Posthumous letter. See Copteight — Books. 3. MANX LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1886. See Isle op Man. 3. MAPS — Admissibility of railway map by the Appellate Court — Eight of way. See Canada — Hallway. 3. — Evidence — Admissibility — Charts — Public documents — Ancient reports to Govern- ment departments— Depositions. See Custom. 1. MABGARINE. See under Bdttee. — Butter and Margarine Act, 1907. See under Adultbeation, MAR6AEINE- 1. — Sale by retail — Printed matter on wrapper — '■^ Fancy or other descriptive name" —Marfiarioie Act, 1887 (50 ^' 51 Vict. c. 29), s. 6— Sale of Food and Drwjs Act, 1899 (62 4- 63 Vict. 0. 51), s. 6— Butter and Margarine Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 21), s. 8. On April 26, 1910, the appellant sold by retail and delivered to the respondent half a pound of Karmo (a kind of margarine) in a paper wrapper on which the words " Karmo Margarine " were printed. In respect of this sale the appellant was charged with an offence under s. 6 of the Margarine Act, 1887, as amended by s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, which in substance provide that margarine when sold by retail shall be delivered to the purchaser in a paper wrapper, " on which " shall be printed the word " Margarine," " and no other printed matter shall appear on the wrapper." The word " Karmo " was a fancy or descrip- tive name approved by the Board of Agriculture under s. 8 of the Butter and Margarine Act, 1907, and it was contended for the appellant that he was therefore entitled to print the words " Karmo — Margarine " on his wrapper. Sect. 8 provides that : " If in any wrapper enclosing margarine .... a person dealing in margarine describes it by any name other than ' Margarine,' or a name combining the word ' Margarine' with a fancy or other descriptive name approved by the Board of Agriculture, .... he shall be guilty of an offence " under that Act. The magistrate held that the appellant was not entitled to use the word " Karmo " in combination with the word " margarine " on the wrapper, and he convicted the appellant. The Court dismissed the appeal, being of opinion that s. 8 of the Act of 1907, which dealt with what might be printed " in " the wrapper had not by implication repealed the provision of s. 6 of the Act of 1899, that the word "margarine," and no other printed matter, should appear " on '' the wrapper. Williams V. Bakee Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 280 — Sale of food and drugs. See under ADULTEEATlONi MARGINAL CLAUSE— Bill of lading— Damage to cargo — Negligence of carrier's ser- vants. See Shipping — Charterparty. 11. MAKINE INSURANCE. See under Insueance (Maeine). MARITIME LIEN. See under Shipping — Lien. MARKETS — By-law — Ultra vires — Power to charge fees on cattle in municipal sale- yards only — Law of New South Wales. See New South Wales. 35. 1. — Disturlance — Rival marJiet — Intention — Injunction. Pit. was the lessee of a market granted to one M. by a Eoyal Charter of 1698, to be held at Southall on every Wednesday for ever, with also two annual fairs for ever, for the sale of horses 3e ( 1569 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1570 ) MARKETS— cosimaei^. and cattle. The deft., a farmer, advertised a sale of Welsh ponies to take place on Wednes- day, Aug. 20, 1902, being Southall market-day, in a field about 300 yards from the entrance to the market, and the sale was held accordingly. The pit. brought this action for an inj unction to restrain the deft, from advertising and holding his market, on the ground that this was a " dis- turbance" of his, the plt.'s, ancient market. It appeared from the evidence that during the market-day the deft, induced several persons to come over to his field and buy ponies there. Kekewich J. held, upon the facts, that there had been no such invasion of the plt.'s market rights as to render the deft, liable to an injunction, and dismissed the action with costs. The Court were of opinion, upon the evidence, that there had been a disturbance of the plt.'s market, for what the deft, had in fact done was to establish, upon the particular day in question, a new market rivalling the old market. Once that conclusion was arrived at, it was quite immaterial that the deft, had, as was alleged, no intention of doing so. But, as the evidence shewed that he had acted to a large extent under provocation from the pit., the case was not one for an injunction ; and therefore there would simply be a declaration that the acts of the deft, constituted a disturbance of the plt.'s market, with liberty to the pit. to apply for an injunction if the wrongful acts of the deft, were repeated. The pit. to have the costs of the appeal, but each party to pay his own costs of the action in the Court below. WILSON v. Steel - - C. A. [1903] W. y. 205 2. — Franchise — Market rights — Su-aZ mar- ket — Jjistu rhance — Intention — Injunction. The pit. was the lessee of a market, granted in 1698 by Eoyal Charter, for weekly sales of horses and cattle, the grant and also the lease including the right to receive the market tolls ; and weekly sales were regularly conducted at the market accordingly. In 1902 the deft., who was an auctioneer and had been in the habit of holding auction sales of horses and cattle at the weekly market, took a field near the market for the purpose of holding sales there of horses and cattle, and then advertised that an auction sale of Welsh ponies would be held by him there upon a particular market day. On that day, after concluding his usual sale of horses and cattle at the market, he induced several of the persons present to leave the market and accompany him to the sale in his field, and the sale then took place. In an action brought by the pit. against the deft, for an injunction, the deft, disclaimed any intention of setting up a rival market, and excused himself by saying that the market was for various reasons an unsuitable place for the sale of the ponies, which were wild and unbroken : — Held (reversing the judgment of Kekewich J.) , that the deft.'s acts constituted such a dis- turbance of the plt.'s market and invasion of his market rights as might be restrained by injunction, the question of intention being immaterial. MAKKETS— coreiirawfiff. Goldsmid, v. Great Eastern By. Co., (1883) 25 Ch. D. 511, and Mosley v. Wallier, (1827) 7 B. & C. 40 ; 31 E. E. 146, considered. Wilcox v. Steel - C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 212 3. — Franchise — Fair — Fair and nw/rhet held, on same day — Merger — Change of days for which charter granted — Tolls — Stallage. The pit., as lord of the manor of Worksop, was owner of a weekly provision and cattle market (held on Wednesdays) and two annual fairs granted by ancient charters with right of toll. The defts. were lessees of the markets under a lease granted in 1851 for ninety-nine years. This lease expressly excepted and re- served the fairs. In 1845 the then lord of the manor had, without licence from the Crown, changed the days of holding the fairs from Mar. 21 and Oct. 2 and 3, the days named in the charter, to the second Wednesdays in Mar. and Oct. Until the date of the lease the markets and fairs were held in the streets. After that date the markets were held in buildings or on land provided by the defts. or their predecessors in title. On the two new fair days the fair was duly proclaimed by the crier of the lord, but nothing further was done by the lord. On these fair days the defts. charged an increased toll for stalls in the market to persons who only attended on fair days, but allowed regular attendants at the market to have stalls at the usual market rate. The defts. had also issued lists of tolls shewing an increased toU on fair days for " lots " of eggs, but this had not been collected. The pit. brought this action for an account of all tolls received by the defts. on fair days on the ground that they were fair tolls and not market toUs. It appeared that tolls were taken at the fair in the reign of Edward III., but there was no evi- dence of the payment of any fair tolls between that date and the date of the lease : — Held, that there is no impossibility in holding a market and a fair in the same manor on the same day, and no presumption that the market is absorbed in the fair ; that, though the change of days did not of itself forfeit the franchise of the fair, the lord could not legally recover tolls on days not named in the charter ; that the increased tolls charged by the defts. on fair days were stallage payable to them as owners of the soil ; that the owner of a fair or market, so long as he does not charge unreasonable toUs, is not bound to charge all persons alike, but may remit part of the toll to favoured persons ; and that the parties had contracted for the lease upon the basis that no fairs were payable. Duke OF Newcastle v. Worksop Ueban Distkict Council Farwell J. [1902] W. N. 77 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 145 — Lease — Substructure and supports of market — Covenant —Iron girders — Deteriora- tion — Standard of strength. See Landlobd and Tenant. 83. — Loss of market — Damages — Bill of lading. See Shipping — Charterparty. 2. 4. — Manorial marhet — Extent offranohise — JS'eio streets — Dedication — Presumption, — Local ( 1571 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1572 ) MARKETS— coreii«Me(f. Authority — Right in salesman subject to direc- tions to more to a more convenient jilace accord- ing to the opinion of the projjcj' authority — Form of order, Theie was in the parish of Whiteohapel, which was included in the manor of Stepney, an ancient manorial market without metes and bounds, which was held in a street called High Street. There was evidence from which it might be inferred that the right to hold the market extended to holding it in streets adjoin- ing High Street, when that street was over- crowded. UnJer an Act of Parliment passed in 1810 two new streets were made adjoining High Street on ground that included the sites of pre-existing streets which adjoined that street. Under an Act of Parliament passed in 1865 another new street, by which an existing street was connected with High Street, was made upon ground previously covered with houses. These streets were all in the parish of Whitechapel. The Acts under which they were respectively made provided that, when the streets were made, the ground laid open into them should form part of the streets, and should be used by the public accordingly. There was evidence that the streets so made had been for many years used for the purposes of the market without interference by the highway authority : — Held, by Vaughan Williams L.J. and Buckley L.J., that the right to hold the market extended to holding it in these streets, when High Street was overcrowded, and that the statutory dedica- tion of them as highways must be taken to be subject to the user of them for the purposes of the market. Fletcher Moulton L.J. dissented, on the ground that in his view the facts of the cas6 did not justify the inference that there was a prescriptive right to hold the market in any other street than High Street, and that the statutory dedication of the new streets was absolute, and not subject to any right of using them for the purposes of the market. Judgment of Swinfen Eady J., [1906] 2 K. B. 468, affirmed subject to a slight variation of the declaration made by the order. GiNGBLL, SOJT & FOSKETT, Ld. V. STBPNBY BOROUGH Council C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 115 On Appeal : — Judgment of the C.A., [1908] 1 K. B. 115, affirmed. Stepney Coepoeation r. Gingell, SoN&FosKETT, Ld. - H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 72 ; [1909] A. C. 245 PiMic Health Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 6), mahes the jjromsinns of the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 4- 39 Vict. o. 65) with respect to the provision and regulation of markets applicable i7i rwral districts. 5. — Statutory marhet — Disturbance — Statu- tory remedy — Injunction — Jurisdiction — Prac- tice—Proceeding in lieu of demurrer — Right to ' jim—R. S. C, 1883, Order XXV., r. 2. Where a statute provides a particular remedy for the infringement of a right of property thereby created or re-enacted, the jurisdiction of the High MARKETS- Court to protect that right by injunction is not excluded, unless the statute expressly so provides. On a proceeding in lieu of demurrer under Order xxv., r. 2, the party who by his pleading raises the point of law has the right to begin. Stevens I'. Chown. Stevens ij. Clark Farwell J. [1901] W. N. 54 [1901] 1 Ch. 194 MARKET GARDENER — Compensation — Glass- houses — Fruit trees — Removable fix- tures — Agricultural holdings. See Lasdlord and Tenant. 5. MARKET GARDENER'S COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND) — Improvements — Retro- spective effect of statute. See Landlord and Tenant. 3. MARRIAGE — Marriage Zegalization Act, 1901 (1 Jldw. 7, c. 23), is an Act for legalizing mar- riages heretofore solemnized in certain churches and places. Marriage Legislation Act, 1903 (3 Mdvi. 7. c. 36), renders valid marriages heretofore solem- nized at the Ellerker Chapel-of-ease and at other named churches. Provisional order of {Marriages) Act, 1905 (5 Ediv. 7, c. 23), is an Act to enable provisional orders to be made for removing any invalidity or doubt attaching to marriages by reason of some info7'mality . Colonial Marriages (^Deceased Wife's Sister") Act, 1906, (6 Edio. 7, c. 30), declares the law with respect to a marriage between a man and his deceased wife^s sister dotniciled in parts of the British possessions where such a marriage is legal. Marriage with Foreigners Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. iO), amends the law with respect to marriages between British subjects and foreigners. — Naval Marriages Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 26). See under Aemt and Navy. Deceased Wife's Sister Marriage Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, 47), is an Act to amend the law relating to marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Fhgland — Rules and Regulations, m^de by the Registrar- Geney'al, Oct. 4, 1909, and appi-ored by the Local Oovernment Board, Oct. 8, 1909, under the Marriage Act, 1898, for the guidance of Authorized Persons and of the Trustees or other Governing Bodies of Registered Buildings in luhich Marriages may be Solemnized without the presence of a Registrar. St. R . & . , 1909, No . 1332. Price 2^d. (Postage \d.). — Administration suit — Pedigree — Evidence. See Peobatb — Marriage. 1. — Adulterers, Marriage of — Illegitimacy of children procreated in adultery. See Ceylon. 3. — Bigamy — Foreign degree of nullity. See Divorce— Nullity. 1. — Bigamy — Second marriage performed abroad See Bigamy. 1. 1. — Breach of promise of marriage — Contract — Promise to marry on death of mfe — Knowledge of promisee — Public policy. 3 E 2 ( 1573 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1574 ) MARBIAGE — continued. The deft., who was to the knowledge of the pit. a married man, promised to marry the pit. on the death of his wife. He did so with the intention, known to the pit., of inducing her to commit adultery with him, and she did so after the promise and before the death of deft.'s wife : — Held, that such a promise was contrary to public policy, and could not be enforced. Spiers i: Rvsi - Fhillimore J. [1908] W. N. 16 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 720 2. — Breach of promise of marriage — Con- tract — Promise to marry on deaili of wife — Knowledge of ■promisee — PiMic poUcij. A promise of marriage made by a man, who to tlie knowledge of the promisee was at the time of the mailing of the promise married, is void as being against public policy, and therefore cannot be enforced by action after the death of the promisor's wife. Wilson r. Carnley C. A. [1908] W. N. 36 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 729 — Capacity — Italian subjects — Deceased hus- band's brother. *^; Conflict OP Laws. 12. — Channel Islands, Civil marriage in the — Foreign law — Evidence. See Divorce — Channel Islands. 1. 3. — Colonial marriage — Malta — Ei'idence of raliditij — Practice — Matrimonial .si/it. In a matrimonial suit, where there is a prac- tical difficulty in the way of a petitioner adduc- ing the usual evidence of a lawyer who is or has been practising in the Courts of the Colony where the marriage of the petitioner was cele- brated, the Court may accept the evidence of a gentleman, who, not as a mere amateur, but from his professional research and experience in rela- tion to the marriage laws of the Colony in question, is, in the opinion of the Court, suffi- ciently qualified to express an opinion as to the validity of a marriage there celebrated. Wilson V. Wilson Jeune, Pres. [1902] P. 157 4. — Conddtion — Validitg — Restraint of marriage — Forfeiture on marriage at anij time without consent of named persons — Condition suiseqnent — Gift over — Practice — Parties — Se- prescntation of unborn children — Settlement — TrvMees—n. S. C, 1883, Order xri., 32 (a). A condition subsequent in partial restraint of marriage, e.g., a condition providing for the forfeiture of interests, given by a settlement to a daughter of the settlor and her children, upon the marriage of the daughter at any time without the consent of named persons, is valid and en- forceable if it be accompanied by a gift over of the fund on marriage without the required consent. Decision of Warrington J., [1901] W. N. 118, affirmed. The validity of such a condition was settled in Dashwood v. Lord Bulhelcg, (1804) 10 Ves. 230, and Lloyd v. Branton, (1817) 3 Mer. 108, and earlier cases, and those decisions cannot now be questioned. Per Byrne J. : The Court has no power to appoint a person to represent a class of which ' MARRIAGE — continued. there is no member in existence, e.g., unborn children . Upon a summons to determine the construc- tion and effect of a settlement, unborn children who take an interest under the trusts are suffi- ciently represented by the trustees. In re Whiting's Settlement. Whiting i-. De RUTZBN C.A. [1904] W.N. 199; [1905]lCh.96 5. — Contract — Illegality — Marriage hrohage — Introductions with a riew to marriage — Co7i- tract for reward to bring ahout introductions — Expense incurred in carrying' ovt contract — Rescission of contract — Recovery of motley paid. A contract for reward to introduce another to persons of the opposite sex, with a view to marriage with one of those persons, is a marriage brokerage contract and illegal ; .and money paid under such a contract can be recovered back by the person who paid it, although the other party to the contract had brought about introductions and has incurred expense in so doing. Decision of the Di v. Ct., reported [1905] 1 K. B. 24, reveiseil. Hermann v. Charlks- WOETH C. A. [1905] W. N. 61 ; ( 1905] 2 K. B. 123 — Deceased wife's sister, Jlarriage with — Repulsion from Holy Communion. See Ecclesiastical Law — Holy Com- munion. 2. — Dignity — Marriage with a peer of the realm — Divorce — Former wife mnrrying a commoner. See Husband and Wipe — Title of Honour. 1. — Divorce. See under Divorce. — " During the marriage " — After-acquired pro- perty — Covenant — Judiciiil separation. See Settlement. 15. 6. — Ecidence — Premmption from co-habita- tion — Husband and wife. An English man and woman travelled to France with the intention of getting married, and there purported to go through a form of marriage ; and they had since lived together in England as man and wife for thirty yeai-s and had several children. There was some evidence of recognition of children by the family. It was assumed by the Court that a marriage such as was alleged was impossible according to Frenrh law and the h.abits of law-abiding people in France : — Held, that this fact was not sufficient to rebut the presumption in favour of marriage arising from the long-continued cohabitation of the parties as man and wife. The principle of Sastry Velaider Arotiegarii V. Semhecutty Vaii/alie, (1881) 6 App. Cas. 3fi+, applied. In re Shephard. George r. Thter Kekewioh J. [1904] 1 Ch. 456 — Foreign domicil, will, and marriage — English domicil subsequently acquired. See Probate — Foreign Domicil. 2. Foreign Marriages.] Marriage of British Subjects Abroad, 'Hie Foreign Marriages 0. in C. iy03, St. B. & 0., 1903, No. 216. ( 1575 ) DIGEST 01* GASES, 1901—1910. ( 157fi ) MABBIAGE— ( — Foreign marriage — Proof — Expert evidence — Divorce — Practice. See Divorce — roreign Marriage. 1. — Forfeiture clause — Intention — Words of futurity — Limitation to events after testator's death. See_ Will — rorfeiture. 7. — Naval marriages. See under Army ahd Navy. — Nullity of marriage. See under Divorce. — Settlements, Marriage. See under Sbttlbmbnt. 7. — Validity — ■ Celebration in Mngland — Husband, a British subject domiciled in India — Hindu — Personal capacity to contract marriage with an Miglish Christian woman. Any incapacity of either a man or a woman which, though recognized and enforced by the law of the domicil of either, is of a kind to which the Courts of this country refuse recognition, does not render a marriage celebrated here invalid on account of any such incapacity. A foreigner or a British subject domiciled abroad who enters into a contract of marriage with an Englishwoman domiciled in England — a marriage which would be recognized by the law of England as valid if contracted between persons domiciled in this country — does not carry with him any disability of a personal character imposed by the law of his domicil so as to preclude him from contracting a valid marriage with her in this country. A foreigner or a British subject domiciled abroad who, being in England, contracts in due form according to the laws of England a marriage with a person domiciled in England is not to be permitted to assert that he was under the burden of an incapacity, imposed by the law of the foreign domicil, to do that which he in fact did voluntarily and in due form according to the laws of England, and he cannot repudiate the marriage on the ground of such personal in- capacity. Where both parties to a marriage are domiciled in a country the laws of which forbid them to marry, considerations may apply differing from those which would be applicable in cases where one party only is domiciled in a country the laws of which forbid such a marriage. Chetti (Venugopal) v. Chetti (Venugopal) Gorell Barnes, Pres.,[1909] P. 67 — Ward of Court — Marriage in contempt — Committal of ward — Jurisdiction. See Ward of Court. 1. — Will — Condition as to consent to marriage — Marriage with consent in testator's life- time — Codicil confirming will after the marriage. See Will — Conditions, 2. — Will — Construction — Gift of income to daughter until marriage — Gift over on marriage — Death of daughter uu- mairjed. See Will— Eesidue. 3. MABBIAGE — continued. — Will — Forfeiture clause — Words of futurity — Forbidden marriages. See Will— Forfeiture. 7. 8. — Will — Marriage with consent — Consent given — Power of retractation — Construction of will. A person in loco parentis is justified in altering his mind and withdrawing his consent to a marriage if circumstances subsequently come to his knowledge which, had they been known at the time, would have caused him originally to withhold his consent. This power of retractation, however, is not unlimited, and cannot be exercised for mere caprice or without just and exceptional reasons. Merry v. Ryres, (1757) 1 Eden, 1 and Dash- wood V. Lord Bullieley, (1804) 10 Ves. 230, discussed and applied. By a codicil made in 1901 a testator directed that, in the event of his daughter marrying against her mother's wish, a, legacy of 500Z. and her share in his ■ residuary estate were to be settled on the daughter for life, with remainder to her children. In May, 1893, the daughter became engaged with the consent of the testator and his wife, conditionally on the marriage being deferred for two years. In February, 1895, the testator died ; the engagement was still recog- nized by the widow, who stipulated for a further delay till August. To this the daughter agreed. Subsequently there were disputes between the mother and daughter as to the form of the settle- ment and other matters ; the daughter left 'her mother's house and was married in June. Immediately before the marriage the mother wrote withdrawing her consent to the mar- riage : — Held, that under the circumstances the con- sent originally given could not be withdrawn and that the daughter was absolutely entitled to the legacy and to her share in the testator's residuary estate. In re Beowk. Ingall v. Brown Byrne J. [1903] W. N. 209 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 120 MABBIAGE CONTKACT— Wife's acquirenda— Accumulations out of income. See Scottish Law. 16. MABBLa.GE SETTLEMEHT. See under Settlement. — Variation of marriage settlement, Petition for — Nullity — Impotence — " Property settled." See Divorce — Nullity. 4. MAEBIED WOMAN. See under Husband and Wipe. MABSHALLING — Assets — Administration — Effect of Land Transfer Act. See Administration. 22. — Asset?— Pecuniary legatees and specific de- visees. See Administration. 21. — For payment of mortgage — Priority of cestui que trust. See Settlement. 48. ( 1577 ) DICEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1578 ) MARTIAI lAW— Appeal— Special leave— Civil tribunals. See Cape oe Good Hope. 11. — Review of martial law — Convictions by Supreme Court — Jurisdiction. See Cape of Good Hope. 8. MASTER — Appeal from decision of — Trial of garnishee issue by Master — Practice. See Appeal. 20. — Appeal — Reference of action to master. See Appeal. 23. — Appeal from master — Security, Decision of master as to sufficiency of — Practice. See Appeal. 25. — Jurisdiction of master — Costs — Solicitor — Taxation — ^Agreement by third party to pay costs. See SoLiciTOE — Costs. 39. MASTER (SCHOOLMASTER). See under Schools — Masters. MASTER AND SERVANT. Labour Bureaux {London) Act, 1902 (2 Edw.l, c. 13), authorizes the establishment of Labour Bureaux throughout the Metropolis. Notice of Accidents Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, V. 53), is an Act to amejid the law relating to returns and notifications of accidents in, mines, quarries, factories, and workshops, and under the Notice of Accidents Act, 189i. Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), consolidates and amends the law with respect to compensation to workmen for injuries su-ffered in the course of their employment. Employers' Liability Itituranoe Companies Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, u. 46), is am. Act ta apply the provisions of the Life Assurance Com- panies Acts, 1870 to 1872, to companies carry- ing on the business of insuring employers against liability to pay compensation or dam- ages to workmen in their employment. The Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1907. A copy of these Rules has been presented gratis by the Council to all subscribers to the entire series of the Law Repobts, 1907y m the United Kingdom. These copies were de- livered with the July Parts of the Law Ebpokts. W. N. 1907 (June 22), p. 213. County Courts — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 — Fees — Treasury Order, dated May 30th, 1907 ; regulating fees in County Courts. W. N. 1907 (July 6), p. 217. See Cueeent Index, 1907, p. Ixxi. County Courts — Fees — Workmeji's Compen- sation Acts — Treasury Order, dated Jan. 17, 1908. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (Jan. 26), p. 53. See Cuerent Index, 1908, p. Ixxxvi. Workmen's Compeiisation Rules, 1908. Forms additional to Appendiic to principal rules and memorandum, dated Mar. 14, 1908. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (Mar. 28) p. 83. See Cueeent Index, 1 908, p. xcix. MASTER AND SY.B,VASr— continued. Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1908 (^No. 2), dated Nov. 24, 1908. These Rules come into operation on Jan. 1, 1909. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (Dec. S), p. 337. See CUBRBNT lira) EX, 1908, p. civ. Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. Regns., Jan. 15, 1908, under s. 12 of the Act, as to Returns to be furnished each year by Em- ployers in certain Industries with respect to the Compensation paid under the Act during the previous year. Price Id. St. K. & 0., 1908, No. 17. Workmen's Compensation (^Anglo-French Convention') Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 16), is an Act to authorize the making tif such m,odifica- tions in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, in its application to French citizens, as may be necessary to give effect to a convention between His Majesty and the President of 'fhe French Republic. Workmen's Compensation — The Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1909, dated May 19, 1909, and which came into operation on June 1, 1909. These Rules shall have effect under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58.) Reprint from W. N. 1909 (May 29), p. 193. See Cueeent Index, 1909, p. clxiii. Workmen's Compensation (Anglo-French Convention) Act, 1909. Order in Council, Nov. 22, 1909, giving effect to the Convention hetween His Majesty and the President of the French Republic ly modifying the Workmen's Compen.'sation Act, 1906, in its application to Workmen who are French Citizens. St. R. & 0., 1909, No. 1372, L. 44. Price Id. Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. Regn., May 10, 1910, as to references to, and re- muneration and expenses of, Medical Jteferees in Eiiqland and Wales under s. 8 of the Act. St. R. & 0., 1910, No. 596, Price Id. Megn., May 10, 1910, as to the duties and remuneration of Medical Referees in England and Wales under the provisions of the Fir.^t and Second Schedules to the Act. St. R. & 0., 1910, No. 699. Price Id. Arbitration, col. 1579. Bailment, col. 1580. Burgh surveyor, col. 1580. Company, col. 1580. Compensation, col. 1581. Contract of Service, col. 1660. County Court Judge, col. 1663. Criminal Imw, col. 1662. Dismissal, col. 1663. Pixputes, col. 1663. Evidence, col. 1664. E.rtra Serrice, col. 1664. Factory. — See under Factoey. Factory Acts, col. 1664. ._■(,». ; ( 1679 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 1580 ) MASTER AND SERVANT False Imprisonment, col. 1668. False Measure, col. 1668. Fatal Accidents Act, col. 1668. Forgery, col. 1668. Infant, col. 1669. Interference, col. 1674. Labour Bureaux, col. 1674. Liability, col. 1674. Zibel, col. 1675. Licences, col. 1675. Mimes, col. 1675. Motor Omnibus, col. 1675. Negligence, col. 1676. Poor Law Guardians. — See under PooB Law. Practice, col. 1679. Restraint of Trade. — See under Ee- STKAINT OF TEADE. Schools. — See under Schools. Scope of Employment, col. 1689. Scottish Law. — See under Scottish Law — Master and Servant. Servants' Characters, col. 1689. Shop Clubs, col. 1689. Theatre, col. 1689. Theft, col. 1690. Trade Union. — See under Trade Union. Truck Acts, col. 1690. " Undertakers." — See under Masteb AND Servant — Compensation. Unemployed Workmen, col. 1690. Wages, col. 1691. Women, col. 1691. Arbitration, — Arbitration — Condition precedent to jirris- diction of arbitrator. See Master and Servant — Practice. 7. — Arbitration clause — Companies — Winding- up- — Insurance. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 35. — Award — Infant — Payment into court. See Master and Servant — Infants. 2. — Award terminating at future date/ — Juris- diction of arbitrator. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 130. — Liability of insurers — ^Arbitration clause in policy — Workmen's compensation. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 35. 1 . — Weekly payment ended by arbitrator — Application to review — New circumstances MASTER AND SERVANT (Arbitration)— C(ra«(?. — Power of arbitrator to review again — Mes judicata — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict. c. 37). A workman having been injured by an acci- dent in the course of his employment, his em- ployer agreed to make him weekly payments to continue during his incapacity for work, " or until the same shall be ended, diminished, in- creased or redeemed in pursuance of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897." Upon an application for review and termination of the payment the arbitrator made an award that the weekly payments should be ended on the ground that the incapacity had ceased. The workman did not appeal, but afterwards applied for another arbitration with respect to the review and increase of the weekly pay- ment on the ground that he was unable to work through the accident : — Held (affirming the decision of the 0. A.), that the award ending the weekly payments was upon the true construction of it final. Qucere whether the claim of the workman can be kept alive in case of the incapacity recurring by an award which suspends instead of ending the weekly payments. Nicholson V. PiPEE H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 215 Bailment. 1 . — ■ Liability of bailee — Theft by servant — Scope of^ employment. The pit., a wholesale silversmith, hired from the deft., a jobmaster, a brougham, horse, and coachman for the purpose of driv- ing the plt.'s traveller about London with samples of the plt.'s wares to be shown to customers. It was known to the deft, that,' in the course of business, occasions would arise when the traveller would have to leave the brougham with samples in it in charge of the coachman. On one of such occasions the coachman, in pursuance of an arrangement made with confederates, drove the brougham to a place where a great portion of the sam- ples in it was stolen by them. In an action brought by the pit. against the deft, to recover the value of the goods so stolen : — Eeld, that the deft, was not responsible in respect of the criminal act of his servant, the same not having been done within the scope of his employment. Abraham v. Bullock, (1902) 86 L. T. 796, distinguished. Cheshire v. Bailey C. A. [1905] W. N. 2 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 237 — Negligence of servant — Injury to article bailed. See Master and Servant — Liability. 2. Burgh Surveyor. — Extra work — Delay. See Scottish Law. 17. Company. — Share certificate fraudulently issued by secretary— Forgery — Scope of em- ployment — ^Estoppel. See Company — Forgery. 2. ( 1581 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1SS3 ) ISIASTEB, AND SERVANT (Company)— coni. BtrBKE (1902) Ct. of SesB. (So.) [1903] W. N. 168 46.— Dependent in part on worltm-an' s earn- ings — Mode of assessing compensation — Work- men's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict, c. 37), First Schedule, s. 1 (a) (ii.). The widow of a deceased workman, who met his death through an accident arising out ( 1599 ) BIOEST OB* CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1600 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— coMif?. of and, in the course of his employment, was mainly dependent upon her husband's earnings at the time of his death, but was earning about 2s. a week herself. The deceased workman did not appear to have any source of income other than his wages. The widow claiming compen- sation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, against the employers of the deceased, a county court judge awarded her the sum of 150Z., being 51. less than the amount of the deceased workman's earnings in the same em- ployment during the three years prior to the accident. The employers appealed against the award, on the ground that, in assessing the compensation, the county court judge had not complied with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, First Schedule, s. 1 (a) (ii.), which provides that, in cases of par- tial dependency, the compensation shall be Buch a sum as may be determined to be rea- sonable and proportionate to the injury to the dependants, because he had not taken into account the amount which the maintenance of the workman, if alive, would have cost, by way of reduction of the compensation, and that he had therefor© misdirected himself : — Held, that it was not shown that the comity court judge had proceeded otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1897, First Schedule, s. 1 (a) (ii.), and therefore his award was good. Osmond v. Campbell & Haebison, Ld. C. A. [1905] 3 K. B. 852 Note. This case was followed by C. A., Sail v. TamwoHh Colliery Co., Ld., [1910] W. N. 268. See No. 40, above. 46. — De2}endant af deceased workman — Claim of compensation iy depeTidant — Iteath of sole dependant before award — Legal per- sonal representative of deceased dependant — Survival of right to compensation — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict. a. 37), s. 1, sub-s. 1 ; «. 7 ; First Schedule, s. 1 (a). Where the sole dependant of a deceased workman, whose death was caused by an acci- dent arising out of and in the course of his employment, made a claim against his em- ployers for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, but died before any award was made in respect of that claim : — Beld, that the right to compensation sur- vived, and passed to the legal personal repre- sentative of the deceased dependant. Dae- LINGTON V. EOSCOE & SONS C. A. [1907] W. N. 4; [1907] 1 K. B. 219 47. — Dependants — Total or partial depen- dency — Maintenance of family by workman — Workman's earnings supplemented by chil- dren's wages — Claim of widow — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict. c. 37), Sched. I., clause 1 (a) (i.) (ii.). The widow and young children of a work- man are none the less " dependants wholly dependent on his earnings at the time of his death " within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, because the workman has been enabled through the receipt by him, D.D. MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— «tf«i(?. or through his wife as his agent, of moneys from wage-earning children or of moneys coming to him through other channels to aug- ment the fund out of which he has maintained his family. Senior v. Fountains & Burnley, Ld. C. a. [1907] "W. N. 169 ; C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 663 48. — Dejiendants wholly dependent — EoA-n- imgs of workvmm. at time of his death — Money, coming to dependlmntsi on death of workman — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60^ ^ 61 Vict. c. 37), Sched. I., clause 1 (a) (i.). In the case of the death of a workman leaving dependants, the test by which to deter- mine whether they were wholly dependent on his earnings at the time of his death, within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, is whether what the workman was earning at the time of his death was the sole source to which they could look for mainten- ance at that time, and the fact that money came to them on the death of the workman cannot therefore be taken into consideration. Price v. Penrikyber Navigation Colliery Co. C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 221 49. — Dependency — Death of workman — Widow — Total or partial — Workmen's Com- pensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), s. 13, First Sched. (1) (a), (i.) and (ii.'). In 1881 the applicant married the deceased workman, a collier. In 1888 she left her husband on account of his cruelty, taking her four children away with her. The husband promised her 1». 6d. a week for each child, but as a fact never paid her anything ; meantime the applicant lived with her parents and did work at times as a servant, while at times she worked in a, factory ; the children remained with her parents until they grew up. In 1900 she obtained work as a housekeeper at 16s. a week, and she was supporting herself in this way at the time of her husband's death. There was no agreement for a separation, and there had been no application for maintenance against the husband during his lifetime, as the applicant was afraid he might take the chil- dren from her. In Jan., 1910, the applicant's husband met with a fatal accident while em- ployed at the respondents' collieries, and the applicant claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, against the respondents as the widow and dependant of her deceased husband. The county court judge held that there had been no abandonment of her rights by the applicant, and on the footing of partial depen- dency he awarded her 263^ as compensation. The 0. A. dismissed the appeal. Cozens-Hardy M.E. said that the decisions in Coulthard v. Consett Iron Co., Ld., [1905] 2 K. B. 869, and Williams v. Ocean Coal Co., Ld.,[Wm] 2 K. B. 422, were still binding on this Court, and ought to be followed. Hodgson V. West Stanley. Colliery, [1910] A. C. 229, was one of those common fund cases where the question was considered whether a wife could be wholly dependent on her hmband and par- tially dependent upon her sons, and where the 3f ( 1601 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1602 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— co«M. H. L., differing from this Court, held that the wife might be entitled to compensation in respect of the deaths of her husband and sons. That case had but a very indirect bearing upon the present case, and in his Lordship's opinion it would not be right to consider the mere dicta of some of the noble Lords in that casei as in any way impeaching the decisions of this Court as to the implied dependency of the wife on her husband, even when separated from him and not actually dependent upon his earnings. Keeling v. New Monokton Collieeies, Ld. C. A. [1910] W. N. 249 60. — Dejjendeiicy on uwrkman^s earnings at time of his death — Widow of deceased work- man — Worhmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 7. Upon a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, by the widow of a deceased workman, it appeared that she had lived with and been maintained by him fr6m their marriage up to June, 1904, when being out of work he left her and never afterwards contributed to her maintenance. Her only means of subsistence, after her hus- band left her, consisted of casual work and the charitable gifts of relatives, and she was for a week in the workhouse. About three weeks before his death, which occurred in Oct., 1904, the husband obtained employment, and he was earning wages when his death was occasioned by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The widow stated in evi- dence that, before her husband's death, she was expecting him back every day to provide a home. The county court judge found that she was dependent on her husband's earnings at the time of his death, and accordingly awarded her compensation. Heldy that the facts justified his finding. COULTHAED V. CONSEn IeON CC LD. C. A. [1905] W. N. 163 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 869 Note. This case was followed bv C. A., Keeling v. New MoncUon Collieries, Ld., [1910] W. N. 249. See preccdinri Ca.se. 81. — Dependency on workman's earnings at time of death — Widow. Not reported, but a judgment from notes of counsel was read to the Court. The facts in that case were as follows : The applicant was married to the deceased on Sept. 6, 1885. There were eight children of the marriage, three being alive at the date of the death. In March, 1904, the deceased left the applicant to look for work. Previously to that they had lived at Middlesbrough for seventeen years. The applicant never heard from the deceased after March, 1904, and did not know where he was. She thought he would come back as he had done once before after an absence of nine weeks. He was killed while in the employ of the respondents in 1906. After her husband left her the applicant maintained herself and her children for some weeks and then went into the workhouse with them for three months. She afterwards lived with her mother MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation) — oontd and earned small sums by taking in washing and going out charing. The county court judge held that the appli- cant was not dependent on the deceased at the time of his death. On appeal from that deci- sion the 0. A. held that there was a presump- tion of dependency of the wife upon the hus- band which had not been rebutted. They therefore reversed the decision of the county court judge. Stanlakd v. Noeth Easteen- Steel Co., Ld. C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 426, n. 52. — Dependency on workman's earnings at time of death — Widow — Posthumous child — Accidental deaih of workman — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 7, sub-s. 2. A workman was married to his wife in 190S, and for about nine months they lived with her parents. They then lived in apart- ments for three months, and afterwards with the husband's parents for about six weeks. The wife subsequently returned to her own parents, her husband having left her to seek work, and being ultimately employed as a miner in an adjoining village, where she occasionally went to see him. She last saw him in Dec, 1905, and in April, 1906, he was killed while work- ing for the deft. co. A posthumous child, of which the deceased was the father, was born in Sept., 1906. The husband had not contri- buted to the wife's support since 1904, and in Jan., 1906, she went into domestic service, where she was earning 121. a year at the time of the death. In these circumstances, upon a claim by the widow and child for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1907, the county court judge held that neither the wife nor the child was dependent on his earn- ings :— Held, on appeal, that the county court judge had overlooked the legal presumption of dependency in the case of the wife, and had considered that the fact that the wife was receiving nothing from her husband at the time of his death was conclusive. His decision was wrong, and there was a total dependency of the wife. Held, further, applying the rule in Villar V. GUbey, (1907) A. C. 139, that the posthum- ous child was also a dependant. Williams v. Ocean Coal Co., Ld. C. A. [1907] W. N. 143 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 422 Note. Principle of, applied by C. A., Schnfield r. On-cll Colliery Co., [1909] 1 K. B. ITS. See No. 40, above. Followed by C. A.. Keeling v. New MoneMon Collieries, Ld., [1910] W. N. 249. See No. 49, abore. 53. — Dependency, total and partial — Common fund — Father and two sons killed — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. ?, c. 58), s. 13 ; First Sched. (1.) (o). A father and his two sons, workmen in the same employment, were killed by one and the same accident. The earnings of all three ( 1603 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1604 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— conM. formed a common fund out of which the whole family was maintained. The mother and her surviving children (none of whom earned wages) were as a matter of fact dependent upon the earnings of each and all of the three deceased : — Reld, that the mother and her surviving children were entitled to compensation in re- spect to each of the three deaths under the :Workmen's Compensation Act, IQCB. Decision of the C. A. (not reported) re- versed. Senior v. Fountains, [1907] 2 K. B. 563, and McLean v. Moss Bay Co., [1909] 2 K. B. 521, overruled. On April 15, with the consent of the respondents, the House reversed the decision of the C. A. in McLean v. Moss Bay Co. on the question of the wife's dependency, and made an award in her favour for 30Z. and costs. HoDOSON V. West Stanley Colliery H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 67 ; [1910] A. C. 229 Note. EoUowed by H. L. (E.) in McLean v. Moss Bay Hematite Iron and Steel Co., [1910] W. N". 102. See No. 41, alove. Referred to by C. A., Keeliiig v. New MoncUon Collierie's, Ld., [1910] W. N. 249. See No. 49, aiove. — Disease — " Accident." See Nos. 3 — 10, above. 54. — Disease — Accident — Workmen's Com- pensation Act. 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), s. 1. A workman suffering from serious aneurism was employed in tightening a nut by a spanner when he suddenly fell down dead from rupture of the aneurism. The county court judge found upon conflicting evidence that death was caused by a strain arising out of the ordinary work of the deceased operating upon a condi- tion of body which was such as to render the strain fatal : — Held by Lord Loreburn L.C. and Lords Maonaghten and Collins (Lords Atkinson and Shaw of Dunfermline dissenting), that there was evidence to support the finding, and that it was a case of " personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employ- ment " within the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. Decision of the 0. A., [1909] 2 K. B. 798, affirmed. Clovee, Clayton & Co., Ld. v. Hughes H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 73 ; [1910] A. C. 242 55 . — Disease — Anthrax — " Injury by acci- dent " — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict. c. 37), ». 1. While a workman was employed sorting wool in a factory a bacillus (according to the medical evidence) passed from the wool to the eye of the workman and infected him with anthrax of which he died : — Held, by the Earl of Halsbury L.C. and Lords Macnaghten and Lindley, Lord Eobert- son dissenting, that this was a case of MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— coreW. "injury by accident" within the meaning of the Workmen's Cbmpensation Act, 1897. The decision of the 0. A., Higgvns v. Camp- bell S; Earriwrn,, Ld., Turvey v. Brintons, Ld., [1904] 1 K. B. 328, affirmed. Beintons, Ld. V. Turvey - H. L. (E.) [1905] W, N. 72 ; 1 1905] A. C. 230 Note. Discussed by C. A., Broderick v. London County Council, [1908] 2 K. B. 807. See No. 60, below. Explained by C. A., IJke v. Hartdyke, [1910] 2 K. B. 667. See No. 61, telow. 66. ^Disease — Incapacity resulting from injury — Disease — Natural result — Injury by accident — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), s. 1 ; Sched. I., par.} (6;. Where a workman receives personal injury from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and disease ensues which incapacitates him for work, the incapa- city may be the result of the injury within the meaning of Sched. I., par. 1 (6), of the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1906, even though it is not the natural result of the injury. The question to be determined on a claim for com- pensation is whether the incapacity is in fact the result of the injury. Ysteadowen Col- liery Co. ■!). Griffiths C. A. [1909] W. N. 134 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 533 58 . — Disease communicated by material worked on — Lead poisoning — Gradual accumu- lation, of lead in system — Ultimate injury — Notice of accident — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict. c. 87), ss. 1, 2. A workman, whose employment necessi- tated the handling of white and red leadi, gradually accumulated lead in his system, with the ultimate result that he suffered from lead- poisoning, which produced partial paralysis and incapacity for work. On appeal from an award of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 : — Held, that to bring a case within the Act there must be, by reason of s. 2, sub-s. 1, an injury by an accident of which notice can be given, and that, since it was not possible to indicate a time at which there was an acci- dent which caused the injury to the workman, he was not entitled to an award under the Act. Steel v. Cammell, Laird & Co. C. A. [1905] W. N. 84 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 232 — Disease, Industrial — Seamen. See No. 157, below. 60. — Disease — Sewer gas — " Enteritis " — Injury by accident — Disease — Workmen's Com- pensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), s. 1, sub-s. 1. A workman contracted enteritis from inhal- ing sewer gas in the course of his employ- ment : — Held, that this was not a case of " injury by accident " within the meaning of the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1906, s. 1, sub-s. 1. The decision in Brintons, Ld. v. Turvey, [1905] A. C. 230, is not to be taken as involv- ing the doctrine that all diseases contracted 3f2 ( 1605 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1606 MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— coreiiZ. by a workman in the course of his employment are to be regarded as accidents within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Beodeeick v. London County ConNCiL C. A. [1908] W. N. 187 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 807 Note. This case was explained by C. A., Elm v. Hartdylte, [1910] 2 K. B. 677. See next Case. 61, — Disease — Sewer gas — Ptomaine poi- soning — Notice of accident — Prejudice to em- ployer — ReasoTiaile cause — Injury ty accident Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 68), s. 1, sub-s. 1. An objection that an employer has been prejudiced in his defence by the want, defect, or inaccuracy of a notice under s. 2, sub-s. 1, may be satisfied by shewing that such want, defect, or inaccuracy has been occasioned by a " reasonable cause " under the later part of proviso (a), which is independent of the earlier part. Except in the case of the industrial diseases provided for by s. 8, unless the applicant can Indicate the time, day, circumstance, and place in which the accident occurred which occa- sioned the disease, by means of some definite event, a case of " injury by accident " within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, s. 1, sub-s. 1, cannot be established. Brintons, Ld. v. Turvey, [1905] A. C. 230, and Broderick v. London County Council, [1908] 2 K. B. 807, explained. Eke v. Hart- Dyke C. A. [1910] W. N. 181 : [1910] 2 K, B. 677 — Dock — Shipping geueraUy. See Nos. 143—167, beloic. — Dog — Savage dog — Liability of owner — Intervening act of third person — Scope of employment. Sfe Dogs. 2. 62. — Earnings — Arerage loeeUg earnings — Continuous employment — Employment for two (lays a loeelt — Enrnings ontxi'li' employment — Work for same or other emplonjers — Worlimen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Tict. c. 37), First Schedule (1), (6). A workman was under an agreement to work for his employers on the nights of Thurs- day and Friday in each week, for a period ex- tending over two weeks, and at a fixed rate of wages for each night. During the rest of each week he worked at times for the same em- ployers, when they had work to give him, and at other times for other firms carrying on a similar business to that of the employers. The workman was injured during the third week of his employment under the agreement. He claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, and an award was made in his favour based on the weekly wages earned by him in respect of the two nights a week during which he worked under the agree- ment. On appeal : — Held, that the employment for two nights MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— cflBii. a week was a continuous one, and that thel earnings on those two nights were properly taken into account in determining the weekly payment to be made to the applicant : Held, also, that the amount received for casual work done for the same or different em- ployers could not be taken into account in estimating the average weekly earnings of the applicant. Hathaway d. Aequs Pbinting Co. C. A, [1901] 1 K. B. 96 63. — Earnings — Average weekly earnings — Deductions from wages — Jliner — Deduction from wages for lamp oil — Workmen's Compen- sation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict. c. 37), First Schedule (1), (a). By the rules of a colliery co. &d. a week 'was deducted from the wages of each miner for lamp oil supplied by the employers. On an application for compensation under the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1897, the county court judge took as the basis of his award the full weekly wages of the injured miner without regard to the weekly deduction therefrom. On appeal : — Held, that the principle on which the award was based was correct. Houghton v. Sutton Heath and Lea Gheen Collieeies Co. C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 93 Note. This case was approved of by H. L. (E.) Abram Coal Co. v. Southern [1903] A. C. 306. See No. 75, below. 64. — Earnings — "Average weekly earn- ings " — Employment for less than two weeks " Factory," Occupier of — LoadiTig and unload- ing from wharf, H^o. — Stevedores — Factory and Workshop Act, 1895 (58 ^ 59 Vict. u. 37), 5. 23, sub-s. 1 (it.), (a) — Workmen's Compensa- tion Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict. c. 37), o. 1, sub- s. 1 ; s. 7, sub-s. 2 ; First Schedule (1) (a), The right to compensation given by s. 1 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, is not restricted by the schedule to employments by the week, or for weekly wages, or for two weeks at least. Employment by the day for one or more days is within the Act. The word " average " in the expression " average weekly earnings " is used loosely and inaccurately in the First Schedule to the Act. Decisions of C. A., [1900] 1 Q. B. 780, and [1900] 2 Q. B. 95, reversed. Stevedores were loading a vessel in a dock by means of machinery. The cargo had been put into the hold, and the men employed by the stevedores were " finishing off " by slinging iron beams across the hatchway. The ma- chinery having become entangled, one of the workmen went to disentangle it, was caught by it, and injured so that he died : — Held, by the Earl of Halsbury L.C. and Lords Macnaghten, Shand, Davey, Brampton, and Kobertson (Lord Lindley dissenting), that the stevedores were occupying a " factory," namely, the machinery, within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, s. 7, sub-s. 2, and the Factory and Workshop Act, 1895, s. 23, sub-s. 1 (ii.), and that the deceased ( 1607 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1608 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— co«W. was injured in the course of his employment in loading from the wharf, the process of loading not being complete till the hatchway was secured, within the meaning of those Acts. Lysons v. Andbew Knowles & Sons, Ld. Stuaet v. Nixon & BauoE H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 2 ; [1901] A. C. 79 Note. Followed by Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) Fleming T. Lochgelly Iron and Goal Co. [1903] W. N. 165. See No. 70, below. See Giles v. Bedford, Smith S; Co., 0. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 843, No. 66, below. 65. — Earnings — Average weeMy earnings before accident— ^Beview of weekly, payment — Average a/mount worhman able to earn after accident — Apprentice — Value of tuition — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vici. c. 37), First Schedule (2), (12). An apprentice sustained an injury to his right hand which prevented his working as e skilled artisan, and the indenture of appren- ticeship was cancelled. On an application foi compensation under the Workmen's Compensa- tion Act, 1897, he obtained an award of a weekly payment based on his wages for the previous year. He returned to the employmeui of the same employers as a workman, at weekly wages higher than his wages at the time of the accident, but less than those that would be ordinarily paid to a workman employed on the same class of work, since the injury he had sustained affected his ability to earn full wages. On an application by the employers for the reyiew and termination of the weekly payment, the county court judge dismissed the application, on the ground that the workman was earning l«ss, by a sum equal to the amount of the weekly payment awarded, than if he had had the use of his right hand. On appeal : — Eeld, that, on a review of a weekly pay- ment made by award under the Act, the test to be applied is the difference between the amount of the average earnings before the accident and the average amount which the workman is able to earn after the accident ; that in the absence of evidence of advan- tages incidental to the employment, and cap- able of being appraised at a money value, the earnings before the accident must be deter- mined by the wages received ; that the county court judge was therefore wrong in refusing to review the weekly payment ; but that the weekly payment should be continued at a nominal amount, in order to preserve the right of the applicant to make any further applica- tion that might become necessary. Semble, that the value of the tuition given to an apprentice should not be taken into account in arriving at the amount of his aver- age weekly earnings. Pomphret v. South- WAEK Pbess - C. A. [1901in;K. B. 86 Note. The report of the judgment of Collins L.J. in this case at p. 91 should be amended by striking out the words, " The maximum that can be awarded is one-half the MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— o(mi. Belfokd, Smith & Co. C. A, [1903] W. N. 80 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 843 67. — Earnings — Average weekly earnings — Week — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict, l: 37), Sched. I. (1), (6). M'CuE V. Barclay, Cdele & Co. (1902) Ct. of SesB. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 170 68 . — Earnings — Average weekly earnings- Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict. e. 37), s. 1, sub-s. 1, Sched. I. (1), (6). In estimating average weekly earnings for the purpose of assessing compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, only the period of continuous employment prior to the accident in the service of the same em- ployer is to be taken into account, and where that period is only part of a day the actual sum earned is to be taken as the average weekly earnings. i Ayres v. Buckeridge, [1902] 1 K. B. 57, No. 78, below, not followed. Ghewak v. Caledonian Ey. Co. (1902) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [igoSJ^W. N. 167 Note. Followed by Ct. of Sess. (So.), M'Cue v. Barclay, Curie S' Co., [1903] W. N. 170. See Principle of, applied by Ct. of Sess. (So.), Gibb V. Dunlop ^ Co., [1903] W. N. 171. See No. 71, below. ( 1609 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1610 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— co7rf(?. 69. — Earnings — Average weekly earnings — Amount of compensation — Calendar weeh — Workmen's CompeTisation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict. c. 37), Sched. I., s. 1 (a), (i). The First Schedule of the Workmen's Com- pensation Act, 1897, provides, that in certain cases where (1) " the period of the work?-' man's employment by the said employer has been less than the said three years, then the amount of his earnings during the said three years shall be deemed to be 156 times his average weekly earnings during the period of his actual employment under the said em- ployer." In a question as to the amount of compen- eation due for the death of a workman Who had been employed by the same employer for three days in one week and during the whole of the next two weeks, and on the Sunday of the fourth week, held, that in computing the average weekly earnings of the deceased the total amount of his earnings must be divided by the number of calendar weeks, i.e., four, over which his employment extended. Pea- OOOK V. [NlDDEIE AND BENHAB COAL' Co. (1902) Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1903] W. N. 162 Note. Explained by Ct. of Sess. (Sc), Fleming v. Loohgelly Iron and Coal Co., [1903] W. N.'l65. See next Case. Followed by Ct. of Sees. (Sc), M' Ciie v. Barclay, Curie .J- Co., [1903] W. N. 170. See No. 67, above. 70. — Earnings — '^ Average weeldy earnings " — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897(60 ,f 61 Vict. c. 37), Sched. I. (1). (5). Held, (1) that "average weekly earnings" means the total amount actually earned by the workman during his employment, divided by the number of weeks during which, or part of which, he was employed ; and (2) that the week to be taken as the unit of division was not the calendar week, but the trade or pay week tpf the particular employment. Rnowlesy. Lysom, [1901] A. C. 79, followed. Peacock V. Niddrie and Benhar Coal Co. (1902) 4 Fraser, 443 ; [1903] W. N. 162, explained. Fleming t. Loohgelly Iron ^nd Coal Co. (1902] Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 165 Note. This case was followed by Ct. of Sess. (Sc), Campbell v. Fife Coal Co., [1903] W. N. 171. See No. 72, belmo. 71. — Earnings — Average weekly earnings — BreaJi in employment — Workmen's Ciniipenxafioii Act, 1897 (60 J)- 61 Vict. c. 37), First Schedide (1), Q>). A workman was employed by a firm of coal- owners for over twelve months prior to Aug. 16, 1901, the employment being terminable at the will of either party. On that date he was accidentally injured in the course of his employ- ment ; and, thereafter, from Aug. 31, 1901, until his recovery on Oct. 15, 1901, he was unable to work, and was paid compensation by his employers under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. On Oct. 15, 1901, having resumed MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— co»«ensation Act, 1897 (_60 ,?■ 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 7. The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, s. 7, sub-s. 2, defines " engineering work " as meaning (among other things) any work of alteration of a railroad. A telephone co., which had statutory powers, employed a contractor to lay certain telephone wires. These wires had to be carried across a public highway, along which a tramway company had, by virtue of statutory powers, laid two lines of electric tramway, an up and a down line. This operation was being carried out in the following manner. A trench had been made in the road- way at right angles to the lines of the tramways up to a point close to the outer rail of the down line. The wires were to be carried along this trench, through a small tunnel under the rails of the down line, along o trench which had been made in the roadway between the up and down lines, and thence, through a tunnel under the rails of the up line, to a trench dug across the remainder of the roadway. A workman in the employ of the contractor, while engaged in making the before-mentioned tunnel under the down line, was killed by a passing tramcar : — Held, by Collins, M.R. and , Matthew L.J., Eomer L.J. dissenting), that the deceased work- man was employed in a "work of alteration of a railroad," and therefore in an "engineering work " within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. Adams r. Shaddock C. A. [1905] W. N. 152 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 859 80. — Engineenruj worji — Employment vMhin area of work — Workmen's Comriemation Act, 1897 (60 S- 61 Vict. c. 37) s. 7. A contrnct was entered into for the construc- tion of a reservoir and for laying down pipes for the supply of water from it. The contractor Avas engaged in constructing the reservoir by means of machinery worked by steam power, and had staked out and taken possession of the land in which the pipes were to be laid. A worknan in the employment of the contractor was engaged MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— eoTaStf. in laying pipes in a trench, at a point 500 yards distant from the reservoir, by means of a crane worked by hand power. While using the crane he met with an accident which caused injury to his hand. On an application for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 the county court judge found that the work of constructing the reservoir and laying the pipes was one piece of work, and made an award in favour of the applicant. On appeal : — Held, that at the time of the accident the workman was employed on or in or about an engineering work, within the meaning of s. 7 of the Act. Atkinson r. Lujib C. A. [1903] 1 K. B- 861 81. — Engineerimg worlt, Emjiloymenat on — "Railroad " — Tramway — WorJaiien's Com^Jen-sa- tion Act, 1897 (60 .J' 61 Vict. c. 37) s. 7. A tramway laid along a public road is a "railroad " within the definition of engineering work in s. 7, sub-s. 2, of the Workmen's Compen- sation Act, 1897, and, therefore, employment on the construction, alteration, or repair of a tram- ways is an employment to which the Act applies Fletohee v. London United Tramways, Ld. C. A. [1902] W. N. 123 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 269 82. — " Engineering worh" — Employment on or in or about an — Work ancillary to engin£ering work — Workmen's Comjjemation Act, 1897 (60 .S' 61 Viet. c. 37), s. 7. A workman in the service of the respondents who had contracted to take up the rails of horse tramways in a town and lay down rails for electric tramways, while employed in unloading and stacking rails for the new tramways in a ry. yard, was injured by an accident. The rails had been brought by the ry., and the contractors were allowed by the ry. co. to use the yard for the storage of the rails till they were required for the tramways. At the time of the accident the only work then begun under the contract was the taking up rails in a street about 700 yards from the ry. yard : — Held, by Lords Davey, Robertson, and Atkinson (Lord Loreburn L.C. and Lord James of Hereford dissenting), that the workman was not at the time of the accident employed " on or in or about an engineering work" within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1S97, s. 7. The decision of the C. A., [190.^] W.N. 80 ; [1905] 2KB. 148, affirmed. BACK ■<;. DiCK Kbke & Co. H. 1. (E.) [1906] 'W. N. 105 ; [1906] A. C. 325 83. — " Enginsenng work " — MacJiinery worked by Iiand powei' — Contractor — M'orkancil- lary or incidental to, and being no jjart of, or process in, a business — Workmeii's Compensation Act, 1879 (60 c5-91 Vict, c, 37) s. 4 ; s. 7, sub-s. 2. A firm of engineers contracted with the owners of a cotton-spinning factory to put a new driving wheel into the steam-engine belonging to the fiictory. While engaged in the work of fixing the new wheel, a workman employed by the engineers met with an accident which caused his death : — fl"eZ(i, that, the work being merely ancil- lay or incidental to, and no part of, or process in, ( 1615 ) DIGEST OF CASBS, 1901—1910. ( 1616 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— contd. the business of the owners of the cotton-spinning factory, the case did not come within s. 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 ; and there- fore that a dependant of the deceased workman was not entitled to compensation under the Act against the owners of the cotton-spinning factory. Wrisley r. Baglby & Weight And Whittakbe & Sons - C. A. [1901] W. N. 64 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 780 ; H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 299 Mte. See also No. 91, helow. This case was referred to by Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) Dempster v. ffunter S' Sons, [1903] W. N. 163. See No. 191, lelow. 84. — " JEngineejing work" — Mepairs — Hydraulic lift — Using machinery driven by mechanical power — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 S,- 61 Vict. c. 37) s. 7, sul)-s. 2. The " machinery driyen by steam, water, or other mechanical power" referred to in the definition of " engineering work " ins. 7, sub-s. 2, of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, in- cludes, not only mechanical power supplied by the undertakers for the purpose of repairs, but also mechanical power which is actually part of the work on which the workman is engaged when he meets with the accident for which compensation is claimed. Tullock r. B. Way- good & Co. C. A. [1906] "W. N. 118 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 261 85. — Engineering work — Tramway — Em- ployment on repairs — Physical area of -under- taking — Worlt/inen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 S) 61 Vict. e. 37), s. 7, sub-s. 1. An applicant for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, was a work- man in the employment of a corporation, who were the owners of a system of electric tram- ways, and his duty was to repair the overhead wires. On the day on which he met with an accident he had repaired the wires at one place by means of a tower-wagon. In proceeding along a street, which followed the line of the tramway, to a place at which he had also to repair the wires, he was thrown from the wagon and injured. On the application an award was made in his favour. On appeal : — Held, that, having regard to the obligation on the corporation, as undertakers, to repair and keep in repair the whole extent of the tramway system, each act of repair by the workman at different parts of the tramway could not be treated as a separate engineering work and that it was competent to the arbitrator to find that the accident happened within the area of the engineering work on which the workman was employed so as to entitle him to compensation under the Act. Rogers c. Caedipp Corpora- tion. C. A. [1905] -W. N. 148 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 832 86. — Epileptic fit — Fall into hold of ship — Accident arising out of employment — Worlimen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60\|- 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 1, subs-s. 1. A workman employed in unloading coal from a ship, who was required in the course of his duty to stand by the open hatchway through MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— coraifZ. which the coal was being brought up from the hold, was seized with a epileptic fit while at work, and fell into the hold and was seriously injured ; — Held, that regard must be had to the proxi- mate cause of the accident resulting in the injury, which was to be found in the necessary proximity of the i^orkman to the hatchway ; that the accident therefore arose " out of " as well as "in the course of " his employment, and that he was entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. Wilkes V. DOWELL & Co. C. A. [1905] W. N. 84; [1905] 2. K. B. 225 87, — Eriile/ice — Accident arising out of and in coiirse of employment — WorkmaiUs Compensa- tion Act. 1906 (6 EdxD. 7. c. 58), s. 1, sub-s. 1. A donkeyman, whilst returning on board his employer's ship from the shore, fell ofl: the gang- way and struck an iron girder and was killed. His wido^■\' applied for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1900, but adduced no evidence as to the purpose for which the deceased went on shore : — Held, that the applicant had failed to prove that the accident arose out of and in the course of the deceased's employment. McDonald ii. Owners op S.S. "Banana" - C. A. [1908] W. N. 192, 195 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 926 NoU. Followed by C. A., Moore v. Manchester Liners, Ld., [1909] 1 K. B. «7 ; but the decision of the G. A. was reversed by H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 498. See No. 158, hclow. 88, — Eridence — Inference — Onus of jiroof — Accident arising out of and in course of employ- ment — Workmen's ConipensaHon, Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7 c. 58), s. 1, sub-s. 1. It is competent for the Court to draw an inference from the facts proved that the accident causing injury or death did happen " in the course of " and arose "out of" the employment, although no person was present who could give direct evidence how and when the accident happened, but the onus of proof is on the applicant in every case, and none the less so because by the death of the workman a greater burden is placed on the dependants of the deceased. While a steamship w-as on the high seas, the chief cook and baker was lost overboard : the weather was fine at the time, the ship was steady, and there was a four-foot rail and bul- wark all round. The deceased was last seen at 5.35 A.M. going aft. His widow applied for compensation under the Workmen's Compensa- tion Act, 1906 :— Held, that there was no evidence which would enable the Court to draw the necessary inference that the accident causing death arose "out of" as well as "in the course of" the employment. Bender t. Owners of Steam- ship " Zent " C. A. [1909] W. N. 82 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 41 Note. This case was followed by C. A., Gilbert v. Owners of Steam Traivler "Nizam," [1910] 2 K. B, 555, 559. See No. 161, below. ( 1617 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1618 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— c(wW. 89. — Eyesight — Reiiew ofweeldy payments — Remit hy sheriff to official medical pr'actitioner to report — Report conclmre of condition — Injury to eyesight — Reduction ofweeldy payments to nominal sum — Workmen's Compensation Aet, 1897(60(f'61 Vict. c. 37), Schcds. I. (11), (12), and II. (13). In an application by an employer for review o£ an order for weekly payments of 6s. id. to an injured workman, the SherifE-substitute, as arbi- trator, remitted to ttie medical practitioner appointed by the Secretary of State to report as to the workman's eonditon. The report stated that the power of vision of the right eye was permanently reduced by one-half, and that the left eye was quite sound ; and that, in the opinion of the reporter, "he will never be able for any work for which unimpaired vision is essentia], but be is quite able to undertake his ordinary work as a labourer." The SherifE- substitute, without further proof, reduced the compensation to 6s. per week. In an appeal upon a stated case, the Court (diss. Lord Young) held that the report was con- clusive evidence that the incapacity of the workman arising from his injuries had ceased to the effect of disentitling him to a continuance of the compensation at the present rate, and re- mitted to the SherifE-subsitute to reduce the compensation to \d. per week until further order Fbkeibe v. Gouelat Beothees & Co. (1902) Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1903] W. N. 164 — Factory. See also under Faotoey. Master xsTi Servant — Factory Acts. 90. — Factory — Boch, wharf, or quay — Worh- men's Compensdtiim Act, 1897 (60 Sf 61 Vict- c. 37), s. 7, suh-s. 2. An accident happened in Oct., 1900, to a workman, while engaged in removing timber from a, stack upon a piece of land, which was within the ambit of a system of docks belonging to a ry. co., and which had been let by the co. to timber merchants for the storage of timber. This piece of land was about forty yards from the water of a dock. Between it and the water ran the lines of a dock ry. or tramway, but it was not separated from the adjoining wharf or quay space by any fence or other such physical barrier Timber had sometimes been landed from the before-mentioned dock and brought to the said piece of land, but during the year 1900 all the timber stacked thereon had been landed from other ddcks forming part of the dock system more or less remote, and brought to the said piece of land by rail. On a claim by the work- man for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, the county court judge found as a fact that the place where the accident happened was a factory as being a dock, wharf, or quay within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, s. 7, sub-s. 2. On appeal to C. A. ; — Held, that there was evidence to support his finding, and therefore the Court were bound by it. Iladdoch V. Humphrey, [1900] 1 Q. B. 609, distinguished. Kenny «. Haeeison. C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 168 MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— coKfiZ. 91. — Factory — EmiAoyment on or in or about a factory — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 3; 61 Vict. c. 87), s. 7. The enactment in s. 7, sab-s. 1, of the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1897, " This Act shall apply only to employment by the undertakers as hereinafter defined on or in or about a . . . . factory ..." means employment on or in or about their own factory. Therefore a workman who is sent by his employers on their business to a factory in respect of which they are not the occupiers, and therefore not the undertakers within the meaning of the Act, is not entitled to compensation from them for an injury which he receives there. Francis v. Turner Brothers, [1900] 1 Q. B. 478, approved. The decision of the C. A., [1901] 1 K. B. 780, affirmed on this point. Weiolet-o. Whittakee & Sons - H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 84 ; [1902] A. C. 299 92. — " Factory " — Employment •' on or in or aT>oiit afactm-y " — Gasworks — Gas main in street at a distance from wm-ks — Workmen's Compen- sation Act, 1897 (60 ^- 61 Tict. o. 37), s. 7. A workman in the employ of a gas company was, in the course of his employment, engaged in making a trench in the roadway, under which one of their gas mains was laid, at a distance of a quarter of a mile from the works where the gas was manufactured, which works came within the definition of a " non-textile factory " given by the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, s. 149, sub-s. 1 (c), when he was injured by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employ- ment. The workman having claimed compensa- tion under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, the county court judge held that, at the time of the accident, he was employed " about a factory," inasmuch as the gas main was part of the gasworks, which were a factory, and accord- ingly awarded him compensation : — Held, that the main was not part of a factory and that the workman was not employed " about a factory " within the meaning of the Act, and therefore was not entitled to compensation, Spacey «. DowLAis Gas and Coke Co. C. A. [1905] W. N. 156 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 879 93. — Factory — Machine loorhed hy Imnd- power — Warehouse — Factory and Workshop Act, 1878 (41 S- 42 Viet. c. 16), s. 93— Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 S' 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 7. Premises in which machinery is set in motion and kept in motion by hand-power only are not premises wherein " mechanical power " is used within the meaning of s. 93 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, and the use of such machinery does not constitute the premises a factory within the meaning of s. 7 of the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1897. A warehouse may be a factory within the meaning of s. 7 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, although it is not part of, or adjacent to, a dock, wharf, or quay, and is not contiguous to water. Wll.LMOTT i). Paton C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 237 — Factory — " Warehouse " — Injury to workman, 1 See No. 185, lelow. ( 1619 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1620 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (CompeuBation)— coMi*?. —Factory — Warehouse — Eetail business — In- jury to workman. See No. 186, below. — " Factory "—Wharf. See Nos. 90, abme. 94. — " Factory " — Worltmsn's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^- 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 7, subs. 2— Factory and Workshop Act, 1901 (1 Mw. 7, c. 22), s. 195, swl-s. 2 (6). The fact that a building comes within s. 105, sub-s. 2 Qj), of the factory and Workshop Act, 1901, as being a building which exceeds thirty feet in height, and in which more than twenty, persons, not being domestic servants, are em- ployed for wages, does not make such a building a " factory " for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. Dybk v. Swift Cycle Co. C. A. [1904] W. N. 86 ; [1904] 8 K. B. 36 95. — Farm, Steam-engine used on — '^ Factory'" — Meal ground as food for stock — " By ivay of trade or for purposes of gain " — Factory and Workshop Act, 1878 (41 4- 42 Vict. c. 16), s. 93— Workmen's Comjiensation Act, 1897 (60 Ji' 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 7, sub-s. 2. Where a workman who was employed by a farmer on his farm to drive a movable steam^ engine, for the purpose of working a mQl for grinding meal intended to be used for food for stock on the farm, and not for sale, was injured by an accident arising out of and in the course of tliat employment :— Jleld, that the workman was not employed on, in, or about a "factory" within the meaning of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, s. 93, and therefore was not entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, in respect of the injuries occasioned to him as before men- tioned. Nash v. Hollinshead C. A. [1901] W. N. 64 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 700 —Fireman on steamer — Employment of worlc- man not in relation to use of wharf. See No. 162, below. 96. — Fisherman — Share in profits — Worh- men's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Fdw. 7, c. 58), s. 7, sub-s. 2. A claimant under the Workmen's Compensa- tion Act, 1906, was employed as engineer upon a steam fishing boat and was paid by a share in the profits with a guarantee from the owners that his share in the profits should never be less than 30s. a week : — Held, that he was remunerated by a share in the profits within the meaning of s. 7, sub-s. 2, of the Act, and was therefore excepted from the Act and not entitled to compensation. Admiral Fishing Co. ■». Robinson - C. A. [1910] W. N. (57) 49 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 540 96. — Football player (Professional)—" Work- man" — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Fdw. 7, u. 58), .s. 13. The applicant, a professional football player, had entered into a written agreement to serve the respondents for one year at a weekly wage by playing football with the respondents' team when required and attend regularly to training and observe the training and general instruc- tions of the club. The training regulations MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— contd. required the players to attend at the ground every day at 10.30 and to be under the orders of the trainer for the day. The applicant met with an accident while playing in a match. The respondents paid him his wages to the end of the year, and he then claimed compensation for permanent incapacity : — Reld, that the applicant was -■ " workman " within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensa- tion Act, 1906. Walker v. Crystal Palace Football Club, Ld. - [1909] W. N. 225 ; C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 87 See also No. 193—198, below. 98. — '■^Forestry" — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1900 (63 4" 64 Vict. c. 22), s. 1, sub-s. 3. A workman, in the employment of a saw- miller, was employed to cut down growing trees, which had been purchased by his employer, and cart them to the saw mill, and, while so employed, was killed by being crushed between a standing tree and the trunk of a tree which he was re- moving on a cart. The cutting down and removing of the trees was an ordinary part of the employer's business : — Held, that the employment in which the • deceased was killed was not "forestry "in the sense of the Act of 1900, and consequently that his representatives were not entitled to compen- sation under the Act. Meally v. M'Gowast. (1902) Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1903] W. N. 165 99. — Frost-bite — Accident arising out of the employment — Workmeji's, Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Mw. 7, c. 58), s. 1, suh-s. 1. The question raised by this appeal was whether a journeyman baker whose right hand and arm had been injured by frost-bite while out on his rounds with his employer's cart could obtain compensation for this, injury as "an accident arising out of " his employment. The county court judge found that there was nothing in the nature of the applicant's employment which exposed him to more than the ordinary risk of cold to which any person working in the open was exposed on that day, and declined to award him any compensation. The C. A. (Cozens-Hardy M.R. and Farwell L.J., Fletcher Moulton L.J. dissenting) dismissed the appeal. Cozens-Hardy M.E. said he felt considerable doubt whether there was " an accident " here within the meaning attributed to that word by this Court and by the House of Lords, but assuming this point in the applicant's favour, he could not see that there was any peculiar danger to which the applicant was exposed beyond that to which that large section of the population who were drivers of vehicles, or who were other- wise engaged in outdoor labours, were exposed. The county court judge's finding of fact on this point could not be interfered with, and the appeal must be dismissed. Fletcher Moulton L.J. said the applicant undoubtedly sustained a physiological injury, which was the direct result of the work he was engaged in, and he sustained it in the reasonable performance of his duties, and he thought the applicant had met with this injury by "an accident " within the meaning of the decided ( 1621 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1622 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— co?rf(?. cases. His Lordship also said he could not picture to himself a more typical case of an accident arising "out of" the employment. The case of extreme heat or extreme cold was similar to that of such a natural agency as lightning, except that it was easier, as in this case, to shew the direct connection between the accident and the employment, but the rule was the same. If the employment brought with it greater exposure and injury resulted, that injury arose out of the employment. Farwell L.J. agreed with the conclusions arrived at by Cozens-Hardy M.B. Waener i>. CouCHMAN - - C. A. [1910] W. N. 266 100. — Funeral expenses — Beceased Worhman — Dependants in part dependent upon Ms earnings — Worltmen' s Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict. c. 37), Sched.I., s. 3 (a), skJ-s. (Ji). The arbitrator, in assessing the amount pay- able as compensation under the Workmen's Com- pensation Act, 1897, Sched. 1., s. 1 (as), sub-s. (ii), to a person in part dependent upon the earnings of a deceased workman, is entitled to take into consideration expenses in respect of the work- man's funeral. BbvAN «. Ceawshay Beothbks (Cyfartha), Ld. C. a. [1901] W. N. 213 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 25 — Guard, Eailway — Earnings — Lodging allow- ance. See No. 120, leloio. 101. — Ueat-strolte, Death ly — Accident — Worltmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Ediu 7, c. 58), s. 1, sui-s. 1. A workman, in a weak and emaciated condi- tion, while raldng out ashes from under the boiler in the stokehole of a steamship received a heat-stroke from the efEect of which he died : — ffeld, (by Lord Loreburn L.C. and Lord Ashbourne, Lord Macnaghten dissenting), that this was a case of death by accident within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. IsMAT, Imrie & Co. V. Williamson H. I. (1.) [1908] W. N. 192 ; [1908] A. C. 437 Note. This case was applied by C. A., Hnghes v. Clover, Clayton S; Co., [1909], 2 K. B. 798; H. L. (E.) [1910] A. G. 242. See No. 5i, above. 102. — Indemnity — Amount fixed by agreement — Right to indemnity from person liable — Worli- inen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 Sf 61 Vict, c. 37), s. 6. Sect. 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, provides that where the injury for which compensation is payable under the Act was caused under circumstances, creating a legal liability in some person other than the employer to pay damages in respect of it, the workman may, at his option, " proceed, either at law against that person to recover damages, or against his employer for compensation under this Act . . . and if compensation be paid under MASTER AND SERVANT (CompenBation)— corai!?. this Act, the employer shall be entitled to be indemnified by the said other person " : — Meld, that the section applied where the compensation was paid under an agreement made between the injured workman and the employer after notice of the accident and of the claim for compensation had been given by the workman to the employer, but before any further proceedings had been taken. Thompson & Sons V. NOETH Basteen Maeine Bngineeeing Co. Kennedy J. [1903] 1 K. B. 428 103. — Indemnity — Liability of sub-contractor — Repair of a building — Scaffolding, sui-contract for — " UndeHalier " — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 4" 61 Vict. c. 37), ss. 4, 7. "The contractor for the repair of a building over thirty feet in height entered into a sub- contract with another person for the supply and erection of a scafEolding for the purpose of the work and its subsequent removal. A workman in the employ of the sub-contractor, while engaged in the removal of the scafEolding, met with an accident which caused his death. His dependants having recovered compensation under s. 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, against the principal contractor : — Held, that the latter was entitled to indem- nity against the sub-contractor under that section on the ground that he was the " undertaker " in respect of an essential portion of the work of repair. McCabe v. .Jopling and Palmebs' Teavelling Ceadle Ld. C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 222 Note. This case was followed by C. A., Plant v. Wi-igM S- Co. (No. 2), [1905] 1 K. B. 353. See No. 26, above. — Indemnity — ^Agreement between undertaker and workman — Liability of sub-con- tractor to imdemnify undertaker — Right to bring action in High Court. See Mastee and Seevant. — Practice 20. — Infants. See under Mastee AND SERVANT. Infants. — Ladder. See Nos. 136—138. — Ladder — Ship — Accident arising out of and in the course of employment. See No. 158, below. — Lead-poisoning — Disease. See No. 58, above. 104. — " lead pohoning or its sequelce '' — Proximate or ultimate cause of death — Death caused by industrial disease — Worltmenh Com- pensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, <;. 58), s. 8 sui-ss. 1 and 2, Sched. III. In order to bring the case of a deceased work- man within the operation of s. 8, sub-s. 1, of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, which section applies the Act to industrial diseases, it must be established that a disease mentioned in the third Schedule to the Act was either the proximate or ultimate cause of his death. It is not sufficient that the death was caused by a complaint which might in some oases be a sequela of the disease, but might also be a sequela of ( 1623 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 162i ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensatioii)~«onM. something else. It must be proved that the death was at least a remote oousequence of the disease in the case of the particular individual. Sub-s. 2 of the section has no effect until the case has been brought within the operation of sub-s. 1. Hatlbtt II. Vigor & Co. - C. A. [1908] W. N. 197 ; [1908] 3 K. B. 837 105. — Lightning, Injury hy — Accident arising out of employment — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 S- 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 1, sui-s. 1. Where the place and circumstances in which a workman is employed involve a greater than ordinary risk of injury by lightning, such an injury may be considered as caused by an accident arising out of his employment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, s. 1, sub-a. 1. Andrew o. Fails- WORTH Industrial Society Ld. C. A. [1904] "W.N. 86; [1904] 2 K. B. 32 106. — Local authority — Contract for execu- tion of worJi undertaken by princijial — Munici- pal corjioration — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), s. 4, suh-s. 1 ; s. 13. A municipal corporation acquired for the purpose of a market a plot of land occupied by a ruinous building, and they accepted an offer by a contractor to purchase the building materials for I5Z. on the terms of his pulling down the building and clearing the site. A workman employed by the contractor to do the work was killed by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and his widow applied for compensation under the Workmen's Com- pensation Act, 1906, against both the contractor and the corporation : — Held, that the contract between the cor- poration and the contractor was a contract for the execution of work undertaken by the cor- poration, and that it was entered into by them in the exercise and performance of their powers and duties, and consequently that the corporation were liable as principals under s. 4, sub-s. 1, of the Act. MULEOONEY !!. Todd - C. A. [1908] W. N. 242 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 165 107. — Machinery, Defect in condition of — Machine no longer in use — " Machinery or plant connected with or used in the business of the em- ployer" — Injury to workman — Employers' Lia- bility Act, 1880 (43 ^- 44 Vict. c. 42), s. 1, sub-s. 1 A machine used in the defts.' business broke down, and the foreman directed that it should be removed from the position in which it had been placed while in use. The pit., who was a workman in the employment of the defts., assisted in removing the machine, and was injured while doing so by reason of a defect in the machine which was within the knowledge of the foreman. In an action under the Employers Liability Act, 1880 :— Held, that the fact that the machine at the time of the accident had broken down, and was no longer in use, did not necessarily shew that it had ceased to be "machinery or plant connected with or used in the business of the employer " within the meaning of s. 1, sub-a. 1, of the Act. MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— otk<(Z. Judgment of the K. B. Div., [1901] 2 K, B. 483, reversed. Thompson v. City Glass Bottle Co. C. A. [1900] W. N. 228 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 233 108. — Medical practitioTier, Examination of workman hy — Employer's right — Condition — Workman requiring presence of his own medical man — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 EdiU. 7, c. 58), Sched. I., clause 14. A medical man instructed by the employers asked a workman in receipt of weekly payments under the Workmen's Compensation Act to sub- mit himself to examination. The man answered that he had no objection provided his own medical man was present ; — Held, that he had not refused to submit him- self to examination within the meaning of the Act. Dbvitt v. Owners op Steamship " Bainbkidge." C. a. [1909] 3 K. B. 803 — Mine — " Serious and wilful misconduct." See No. 142, below. — Mine — "Workman" — Contract by workman with mine-owner to obey regulations. See No. 196, below. 109. — Mines — " Accident arising out of and in the course oftlie emvloymejti " — W^orkman leaving mine after ceasing work — Disobedience of orders — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ij' 61 Vict. u. 87), <,. 1. The appellant, a workman, while working in the respondents' colliery was, for disobedience of orders, suspended from work, pending an inquiry into the matter by the under-manager of the colliery. It appeared that men were not allowed to remain in the workings of the colliery when not at work ; and the practice was for a workman who was suspended while at work to go to the pit bottom, i.e., the bottom of the shaft in which the cage worked, by which access to or egress from the mine was obtained. The appellant, when he was suspended, went into a place called a ' ' pass- by," at the side of the tramway leading to the pit bottom. While sitting there he was ordered by the deputy to go to the pit bottom. He remained however in the pass-by, where, about two hours later, a fall from the roof took place, by which he was injured. If the appellant had gone to the pit bottom as directed, he could not have got out of the mine till the cage went up in the ordinary course, which was later than the time at which the accident happened. Upon a claim by the appellant for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, the county court judge found that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the appellant's employment : — Held, that there was evidence upon which he was entitled so to find. Smith ■». South Nor- manton Colliery Co. C. A. [1903] W. N. 2 ; [1903] 1 K. B, 304 — ■ Misconduct — " Serious and wilful miscon- duct." See No. 141, 142, below. ( 1625 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1626 ) MA STER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— co?jt(Z. — Misconduct, Wilful. See, Ko. lil, 142, ielow. — Murder — Cashier — EislvS incidental to the employment. See No. 29, above. — Negligence. See under Mastek And Servant — Negligence. 110. — Nervous shooTt — Neurasthenia — Earning capacity of iDorkman — Accident — WorltmcTis Cmnjjcnsation Act, 1906 (6 JSdw. 7, c. 58), «. 1. A nervous shoclv caused by the excitement and alarm resulting from a fatal accident to a fellow workman while engaged in the employ- ment : — Held to be a, case of " personal injury by accident ai'ising out of and in the course of the employment " within the Worlimen's Compensa- tion Act, 1906. Nervous shook causing incapacity to work is as much " personal injury by accident " as a broken limb or other physical injury. Tates V. South Kibkbt, &c. Collieries, Ld. C. A. [1910] W. N. 174; [1910] 2 K. B. 538 111. — Notice of accident — Written notice necessary — Failure to give notice — Prejudice to emijloTjer — Onus of proof — WorTimen's Oomjyensa- tion Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), s. 2. The notice of the accident which is to be given to the employer under s. 2, sub-s. 1, of the "Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, must be in writing. Under proviso (a) of sub-s. 1 the onus lies on the workman of showing that the em- ployer has not been " prejudiced in his defence by the want, defect, or inaccuracy " of any such notice. Hughes v. Coed Talon Colliery Co. - C. A. [1901] W. N. 77 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 957 112. — Partial incapacity for loorjt — J/a.ri- mum amount of com2)ensation — Discretion of county court judge — Workmen's Cojnpensation Act, 1897 (60 J,- 61 Vict. o. 37), Sched. Z, clauses 1 (5), 2. In awarding compensation under the "Work- men's Compensation Act, 1897, Sched. I., clauses 1 (5), 2, to workmen partially incapaci- tated for work, a county court j udge cannot lay down any general rule as to the amount of com- pensatiim which he will award. The judge mast exercise his discretion with regard to the circum- stances of the particular case. The decision of the C. A., [1904] 1 K. B. 218, affirmed by consent upon terms. Webster (Pauper) v. Sharp & Co. H.L.(E.)[1905] A. C. 284 113. — Partner worltini/ at ivages — Workmen's Comjjensation Act, 1897 (GO ,^- 61 Vict. u. 37), s. 1, sub-s. 1, and s. 7, sub-s. 2. A member of a partnership formed for the purpose of working a mine, by arrangement with his co-partners, worked in the mine as a working foreman, and received weekly wages out of the profits of the business. While working in the MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— owrfiZ. mine, he met with an accident which caused his death, and his widow thereupon claimed com- pensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, from the surviving partners : — Meld, that the case contemplated by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 189", was that of a workman employed by some other person or persons ; that, the deceased having been himself one of the partners in the firm for which he was working, he could not be said to have been employed by them ; and therefore that the case was not within the Act, and the applicant was not entitled to compensation. Ellis v. Joseph Ellis & Co. - - C A. [1905] W. N. 10 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 324 — Practice. See also under Master and Ser- vant — Practice. 114. — Principal, Liability of — Execution by contractor of work undertaken by pi-incipat-— Shipping — Lighter — Wm'kmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), s. 4, sub-ss. 1 and 4. A limited co. carried on the business of coal merchants in various parts of the world, including Cape Verd, and, as incidental to that business, the business of lightermen, and they purchased in England a lighter for use in their business at Cape "^'erd. By an agreement entered into between the co. and &., G. agreed for a lump sum to navigate the lighter Horn. England to Cape Verd and deliver her into the co.'s hands there, and to provide and pay for the crew, and the CO. agreed to pay all demands for insurance, also clearances at the port of departure. B., who was appointed by G. to take command of the lighter, engaged the crew. The boatswain, who was incapacitated by an accident on the voyage, applied against the co. for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 : — Held, that the co. in the course or for the purposes of their business had contracted with G. for the execution by or under 6. of part of the work undertaken by them and were liable as principals under s. 4, sub-s. 1, of the Act. Dittmab v. Owners op Ship " V 593." C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 389 — Quay. Sec Nos. 145, 146, 150—153, below. 115. — Railway — Engine driver — Accident to woi'kman "arinng out of and in the course of the employment " — Workmen's ComperKation Act, 1897 (60 ;)■■ 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 1. An engine driver in charge of his engine left it, and, for a purpose of his own and not in the execution of his duty or in the interest of his employers, crossed a siding. On retm-ning to his engine he was killed by a waggon which was being shunted : — Held, that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. s. 1. Reed v. Great Western Ry. Co. H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 212 ; [1909] A. C. 31 Note. This case was distinguished by H. L. (Sc. ). Low {or Jackson') v. General Steam Fishing Co., [1909] A. C. 523. See No. 187, below. ( 1627 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1628 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— oojiiii. 116. — Railway — Engine-driver — Stone wil- fully thrown at train — Accident arising out of the employmeitt — Worlimen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 I 61 Vict. c. 37), *. 1. Where an engine-driver, while driving a train under a bridge, was injured through a stone wilfully dropped on a train by a boy from the bridge : — Meld, that his injuries were caused by an accident arising out uf and in the course of his employment within the meaning of the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1897, s. 1. Challis v. LoiJDON AUD South Wbstebu Ey. Co. C. A. [1905] W. N. 80 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 154 Note. This case was applied by C. A., Nishet v. Rayne ^ Burn, [1910] 2 K. B. 689. See No. 29, aioce. 117. — Railway — EngivM-driver — Worhman hilled while disobeying well-hnown rule of em- ployer — " Sei-ious and wilful misconduct" — Worhmen's Com^iensation Act, 1897 (60 ^' 61 Vict. u. 37). An engine-driver left the foot-plate of his engine and went on to the tender while the engine was in motion, in breach of a rule of the ry. oo. prohibiting the act and well known to him, and was killed by collision with a bridge. In a claim by the widow for compensation the county court judge found upon the evidence that there was nothing to justify the driver in going on to the tender at the time in question, and that his act amounted, in fact, to "serious and wilful mis- conduct," withia the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1896, and made his award in favour of the CO. : — Held, that there was evidence upon which the judge might properly find as he did. BiST v. London" AND South Western Et. Co. H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 209 118. — Railway carter- — Employment " about " a railway — Course of employment — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 4' 61 Vict. c. B7), ss. 7, 1. A carter in the employment of contractors, who had a contract with a ry. co. for the cartage of goods to and from a station of the co., had delivered certain goods at the station. This finished his day's work, and as he was leaving the station with his horse and lorry, on the way to the contractor's stables, the horse took fright and bolted just outside the gate of the station, and, in consequence, the carter was injured by the horse and lorry dashing into a shop 315 yards distant : — • Held, that the accident did not arise " out of and in the course of " his employment " in and about a railway " and directed the arbitrator to dismiss the claim. Bathgate ■». Caledonian Ey. Co. - - (1901) Ot. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 161 119. — Railway cartel — " Undertahers " — In and about a ^'■factory" — Workmen's Compensa- tion Act, 1897 (60 S,- 61 Vict. c. 37), ss. 4, 7. The firm of C. & Co. had a sausage factory in Glasgow, and sale premises in London and Leeds. Under a contract with a ry. co., the servants of the CO. called daily with carts at the factory to MASTER AND SERVANT (CompenBation)— coraii^ collect the manufactured goods for transmission by rail to the sale premises, charging for so doing an inclusive rate for collecting, ry. carriage, a,nd delivery. A ry. carter while engaged in taking goods from the factory to his lon-y on the opposite side of the street, at a point about 32 feet distant, accidentally sustained injuries from which he ultimately died. In a claim under the Act, it was Held, (1) that C. & Co. were the undertakers of the work in which the deceased was engaged at the time of the accident : (2) That the work was part of their business : and (8) That the accident occurred in or about C. & Co.'s factory. M'GOVEEN v. CoOPEE & Co. (1901) Ct. of Sees. (So.) [1903] W. N. 160 120. — Railway guard — "Earnings " — Lodg- ing allowances — Workmen's Compemation Act, 1897 (60 S,- 61 Vict, c 37), \st Sched. (1), (a), [i). A ry. guard was paid in addition to his wages a fixed sum whenever his duties required him to lodge away from home. No inquiry was made whether he spent that sum or any sum : — Held, that these fixed sums were part of his "earnings" within the meaning of the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1907, 1st Schedule. The decision of the C. A. , Sharpe v. Midland Ry. Co. [1903] 2 K. B. 26, affirmed. Midland Ry. Co. v. Shaepe - H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. Ill ; [1904] A. C. 349 121. — Recorded agreement — Review — Reduc- tion of payments as from antecedent date — Over-payment — Application of excess inpayment of reduced amount — Workmen's Comjjensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), Sched. I., par. 19— Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1907 — 1909, r. 67. Ou July 16, 1908, W. sustained an injury from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and compensation at the rate of 14s. Id. per week was paid him from that day until Feb. 25, 1910, when, in conse- quence of the certificate of the medical referee as to the man's condition, the compensation was stopped. W. thereupon sent a memorandum of agreement to the registrar of the county court for registration, and, notwithstanding the opposition of the employers, the memorandum of agreement was ordered by the judge to be recorded on April 5, 1910. Under this agree- ment the employers were bound to pay com- pensation at the rate of 14s. Id. per week from Feb. 25, 1910, until such time as they could get the amount reduced or terminated. On April 7, 1910, the employers applied for a termination or reduction of the payments under the agreement, as from Feb. 18, 1910, and on July 4, 1910, the county court judge made an award reducing the payments to 10s. per week as from the date mentioned in the application. It followed that the employers, having paid 14s. Id. per week from Feb. 18 to July 4, had paid too much for twenty weeks, or il. lis. M. too much in all, and they accordingly stopped payment of the reduced compensation with a view to making up the over-payment. When two weeks' payments of 10s. each were unpaid, the ( 1629 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1630 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— ooTwSii. workman applied to the registrar for leave to issue execution for 11. The registrar referred the matter to the judge, who certified that the employers had made default in payment of the sum of U. due under the award of July 4. The G. A. dismissed the appeal. Cozens-Hardy M.B. said that the effect of the recorded agreement to pay Us. Id. per week was that execution might issue in respect thereof, and the effect was the same in respect of the reduced payment of 10s. per week. On behalf of the employers it was contended that though they were under a legal obligation at the time when the payments were made to pay 14,?. Id. per week, they must now be considered as having paid 10s. a week only in respect of their legal obligation, and that the remaining is. Id. was something which they were entitled to apply towards the payment of the subse- quent lbs. per week. In his Lordship's opinion, the answer to that contention was to be found in par. 19 of the First Schedule to the Act. Although the employers might recover the excess from the workman by action, the pay- ments of lis. Id, were in respect of a then existing obligation, and could not be regarded as payments made in advance in respect of a future obligation. HosEGOOD & Sons v. Wilson C. A. [1910] W.N. 242 132. — Redemption of employer's liaKlUy — Application limiting sum for redemption — Juris- diction of countij court judge — Workmen's Com- pensation Act, 1897 (60 <5' 61 Viet. c. 37), First Schedule, Clause 13. It is not competent, under clause 13 of the First Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, for employers to apply for redemption of their liability to make weekly payments by way of compensation subject to a limit specified in the application of the sum to be payable for redemption; and a county court judge has no jurisdiction to entertain an application so limited. Castlb Spinning Co. v. Atkinson C. A, [1905] -Wr, N. 14 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 336 123. — Reduction — Misrepresentation of material facts — Compensation for total claim for injury — ^y(lrl:men's Coribpensation Act, 1897 (60 S,- 61 Vict. c. 37). The appellant, a boilermaker, on Dec. 20, 1902, when in the employment of the respondents, sus- tained severe injuries. The respondents admitted liability for the accident under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, and agreed to pay com- pensation at the rate of IS.s'. per week. A memo- randum of said agreement was recorded in the sherifE court. The position of the appellant, there- fore, was that he had the statutory equivalent to a decree in his favour for 18s. a week. Compen- sation was paid to him till Sept. 8, 1903. On that date the appellant was induced by the manager of the Iron Trades Employers' Insurance Asso- ciation; Ld., with whom the respondents were insured against accidents to their workmen, to sign a receipt and discharge, by which, in con- sideration oE payment of 20Z. then made to him by Satherland, he discharged his right to 18s. a week and all claims competent to him MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation) — oontd. against the respondents. This action was brought to have that agreement rescinded. The evidence proved that the appellant could never work as a boilermaker again, also that Sutherland had led him to believe that the doctor had reported that he would be able to resume work in Oct., whereas the doctor's July report of the appellant's condition was " that the probable duration of disability would be some months — but his progi'ess had been so disappoint- ing and slow that I cannot give a prediction." The House, holding that there had been mis- representation, reversed the decision of the Second Division of the Court of Session, Scot- land (Mar. 18, 1905, 12 Scots. L. Times, 702, 855), and allowed the appeal. Ceossan v. Caledon Shipbuilding and Enginbbeing Co. H. L, (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 104 124. — Refusal ofslieriffto state a case — Acci- d-ent arising " out of and in the course of" the employment — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), .s. 1, suh-s. 1. The appellant's husband was employed by the respondents to watch trawlers as they lay in Granton Harbour. He was on duty for twenty-five hours, during which time he had to provide his own food ; and in connection with his duties it was occasionally necessary for him to be on the quay. In the course of his watch he left the trawlers and went to an hotel which was a short distance away from the harbour, where he got half a glass of whisky and a glass of beer. He was absent a very short time, and on his return to the quay, while descending to a fixed ladder attached to the quay to go on board one of the trawlers, he fell into the water and was drowned : — Held, reversing the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess. (1909) S. C. 63 (Lord Loreburu L.C. and Lord Gorell dissent- ing), that the accident arose " out of and in the course of " the employment of the deceased within the meaning of the Workmen's Compen- sation Act, 1906, for when the acciilent occurred he had returned to the quay which was the scene or sphere of his duty. By Lord Loreburn L.C. ; That the deceased at the time of the accident was not using the ladder in the course of his employment, inasmuch as he was not upon the ladder in the course of his duty, but in the course of returning to it. By Lord Gorell : That the deceased had no business to leave his duty of watching, and that the accident occurred during an excm'sion which he had made for his own purposes. Reed v. Great Western Ry. Co., [1909] A. C. 31, distinguished. Qmry, must a party claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, prove afflrmatively not only that the accident causing the injury happened during the work- man's employment, but also arose out of and iu the course of his employment 1 And if the facts proved are equally consistent with the existence or non-existence of these essential conditions, must the applicant fail ? Practice — Appeal — Competency — Worltmsiis Compensation Act, 1906. ( 1631 ) DIGEST OF GAMES, 1901—1910. ( 1632 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— eoHiSf^. In a Scottish case the sheriff-substitute refused to state a case for the opinion of the Ct. of Sess. on the ground that the question pro- posed wag not a question of law, but of fact. The Court being of opinion that the sheriff as arbitrator was bound to state a case, it was thereupon, on the suggestion of the Court and in order to minimize expenses, agreed by the parties that instead of the case being remitted to the sheriff it should be disposed of as " if upon a case stated by the sheriff in terms of the statute " : — Seld, that the judgment of the Ct. of Sess. following on the said agreement was not pro- nounced extra cursum curise and was subject to appeal. Low oe Jackson (Paupbe) v. Gehbral Steam Fishing Co. - H. L. (So.) [1909] W. N. 185; [1909] A. C. S33 Note. This case was referred to by C. A., Hewitt V. Oumers of Shij) " Duchess," '[1910] 1 K. B. 772. See No. 150, lelow. — Res judicata — Change of circumstances — Application to review. See Tiext Case. 125. — Review, Application to — Res judicata — dumge of circumstances — WorTimen's Compensa- tion Act, 1906 (6 Miw. 7, c. 58), ScliecL. I. (3.), (16.). The amount which an injured workman " is earning or is able to earn in some suitable employment" at the date of an application to ~ review a weekly payment under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, cannot necessarily have been finally determined at any period of time, and cannot therefore be res judicata. The issue on such an application is the same as if it were an original award made at the date of the application to review. Where subsequent experiment has shewn that the previous decision based on expert evidence was wrong, there is a change of circumstances which will justify an application to review the weekly payments. Sharman v. HoUiday ^' Greenwood, Ld., [1904] 1 K. B. 235, applied. Kadcliffe v. Pacific Steam Navigation Co. - C. A. [1910J W. N. 58 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 685 126. — Review of weekly jjayinent — Applica- tion — Res judicata — Change of circumstances — Worhmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 Jj' 61 Vict. u. 37), Sched. I., clause 12. Upon an application by employers for a review of the weekly sum paid as compensation to a workman in respect of injuries arising from an accident under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, the county court judge, acting on the opinion of medical experts that the workman was not incapacitated for work, made an award, ordering the weekly payment to be reduced to a nominal amount. On an application for further review of the payment by the workman, evidence was tendered to shew that, since the previous hearing, he had repeatedly applied for employ- ment, and had been unable to obtain it on account of his condition arising from the aoci- MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— fio«W. dent. The county court judge refused to enter- tain the application on the ground that the condition of the workman wag res judicata, and that there had been no change of circumstances since the previous hearing, so as to give him jurisdiction to review the payment : — Held, that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply to the decison of the county court judge on the previous hearing, and that, there apparently being evidence of a change of circum- stances, he ought to entertain the application. Crossfield ^ Sons v. Tanian, [1900] 2 Q. B. 629, distinguished. Shabman v. HollidAt & Gebenwood, Ld. - 0. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 235 Note. This case was applied by C. A., Radcliffe v. Pacific SteamNamgation Co., [1910] 1 K. B. 686. See preceding Case. 127. — Review of weekly payment — Average weekly earnings before accident — Average amount workman aile to earn after accident — Marnings xn independent business — Workmen'' s Compensation Act, 1897 (60 4- 61 Vict., c. 37), Sched. I. (2.), (12.). The respondent, a. workman, met with an accident, and was awarded a weekly payment as compensation under the Workmen's Compensa- tion Act, 1897. Upon an application by his former employers to review the weekly payment, the county court judge refused to take into con- sideration the earnings of the respondent in a business that he had started after the accident. On appeal : — Held, that the expression " the average amount which he is able to earn after the acci- dent," in paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the Act, is not restricted to earningg in the gervice of an employer, but includeg earnings in an independent business. Nobman iSc BuBT v. Waldeb C. a. [1904] 2 K. B. 27 128. — Review of weekly payment — Earning capacity of workman — Nervous prostration — Loss of will power — Physical and muscular recovery — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), Sched. I. (16.). On an application by an employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, Sched. I. (16.), to have the weekly payments reviewed, the nervous and mental as well as the physical condition of the injured workman must be taken into consideration in estimating the extent of his recovery and consequent earning capacity. It is not sufficient for the employer to shew that the muscular and physical mischief caused by the accident has come to an end. Eaves v. Blaenclydach Collieet Co. C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 73 D.D. 129. — Review of weekly payment— Nominal award — Junsdiction — Suspensory order — Work- men's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, v. 58), Sehed. I. (16.)— Practice. On an application by an employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, Sched. I. (16.), to have the weekly payments reviewed on the ground that the incapacity no longer existed, there is jurisdiction, in a case 3g ( 1633 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1634 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— floMid. where the incapacity, owing to the effects of the original accident, may recur, to suspend instead of ending the compensation by awarding a nominal sum or by making a declaration of continuing liability, and this is the proper course to be adopted in these cases. Singer MaJiufacturing Co. v. Clellaiid, (1905) 42 Sc. L. R. 757, questioned on this point. OWmBES OF THE VESSEL " TYNEON " V. Morgan C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 66 130. — Review of weeUg payments — Prospec- tive order — Award, terminating at a future date — Jurisdiction of arbitrator — Onus of proof — Workmen's Comjiejisation Act, 1906 (6 JEdw. 7, c. 58), Sclwd. I. (16.). On an application to review weekly payments under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, an arbitrator has no jurisdiction to make a pro- spective award terminating the compensation at a given date. An arbitrator has only jurisdic- tion to award payments during the incapacity of the workman, and his duty is to ascertain what is the workman's earning capacity at the date of the application and to award accordingly, leaving it to the employer to apply for a reduc- tion in the event of the workman's recovery. A prospective award is also wrong inasmuch as it shifts the onus of proof from the employer to the workman in a way that may be unfair to the workman. Allan v. Thomas Spowart Si' Co., Ld., (1906) 43 Sc. L. E. 599, approved. Bakee r. JBWBLL C. A. [1910] •W. N. 180 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 673 131. — Review of weeJily payment — 2'imefrom loliich weekly payment may hy employer- Employment of workmMn not in relation to use of wharf— Fireman on Steamer— Workmen's Com- pensation Act, 1897 (60 # 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 7. A seaman, employed as fireman on a steamer, was injured by an accident while attending to the boilers. The vessel was a passenger steamer, and was made fast by ropes to a pontoon outside a dock. She was so moored to the pontoon at the time when the accident happened, and for some time previously gangways had been out connecting the vessel with the pontoon to enable passengers to go on board. On an application for compensation under the Workmen's Compen- sation Act, 1897, an award was made in favour of the applicant. On appeal ; — Held, by Collins M.E. and Eomer L.J., Mathew L.J. dissenting, that the employment of the applicant was not an employment having relation to the purposes for which his employers had the use of the pontoon, that his employment was, therefore, not " about " a wharf, and the case did not come within s. 7 of the Act. Owens V. Campbell, Ld. C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 60 163. — Shipping — Seamen — Application of Act to — Fisherman — Share in tlie pirofits — Workmen's Compensaiion Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), k. 7, sub-ss. 1, 2. In this case the county court judge was of opinion that the applicant's remuneration was by shares, so that he was, as he described him- self, a share-hand, and within s. 7, sub-s. 2, and he consequently dismissed the application with costs. The C. A. dismissed the appeal. Cozens- Hardy M.R. said ; The position of a share fisherman is that of a co-adventurer, interested in the totality of the venture and not merely in one part of it. The conveying the fish from the trawler to the cutter and stowing the fish in the cutter is essential to the success of the ventm-e. The right to earn a share in the sovereign was enjoyed by reason of the applicant's position as a share fisherman. This casual employment arose out of and was really part of his employ- ment as a share fisherman. The sovereign was treated as something in which the master of the Eque-rry, being a share fisherman, was entitled to participate, although he did not go to the Argyll and assist in stowing. In truth there was only one contract of employment, and this stowing was a matter arising out of and inci- dental to the engagement as share fisherman. The above reasons, which are substantially those of the learned county court judge, lead me to the conclusion that s. 7, sub-s. 2, of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, applies. Whblan v. (treat Northern Steam Shipping Co. C. A. [1909] W. N. 136 164. — • Shipping — " Seamun" — "IFwA»w«" — Hand assisting to nacigate barge on rirer — Em- j/loyerx' Liability Act, 1830 (43 c^- 44 Vict. c. 42), s. 8 — Employers and Workman Act, 1875 (38 <<■ .( 1647 ) DIUEHT OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1648 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— cokW. 39 Viot. c. 90), s. 13 — Mercliant Shipping Act, 1851 (17 ^ 18 Viot. c. 104), s. 2. The term " seaman " in s. 13 of the Em- ployers and Workmen Act, 1875, means " sea- man" as defined by s. 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. A vessel which Is not propelled by oars is not the less a " ship " within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, because she is navigated only on a tidal river. The pit. was one of the crew of two hands employed on board a spiritsail barge to navigate her in the estuary and upper tidal waters of the Thames. The pit., acting under the orders of the other hand, assisted in navigating the barge, though his main duty was to assist in loading and unloading her : — Held, that the pit. was a " seaman," and was consequently excluded from the operation of the Employers' Liability Act, 1880. Cokbbtt v. Pbaeob Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 422 Note. This case was overruled by C. A., Chisleti v. Macieth S,- Co., [1909] 2 K. B. 811 ; H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 220. See Xu. 156, alom. 165. — Shipping — Stevedore — Unloading ship — Defect in ship's tacUe — Injury — Compensation — Defective plant — Employers'' Liability Act, 1880 (43 ^- 44 Vict. c. 42), s. \, sub-s. 1 ; s. 2, siib-s. 1. A stevedore's workman while engaged in un- loading a ship was injured by the fall of a bale of cargo. Part of the tackle used for the un- loading was supplied by the ship, and the accident was caused by a defect in this part of the tackle. The workman having brought an action in the county court against the stevedore for compensation under the Employers' Liability Act, 1884, the judge withdrew the case from the jury on the ground that the stevedore was not responsible for a defect in the ship's tackle, and his decision was aflfemed by the Div. Ot. : — Held, that the stevedore owed a duty to the workman to take reasonable care in seeing that this tackle was in a proper condition, and that the action must be sent back for a new trial. BiDDLE V. Hakt C. a. [190'?] W. N. 34 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 649 166. — Shipwright — Employment "in or about a factory " — Ship in dock — Doch wet or dry — '^ Undertahei's'' — "Actual use and occupation" — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^' 61 Vict. c. 37), ss. 1, 7 — Factory and Worltshop Act, 1901 (1 Ediv. 7, c. 22), s. 104. A workman employed on a ship in dock is not necessarily employed on, in, or about a "factory" within the meaning of s. 7, sub-s. 1, of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 ; neither does a ship in dock of necessity become a part of a dock "or of premises within the same or forming part thereof," so as- to render the owner or employer liable as the occupier of a factory, but the circumstances and purpose of the " actual use and occupation " of the dock, and the nature of the employment at the time of the accident, must be taken into consideration in each case. In cases of this kind no true distinction can MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— flo««(i. be drawn between a, ship in a wet dock and a ship in a dry dock, or from the fact that the ship is actually moored to the structure of the dock. Moulder Line, Ld. v. Griffin, [1905] A. C. 220, discussed and applied. Query whether, after that decision. Flowers v. Chambers, [1899] 2 Q. B. 142, ought still to be treated as over- ruled ? Smith r. Standard Steam Fishing Co., Ld. a. M. Bdrdon v. Geegson & Co. C. A. [1906] W. N. 118 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 276 — Steam-engine used on farm. See No. 95, above. 167. — Sub-contracting — " Wovhundeitahen by the principal" — Worhmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), s. 4, sub-s. 1. To constitute a man a principal under s. 4, sub-s. 1, of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, the existence of both a head contract and a sub-contract is not necessary ; the section extends to the case of a man who for the pur- poses of his trade or business undertakes work on his own account, and employs a contractor to do the whole or part of the work, provided that the work is such as the person employing the contractor usually undertakes for another in the ordinary course of his trade or business, but not otherwise. Therefore • where two shopkeepers and a billiard saloon keeper proposed to open a skating rink and purchased an existing iron building for that purpose, and contracted with a builder for the removal and re-erection of the building, and a workman employed by the builder in the re- erection met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and applied for compensation against the purchasers of the building : — Seld, that the work of re-erection was not work " undertaken " by the respondents within the meaning of the Act, and that the applicant was not entitled to compensation against them. Skates v. Jones & Co. - C. A. [1910J W. N. 204 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 903 168. — Sub-contractor, Worhman employed by — Liability of principal — Accident "on or in or about premiaes" — Worhmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), s. 4, sub-ss. 1, 4. A workman who was employed in connection with certain paving operations by a sub-con- tractor, his duties being to cart materials for the work, and remove rubbish, while so engaged was accidentally killed in the public street at a dis- tance of two miles from the site of the work : — Held, that the accident had not occurred "on, or in, or about premises" on which the principal contractor had undertaken to execute the work, or which were " otherwise under his control or management " within s. 4, sub-s. 4, of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, and that consequently the principal was not liable to pay compensation under the Act. Andrews v. Andrews and Mbabs - - C. A. [1908] W. N, 150 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 567 169. — "Suitable employment" — Worhmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), Sohed. L (3). 3?he applicant, a collier, whilst getting coal at the coal face in the respondents' colliery, met ( 1649 ) DIGEST OF CASllS, 1901—1910. ( 1650 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— coairf. with an accident owing to a piece of coal flying from the face into his left eye, which was thereby rendered practically useless. The respondents, having paid him compensation for several months, offered him work at the coal face at his old wages, and, on his refusal to accept this work, ceased making any further payments on the ground that the work oifered was suitable employment within the meaning of the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1906, so as to relieve them from further liability. The county court judge was satisfied on the medical evidence that there was some appreciable increase of risk of injury to the remaining eye, and of injury generally in working at the coal face with only one available eye, instead of two, and was of opinion that this was not quite suitable employ- ment. He therefore made an award in favour of the applicant : — Held, that the finding of the county court judge meant that the work was not suitable employment, though it came near to suitability, and that there being evidence to support that finding, it could not be disturbed. Eyee v. Houghton Main Collieey Co., Ld. C. A. [1910] W. N. 51 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 69S 170. — Surgical operation — Accident — Refusal to undergo oj)eratio)t — Cause of incapaeitg — Onus of proof — Workmen's Compeiisutioii Act, 1906 (6 ^iw. 7, c. .58),s. 1. A seaman on board ship, having injured his finger as the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, refused to undergo a slight operation proposed by the ship's doctor. After his discharge he had to have his finger amputated. Upon an application for compensation under the Workmen's Compensa- tion Act, 1906, the county court judge found that the man acted unreasonably in refusing to sub- mit to the operation proposed by the ship's doctor, but, having regard to the conflict of medical testimony, was unable to come to any conclusion upon the question whether the opera- tion would have saved the finger : — Held, that the employers had failed to dis- charge the onus which lay upon them of proving that the loss of the finger was due not t© the accident, but to the refusal to submit to the operation, and that the man was entitled to com- pensation. Marshall v. Orient Steam Navigation Co., Ld. C. A. [1909] W. N. 235 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 79 171. — Surgical operation — Cause of death — Remoteness — Accident — Workmen's Compensa- tion Act, 1906 (6 Sdio. 7, c. 58), s. 1. Where a workman is injured by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employ- ment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, and death ensues from an operation consequent thereon, the test of the question whether death was caused by the accident so as to entitle his dependants to com- pensation is whether in the circumstances the operation was a reasonable step to be taken to obviate the consequences of the accident. A workman met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment whereby his hand was badly lacerated, A competent MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)- coaW. surgeon proposed, instead of amputating the hand by means of a double operation, to graft skin on it which would completely preserve the hand. An anesthetic was properly administered at each stage of the operation, but on the second oocasion death unexpectedly ensued. Upon an application by the widow under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, the county court judge found that death was caused not by the accident, but by the administration of the anesthetic, and held that the employers were not liable : — Held, that the county court judge had mis- directed himself in not applying his mind to the question whether the deceased had acted reason- ably, and that the widow was entitled to com- pensation. Shirt i. Calico Printers' Asso- ciation, Ld. C. a. [1909] W. N. 84; [1909] 2 K. B. 51 172. — Surgical operation, Refusal to undergo — Discretion — Right to further- compensation — Worhmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), s. 1. Where a workman refuses to undergo a reasonable and safe operation which will relieve or remove his incapacity, his continued inability to work at his trade is the result of his refusal of remedial treatment, and not the result of the original accident, and consequently he is not entitled to further compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. Rothwell V. Daries, (1903) 19 Times L. K. 423, explained and distinguished. Decision of the majority of the judges in Donnelly v. William Baird ^ Co., Ld., (1908) 45 Sc. L. K. 394, approved and adopted. WAENCKEN r. B, MOKELAND & SON, LD. C. A. [1908] W. N. 262; [1909] 1 K. B. 184 Xote. This case was distinguished by C. A., Tutton v. Oivners of S.S. " Majestic," [1909] 2 K. B. 54. See next Case. 173. — Surgical operntion — Refusal to undergo — Period of compensation — Workmen's Compen- sation Act, 1906 (6 Jidw. 7, c. 58), s. 1. The question whether a workman who has met with an accident and refuses to submit to a surgical operation is entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, beyond the period wlien he might have been expected to recover from the effects of the accident if he had submitted to the operation depends on the question whether his refusal is in the circumstances reasonable; and where the operation is of a serious character, and the workman, in good faith, follows the advice of his own doctor, whose honesty and competency are not impeached, he cannot be said to be acting unreasonably, although on the balance of the medical testimony given at the hearing the county court judge may find that the operation was one which might reasonably and properly have been performed. Warncken v. R. Moreland Si Son, Ld., [1909] 1 K. B. 184 \_see preceding case], distinguished. Totton v. Owners op Steamship " Majestic " C. A. [1909] W. N. 92 ; [1909] 8 K. B. 54 ( l65l ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— 19lO. ( 165^ 3 MASTER AND SERVANT (Compens&,tion)— co/(«itd. compensation. MoONET r. Edinburgh and District Tramway Co. (1901) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 161 180. — " f/iKlertaker " — " Employer.'''' — MAL- COLM ■». M'JIlLLAN Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 186 — Undertaker — Liability of sub-contractor to indemnify. See Master and Sees' ant —Practice. 20. — Undertakers. See _Vo.«. lis— 146, above. — " Undertaker " — Scaffolding, Sub-contract for — Indemnity. See Xos. 167, 168, ahoee. 181. — UnAertake rs—Suli-co lit ractor — L'la- li'il'ity of ismb-contractor to indenimfij undertakers — WorJi'meit's Coiiijjensathn Act, 1897 (60 .?• 61 rirt. c. 37), ss. 1, 4, 7. In the case of a building a, sub-contractor may be an undertaker within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. The appellants undertook to build u house, and agreed with a sub-contractor that he should slate the roof. A workman employed by the sub-contractor was killed in the course of his employment, and his widow was awarded com- pensation against the appellants as undertakers under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 :— Held, by the Earl of Halsbury L.C. and Lords Shand and Davey, Lords Brampton and Robert- son dissenting, that the sub-contractor would have been liable as an undertaker inde- pendently of s. 4 of the Act, and that the appellants were entitled to be indemnified by him against the amount of compensation awarded. Cass V. Butler [1900] 1 Q. B. 777, overruled. Cooper & Crane v. Wright H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 106 ; [1902] A. C. 302 182. — '' Undertalters" — Warehmise — ■' Actual use or occiqjntiiDi " — VI'orJimen''s Compen- sation Act, 1897 (00 S- 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 7, suh-s. 2 —Factory ami Workshop Act, 1901 (1 JSdw. 7, ... 22), s. 104. The respondents had contracted to erect certain pigeon holes twelve feet high in the upper storey of a warehouse, which was being built within the precincts of Woolwich Dockyard for the Government by other contractors. A workman, who was employed by the respondents in that work, together with ten or twelve other men, was killed through an acciden t arising out of and in the course of his employment. At the time of the accident, the lower storey of the warehouse was already in use by the Government for the storage of military accoutrements ; the foremen and two workmen of the contractors for the building were engaged at work in the upper storey ; and the Government by their own work- men were fixing hydraulic cranes at each end of the floor. The clerk of the works of the Govern- ment was in char^je of the work, to see that the men did their duty and the contractors complied MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— co«M with the specifications. The premises were locked, and unlocked, by the person in charge of the dockyard, and the keys were kept by the man at the gates. Upon a claim for compensa- tion by the widow of the deceased under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 : — Seld, that, the respondents having such use or occupation of part of the warehouse as was necessary for the work which they had con- tracted to do, they were in actual use or occupation thereof within the meaning of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, s. 104, and therefore " undertakers " in respect thereof under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, s. 7, sub-s. 2. Baiiell v. W. Gray ,?■ Co., [1902] 1 K. B. 225, followed. Weavings c Kirk & Randall C. A. [1904] W. N. 4 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 213 183. — rnemployment — Pror'i.non of tern- porary work — Contract of service — Unemployed 1Vm-kinen Act, 1905 (5 Bdw. 7, c. 18), j. 1, sub-ss. 3, 5, 7 — Workviens Compensat'ion Act. 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), ss. 1, 13. A man employed upon temporary work by the Central (Unemployed) Body for London under the provisions of the Unemployed Work- men Act, 1905, was killed by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Upon granting his application for work the Central Body supplied him with a circular containing the conditions of employment : — Held, that the deceased was a workman employed by the Central Body under a contract of service within the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, and that his widow was entitled to compensation. PoRTON ». Central (Unem- ployed) Body for London - C. A. [1908] W. N. 242 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 173 184. — 'W^ages — Rigid of workman receiciny compensation for injury to wages — Workmen's Conqiensation Act, 1897 (60 Jj- 61 T iet. c. 37). A workman engaged at a weekly salary, who has claimed and received compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, in respect of partial incapacity for work resulting from injury received by him during the course of his employment, is not entitled to claim his wages during the time for which he has been incapaci- tated. Elliott r. Liggens Div. Ct. [1902] 2K. B. 84 -^Warehouse — "Actual use or occupation" — " Undertakers." See Xo. 182. aiore. 185. — " Warehouse " — Injury to workman — Factory — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. (60 S,- 61 Vict. c. 37). ,9. 7, sub-s. 2. A place used in connection with, or as ancil- lary to, a wholesale business, for the storage of goods in large quantities to be sold in the busi- ness, is a warehouse within the meaning of s. 7, sub-s. 2, of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. Colrine v. Anderson, (1902) 5 F. 255, con- sidered. Green v. Britten & Gilson C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 860 ( 1655 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1656 ) MASTER AND SERVANT {Compensation)— oontd. Note. This case was explained by C. A., Moreton v. Reeve, [1907] 2 K. B. 401. See next Case. 186. — Warehouse — Setail Inmness — Injury to worhman — Factory — Workmen'!! Compensa- tion Act, 1897 (60 ■# 61 Vict. e. 37), n. 7, subs. 2. There is no absolute rule of law that a store attached to a retail business cannot be a ware- house within s. 7, sub-s. 2, of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. Greeny. Britten g)- Cf-ilson, [1904] 1 K. B. 350, explained. Mobbton r. Reeve. C. A. [1907] W. N. 187 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 401 187. — Wato/Un^ trawlers — Quay — Refusal of sheriff to state a case — Accident arising out of and in course of employment — Workmen's Com- pensation Act, 1906 (6 Eda\ 7, c. 58), s. 1, swh-s. 1. The appellant's husband was employed by the respondents to watch trawlers as they lay in Granton Harbour. He was on duty for twenty- four hours, during which time he had to proTide his own food, and in connection with his duties it was occasionally necessary for him to be on the quay. In the course of his watch he left the trawlers and went to an hotel, which was a short distance away from the harbour, where he got half a glass of whisky and a glass of beer. He was absent a very short time, and on his return to the quay, while descending a fixed ladder attached to the quay to go on board one of the trawlers, he fell into the water and was drowned. The House (Lords Ashbourne, James of Here- ford, Atkinson, and Shaw of Dunfermline) (Lords Loreburn L.C. and Gorell dissenting) reversed the decision, with coats, of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1909) S. C. 63, holding that the accident arose in the course of the man's employment, because when the accident occurred he had returned to the quay, which was within the sphere of his duty. Low OE Jackson (Paupbe) ■». General Steam Fishing Co. H. I. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 185 ; [1909] A. C. 683 188 . — Weekly payments — Redemption — Agreement for lump sum — Memorandum — Registration — Comity court Judge — Jurisdiction — Power to assess amount — " Such order as under the circumstances he may thinhjust " — Injury to workman — Permanent in.capacUy — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), Sched. II., clause 9 (d). Where the registrar of a, county court has refused to register an agreement between an employer and a workman who has been injured in his service, for the redemption of a weekly payment by a lump sum, on the ground of the inadequacy of the sum agreed upon, and has referred the matter to the judge under Sched. II., clause 9 (d), of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, the sole question for the judge is whether the agreement is one which ought or ought not to be recorded. He is not entitled to treat the agreement as a submission by the MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— cowif?. employer to pay any sum which the judge may, under the circumstances, think reasonable. MoBTiMEit n. Sboebtan C. A. [1909] W. N. 92 ; [1909] 2 K, B. 77 — Weekly payments. Review of. See No-i, 125—131, above. 189. — "Wharf, Meaning of — Structure moored, at a distance from shore — "Factory " — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^' 61 Vict. c. 37), .s. 7, sub-s. 2 — Factory and WorJi- shop Act, 1S95 (68 ^ 59 Yict. c. 37), s. 23, .inb-s. 1. A structure moored in a river at some distance from, and not cohneoted with, the shore, which was used for the purpose of discharging coal from ships into barges : — Held, to be a " wharf " within the meaning of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1895, s. 23, sub-s. 1, and therefore a " factory " within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, B. 7, sub-s. 2. Ellis v. William CoET & Son, Ld. C. A. [1901] W. N. 214 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 38 190. — Whaif^" Factory" — Workmen's Com- pensatim Act, 1897 (60 4- 61 Vict. 0. 37), s. 7, .•iub-s. 2. Every wharf is a factory within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, whether any provision of the Factory Acts is applied to it or not. Sail v. Snowden, Hubbard 4- Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 136, is impliedly overruled by Raine v. Jobson S- Co., [1901] A, C. 404. Baeeett i;. Kemp Brothbes - C. A. [1904] W. N. 16 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 617 — Wharf, Employment of workman not in rela- tion to use of — Fireman on steamer. See No. 162, above. 191. — Window cleaner — Part of a process in trade or business carried on by undertakers — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict, c. 37), s. 4. A window cleaner, while engaged, in the employment of a window-cleaning 00., in clean- ing the windows of a workshop belonging to a firm of tailors, fell from one of the windows and w.as injured. He claimed compensation from the firm of tailors as being the uudertalcers within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensa- tion Act, 1897. The Sheriff-substitute, as arbitrator, dismissed the claim and stated a case for appeal. In the argument for the appellants, amongst other authorities, the English case of Wrigley V. Bagley # Wri-ght, [1901] 1 K. B. 780, was referred to : — Held, that the work of cleaning the windows was not a part of or process in the trade or busi- ness carried on by the respondents as undertakers of their factory, and affirmed the decision of the arbitrator dismissing the claim. Dbmpstbe v. Hdntee & Sons - (1902) Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1903] W. N. 163 ( 1657 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1658 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— co»«(Z. 192. — Window cleaner — " WorJunan" — "Per- son whose employmeiit is of a casual nature " — Workmen's Comjyensation Act, 1906 (6 JSdw. 7, I. 58), ss. 1, 13. A man who earned his Hying by doing odd jobs was employed by the occupier of a private house to clean his windows. He had been so employed at irregular intervals of about six weeks during a period of two years. He was usually sent for when the windows required cleaning, and when he came was paid 6s. 6d. a day for his work. There was no agreement between the parties or either permanent or periodic employment. While so employed the man met with his death through an accident : — Held, that the employment was " of a casual nature " ; that the deceased was therefore not a " workman " within s. 13 of the Workmen's Compensation Act ; and consequently that the employer was not liable to pay compensation under the Act. HlH r. Bego - C. A. [1908] W. N. 151 [1908] 2 S. B. 802 Mte. Inapplicable, Dew/iurst v. Mather, C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 751. See .Vo. 31, above. 193. — " Workman " — " Contract of service " Bash of assessment — Concurrent employment — Professional services — Workmen'' s Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), *. 13, Sclied. I., par. 1 (J), par. 2 (V). A laundry girl, aged nineteen, injured her hand from an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. She earned 7s. a week at the laundry and she also gave piano lessons to a man's children at his house at 3s. a week. She applied under the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1906, that the latter sum might be taken into account under par. 2 (J) of the First Schedule in assessing the amount of compensation. The county court judge held that qua music teacher she did not come within the definition of workman in the Act and awarded her 7s. a week compensation in accord- ance with par. 1 (V), proviso (J), of the First Schedule : — Held, that the question whether an applicant in any particular case was a workman within the Act was a question of fact and that there was evidence to support the finding of the county court judge. The meaning of " contract of service " dis- cussed. Simmons v. Heath Laundry Co. C. A. [1910] W. N. 69 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 543 'Workman.'' See under words ' Workman.' 194. — " Workman" — Independent contractor — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 art of employe)' and also of third paHij — Compensation recovered hy worhman — Action for indemnity by employer against third j^aj-ty — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), s. 6. The action was brought under s. 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, by the pits. , who had been the employers of two 1 MASTER AND SERVANT (Seg'ligence)—conid. workmen, against the defts., who were the owners . of a staitJh on the river Wear, for indemnity in respect of compensation which the pits, bad been rendered liable to pay under the before-mentioned Act to one of the workmen and to the dependants on the other, respectively. The facts, so far as material to the point of law decided, were as follows : — The pits, were the owners of a steamship which was proceeding to a berth on the before-mentioned staith for the purpose of taking In a cargo of coals. The two workmen in their employ were in a boat taking a hawser from the vessel to the staith, when, in consequence, as the learned commissioner found, of negligence on the part both of a servant of the defts. employed at the staith and of the officers employed by the pits, in charge of the vessel, the boat was upset, with the result that one of the workmen was drowned and the other was injured. The pits, having been thereupon compelled to pay compensation under the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1906, sued the defts. for indemnity, as above-mentioned. The learned commissioner held that the pits, having, through their servants, been guilty of negligence contributory to the accident, were not entitled to be indemnified by the defts. under s. 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, and therefore gave judgment for the defts. The C. A. were of opinion that the construc- tion put by the learned commissioner upon s. 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, was correct. Vaughan Williams L.J. and Buckley L.J., Kennedy L.J. dissenting, were further of opinion upon the facts that, if there was any negligence which caused the accident it was negligence on the part of those in charge of the ship and not of the deft.'s servant, and for that reason also s. 6 did not apply. Appeal dismissed. CoRT & Sons, Ld. r. France, Fenwick & Co. C. A. [1910] W. N. 216 — Negligent repair — Injury to driver arising from defect — Liability of contractor. *« Negligence. 3. 5 . — Xiiisi/m association — Contract to supply nurse — Injury to patient through negligence of nurse — Master's liability. The defts. were an association whose object was to provide for the supply of duly qualified nurses to attend on the sick in a certain neighbourhood. The association for that purpose appointed and paid salaries to nurses, for whose services they made charges to persons on whose application the nurses were supplied. The association issued printed rules and regulations with regard to the duties of their nurses and other matters with a view as well to the protection of the nurses as to ensuring their efficiency while engaged in nursing. These regulations provided for the exercise of certain supervision over the nurses by a superintendent appointed by the association ; but, with regard to the work of a nurse while engaged in nursing a patient, it was provided (inter aUa) that, while so engaged, she should not absent herself from duty without the permission of the patient's friends, and that she should implicitly follow ( 1679 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— 1910. ( 1680 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Negligence)— corf<2. the instructions of the patient's medical man. A form which was sent out by the association upon supplying nurses, indicated to the person applying for the nurse that; while engaged in nursing the patient, the nurse was to be regarded as employed by that person. Two nurses were supplied by the association for the purpose of nursing the female pit. through an operation which was about to be performed upon her by a medical man in attendance upon her. An inj ary was occasioned to the female pit. through the negligence of the nurses, or one of them, while engaged in nursing her : — Held, that, upon the true construction of the documents in relation to the supply of the nurses, the contract of the association was, not to nurse the female pit. through the agency of the nurses as their servants, but merely to procure for her duly qualified nui'ses, and that the nurses were not, in nursing the female pit., acting as the servants of the association ; and therefore the def ts. were not liable in respect of negligence of the nurses supplied by them. Hall v. Lees C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 602 Note: This case was referred to by C. A., HiUyer v. Governors of St. Sartholotnew's Hospital, [1909] 2 K. B. 820. See Hospitals. 1. 6. — Servant of one person lent to another — Negligence of servant — Control of servant. A CO., which carried on the business of iron-founders, entered into a written contract with the deft, for the hire from him of a van, horse, and driver, for the purpose of delivering goods to their customers. The contract provided that the deft, was to supply a capable man to drive and take charge of the van and horse, that the man in def t.'s employ, and all charges and claims whatsoever in reference to the van, horse and man were to be paid for by the deft., who was to be responsible for the same, and that the co. were only to be responsible for the payment for the van, horse, and man at a certain rate per annum by monthly payments. The driver of a van supplied to the co. by the deft, under the above-mentioned contract was guilty of negligence when delivering a girder at the premises of a customer of the co. by which the pit., a servant of the customer, was injured. There was no evidence that any one representing the CO. exercised any control over the driver in respect of the delivery of goods for the co. : — Held, that, upon the true construction of the contract, the implication was that the control of the driver, when delivering goods for the CO., remained in the deft., and that the deft, was therefore liable for his negligence. Waldock V. WINFIBLD C. A. [1901] "W, N. 14S ; [1901] 2K. B. 596 — Shipping — Collision — Negligence of defen- dant's servant causing original damage — Liability for consequential damage. See Shipping — Collision. 46. Practice. — Acceptance of scheme under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897— Negligence. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 2. MASTER AND SERVANT (Vx&atiad)— continued. — Action, Cause of — Inducing employer to break contract. See Action. 2. 1. — Appeal — Arbitration — Arbitrator ap- pointed by county court judge — Right of appeal — Wm-hmen's Oompensation Act, 1897 (60 ^' 61 Vict. e. 37), Soiled. 11. (2), (3), and (1). An appeal will not lie direct to the C. A. upon the award of an arbitrator appointed by a county court judge under clause 2 of the 2nd schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. Gibson v. Woemald & Walker, Ld. C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 40 2. — Appeal — Refusal to direct review of taxation of costs — Worhinen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 4- 61 Vict. c. 37), Sdi^d. I., clause 12 ; Sched. II., clause 4. An appeal will not lie to the C. A. under clause 4 of the Second Schedule to the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1897, against the refusal of a county court judge to direct a review of taxation of costs of an application under clause 12 of the First Schedule to review a weekly payment, Kigby & Co. v. Cox C. A. [1904] 1 K. B. 368 Note. See Rigby ^ Co. v. Cox (No. 2), [1904] 2 K. B. 208, No. 10, below. 3. — Appeal — Refusal to order payment by in- surers into savings banh — Workmen'' s Compema- tion Act, ] 897 (60 Sj- 61 Vict. c. 37), «. 5 ; Sched.II., clause 4. An appeal will not lie to the C. A. under clause 4 of the Second Schedule to the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1897, against the refusal of a county court judge to direct insurers to pay insurance money into the Post Office Savings Bank in accordance with the provisions of sub-s. 1 of s. 5 of the Act. Leech «. Life AND Health Assurance Association C. A. [1901] W. N. 64 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 707 4. — Appeal — Time — Date from ivhich time runs — Award in favour of respondents — Worh- men's Comjjensation Act, 1906 (6 Hdw. 7, c, 58), Soiled. II., par. 4 — Worlivien's Compensation Rules, 1907, r. 28— J?. S. C, Order LIX., r. 12. Application by a workman for an extension of the time for appealing against an award of a county court j udge under the Workmen's Com- pensation Act, 1906. The application was rendered necessary by reason of a doubt in the associates' office as to the date from which the time for appealing ran where an award under the Workmen's Compen- sation Act was made in favour of the respondents. If the time began to run from the date when the award was delivered, the notice of appeal was out of time, but if it began to run from the date when the award was signed, it was in time. The question turned upon the construction of Order Lix., r. 12. The C. A. held that the application was justified in the circumstances. Upon the con- struction of Order Lix., r. 12, the time from which the period should be calculated was the time at which the award was signed. The rule distinguished between a judgment or order and ( 1681 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( lfi82 ) MASTEB AND SERVANT {riactice)— continued,. a refusal, and in the latter case provided that the time should run from the date of the refusal. But this was not a case to which that part of the rule applied, because in cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1905, there must be an award in any event. The county court judge did not dismiss an unsuccessful application as in an action, but awarded that the applicant was not entitled to compensation. Rule 28 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1907, clearly shewed that an award was not perfected until it was signed. The costs would be the applicant's in any event. CLAYTON r. Jones' Sbwing Machine Co., Ld. C. A. [1908] W. N. 253 5. — Appeal to High Court — County court — Order for payment by insurers in respect' of employer's liahility — Workmen's Compeiisati^n Act, i897 (60 S; 61 Vict. c. 37), .•;. &— County Courts Act, 1888 (51 4' 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 120. An appeal lies to the K. B. Div. against an order made by a county court judge under s. 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. MoKEis 11. Northern Emplotbes' Mutual Indemnity Co. - C. A. [1902] W. N. 113 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 165 — Appeal to High Court — Order under s. 5 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. See County Court — Appeal, 1. 6. — Appeal to the Souse of Lords from Scot- land — Competency — Wovhinen's Compemation Act, 1897 (60 S- 61 Vict. c. 37), Sched. II., ... 14 (c). By s. 14 (e) of the 2nd schedule to the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1897, which applies to Scotland, "Any application to the sherifi as arbitrator shall be heard, tried, and determined summarily in the manner provided by the fifty- second section of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1876, save only that parties may be repre- sented by any person authorised in ■writing to appear for them, and subject to the declaration that it shall be competent to either party within the time and in -accordance with the conditions prescribed by Act of Sederunt, to require the sheriff to state a case on any question of law determined by him, and his decision thereon in such case may be submitted to either Division of the Court of Session, who may hear and deter- mine the same finally, and remit to the sheriff with instructions as to the judgment to be pro- nounced" : — Held, that in cases within this enactment no appeal lies to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Session. Osboene v. Barclay, CuELB & Co. H. L. (So.) [1901] A. C. 269 7. — Arhilratiou — Condition preredent to jurisdiction of arlntrator — Question as to liahility to pay, or as to amormt or duration of, compensation — Agreement hy wliich ijuestion settled' — Injury occasioned' hy accident — Inra/iarity for loorli — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 i!'61 Vict, c. 37), s. 1, .sm/>s. 3. Where, a workman having;' been incapa imitated for work by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employers had, since the second week after the accident, paid to him, by way of compensation, weekly payments MASTEB AND SERVANT (Vi&ctice)— continued. of the full amount mentioned in Sched.I., s. 1 (i), of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, and promised to continue to do so during the period of his incapacity ; but the workman, nevertheless, filed a request for arbitration in the county court, and the county court judge made an award for compensation in his favour : — Held, that, under the Workmen's Compensa- tion Act, 1897, s. 1, sub-s. 3, it was a condition precedent to the jurisdiction of the county court judge that a question should have arisen as to the liability to pay, or as to the amount or dura- tion of, compensation under the Act, and that, no such question having arisen, the county court judge had no jurisdiction to make an award. Field r. Lonsdbn & Sons C. A. [1901] W. N. 224 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 47 8. — Claim made under the WorTtnieris Com- pensation Act, 1897 — Witlidrawal of claim, — Sub- sequent action under Employers' Liahility Act, 1880 (43 4' 44 Vict. c. i2')— Workmen's Compen- sation Act, 1897 (60 4- 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 1, ^uh-s. 2 (S). A workman injured by accident in the course of his employment claimed compensation from his employer under the Workmen's Compensa- tion Act, 1897, and filed a request for arbitration. The employer having filed his answer, the work- man gave notice withdrawing his claim for com- pensation, and subsequently brought an action for damages under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, in respect of the same accident : — Held, that the claim made under the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1897, was not a bar to the subsequent action for damages under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880. RousE v. DixoN Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 628 Xoti: This case was discussed and explained by C. A., Ci-ihi V. A'ynoch, Ld. (-Vo. 2), [1908] 2 K. B. 551. Muster ami' Servant — Infants. 7. — Costs- -Compensation. See nes-t Case. 9. — Colts — Lump sum — Right to taxation — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), Sched. II. (7.) — Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1907, r. 61 (1.). The county court judge had awarded a lump sum of 5 guineas for the applicant's costs, and the only question in this appeal was whether he had power or jurisdiction to make such an order. The C. A. allowed the appeal. Cozens-Hardy M.R. said the language of sub-s. 7 of Sched. 11. of the Act of 1906 was express "The costs . . . shall not exceed the limit prescribed by rules of court and shall be taxed in manner prescribed by those rules." Rule 61 (1.) also provided for taxation of coats. It was a common practice in the High Court for a judge to make an order for a lump sum for costs, but in the High Comrt there were rules which expressly authorized this being done ; there was no such rule in the Workmen's Com- pensation Rules, 1907, and the wording of the Act was expressly to the contrary. "The case must therefore be remitted to the county court judge to make a proper order as to costs, which ( 1683 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1684 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (ria,etice)—omtmued. could then be taxed, if necessary, in the usual way. Beadle v. " S. Nicholas " C. A. [1909] W. N. 227 — Costs, Security for — Appeal from county court. See Costs. 59. . 10. — Costs — WorJiiiien'' s compensation — Review of amount fixed by award or agreement — Interlocutory or original proceeding — Discretion of eounty court judge — Practice — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict. c. 37), Sched. I. clause 12. A county court judge has no jurisdiction to give a general direction to the registrar that the costs of all applications under clause 12 of Sched. I. of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, to Tary the amount of compensation fixed by award or agreement shall be treated as though the application were a mere interlocutory appli- cation in the matter of the arbitration, and not an original arbitration or proceeding. Rigby & Co. ». Cox (No. 2) Div. Ct. [1904] W. H. 101 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 208 11. — County court — Employer and worltman — Dismissal of action under Employers' Liability Act, 1880 (43 ^- 44 Vict. c. iTj— Application for compensation under Workmen^s Compensation Act, 1897 — Right of appeal from dismissal of action — Wm-hmen^s Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict. V. 37), s. 1, sub-ss. 2, 4. Where, upon the dismissal of an action under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, an applica- tion is made under s. 1, sub-s. 4, of the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1897, for an assess- ment of compensation under that Act, the making of that application does not amount to the exer- cise of an option on the part of the pit. so as to estop him from appealing against the dismissal of the action under the Employers' Liability Act, and the pit. is entitled to appeal against both decisions. Edwards v. Godfrey, [1899] 2 Q. B.333, con- sidered. Isaacson v. New Grand (Clapham Junction), Ld. Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 539 Note. This ease was discussed by C. A., Neale v. Electric and Ordnance Accessories Co., [1906] 2 K. B. .556. See Master and Servant — Infants. 9. 12. — Decision of county court judge on pre- liminary question — Appeal to CouH of Appeal — Jurisdiction^ Certified scheme — Rules of manage- ment — Rules not certified — Scheme under Act of 1897 — Commencement' of Act of 1906 — Woi-km en's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), ;,-. 15 ; Solved. II. (4.) — Worlime-ris Compensation Act, 1897 (60 # 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 3. Under clause 4 of Sched. II. to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, an appeal now lies to the C. A. from a decision by a county court judge on a preliminary question of law, or as to his jurisdiction to entertain proceedings, and not, as formerly, only after an award has been made. A scheme of compensation certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies under s. 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, cannot, MASTER AND SERVANT (Practice)— coreiraaerf. unless recertified under the Act of 1906, apply to an accident happening after the commence- ment of the Act of 1906, though within the six months at the end of which the scheme is declared to be revoked by s. 15. A scheme providing a fund for the compensa- tion of the servants of a ry. co. provided that the fund should be managed by a committee thereby constituted according to rules (not inconsistent with the terms of this scheme) to be framed from time to time by the committee. Eules had been framed containing a contract by the workmen that the Act should not apply, and other provisions held by the Court not to be in accordance with the scheme. The scheme was certified but the rules were not : — Held, that there was no properly certified scheme excluding the Act. Moss v. Gbbat Easteen By. Co. C. A. [1909] W. N. 82 ;. [1909] 2 K. B. 274 13. — Default in payment of compensation- — • Committal order, Jurisdiction to malte — " Enforce- able as a county court judgment " — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 S,- 61 Vict. c. 37), Soiled. II. <^:)— Debtors Act, 1869 (32 ^ 33 Vict, c. 62), s. 5. The memorandum of the compensation awarded by an arbitrator under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, when recorded in the manner prescribed by Sched. II. (8.) of the Act, may be enforced by an order of committal under the Debtors Act, 1869, s. 5. Bailey v. Plant C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 31 14. — Defence of no claim being made within statutory period — Evidence of claim — Accident — Claim for compensation — Particulars of demand and ansicer — Admission from answer — Worh- men's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 ^ 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 2 — WorJitnen's Compensation Rules, 1898—1900, r. 17. A claim for compensation under the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1897, need not be in writing. The respondents to an application for com- pensation under the Workmen's Conpensation Act, 1897, by their answer stated as a fact which they desired to bring to the notice of the arbi- trator that within a few weeks of the accident they had paid to the applicant a certain sum which he had accepted in satisfaction of all claims, and they denied any further liability under the Act. The answer also raised the defence that no claim for compensation was made within six months of the accident. The county court judge dismissed the application on the ground that there was no evidence of a claim having been made within the statutory six months : — Meld, that the statement in the answer as to the payment of compensation was an admission of fact on which the applicant was entitled to rely and afforded some evidence of a claim having been made, and that the application ought to be remitted to the county court judge for a rehearing. The nature of the particulars of demand and the answer under the Workmen's Compensation ( 1685 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1686 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Practice)— coraSiwaerf. Act, 1897, discussed. LoWB r. M. Myees & Sons - C. A. [1906] W. N. 119 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 265 — Discliarge of judgment by consent — Com- pensation — Employers' liability. See House of Loeds. 2. 15. — Estoppel — Infant workman — Ziijnry to workman — Action against employer, Failure of — Assessment of compensation iy the judge — Bstoppel — Worknten's Compensation Act, 1897(60 4- 61 Vict. u. 37), s. 1, sub-ss. 2, i, Where, upon the failure at the trial of an action brought by a workman under age, by his next friend, against his employers to recover damages in respect of personal injuries occa- sioned to the pit. by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, an appli- cation was made to the judge who tried the action to assess compensation to the workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, s. 1, sub-s. i, and the judge accordingly awarded such compensation : — Seld, that the pit. was estopped by the elec- tion to take such compensation and the award thereupon made from proceeding further with the action, and therefore a subsequent applica- tion by him for judgment on a new trial in the action could not be entertained. Isaacson t. Nisw Grand {Clap/iam Junction'), Ld., [1903] 1 K. B. 539, discussed. Nbale r. Electric and Okdnancb Accbssoeies Co. C. A. [1906] W. N. 169 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 558 16. — Interrogatories — Discovery — Jurisdic- tion of county court judge — Workmen's Compensa- tion Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, o. 58), Sched. II. (4) — Workmen' s Compensation Rules, 1907, r. 27. A county court judge sitting to hear an application for compensation under the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1906, is acting as an arbitrator only, and has no jurisdiction to make an order for discovery before hearing either by alEdavit of documents or by interrogatories. Mountain v. Parr, [1899] 1 Q. B. 805, applied. Sutton v. Gebat Noethben Ry. Co. C. A. [1909] ■Wr. N. 177 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 791 17. — Jurisdiction of county court where acci- dent occurred — Injury by accident in England — Employer resident in Scotland — Workmen's Com- pensation Act, 1897, (60 Ji 61 Vict. c. 37), 2nd Schedule, claused — Workmen's Compensation Rules, r. 15. When a workman resident in England is injured by an accident occurring in England, but his employer resides in Scotland, proceedings for compensation under the Workmen's Compensa- tion Act, 1897, may be taken in the county court of the district in which the accident occurred, and service of the necessary notices may be effected by registered post. Rex r. Owen Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 436 18. — Medical examinatiun. Obligation to sub- mit to — Medical referee — Condition precedent to claim for fuHher compensation — Wm-kmen's Com- pensation Act, 1897 (60 S,- 61 Vict. c. 37), Sched. I., clause 11. The provision in clause 11 of the First Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act, MASTER AND SERVANT (Vr&ciice)— continued. 1897, for suspension of the payment of compensa- tion, " if the workman refuses to submit himself to such examination," refers to the examination to which, under that clause, the workman may be required by the employer to submit, namely, an examination by a medical practitioner, pro- vided by the employer, or, if the workman prefers it, by one of the medical referees appointed under the Second Schedule of the Act, and not to the examination by one of the medical referees, to which the clause gives the workman an option to submit, if dissatisfied by the certifi- cate of the medical practitioner provided by the employer : and, therefore, it is not a condition precedent to the workman's right to claim further compensation that he should have exercised that option. Nbaglb v. Nixon's Navigation Co., Ld. Edwaeds v. Guest, Keen & Nbttlepolds, Ld. - - - C. A. [1904] W. N. 16 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 339 19. — " Proceeding " against employer — Action against third person — " Option," Exercise of — Payments by employe}' — Receipts '■ without preju- dice " — Workman — Personal injury — Compensa- tion — BamMges — Workmen's Compouation Act, 1897 (60 S; 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 6. Where, as between an employer and his work- man who has received personal injuries in the course of his employment, there is a payment of money to and a receipt given by the workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, and the receipt is not qualified either in terms or by a consideration of the surrounding circum- stances, that is sufficient to bring the case within the operation of s. 6, and to put the workman in the position of having exercised the option given him by the section — of proceeding, either at law for damages against the person legally liable for the injury, or against the employer for compensa- tion under the Act, but not against both — and so to preclude him from suing the person legally liable. Semble, per Bomer L,J. . Proceedings by a workman against his employer, under s. 6, for compensation for personal injuries, should not be held to irrevocably bind the workman in the exercise of the option given him by the section unless they have resulted in some compensation, as such, being paid to and received by the work- man in such a manner as to bind both parties. A workman who had been injured in the course of his employment, gave notice of his injury to his employer, but without formally claiming compensation. The employer, by an agent, then made a first weekly paymentj for which the workman, who was then in hospital, signed a receipt stating that the sum paid had been received " on account of compensation which may be or become due to me under the Work- men's Compensation Act, 1897, in respect of the accident which occurred to me on," &c. Upon the employer's agent bringing him the second payment, the workman stipulated that he would only accept that, and all future payments " with- out prejudice." To this the agent assented, whereupon the second and subsequent payments were accepted by the workman, he giving on each occasion a receipt in the same form as ( 1687 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1688 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Practice)— co«iiwMevhose negligence they would be responsible, the action was not main- tainable. A clause in a written contract of employment, providing that, notwithstanding anything con- tained in the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, the employer shall not be liable to the employee for injury occasioned to him through the negligence of any person in the service of the employer entrusted with superintendence, or to whose orders the employee ^^'as bound to conform, does not rebut the legal implication that the employee undertakes the risk of negligence by any fellow MASTER AND SERVANT (Jhea.ttB)—co7itiMued. employee in the same employment. Bitkb v. Theatee Royal, Deuby Lane, Ld. C. A. [1907] W. N. 48 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 544 Theft. — ■ Liability of bailee — Theft by servant — Scope of employment. See Master and Servant — Bailment. 1. Trade Union. See under Teadb Union. Truck Acts. 1. — Contract for deduction in respect of fines — Specification of Acts or omissions in respect of which fine may be imposed — Truck Act, 1896 (59 cS- 60 Vict. c. 44), s. 1. By s. 1, sub-s. 1, of the Truck Act, 1896, an employer may not contract with a workman for any deduction from wages in respect of fines unless (inter alia) "the contract specified the acts or omissions in respect of which the fine may be imposed." One of the rules of a factory provided that "all workers shaU observe good order and decorum while in the factory," and imposed a fine of sixpence or less upon any worker guilty of an infringement of the rule : — Held, that the rule, although not specifying the particular acts or omissions amounting to such a breach of good order or decorum as to justify the infliction of a fine, was a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the section. Squiee r. Batee & Co. [1901] 2 K. B. 299 2. — Deduction from wages — Set-off — Debt due from worliman to employer — Trxiclt Act, 1831 (1 A- 2 Will. 4, c. 37), s. 3. The Truck Act, 1831, docs not allow an employer when paying wages to a workman to make any deductions except those expressly sanctioned by the Act. Therefore he cannot deduct money which a Court of summary juris- diction has ordered the workman to pay to the employer in respect of breaches of contract to work. The decision of the C. A. [1904] W. N. 97 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 44, reversed. Williams r. Noeth's Navigation Collieries (1889) Ld. H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 62 ; [1906] A. C. 186 "Undertakers." .S'ce under Master AND Servant — Com- pensation. Unemployed Workmen. Unemjjloyed Workmen Act, 1905 (5 Udw. 7, c. 18), is an Act to establish organization with a ■vieio to tlie prori-non of employmetii or assistance for u ncmploged' ivorkmen in proper cases. The Tempm-ary Regulations (^Organization for Unemployed^, Jan. 13, 1906. Price Id. St. E. & 0. 1906, No. 7. Uiiemployed Workmen. The Regulations {Organization for Unemployed) 1906. (Record Paper Amendment.) Dated Jan. 13, 1906. Pi-ice Id. St. B. & 0. 1906, No. 6. ( 1691 ) DIGEST OJ' CASES, 1901—1910, ( 1692 ) MASTER AND SERVANT (Unemployed Work- men) — coTitinued. — Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905 — Councillor — Disqualification — Paid office under the council — Distress committee — Registrar and injui)'/ agent. See Local Govbenment. 23. Wages. 1. — Wages — Deductions inrespeet of damaged goods — " Workman" — Employers and Wofkvien Act, 1875 (38 4- 39 Vict. c. 90), s. 10~Tn/c!/ Act, 1896 (59 ^- 60 Vict. c. 44), s. 2. The respondents, a firm of lacemakers, whose premises were a factory within the meaning of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, were in the habit in common with other lacemakers of handing finished lace after its removal from the machines to women called "clippers" for the purpose of having superfluous threads and material removed. The clippers, who were not employed exclusively by any one firm, under- took to get lace clipped, and applied to the manufacturers for lace, which they took home with them for that purpose. The lacemakers had no control over the clippers, who might and often did employ others to assist them in the work ; the clippers might execute the work themselves or give it to others to execute, or might retm-n it unexecuted. The clippers were responsible in case of the non-return of the laoe, and were paid at the end of each week according to the work done ; they were required to pay for damage done to the lace in clipping. Lace was handed by the respondents to two clippers ; one was an outsider who had never worked in the respondents' factory, and did the clipping at home herself ; the other was employed daily in the factory, and after it was closed at night she occasionally took the work home to do, and was assisted by her daughter. The lace handed to the two clippers having been damaged, a sum of sixpence was in each case deducted from the amount due to them at the end of the week, the conditions of s. 2, of the Truck Act, 1896, as to the making of deductions in respect of damaged goods were not complied with, and the deductions were illegally made if the clippers were workwomen within the Act:— Held, that, as the clippers were not bound by the terms of their contracts to execute the work or any part of it themselves, they were not work- women within the meaning of s. 10 of the Em- ployers and Workmen Act, 1875, and, therefore, were not entitled to the protection of s. 2 of the Truck Act, 1896. Ingram v. Barnes, (1857) 7 E. & B. 115, 132, and Pillar v. Llynti Coal Co., (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 7.52 ; 38 L. J. (C.P.) 294, followed. Squibe v. Midland Lace Co. Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 448 Women. Employment of Women Act, 1907 (7 Edw, 7, c. 10), is an Act to repeal s. 57 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, and ])art of s, 7 of the MASTER AND SERVANT (yromen)—omttvniied. Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, relating to the employment of women and children, KATCK^ES—^Vhitc Phosphorus Matches Prohibi- tion Act, 1908 (8 Edic. 7, c. 42), p'ohibits the Manufacture, Sale, and Impwtation of Matches made toith White Phosphorus, and for other purposes in connection therewith. MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACTS. See under DIVORCE. — After-acquired property — Covenant — '' During the marriage " — Judicial separation. See Settlement. 15. — Husband and wife. See under Husband and Wipe. — Legitimacy declaration. See under Legitimacy Declakation. ■SiA.V&VnJSS— Colonial Stock Act, 1900 (63 4" 64 Vict. c. 62) — Notice given in respect of Mauritius Inscribed Stock, dated March 24, 1906. Reprint from W. N. 1906 (April 7), p. 99. See Cueeent Index, 1906 p. Ixix. 1. — Mahomsdan law — Adrnjinistration of wakf estate — Bights of wakifs — Practice of Court — Scheme of administration- -Charter of incorporation superseded. The wakf properties in suit, situated at Port Louis, in the island of Mauritius, were as to a considerable portion of them successively pur- chased from 1852 onwards "for. the whole Mahomedan congregation of the island," con- sisting of Indian immigrants from Cutch, Hallal, and Surat, all of the Soonee school, and their descendants, and wrers dedicated by the deeds inalienably for the purpose of a mosque. The overwhelming majority of the congregation be- longed to the Cutchee class, and in 1877 the deeds of purchase for the first time declared that the properties comprised therein were bought on behalf of the Cutchees, a committee of whom was to administer them and all the other properties belonging to the mosque. Later purchases were expressed to be made, some on behalf of the Cutchees, others on behalf of the congregation. In 1903 two deeds were executed by a body of Cutchees by which they formed themselves into a society afterwards incorporated under Ordinance 22 of 1874 for certain pious and charitable purposes, declared that they brought into the society in fuU ownership all the said purchased properties, with extensive powers of selling and letting the same, other than the mosque and its accessories, of which latter they reserved to themselves the exclusive manage- ment. In actions brought respectively by the Hallaye and Soortee classes the Court below ordered the deeds to be set aside so far as they gave exclusive administration as of right to the Cutchees, and substituted for the portion thus set aside a scheme giving to the pits, a share in the administration, but subject to future modi- fications : — Held, in appeal, that as the deeds could not be maintained consistently with the rights of the pits, they should be set aside in toto. ( 1693 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1694 ) JtAVRlTlVS—cmtinwed. Held, further, that as the charter of incor- poration in consequence became inoperative, the amending scheme must also be set aside. The Court could neither grant a, new charter nor under the circumstances amend the superseded one. Ibrahim Esmael i: Abdool Caeeim Peeemamode ; Ibrahim Esmael i: Aboo Bakar Mamode Tahee P. C. [1908] C. A. 826 — Unseaworthiness — Presumption — Evidence — Cause of vessel's loss unascertainable — Appeal from Mauritius. Sue Shipping — Seaworthiness. 1. MAXIMS OF LAW—" Actio personalis moritur cum persona." See Master and Servant — Fatal Accidents Act. 1. — Profit a prendre in alieno solo. See Fishery. 8. -Consensus ad idem. EVEEIDGE Van Peaaoh r. C. A. [1903] 4 Ch. 434 -" Mobilia sequuntur personam." See Bona Vacantia. 1. -" Omnia prsesumuntur rite esse acta." See Peobatb — Execution. 3. -Quae ipso usu consumuntur — Farming stock —Gift for life. See Will— Absolute Gift. 5. ' Res ipsa loquitur." See MoTOE Omnibus. 1. MAYOSS— Election of— Validity of vote of dis- qualified person — Right of chairman to vote — Casting vote. See Corpoeation. 11. MAYOE'S COURT— London. See under London — Mayor's Court. MEASURES— Weights and. See under Weights and Measuees. MEAT — Offences — Diseased meat — "Depositing for the purpose of sale." See Local Government. 21. — Offences — Unsound meat — Information by sanitary inspector — Necessity for authority. See London — Offences. 2. MECHANICS' INSTITUTE— Borrowing powers — Enlarging billiard-room — Repairs. See Liteeary and Scientific Insti- tutions. 1. "MEDICAL ASSISTANCE " — Maintenance of voter's wife in pauper lunatic asylum — Disqualification. See Parliament. 5. MEDICAL ATTENDANCE— Seaman injured in service of ship — Expenses after sea- man's return to home port. See Shipping — Seamen. 5. MEDICAL CHARITY. See under ChAeity. MEDICAL COUNCIL — Order of, to erase name- Dentists' register — "Professional mis- conduct " — Partnership, Determination of. See Dentist. 2. MEDICAL EXAMINATION— Obligation to sub- mit to — Workmen's compensation. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 108. — Pharmacy Acts. See under Pharmacy Acts. MEDICAL PRACTITIONER — Examination of workman by — Employer's right — Condition — Workman requiring pre- sence of his ovm medical man. See Master and Seevant — Com- pensation. 108. — Public hospital — Liability of governors — Operation — Injury to patients. See Hospital. 1. MEDICAL PROFESSION — Order in Council directing th-at Part II. of the Medical Act, 1886 shall apply to Italy. St. R. & 0. 1901, No. 204. Medical Act (1886) Amendment Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 14), amends the Medical Aet, 1886. Order in Council, dated May 4. 1906, directing that part II. of th£ Medical Act, 1886, xliall apply to the Province of Xova Scotia. 1906, No. 383 St. R. & 0., Price Id. Order in Council dated Feb. 29 , 1908, directing that Part II. of the Medical Act, 1886, shall apply to the Province of Queiec. St. R. & 0. 1908, No. 203. Order in Council, Jan. 10, 1910, directing that Part II. of the Medical Act, 1886, shall apply to the Province of Prince Edward Island. St. B. & 0., 1910, No. 71. — " Medical assistance " — Franchise — Disquali- fication. See Parliament. 5. MEDICAL SCIENCES — Proposed scheme for Institute of — Will — Charitable intent — Cyprus — Failure of legacy. See Charity. 33. MEDICINE -Stamp duty. See Revenue — Stamps. 18. — Stamp — Medicinal preparation — Exemption — Contract of apprenticeship not in writing. See Revenue — Stamps. 18. MEDWAY— Shipping. See under Shipping — Medway. MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BY-LAWS, arts. 43 (c), 48. The " Clutha Boat 147." Oorell Barnes, Pres., [1909] P. 36. See Shipping— Obllision. 31. ( 1695 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1696 ) MEETINGS — Local Aatkorities (Admission of the Press to Meetituis') Act, 1908 (8 Edw 7, o. 43), providesfortlieadmissionofRep'esentativesofthe Press to tlie vieetings of certain Local Authorities. Public Meeting Act, 1908 (8 Hdu: 7, c. 66), is an Act to prevent disturhance of public meetings. See under CoMPAirr— JHeetings ; and Company — Wisbing-up — Meetings. 1, — Criminallaw — Lawfidpuhlic meeting — Acting in dism'de-rly manner for purpose of jnv- venting trmisaction of business — Meeting Iwld in highway — Legality of — Public Meeting Act, 1908 (8 Mu). 7, c. 66). In this case the justices dismissed the infor- mation on the ground that the meeting, being held on the highway, was not in itself a " lawful public meeting " within the purview of the Public Meeting Act, ] 908. The Court held that the appeal must be allowed. The proceedings were taken in respect of interference with a meeting held on June 20, 1910, on a public highway. The evidence in support of the charge having been partly given, the justices declined to proceed further with the summons on the ground that the meeting, being held on a highway, was ipso facto an unlawful meeting. That went much too far. Whether or not there was an obstruction he could express no opinion ; that would depend upon the facts. The justices ought to entertain the summons, and if any point arose upon the evidence as to an obstruction or otherwise, it could be reserved, if necessary, for the consideration of this Court, but they had no right to assume that, simply because the meeting was held on a highway, it could not be the subject of the circumstances dealt with by the Public Meeting Act, 1908. Appeal allowed, and the case remitted to the justices to be further dealt with. Bubdbn v. ElGLBR - Biv. Ct. [1910] W. N. 279 ■ — Club — Rules — Power to alter — Kesolutiou — Vahdity. See CLtTBS. 2. — Municipal corporation — Council meeting — Privacy — Newspaper reporter. See COEPOEATION. 13. — Notice — ^Appeal against poor-rate— Consent of guardians. See POOB Law. 1. MELBOUBKE. See under AlfSTEAllA. — Licences for tramway cars, conductors, and drivers — Liability of tramway company. See Victoria. 10. MELBOUBKE NOTARIES — Appointment of notaries public in a Colonial district — Practice. See NOTAEIES. 5. " MEMBER " — Industrial and provident society. See Industrial and Provident SOCIBTT. 4. MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIA- TION— Company. Set under Company— Memorandum. D.D. MENS REA— Coal— Representation by employer — Innocent delivery by servant. See Weights and Measures. 5. — Public health — Offences — Sale of unsound meat — Seizure — Prosecution — Acquittal — Compensation. See Local Government. 22. MERCANTILE AGENT — Authority to pledge. See Factor. 2. — Possession of goods — Consent of owner — Larceny by a trick. See Factor. 3. MERCANTILE LAW. See under SHIPPING. MERCANTILE MARINE FUND— Shipwreck— " Distressed seaman " — Expenses of maintenance, &c., abi'oad. See Shipping — Seamen. 9. MERCHANDISE 'O.K'KKS— False trade descrip- tion —Merchandise Marks Act, 1887 (50 ^- 51 Vict. c. 28), ss. 2, 3. Where the generic name of certain com- modities has by the usage of the trade come to, be confined to a particulnr species, the fact that the application of that name to another species is literally correct will not prevent it from being a false trade description within the meaning of s. 3, 6ub-s. 1, of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. Washing soda and Glauber's salt are both salts of soda in a crystalline form ; but the description "soda crystals " is by the usage of the trade of manufacturing chemists applied only to the former. The appellant sold Glauber's salt under the name of '' soda crystals " : — Seld (by Lord Alverstone C..J. and Wills J., Darling J. dissenting), that he had applied to the goods a false trade description Fowler v. Cripps - - - Div. Ct. [1905] 'W. N. 161 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 16 MERCHANT SHIPPING. See under SHiPPINa. MERGER — Agreement in conveyance — Ease- ment. See Tramways. 6. 1. — Charge — Unraised portion — Intestacy of portioner — Owner of land next of Mn — JVo ad- ministration — 3fevger of leneficial interest. An owner of freehold land who became en- titled to an unrai.sed portion charged thereon, as next of kin to an intestate portioner, died with- out taking out administration to the portioner's estate. It would have been for the landowner's benefit to merge the charge : — Held, that the landowner's beneficial interest in the charge, subject to the liabilities (if any) of the portioner's estate, had merged in the land. Lord Compton v. Oxenden (1793), 2 Tes. Jun. 2B1 ; 4 Bro. 0. C. 397 ; Forbes v. MvfaU, (181 1) 18 Ves. 384, 390 ; 11 R. E. 222 ; and Sulkbey y. Susabey, (1846) 15 Sim, 106, 502, followed. 3 I ( 1697 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— ] 910. ( 1698 ) MERGEE — continued. In re Madclijff., [1892] 1 Ch. 227, distin- guished. In re Febnoh-Brewstbr's Sbttlb- MBNTS. Walters r. Feench-Beewstee Swinfen Eady J. [1904] W. N. 64 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 713 2. — EquUahle tenancy in common — jLegal joint tena/ncy. Where equitable and legal estates, equal and co-extensive, unite in the same persons, the former merges, although the former is a tenancy in common and the latter a joint tenancy. Selby V. Alston, (1797) 3 Ves. 339 ; 4 E. E. 10, followed and extended. In re Selous, Thomsok r. Selous - - Farwell J. [1901] 1 Ch. 921 ■ — Estate duty — Lunatic entitled to both real and personal estate — Merger of charge. See Eevbntje — Estate Duty. 25. — Judgment — Mortgage — Eate of Interest — Ancillary and independent covenants. See Covenant. 3. 3. — Lease — Mortgage iy underlease — Subse- quent purchase by lessee of freehold reversion- Contemporaneous mortgage by purchaser — Inten- tion to preserve term — Segistered title to la-nd — Legal estate — Unregistered deed — Registered charge — Statutory form — Addition — Grant of legal estate to Mortgagee — Judicature Act, 1873 (36 4' 37 Viet. c. 66), s. 25, sub-s. i—Land Iransfer Act, 1875 (38 ^- 39 Vict. c. 87), ss. 22-28, 29, 32, 49, 93-96— ian(? Transfer Act, 1897 (60 Sr 61 Vict. 0. 65), s. 20 — Land Transfer Rules, 1898, rr. 106, 107, 110. The transfer of land by a registered disposi- tion takes effect by virtue of an overriding power, not by virtue of any estate in the regis- tered proprietor. After land has been placed upon the register the legal estate in it will pass by an unregistered deed, subject to the risk of the grantee having his title defeated by an exer- cise of the statutory power of disposition given to the registered proprietor ; but the grantee can by an entry on the register protect himself against that risk. There is nothing in the Land Transfer Acts to prevent the passing of the legal estate in land by an ordinary mortgage deed executed by the owner in fee, whether he is or is not registered as proprietor. By virtue of rule 107 of the Land Transfer Eules, 1898, a charge upon registered land may, with the approval of the registrar, be registered with the addition to the statutory form of a con- veyance of the legal estate in the land to the mortgagee, though he cannot insist upon such an addition being made. In 1871 a lease was granted of a public-house for a term of ninety-nine years at a rent of lOOZ. per annum. The lease contained a proviso for re-entry on default for twenty-one days in pay- ment, of the rent. This lease was assigned to the deft. Rhodes. In May, 1897, Ehodes, " as beneficial owner," demised the house by way of mortgage to Flower & Sons for the residue of the term, less the last day thereof. No rent was reserved by this deed, and Rhodes covenanted to indemnify Flower & 'SS.'ERQr'EB,— continued. Sons against the original rent. The deed con- tained provisions making Rhodes in effect a trustee of the last day of the term for the mort- gagees or a purchaser from them. By a deed dated July 27, 1899, the house was conveyed to Rhodes in fee at the price of 3650L, " subject to, but with the benefit of," the lease. To enable him to complete the purchase he arranged to borrow 30002. from the pit. bank on the security of the house ; and on July 27, 1899, a mortgage to the bank was executed immediately after the conveyance to Ehodes, the 3000Z. being paid by the bank directly to the vendors. The property had been described to the bank as " a freehold ground rent of lOOZ. a year"' secured on the house. By the mortgage deed Rhodes con- veyed to the bank by way of mortgage the hereditaments comprised in the documents speci- fied in a schedule, as to such of them as were freehold in fee simple, and as to such of them as he was entitled to for any term of years for the residue of such term, except the last day thereof. The schedule comprised the conveyance of July 27 and the other title-deeds relating to the freehold and the counterpart of the lea-^e of 1871, but no other document relating to any leasehold interest. At this time registration of title to land under the Land Transfer Acts had been made com- pulsory on sale in the parish in which the house was situate. On Aug. 28, 1899, Rhodes applied for the registration of himself as proprietor of the house, with a possessory title. On the same day he executed an instrument charging the house with the payment to the bank of the 3000Z. and interest. The charge was in the form No. 39 in the schedule to the Land Transfer Eules, 1898, but there was added to it a grant of the house to the bank in fee, subject to redemption. This charge was also taken in for registration, and on Sept. 18, 1899, the registrar issued a certificate that Ehodes was registered as proprietor of the house with a possessory title, and another certi- ficate that the bank were registered as proprietors of the charge. In April, 1901, Ehodes executed a deed of arrangement with his creditors to which the bank were not parties. Flower & Sons took possession of the house, and the bank demanded payment of the rent of lOOZ. from them, as well as from the trustees of the deed of April, 1901, but it was not paid. The bank then brought an action against Rhodes, Flower & Sons, and the trustee of the deed of arrangement, claiming to enforce their security by foreclosure or sale. They claimed also a declaration that the term had not merged in the fee, and that they wore entitled to re-enter for non-payment of the rent : — Held, that, having regard to all the circum- stances, it could not have been the intention of the parties that the term shoidd merge in the fee ; that before the Judicature Act there would in equity have been no merger ; and that, con- sequently, by virtue of s. 25, sub-s. 4, of the Judicature Act, 1873, there was now no merger at law ; that the term was still in existence, and that the bank, if the legal estate in the fee was ( 1699 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1^00 ) MIRGEB— eowiMmefZ. vested in them, were entitled to enter for default in payment of the rent : Held,, also, by Homer and Cozens-Hardy L.JJ. (Collins, M.E., doubting, but not dissenting), that by Tirtue of the registered charge with the added words the legal estate in the fee had passed to the bank. Decision of Kekewich, J., [1902] W. N. 9i, reversed. The equitable rule that merger depends upon intention applies to the merger of estates as well as to the merger of charges. ammbers v. Kingham, (1878) 10 Ch. D. 743, and Ingle v. Vaughan Jenkins, [1900] 2 Ch. 368, approved. Pe7- Romer and Cozens-Hardy L.JJ. : The register of proprietors under the Land Transfer Acts is not material for the purpose of deter- mining in whom the legal estate in land is vested. Capital and Counties Bank, Ld. v. Rhodes C. A. [1903] W. N. 45 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 631 — Lease — Question of merger — Intention — Evi- dence. See Bankhuptcy — Jurisdiction. 1. — Lien— Presumption of satisfaction — Lapse of time — Interest. See Lien. 1. — Mortgage in fee — Equities of redemption acquired by mortgagee subject to the mortgages — Declaration against merger — Death of mortgagee intestate. See Administbation. 18. — Mortgages. See under Moktgage — Merger. — Reissue of debenture — Extinguishment of charges — Estoppel. See Company — Debentures. 34. — Reversions — Benefit of covenant — Privity of contract — Underlessee not an " assign." See Landlord and Tenant. 11. — Sale — Life estate — Partial merger — Continu- ance of powers. See Settled Land — Sale. 9. — "Settlement" — Life estate to settlor — Re- mainder to settlor in fee. See Settled Land — Settlement. 1. MERSEY— Collision. See Shipping — Collision. 5. — Mersey Dock — Compulsory pilotage — Port of Liverpool — Limit of compulsion out- wards. See Shipping — Pilotage. 3. — Mersey Dock — Compulsory pilotage — Vessel passing through port of Liverpool — Limits of port — Port of Manchester. See Shipping — Pilotage. 4. — Mersey Dock — Dock dues — Eight to detain vessel until dues paid — Maritime lien for crew's wages — Priority. See Hakboues. 3. MESSENGEB-AT-ARMS — Heritage — Right in security. See Scottish Law. 13. METALLIFEROUS MINES. See under Mine. METROPOLIS. See under London. METROPOLIS WATER — Will — Bequest — Ademption — " Money invested in " Lambeth Waterworks Company — Trans- fer of undertaking to Water Board. See Will — " Money Invested In." 1. METROPOLITAN COMMONS ACTS— Limits common — Binding effect of scheme. See Common. 4, 5. of METROPOLITAN OPEN SPACES— Burial ground — Addition to — Disused burial ground — Power to build on. See Bueial. 1. METROPOLITAN POLICE ACT, 1839. See Betting. 3. METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS- JUVENILE COURTS — Order in Council, March 5, 1910, alterijig the days for holding Juvenile Courts at Bow Street Police Court and conferring on that Court Jurisdiction as to applications from otlier Divisions for Licences for Employment of Children. St. R. & 0. 1910, No. 303. Price Id. METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (CHARGES) ACT, 1907. See under Water. MICHAEL AN6EL0 TAYLOR'S ACT, 1817. See London — Streets. 13. — Streets — Widening — Compulsory powers — House — Separate ownership of separate floors. See London — Streets. 14. MIDDLESEX— JTiddieseiB County Council Act, 1898. Rules made in pursuance of s, 36, sub-s. 2, and dated May 25, 1906, Reprint from W. N. 1906 (June 16), p. 177. See Cdseent Index 1906, p. Ixxxviii. MIDDLESEX DEEDS DEPARTMENT. See under LAND Registey. MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES) ORDER CONFIRMA- TION ACT, 1891. See Railway — Sidings. 3. MID WIVES— j¥i(?ti)ii-ei Act, 1902 (2 Hdw. 7, c. 17), is an Act to secure the better training of ■midwives and to regulate their practice. Appeal from Central Midwives' Hoard under Midwives Act, 1902. Reprint from W. N., 1904 (Jan. 16), p. 49. See Current Index, 1904, p. cxxv. Midwives Act, 1902 (2 Mw. 7, c. 17). Memo- randum, April, 1903. 1903 (R.— Loo Govt Bd.). 3l2 ( 1701 ) biGEST OF CASUS, 1901—1910. ( 1702 ) MILITARY. See under Aemy and Navy. MILITAEY COLOURS— Consents required to removal and new position of, affixed to chancel walls under faculty. lief Ecclesiastical Law— Faculty. 12. MILITARY LANDS— Streets— Paving, &c., ex- penses — Liability — Crown. See Streets. 18. MILITARY RESERVE— Land in British Colum- bia. See Canada — Land. 1. MILITARY SERVICE— Contract with the Colo- nial Government for — Payments by the Imperial Government — Payments under the contract. See Kew South AValks. 22. MILITIA. See under Army and Navv. MILITIA (VOLUNTEERS, YEOMANRY AND) — Will — Construction. See Will — Territorial and Reserve Forces. 1. MILK. See under Adulteration. — Supplied for consumption — Implied warranty of fitness. See Sale of Goods. 16. MILL — Landlord and tenant — Liability — Room in mill with machine — Contract to supply power to work machine. See Landlord and Tenant. 50. — Water mill— Land drainage — Injury to other "laud." See Land Drainage. 1. MILLDAM — Fishery district — River — Tribu- tary, What is — Licence. See Fishery. 2. MILL OWNERS — Salmon fishings — Abstraction of water by mill owner — Right to interdict by upper fishery proprietors. See Fishery. 11. MILL STREAM — Artificial channel — Riparian proprietors — Title to bed of stream — Easement — Right to flow of water — Presumption — Watercourse. .See Stream. 3. MINERALS. See under MINES. MINES. (Mines and Minerals.) Coal Mines Regiilation Act (1SS7) Amendment Act, 1903 (3 lidw. 7, c. 7), amends s. 2:>, s^ih-s. 1, of the Coal Mines llegulation Act, 1887 (.")0 ,<■ 61 Viet, c. 28). Abandoned Mines. Plans of, deposiied in the Home Qffiee under the Coal and Metalliferous Mines llegulation Acts. List of. Corrected to JDefl.31, 1903. 1903 (K.— Home Office). Price Is. UI^'ES— continued. Coal Mines (^Weighing of Minerals Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 9), amends the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, which relate to the weigldng of minerals. Kutice of Accidents Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 53). Mines and Quarries. Notice of Accidents Act, 1906, Order, Dec. 22, 1906, hy the Secretary of State reqniri/ig the rejtorting of certain classes uf dangerous occurrences in mines and quarries whether pei%ional injury is caused or not. St. R. & 0., 1906, No. '934. Mines and Quarries in the United Kingdom, Codes of Rules in force in. 1908 (K — Some Office). Price i.K. ed. Mines in the United Kingdom and the I-ilc of Man, 1907, List of. 1908 (K.— Home Office). Price 1«. Quarries in the United Kingdom aiid th« Isle of Man, 1907, Li.^ of. 1908 (K.— Home Office). Price OS. Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 57), amends the Coal iline-i Regulation Acts, 1887 to 190.J, for the purpose of limiting hours of work below ground. Mines Accidents {Rescue and Aid) Act, 1910 (10 Edw. 7 .J'- 1 6^60. 5, c. 15), is an Act to mahe provision with respiect to organization for the pur- pose of rescue and aid in the case of accidents in mines. 1. — Ahandonment — Notice to Secretary of State — Neglect to send — Offence against Act — Limitation of time — Coal Mines Regulation Acts, 1887, 1896 (.-jO S- 51 Vict. t-. 58, s. SS, sui-s. 5; 59 4- (>0 Vict. c. 43, s. 4). The respondent w.is charged, as owner of a mine, for failing to comply with the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, s. 38. as amended by the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1896, s. 4, in not sending to a Secretary of State, within three months after abandonment of a seam in the mine, a plan as prescribed by the Acts. By s. 38, sub-s. 5, the information may be laid at any time within six months after abandonment, or after service on the owner of a notice to comply with the requirements of the section, whichever last happens. On Jan. 25, 1900, after the abandonment, the appellant wrote to the respondent: "1 beg to point out to you that no plan of the abandoned workings in the seven-feet coal seam has yet been forwarded, as required by s. 38 of the Mines Act. Will you please give the matter your early attention." On May 25 the appellant again wrote, requiring the respondent to comply with the Act. The information was laid on July 27, 1900. The justices dismissed the information : — Held, that s. 38, sub-s. 5, was a clause of limitation, that the letter of Jan. 25 was a good notice, and that, six mouths after service of the notice having expired before proceedings were taken, the information was out of time, and the decision of the justices was right. Stokes v. Hill - - - Div. Ct. [1901] W. N. 80; [1901] 1 K, B. 493 ( 170S ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 1704 ) HIKES — Action, Cause of — Interference with legal right — Justification — ' ' Stop-day. " See Trade Union. 8. — Agent of mines — Liability for contravention of general rule by manager. See Justices, (j. — British Beohuanaland Concession Court — Concessions by native chiefs before 1891. See Cape of Good Hope. 2. — Canadian Act (53 Vict. c. 4)— Grants there- under includes mines and minerals. See Canada — Railway. 1. 2. — Check-weigher — Remoral — Interferhuj with worltmen — Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887 (50 S- 51 Vict. c. 58), s. 1.?. By s. 13, sub-ss. 4 and 5, of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, it is provided that on the complaint of the owner of a mine a Court of summary jurisdiction may order the removal of a check-weigher on the ground, amongst others, that he has " interfered .... with any of the workmen " : — Meld, that interference with the workmen within the above section is not limited to acts done by a check-weigher by virtue of or in con- nection with his office, or to acts done at the mine. Sykes i: Bareaclottgh Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 675 3. — Clay — Comp^ilmvy purcliase — Mines and minerals — Hailways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (« Si 9 Vict. c. 20), ss. 77, 78, 79. Clay forming the surface or subsoil, and con- stituting the "land" compulsorily taken for the purposes of an undertakins, is not a mineral within the meaning of ss. 77, 78, or 79 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. Lord Provost of Glasgow v. Farie, (1888) 13 App. Cas. 657, explained. ITemt V. Gill, (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. 699, and ./erseg {Harl) v. Ifeath Guardians, (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 555, commented on. Great WesternRij. Co. v. Blades, [1901] 2 Ch. 624, approved. In re ToDD, BiKLBSTON & Co. AND NoBTH Eastern Ry. Co. C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 603 See next Case. 4. — Clay — Mines and other minerals — Mail- way company — Purchase of Surface — " Mineral " — Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 4' 9 Vict. c. 20), ss. 77, 78. The principles governing cases like ITe.ef v. Gill, (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. 699, which deal with a reservation of minerals by virtue of a grant or contract, are not applicable to the determination of cases arising out of a statutory reservation of minerals, like that contained in s. 77 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. Though a mineral prima facie includes any- thing lying under the laud which has a value of its own as being capable of being used indepen- dently of the land, yet that rule may be modified by the circumstances of the case where the mineral in question is accepted only by virtue of a statutory reservation. Clay forming the sur- face or subsoil and constituting " the land " pur- chased for the pnrposes of the undertaking is not MINES — continued. a " mineral " within s. 77 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, as interpreted by Zord Provost and Magistrates of Glasgow v. Farie, (1888) 13 App. Cas. 657. Semhle, the same clay may be a mineral in one district and not in another. Great Western Ry. Co. v. Blades - Buckley J. [1901] W. N. 160 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 624 yotc. Approved by C. A., In re Todd, Birleston S^ Co. and Nm-tk Eastern Ry. Co., [1902] 1 K. B. 603. See preceding Case. See Great Western Ry. Co. v. Carpalla United China. Clay Co., Eve J.,' [1908] W. N. 178 ; C. A. [1909] 1 Ch.218 ; H. L. (E.) [1910] A. 0. 83. 5. — Coal mine — Chech lueigher — Appoint- ment — " Min.e " — Two seams in mine — Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887 (50 .$■ 51 Vict. c. 58), s. 13, sub-s. 1. By s. 13, sub-s. 1, of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, it is provided that the persons who are employed in a mine and are paid according to the weight of mineral gotten by them may appoint a check weigher. In a mine not divided into parts under s. 19 of the Act there were two seams of coal worked as one mine by separate gangs of miners paid according to the weight of mineral gotten by them : — Held, that the two seams together constituted a "mine" within the meaning of s. 13, and consequently that the miners working in one of the seams could not under that section appoint a check weigher in respect of the mineral gotten from that seam. Thoepb v. Davies Sutton J. [1908] 2 K. B. 780 — Coal mines — Mine-owner, Liability of — Con- tractor — Contract by workman with mine-owner to obey regulations. See Master and Servant — Compensa- tion. 196. — Coal mines regulation — Negligence — Burd-en of proof. See Master and Servant — Negli- gence. 1. — Compensation — Rise in value of coal after notice to treat, whether arbitrator can consider in assessing compensation. See No. 15, ielow, — Conditions of sale— Right to rescind — Misde- scription —Absence of title to mines — Compensation. See Vendor and Purchaser— Con- ditions of Sale. 6. — Contract to deliver on specified terms all the coal required for use in the plaintiflls' works — Construction — Breach of con- tract. See Canada — Contracts. 1. — Foreign mine — Obtaining possession — Practice. See Company — Receiver. 10. 6. — Gravel and sand — Min.es and Minerals —Quarries Act., 1894 (57 S; 58 Vict. c. 42), s. 1— Regulation of Railways Act, 1871 (34 Sf 35 Viet. 0. 78), g. 6. ( 1705 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1706 ) Jil'SES— continued. Gravel and sand are minerals within the meaning of s. 1 of the Quarries Act, 1894. The digging of ballast by a ry. co. upon its own land for the purposes of the ry, is not an act done " in the course of working the railway " within the meaning of s. 6 of the Regulation of Kailways Act, 1871. Scott v. Midland Ey. Co Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 317 — Highway — Subsistence. >See under Highway. — Inclosure Acts, Construction of — Support. See under Inclosukb. — Income tax— Nitrate grounds situate abroad — Profit and gains — Deduction to meet exhaustion of material. See Revenue— Income Tax. 30. — Landlord and tenant — Quiet enjoyment — Implied contract —Extent — Disturb- ance — Prior mining lessees —Indemnity . See Landlord and Tenant. 72. — Land tax, Redemption of — Liability to assess- ment of coal mines under redeemed land. See Land Tax, 3. 1. — i«a.s'e — Construction — Covenant to loorli " in a fair, proper, and worlimanWie manner and according to the best mode of worlting for the time lieing adopted in tlie neighhourhood" — Covenant mit to injure worlting of seams next beneath or next alore — Mines and nii/wrals. Leases of seven seams of coal for mining purposes contained covenants by the lessees to work the coal " in a fair, proper, and workman- like manner, and according to the best mode of working for the time being adopted in the neighbourhood," and to work the seams " so as not to injuriously affect or make it more difficult and expensive to work the seam or seams lying next beneath or next above," and not to injure or endanger buildings by undermining their foundations or by the working. In the neigh- bourhood of the mines the system of working usually adopted was the "long wall" system, or the " Barry " system (a modification of it), under which systems all the coal was worked and no pillars were left. In an area of forty-two acres, beneath a village in which there were raaHy houses, the lessees worked the lower vein of the two into which the seam there lying was divided on the " pillar and stall " system, under which many large pillars of coal were left to support the surface and houses : — Held (1.) that, in arriving at the meaning of what was " fair, proper, and workmanlike " working, all the circumstances must be con- sidered, including the lessees' obligation to sup- port the surface ; (2.) that the " best mode of working " meant the best under all the circum- stances, and that even the system in general use, if meant, was only to be used where applicable ; (3.) that the " pillar and stall " system was pro- perly used under the area of forty-two acres ; and (4,) that the covenant as to working seams with- out injury to others applied to the seven seams demised and not to the two veins of one seam. BeeWer r. Rhymney Ibon Co. - Parker J, [1910] 1 Ch. 766 MINES — continued. — Lands Clauses Acts. See under Lands Clauses Acts. 8. — Lease — Mines and minerals — Construc- tion — Clause against loorliing adjoining minerals — Absolute prohilrition. The pursuers were the trustees and proprietors of part of the lands of A. The defenders were tenants of the coal seams under the said lands, but the mineral field worked by the defenders comprised also coal seams under lands belonging to several adjoining proprietors which were worked by pits, on the said lands of A. The whole was to be worked as one general scheme. The pursuers sought to enforce as absolute against the defenders the following prohibition contained in a minute of agreement of the same date of the leases : — " The second parties (the defenders) hereby undertake and bind them- selves and their foresaids that from and after .... they will work the coal in the adjoining properties only to such an extent as to enable them to pay the several proprietors thereof such sums of lordship as will amount to but not exceed the fixed rents agreed by their existing leases to be paid to such proprietors respectively. Declaring that if in any year during the currency of this lease the sums pay- able to such adjoining proprietors shall exceed the said fi.xed rents (which amount in cumulo to 550Z. sterling per annum) then and in that event the second parties shall be bound .... to pay to the first party (the pursuers' author) the sura of one penny per ton on every ton of coal worked from the lands of such adjoining proprietors in excess of the quantities necessary to make up .... the said fixed rents ... . In consideration whereof the first party .... renounces from and after .... the right to exact the wayleave of one penny per ton presently payable to him " : — Held (reversing the decision of the First Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1908) 45 Sc. L. E. 290), that the clause was an absolute prohibition and not one giving the defenders a licence to work as much coal as they pleased from beneath the adjoining lands so long as they paid the stipulated one penny per ton. Forrest v. Merry k Cuninghamb, Ld. - H, I. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 160 ; [1909] A. C. 417 9. — Lease, Mining — Construction — Covenant to ivin, tcork and get fairlg, duly and honestUj the whole of the coal — JDamages. By a mining lease a seam of coal under land of the lessors was demised for a terra of years at an annual rent, and until the working began at a nominal dead rent, and the lessees covenanted that they would at all times during the term fairly, duly and honestly win, work and get the whole of the seam in a proper and workmanlike manner. Owing to diflSculties in working it was found to be impossible to work the coal without heavy pecuniary loss, and the lessees therefore abandoned the undertaking : — Held, that upon the true construction of this particular lease the lessees had broken their covenant, and were liable in damages to the lessors. ( 1707 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 1708 ) MINE S — continued. The decision of the 0. A,, Watson v. Charles- worth, [1905] 1 K. B. 74, affirmed. Chaelbs- WOBTH 1). Watson H. I. (E.) [1905] "W. N. 168 ; [1906] A. C. 14 — Lease, Mining — Payments for purchase of chalk — Capital or income. See Will— Eeal Estate. 9. — Mine-owner, Liability of — Contractor — Con- tract by workman with mine-owner to obey regulations. See Master and Seevant — Compen- aation. X96. — Mining lease — Proviso for re-entry — Breach of covenant — Forfeiture — Unequivocal demand for possession. See Landlord and Tenant. 72. — Mining regulations — Eights of placer miner as to renewal of his grant. See Canada — Mines. 1. — New South Wales, I^aws of. See under New South Wales. — New Zealand Mining Act, 1898 — Compensa- tion. See New Zealand. 4. 10. — Overlying and underlying seams of coal — Powers of working — Suisidenee — Riglvt to sup- port — iJvidence— Necessary implication. The owner of land granted to the appellants a lease of a seam of coal overlying another seam, with full powers of working ihe overlying seam, but reserving to the owner the right of granting a, lease of the underlying seam, with full pi iwers of working subject to a covenant by the owner to indemnify the lessees of the overlying seam against physical damage caused by working the underlying seam : the appellants to have the first offer of a lease of the underlying seam. That offer having been made and refused, a lease of the underlying seam was granted to the respondents. It appeared from the leases and from evidence of the practice of mining that the parties must- have contemplated that the underlying seam would be worked concurrently with the over- lying seam, and that the proper mode of working the underlying seam was by the long wall system, which would of necessity produce sub- sidence in the overlying seam : — Held, that the respondents were entitled to work the underlying seam by the long wall system, leave to cause subsidence being clearly implied. Decision of 0. A., [1909] 1 Ch. 37, affirmed. BUTTEBLBY CO. V. NEW HUCKNALL COLLIKEY Co. H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 102 ; [1910] A. C. 381 11. — Owner — Duty to fence — Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, 1872 (35 ^- 36 Vict. c. 77), ss. 13, 41 —Puilic well in shaft of abandoned mine — Vested in local authority — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 ^ 39 Vict. c. 55) s. 64. By s. 13 of the Metalliferous Mines Regula- tion Act, 1872, where a mine is abandoned or the working thereof is discontinued, the owner thereof and every other person interested in the minerals of the mine shall cause the top of the shaft to be fenced; by s. 41 the term "mine" MINES — continued. includes a shaft belonging to a mine, and the term " owner" does not include a persun wno is merely the owner of the soil and not interested in the minerals of the mine. The shaft of an abandoned mine contained water, and was used as and was in fact a public well, which under s. 64 of the Public Health Act, 1875, was vested in the defts., the local authority : — Held, that the defts. were not the owners of the mine or of the shaft within the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, 1872, and were, therefore, not liable in an action for damage sustained through the top of the shaft not having been fenced. Knuokey r. Redbdth Rueal Council Div.Ct.[1904] IK. B. 382 — Payment of miners according to amount excavated. See New South Wales. 23. — Private coal fields — Royalties on coal extracted. See Natal. 6. ■ Railway company. See under Railway- -Mines. - Rise in price of coal — Evidence, Credibility of. See Evidence. 4. ■ Rise in value of coal after notice to treat, whether arbitrator can consider in assessing compensation. See No. 15, below. ■ Royalties, Mining— Wasting property — In- terest, Rate of — Income of invested surplus. See Settled Land — Interest. 1. 12. — Salt mine — Underground brine. Rights of adjoining landowners in respect of — Percolating underground water. The plaintiffs were the owners of a group of rock-salt mines which had for many years been flooded with brine, by reason of i he fact that the working of the mines had caused the ground above them to subside, with the result that surface water found its way down to the beds of rook-salt below, where it became saturated with the salt. These mines had for many years been connected with one anoi;her by means of old underground channels and passages, which it was no longer possible to close, and they formed one large reservoir of brine. Into this reservoir there also found its way a certain quantity of other brine which came through fissures in the soil from land outside the pits.' property, but a sub- stantial portion of the brine therein was formed by the difisolution of the pits.' salt rock in the manner above mentioned. The defts., in the exercise of a licence to pump brine granted to them by the previous owner of one of the pits.' mines, pumped large quantities of brine from the said mine and from the reservoir and appropriated it for their own profit : — Held, that the defts. were not guilty of any actionable wrong in so doing, notwithstanding that they thereby abstracted salt which had formed part of the pits.' rock, and that the con- tinuance of the pumping would cause fresh surface water to dissolve further portions of the pits.' J rock into brine, which in its turn would be ( 1709 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1710 ) MINES— ooniJ! abstracted by the defts.' pumps. SALT UNION, Ld. u. Beunnrr, Mond & Co. Lord AlverBtoue C.J. [1906] 2 K. B. 832 — Scottish law — Superior and vassal — Casualty or composition — Annual value of minerals. See Scottish Law, 27. — Settled land. See under Settled Land — Mines. — Sewer and sewage works — Eight to support of mines and minerals — Adjacent lands. Sa- Sbwees. 19. — Stamp — "Conveyance on sale" — Sale, what amounts to — Minerals under railway. See Revenue — Stamps. 11. — Statutory rules and orders — Validity — Condi- tion precedent. See Statutory Rules and Oedees. 1. — Subsidpnce. Compensation for — Mining lease — Benefit of covenant — Heirs and assigns of covenantee — Covenantee not a party. Sec Covenant. 1. — Subsidence. Highway. See under Highway. 13. — Subsidence — Measure of damages — Risk of futiire subsidence — Hemoteness — Worldng of minerals. In assessing the damages recoverable by a surface owner for subsidence owing to the worli;- ing of mi.ierals under or adjoining his property, the depreciation in the market value of the property attributable to the risk of future sutei- deiice must not be taken into account. To recover datnagea the surface owner must wait until the damage or injury caused by subsidence has happened. Decision of the C. A., [1906] 2 Ch. 22, reversed ; and decision of Swinfen Eadv J., [1905] 2 Ch. 390, restored. WicST I.EIOH GOLLIBEY Co. v. TunNICLIPFE & HAMPSON, Ld. - H. I. (E.) [1907] W. N. 249 ; [1908] A. 0. 27 — Support of surface. Right to — Damage to sur- face — Compensation — Reservation of manorial rights. See INCLOSUEE. 2, 3. 14. — Tenants in eommon — WorTiing of part of coal mine iy one co-owner — Adverse possession — Constructiie possession — Presumption — Tres- passer — Account — Real Property Limitation Act, 1833 (3 ^' 4 Will. 4, c. 27), ss. 12, U—Real Property Limitation Act, 1874 (37 ^- 38 Vict. c. 57), s. 1. Where title is founded on an adverse posses- sion, the title will be limited to that area of which actual possession has been enjoyed, and as a general rule, constructive posstssiou of a wider area wiU only be inferred from actual possession of the limited area, if the inference of such wider possession is necessary to give effect to contractual obligations, or to preserve the good faith and honesty of a bargain. The pits., who were together entitled to one undivided one-sixth part of the mines under a MINES — continued. mountain of ninety-two acres, brought an action against the deft., who was admittedly entitled to another undivided one-sixth part of the same mines, and asked fiT an account of the coal worked by him. It was proved in evidence that more than twelve years before the commence- ment of the action the predecessors in title of the deft., under licences from the owners of the other four-sixths of the mines, but without the licence of the pits., had commenced to work out the coal under the mountain from an area of two acres, and had remained in possession of that worked-out area, or cavity, ever since. The deft, claimed that possession of part of the mine entitled him to constructive possession of the whole area of the mine horizontally and vertically under the mountain : — Held, that the d. ft., having been in adverse possession of the pits.' one-sixth part, which must be treated as a separate tenement, for more than the required statutory period, had acquired a good title under the ."Statute of Ijimitations to the two-acre area, of which his predecessors had been in actual possession, and no more. Held, therefore, that the pits, were entitled to an account of the coal, except that taken from the two-acre area, such account to be limited to six years before action brought. Glynn v. Howell Eve J. [1909] W. N. 37 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 666 — Trustees — Power to grant mining leases — Diiopenud mines. See Trustee — leases. 1. — Underground road — Carriage of foreign materials — Property in sub-soil — Pay- ment of rent — Estoppel. See Conveyance. 3. — Vendor and purchaser. See under Vendoe AND PURCHASBE — Minerals. — Vendor and purchaser — Absence of title to mines — Compensation. See Vendor and Puechasek — Con- ditions of Sale. 6. — Water pipe, Right of support for — Minerals under pipe. See Watbe. 20. • — Waterworks company stopping mining works — Direction of interdict — Mea- sure of damages. See Damage and Damages. 2. — Waterworks — Mines — Support, Right to. See Water. 5. 15. — WaterworJi^ — Kotice toprerent worlting if mines — Compensation — Arbitration — Rise in value of minerals — Ecidence — Watenooo'lts Clauses Act, 1847 (10 ^- 11 Vict. c. 17), ss. 6, 22-25 — Lands Clause.1 Acts. Owners of coal mines under and near water- works gave the undertakers notice under s. 22 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 184 7, that they in- tended to work the coal. The undertakers replied by a counter-notice requiring the mine owners not to work and stating their willingness to make compensation, la an arbitration under ( 1711 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1712 ) MINES — continued. the Act and the Lands Clauses Acts to assess the compensation the mine owners gave evidence to prove that coal rose in value after the date of the couDter-notice : — Held, that there was no purchase of the coal or transfer of the property in the coal ; that the inquiry was not what was the value of the coal at the date of the counter-notice, but what would the coal-owners, if they had not been prohibited, have made out of the coal during the time it would have taken them to get it ; and that the evidence was admissible. The decision of the C. A., [1902] W. N. 102 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 13.5, reversed, and the decision of Ridley and Phillimore JJ., [1901] 2 K. B. 798, restoi-ed. Bwllpa and Merthye. Dark Steam CoLLiBRiES (1891), Ld. I'. Pontypridd Watbr- WORKS Co. H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 149 ; [1903] A. C. 426 — Workmen's compensation. See under Master and Sbrvant- Compeusation. MINUTES — Debenture-holder's action — Motion for judgment. See Company — Debentures. 28. — Criminal Law. See under Criminal Law — Larceny. Criminal Law — Practice. MISAPPEOPRIATION— Agent, Borrowing by— Excess of authority — Notice — Liability, See Principal and Agent. 4. — Bankruptcy — Proof — Breach of trust — Director of company and member of partnership. See Bankruptcy — Proof. S. — By solicitor — Innocent breach of trust — Limitations, Statute of — Acknowledg- ment. See Tettstee — Breach of Trust. 4. — Trustee — Liability — Eestoration of capital with interest at 5 per cent. See Trustee — liability. 1. ' MISBEHAVIOUR "—Pauper- lawful order. See Poor Law. 14. -Disobedience to MISCONDUCT — Administration — G rant — Cita- tion—Widow passed over on ground of marital miscooduct. See Probate — Misconduct. 1. — Allegations of — Discovery — Libel — Justifica- tion — Inspection of pits.' books — Practice. See Discovery. 5. " Professional misconduct " — Dentists' register — Order of Medical Council to erase name. See Dentist. 2. Receiving order — Scheme of arrangement — " Rash and hazardous speculation." See Bankruptcy— Arrangement. 6. MISCONDUCT— i3fl»*'iwwfi(i. — SoUoitor— Inquiry— Necessity, of appearing by counsel. See Solicitor— Practice. 1. — Solicitors. See under Solicitor— Misconduct. — Workmen's compensation — " Serious and wilful misconduct." See Master and Sbvaht— Compensa- tion. 141, 142. MISDEMEAN»UK — Bankrupt — Discharge — " Special reasons." See Bankruptcy — Discharge. 1. — Pleading — Indictment — Receiving — Omission of " feloniously " — Common law mis- demeanour. See Criminal Law— Larceny. 11. MISDESCRIPTION— Conditions of sale— Right to rescind — Absence of title to mines — Compensation. See Vendor and Purchaser — Con- ditions of Sale. 6. — Of plaintifi — Admiralty — Practice — Parties. See S H IPPIN G — Practice. 1 1 . — Sale by the Court — Conditions of sale — Mis- take — Compensation — Rescission. See Vendor and Purchaser— Con- ditions of Sale. 4. — Settlement — Mistake of fact — Clerical error — Tail male instead of tail general. See Settlement. 35. — Title, Failure to shew — Latent defect — Under- ground culvert for water.' See Vendor and Purchaser — Title. B. — Vendor and purchaser. See under Vendor and Purchaser — Misdescription. — " Wife " — Named legatee misdescribed as wife. iSsfi Will— Misdescription. 1. — WiU — Mistake — " Freehold " — Customary freeholds. See Will — Words. 5. — Wm— Name. See under WILL — Name. — Will — Specific bequest. See Will — Specific Legacy. 1. MISDIRECTION- New trial. See Defamation — Libel. 11. — New trial — Action against trade union- Actionable conspiracy — Resolutions of union calling a strike. See Canada — Trade Union. 1. — Omission of counsel to suggest questions to judge at trial — New trial, Application for. See Practice— Trial. 5. MISFEASANCE^Costs, Security for —Liquida- tor — Misfeasance summons. See Company — ^Winding-up — Costs. .5 ( 1713 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1714 ) MISFEASANCE— co)«;;«ac(f. — Damages for misfeasance — Winding-up — Two insolvent compmies — Cross-claims — Adjustment — Claim on debentures- Dividend. See COMPANy — WlNDIH-G - DP — Assets. 6. — Director — Payment of dividends out of capital — Negligence. See Company — Directors. 11. — Highway. See under Highway. — Negligence — Article of dangerous nature — Contractor — Gas company. See Canada — Gas. 2. — Elver. See under KlVEE. MISJOINDER — Parties — Public elementary school. See Schools. 9. MISREPRESENTATION — Costs, Depriving successful defendant of — Appeal — Mis- representation not afEeoting plaintiff. See Costs. 33. — Deed — Jlisrepresentation as to contents — Validity — Plea of non est factum. See Deed. u. — Executed contract — Rescission — Absence of fraud — Delay. See CONTEACT. 14. — Illustrated catalogue — Infringement — Articles falsely called patent. See Copyright — Catalogue. 2. — Innocent Misrepresentation — Bank of Eng- land — Transfer of stock — Attorney. See Peincipal and Agent. 3. — Insurance, Life — Policy — Mistake as to age of assured — Acceptance of premiums after knowledge of mistake. See Insueancb (Life). 15. — Name, Unauthorised use of — Holding out as partner — Injunction. See Name. 1. — Particulars — Property described as freehold. See Vendoe and Puechaser — Title. 10. — Prospectus. See under COMPANY — Prospectus. — Eepayment of premiums obtained by. See INSDEANCE (Life). 15. — Sale under direction of Court — Contract — Eescission — Costs recoverable by pur- chaser. See Vendor and Poechaseb — Rescission. 6. — Shares — Subscription obtained by misrepre- sentation. See Company — Winding-up — Contri- butory. 5. — Statement induced by misrepresentation — Concealment of material tact. See Estoppel. 5. MISREPRESENTATION— eoKii/meif. — Veterinary surgeon — One man company — Unqualified person managing director — Managing director described as " specialist." See Vetebinaey Surgeon. 2. MISSTATEMENTS— In proposal made by agent of insurers without knowledge of insm-ed — Authority of agent. See Insurance (Accident). 6. MISTAKE — Absence of — Compromise of action — Agreement to refer — Authority exceeded by counsel. See Counsel. 1. — Agreement — Mutual error — Reconstruction of agreement by the parties — Interest on price. See Contbact. 3. — Appealing, Time for — Mistake as to effect of rule — Discretion of Court — Practice. See Appeal. 31. — Appointment — Deed poU — Eescission — "For- getfuluess " a ground for equitable reUef. See Power op Appointment. 24. — Articles of association. See Company — Memorandum. 15. — Bankruptcy notice — Validity — Mistake in amount of interest — Formal defect. See Bankruptcy — Notice. 14. — Bill of lading — Description of goods. See Shipping — Cliarterparty. 7. — Insurance, Life. See under INSURANCE (Life). — Judgment creditor — Garnishee order absolute — Setting aside. See Setting Aside. 1. — Marriage settlement — Non-execution of a power — Death of donee — Rectification. — Parol evidence. See Settlement. 39. — Money paid to agent under mist:ike of fact — When recoverable back. See Railway — Rates. 2. — Money paid under mistake of fact — Marked cheque fraudulently altered — Negli- gence. See Canada — Bank. 2. — Money paid under a mistake of fact — Mistake shared by both parties. See Limitations, Statute op. 12. — Notice — Validity of notice — Street — Paving — Local government. See Streets. 17. — Number of legatees — Illegitimate children — Presumption — Evidence of intention. See Will — Illegitimacy. 7. — Property in sub-soil — Payment of rent — Estoppel. See Conveyance. 3. — P>ectification of deed — Solicitor and client — Independent advice. See Solicitor— Fiduciary Relation. 1. ( 1713 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1716 ) MISTAKE- -continued. — Release by governor of gaol — Leave to issue further writ. See Attachment. 18. — Settlement — Mistake of fact — Misdescription — Clerical error — Tail male instead of tail general. Sec SETTLEMENT. 35. — Ship — Bill of lading — Intentional letting in of sea-water — Negligent mistake. See Shipping — Charterparty. 12. — Testamentary papers — Execution by one person of codicil of the other person — Intention — Effect — Refusal of probate. See Probate — Execution, -t. — Vendor and purchaser. See under Vendoe and Purchaser — Mistake. — Will — Erroneous recital — Legatee — Alleged advance — Hotchpot clause. See Will — Mistake. 1. — Will — Inaccurate enumeration — Class. See Will— Class. 9. — Will — Inadvertence of solicitor — Words elimi- nated from probate. See Probate- Execution. 2. ■ Will — Misdescription of gift- Customary freeholds. See Will — Words. 5. ' Freehold ''- MOLASSES REFINED IN BOND >'- Customs and Excise Duties. See Victoria. 4. -Victoria MOLESTATION —Interference with employment — Trade Union Officers, Liability of. See Trade Union. 8. " MONEY " — WiU— Construction— " The rest of my money " — Other property. See Will— Words. 9. MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED— Action for — Cheque — Countermand by telegram — Notice. See Banker. 2. — Agent — Power of attorney — Borrowing — Excess of authority. See Principal and Agent. 7. — Interest not recoverable — Costs in action to which the Crown is a party. S'.'e Sierra Leone. 1. — Misrepresentation — Voidable contract — As- signment of contract. See Vendor and Purchaser— Con- tract. 4. — Secret commission — Sub-agent — Privity of contract — Fiduciary relation. See Principal and Agent. 9. — Voidable contract — Assignment of contract — Privity of contract. See Vendor and Purchaser — Con- tracts, i. MONEY-LENDERS. CoxLTity Court Rules (^Feh.), 1901, dated Feb. 25, ' 1901— Prooeedings under t/ie Money- lenders Act, 1900 (63 4' 64 Vict. c. 51), s. 1. Reprint from W. N. 1901 (March 2), p. 73. See Current Index, 1901, p. Ixxvii. Order, Oct. 21, 1909, as to the alteration of the amount of Fees to be paid under the Money- lenders Act, 1900, in respect of the Inspection oj the Segister and for a copy of a Registered Return, and Treasury Order, Oct. 26, 1909, as to the Collection of the same by means of Stamps. St. R. & 0., 1909, No. 1283. Price Id. 1. — Action by money-lender — Practice — Summary judgment — Interest prima facie &r- cessire — Harsh a7id unconscionable transaction — R. S. C, Order XIV.— Money-lenders Act, 1900 (63 S,- 64 Viet. c. 51), s. 1. Where in an action by a money-lender to recover money lent with interest it appears that the interest claimed is prima facie excessive, the case cannot, as regards the claim for interest, be dealt with upon an application for summary judgment under Order XIV., but the action must go to trial for the purpose of having it determined whether the interest is so excessive as to render the transaction harsh and unconscionable within the Money-lenders Act, 1900, and to entitle the deft, to relief under that Act. Wells v. Allott C. A. [1904] a K. B. 842 2^ote. Explained and distinguished by C. A., Lazarusy. SmUh, [1908] 2 K. B. 266. See vVu. 11, below. 2. — Susi7iess carried on at other than regis- tered address — Loan effected at borrower's residence — Illegality — Bill of Sale — Money- lenders Act, 1900 (63 S)- 64 Vict. c. 61), s. 2, sub-s. 1 (i). The Money-lenders Act, 1900, in requiring that a money-lender " shall carry on the money- lending business in his registered name and in no other name and under no other description, and at his registered address or addresses and at no other address," does not mean that every stage and every incident of every piece of the money-lending business is to be transacted at the registered oiBce. The question is a question of fact, not of law, and must be answered according to the circum- stances of the case. Decision of C. A., 6add v. Provincial Union Rank, [1909] 2 K. B. 353, reversed and the interim injunction discharged. KirkwoOD r. Gadd - H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 157 ; [1910] A. C. 422 3. — Carrying on business at registered address — Cheguefor amount of loan sent by post to borrower — Isolated part of transaction — Illegality — Money-lenders Act, 1900 (63 ^- 64 Vict. c. 51), s. 2, sub-s. 1 (S). The terms of a loan were arranged between a registered money-lender and the borrower at the money-lender's registered address, and the pro- missory notes which were given as security for the loan were signed there. For the mutual convenience of both parties a cheque for the ( 1717 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1718 ) MONEY-IENDEBS— co«ii »«e(?. amount of the loan was sent by the money- lender by post to the borrower's address : — Held, that the mere fact that the cheque for the money advanced was sent to the borrower by post instead of being handed to the borrower at the money-lender's registered address did not make the transaction void as being a carrying on of the money-lending business elsewhere than at the registered address in contravention of s. 2, sub-s. 1 (V), of the Money-lenders Act, 1900. Jackson v, Pkicb - - Darling J. [1909] W. N. 262 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 143 Kote. This case was referred to by Div. Ct., In re A Debtor (.Vo. 2 of 1910), [1910] W. N. 70. See ne.i't Case. 4. — Carryiii^ on itisiness at registered address — Loan made through the post — Illegality —Money-lenders Act, 1900 (63 ^- 64 Vict. c. 51), «. 2, sub-s. 1 (J). The appellant was a duly registered money- lender, his registered address being 11, Cork Street, London. In Jan., 1910, he presented a bankruptcy petition against the respondent in the Preston County Court. The act of bank- ruptcy was the execution by the respondent of a deed of assignment for the benefit of his creditors. The appellant's alleged debt was 64Z. due on the respondent's dishonoured promissory note given by him to the appellant in consideration of a loan. The respondent, who resided in Lancashire, had received one of the appellant's business circulars, and he applied to him by letter for a loan. Negotiations were carried on by correspondence, and terms having been arranged, the appellant sent a promissory note to the respondent. He signed it and returned it to the appellant, who then for- warded by post a cheque for the amount of the loan, which the respondent paid into his bank. The whole of the lausiness was carried out by correspondence between the appellant, writing from his registered address, and the respondent, at his residence The registrar held that the transaction had not been carried out at the appellant's registered address within the meaning of s. 2, sub-s. 1 (J), of the Money-lenders Act, 1900, and that there was, therefore, no valid debt, and he accordingly dismissed the petition. The Court allowed the appeal. Phillimore J. said that this transaction had been carried out at the money-lender's regis- tered address within the meaning of the Act ; the result of holding otherwise would be that no money-lending transaction could be carried out wholly through the post. The Act had not said that, and it would be wrong so to construe it as to give it that meaning, particularly having regard to the fact, as was pointed out by Darling J. in Jacltson v. Price, [1910] 1 IC. B. 143, that the result would be not only to render the transaction void, but to subject the money- lender to a heavy penalty as a criminal. In re A Debtoe (No. 2 OF 1910) - - Div. Ct. [1910] "W. N. 70 5. — Currying on business at registered address — Loan made through thejwst — Illegality KO^EY-L'ETU'D^'RS— continued. —Money-lenders Act, 1900 (63 ^' 64 Vict. c. 51), s. 2, sub-s. 1 (*). The terms of a loan having been arranged by correspondence between the borrower and a money-lender, the latter sent to the former an unsigned promissory note, which the borrower signed and returned to the money-lender, who then seiit the borrower a cheque for the amount of the loan. The money-lender's letters, the un- signed promissory note, and the cheque were all sent by post from the money-lender's registered address to the borrower's residence : — Held, that the business of the loan had been carried on by the money-lender at his registered address within s. 2, sub-s. 1 (J), of the Money- lenders Act, 1900. In re Seed. Ux parte King Div. Ct, [1910] 1 K. B. 661 6. — Carrying on business ehewhere than at registered address — Collecting repayment of loans —Money-lenders Act, 1900 (63 S,- 64 Vict., c. 51), .!. 2, .mb-s. 1 (V). A money-lender who receives at a place which is not his registered address money in repayment of loans previously made does not thereby carry on business elsewhere than at his registered address within the meaning of s. 2, sub-s. 1, of the Money-lenders Act, 1900. Hop- kins r. Hills Div. Ct. [1910] VT. N. 98 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 89 7. — Definition — Exception — " Business not hacing for its primary object the lending of money " — Disco.niting bills of customers and friends — Financing a business — Money-lenders Act, 1900 (63 A'- 64 Vict. c. 51), .*. 6, sub-s. {d). The Money-lenders Act, 1900, s. 6, defines a money-lender to be " every person whose busi- ness is that of money-lending, or who .... holds himself out in any way as carrying on that business," but excepts sub-s. (artrwr's name not regutered — Securities roid — Assignee for value without notice — Monei/- lenders Act, 1900 (63 Jf 64 Vict. c. 51), ss. 1 (5), 2,3. In the register under the Money-lenders Act, 1900, the names of C. A. Bond and J. C. Bennett were entered as money-lenders trading in the firm name of Lewis & Co., and their names were also entered as constituting the ( 1721 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( lf22 ) MONEY-LENDERS— co/iii/jMei^. individual members of the firm. C. A. Bond was not, in fact, a member of the so-called firm, but was merely the nominee or agent of one G. C. Bond, who found all the capital : — MelcL, that securities taken in the individual names of C. A. Bond and J. C. Bennett or either of them, or in the names of Lewis & Co., were illegal and void under ss. 2 and 3 of the Act. Held, also, that a bona fide purchaser for value of the securities without notice of the defect in the registration of the firm was in no better position. In. re Robinson. Clakkson (. Robinson Neville J. [1910] W N. 226 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 571 13. — Registered address — Carrying on busi- ness elsewhere — Avoidance of contract — Money- lenders Act, 1900 (63 S,- 64 Vict. c. 51), s. 2, sub- s. 1 (*), (c). Action on a promissory note given for money lent. Pits, were money-lenders whose sole regis- tered address was the Bridge, Walsall. The deft, being in want of money in Jan., 1906, went to one Lester, who had an office in Jermyn Street, London, and who made a business of- introducing customers to money-lenders, and he signed a contract agreeing to pay Lester a com- mission of 2i per cent, on all loans procured by him and on all renewals of such loans. Lester introduced the deft, to the pits,, who advanced him o50i. on a promissory note payable at Lester's office in Jermyn Street three months after date, with interest at the rate of 25 per cent. The money so lent was handed to the deft, by Lester on behalf of the pits, at Jermyn Street. The note was subsequently renewed three times. On the occasion of each renewal the pits, sent up the note from Walsall to Lester, who procured the deft.'s signature to the new note and received from the deft, the 2J per cent, commission as agreed. The office in Jermyn Street was Lester's office. He paid the rent, rates and taxes, and the pits, had no interest in it. Lester had done business with tlie pits, for about nine years, during which time he had introduced to them upwards of a thousand similar customers. He received no commission from the pits., and obtained his sole remunera- tion from the customers themselves. In each case so introduced the money was actually advanced at Jermyn Street, the promissory notes given by the borrowers were made pay- able there, and the renewals, if any, were signed there. But the pits.' books were all kept at their office at Walsall, and in each case the question whether an advance should be made or a loan renewed was determined at a board meet- ing of the pit. CO. at Walsall. Lester had no general authority to negotiate loans or renewals on their behalf. Lester's business at Jermyn Street was not confined to procuring customers for the pits., he introduced customers to other money-lenders also, and also lent money there on his own account. The deft, contended that the promissory note was void by reason of s. 2, sub-s. 1 (i), of the Money-lenders Act, 1900, which provides that a money-lender " shall carry on the money-lending MONEY-LENDERS -continued. business in his registered name, and in no other name and under no other description, and at his registered address or addresses and at no other address." It was contended that under the circum- stances the pits, carried on business at Jermyn Street. For the pits, it was contended that the object of the Act was to ensure that the borrower should know whom he was dealing with, and that it was a sufficient compliance with the section if at the time of the negotia- tion of the loan the identity and address of the lender were disclosed : — Held that, having regard to the number of the transactions of loan conducted by the pits, through Lester at Jermyn Street, they carried on business there, and that as their address there was not registered the note sued npon was void. Staffobdshire Financial Co. v. Hu>t A. T. Lawrence J. [1907] W. N. 258 14. — Registered name — Contract — Validity of coiitracts by non-registered money-lender — Money- lenders Act, 1900 (63 ,■(■ 64 Vict. u. 51), s. 1 ; s. 2, sub-ss. 1 (»), (e), 2. Appeal from Buckley J., [1905] 2 Ch. 624, dismissed with costs without argument, in con- sequence of the approval of the decision of Buckley J. expressed by the Court in the case of Bonnard v. Dott, [1906] W. N. 66; [1906] 1 Ch. 740. ViCTOitiAN Datlesfoed Syndi- cate, Ld. v. Dott C. A. [1906] "W. N. 90 Xote. Followed and approved by C. A., Bonnard v. Dott, [1906] 1 Ch. 740. See nca.-t Case. Referred to by Farwell J., Litchfield v. Dreyfus, [1906] 1 K. B. 5S4. See So. 7, above. See next Case. 15. — Registration — Contract of unregistered money-lender — Validity — Money-lenders Act, 1900 (63 S- 64. Vict. r. 51), s. 2, siib-ss. 1 00, (c), 2. Sect. 2, sub-6. 1 (c), of the Money-lenders Act, 1900, applies to a money-lender who has not registered himself as such under the regulations of the Act, nnd prohibits him from making any agreement with respect to the advance and repayment of money, and from taking any security for money, in the course of his business as a money-lender. Consequently any such agree- ment is illegal and void, and, the statutory prohibition being intended for the protection of the borrower, the borrower under any such agreement may recover any securities which he has given to the money-lender, although the money-lender cannot recover the money which he has advanced. Victorian Daylesford Syndi- cate, Ld. V. Dott, [1905] 2 Ch. 624, followed and approved. Bonnakd v. Dott - C. A. [19061 W. N. 66 ; [1906] 1 Oh. 740 i\'otc. See Victorian Daylesford Syndicate, Ld. v. Dott, C. A., [1906] W, N. 90. Sec -To. 14, aboce. See j/reccding Case. 16. — Registration — Contract of iinregistered mmiey-lender — Void transaction — Usury — Action to recover securities— Ko offer to repay advance! ( 1723 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1724 ) MONEY-LENDERS— cottSi/me(?. — Equitable jurisdictioyi — -Terms — Money-leiiders Act, 1900 (63 ^ 64 Vict. o. 51), s. 2. In an equitable action by a borrower to recover securities mortgaged to an unregistered money-lender the mortgagee will not be ordered to give up to the mortgagor the securities the subject of the mortgage except upon the terms that the mortgagor shall repay the money which has been advanced to him. Qximre, what would be the result of an action at common law for this purpose ? Authorities on the old usury law considered and applied. Lodge d. National Union Investment Co. Parker J. [1907] W. N. 9 : [1907] 1 Ch. 300 Xate. This case was distinguished by C. A., Chapman T. Michaelson, [1909J 1 Oh. 238. See next Case. 17. — Megistration — Jlortgaffe in favour of unregistered, money-lender — Validity — Declara- tory order — Equitaile relief — Imposition of terms— Money-lenders Act, 1900 (63 S: 64 Vict, c. 51), s. 2, sui-s. 1 (a), (*), 3— iJ. ,S. C, 1883, Order XXV., r. 5, The trustee of a, debtor under a scheme of arrangement with his creditors brought an action against an unregistered money-lender, who, in the course of his business, had taken a mortgage from the debtor to secure a loan, for a declaration that the mortgage was illegal and void under s. 2 of the Money-lenders Act, 1900 :— Held, that the Court had power to give a declaratory judgment, although no ancillary relief was claimed, and that it ought not to impose upon the pit. equitable terms as to repay- ment of the actual money advanced as a con- dition of giving the declaratory judgment. Lodge v. National Union Investment Co., [1907] 1 Ch. 300, distinguished. Decision of Eve J., [1908] 2 Ch. 612, affirmed. Chapman v. Michaelson C. A. [1908] W. N. 241 ; [1909] 1 Oil. 238 18. — Registration — New address — Placet at which business carried on — Particulars to he inserted in form of application — Money-lenders Act, 1900 (63 al not due, — ('o-ccnnnt to pay interest half-yearly — Temporary default — Con- ditions of jiroeiso for redeui/ition — Construction. A mortgage of Jan. 30, 1900, contained the following provisions : — 1. A covenant to pay the principal on MOBTGAGE (Foreclosure) — continued. Jan. 1, 1914, "with interest that may be then due " at a specified rate. 2. A covenant to pay interim interest half- yearly on specified days. 3. A conveyance of the property " subject to the proviso for redemption hereinafter con- tained." 4. A proviso that the mortgagee would not call in the principal before Jan. 1, 1914, if the half-yearly interest were paid on the specified days or within twenty-one days thereof. 5. A proviso that the mortgagor should not pay off the principal before Jan. 1, 1914. 6. A proviso that if the mortgagor should on Jan. 1, 1914, pay the principal, "with interest for the same in the meantime at the rate aforesaid that may be due and unpaid," the mortgagee would reconvey. The mortgagor having paid an instalment of interest twenty-seven days after the specified day, the mortgagee sued for foreclosure : — Held, on the construction of the deed, that the provi.so for redemption did not import a condition that interest was to be paid half- yearly on the specified days or within twenty- one days thereof, and consequently that, as there was no condition broken, the mortgagee's estate was not absolute at law, and there could be no foreclosure. In re Turner, (1895) 43 W. K. 1.53 ; 13 R. 132, followed. Edwards v. Martin, (1856) 25 L. J. (Ch.) 284 ; Burrowes v. Molloy, (1845) 2 J. & Lat. 521, 526 ; and Stanhope v. Manners, (1763) 2 Eden, 197, distinguished. Williams r. Moegast Swinfen Eady J. [1906] W. N. 80 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 804 — Eegistered title — Mortgage by deed — Con- temporaneous instrument of charge — Order foreclosing mortgage, but not charge. See Land Transfer. 8. — Shares — Equitable mortgage — Pledge — De- posit of certificate. See Company — Shares. 9. — Stamps — Foreclosure order before 1898. Sec Revenue — Stamps. 13. 6. — Successive incumbrances — Ileal estate — Tenant for life of equity of redemption — Transfer of first mortgage to second mortgagee — Cocenant by tenant for life for payment of first mortgage deht — Collateral security — Surety — Principal debtor — Payment by surety — Taching — Con.toli- dation — Postponemeni of surety. R. was tenant for life of real estate subject to a first mortgage tn S. and to .a second mortgage (which included .additional property) to N., both created by E.'s predecessors in title. Subse- quently N. paid off the first mortg.ige and took a transfer of it, R., the tenant for life, who had been keeping down the interest on both mort- gages, joining by coveniinting with N. for pay- meut of the first mortgage debt, with a proviso that, as between R., his heirs, &c., estate and effects on the one part, and the first mortgaged premises and the owner or owners for the ttrno being thereof on the other part, the said premises ( 1739 ) DIGKST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1740 ) MORTGAGE (Foreclosure)— tfoKii««e(Z. should be the primary fund for payment of the first mortgage debt, and that R.'s covenant should be " only a collateral security " for such pay- ment, but that, notwithstanding N., his executors, &c., might resort to either means for enforcing payment in preference to such other means. R. and N. being both dead, a mortgagee's action was brought by N.'s representatives against E.'s representatives, claiming payment of the first mortgage debt pursuant to R.'s cove- nant, and also the right to tack the second mort- gage to the first. The defts. contended that R. had covenanted as a surety, and that, therefore, on payment by them of the first mortgage debt they would be entitled to stand in the place of the pits., the first mortgagees, and. to have an assignment of the securities for that debt. At the trial of the action, which proceeded on the assumption that R. had entered into the cove- nant as surety and not as principal debtor . — Held, by Byrne J., [1903] W. N. 49, though with reluctance, that he was bound by Fare- hrother v. IVodehouse, (1856) 23 Beav. 18, and that, therefore, the pits, could, as mortgagees, at the same time enforce payment of the first mort- gage debt under R.'s contract of suretyship, and claim the right to tack the second mortgage to the first as against the right of the surety to the transfer of securities ; also that the defts. would not, on making such payment, be entitled, under a foreclosure judgment, to a rateable proportion of the securities held by the pits, for both debts. On Appeal; — Held, by Romer and Stirling L.JJ. (Vaughan Williams L.J. dissenting), that upon the con- struction of the trftnsfer and of E.'s covenant therein E. was a principal debtor and not a surety, and that consequently, upon the autho- rity of Duncan, Fox S; Co. v. NoHh and South Wales Bank, (1880) 6 App. Cas. 1, 11, and New- ton V. Chorlton, (1853) 10 Hare, 646, neither he nor his representatives could claim the rights of a surety as against either N. or his representa- tives. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed with costs : Held, by Vaugham' Williams L.J., that, upon the construction of the proviso to the covenant by R. to pay the first mortgage debt, E. was to have the rights of a surety and to be entitled to an assignment of the first mortgage on pay- ment of the principal and interest. Nicholas V. Ridley - - - C. A. [1904] 1 Ch. 192 Heriot. — Freehold of manor — Tenant — " Dying seised " — Mortgagor in possession. See Heriot. 1. Hire-purchase. — Trade fixtures — Hire-purchase agreement- Entry of mortgagee into possession. See MoETGAGES— Fixtures. 1. Husband and Wife. See under HusBiND AND Wipe — Mortgages. Income Tax. See under Revenue— Income Tax. MORTGAGE— coreimM«(Z. Infant. — Maintenance — Tenant in tail in remainder — Order sanctioning mortgage of real estate — Jurisdiction of Court. See Infant — Maintenance. 3. 1. — Purchase from mortgagee hy father of infant — Liability to aocounl. J. by will gave N. House and M. House to his daughter 8., the wife of 0., for life, with remainder to their children as tenants in common, and gave B. House, W. House, and Y. House to the children of J. J. equally. At the death of J. the children were infants, and N. House, M. House, and B. House were com- prised in a single mortgage to X. to secure 13501., while W. House and Y. House were subject to several mortgages to other persons. S. and 0. and J. J. determined that, to give effect to the will, the mortgage debt of 13501. should be apportioned between N. House and M. House on the one hand and B. House on the other. 0. and J. J. communicated with X., the mortgagee, and it was arranged that N. House and M. House should be purchased by 0. and B. House, W. House, and T. House by J. J. for amounts equal to the sums due on the mortgagees, there being no valuation or bargaining, or evidence of the previous intention of the mortgagees to sell, although the power to sell had become exercis- able. 0. at once began to look out for sub- purchasers of N. House and M. House, and in Mar., 1880, a sub-purchaser of N. House having been found to buy it, 0. raised the balance of the purchase-money payable by him on a mortgage of M. House. On completion the properties were conveyed to 0. and J. J. respec- tively in the manner and with the recitals usual in the case of mortgagees selling under their powers of sale, and 0. conveyed N. House to the sub-purchaser and mortgaged M. House for the balance. The value of the two houses was at least 1580Z., whereas O. paid only about 1246?. for them. S. died in 1882 :— Held (applying the principles of Keech v. Sandford, (1726) Sel. Cas. 61 ; 2 W. & T., 7th ed., p. 693), that 0. was a trustee of N. House and M. House (subject to the life interest of S.) for the children of 0. Gkiffith v. Owen Parker J. [1907] 1 Ch. 196 Insurance. — Life policy — Mortgages — Priorities — Notice. See Insurance (Life). 10. ■ — Policy of insurance — Indemnity — Bankruptcy of principal — Proof of surety — Double proof. See Bankruptcy — Proof. 9. — Repayment of premiums to volunteer out of policy moneys — Dutv of trustee. See Bankruptcy — Third Parties. 1. Interest. 1. — Arrears, Mortgagee's right to recover — Mortgagor and murtgagee — Proceeds of sale of real and personal estate — Meversionary interest. Mortgage of — Administration action — Fund in ( 1741 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1742 ) MOETGAGE (Interest)— eosiniae^Z. court — Payment out — Swimrums — Application by mortgaffor — Redemption — Interest — Real Pro- perty Limitathm Act, 1833 (3 4" 4 Will. 4, c. 27), s. 42 — Lord Chancellor sitting alone in Court of Appeal — Court of Appeal, Decision binding on. Where a mortgagor applies by summons as against the mortgagee, that a fund in court in an administration action, being the proceds of sale of the mortgaged property (real and personal estate under a will), may be paid out to him, the mortgagor, after payment thereout to the mort- gagee of six years' interest only, in addition to the principal, he is in the same position as if he had brought an action for redemption, and there- fore cannot recover the fund except upon the usual redemption terms of payment of principal together with the fuU arrears of interest, s. 42 of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1833, having no application to the case. A testator who died in 1862, by his will gave his real and personal estates to trustees upon trust to pay the income to his widow for life, and after her death to sell the same and stand possessed of the proceeds in trust for his children equally. In Jan., 1867, P., one of the children, conveyed his reversionary interest in his share under the will to A., subject to a proviso for redemption on repayment to A. of 500Z., with interest at 5 per cent, per annum, in July, 1867. The mortgage contained the usual mortgagor's covenants for payment of the principal, and also of interest at 5 per cent, per annum so long as the principal remained unpaid : and it was agreed that A., his heirs, &c., should, out of any real and personal estate which should be received by him and them under the mortgage, pay all moneys owing on the security and pay the surplus (if any) to P. The mortgage contained a power of sale, but there was no power of attorney enabling the mortgagee to sue or give receipts in the absence of the mortgagor. In Aug., 1867, P. died intestate. In 1872 an action was brought for the administi'ation of the testator's estate, and under orders made in the action his real and personal estates were sold, P.'s share of the proceeds being carried to his separate account in the action. In 1887 A. died, having by will appointed executors. The testa- tor's widow died in 1900. and in 1901 F.'i administrator applied by summons, A.'s executors being respondents, for payment out to him of P.'s fund in court, after payment thereout to A.'s executors of the principal due on the mort- gage, together with not more than six years' arrears of interest ; — Held (reversing ParweU J., [1902] W. N. 224), that, notwithstanding s. 42 of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27) A.'s executors were entitled to receive out of the fund their full arrears of interest before P.'s administrator received anything. In re Slater's Trusts, (1879) 11 Ch. D. 227, overruled. Whether the decision of a Lord Chancellor sitting alone in the G. A. is binding on that Court, discussed. In re Lloyd. Lloyd v Lloyd . . c. A. [1902] W. N. 224 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 836 MOETGAGE (Interest)— contijiued. Note. Explained and distiugushed by C. A., I/i re Bazeldine's Trusts, [1908] 1 Ch. 34. See Limitations, Statute of. 14. Land Transfer. See under Laot) Tbaitsfeb. Leaseholds. — Will — Gift of leasehold house, the legatee performing the conditions of the lease — Mortgage of house and dividends in one mortgage — Foreclosure — Dis- claimer — Liability for repairs to house. See Will— Leaseholds. 2. Leases. — Covenant running with land — Lease by mort- gagee " as agent." See Landloed aoti Tesajst. 51. — Disclaimer — Mortgagees by demise — Option to take vesting order or be excluded — County court— Jurisdiction. See Bankedptct — Jurisdiction. 1. — Estoppel in pais — Lease by mortgagor — Affirmance by mortgagee. See Estoppel. 1. — Fixtures — Tenant's fixtures— Removal — De- termination of lease by forfeiture — Mortgage of lease — Right of mortgagee. See COMPAUT — leases. 1. — Forfeiture — Ejectment — Mortgagee of under- lease — Relief — Parties — Costs. See Landloed akd Tenant. 35. — Merger — Mortgage by underlease. See Mebger. 3. 1- — Option t-o determine — Option, to renew — Mortgagor in possession, Lease by — Lease includ- ing land other than mortgaged land — Cunvey- ancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (44 i- 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 18. A lease made under the provisions of s. 18 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, by a mortgagor in possession is valid as against the mortgagee notwithstanding that it contains an option for the lessee to determine the lease before, or to renew the lease after, the determination of the term. But if the demised premises include land other than the mortgaged land, and one inclusive rent only is reserved, the lease is invalid as against the mortgagee. A deed of apportionment subsequently executed between the moitgagor and his lessee apportioning the rent as between the several parcels does not validate such a lease as against the mortgagee. King r. Bird BuokniU J. [1909] 1 K. B. 837 — Option to purchase landlord's interest — Con- dition precedent — Part of purchase- money to be left on mortgage. See Landlord and Tenant. 58. 2. — Repairs — Landlord and tenant — Lease — Mortgagor in possession — Breach of corenant ( 1743 ) DIGEST OF. CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1744 ) MOSTGAGE {Leeia6B)—conti>med. to repair — Right of mortgagor to sue lessee — Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (44 ^ 45 Vict. c. 41), s. V)— Judicature Act, 1873 (36 ^)- 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, suh-a. 5. The Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, s. 10, gives to a mortgagor entitled to possession or to receipt of the rents and profits of land subject to a lease, whose mortgagee has neither taken possession nor given notice of his intention to take possession, the right to sue the lessee for damages for breach of a covenant to repair contained in the lease. The Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25, sub-s. 5, gives the mortgagor no such right. Tuknbb «. Walsh C. A. [19091 W. N. 183 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 484 — Surrender of lease to mortgagee — Lease by mortgagor in possession — Rights of mortgagee. See LAIfDLOED AMD TENANT. 73. Iiioensing Acts. — Compensation under — Mortgagor and mort- gagee — Trust deed — Leaseholds — Parties interested. See Licensing Acts. 10. Lien. — Vicarage ^Sale — Purchase of new vicarage with proceeds — Loan. See Ecclesiastical Law — Vicarage. 1. Limitations, Statute of. See also under Limitations, Statute OP. — Mortgage — Covenant — Payment of interest by one devisee — Acknowledgment. See Administration. 28. — Keal estate subject to trust for conversion . — Mortgagee's claim for principal and interest. See Limitations, Statute of. 14. Lunacy. — Contract by insane person is void, not void- able — Bond passed under power of attorney granted by insane person — Law of Natal. See Natal. 3. Married Women. See under Husband and Wife — Mort- gages. Merger. See also under Meegee. 1. — Suiroi/ation — Payment off ly stranger — Equitalle transfer — Presumption that security is kept alive — Ignorance of mortgagor— Agree- ment by stranger to take different security. Mrs. Bice, the wife of C. L. Bice, was the owner of a leasehold house in Bristol and of pro- MOBIGAGE (Uexger)— continued. party in Cardiff, which were together subject to a charge in favour of a bank to secure 460i. and interest, and the title deeds of both properties were deposited with the bank. Mr. Eice asked the pit. to lend him 450/. for the purpose of paying off the mortgage. The pit. thought the mortgaged property belonged to Mr. Rice and did not know of the CardifiE property, and he agreed to advance the money upon having a legal mortgage for 3001. on the Bristol property and a guarantee of 1501. by Mr. and Mrs. Rice's solicitor, who was to hold the deeds for him in the meantime. Mrs. Rice did not know of this transaction. The money was paid and the deeds of the Bristol property were now in the custody of the solicitor as stakeholder. Mrs. Rice refused to execute a mortgage in favour of the pit., and he brought this action against her, her husband, and the solicitor, for a declaration that he was entitled to a charge on the Bristol property for 460?. and interest. The question was whether the mortgage must be presumed to have been kept alive in the plt.'s favour. Meld, on the facts, that it must be presumed that the pit. intended to keep the charge alive in his own favour : that the fact that Mrs. Eice the owner of the mortgaged property, had not, requested him to make the payment and did not know of the transaction was immaterial ; that the fact that he intended to take a different security did not affect the question ; and that he was entitled to a charge on the Bristol property for 450Z. and interest. Butlee v. Rice - Warrington J. [1910] W. N. 143; [1910] 2 Ch. 277 Money-lender. — Mortgage. See under Monet-lendees. Partnership. — Mortgage of partner's interest — Eight of mortgagee to account — Arbitration clause — Stay of proceedings. See Paetnekship. 16. — Partnership assets, authority to mortgage — ■ Death of partner — Priorities — Notice. See Paetneeship. 7. Payment. 1. — JuiTit account — Payment to one mort- gagee — Partnership — Separate debt — Payment to firm. Where mortgagees have advanced money on a joint account, payment to one of them during the other's lifetime, though a good discharge of the debt at law, only discharges the security to the extent of the payee's beneficial interest (if any), even though the payee ultimately becomes the survivor of the joint account. Matson v. Dennis, (1864) 4 D. J, & S. 345, followed. Steeds v. Steeds, (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 537, explained. Payment to a firm of a separate debt due to a partner will not support a plea of payment to ( 1745 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1746 ) MORTGAGE (P&yment')— continued. that partner in the absence of evidence, express or implied, that he has authorized the firm to receive it. Powell v. Beodhuest Farwell J. [1901] W. N. 106 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 160 Practice. — Appeal — Right of appeal to the King in Council^— Suits to enforce and redeem a mortgage. See India. 1. — County court — Jurisdiction — Foreclosure action — Mortgage reduced from over to under 500Z. See County Court— Practice. 6. — Creditor who has obtained equitable execu- tion — Application to be added as defen- dant and for extension of time for redemption. See MoETGAGE — Foreclosure. 3. — Dispensing with service on mortgagor. See Peaotice — Payment, &c. 10. — Staying proceedings — Action in this country for declaration of rights to assist action in foreign country. See Shipping — Practice. 13. Principal and Surety. See under Principal and Suebty. Priority. — Appointment void or voidable — Fraud on power — Mortgage by appointee. See PowBE OF Appointment. — Assignment of book debts — " Floating charge " — Debenture-holders. See Company — Debentures. 9. 1. — Chose in action — Land held hy several persons on trnst for sale — Mortgage of henefieial rerersionary interest of one of trustees — Absence of notice to other trustees — Subsequent mortgage with notice to trustees — Prioritij. Land was settled upon trust to sell the same and pay the income to X. for life, and after her death to divide the proceeds among her children, one of whom was P. P., being then one of the three trustees of the settlement, in the lifetime of X. and before the land was sold, mortgaged his share to G., but no notice of this mortgage was given to the other trustees. P. subsequently (concealing the mortgage to G.) mortgaged his share to the pits., who made inquiry of the trus- tees as to prior incumbrances, and themselves gave notice of their own mortgage to the trustees : — Held, (1) that, having regard to the trust for sale, the principle of Dearie v. Hall, (1828) 3 Buss. 1 ; 27 R. E. 1, applied ; (2) following Jiron-ne v. Savage, (1859) 4 Drew. 635, that the mortgage of the pits, had priority over that of G. Lloyds Bank v. Pearson Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 59 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 865 3. — Building Society — Statutory receipt — Successive incumbrancers — Priority — Bight to call for legal estate — Equitable charge ivith MOETGAGE (Piioiitj')— continued. UTideiiaJiing to give legal rtimiga^e — Equitable traTisferees — Merger — Building Societies Act, 1874, (37 S- 38 Vict. c. 42), s. 42. In 1902 D., a solicitor, gave a mortgage in fee simple of certain property to a building society to secure 1650Z. In June, 1905, D. arranged with a bank to pay ofE the mortgage, and on June 23, 1905, the society's solicitors wrote that the society would indorse the statu- tory receipt when the money was paid, and that the bank would'pay the money to the society's account, and would take all the deeds except the society's mortgage. On June 26, 1905, the bank paid the money to D.'s account ; D. immediately drew a cheque for the amount which was credited to the society ; the society handed to the bank's solicitors all the deeds (except the mortgage) and an undertaking to indorse the statutory receipt ; and D. gave the bank an equitable charge on the property comprised in the deed, including the mortgage (described as being already indorsed with the statutory receipt) to secure 160UZ., the charge containing an undertaking to execute a legal mortgage if and when required. Shortly afterwards the society handed the mortgage, with the statutory receipt indorsed on it, to the bank's solicitors : — Held, that the undertaking to give a legal mortgage did not amount to a contract that the legal estate should vest in D., and that the effect of the statutory receipt was to vest the legal estate in the bank. In Nov., 1905, D., by shewing L. what pur- ported to be a conveyance of the same property to D., but which was ■■• forgery, induced L. to lend him 8501. and gave L. (who had no notice of the bank's mortgage) what purported to be a mortgage in tee of the same property to secure that amount. In Dec, 1906, D. arranged that the pits, should pay ofE the baiik, and they did so, receiv- ing the deeds and the bank's security (indorsed with a statement that all claims thereunder had been satisfied), and D gave the pits, (who had no notice of L.'s mortgage) what purported to be a legal mortgage for the amount paid : — Held, that the pits.' mortgage had priority over that of L. Ceosbie-Hill v. Sayer Parker J. [1908] 1 Oh. 866 — Chose in action — Notice. See Bankruptcy — Mortgages. 1. — Equitable execution — EflEect of order — Notice to executor — Subsequent mortgagees and judgment creditors. See Receiver. 5. — Equitable mortgage — Notice — Fraud of ven- dor's solicitor — Possession of title-deeds. See Vendor and Purcilasee — Priority. 1. 3. — Equitable mortgages — Subsequent execu- tion by mortgagor of deed of assignment of all his property for benefit of creditors — Beijistration — Priorities — Yorkshire Registries Act, 1884, (47 <5' 48 Vict. e. 54), s. 14. On Oct. 3, 1906, C. executed a legal mort- gage of land situate in Yorkshire to a bank, and that mortgage was duly registered under the ( mi ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 1748 ) W-OniGAGE (Pi-ioiity)— continued. Yorkshire Registries Act, 1884. 0. had previously created an equitable charge on the land in favour of H. & W., but that charge was not registered until Oct. 5, 1907. On Aug. 30, 1907, C. executed a deed of assignment in common form of all his real and personal estate to a trustee for the benefit of his creditors generally, and that deed was registered on Sept. 11, 1907. There were other equitable mortgages which had been created by C. prior to 1907, but which had not been registered. In 1908 the banls: sold the property comprised in their security, and after satisfying their claim had a balance iu their hands. This balance was claimed by the trustee as against H. & W. on the ground that his deed, though later in date of execution than H, & W.'s charge, was prior to it in date of rigistration : — Jleid; upon the construction of the deed, that only such interest in the property as C. then possessed passed to his trustee, namely, the property subject to the equitable mortgages upon it, and therefore that the question as to priority of registration did not arise. Jleld, therefore, that the claim of the trustee must be postponed to the claims of all the prior equitable mortgagees who established them, whether their mortgages were registered or not. Jones v. Barker - Warrington J. [1909] 1 Ch. 331 4. — Equital/le reversionary interest — Mort- gage Tjy client to solicitor — Ueceipt in deed — No money advanced — Fraud of solicitor — Sub- mortgage by solicitor — 2fo inquiry by sub-mort- gagee — Reliance on recital — Knowledge of assignee — Equities — J'ostponement. The pit. at the instance of his solicitor, one Bloomer, executed a mortgage to him of the plt.'s equitable reversionary interests under his grandfather's will. The deed was dated Feb. 3, 1906, and was expressed to be in consideration of 2.500^. " this day lent by the mortgagee to the mortgagor, the receipt whereof the mortgagor doth hereby aclvnowledge." No money, in fact, passed, the purpose, as proposed by Bloomer, being that the pit. should re-lend the money to another of Bloomer's clients at a higlier rate of interest, and that the pit. should thus profit by the difference between the two rates of interest. In executing the deed the pit. had no reason to distrust Bloomer, but understood and believed that Bloomer would advance the money, and on the plt.'s behalf lend it to the other client at the higher rate of interest. Bloomer never made any advance to the pit., or on his behalf, his only intention, presumably, being to commit a fraud for his own benefit. On April 24, 1906, Bloomer executed to the deft. Browne, another solicitor, an instrument purporting to be a sub- mortgage of the mortgage of Feb. 3, 1906, and containing a recital that the principal sum of 2500Z. still remained owing to Bloomer with interest thereon as from Feb. 3, 1906. On this sub-mortgage and another security Bloomer obtained 1200^. from the deft. Browne, who took the sub-mortgage without requiring the pit' to join as a party, or requiring any evidence with respect to the state of account between the pit. and Bloomer in reference to the mortgage MORTGAGE (Piioiity^— continued. security or otherwise, and did not give any notice of his sub-mortgage to the pit. In June, 1906, Bloomer in due course absconded, and the pit. subsequently commenced this action against the deft. Browne and Bloomer's trustee in bankruptcy for a declara- tion that as against the pit. the mortgage and sub-mortgage were void and of no effect, and for reconveyance of the reversionary interests in question. Joyce J. in giving judgment said that as between Bloomer and the pit. tliere never had been in truth any advance or any mortgage security, and at no time could Bloomer have recovered a farthing against the pit. upon the deed of Feb. 3, 1906, and at the time when Bloomer absconded the pit. was entitled to have the mortgage deed delivered up to him without payment. The question then arose which of the two innocent parties, the pit. or the deft. Browne, had the better equity. The assignee of a chose in action took it subject to all equities aiiecting it. The deft. Browne knew that Bloomer had acted as solicitor to the pit. in the particular transaction, and that knowledge dis- entitled the deft. Browne, without further satis- factory evidence, to place reliance upon the acknowledgment of payment or receipt in the deed, if iu fact he did rely on it. On the principle of Spencer v. Topham, (1856) 22 Beav. 573, the deft. Browne was put upon inquiry whether any such advance as mentioned in the mortgage deed prepared by Bloomer and taken by him from his own client was ever made. The fact of this knowledge on the part of the deft. Browne created a most material distinction between this case and the cases of Bicherton v. Walher, (1885) 31 Ch. D. 151, and Bateman v. Hunt, [1904] 2 K. B. 530. If the decision in Biclierton v. Walker did not govern the present case, it appeared clear that Bloomer could not give the deft, a better security or more than he himself possessed, and the pit. therefore had the better equity and was entitled to the relief he sought. Powell «. Beowkb - Joyce J. [1907] •«r. K. 152 On Appeal : — The 0. A. allowed the appeal. Gozens-Hardy M.R. said the way in which this case presented itself to his mind was an exceedingly simple one, and one which did not require the Court to construe s. 55 (1) of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, or to consider the numerous authorities that had been cited. The pit. knew quite well that Bloomer had not in fact paid him 2500Z., though the receipt of this sum was formally acknowledged in the mortgage deed ; this deed was handed over after execution to Bloomer for the express purpose of obtaining, by its use, money to be thereafter applied by Bloomer for the plt.'s advantage. Armed with this deed Bloomer did obtain 12002. from the deft. Browne by means of the sub-mortgage ; under these circumstances the question appeared to be the simplest possible case of estoppel ; the pit. was estopped by his own receipt, on the faith of which Browne had made the 1200Z. advance, from saying as against Browne that he, ( 1749 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1750 ) MORTGAGE (jeiiority)— continued. the pit., had not received the money acknow- ledged to have been received by the mortgage of Feb. 3, 1906. An attempt had been made to get over this objection by relying on the fact that Browne was put upon inquiry because this was a mortgage by a client to his solicitor, and that the doctrine of constructive notice applied ; in his lordship's opinion there was no justilication in principle here for that doctrine, and as had been said by Korth J. in Saunders v. Kent, [1885] W. N. 147, the fact that Bloomer was the solicitor of the pit. (even if it were shown that Browne was aware of it) was no notice that there were accounts between them, and that the 2500Z. was not due. Powell v. Browne C. A. [1907] W. N. 828 5. — Flctitinus sale, iy trustee for sale — Con- veyatice containiruj reciept for money never paid — Equitahle mortgagee without notice — Prior equity of henejiciaries — Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (44 |- 45 Vict. ■.-. 41), s. 54, sui-s. 1 ; s. 55, s. 1. A testator died in 1895, having by his will given his real estate to his son C, and L., upon trust to seU and divide the proceeds among his four children (including C), each share being settled on trusts for a child for life, and after- wards for the children of that child. L. having died in Aug., 1904, from then till Jan., 1905, 0. was the sole executor and trustee of the will. In Sept., 1904, C. and another severally owed money to one M. on promissory notes for 2000Z. G. and M., in fraud of the rights of the bene- ficiaries under the will (M. having full notice of the breach of trust), arranged that the 2000Z. should be further secured on part of the trust estate, and to carry out the arrangement C. on Sept. 29, 1904, executed and delivered to M. what purported to be a conveyance on sale of part of the land held in trust to M. in considera- tion of 2000Z. The deed contained the usual receipt for the purchase-money, but no part of the 2000Z. was ever paid, it being arranged that the deed was to be held as security for the money due on the notes to the extent to which they should be dishonoured. In Apr., 1905, M. deposited the deed with B., and gave him a memorandum charging the land conveyed with lOOOi. lent by B., who had no actual or construc- tive notice that any breach of trust had been committed, or that the 2000Z. had not been paid by M., and had not been guilty of any conduct which would have made his equity inferior to that of the beneficiaries : — Held, that there was no contract of sale, and therefore no vendor's lien , but an equity in the beneficiaries to have the property sold and the proceeds divided ; that the beneficiaries were not estopped by the receipt fi'om saying tliat the money had not been paid or that the real trans- action was not a sale and purchase ; and that, the equities of the beneficiaries and B. being equal in every other respect, the equity of the beneficiaries must prevail by reason of their priority iu point of time. Lloyds Bank, Ld. v. Bidlock, [1896] 2 Ch. 192, distinguished. Capell v. Winter Parker J. [1907] "W. N. 164; [1907] 2 Ch. 376 MORTGAGE (Bvioritj')— continued. — Hire-purchase agreement — Subsequent equit- able mortgage — Priority. See Fixtures. 1. 6. — Legal estate — Subsequent equitable interest — Postponement — Fraud — Kegli/jence — Omission to get possession of title-deeds — TruMee's negligence — Position of cestui que trust. By his marriage settlement W. conveyed real estate to trustees to be held upon tmsts under which he took a life interest determinable on alienation, and, subject to that and to a dis- cretionary trust in the event of his interest determining in his lifetime, his wife was entitled for her life. The same solicitors acted for all parties. They had in their possession a bundle of deeds purporting to be the title-deeds of the property, and were not aware that W. still re- tained the deed by which the property \^-as con- veyed to him. Some years after the marriage W. mortgaged the property and handed over the conveyance to the mortgagee, who afterwards sold the property. Neither the mortgagee nor the purchaser from him had any notice of the settlement. W. absconded, and his wife brought an action against the purchaser, the trustees, and her husband for a declaration that tt'.'s life interest had determined and that the purchaser's interest in the property was subject to her interest under the settlement : — - Held, that all the parties except W. had acted honestly, but that the trustees had been guilty of negligence, and tlieir legal estate must be post- poned to the subsequent equitable interest of the purchaser from the mortgagee ; and that the pit., although ignorant of the absence of the convey- ance, was in no better position than her trustees. Lloyds Banking Co. v. Jones, (1885) 29 Ch. D. 221, followed. WALKEe !■. Linom - Parker J. [1907] W. N. 128 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 104 — Innocent trustee mortgagee — Legal estate acquired by mortgagee after notice of trust. See Trustee — Breach of Trust. 4. — Marshalling for payment of mortgage — Priority of cestui que trust — Voluntary settlement. Set Settlement. 48. — Notice — Fraud of vendor's solicitor — Fosses sion of title-deeds — Priority. See Vendor and Purchaser — Priority. 1. 7. — Notice — Incumbrances— Personal estate — Charge) on expectancy — Notice — Priority — Assignor executm — Rentinciatiun by executor — Notice to executoi — Notice to person having legal dominion of fund — I'und luithout tr:ist.ee — Ad- ministrator, Subsequent notice to. In 1897 D. charged his e.tpectaut interest in a legacy bequeathed to him by the will of his father, who was then living, in favour of S., and in 1898 he charged it in favour of B. The father died in 1902, D. being named his sole executor. In Jan., 1903, D., who had never acted as executor, renounced probate, and on Mar. 4 administra- tion, with the will annexed, was granted to his sister. On the folloA\-ing day B. ga^•e notice to the administratrix of his charge. On Mar. 12 ( 1751 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 17B2 ) MOETGAGE (Priority)— flOftiiVmetZ. S., who then became aware for the first time of the grant of administration, gave the administra- trix notice of his charge. Subsequently the legacy, which had been in Court, was paid out to the administratrix : — SeU, by the 0. A., that, although S.'s delay in giving notice to the administratrix was not due to any negligence on his part, yet, applying the rule in Bearle v. Hall, (1828) 3 Kuss. 1 ; 27 B. K. 1, recognized in Ward v. Duiic&mie, [1893] A. C. 369, B. was entitled to priority through his having been the iirst to give notice to the administratrix as being the first person having legal dominion of the fund after it had come into existence by the death of the testator : Seld, further, that the case was governed by Johnstone v. Cox, (1880) 16 Oh. D. 571 ; (1881) 19 Ch. D. 17, and that the circumstance that on the death o£ the testator, when the fund charged came into existence, there was no trustee or other person having the legal dominion of the fund to whom efEective notice could be given, was im- material to alter the priority obtained by notice given to the person who subsequently had such legal dominion. Notice given by an assignee of a fund to the person who is himself the assignor is not an effectual notice so as to alter priorities : Browne V. Savage, (1859) 4 Drew. 635. Semble, notice given by an incumbrancer to an executor who afterwards renounces without having in any way acted in the office is invalid. Decision of Buckley J. affirmed. In re Dallas C. A. [1904] W. N. 37 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 38S 8. — Notice — Legal mortgage — Prior equit- aile mortgage — Non-production of title-deeds — Fraudulent solicitor — Postponement of legal mortgage. A purchaser who without requiring delivery or production of the title-deeds takes a title from a mortgagee who has deposited the deeds by way of sub-mortgage is affected with constructive notice of the sub-mortgage, and the legal estate conveyed to the purchaser is in his hands subject to the equitable incumbrance, and this notice will raise a trust to the amount of the sub-mort- gage. It is immaterial whether the purchaser employs a solicitor or not, and whether the solicitor, if one is employed, informs the pur- chaser of the sub-mortgage or not. B. mortgaged two freehold houses to C, a solicitor, for 2100Z. C. then deposited the mort- gage and title-deeds with his bankers to secure the balance of his banking account, which con- tinued to be overdrawn for more than 10,000Z. until his bankruptcy in 1902. The bank advisedly omitted to give notice of their security to B. Subsequently B. and 0. mortgaged one of the houses to H. for 650Z., which was paid to C. in partial discharge of the original mortgage debt, and the house was expressed to be discharged from the mortgage ; and they mortgaged the other house to W. for 550Z. on precisely similar terms. B. also gave C. a second mortgage on both houses to secure 900Z., the balance remain- ing due on the original >nortgage. In the three MORTGAGE (Jl-cioxitf)— continued. last-mentioned mortgages 0. acted as solicitor for all parties, none of whom had any actual knowledge of the bank's sub-mortgage. In an action by the bank to enforce their security : — Held, that H. and W. were affected with constructive notice of the sub-mortgage, and were respectfully trustees of the legal estate for the bank ; but Held, that B. was not bound to require pro- duction of the title-deeds on paying off part of the original mortgage debt ; and Semble, that he was not affected with notice of the sub-mortgage and was discharged from liabiUty under the original mortgage to the extent of the two sums of 6501. and 550?. Berwick & Co. v. Price Joyce J. [1905] 1 Ch. 632 9. — Notice — Priorities — Sanliruptcy — Mort- gages of policies — Eguitable interests. A solicitor entrusted by a client with money to invest misappropriated it. Afterwards he executed a mortgage of certain life policies in favour of the client to secure part of the money misappropriated, but did not inform the client of the existence of the mortgage nor give notice of it to the insurance offices. Subsequently, he made a second mortgage of the same policies to a clei'k in his office as a trustee for other clients whom he had defrauded, but did not disclose the first mortgage. The second mortgagee gave notice to the insurance officers. On the bankruptcy of the solicitor the first mortgage was discovered, and notice of it was at once given to the insurance offices : — Held, that the second mortgagee was entitled to priority over the first mortgagee. In re LAKE. Ex parte CAVENDISH - - - Wright, J. [1902] W. ». 230 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 161 10. — Portions — Mortgage iy direction of Court — Portions charged on real estate — Equitable charge — Legal mortgage. A testator who died in 1851 charged three sums of 5000Z. for children's portions on his real estate. In 1880, two of the portions had become raisable, and, in an action brought for the pur- pose of clearing the estate from charges, an order was made in May, 1882, directing that the two portions should be raised by a mortgage of the estate to be settled by the judge to a person who was then willing to lend the money. The mort- gage as settled contained recitals of the title to the portions and of the proceedings in the action, and waa expressed to be without prejudice to any charge which might be subsisting in the mort- gaged hereditaments under the will. The money was paid into court by the mortgagee, and was afterwards distributed among the persons in- terested in the two portions. The estate being now believed to be insufficient to pay the wholy of the said persons, the mortgagee commenced the present action for the realizaiion of his mort- gage, and claimed priority over the persons interested in the remaining portion : — Held, on the construction of the proceedings in the action, the judgment obtained, and the circumstances under which it was given, that no interference with the cSrarge of the remaining ( 1753 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1754 ) MORTGAGE (Viioiity)— continued. portion was contemplated or authorized, and that there was nothing in the form of the mortgage settled by the judge which entitled the pit. to more than a charge on the estate for the two sums of 5000Z. pari passu with the third bOOOl. charged thereon in equity by virtue of the will. Decision of Kekewich J., [1902] W. N. 108 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 117, affirmed. NIGHTINGALE i). Reynolds C. A. [1903] W. N. 108 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 236 — Priority as between mortgagees depends upon date of advances, not of registration — Law of South Africa. See Cape of Good Hope. 9. 11. — Heal estate — Equitable viortgages — Legal estate — Kotiee — PriorUij. A testator, after bequeathing legacies and annuities, devised his real estate to three trustees, of whom K. was one, upon trust out of the rents and profits in aid of his personal estate to pay his debts, funeral and testamentary expenses, and the said legacies and annuities, and, subject thereto, to hold the said premises upon trust tis to a certain freehold house for K., his heirs and assigns. The testator then disposed of his residue. He died in Mar. 1872. In Sept., 1S72, K. assigned his interest under the will by way of mortgage to the pit., who gave notice to K.'s two co-trustees. In 1879 K., by the death of his co-trustees, became sole trustee of the will. In 1890 he deposited the deeds of the house and the probate of the wiU with the defts., his bankers, and executed to them a memorandum of charge to secure an overdraft, and in 1903 he conveyed the legal estate in the house to the defts. by way of mortgage to secure the existing debt and further advances. The defts. did not know, either in 1890 or 1903, of the plt.'s equitable mortgage, but on the occasion of their first advance the bank manager examined the deeds without professional assistance, and took no steps to have the title property investigated. In 1890 all the debts, legacies, and annuities had been satisfied except a legacy of lOOZ. bequeathed to a tenant for life (who was still living) with remainder to her children. In an action to determine the priorities of the mortgagees : — ileld, that in 1903 the trusts of the will not having been fully executed, K.'s equitable interest had not become merged in his legal estate ; that the bank, knowing K. to be the surviving trustee of the will, and having notice that what they took from him was part of his trust estate, took it subject to all the subsisting trusts to which it was subject, including the mortgage of 1872, and therefore had not priority over the plt.'s earlier equitable mortgage. Perham v. Kempstbr - Joyce J. [1907] W. N. 13 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 373 12. — Registration of Aeeds — JSqultahle mart- giige — Deposit of title-deeds — Conveyance — Con- shleyatloii — A nfecedent debt — Priority — Registry Act (6 Anne (ir.), c. 2), ss. 3, 5. A customer of a bank in Ireland, having over- drawn his account and being pressed by the bank, undertook by letter to deposit a title-deed MORTGAGE (PriOTity)— continued. of an Irish estate as security for his overdraft. He deposited the title-deed with the bank, who did not register the charge. The customer after- wards mortgaged the estate to the appellants, who registered their, charge without notice of the prior charge. Upon the question of the priority of the two incumbrances : — Meld, that the customer's letter amounted to an agreement to create an equitable charge upon the estate and ought to have been registered as a conveyance under 6 Anue (Ir.), o. 2 ; and that in default of registration it ranked after the mort- gage to the appellairts. The decision of the Irish C. A., In re Steven- son's Estate, [1902] I E. 23, reversed and the judgment of Meredith J. restored. FuLLEETOX '•. Peovin-cial Bank op Ieeland H. L. (I.) [1903] W. N. 128 ; [1903] A. C.309 — Shares — Registration — Transfer in blank — Equitable mortgage — Notice. See Company— Shares. 20. 13. — Transfer without notice to mortgagor — Payment of mortgage debt by mortgagor — Fraud of mortgagor's solicitor — Priority' of mortgagor and subsequem transferee. In 1886, a mortgage debt for 1500Z. was duly transferred and the mortgaged property was con- veyed by way of security, to F., the pit., the mortgagor, being a party. Several subsequent transfers to which the pit. was not a party, were made and in Feb., 1896, the mortgage debt and the security were vested in one Hamp. In 1892 the pit. gave Harri.son, her solicitor, the money to pay oif the mortgage, which he did not do, though he continued to pay interest on the mort- gage as it became due to the transferee for the time being. The pit. made no inquiry in 1892 for the conveyance nor for the title-deeds, but left the whole matter in the hands of her solici- tor. In Oct., 1897, Hamp transferred the mort- gage debt and the property to Harrison, and the next day Harrison transferred the same to the deft., to whom the deeds were handed. The cheque for loOOZ. from the deft, was paid by Harrison into his private account, and the cheque to Hamp was drawn by Harrison on his firm's account, which was then in funds, at another bank. In Dec., 1899, application was made by the deft, to the pit. for arrears of interest, and the fraud was discovered. On an action by the pit. to establish her priority over the deft., and for a reconveyance of the mortgaged property : — Held, that on the transfer to Harrison the mortgage debt became discharged, and he held the property as trustee for the pit. ; that the deft., having taken the transfer from Harrison without the privity of the mortgagor, could only hold it against the mortgagor subject to the state of account between Harrison and the mortgagor, and as between them the debt was non-existent ; that the pit. had never lost the right to redeem, and that directly the agent, who had received the amount to pay off the mortgage, became himself the transferee, the debt was extinguished, and no transferee from him could treat the debt as a subsisting charge upon the property, and that the ( 1755 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1756 ) MORTGAGE (jenority)—eojitimed. pit. was therefore entitled to priority and to have a reconveyance from the deft. Turner v. Smith Byrne J. [1901] 1 Ch. 213 Bailvrays. — Sale of railway by mortgagee — Order of Court — Law of Ontario. See Canada — Railway. 8. Receiver. 1. — Leaseholds — Mortgage by sui-demise — Mortgagor and mortgagee — Company — Action hy mortgagee or dele^tture-holder — Debenture trust deed — Trustee mortgagees — Receiver, Use or occu- pation by — Head-lease — Rent — Breach of covenant — Damages — Landlord — Head-lessor, Rights of — Privity of estate — Sale of goods by receiver — Distress, Loss of remedy by. Since a mortgagee of leaseholds by sub-demise in the usual form is, through absence of privity of estate, not himself liable to the head-lessor for rent or other outgoings, whether he is in posses- sion or not, it follows that a receiver appointed by the Court in an action by the mortgagee against the mortgagor to enforce the security is also under no such liability, his appointment being in right of the mortgagee. Hence the head-lessor cannot require the receiver to pay, out of moneys coming to his hands while in the use or occupation of the mortgaged premises as receiver, any rent or other outgoings in respect of such use or occupation. And there is no equity entitling the head-lessor to claim payment from the receiver by reason of the latter having been put into use or occupation as an officer of the Court, even though he has, by the direction of the Court, sold off the mortgagor's goods on the premises, and so deprived the head-lessor of his landlord's remedy by distress. Thus, in a debenture-holder's action against the trustees of the trust deed who were mort- gagees from the co. by sub-demise of premises, of which the co. were lessees, the C. A., affirming Stirling J. , disallowed a claim by the head-lessor against the receiver appointed by the Court to payment, out of the proceeds of the co.'s goods sold by the receiver while in occupation of the premises, of rent in respect of the occupation and of damages for the breach of the co.'s covenant in the head-lease to repair. Hand v. Blow C. A. [1901] W. H. 140 i 1901 2 Ch. 721 — Partition action — Sale by mortgagee with sanction of Court — Purchase by receiver without sanction. See Kbceivbr. 13. — Repairs, Cost of — Foreclosure — Account — Allowances. See Mortgage— Foreolosure. 1. 2, — Second mortgagee's action for a receiver — Rack rents paid to receiver — Right of first mmigagee against receiver. In an action by second mortgagees against the mortgagor, to which the first mortgagee was not a party, a receiver was appointed of the rents of mortgaged premises subject to the rights of the first mortgagee. On motion in the action MORTGAGE (Reeeiwer)— continued. by the first mortgagee to discharge the receiver and to be let into possession : — Seld, that the first mortgagee was entitled to back rents paid to the receiver after the date of the service of his notice of motion. Pbbston v. TuNBBiDGE Wells Opera House, Ld. Farwell J. [1903] 2 Ch, 323 Redemption. 1. — Accounts — Compound interest — Proviso for capitalization of interest in arrear — Mort- gagee in possession — Receipt of rents available for payment of interest — Redemption action — ■ Mortgagor and mortgagee. A mortgage of leaseholds contained a proviso that, if and so often as any interest due under the mortgagor's covenant should be in arrear for twenty-One days, after the day appointed for the payment thereof, that interest should be treated as an accession to the capital secured by the deed as on the day on which the same ought to have been paid, and should thenceforth bear interest at the rate and on the days provided by the deed. The mortgagee entered into possession of the property and received the rents. On the taking of the accounts in a redemp- tion action : — Held, that, if on the expiration of twenty-one days after any interest became due, the mort- gagor not having paid the interest, there was in the hands of the mortgagee, after deducting ground rent and other proper outgoings, an amount arising from the rents received by him sufficient for the payment of the interest, though it had not been actually appropriated to that purpose, the interest could not be said, within the meaning of the proviso, to be in arrear, and the mortgagee therefore was not entitled to have it capitalized. Decision of "Warrington J., [1905] 1 Ch. 241, affirmed. Union Bank of London v. Ingram, (1880) 16 Ch. D. 53, and Bright v. Campbell, (1889) 41 Ch. D. 888, distinguished. Dictum of Cotton L.J. in Cochburn v. Edwards, (1881) 18 Ch. D. 463, preferred to that of Jessel M.R. in the same case, 18 Ch. D. 456. Weibley 11. Gill C.A. [1905] W. N. 148 ; C.A. [1906] 1 Ch. 165 Nate. This case was followed by Joyce J., Ainsworth V. Wilding, [1905] 1 Ch. 435. See Mortgage— AccovMs. 1. — Accounts — Mortgagee in possession — Eight to compound interest — Rests. See Mortgage — Accounts. 1. — Assignment of equity of redemption subject to charge — Charge on share — No notice to trustees. See Trustee — Breach of Trust. 2. — Barred by lapse of time. Equity of redemption — Realty or personalty. See No. 8, below. — Clog on equity of redemption — Chartered company — Contract to issue debentures — Floating charge on foreign land, See Conflict of Laws. 3. ( 1737 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1758 ) MOKTGAGE (Redemption) — continued. 2. Clog on equity of redemption — Option to purchase mortgaged gtocTi — Stoch — Limited com- pany, Mortgage by. A mortgagee is not alloT^ed at the time of the loan to enter into a contract for the purchase of the mortgaged property. A limited co. borrowed money upon the security of their debenture stock subject to the lender having the option to purchase the stock at 40 per cent, witljin twelve months ; the loan to become due and payable with interest at thirty days' notice on either side. Within the twelve months and before the co. gave notice of their intention to repay the loan, the lender claimed to purchase the stocic at the agreed price : — Held, that the option was void, and that the CO. was entitled to redeem the loan on payment of principle, interest, and costs. The decision of the G. A., Jarrah Timber and TKflorf Paving Corporation, Ld. y. Samuel, [1903] 2 Ch. 1, affirmed. SAMUEL v. Jaeeah Timbee AND Wood PAviua Coepoeation, Ld. H. L. (E.) [1904] W. K. HO; [1904] A. C. 323 Note. Applied by Swinfen Eady J., British South Africa Co. v. De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ld. C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 502. See Conflict of Laws. 3. 3. — Clog on redemption — Agreement suhse- quent to mortgage — Option to purchase m^irtgaged property — Conditional sale. A mortgagor and mortgagee may by a sepa- rate and independent transaction subsequent to the mortgage, make a valid agreement which gives the mortgagee the option of purohnsing the mortgaged property, and thus may have the effect of depriving the mortgagor of his light to redeem. The decision of the C. A., [1901] W. N. 223 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 53, affirmed. Beevb r. LiSLE H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 162 ; [1902] A. C. 461 4. — " Clog" on redemption — " Once a mort- gage always a mortgage " — " Tied " public-house — Mortgage of leasehold 2}nMic-house — Covenant by ino7'tgagor to take teer during the term from mortgagee only. In a mortgage of a leasehold public-houee by a licensed victualler to brewers the mortgagor covenanted with the mortgagees that he and all persons deriving title under him should not during the continuance of the term, and whether any money should or should not be owing on the security of the mortgage, use or sell in the house any malt liquors except such as should be pur- chased of the mortgagees : — Held, that this covenant was a " clog " on the equity of redemption, and that the mortgagor, on payment of all that was due upon the security, was entitled to have a reconveyance of the pro- perty, or at his option a transfer of the security, free in either case from the " tie." Bantley v. Wilde, [1899] 2 Ch. 474, com- mented on. The decisions of Gozens-Hardy J., [1900] 1 Ch. 213, and the G. A., [1900] 2 Ch. 445, affirmed. Noakes & Co. v. Rice H. L. (E.) [1901] W. H. 247 ; [1902], A. C. 24 UOKIQAGE (Bedemption) — continued. Nate. Principle of, applied by C. A., Jarrah Timber and Wood Paving Corporation, Ld. v. Samuel, [19U3] 2 Ch. 1. See No. 2, above. Eef erred to by H. L. (E.), Bradley y. Carritt, [1903] A. C. 253. &- neo!t Case. Referred to by Joyce J., Morgan v. Jeffreys, [1910] 1 'Ch. 620. See No. 6, below. Applied by Swinfen Eady J., British South Africa Co. v. De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ld., C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 302. See Conflict of Laws. 3. 5. Clog on redemption — Mortgage of sliares in company — Stipulation tluit mortgagee shall be employed as broher by the company. A holder of shares in a tea co. mortgaged the shares to secure a loan and agreed to use his best endeavours to secure that "always thereafter" the mortgagee should have the sale of all the co.'s teas as broker, and in the event of the co.'s teas being sold otherwise than through the mort- gagee to pay him the amount of the commission he would have earned if the teas had been sold through him. The mortgage was paid off and the CO. afterwards changed their broker. The quondam mortgagee having brought an action against the shareholder for breach of the above agreement : — Held, by Lords Macnaghten, Davey, and Robertson, Lords Shand and Lindley dissenting, that the case fell within the principle of Browne V. Ryan, [1901] 2 I. R. 653, approved by this House in Noakes v. Rice, [1902] A. C. 24, that the agreement was not binding, and that the action could not be maintained. The deci-ion of the C. A., [1901] 2 K. B. 550, reversed. Beadlet v. Caeeitt H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 92 ; [1903] A. C. 263 Note. Referred to by Joyce J., Morgan v. Jeffreys, [1910] 1 Ch. 620. See next Case. Applied by Swinfen Eady J., British South Africa Co. v. De Beers Consolidated Mines. Ld,, C. A. [1910] 2 Ch. 502. See Conflict of Laws. 3, 6. — " Clog " on redemption — Public-house — "Tie" — Bestrictive covenant by mortgagor — Proviso against redemjition without consent of mortgagee for twenty-eight years. In 1896 a lessee of land on which he had built a hotel mortgaged it to a brewer to secure 5500Z. and interest, and covenanted to buy all beer and other liquors consumed at the house from the mortgagee for a period of twenty-eight years and so long after as any money should remain due upon the security. The deed also provided that the mortgagor should not be entitled to pay off the mortgage before 1924 without the consent of the mortgagee. There was a power of sale without notice upon the happening of any one of numerous events, and upon a sale under the power the purchaser might be required to take a conveyance subject to the " tie." In an action by the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage : — Held, that the proviso against redemption for ( 1759 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1760 ) MORTCrAGE {^Re&emptiOTi)— continued. twenty-eight years, even if it might be supported in a case where there was a similar provision against calling in the mortgage, exceeded all reasonable limits and could not be enforced. MoEGAN" V. Jeffreys - Joyce J. [1910] W. N. 69 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 630 — Conditions of proviso for redemption — Con- struction — Foreclosure. See MOETGAOB — Foreclosure. 2. — Consolidation — Express contract. See MoETGASE — Consolidation. 2. 7. — Consolidation, — Mortgage in name of trustee — Mortgage origiTially made by different mortgagm-s — Assignment of equities of redemp- tion to same person. S. executed to E. separate mortgages of four leasehold houses and assigned the equities of redemption to the pit. One house was sold and the mortgage upon |it paid off. The pit. then acquired the freehold of another house (No. 7) and granted a long lease of it to C, who executed a mortgage of the leasehold to R. In this transaction C. was a mere trustee for the pit. Subsequently the pit. got rid of the free- hold reversion in No. 7 and took an assignment from C. of the equity of redemption in the leasehold interest. E. died, and this summons was taken out by the pit. against his executors for redemption of No. 7. The defts. claimed to consolidate the mortgage on No. 7 with those on the other three houses. All the mortgages contained clauses excluding s. 17 of the Con- veyancing Act, 1881 : — Seld, that, the fact that C. was a trustee for the pit. gave the defts. no right to consolidate with the mortgage of No. 7 made by G. the other three mortgages, for a mortgagee has no right for the purpose of consolidation to go behind the mortgagor and enquire into equit- able interests. Seld, also, that the assignment of C.'s interest to the pit. gave no right of consolida- tion for the right to consolidate can only arise when all the mortgages were originally made by the same mortgagor. It is not enough that the different equities of redemption have got into the same hands by assignment. Shabp v. EICKAEDS - - Neville J. [1908] W. N. 234 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 109 — Consolidation of mortgages. See under Moet&agb — Consolidation. — County court — Jurisdiction — Sale of equity of redemption. See County Couet — Jurisdiction. 8. — Equities of redemption acquired by mortgagee subject to the inortgages — Declaration against merger^ Death of mortgagee intestate — Devolution of mortgage debts. See Administeation. 18. 8. — Freeholds — Mortgagee in Possession — Equity of redemption barred by lapse of time- Intestacy of mortgagee — Devolution of mortgaged land — Realty or Personalty. Where a mortgagee of freeholds enters into possession of the mortgaged land, and dies, leav- ing aU his property to his widow for life but MORTGAGE (Redemption)— era preventii:e. A standing order of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales made under the power given to it by Constitution Act No. 32 of 1902, s. 15, and approved by the Governor, empowered the House to suspend from the service of the House a member charged with an offence until a verdict given or further order : — Held, that the standing order, being to regulate the orderly conduct of the Assembly, was within the terms of the power conferred. The House was sole judge as to the occasion requiring it ; and a Court of law could not question its validity so long as it related to orderly conduct. Accordingly a suspension under it till verdict given of the respondent, who had been charged with a criminal ofEence, made with a view to defend the regularity of its proceedings and not by way of punishment, was enforceable against him. Haenett r. Oeiok p. C. [1908] A. C. 470 7. — Costs of action, arbitration and award — Law of New South Wales — Public Worlis Act, 1900, s. 116, sub-s. 2 (*). Where the respondents tendered 2000Z. as compensation due under the New South Wales Public Works Act, 1900, and the appellants were awarded 18,450^. by the arbitrators, and recovered 17,609^ in an action brought : — Held, that by the unambiguous language of s. 116, sub-s. 2 (¥), the appellants must bear all the costs of the action, arbitration, and award, ( 1791 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1792 ) NEW SOUTH 'WA.ULS— continued. notwithstanding the inadaquate tender made by the respondents. Pacific Co-opeeativb Steam Coal Co. v. Railway Commks. of New South Wales - - - P. C. [1904] A. C. 796 8. — Orown grant, Construction of^ Confir- niation of doubtful title — Effect of reservation of land in Orown grant — Claim by Crown against registered title. In 1826 the Crown granted a charter incor- porating certain persons as trustees of clergy and school lands in the colony, whereby it was declared that " glebe lands " (admitted to include the land now in question) should on the death or resignation of the then incumbents become vested in the corporation. In 1828 the corporation sold (inter alia) the land in question by auction to D., purporting to act under the charter. The incumbent had pre- viously agreed to resign, but there was no evidence of formal resignation. A confirming grant from the Crown, which was usual in prac- tice, was applied for but not obtained before the sale. In 1829 the Crown granted certain glebe lands to the corporation, reserving aU coast land within 100 feet of high-water mark. The land in question would have passed by the general description, if vested in the Crown, but was within the terms of the reservation. D. was not a party to this grant. In 1830 the corporation conveyed to D. the land he had purchased in 1828, reciting the grant of 1829, and in that recital referring to "the reservation and conditions" therein contained, but not expressing any reservation or exception in the operative part, and taking a mortgage for part of the purchase-money. In 1883 the corporation was dissolved, and its property reverted to the Crown under the charter of 1826. In 1840 D. paid off his mortgage to the Crown and the Crown granted and confirmed to D. in fee the premises comprised in the deed of 1830. There was no mention of any exception, and the stated acreage would have been short without the coast strip of 100 feet. Later discussion arose between the Crown and the respondents, who claimed by purchase through D. The respondents were registered as owners in 1887. In 1900 the Crown claimed the coast strip, as having been reserved in 1829 and not included in the grant of 1 840 : — Held, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court, that the corporation had no title to grant the land in question, but that the conditions of sale of 1828 might have misled the purchaser, and the conveyance of 1830 was ambiguous, and that tbe Crown grant of 1840 was intended to remove the doubt, and did confirm to D. the land down to the water's edge. Quisre, whether it was open to the Crown to dispute the registered title. Att.-Gbn. for New South Wales v. Dickson. P.O. [1904] A. C.373 9. — Crown lands — Contraot of sale of condi- tional purohases-^Subject to the provisions of local laws and regulations— New South Wales D.D. NEW SOUTH WAIES— co«i!iM«e(i. Crown Lands Alienation Act, 1861, ss. IS and H — Co7i.struction. In an action by a vendor to recover a forfeit- able deposit from the purchaser (and stake- holders) on the purchaser's failure to complete, the latter pleaded that as regards two portions of the land sold the vendor did not disclose a title as against the Crown to mine thereon for the minerals other than gold : — Held, that he was not bound to do so, and was entitled to a decree. The contract specified that the said portions were sold subject to reser- vations mentioned in the schedule and to the local laws and regulations affecting the same. Gold was reserved to the Crown as mentioned in the schedule ; all minerals were reserved by force of ss. 13 and 14 of New South Wales Crown Lands Alienation Act, 1861 ; and on the true construc- tion of the contract there was no express or implied obligation on the vendor to shew that they had been acquired under s. 13 rather than s. 14 so as to be convertible into mining lands on terms prescribed by the Legislature. Babton V. Lbmpeieeb. p. C. [1910] A. C. 330 10. — Crown Lands — Inquiry as to falsity of statements by applicant for conditional purchase — Powers of Land Board — Findings of fact by Land Court Final — Power to reserve points of law — Jurisdiction of Supreme Couvt — Crown Lands Acts, 1884, ss. 20, 26 ; 1889, ss. 5, 8, sub-s. 6. A Land Board and a Land Appeal Court having found on an inquiry directed by the Minister for Lands under s. 20 of the Crown Lands Act, 1884, that certain statements made by the respondent in applying for a conditional purchase were false within the meaning of s. 26 :— Held, on a special case submitted to the Supreme Court under s. 8, sub-s. 6, of the Crown Lands Act of 1889 : (1.) that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is confined to the decision of submitted questions of law. (2.) that the decision on questions of fact by the Land Board or by the Land Appeal Court is final and conclusive. (3.) that the inquiry directed was within the cognizance of the Land Board under s. 20 of the Act of 1884. (4.) that the Land Appeal Court has power to review the finding of the Land Board, and as incident thereto to reject irrelevant evidence, draw reasonable inferences of fact, correct errors and shortcomings of the Board ; to act as a Court of rehearsing as weU as of appeal. Under s. 5 of the Act of 1889 and No. 7 of the Crown Lands Regulations of Dec. 2, 1889, the Minister for Lauds can order the inquiry to be held at any place that he may think fit. MiNisTBE OF Lands v. Wilson. P. C. [1901] A. C. 315 11. — Crown lands — New South Wales Crown Lands Acts — Agreement by the Crown with licensee of land— Jurisdiction of Lamd Appeajl Couri. An agreement by the Government that in consideration of a licensee of land paying licence 3M ( 1793 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1794 ) NEW SOUTH WALES-contlmied. fees as demanded (which had been refused because of a dispute as to a new appraisement) a notification to the effect that the Ucenoes had not been renewed owing to non-payment there- of should be revoked and that the licensee should qijietly enjoy his holding is not ultra vires the Crown as being contrary to the New South Wales Crown Lands Acts ; and on breach thereof by the Government an action will lie. Seld, also, that the Land Appeal Court had no jurisdiction to determine the status of such land and to hold that the said land was not held by the licensee under the said agreement, but was available for annual leases. Williams r. G'Keepb. p. C. [1910] A. C. 186 12. — Souse or other building or manufactory, prokiiifio/t against the compulsory acquisition of a part only of a—Xcw Simth Wales PiMic Works Act, 1900, s. Ul^Construction. Sehl, that the prohibition in the New South Wales Public Works Act, 1900, s. 131, against the compulsory acquisition of a part only of a house or other building or manufactory where the owner is wiDing and able to convey the whole, apphes on the true construction and in- tention of the Act to both methods of acquisition authorized thereby, whether by notification in the Gazette or Ijy notice to the parties. Williams r. Peemaxext Trustee Co. of New South Wales, Ld. P. C. [1906] A. C. 249 13. — Income tax — Kew South Wales Land and Income Assessment Act, 1895 (59 Tict. jVo. 15), s. 28, sub.-s. 1 — Construction — Income Tax — Seduction of fair rent in respect of Crown lease — Pract i ce — Costs. Meld, under Xew South Wales " Land and Income Tax Assessment Act of 1895," that the respondent, who carried on the business of a grazier on land held under a Crown lease (and therefore exempt from land tax), was not entitled to deduct from the taxable amount of his income in 1899 a sum representing the fair rental value of the leasehold premises and improvements hereon for that year. The deduction is not authorized by s. 28, sub-s. 1, the rental value not being an outgoing, loss, or expense within the meaning of that sub-seotion. Decree of the Court below reversed, the appellant paying respondent's costs in accord- ance with the terms on which special leave to appeal had been granted. CoiiMES. OP TAXA- TION V. AXTILL " P. C. [1902] A. C. 422 14. — Insurance — Xeip South Wales Life, ^'c, Insurance Act, 1902, s. i — Crown not hou7id by the Act — Prerogative rigid to priority of pay- ment. Sect, i of New South Wales Life, Fire and Marine Insurance Act, 1902, purports to protect the proceeds of a life assurance policy from pay- ment of the debts of the deceased : — Held, that, whatever the true construction and effect of the section, the Act itself did not bind the Crown, which was entitled to be paid and by virtue of its prerogative to be paid in priority to all other creditors of the deceased. Att.-Gen. FOE New South Wales r. Cueatoe OP 1^'testatb Estates P. C. [1907] A. C. 519 NEW SOUTH WALES— continiied. — Land — Crown lands. See Nos. 8 — 11, ahore. IS. — Land — Xew South Wales Lands acqui- sition Act (44 Vict. Xo. 16), s. 13 — Prima facie case for compensation — Rightful ovmer unhnown — Claim in respect of possessory title. Land in New South Wales having been duly resumed by the Minister of Public Instruction, it appeared that at the date of resumption the rightful owner was unknown and out of posses- sion, but that F. C. had ten years previously entered into possession thereof as vacant land, enclosed it by substantial fencing, and thence- forth up to the date of resumption held exclusive possession thereof without notice of any adverse claim, received rents and paid rates and taxes in respect of the said land, which stood in his name in the rate books of the municipality : — Beld, that F. C. was not a mere trespasser, but had a possessory title, good at the date of resumption, against everyone but the rightful owner, and in the course of becoming absolute as against him. Having been deprived of the land, he had a prima facie case for compensation within the meaning of s. 13 of the Act of 1880 (44 Vict. No. 16) which was not excluded by the circumstance that under the Public Works Act, 1900, the Minister had acquired the title of the rightful owner. Peeet c. Clissold P. C. [1907] A. C. 73 16. — Land — Resumption of — Costs of action for compensation — Irregular amendment of notified valuation — New South Wales Public Works Act (26 of 1900), ss. 96, 99. Under s. 96 of the New South Wales Public Works Act the Minister notified in the scheduled form that 9460Z. was the valuation of land resumed under statutory authority, and subse- quently by letter not in scheduled form increased the valuation to 9900Z. : — Held, that this letter was a suflScieut though irregular amendment of the previous formal noti- fication, and that, the Court having fixed the compensation to be paid at 9900Z., the owner must pay the costs as directed by s. 99. MiNlSTEB OF Public Woeks v. Hart P. 0. [1904] A. C. 259 17. — Lands — Xon-renewal of licences gazetted by mistake — Poiver of the Minister to reverse the same — Effect of tlie reversal — Xew South Wales Crown Lands Act, 1899, «. 33 ; of 1891, s. 3. The lands in suit had been reappraised in 1899, but the reappraisement was not finally settled till Jan. 19, 1900, and accordingly the fees in respect of the appellant's licences for 1900 had not been paid before the expiration of 1899. By error his lands had been gazetted in Sept., 1899, as requiring payment of fees at the old rates, and on Jan. 6, 1900, non-renewal of the licences had also been gazetted. The ap- pellant thereupon paid the fees at the old rates on account, and obtained a reversal of the non- renewal. Thereafter the respondent applied for and obtained annual leases of the same lands ; but, lield, that they were stiU under licence to the appellant, and therefore not available for lease under s. 33 of the Land Act of 1889. ( 1?95 ) DIGEST OF CASES, l90l— l9l0. ( l?9fi ) NEW SOTJTH -WAIiES— continued. There had not been under the circumstances default by the appellant, and consequently there was no authority to refuse renewal of his licences. The notice purporting to that effect was a mis- take which it was in the power and duty of the Minister to rectify. Senible, under s. 3 of the Land Act of 1891 the Minister's reversal of the non-renewal had the same effect as if the non-renewal had never been notified or declared. O'Kbefb r. Malonb P. C. [1908] A. C. 365 18. — Land tax — New South Wales Land and Income Tax Assessment Act of 1895 (59 Vict. No. 15), s. 11, sui-s. 5 — Glebe lands let on leases — User and occupation — Exemption from land tax. Seld, that under the New South Wales Land and Income Tax Assessment Act, 1895, s. 11, sub-s. 5, glebe lands by Crown grant vested in the respondents for parochial church purposes in connection with the Church of England, but let on building leases or subdivided for that purpose, were not exempt from assessment for land tax as being lands occupied or used exclusively in connection with public charitable purposes or a church. Although the rents and profits of those lands might be so used by the trustees, yet so far as the lands were let on building leases they were not so used by the lessees, and so far as they were not let they were not occupied or used for any purpose. COMMES. OP Taxation r. Trustees OF St. Mask's Glebe - P. C. [1903] A. C. 416 19. — Lease — Suspension of pastoral lease — Compensation — New South Wales Mini-ng Act, 1874 (37 Vict. No. 13), ss. 13, 25— Construction. Held, that s. 13 of the New South Wales Mining Act of 1874 is plain and unambiguous. It confers on the Governor power to suspend a pastoral lease so far as may be necessary for certain defined purposes relating to the public safety and welfare. That power is not confined to land uncultivated or unimproved, or to water flowing in a natural watercourse. The effect of suspension is that while it lasts, and so far as it extends, all the rights of the lessee derived from the lessor are in abeyance, and the lessor is in the same position as if the lease had never been granted, and accordingly can resume possession. The compensation to which the lessee is entitled is limited to the return or remission of rent, no provision being made for cases where compensa- tion so restricted is inadequate : — Meld, further, that the construction of s. 13 cannot be controlled by s. 25, which relates to a different subject. CoOK v. Ricketson P. C. [1901] A. C. 588 20. — Liiel by servatct of corporation — Lia- bility of company for malicious libel. A corporation cannot be held to be incapable of malice so as to be relieved of liability for malioious libel when published by its servant act- ing in the course of his employment. Although the servant may have had no actual authority, express or implied, to vsrite the libel complained of, containing statements against the pit. which he knew to be untrue, if he did NEW SOITTH WALES— coraiiraaei?. so in the course of an employment which is authorized, the corporation is liable. Sarwick v. English Joint Stock Sank, (1867) L. B. 2 Ex. 259, approved. CITIZENS' LIFE ASSTTKANOE Co. V. Beown - P. C. [1904] A. C. 423 21. — Lunacy — Substituted service on alleged lunatic — Service on Master in Lunacy — Juris- diction to dispense urith examination of lunatic — New Smith Wales Lunacy Act, 1898, s. 106, sub-s. 2 ; s. 110. By s. 106, sub-s. 2, of the New South Wales Lunacy Act of 1888, according to its true con- struction, personal service on an alleged lunatic of a petition by his wife to declare him of unsound mind may be dispensed with when there is evidence on which the Court can conclude that it is inexpedient. The rules of Court provide that substituted service should be effected on " some adult inmate at the dwelling-house." Where the wife and his two attendants are the only adult inmates, it is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the Court to order service on the Master in Lunacy. It is also within the jurisdiction of the Court under s. 110 to dispense with any examination of the alleged lunatic, if there is evidence on which it can find that it is inexpedient to examine him. In re McLaughlin P. C. [1906] A. C. 343 22. — Military service, Contract with the Colonial Government for — Payments by the Imperial Government — Payments under the con- tract. Where a Colonial Government had entered into a contract with the respondent for military services in South Africa at a certain rate of pay:— Held, that it did so on behalf of the Crown, and that any payments made by the Crown to the respondent through the Imperial Government for services so rendered to the Crown were in part discharge of moneys due under the contract, and that the Colonial Government was entitled to the benefit of them. Williams v. Howarth P. C. [1905] A. C. 561 23. — Mines — Payment of miners according to amount excavated — New South Wales Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1896 (60 Vict. No. 12), s. 38, sub-s. 1 — Construction. The respondent having been convicted of contravening s. 38, sub-s. 1, of the New South Wales Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1896 by not paying his miners according to the actual weight gotten by them of the mineral contracted to be gotten : — Held, that on the true construction of the section, as it appeared that by the contract of employment the miners were to be paid accord- ing to the yardage of excavation, which had no necessary or constant relation to the amount of mineral gotten, the Act was inapplicable and the conviction was erroneous. Humble ■!;. Humphreys P. C. [1902] A. C. 207 24. — Partnership — Provision for purchase by survivor of share of deceased partner — Sur- viving partner sole executor of deceased — Valua- tion an incident in the purchase — Mrror in 8 m2 ( t79t ) DiGESl* OF dASES, 1901—1910. ( 1798 ) NEW SOUTH WALES— coratmaerf. valuation to le strictly proved after long delay — Validity of purchase — Zaw of partner- ship. By a clause in articles of partnership executed in 1878 between two brothers it was provided that on the death of either the survivor should pay to the executors of the deceased the full share to which they should be entitled on the taking of a general account in writing of the partnership assets, " such stock and other assets as shall not consist of money to be valued either by mutual agreement or valuation in the usual way nothing being charged for goodwill." One brother died in 1886, and the survivor as sole executor under his will efEected the valua- tion as directed, paid for the share as surviving partner, and thenceforth carried on the business on his own account. In an action brought in 1908 by the residuary legatees under the said will against the surviving partner in effect for an account on the footing that there had been no operative sale and pur- chase in 1886 by reason of the valuation then made not being in manner authorized by the clause, and that the business must be deemed to have been carried on for the benefit of both parties to the suit : — Held, that on the true construction of the clause there was a binding contract of sale and purchase, and that the valuation was only an incident in carrying out the same. The evidence shewed that a substantially accurate method had been adopted, but even if error had been shewn either in the method or the results it could not destroy the contract, but would faU to be corrected by the Court on being clearly and conclusively proved. The price of goodwill must in any event be excluded from the valua- tion, and the appellants could not rely exclusively on the dual character of the deft, which had been imposed upon him by their own testator. Vyse V. Foster, (1874) L. K. 7 H. L. 318, and Binliam v. Bradford, (1869) L. R. 5 Ch. 519, approved. Hoedern v. Hoedbrn P. C. [1910] A. 0. 466 35. — Penalty, Liability to — New South Wales Act (2 Edw. 7, No. 35), s. 24 — Construction. Under the New South Wales Act (2 Edw. 7, No. 35), s. 24, according to its true construction, a person holding a civic oflSce is not liable to a penalty as being knowingly interested in a con- tract with his municipality when he has merely supplied materials to a contractor who chooses to buy them from him without any concerted arrangement that he should do so. NOETON v, Tatlok - P. 0. [1906] A. C. 378 26. — Practice — Appealable ralue — Issue as to appealable value to he decided by Court of A2J2^eal — Admissibility of affidavits — New South Wales Mining Act, 1874 (37 Vict. No. 18),*. 115. Sect, 115 of the New South Wales Mining Act, 1874, gives a right of appeal to the Supreme Court in mining cases >Yhere the amount involved is not less than 500Z. -. Seld, that the Supreme Court was wrong in refusing to hear an appeal on the ground that the value should be fouud and stated by the NEW SOUTH WKLZS—eoMinued. Court appealed from, and could not be ascer- tained by themselves on affidavit. Scully V. Mum, (1893) 14 N. S. W. R. 289, overruled. Falkmess Gold MrsrsG co. v. McKlKNEEY P. C. [1901] A. C. 581 27. — Principal and agent — Construction of contract — Obligation of agent to pass goods through the Custom Souse — Action for not expediting clearance so as to avoid a newly imposed duty. Where the respondents contracted for certain fixed charges to lighter and load on railway trucks the machinery of the appellants brought by ship, and also to pass it through the Customs without extra charge : — Held, that this obligation did not involve the duty of expediting the clearance of the appel- lants' goods in less than the twenty-four hours allowed by the Customs Regulation Act, 1 879, so as to avoid the payment of duty, which came into force before the expiration of that time. The appellants, who sued to recover the amount of the duty so paid, had not requested that the clearing should be expedited, though the circum- stances were not within the contemplation of the contract, and were rightly nonsuited. COMMOir- WEALTH Portland Cement Co. v. Webee, LOHMANN & Co. P. C. [1908] A. C. 66 28. — Probate duty — Duty claimed on pro- perty subject to special power of appointment by deceased — New South Wales Stamp Duties Acts, 1898, J. 49, sub-s. 2 A (a) — Construction. More general language in a probate duty statute applicable to the property of deceased persons and to property Bubject to their general power of appointment does not extend to pro- perty subject to a special power to appoint amongst a limited class. The intention to include the latter must be clearly expressed and accom- panied by apt provisions : — Held, on a consideration of all the provisions of the New South Wales Stamp Duties Act, 1898, that s. 49, sub-s. 2 A (a), does not on its true con- struction apply to property over which a deceased person has only a special as distinguished from a general power of appointment by will. COM- MISSIONER OF Stamp Duties v. Stephen P. C. [1904] A. C. 137 29. — Public Service Act, 1895, s. 60, sub-s. 1 ; s. 67 — Civil Service Act, 1884, s. 46 — Construction — Compensation on Retirement — Law of New So^ith Wales. Under the New South Wales Public Service Act, 1895, the plt.'s services in the Bankruptcy Dept. as a member of the New South Wales Civil Service were dispensed with as from June 30, 1896, and he received under that Act a refund of his contributions to the Superannuation Account established by the Civil Service Act, 1884, and a gratuity as provided by s. 60, sub-s. 1, of the Act of 1895, and in addition a pension under the Public Service (Superannuation) Act, 1899. In June, 1905, he sued for an increased pen- sion on the ground that his services had been dispensed with in consequence of the abolition of his office and that he was entitled to the benefits in that case provided by the Act of 1884, s. 46 ;— ( 1799 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 1800 ) NEW SOUTH WALES— continued. Seld, that, whether or not the plt.'s retire- ment was "in consequence of the abolition of his office " within the meaning of that expression in the Act of 1884, it was incompetent for him to fall back upon that Act after having received the full compensation provided by s. 60 of the Act of 1895. All compensation other than that pro- vided by the said Act was expressly excluded by s. 67 thereof. There was no grant or reservation to him of a right (if any) under the Act of 1884. "Williams v. Cueatoe of Intestate Estates P. C. [1909] A. C. 383 30. — Railway — Agreement to construct a railway joiiitly — Comtruction — Rights of joint owners. Where two colliery cos. agreed to construct a ry. between their respective collieries and the Government ry., and by the New South Wales Act which empowered the same it was provided that the new ry. should be open to the public upon payment of a toll to the two cos. for every ton of goods carried for the public, and that owners and occupiers of lands traversed by the ry. may construct branch rys. communicating therewith : — ITeld, that, in the absence of prohibitive words in the agreement, either colliery co. was at liberty to construct a branch ry. and have its coal thence brought to the joint ry. carried over it free of the toll, which was chargeable only to the public. GALBDONiAif Coal Co. ■». Seaham Colliery Co. - P. C. [1901] A. C. 554 31. — Revenue — ■ Income tax — New South Wales Land and Income Tax Assessment Act,\%'dB — Regulations thereunder — Return compulsory of income of. whatever amount — Default assessm,ent conclusive umless questioned under the Act. Dnder the New South Wales Land and Income Tax Assessment Act of 1895 (59 Vict. No. 15), and the regulations made thereunder, every person in the receipt of any income of whatever amount is bound to make a return thereof to the Commrs. in the prescribed form, although after all authorized deductions it does not exceed the taxable limit of 200Z. If he neglects to do so the Commrs. may make a default assessment, which becomes binding and conclusive unless questioned by appeal under the Act. The High Court of Australia having ruled to a contrary effect : — Held, on appeal therefrom, which had been granted on special terms as to costs and subject to the default assessment being amended if so directed, that a default assessment by the Commrs. of 225Z. should be reduced to a nominal amount, and that they should pay to the respon- dent his costs of this appeal as between solicitor and client. Taxation Commes. v. Moonet P. C. [1907] A. C. 342 32. — Revenue — Stamp duties — New South Wales Stamp Duties Act, 1898— Probate Duties (Amendmenf) Act, \89%— Share of deceased pa/rtn£r — Business carried on in the Colony. The share of a deceased partner is situate where the business was carried on at the time of his death. In re Mwing (1881), 6 P. D. 23, approved. HEW SOUTH WU^S— continued. Where two brothers residing in England cai-ried on the business of graziers and sheep farmers in partnership by their agent in New South Wales : — Held, that the interest therein of one of them at the date of his death was liable to pay the duties imposed by the New South Wales Stamp Duties Act, 1898, as amended by the Pro- bate Duties (Amendment) Act, 1899. Stamp Duties Commissionee v. Salting P. C. [1907] A. C. 449 33. — Streets — Rates — Sydney Corporation Act of 1879 — Moore Street Improvement Act, 1890 — Construction — Owners for the time being liable for the rates. The Sydney Corporation Act of 1879 autho- rized the municipal council to impose rates, called a city rate, on all rateable property within the city, to be paid by the occupier, or in his default by the owner thereof for the time being. The Moore Street Improvement Act of 1890 was passed to carry out certain improvements of Moore Street on "an equitable system," and provided that the cost thereof should be divided between the whole body of ratepayers liable to the city rate and those who were owners of pro- perty within the improvement area : — Held, overruling the Court below, that, according to the true construction of the later Act, owners of property within the improvement area meant owners for the time being. The intention was to create a charge on their pro- perty, and not a mere personal charge on the persons who happened to be owners thereof at the date o£ assessment. Sydney Municipal Council v. Tbrky P. C. [1907] A. C. 308 34. — Sunday trading at railway refreshment rooms — Actual or intending passengers — New South Wales Police Offences Act, 1901, s. 61 — Construction. The respondent, lessee of the refreshment rooms at a railway station at Sydney, traded on Sunday by selling cigarettes. Upon an infor- mation filed against him under s. 61 of the New South Wales Police Offences Act, 1901, it was contended that the Sunday trading clauses of that Act did not bind the Crown, that the Railway Commissioners were in the same position as the Crown, and that the respondent was acting in accordance with a lease granted by the Com- missioners and was therefore protected : — Held that, as the lease did not authorize the supply of refreshments to other than actual or intending passengers, the onus lay on the respondent to prove that the purchaser of the cigarettes in this case was an actual or intending passenger, and as he had failed to do so he ought to have been convicted. Qucere whether the Sunday trading clauses in the said Act are binding upon the Crown. Kelly v. Hart P. 0. [1910] A. C. 192 35. — Sydney Corporation Act, 1879, s. 130 — Construction — By-law No. 10 ultra vires — Power to charge fees on cattle in municipal sale-yards only. By ss. 132 and 138 of the Sydney Corporation Act, 1879, the appellants were authorized to establish and license, within certain local limits, ( 1801 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1802 ) NEW SOUTH VI AL&Z— continued. sale-yards for the sale of cattle, and also places for the slaughter thereof ; and by s. 139 they were empowered to charge fees set forth in by- laws to be made in that behalf on cattle intended for slaughter "yarded or brought for sale by auction to any sale-yards or premises in the city of Sydney or within the distance of fourteen miles therefrom as hereinbefore provided," the schedule of maximum charges being confined to animals received into the yards for sale and not referring to animals intended for slaughter : — Held, that by the true construction of s. 139 it contemplated an owner of cattle intended for slaughter bringing them to sale-yards established by the appellants, and that a by-law authorising charges on cattle brought by the respondents to their own private yards within the same local limits and there slaughtered was ultra Tires. Municipal Council op Sydney «. Austeal Freezing Works, Ld. - P. C. [1905] A. C. 161 36. — Wliarves — Rights to levy wharfage rates on all wharves vested in the Commissioners — Sydney Hariour Trust Act, s. 68 — Construction. Held, that s. 68 of the Sydney Harbour Trust Act authorizes the levy of wharfage rates on all wharves vested in the Commrs., whether private, or public, or private sufferance wharves : Held, also, that the appellants had no interest in the wharves in suit which under s. 27 would preclude the levy of rates. Their Crown leases thereof had expired, and after the passing of the Trust Act could not be renewed. A right as rent-paying tenants after the expiration of a Crown lease to occupy the wharves as their private wharves is not an interest within s. 27 of the Act, and would be ineffectual to exempt the appellants from liability. Lukey r. Sydney Harbour Trust Commrs. P. C. [1904] A. C. 382 37. — Will — Codicil — Construction — Period of distribution. Where a testator gave an annuity to his widow till death or remarriage and created other fixed charges on his estate in favour of all his children during minority and of his daughters after attain- ing majority, and directed that on his youngest child attaining majority his two sons if alive would become absolutely and indefeasibly entitled to the residue of his estate, share and share alilie : — Held, that the period of distribution thus plainly indicated was not postponed by a codicil which directed that in case all his children died without issue his brother should take the whole residue and gave the trustee a discretionary power at any time to enhance the widow's annuity. As regards the discretion it appeared to have been exercised, and the widow appeared to have consented that no further enhancement should be made. HOBDERN v. HoRDERN P. C. [1909] A. C. 210 38. — ^¥Ul — Election, Right of — Estates in Scotland and Atistralia — I'wo separate wills forming one scheme of testamentary intention — Testator's widow electing to talie again.ft one cannot claim, under the otlier — Right to equitable compensation. By two testamentary instruments, called respectively a British will and an Australian NEW SOUTH WALES— continued. will, a testator domiciled in Scotland made a complete disposal of his estates, British and Australian, directing that the British will should be construed and administered according to the law of Scotland, the Australian will according to the law of New South Wales. His widow, on his death without issue, obtained a decree of the Ct. of Sess. in Scotland establishing her legal right in name of jus relictse and terce, with conse- quential relief, the Court declining jurisdiction as against the Australian trustees. Under a sum- mons issued in the Supreme Court of New South Wales by the respondent trustees of the Australian will, the widow claimed the beneficial dispositions in her favour contained therein ; the Court decided in her favour, and an appeal therefrom was instituted by the above appellant, party thereto, who took beneficially under the Scottish will, but not under the Australian : — Held, that the two Instruments formed one will containing a coherent scheme of intention, and that the widow, having elected to defeat the will in part, could not claim under it, and accordingly took no interest under the Aus- tralian wiU. Held, also, that the appellant had a locus standi to maintain the appeal, being interested in protecting the Australian estate in order to com- pensate those who had been deprived of benefits under the will by the widow's election. DOUG-LAS-lilENZIES V. UMPHELBY p. C. [1908] A. C. 224 NEW TRIAL— County Court— Practice. See under County Court. - Practice. See under Practice- -Trial. NEW ZEALAND — Pacijic Cable Act, 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. 31), provides for the co7istruction and worhing of a submarine cable from tlie Island of Vancouver to New Zealand and to Queensland, Priry Council — Judicial Committee — Order in Council, dated Jan. 10, 1910, regulating appeals to His Majesty in Cotmcil from the Court of Appeal and from tlie Supreme Court of jYew Zealand. Reprint from W. N., 1910 (Feb. 19), p. 76. See Current Index, 1910, p. cxi. 1. — Action for wrongful dismissal — Plea of justification — Verdict for damages — Duty of tlie trial judge — New trial ordered. There is no fixed rule of law defining the degree of misconduct which will justify dismissal fi-om service. It is a question for the jury whether the degree of misconduct was inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of service, so as to justify dismissal. The judge should not submit any issue to them if, in his opinion, no evidence of justifica- tion has been given. If he submits the issue he should direct, guide and assist them ; direct, by informing them of the nature of the acts which as a matter of law, would justify dismissal ; guide, by calling their attention to the material facts ; assist, in a manner and to an extent which there is no reason to define. ( 1803 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1804 ) NEW ZEAIAND- In an action for wrongful dismissal where a plea of justilication was substantially set up ; — Held, that the judge' was right in sub- mitting the issues of fact to the jury ; that the verdict for the pit. was so unsatisfactory that it ought not to be maintained ; that r. 5 in the Sched. to the Court of Appeal (New Zealand) Act, 1882 (similar to Order LVIII., r. 4, 1875), enabled judgment to be entered according to the evident justice of the case ; but that under the circumstances a new trial should be directed. Claustoh" & Co. v. Cokky P. C. [1906] A. C. 122 2. — Bridges — ■ " Adjacent " — JSew Zealand Municipal Corporations Act, 1900, s. 219 — Con- struction. Sect. 219 of the New Zealand Municipal Cor- porations Act, 1900, empowers the consti'uction of bridges by municipal councils, and provides that in certain circumstances the local authority of an adjacent district should contribute to the cost : — Held, that the word " adjacent " is not a word of precise and uniform meaning, and the degree of proximity denoted is a question of circum- stances. The Court below having decided that the appellant city was adjacent to the respondent borough although there was a distance of over six miles between their boundaries and three other local divisions intervened, its discretion was not interfered with. Mayor of Welling- ton 11. Mayor of Lower Hdtt. P. C. [1904] A. C. 773 — Cable — Pacific Cable Act. See Heading to New Zealand at tlie commencement of New Zealand. 3. — Charitaile trust, administration of — The Crown cannot as defendant impeach the trust — Construction of grant — Valid gift for chari- table purposes — Failure of specified purpose — Cy-pres. It is contrary to the established practice of the Court to permit a deft, to an action for the administration of the trnsts of a settlement not void on the face of it to impeach the settlement in his defence to that action. Where the crown, as party deft, to a suit for the administration of a charitable trust, obtained from the Court below an order that the trust was void and that the land and money in suit had become its property : Held, that the suit was not one in which the order could properly be made. Where it appeared that certain Maori chiefs had in 1848 ceded 500 acres of land, part of the native reserves, with the consent of the Crown, which waived its right of pre-emption thereof, to the Bishop of New Zealand in trust for a college to be erected thereon for the general purpose of promoting religion, and no college had been erected, the land having in course of time become an unsuitable site, while the accumulations of its rent had amounted to a considerable sum : — Held, that there had been an express gift of land and money for charitable purposes ; that such a, gift is not invalidated by the fact that the particular application directed cannot imme- diately take efEect, or will inot of necessity take NEW Z'S.bJj&.'S'D— continued. effect within any definite limit of time, and may never take effect at all ; and that the doctrine of cy-prfes was applicable. Wallis v. Solicitoe- GrENBBAL FOR NEW ZEALAND. P. C. [1903] A. C. 178 4. — Compensation - — New Zealand Mining Act, 1898, ss. 232, 2%Z—Pul)lic WorTts Act, 1894, s. 44 — Amount must he settled by agreement or judicial decision— Summary procedure un- authorized. The incorporation by s. 232 of the New Zealand Mining Act, 1898, of the machinery of the Public Works Act, 1894, for ascertainment and settlement of compensation is expressly made subject to all the provisions of the incorporating Act. Where the applicant claimed compensation for land injuriously affected by the authorized pollution of a river, and obtained judgment under the Public Works Act, s. 44, for the same, as not having been disputed by the Minister within the time prescribed thereby : — Held, that the judgment must be set aside, because the claim, not having been settled by agreement, should have been adjudicated upon as provided by s. 233 of the Mining Act, which precludes the summary procedure of s. 44 of the earlier Act. Hbslop v. Minister of Mines for New Zealand - P. C. [1904] A. C. 781 5. — Conjhcation — Regrant of native lands — Trust — Construction of regrant. The expression " to be held in trust " for a definite class of persons is not always sufficient to create an equitable right or obligation which can be enforced by legal proceedings. Kinloch V. Secretary of State for India in Council, (1882) 7 App. Cas. 625, referred to. &j an agreemeutiu 1870 between the Govern- ment of New Zealand and certain natives whose names were scheduled thereto (which agreement was afterwards incorporated in the Mohaka and Waikare District Act, 1870), it was provided that the block of lands in suit, over which the Government had by force of a proclamation in 1867 issued under the New Zealand Settlement Act, 1863, an absolute power of disposition, native titles having been thereby extinguished, should be allotted to T. , a Maori chief, and held in trust by him "in the manner provided or hereinafter to be provided by the General As- sembly for native lands held under trust." In a suit by the appellants against T.'s devisees thereof to declare that the said block was held by T. as a trustee for the loyal owners thereof according to native custom and usage the natives beneficially entitled thereto : — Held, that, under all the circumstances and notwithstanding the words of trust in the agree- ment, T. took absolutely and beneficially ; and that the respondents were not affected by any trusts in favour of the appellants. The allottees of each block comprised in the agreement or their successors were the only persons beneficially entitled thereto. Those circumstances were— that the Act con- tained no reference to any native custom or trust, but treated the scheduled persons as entitled to grants in fee simple (an expression inapplicable to lands held by native custom) ; that there was ( 1805 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1806 ) NEW ZEkLASTi—eoTdinued. no evidence as to who were regarded in 1867 as loyal inhabitants or entitled to the benefits of the proclamation ; that by the Native Lands Acts Amendment Act. 1881, certificates were to be given and grants made to the persons named in the schedule to the agreement of 1870 or their successors as tenants in common and not as joint tenants; that in 1882 certificates were ordered to be issued accordingly, and that T. received a certificate and a grant to hold to him, his heirs and assigns, for ever as from Sept. 12, 1870, sub- ject to certain restrictions specified in s. 8 of the Act of 1881, but without reference to any trust or native custom ; and that the General Assembly were not shewn to have declared any trusts in favour of the appellants. Te Teira Te Paiia v. Te Eoeea Takeha p. C. [1902] A. C. 56 6. — Contract — Lessor and lessee — Implied obligations as to gviet enjoyment — Common intention — Printing machinery and hotel bed- rooms — Xuisancefrom noise and rilration. Implied obligations in a contract must be governed by the common intention of the parties. In an action by the respondents as lessees against the appellants for an injunction and damages, it appeared that both parties had agreed to a rebuilding of the appellants' print- ing-house on terms that the respondents were to rent from the appellants the upper floors as additional bedrooms for their adjoining hotel, and the appellants were to have on the ground floor an engine-house and printing machinery for the prosecution of their business, both parties believing that the noise and vibration which were the cause of action would be so slight that it might be disregarded : — Held, that in the absence of evidence that the appellants had erected the building or worked the machinery and plant improperly the action must be dismissed. Both parties contemplated that the appellants should keep on printing, and that the respondents should have reasonably quiet bedrooms, but the later intention could not be enforced if it would frustrate the former. Lyttleton Times Co., Ld. v. Waenees, Ld. p. C. [1907] A. C. 476 7. — Contract to execute worhs — Vrongful seizure of works by defendants — Plaintiff entitled to determAne the contract. ■R^here the appellants having guaranteed the due performance of a contract made with a municipal corporation for the execution of works on its land, agreed on the contractor's default with the respondent to complete the execution of the works on the terms of the original con- tract, and in efEect delegated the supervision of the contract and all incidental arrangements to the corporation, and the corporation, according to the findings of the jury, improperly prevented the respondent from proceeding with the stipu- lated expedition and wrongfully seized the works and extruded the respondent : — Seld, that the appellants, having by their conduct constituted the corporation their agents and the delay being attributable to their acts, could not justify the seizure and re-entry ; and NEW ZEKLAmi—continiied. that the respondent was entitled to treat the contract as at an end and sue on quantum meruit. LODDEE i. SLOWEr P. C. [1904] A. C. 442 8. — Gasworks — Jfunicipal Corporations Act, 1886, ss. 369, SlO—SamiUon Gas TTorks Act, 1895, s. 46 — Comtruction — Mxpropriation — Value of gasworks as a going concern. (Jnder New Zealand Hamilton Gasworks Act, 1895 (59 Vict. Xo. 1), s-t.itutory power was granted to construct and maintain gasworks in the town of Hamilton and to supply the said town and its suburbs with gss. Sect. 46 pro- vided that the Hamilton Corporation should be entitled at any time after the expiration of twelve years from the date of the Act coming into operation "to purchase the gasworks and plant at a price to be determined by arbitra- tion " : — Seld that, on the true construction of the section, the price to be paid for the said gas- works and plant should be the commercial value thereof as a going concern, and not merely their structural value. The respondents were constituted by the Municipal Corporations Act. 1SS6 (50 Vict. Xo. 50), and if they had exercised their powers of acquisition under ss. 369 and 370 of that Act would have had to pay the fuU commercial value. Had the intention of the Act of 1S95 been to introduce a more limited signification of the term " gasworks," the language used should have plainly excluded therefrom either monopoly, goodwill, or undertaking as such. Hamilton Gas Co. r. Hamilton Corpobatiox P. C. [1910] A. C. 300 9. — Land — Transfer of 7tatire lands — Land Transfer Acts. 1870-1885— iWprt of registration — Native Land Act, 1S73 — T^Tatice Lands Fraud Prevention Act, 1881, ss. 4, 6, 15 — .Xatiiv Land Court Act, 1894, ss. 59, 73 — Fraud in procuri?)g registration — Errors of procedure in Xative Land Courts — Orders of freehold tenure — Memorandum of transfer indorsed by truxt commissioner. Under the system of land registry introduced into New Zealand in liS60. governed from 1S70 to 1885 by the Land Transfer Act of 1870 and its amendments, and afterwards by the Land Transfer Act of 1885, registration is conclusive and confers an unimpeachable title on the registered owner except in certain specified cases, of which fraud is one. The transfer to Europeans of lands held by natives under their native customs was till 1S86 regulated by the Native Land Act. 1873, which provided for a judicially ascertained memorial of their ownership, and eventually, in case of a memorandum of transfer by them being judicially approved, for an order of freehold tenure indorsed by the Court on the memorial, the effect of which v\'as to extinguish the native title, confer a new right on the purchaser, and authorize a Crown grant by the Governor. The Land Court had jurisdiction to make this order, by which the district land registrars under the Act of 1870 were bound. By the Native Land Court Act, 1894, s. 73, native customary land was subjected ( 1807 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1808 ) NEW ZEALAND- to the Land Transfer Act, 1885, and its owner made absolute proprietor subject to all equities afiecting the same. The registration was thereby- authorized of any transferee of an interest therein under a transfer made prior to the Act and duly confirmed. In actions by natives to recover from the appellants three parcels of lands (subject to the Land Transfer Act, 1885), of which they were registered owners in possession, it appeared that the first parcel had been registered in the names of the appellants on production of a warrant or Crown grant dated May 7, 1889 ; the second under an Act of Parliament (Glasgow Bank Act, 1882), vesting in them, subject to existing liabilities, a title which had been previously registered in the names of liquidators of the bank ; the third on production of certificates of title from the Native Land Court and Crown grants : — HeMy that as the registration had been obtained in each case bona fide the effect thereof was conclusive to confer on the appellants a title unimpeachable by the respondents. By the Land Transfer acts of 1870 and 1886 the fraud which must be pi'oved in order to invahdate the title of a registered purchaser for value, whether he buys from a prior registered owner or from a person claiming under a title certified under the Native Land Acts, is actual, not constructive fraud, brought home to the person whose registered title is impeached or to his agents. Fraud by the person from whom he claims does not affect him unless knowledge of it is brought home to him or his agents. Gills V. Messer, [1891] A. 0. 248, distin- guished. With regard to the natives' contention that the registration was invalid by reason of the invalidity of the orders of the Native Land Court on which Crown grants or their statutory equivalents had been issued : — Held, with regard to the first parcel, that serious errors of procedure in the Native Land Court which might have affected the validity of the order of freehold tenure made by it, on which the warrant of May 7, 1889, had been issued, could not avail to invalidate a registered title. It was not the duty of the district land registrar under the Transfer and Native Land Acts to examine its validity, but to act upon it : Held, with regard to the second parcel, that the Glasgow Bank Act, 1882, under which these lands vested in the appellants, must be read so as to work in harmony with the Colonial Acts in force at the time and as conferring upon them the right to procure registration, their transferors having been registered as owners under the Land Transfer Act, 1870, and its amending Acts : Held, with regard to the third parcel that the memoranda of transfer having been approved and indorsed by the trust commissioner under the Native Lands Fraud Prevention Act of 1881, the effect thereof was that under s. 57 of the Native Land Court Act of 1894 the transfers were confirmed, and accordingly there was nothing to invalidate the appellants' registra- tion. ASSETS Co. V. Meek Boihi. Assets Co. u. WiEEMU Peee. Assets Co. v. Paj^apa NEW ZEALAND— coreiiMwei. Waihopi. Assets Co. r. Wi Peee. Assbti Co. v. Teiea Ranginui. Assets Co. ii. Hens TiPUNA - p. C. [1905] A. C. 176 10. — Lands surrendered to the Grown subject to sulsisting contracts — Rights of Crown against trespasser — Possession for less than sixty years — Law of New Zealand — Imperial Act, 1847 — New Zealand Act(\(i ^ 11 Vict. o. 112). In an action of ejectment by the Crown it appeared that the lands in suit had in 1845 been included in a Crown grant to the New Zealand Land Co., which thereby acquired the legal estate therein subject to an equitable estate in favour of P., resulting from a prior contract of sale made with him by the oo. In 1850 the co. surrendered its lands including those in suit to the Crown, which thereupon, under an Imperial Act (10 & 11 Vict. c. 112), vested in Her Majesty, " subject nevertheless to any contract which should then be subsisting in regard to any of the said lands." No conveyance was ever made to P. by the co., and after the surrender neither P. nor any of his heirs applied to the Crown for completion of the contract. In 1870 B. entered on the lands in suit which had been left derelict, and in 1885 conveyed them to the appellant : — Held, that according to the true construction of the above Act the lands surrendered vested in the Crown in absolute ownership, unfettered as to any portion of them by any trust cogniz- able and enforceable by any Court of law or equity. Even if P.'s contractual rights against the CO. had passed to the appellant, they were not such as a Court could enforce. The appel- lant was simply an intruder, who had not been In possession long enough to acquire title against the Crown. Kiddifoed v. Bex. P. C. [1905] C. A. 147 11. — Lease — Suit ly lessee on a oorenant to renew tlie lease — Specific performance — No relief against performance of condition precedent— Relief against forfeiture on Ireach of covenant — New Zealand Property Law Acf, 1908, ss. 93 and 94. ITeld, that ss. 93 and 94 of the New Zealand Property Law ' Act, 1908, which provide for" relief against forfeiture of a lease based on failure to perform a covenant, do not apply where the lessor is resisting specific performance of a covenant to renew conditional on the per- formance of its covenants. There is no provi- sion therein which purports to grant relief against the performance of a condition pre- cedent. Where the evidence disclosed a persistent course of wilful neglect of his covenants by the lessee, held, overruling the Court below, that he could not enforce a covenant for an extended term expressed in the lease to be conditional on their performance. Even if there were jurisdic- tion to grant relief, the circumstances of the lessee's breach must be such as to found an equitable claim thereto. Geeville v. Pakkek P. C. [1910] A. C. 335 12. — Licensing Acts—Effect of licensing poll leing declared void — New Zealand Interpretation ( 1809 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1810 ) NEW ZEKLb.'S'D—oontinueA. Act, «. 5, subs. 7 — Nem Zealand, Licensing Act, 1895, s. 3 — Construction. Sect. 5, sub-s. 7, of the New Zealand Intei'- pretation Act (1888, No. 15) provides that Acts should be liberally construed so as to ensure the attainment of the object of the Act according to its true intent, meaning, and spirit. According to the literal meaning of s. 3 of the New Zealand Licensing Act of 1895, the appellant's publican's licence for an hotel in the Newtown district could not be renewed ; for the last licensing poll of the electors having been declared void, a determination by the electors as required by that' section had not been made. But 7ieZ(Z that as, having regard to s. 2, sub-s. 3, and s. 8, sub-s. 4, of the same Act, and to s. 21 of the Licensing Act of 1893, the plain intention of the Legislature appeared to be that existing licences should continue until a determination had been made by the electors, effect must be given thereto ; and accordingly a mandamus was directed to the respondents, the licensing com- mittee of the said district, to hear and determine the appellant's application for a renewal. Smith ■u. McAkthur - P. C. [1904] A. C. 389 13. — Native title to possession of land — Land Act of 1892 (56 Vict. No. 37), ss. 136, 137— Jans- diotion as to cession to the Crown — Native Right Act, 1865 (32 Vict. No. 11) ss. 3, 4, 5. The Civil Courts have jurisdiction under the Native Eights Act, 1865, ss. 3, i, 5, to ascertain as therein provided native title to and interest in land according to custom or usage of the Maori people. And they are bound in any action in which such title is involved to recognize the rightful possession and occupation of lands by the natives until lawfully extinguished, and to give effect to it. The appellant having alleged a native title of occupancy to the lands in suit in a manner which was consistent with the Crown's seisin thereof in fee : — Held, that his suit to restrain an unauthorized invasion of it was maintainable, and that the Court had jurisdiction to decide at least that the title alleged was in existence and had not been extinguished by cession to the Crown in manner provided by statute, or by other proceeding legally efiective for that purpose. Wi Parata v. Bishop of Wellington, 3 N. Z. J. R. (N.S.) S. C. 72, considered. Qumre, whether native title can be extin- guished by an exercise of the prerogative. The respondent as Commissioner of Crown Lands having notified the land in suit under s. 136, of the Land Act of 1892, offered it for sale or selection in terms of s. 137, and advertised the sale thereof : — Held, that the appellant was entitled to sue for an injunction until his title was extin- guished according to law, and the Com't had jurisdiction to decide whether the respon- dents' action was within his statutory powers. NiKBAHA TAMAKI %\ BAKEE p. C. [1901] A. C. 661 14. — New Zealand Magistrates' Court Act. 1893 — Jurisdiction of stipendiary magistrate — forma pauperis — Certificate of council NEW ZEALAND—, Petition for inquiry into a licensing poll — Alcoholic lAquors Sale Act of 1895. Although under the New Zealand Kesident Magistrates Act, 1867, the jurisdiction of magis- trates was purely local, yet under the Magis- trates' Courts Act, 1893, stipendiary magistrates appointed thereunder do not hold office for par- ticular districts, but possess a general jurisdiction throughout the whole Colony, controlled in practice by departmental arrangements. "Where a stipendiary magistrate receives in an oificial capacity in any part of the Colony a petition presented under the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Act of 1895 for inquiry into a licensing poll, and assumes the duty of dealing with it, he has jurisdiction to act. The Act of 1895 directs the inquiry to be made in the manner prescribed by s. 48 of the Regulation of Local Elections Act, 1876, which refers to the Court of the district resident magistrate appointed under the Act of 1867 at that time in force. But, held, that under s. 6 of the Act of 1893 such reference must be construed as if made to a stipendiary magis- trate. Bastings v. Callaghajt P. 0. [190S] A. C. 351 15. — Omission to give notice of non-admis- sion of claims — Jurisdiction — Relief — New Zea- land Public WorJis Act, 1894 (58 Vict. No. 42), s. 44. The appellants, having expropriated the lands of the respondents under the New Zea- land Public Works Act, 1894, inadvertently omitted to give them notice, under s. 44, of non-admission of their claims for compensation within sixty days of receiving the same ; and accordingly the respondents filed copies of their claims, with receipts for the service thereof, in the Supreme Court. Held, that, the claims having thereupon become enforceable awards under the Act, the appellants were not entitled, under the Act or otherwise, to any relief against the consequences of their omission. Wellington Corpokation i'. Johnston. Wellington Coepoeation v. Lloyd - P. C. [1902] A. C. 396 16. — Practice — Appeal — Judgment final and conclusive — Prerogative not taken away except by express words — Special leave to appeal — Neiv Zealand Act (85 Vict., No. 43), s. 93. Sect. 93 of New Zealand Act (58 Vict. No. 43), declares that the decisions of the Native Appel- late Court estabhshed thereby shall be " final and conclusive," but does not expressly exclude His Majesty's prerogative : — .Held, that, the legal rights subjected to the said Court, being rights in the matters of land, succession, and probate, an appeal would have lain to His Majesty if the said Court had not been established and could not be taken away except by express words. TUberge v. Laudry, (1876) 2 App. Cas. 102, and dishing v. Dnpuy, (1880) 5 App. Cas. 409, distinguished. In re Wi Matua's Will P.C, [1908] A. C. 448 17. — Practice — Special leave to appeal in ( 1811 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1812 ) SEV) ZEALAND— coMfiBMerf. Petition for special leave to appeal in forma pauperis refused on the merits. It was explained that in accordance with English practice, so far as the same was applicable, the absence of a certificate signed by independent counsel, that is who had not appeared in the Court below, was not in itself a sufficient ground for a local Court of Appeal refusing leave to appeal in similar form from the Court of iirst instance. Mitchell v. New Zealand Loan aot) Mer- cantile Co. .Eb Parte Mitchell P. C. [1904J A. C. 149 18. — Pi'ohihited goods, Forfeiture of, l)y inno- cent holder — New Zealand Patents, Designs, and Trade Marlts Act, 1889, No. 12, ss. 89, 104— Construction. Matchboxes, belonging to the respondents, stamped " New Zealand " but filled with London matches, thus bearing a false trade description, were seized on arrival in New Zealand as contra- band. It was conceded that there was no fraudu- lent intention, or any intention to transgi'ess the law of the Colony. In an action against the appellant contesting the legality of the seizure : — Held, that under ss. 89 and 104 of the New Zealand iPateuts, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1889, reproducing the Imperial Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, ss. 2, 16, the seizure must be upheld as of goods whose importation was prohibited. The only remedy was under s. 267 of the Customs Law Consolidation Act, 1882, by means of an application to the Governor. Commissioner of Trade and Customs v. E. Bell & Co. - P. C. [1902] A. C. 563 19. — Revenue — Estate duty — Liability/ to duty — Residuary estate taken under appointment empowered iy tlte will — New Zealand Deceased Persons' Estates Duties Act's of 1881, s. 36 ; 0/1885 «. 18. Held, that, under the New Zealand Deceased Persons' Estates Duties Act of 1881, s. 36, and the Amending Act of 1885, s. 18, a widow who takes her husband's estate by her own appoint- ment under his will takes an estate upon which the duty payable under the Act is a charge im- posed as from the date of the death, and cannot claim the exemption to which she would have been entitled had she acquired the estate directly under the will. Jackson v. Comme. op Stamps P. C. [1903] A. C. 380 20. — Revenue — Income tax — Income dermed from business — Business carried on in the Colony or profits received — New Zealand Land and Income Assessment Act, No. 49 of 1900, s. 59 — Construction. By s. 59 of the New Zealand Land and Income Assessment Act, No. 49 of 1900, taxable income derived from business includes profits derived from New Zealand as well as profits received in New Zealand. The respondent co., with its head office in London, carried on the business of international telegraphy in New Zealand and at various places in Australia and elsewhere in accordance with the rules contained in the St. Petersburg Con- vention of 1875 and subsequent regulations. In an agtion by the appellant to recover NEW ZEALAND— cowfrkaei^. income tax (inter alia) on profits derived by the respondents, but not received in New Zealand, for transmitting messages beyond Australia and over their cables other than those between New Zealand and the Australian Colonies : — Held, that these were not profits derived from New Zealand, or from business done there within the meaning of s. 59. There was no evidence of any contractual relation, expressed or implied, having been established in New Zealand, either with the New Zealand Government or with the senders of the telegrams, to carry the telegrams to their ultimate destination. Having regard to the terms of the convention and regulations and published conditions of the respondents' business, it was not shewn, and could not be implied, that the New Zealand Government contracted to do more than start the telegrams and then hand them over to the owners of the next stage. Erichsen v. Last, (1881) 8 Q. B. D. 414, dis- tinguished. Commissioners of Taxes for New Zealand v. Eastern Extension Aus- tralasia AND China Telegraph Co., Ld. P. C. [1906] A. C. 626 21. — Revenue — Income tax — Profits on sales in London — Tramsactions of purchase in the Colony — Agency commission — Profits not derived from business in the Colony — New Zealand Land and Income Tax Assess7nent Act, 1900, s. 51. Where the appellants' profits consisted of a commission deducted by them from moneys received in London under agency contracts of sales efieoted in London of goods brought from New Zealand as a result of transactions made by them in that Colony : — Held, that the profits were actually made in London, and that the earlier transactions in New Zealand were insufficient to render thdse profits taxable under the New Zealand Land and Income Assessment Act (49 of 1900), s. 51, as profits derived from business carried on in that colony. LovELL & Christmas, Ld. t. Com- missioner of Takes P. C. [1908] A. C. 46 Solicitor, Colonies. Order in Council apply- ing the Colonial Solicitors' Act, 1900, to the Colony of New Zealand. St. R. & 0. 1904, No. 320. Price \d. 22. — Stamp Acts — Verbal gift to holder of a power of attorney — Deeds of gift^Disposition of property to evade taxation — Neio Zealand Deceased Persons' Estates Duties Act, 1881, s. 35. The testator some years before his death executed a power of attorney in favour of his daughter, the respondent, and by a verbal gift, in order to escape taxation, authorized her to appro- priate the purchase-moneys received thereunder of lands sold by him and of mortgage moneys due to him, to relend the latter to the mortgagors in her own name, and generally to invest his moneys in her own name : — Held, that the gift to the respondent being verbal could not be stamped ; that the deeds executed in carrying out the transaction of gift were not deeds of gift within the meaning of the New Zealand Stamp Acts, and did not operate a disposition of property within the ( 1813 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 18H ) NEW ZSALASni— continued. meaning of s. 35 of the New Zealand Deceased Persons' Estates Duties Act, 1881. Minister op Stamps v. Townend. P. C. [1909] A. C. 633 NEWFOUNDLAND— Colonial stock. See under COLONIAL Stock. 1. — Contract — Construction — Exclusive right of entry on appellants^ land, for specified -purposes. Where by mutual agreement between the appellant ry. co. and the respondent telegraph CO. the latter was exclusively entitled to erect and work lines on the property of the former for the purposes of its own business and bound to furnish for the use of the former a special wire for the purposes of the ry. as it existed at the date of the contract : — Held., reversing the judgment of the Court below, that the respondent's exclusive right for the purposes of its own business did not exclude the ry. co. from erecting and working telegraph lines on its own property for the purposes of its ry. business. RBlD-NEWFOTJlTOLAlfD Co. v. Anglo-American Telegraph Co. P. C. [1910] A. C. 860 2. — Practice — Appeal admitted hy the Supreme Court dismissed as incompetent — Special leave to appeal refused. Where a final decree for money was made against the appellant on April 6, 1898, and a motion to set it aside was dismissed on June 7, 1899, and again on Aug. 29, 1904, and the appellant's application to restrain execution was refused on March 20, 1905 : — Held, on the respondent's petition, that an appeal from the order of Mar. 20, 1905, must be dismissed. It was merely a repetition of the order of Aug. 29, 1904, from which an appeal was barred. Held, also, on the appellant's petition, that special leave to appeal from the orders of June, 1899, and Aug., 1904, must be refused, having regard to delay, and the impossibility of obtain- ing any relief without reversing the final judg- ment of April 6, 1898, to which no objection could be maintained. Grievre v. Tasker P. C. [1906] A. C. 132 3. — Railway — St. John's Street Railway Act, 1896, s. 42 — Construction — Conditional power to remove snow from railed tracks — Inqilied obligation to remove srww frni the streets — Law of Newfoundland. The respondents were empowered by s. 42 of of their charter to remove snow and ice from their tracks so as to enable them to operate their cars, conditioned upon their levelling the said snow and ice on each side of the tracks to a uniform depth to be determined by the appellant's engineer and so as not to impede the ordinary traiBo of the streets : — Held that, if removal of some of the snow from the streets was necessary to comply with the engineer's undisputed requirement as to level, such removal, though not expressly prescribed, must be effected by the respondents as physically necessary to the fulfilment of the condition. Shea v. Eeid-Newpoundland Co. P. C. [1910] A. C. 520 NEWFOUNDLAND— coBf land sold — Farming losses — Interest. See Vendor and Purchaser — In- terest. 2. " OCCUPIER "—Bating. See under Bates. I'OF" — Read for "or" — Bequest of heirlooms to devolve with real estate — Defeasance clause — Gift over. See Will — Heirlooms. 1. OFFENCES. See under specific Titles of subject of offences. OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON. See under Criminal Law — Offences against the Person. Criminal Law — Appeal. — Jurisdiction — Summary conviction on charge of assault — Question as to title to an interest in land. See Justices. 13. OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE-Use of, in tramoars — By-laws — Validity. See Tramways, i. OFFENSIVE MATTER— Removal of. See under London — Removal of Offen- sive Matter. OFFICE COPIES. See under Practice— Office Copies. 1. — " Officer " — Civil Service — Superannuation allowance — Construction. See New South Wales. 4. — "Ofiicer" — Company — Presentation of bankruptcy petition. See Bankruptcy — Practice. 11. — Trade union — Liability to penalties — Absence of fraud. See Trade Union. 9. OFFICIAL RECEIVER. See under Receiver. OFFICIAL REFEREE— Appealing, Mode of— Judgment entered in pursuance of direction of referee — Mode of appealing — Practice. See Appeal. 22. — Costs, Discretion as to- See Costs. 8. -Leave to appeal. ( 1837 ) DIGEKT OF CASES, 1901—1910; ( 1838 ) OLD AGE — Endowment policy — Stamp — " Policy of life insurance." See Revenue — Stamps. 15. OLD AGE PENSIONS. See under PENSION. OMNIBUS — Driver of motor omnibus — " Other- wise engaged in manual labour." See Master and Seevant — Motor Omnibus. 1. OMNIBUS BUSINESS— County council— Tram- way business — Ultra vires. See COEPOEATION. 17. — Eailway company. See under Railway — Omnibus. OMNIBUS, MOTOR — Negligence— Accident to passenger — Doctrine of " res ipsa loquitur." See MoTOE Omnibus. 1. ONTARIO— Laws of. See under Canada. ONUS OF PROOF— Trade mark— Registration. See Xeade Maek. 24. ONUS FROBANDI — Action for malicious prose- cution. See Ceylon. 2. — As to husband's benefit— Wife's mortgage of separate property for her husband's benefit void. See Canada — Husband and Wife. 1. — Legatee entitled to share on surviving testator — Disappearance — No evidence of death — Presumption. See Will — SuiTiTor. 1. — Negligence — Liability of railway companies — Loss of life from explosives in a railway carriage. See RAILWAY— Pasiengers. — Presumption of death— Person not heard of for seven years — Time of death. See Peesumption. ■ — Salvage — Injury to salving vessel — Compensa- tion. See Shipping — Salvage. OPEN SPACES. 02;en Spaces Act, 1906 (6 Sdw. 7, •>. 25), con- solidates enactments relating to ojjen sjmces. ■ — Burial ground. See under Bueial. — Open space — Screen to prevent acquisition' of right to light—" Building." See Burial. 5. Streets — Paving expenses — " See London — Streets. Owner.' 6. OPIUM — Straits Settlements Opium Ordinance, 1 906 — Construction. See Steaits Settlement. OPTION — Bill of lading — Discharge of cargo — Option of shipowner as to remedy. See Shipping— Charterparty. 07TWS— continued. — Commission — Option of subscribers to take further shares. See Company — Shares. 7. — Lease — Covenant running with land — Option to purchase freehold — Option during whole term. See Covenant. 4. — Lease — Option to purchase landlord's interest — Condition precedent — Specific per- formance. See Landloed and Tenant. 58. — Lease by mortgagor in possession — Lease including land other than mortgaged land — Option to determine — Option to renew. See Mortgage — Leases. 1. — " Option" — Workmen's compensation. See under Master and Seevant — Compensation. — To purchase mortgaged property — Clog on redemption. See under Moetgage — Redemption. — To purchase reversion in fee — Validity — Perpetuity — Covenant running with land. See Covenant. 4. ORAL EVIDENCE. See under Evidence. ORANGE RIVER COLONY. Tlie South Africa Act, 1909 (9 Edio. 7, c. 9), i.t an Act to constitute the Union of South Africa. ORCHARD TREES — Agricultural holdings — Market gardeners' compensation. See Landloed aotj Tenant. 6. ORDER AND DISPOSITION. See under BANKRUPTCY — Order and Disposition. ORDERS OF COURT— iJ«Z«6- and Orders of Court judicially considered during tlie years 1901 — 1910, see Taile of Mules and Orders of Court judicially considered, ante, p. dlxv. Rules and Orders of Court, ^'c, published in the Weekly Notes during the year 1906, see CUEEENT Index, p. Ixvii. — Rules and orders — Validity — Condition pre- cedent. See Statutory Rules and Orders. 1. ORDINATION — Church discipline — Pretended ordination of priest by incumbent of parish church, not being a bishop. See Ecclesiastical Law — Discipline. 2. PRIESTS — Objections to - Allegation of rituaUstic ORDINATION OF candidate - practices. See Ecclesiastical Law — Ordination. 1. ( 1839 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 18i0 ) ORieiKATING SUMMONS— Practice. See under Practice — Originating Summons. ORNAMENTAL TIMBER— Equitable waste — Evidence — Injunction. See Waste. 1. OSBORNE ESTATE ACT, 1902 (3 Edw. 7, o. S7) makes provision with respeot to the disposition and management of Sis Majesty's Osborne Estate in the Isle of Wight. OUSE (RIVER)— Goole Reach— Navigation of— Collision — Local practice to swing — Helm signal. See Shipping — CoUiBion. 38. " OUTBTTILDING "— Restrictive covenant— Ob- jection to submit plans. See Covenant. 7. " OUTGOINGS "—Factory — Expenses of com- plying with requirement of sanitary authority — Jurisdiction. See County Couet — Jurisdiction. 5. — "Factory" — Means of escape in case of fire— -Covenant by occupier to pay " outgoings." See Factokt. 7. — Factory Acts — Underground bakehouse — Lease — Covenant. See Pactoet. 8. — Landlord and tenant. See under Landloed and Tenant. — Paving expenses. See under Steeets. — Repairs — Costs of compelling tenant to repair — Incidence of burden. See Settled Lakd — Repairs. 1. — Vendor and purchaser. See under Vbndob aot) Puechasbe — Outgoings. OVERDRAFT — Corporation — Borrowing powers — Power to borrow for specific purposes — General overdraft — Interest — Ultra vires. See COEPOEATION. 3. OVERHANGINGTREES— Damage— Injunction. /S«e NtriSANCB. 12. OVERPAYMENTS— Trustees. See under Teustee. OVERSEERS— Franchise — Old lodger list — Ob- jection by overseers — Duty of overseers to appear. See Paemambnt. 10. — Illegal distress — Reeovery of rates — Liability of overseers for act of assistant overseer. See Rates. 12. OVERSEERS- — Poor law — Solicitor — Exemption — Appeal to quarter sessions — Costs — Writ of privilege. See Poor Law. 15. — Special expenses — Precept to overseers — Appeal against apportionment — Change of overseers pending appeal. See Local Government. 25. " OWNER "—CoUision— Limitation of liability — Charterer by demise. See Shipping — Limitation of Lia- bility. 1. — Duty to fence — Public well in shaft of abandoned mine — Vested in local authority. See Mines. 11. — Highway. See under Highway. — '■ Owner ' — Compulsory pilotage — Pilotage certificate of master. See Shipping — Pilotage. 5. — '■ Owner " — Street — Paving expenses. See under London — Streets. Steeets. — " Owners" — Writ — Misdescription of plaintiff — Irregularity. See Shipping — Practice. 11. — Recovery of water rate from " owner " — Receiver of rents. See Water. — Reputed ownership — Chattels "to be deemed annexed to the freehold " — Mortgage of building agreement. See Bankeuptcy — Order and Dis- position. 1. OWNERSHIP— Highway — Dedication — Pre- sumption — Disused tramway — Railway company — Acts of ownership. See Highway. 9. OYSTERS — Laying oysters on foreshore — Munici- pal corporation — Power to acquire lease of foreshore. See Fishery. 6. — Ponds on foreshore — Ancient user — Public health — Discharge of sewage into the sea. See Fishery. 5. OYSTER-BEDS— Property in oysters— Jurisdic- tion — Action in rem — " Damage done by any ship " — Shipping. See Fishery. 4. ( 1841 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1842 ) PACIFIC CABLE. See under Cable. PAPER BAGS— Sale of tea with—" False or unjust " scales. See Weights and Mbasubes. 9. PARAPHERNALIA. See under HusBAKD and Wife — Paraphernalia. PARCELS — Foreshore — Conveyance of land bounded by seashore — Plan — Dimen- sions — Boundary line. See Seashore. 1. — Form of Conveyance — Description by refer- ence to plan — Restrictive words — Eight of vendor to insert. (Sfee Vendor AND PuEOHASEE— Plan. 2. — Minerals, Conveyance of land with — Adjoin- ing railway, the boundary — Highway. See Vendoe and Pdechasee — Minerals. 1. — Mistake — En'or in parcels — Common mis- take — ■ Eectifioation of conveyance — Laches. See YENDOE AND PUBCHASBE — Mistake. 1. PARENT AND CHILD— Double portions— "Ad- vances " — Satisfaction — Ademption. See Will — Advances. 1. — Illegitimate child — Void contract — Contract by mother to give up possession of child. See Infant — Custody. — Satisfaction — Double portions. See Will — Advances. 2. PARISH — Division of parish— Parochial chapelry or separate parish. A chapelry may form part of a parish although the inhabitants of the chapelry have never been assessed for church-rates or repairs, or taken any part in the election of churchwardens of the parish church, and although owing to the magni- tude of the parish the chapelry has always appointed separate overseers and levied separate poor-rates under the Poor Relief Act, 1662. The fact that the vicar of the parish receives the vicarial tithe of the chapelry and that resi- dents in the chapelry are in the habit of being married at the parish church is almost conclusive evidence that the chapelry is part of the parish. In re Sandbach Sohool AND Almshodsb Foundation. Att.-Gbn. v. Eael op Cebwe Farwell J. [1901] 2 Ch. 317. rASlSK—contimi^d. — Transfer of Innd from one parish to another — Alteration of boundaries of union. See Local Goveenment. 30. PARISH COUNCIL— Elections.] The Parish Councillors' Election Orde^- (Jan. 14), 1901. Price 3d. St. R. & 0. 1901, No. 2. GUAEDIANS' UEBAN AND BUEAL DISTRICT COUNCILLOES, AND PAEISH COUNCILLORS— Elections.] The Local Elections (Alteration of Dates') Order (Jan. 15), 1900. St. R. & 0. 1901, No. 3. London. See under LoNDON- -Parislies. PARE — Motor car — Exceeding speed limit — Parks regulation. See MOTOE Caes. 2. — Poor rate — Rateable value — Beneficial occu- pation — Public park — Liverpool [m- provement Act. See Rates. 25. — Settled Land Acts — " Usually occupied there- with — Lease of park — Easement over mansion-house. See Settled Land — Mansion-house. 1. Royal Parh':. Tower Gardens. Rules, Jan.li, 1909, for the Tower Gardens in connection with tlie Regs, prescribed by " T/ie Park.i Regidaii-on 4ei, 1892." St. R. & 0. 1909, No. 286. Price Id. Royal Parhs. Rules, June 8, 1910, in con- nection with tlhe Regs, prescribed by " Tlie Parhs Regulation Act, 1892." Hyde Purh. St. R. & 0. 1910, No. 689. Royal Parks. Rules, June 8, 1910, in con- nection with tlie Regs. yresc7-ibed by " The ParTi.i Regulation Act, 1892." St. James' and the Oreen Parks. St. R. & 0. 1910, No. 690. Royal Parks. Rules, JuTie 8, 1910, in con- nection with the Regs, prescribed by " The Parks Regulatimi Act, 1892." Kensington (iarden.i. St.R. & 0. 1910, No. 691. Royal Parks. Rules, June 8. 1910, in con- nection with tlie Regs, fresmibed by " The Parks Regulation. Act, 1892." Parliament Square Garden. St. R. &. 0. 1910, No. 692. Royal Parks. Rules, June 8, 1910, in con- nection with tlie Regs, prescribed by " Tlie Parks Regulation Act, 1892." Regent's Park. St.R.&O. 1910, No. 693. ( 1843 ) DIGEST OF CASBS, 1901—1910. ( 1844 ) FABE — contiimed. Royal Parks. Rules, Jvme 8, 1910, in con- nection with the Regs, prescribed, by " Ihe Parhs Regulation Act, 1892." Primrose Hill. St. B. & 0. 1910, No. 694. Royal Parks. Rides, June 8, 1910, in con- nection witli the Regs, prescribed by " The Parks Regulation Act, 1892." Oreenwioh Park. St. B.'&O. 1910, No. 696. Royal Parks. Rules, June 8, 1910, in con- nection loith the Regs, prescribed, by " The Parks Regulation Act, 1892." Hampton Court Park. St. E. & 0. 1910, No. 699. Royal Parks. Rules, June 8, 1910, in con- nection with the Regs, prescribed by " The Parks Regulation Act, 1892." Hampton Court Gardens. St. B. & 0. 1910, No. 697. Royal Parks. Rules, June 8, 1910, in con- cection with the Regs, prescribed by " The Parks Regulation Act, 1892." Hampton Court Green. St. B. & 0. 1910, No. 698. Royal Parks. Rules, June 8, 1910, in con- nection with the Regs, prescribed by " T/ie Parks Regulation Act, 1892." Richmond Park. St. B. & 0. 1910, No. 699. Royal Parks. Rides, June 8, 1910, in con- nection with the Regs, prescribed by " The Parks Regulation Act, 1892." Rushy Park. St. B. & 0. 1910, No. 700. Royal Parlis. Rules, June 8, 1910, in con- nection with the Regs, prescribed by " The Parks Regulation Act, 1892." HolyrOod Park. St. E. & 0. 1910, No. 701. Royal Parks. Rules, June 8, 1910, in con- nection with the Regs, prescribed by " The Parks Regulation Act, 1892." JJinlithgow Peel or Park. St. E. & 0. 1910, No. 702. Royal Parks. Rules, June 8, 1910, in con- nection with the Regs, prescribed by " The Parks Regulation Act, 1892." Royal Botanic Garden and Arboretum, Edinburgh. St. B. & 0. 1910, No. 703. Royal Parks. Rules, June 8, 1910, in cmo- nection with the Regs, prescribed by " T/ie Parks Regulation Act, 1892." Victoiia Tower Gardens. St. E. & 0. 1910, No. 704. Royal Parks. Rules, June 8, 1910, in con- nection with the Regs, prescribed by " T!ie Parks Regulation Act, 1892." Natural History Museum Gardens. St. E. & 0. 1910, No. 705. Royal Parks. Rules, June 8, 1910, in con- nection with the Regs, prescribed by " The Parks Regulation Act, 1892." Canning Statue En- closure. St. B. & 0. 1910, No. 706. Royal Pa/rlts. Rules, June 8, 1910, in con- nection with the Regs, prescribed by " The Parks Regulation Act, 1892." Osborne. St. B. & 0. 1910, No. 707. Royal Parks. Rules, June 8, 1910, in con- nection with tlw Regs, prescribed by " The Parks Regulation Act, 1892." Tower Gardens. St. E. & 0. 1910, No. 708. Price Id. each. FABLIAMENT. See also under ELECTION LAW. PAELIAMENT— coMiiKMe*?. Polling Arrangements (Parliam&ntar-y Boroughs) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 14), amends the law relating to the arrangement of polling districts in Parliamentary boroughs. Registration Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, v. 21), amends the law relating to the timefw a/n appeal from the decision of a revising barrister, and matters consequential thereon. Apartments, Tenement wholly let out In — ■ Owner — Agent to collect rents — Kate- ability — Representation of the people. See Rates. 20—22. — Constitution Act of New South Wales — Power to suspend an accused member until verdict. See New SotJTH Wales. 6. Costs of local inquiry — Costs of parliamentary opposition. See Local Goveknmbnt. 19. 1. — Deposits and bonds — Railway — Bill not allowed to proceed during present session — Return of deposit — Railway Deposits Act, 1846 (9 Vict. c. 20), s. 5. Application for the transfer and payment out of court of certain sums of stock and cash stand- ing to the credit of " Ex parte the Undertaking of the Central London Railway Bill, 1901." By a resolution of the House of Lords dated Aug. 2, 1901, it was resolved that the promoters of the above-mentioned bill (amongst others) should have leave to suspend any further pro- ceedings thereon in order to proceed with the bill if they should think fit in the next session of Parliament, and that the money deposited in accordance with the standing orders of the House in respect of such bill might thereupon be returned to the depositors. The Court directed the transfer and payment of the stock and cash in coujt to the applicants. In re Centeal London Railway Bill (1901) Byrne J. [1901] W. N. 177 2. — Franchise — Borough rote — Bribery by agents at municipal election — Report by municipal election Court — Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883 (46 ^ 47 Vict, c. 51), s. 6, swb.-s 3 (a) ; s. 38, sub-s. 5 — Muni- cipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884 (47 ^ 48 Vict. c. 70), s. 2 ; s. 3, sub-t. 2 ; s. 23. If a candidate at a municipal election is reported by an election Court to have been guilty by his agents of a corrupt practice at the election, the effect of the report is that he is not capable of being elected to or holding any corporate office in the borough during a period of three years from the date of the report, and if he has been elected his election is void, but he is.not deprived of his right to vote at a parliamentary election, inasmuch as the case is governed by s. 3, sub-s. 2, of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884. Sect. 6, sub-s. 3 (a), and s. 38, sub-s. 5, of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, extended to municipal elections by ss. 2 and 23 of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884, which disqualify the person so reported from voting at a parliamentary ( 1845 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1846 ) PAEIIAMENT— co;«;i election during a period of seven years from the date of the municipal election, apply only where the person reported has been personally guilty of a corrupt practice. MoHRis v. Sheewsbuey Town Cleek Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 342 3. — Franchise — Borough vote — Lodger franchise — Declaration — Prima facie evidence of claim — Rebutting evidence — Relationship between lodger and landlord — Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843 (6 ,|- 7 Ylct. c. 18), ss. 38, 39 — Parliamentary and Municipal Reqistration Act, 1878 (41 4- 42 Viat. c. 26), .?. 23. The prima facie evidence of the qualification of a person claiming to vote as a lodger, consti- tuted under s. 23 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Kegistration Act, 1878, by the declara- tion annexed to the claimant's notice of claim, is not rebutted by the mere fact that the claimant's landlord is his father. Major r. Sheewsbubt Town Clbek Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 348 4. — Franchise — County vote — Qualification — Freehold benefice — Receipt of pew-rents by vicar — Occupation of church within limits of parliamentary boi-ough — Representation of the People Act, 1832 (2 S' 3 Will, i, i: 4.5), s. 24. The vicar of a parish, constituted under the Church Building Acts and situate within the limits of a parliamentary borough, who receives the pew-rents as part of his stipend, is not the occupier of the church within the meaning of s. 24 of the Representation of the People Act, 1832, and is not deprived by virtue of that section of his right to a vote for the county in respect of his freehold benefice. Legal possession of the freehold of a church by the vicar, coupled with the receipt of pew-rents, is not sufficient to create an occu- pation within s. 24 ; to create such an occupa- tion, there must be actual, as well as legal, possession. Wolfe v. Clbkk op Sueeby County Council. Kbevb v. The Same Div. Ct. [1905] K. B. 439 5. — Franchise — Disqualification — Main- tenance of voter's wife in pauper lunatic asylum — " Medical assistance " — Medical Relief Dis- qualification Removal Act, 188.5 (48 .?' 49 Vict, c. 46), .s. 2. Where upon the revision of the lists of voters it appears that a voter or claimant has during the qualifying period received relief which is of the nature both of medical relief and ordinary relief, it is a question of fact for the revising barrister as to what was the real character of the relief and which kind of relief was merely incidental to the other. The wife of a claimant had been removed as a dangerous lunatic to a pauper lunatic asylum, and had been detained there for two years at the expense of the ratepayers, no contribution to- wards her maintenance being made by her husband. The revising barrister held that the permanent maintenance of a lunatic was dis- tinguishable from the medical treatment of a patient under a temporary attack of mental disease, and was not " medical assistance " P ARLI AHLEST-^continued. within the meaning of the Medical Kelief Dis- qualification Removal Act, 1885 : — Meld, that the finding was one of fact that the relief, which had been in the first instance medical, had become ordinary relief, and that there was evidence to support the finding. KlEKHOUSE V. BLAKEWAY Div. Ct. [1901] W.N. 260; [1902] 1 K. B. 306 6. — Franchise — Dwelli/ng -house — " Inhabi- tant occupier " or " lodger " — Resident landlord — Prima facie proof of ground of objection — Re- butting evidence — Sepresewtati-on of the People Act, 1867 (80 <$• 31 Vict. c. 102), s. 3, sub-s. 2 ; s. 4 — Parliamentary and Municipal Registrati&n Act, 1878 (41 ^ 42 Vict. c. 26), s. 5 ; s. 28, sub-ss. 10, 11. At a Court held by a revising barrister the appellant claimed to be entitled to the fran- chise as an " inhabitant occupier " under s. 3, sub-s. 2, of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and s. 5 of the Parliamentary and Munici- pal Registration Act, 1878. The revising barrister found — (1.) That the house, part of which was alleged to be separately occupied as a dwelling, was itself a house of the description popularly known as an ordinary dwelling-house. (2.) That the immediate landlord to whom the person in question paid rent resided in the house. (3.) That such landlord was rated for the entire house as a separate tenement : — Held, that these facts constituted evidence upon which the revising barrister could decide that there was prima facie proof of the ground of objection within s. 28, sub-s. 10, of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. In order to rebut the prima facie proof of the ground of objection the appellant produced a document signed by himself and his landlord containing (inter alia) a statement to the efEect that the landlord had no control over the appel- lant's rooms ; but the revising barrister did not accept the statements in the document as facts, and held that the document was not sufficient to rebut the prima facie proof. Held, that it was competent to the revising barrister to come to that conclusion. Decision of Div. Ct., [1907] 1 K. B. 126, affirmed. DOUGLAS v. Smith - C. A. [1907] W. N. 150 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 568 7. — Fi'anchise — Dwelling -house — Part of house — " Inhabitant occupier " or " lodger " — Resident landlord — Representation of the People Act, 1867 (30 S' 31 Vict. c. 102), s. 3, sub-s. 2, s. i — Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (41 A 42 Vict. c. 26), s. h— Representa- tion of tlie People Act, 1884 (48 .5' 49 Fici. c. 3), .M. 2, 7. In determining whether a person resident in part of a liouse is an "inhabitant occupier" under s. 3, sub-s. 2, or a " lodger " under s. 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, the fact that the landlord lives on the pre- mises is not, of itself, conclusive that the per- son so resident can only be entitled to the ( 1847 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1848 ) PAUtlAMETHT—continiied. franchise in respect of a lodger qualification, and cannot be entitled as possessing a household qualification. Kent v. Fittall C, A. [1906] 1 K. B. 60 8. — FroMclme — Freeholdevs of Haverford- west to vote for borough of Pembroke, Right of — MegutratiOfi^Beforiii Act, 1832 (2^3 Will i, d. 45), .?. |2, Sched. E. — Redistributioji of Seats Act, 1885 (48 4' 49 Viet. c. 23), ss. 2, 7, 11, Scheds. I. and V. By the Bedistribution of Seats Act, 1885, a new parliamentary borough of P. and H. was created, consisting of the parliamentary borough of P. and the places comprised in the area of the parliamentary borough of H., and by the same Act, the borough of H., which was a county of itself, ceased to return any member : — Seld, that the freeholders of the old borough of H., who had had as such a right to vote for that borough, had no right as freeholders to vote for the new borough of P. and H. James v. IvEMY Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 193 9. — Franchise — Objection — Piima facie proof of ground of objection — Rebutting evidence — Evidence of repute — Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to direct remsing barrister to hold fresh Revision Court — Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (41 ^-'42 VM. u. 26), s. 28, sub-s. 10. The provisions of s. 28, sub-s. 10, of the Parliamentary and Municipal Eegistration Act, 1878, which require an objector to give prima facie proof of the ground of his objection before the revising barrister, and provide for the giving of such prima facie proof to the satisfaction of the revising barrister " by evidence, repute, or otherwise," are in aid of the objector, who may give prima facie proof of his objection by evi- dence of repute ; the sub-section does not authorize the revising barrister to rely upon evidence of repute as distinguished from proof in order to defeat the objection. Where the Court, upon the hearing of a case stated by a revising barrister, is of opinion that the effect of proceedings before the revising barrister is to shew that certain entries in the lists of voters of names objected to have not in fact been revised according to law, it may in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction direct the revising barrister to hold another Court for the revision of those entries, notwithstanding that the period limited by statute for revising the lists has expired. Kent v. Fittall (No. 2) C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 933 Note. See Kent v. Fittall {No. 3), Div. Ct., [1909]'l K.B. 215, 221, 227. See No. 1% below. 10. — Franchise — Old lodger list — Objection by overseers — Duty of overseers to appear — Direction by revising barrister to overseers — Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (41 ^ 42 Vi»i. o. 26), .?. 22 ; *. 28, sub-ss. 9, 10, 11. Where a person whose name is on the exist- ing register of voters in respect of lodgings sends in a claim to the overseers to be entered on the next register in respect of the same lodgings, and the overseers, acting under s. 28 of the PAELIAMENT— co;iiiMMe(Z. Parliamentary and Municipal Eegistration Act, 1878, enter his name on the list of persons so claim- ing, and add in the margin opposite his name the words "objected to," the overseers must appear by themselves or by some person on their behalf before the revising barrister in support of their objection, otherwise the revising barrister must retain the name on the list. If the overseers so appear, then by s. 28, sub-ss. 10, 11, they are not required to give prima facie proof of the ground of objection, and, unless the person objected to appears by himself or by some one on his behalf and proves that he is entitled, the revising barrister must expunge his name. By s. 22, if the overseers " have reasonable cause to believe that any person whose name is entered on the list is not entitled to be regis- tered " they shall add in the margin of the list opposite his name the words " objected to," and such person shall be deemed to be duly objected to. Semble, a direction by a revising barrister to the overseers that in his opinion as matter of law they have such reasonable cause in cases where the parties are paj-ent and son or master and servant, and that they must object in such cases, does not relieve the overseers of the duty of satisfying themselves in each case that they have such reasonable cause before making an objection. Caetweioht v. Sheewsbtjky Town Clbbk Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 77 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 169 11. — Franchise — Qualification — Husband and mfe living together' — Wife, owner — Hus- band, tenant — Occupier — Representation of the People Act, 1867 (30 ^ 31 Vict. c. 102), s. 3. A husband living vrith his wife in a house of which the wife is the owner and of which the husband is tenant under an agreement of tenancy with the wife is entitled to be registered as a voter under s. 3 of the Eepresentation of the People Act, 1867. Pbaece v. Mereimam Div. Ct. [1903] W. N, 200 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 80 12. — Franchise — Qualification — Lodger claim — Objection — Evidence — Rateable Value — Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (41 ^ 42 Vict. c. 26), ss. 23, 28, sub-sL 10, 11. The power of a revising barrister to disallow a claim to the lodger franchise after notice of objection is not confined to cases where prima facie proof of the ground of objection has been given in the manner specified in s. 28, sub-s. 10, of the Parliamentary and Municipal Eegistration Act, 1878, and the claimant has failed to make good his claim. Although the requirsmeuts of sub-s. 10 as to what is to be deemed to be prima facie proof of the ground of objection may not have been satisfied, the revising barrister is entitled, and ought, to give effect to the evidence given in support of the objection, if in his opinion it outweighs the prima facie evidence of the claim afforded by the declaration of the claimant, and any other evidence adduced in support of the claim. No appeal lies from a decision of the revising barrister as to the effect of the evidence. In determining whether lodgings, in respeet of which the lodger franchise is claimed, are of ( 1819 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1850 ) PARLIAMENT— coTiiiMMefi. the ' ' clear yearly value, if let unfurnished, of 101. or upwards," the rateable value of the house in which the lodgings are situate is an element of proof, though not conclusive, which the revis- ing barrister is entitled to take into consideration. Where a claim to the lodger franchise is duly made, a revising barrister has no power to make the personal attendance of the claimant at his Court a condition of allowing the claim. JEN- KINS V. Geocott Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 374 13. — Franchise — Qualification — Non-pay- msnt of rate. — Passive JSesister — Representation of the People Act, 1867 (30 ^ 31 Vict. u. 102), s. 3, suh-ss. 3, 4 — Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 j- 46 Vict. e. 50), s. 9, sui-s. 2 ((Z), (e). A person who on or before July 20 in any year has not paid the whole of the rates assessed upon him as poor-rate in respect of the qualifying property up to the preceding Jan. 5 is not entitled to be on the parliamentary or burgess list of voters. Ash v. Nicholl. Cox v. Mbr- EIMAN Dlv. Ct. [1905] 1 K. B. 139 14. — Franchise — Qualification — School- master — Perviission to occupy house — -Inhaiitant occupier —Representation of the Peoplt Act, 1884 (48 # 49 Vict. c. 3), ss. 2, 3. A schoolmaster was permitted, but not re- quired by his employers to live in a certain house so long as he continued to hold the appointment of schoolmaster : — Held, that the schoolmaster did not occupy the house by virtue of his employment, and, therefore, was entitled to have his name inserted in Division 1 of the list of voters. Dovee «. Prosser - - Dlv. Ct. [1903] W. N. 199 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 84 16. — Franchise — Rating — Successive occu- pation — Representation of the People Act, 1832 (2 ^- 3 Will. 4, c. 45), ss. 27, 28, iO— Representation of the People Act, 1867 (30 S, 31 Viet. c. 102), ,ss. 3, 26, 56, 59 — Poor Law Amendment Act, 1868 (31 4- 32 Vict. c. 122), s. 38. The appellant, who was on the occupation list of voters, was the inhabitant occupier, during the whole of the qualifying period from July 15, 1907, to July 15, 1908, of two dwelling-houses in immediate succession. He occupied the first house until June, 1908, when he went into occu- pation of the second house. He was rated and paid all the rates due in respect of the first house, but inasmuch as the building of the second house was not completed in April, 1908, when the rate for the half-year ending Sept. 29, 1908, was made, the house was not entered in the rate- book, and no one was rated in respect thereof until after the termination of the qualifying period, and no claim to be rated in respect thereof nor tender or payment under s. 30 of the Representation of the People Act, 1832, of the sum which would have been due had he been rated was ever made by the appellant : — Held by Buckley and Kennedy L.JJ. (Joyce J. doubting), that the appellant was not entitled to the franchise under ss. 3 and 26 of the Repre- sentation of the People Act, 1867. Decision of Div. Ct., [1909] 1 K. B. 227, affirmed. Pitts r. Michelmoee - C. A. [1909] W. N. 97 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 244 Vh.'R'LlKSLES'i— continued. — Franchise — Right of women graduates to vote. See Scottish Law. 16. • — Occupation franchise — Objection — Prima facie proof of grownd of objection — Evidence admissible before revising barrister — Houses similarly occupied — Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (41 ^- 42 Vict, c. 26), s. 28, sub-s. 10. At a Court held by a revising barrister object- tion was taken to the names of certain persons being retained in division 1 of the occupiers' list for a borough on the ground in each case that they had not occupied as owner or tenant the premises named in the list for twelve months immediately preceding July 15 in the year. The objector proved as to each of the persons objected to — (1.) that the dwelling-house in respect of which he claimed to be placed on the list formed part of a house which was itself a, house of the description known as an ordinary dwelling- house ; (2) that the landlord or landlady to whom he paid rent also resided in the house ; and (3.) that the landlord or landlady was rated and paid the rates for the whole house as a separate tenement. The revising barrister then examined the assistant overseer and the regis- tration clerk for the borough as to the conditions of letting, in the majority of cases in tlie borough, of houses of the same description as those occupied by the persons objected to : — Held, that the revising barrister, if he believed that the proof of the three facts above stated appUed to the particular house and occupation as to which the objection was taken, ought then to have inquired into the circumstances of the occupation in that particular case ; he must not, as he had done in the present case, act upon general evidence with regard to the majority of houses similarly occupied in the borough, and he must therefore be directed to complete the revision. . It is always for the revising barrister to judge whether the evidence brought before him on behalf of the objector (which may not be strictly legal evidence) is prima facie proof or not of the ground of objection. Kent v. Fittall (No. 3) Div. Ct. [1909] IK. B. 216 — Powers of provincial Legislature — Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Coui't of Canada — Limiting right of appeal ultra vires. See Can^ada — Practice. 6. — Powers of provincial Legislature — Ontario Succession Duty Act — Provincial taxa- tion of property not within the province ultra vires. See Canada— Revenue. 2. — Rateability of owner — Parliameutai'y borough — ■ Tenement wholly let out in apart- ments as lodgings — Representation of the People Act. See Rates. 20—22. 17. — Registration — Borovgh rote — Descrip- tion of ocriijiier — Omission of one of two Christian names — Power to amend — Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (41 <$' 42 Viot, c. 26), ss. 24, 28. DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1851 ) PARLIAMENT— 0OTrfi««e(i. Where objection was duly taken before a revising barrister to the name of a certain voter being retained on division 1 of the list of voters for a boroagh, and it was proved that the second Christian name of the voter had been omitted on the list, but he made no declaration of mis- description as provided in s. 24 of the Parlia- mentary and Municipal Kegistration Act, 1878 :— Held, that the revising barrister had power under s. 28, sub-s. 1, to amend the mistake and insert the voter's fuU name on the list. Geben r. WiNK],TN Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 394 18. — Registration — Borough vote — Occu piers' list — Description of nature of qualifieation — Power of revising barrister to amend — Effect of declaration — Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (41 <|-42 Vict. c. 26), e. 24. Where a voter has made a declaration under s. 24 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Regis- tration Act, 1878, in order to correct an erroneous description of his qualification in the list, the revising barrister has power to make an amend- ment which would change the description of the qualification as it appears in the list. GOODEICH i: Geeat Geimsby (Town Cleek) Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 301 19. — Regiitration — County vote — Service franchise — Occupation of servant excluding occupation of master — Representation of the People ^c«, 1832 (2 ^- 3 Will. 4, c. 4,5), s. 24— Representation of the People Act, 1884 (48 ^ 49 Vict. c. 3), s. 3. Sect. 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884 (which provides that where a man inhabits any dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service or employment, he shall be deemed for the purposes of the Representation of the People Acts to be an inhabitant occupier of such dwelling-house as a tenant), does not operate to exclude the legal occupation of the man's employer so as to give that employer, being the freeholder, a freehold vote for the county in respect of the dwelling-house. Beooks v. Bakee Div. Ct. [1906] W. N. 161 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 11 20. — Registration — Service franchise — Inhabitant occupier — Compulsory absence " Office, service, or employment " — Appeal from decision of revising barrister' — Nomination of clerk to county council as respondent — Costs — Parlia. mentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (41 ^ 42 Vict. c. 26), s. 3S— Representation of the People Act, 1884 (48 ^ 49 Vict. c. 3), s. 3 Electoral Disabilities Removal Act, 1891 (54 ^ 55 Vict. c. 11), s. 2. A break of inhabitancy where the occupier has not the legal right to return has the same effect in disqualifying the occupier for the service franchise as for the ordinary dwelling- house franchise. The voter, a coachman, occupied a dwelling- house by reason of his employment, but was compulsorily absent from the house for more than four months during the qualifying period. His wife and family resided with him during the qualifying period, but they might have been ( 1852 ) FAELIAMENT- left at the dwelling-house if he had wished during the period of his absence : — Held, that he was not entitled to be regis- tered on the list of voters for the parish, inas- much as he was placed in the same position as an inhabitant occupier by s. 3 of the Repre- sentation of the People Act, 1884, and s. 2 of the Electoral Disabilities Act, 1891, could only protect him in respect of compulsory absence for not more than four months during the qualifying period. Where the clerk to a county council is nominated under s. 38 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act. 1879, by a revising barrister as respondent to an appeal from his decision, the High Court has juris- diction under the section to grant the appellant, if successful, his costs, even though the respon- dent does not appear. Laeoombb v. Simet Div. Ct. [1906] W. N. 203 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 139 21. — Registration of voters — Revising bar- rister — Rules of evidence — Admissibility — Hearsay evidence — Appeal — Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843 (6 Sc 7 Vict. e. 18), s. 65. A revising barrister, before whom evidence is adduced in support of a claim to be on the list of voters, is bound, if objection is taken to that evidence, to decide the question whether it is admissible by reference to the legal rules on the subject of the admissibility of evidence. If he has so decided that question and has, accordingly, admitted or rejected the evidence, as the case may be, then s. 65 of the Parliamen- tary Registration Act, 1843, prohibits any appeal from his decision ; but that section does not enable him to admit and act on evidence, though objected to, irrespective of the question whether it is admissible or not according to the law of evidence. Stoeby v. Beemondsby Town Clerk C. A. [1910] W. N. 4; [1910] 1 K. B. 203 — Revising barrister — Power of, to amend — Description of nature of qualification — Effect of declaration. See No. 18, above. — Trade union — Objects of union — Rules — Parliamentary representation — Ultra vires — Alteration of rules. See Teadb Union. 4. PAELIAMENTAEY AGENT — Costs— Taxation — Solicitor — Costs of obtaining private Act of Parliament. See SOLICITOE — Costs. 29. PARIIAMENTART AND MUNICIPAL REGIS- TRATION ACT. See under Paeliament. PARLIAMENTARY DEPOSIT — Railway com- panies. See under Railways — Depoaits. — Railway company — Abandonment — Costs of inquiries necessary for distribution of deposit — Practice. See Railway— Deposit, 1. ( 1853 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1854 ) PAKLIAMENTARY DEPOSITS AND BONDS ACT, 1892. See under TRAMWAYS. PABLIAMENTABY PAPER— Printing extracts from — Privilege — Libel — Communica- tion publislied in newspaper — Fair comment. See Defamation — libel. 9. PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENT. See under Rates. PAROL EVIDENCE. See under Evidence. PAROL WARRANTY— That drains are in order — Collateral agreement. See Landlord aito Tenant. 31. FARSONA&E — Sale — Purchase of new vicarage with proceeds — Mortgage — Validity. See EticLESiASTiCAL Law — Vioarage. 1. PARTICULARS— Libel— Defence of fair com- ment — Practice — Pleading. See Defamation- Libel. 13. — Misrepresentation — Property described as freehold, See Vendok and Purchaser — Title. 10. — Practice. See under Discovery. PARTICtlLARS OF OBJECTIONS— Costs— Cer- tificate of reasonableness — Ko evidence offered by plaintiff. See Patent — Infringement. — Patent action. See under Patent. PARTIES — Practice. See under Practice — Parties. VK&TVnO'S—Costs—Pi'acUce—Paiiitionaction. Action for partition of property consisting of houses in London. The statement of claim alleged that the pits, were entitled to five-twelfths of the property, and that the other seven-twelfths belonged to the defts. in the proportions therein mentioned. The case now came on motion for judgment. The pits, asked for an order directing the usual inquiries and a partition by the judge in chambers, and that all the costs of the action should be borne by the parties rateably in pro- portion to their respective shares. No one asked for a sale, and the proposed order was agreed to except as to costs, the defts. contending that according to the usual practice no order should be made as to costs up to the hearing, and only the subsequent costs should be borne by the parties rateably. Farwell J. said that since the Partition Act all the costs were in the discretion of the Court ; but in a case where no benefit was obtained from the Act itself, and partition only was granted, he saw no reason to allow the costs up to the hearing to be charged rateably. The case might PARTITION— co?j*w2iei.- be different where the defts. actually desired -a. petition. Hills r. Archer Farwell J. [1904] W. N. US 2. — Costs — Practice — Partition action — Real estate — Proceeds of sale — Ineumiered shares — Incumbrances — Costs — Separate sets. Further consideration of a partition action. Some of the shares were incumbered. The question arose whether in taxing the costs only one set of costs should be allowed in respect of each of the incumbered shares, or whether separate sets of costs should be allowed for each beneficiary and each incumbrancer. Joyce J., following Catton v. Banks, [1898] 2 Ch. 221, in preference to Belcher v. Williamty (1890) 45 Ch. D. 510, held that only one set of costs should be allowed in respect of each share. He said that it would only create confusion it, after the decisions in Catton v. Banks, [1893] 2 Ch. 231, AncellM. Bolfe, [1896] W. N. 9, and In re Vase, (1901) 84 L. T. 761, he were to go back to what was held by North J. in Belcher V. Williams, a case which had never been fol- lowed. Carroll v. Harrison Joyce J. [1910] W. N. 104 3. — Inoimnhered, shares — Co,its. This was the further consideration of an action for sale in lieu of partition. There were incum- brances on all the shares, but on one of the shares there was a third mortgage, the holder of which was attending the proceedings, and claimed to be entitled to a separate set of costs. Cozens-Hardy J. said he did not doubt that he had a discretion, but that in this case, and in other cases, unless there were some special cir- cumstances requiring a different decision, he should follow Catton v. Banhs, [1893] 2 Ch. 221. Belcher v. miliams, (1890) 45 Ch. D. 510, considered. In re Tase. Langeish r. VASE Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 124 yote. This case was followed by Joyce J., Carroll v. Harrison, [1910] W. N. 104. See preoeding Case. — Partition action — Devise of mortgaged estate — Fund in Court representing rent* and profits — Administration action — Eight to creditors to attach fund before judg- ment. See Administration. 25. 4. — Partition action — Order for sale — Con- version — Beath of person entitled before sale — Berolution of share. An order for sale properly made in a partition action operates as a conversion of the share of a person sui juris as from the date of the order, and, therefore, on the death before sale of th» person entitled, his share of the unsold real estate will devolve as personalty. In re DoDSON. Yates i\ Morton - Eve J. [1908] 2 Ch. 638 6. — Partition action — Practice — Certificate — Married woman — Bescriptien. Further consideration of a partition action in which judgment had been taken in common form directing the usual accounts and inquiries. In answer to the inquiry as to the persons interested ( 1855 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1856 ) tARTITIO'S—co/itmued. in the property forming the subject of the action, it was found by the certificate that among the persons beneficially entitled was the deft., Marion Arthurine Smith, the wife of Alfred Smith. She was described in the certificate simply as " Marion Arthurine Smith (deft.)." Joyce J. said that in a partition action whore a married woman was by the certificate found entitled to any real property, if ,she was entitled for her separate use and was married before the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, she should be described in the certificate as being entitled " for her separate use." If she was entitled by virtue of the Act, then she should be described as being entitled to the property in question " as her separate property." Beoad i: Askham Joyce J. [1909] W. N. 236 6. — This was also the further consideration of a partition action. Among the persons interested in the hereditaments and premises the subject of the action was the deft. Emma Caroline Watts, who was married to the deft. E. E. Watts in 1877. She was beneficially entitled in fee simple to one-fifth of the property, but not for her separate use. By the certificate it was found that "the deft. B. E. Watts was interested in fee simple in right of his wife the deft. Emma Caroline Watts " to one undivided fifth part of the property. Joyce J. directed the certificate to be amended by making the finding as to Mrs. Watts' share read, " The defts. E. E. Watts and Emma Caro- line Watts in fee simple in right of the said Emma Caroline Watts." BARRETT -r. Watts Joyce J. [1909] W. N. 237 — Sale by mortgagee with sanction of Com't — Purchase by receiver without sanction. iSee Receiver. 13. — Suit for partition of intestate's estate — Ad- ministrator not a party. See Ceylon. 4. PAKTNERSHIP. Tfte Limited Partnership Rules, 1907, dated Deo. nth, 1907, made 'pursuant to section 17 of tlie Limited PartnersMp Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, 0. 24). Reprint from "W. W. 1908 (Jan. 4), p. 1. See CUREBNT Index, 1908, p. cxv. Partnership — Limited Partnerships Act, 1907 (6 Edw. 7, c. 21), is an Act to establish limited partnm'ships. Limited Partnerships (Winding-up") Rules, 1908 — The Limited Partnerships (Winding-up) Rules, 1908, dated Dec. 19, 1908, made under s. 6, sub-s. 4, of the Limited Part7ierships Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 24). Th.ese rules came into operation on Jan. 1, 1909. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (Jan. 30), p. 71. See Cdrrent Index, 1909, p. cxxvi. [Note. — The above Rules are amnulled by the lAmited Partnerships (WinMng-up) Rules, 1909 [see next paragrapii], as from, tlie commenoeirient of these Rules, except so far as regards any pro- ceedings for the loinding-up of any limited parpnershyp render those Rules which may be PARTNERSHIP-cw;il(i«Mey Sovereign of surrendered peerage — Honour — Dignity. A peer cannot surrender his peerage to the Sovereign in any manner ; and this law must be applied to a surrender made in 1302. In 1302 Roger le Bygod, Earl of Norfolk, surrendered the earldom to Edward I. In 1312 Edward II. granted to Thomas de Brotherton and to the heirs of his body the earldom so sur- rendered. Thomas de Brotherton was frequently summoned by writ to parliament and sat there. Lord Mowbray, having proved his pedigree as senior co-heir of Thomas de Brotherton, alleged that the earldom had fallen into abeyance, and claimed that the abeyance should be determined in his favour as senior co-heir : — Seld, that the surrender by Eoger le Bygod was invalid ; that the charter of 1312 was conse- quently invalid ; that the sitting in Parliament under the King's writ could not create an earldom ; and that Lord Mowbray had not made out his claim. Earldom of Norfolk Pebr- AGB Claim (Committee for Privileges). H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 10 2. — Secondary emdence. The House resolved that Albert Kirby Fairfax had made out his claim to the peerage, title, dignity and honour of Baron Fairfax of Cameron in the peerage of Scotland. A predecessor of the claimant, the Rev. Bryan Fairfax, had made out his claim to be eighth Lord Fairfax in 1800, and the evidence produced by the claimant was mostly the testimony of relatives, an old family Bible and monumental inscriptions, there being no early record of births, deaths and marriages in Virginia, U.S., where the family had settled since 1750. And most of what records had existed were destroyed by the Northern Army during the American Civil War. In these circumstances the House accepted secondary evidence. The Fairfax Peerage. Committee for Privileges. H. L, (Sc.) [1908] W. N. 226 PENAL INTEREST— "Whether payable to bank- rupt's estate or to the Treasury. See Bankruptcy — Penal Interest. 1. PENAl SERVITUDE— Order that sentence for new offence run concurrently with, or commence after expiration of, remanet sentence — Jurisdiction of Court. See Criminal Law— Appeal. 16. PENALTIES — Contract, Breach of — Measure of damages — Penalty or liquidated damages. See Contract, 9, PENALTIES— c, — Liability to penalty— Laws of New South Wales. See New South Wales. 25. — Liquidated damages or— Forfeiture of sum deposited. See Contract. 11. — Railway contract — Penalty for non-comple- tion of line — Liquidated damages. See Cape of Good Hope. 12. — Trade Union — Officer — Liability — Absence of fraud. See Trade Union. 9. PENALTY — Advertisement of reward for return of stolen property — Dog — " Any property whatsoever." See Criminal Law — Larceny. 1. — Copyright — Infringement — " Every such offence " — Minimum amount. See Copyright — Pictures. 2. — Customs Act — Using ship stores, duty being unpaid — Penalty for breaking seals on ship goods. (See Victoria. . 6. — Discretion to deprive informer of portion of penalty. See Justices. 16. — Electric lighting — Laying electric lines near gas mains. See Electric Light. 7. — Gas — " Daily" tests. See Gas. 2. — Liquidated damages or penalty — Contract — ■ Time limit — Waiver. See Contract. 19. — Navy — Enlistment — Penalty for making false statements. See Army and Navy. 1. — Street. See under Streets. — Water supply to adjoining district — Sanction of Local Government Board — Penalty clause. See Local Government. 13. — Waterworks — Water — Insufficiency of supply. See under Water. PENANG '(SETTLEMENT OF)— Straits Settle- ments, Laws of. See Straits Settlements. 2, 3. PENDENTE LITE— Alimony— Maintenance and education of children — Separation agreement — Jurisdiction of Court, See Divorce — Alimony. 1. PENDING LITIGATION— Conditions of sale- Rescission — Costs — Jurisdiction. See Vendor and Puechasbe — Rescis- sion, 2. ( 1901 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1902 ) PENSION. — Police Reservists Act, 1902 (2 Hdw. 7, o. 10). See under Police. — Prison Officers {Pemions) Act, 1902 (2 Edio. 7 c. 9). See under Peison. — Fiji, Colonij of — Pemion funds — Treasury determitiation, Jan. 4, 1907, declaring the recemies of the Colony of Fiji to he a public fund within s. 4 of the Super- annuation Act, 1892. Pi-ice \d. St. E. & 0. 1907, No. 1. ^ Old Age Pensions Act, 1908 {8 Edw. 7, c-. 40), provides for old age piemioTis. The Old Age Pemions Regulations, Aug. 20 1908. St. B. & 0. 1908, No. 638. Price Id. The Old Age Pensions Regulations, Aug. 20, 1908. Circular, Aug. 21, 1908, to Councils appointing Local Pension Committees. St. E. & 0. 1908, No.' 638. Price Id. Old Age PenxioTW Act, 1908. Financial Instruction.^ for Pension Committees and Sub- committees, Aug. 20, 1908. 1908 {T— Miscel- laneous'). Price Id. The Old Age Pensions Regulations, Oct. 15, 1908. St. E. &0. 1908, No. 812. Price U. Old Age Pensions. 0. in C, dated Dec. 21, 1908, annulling Reiiulation 25 of the Old Age Pensioiis Regulations, 1908. St. E. & 0. 1908, No. 1319. Price \d. Pension Funds. Treasury Determination, May, 1910, declaring the Finds of the Colonial Audit Department to be a Public Fund within s. 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1892. St. E. & 0. 1910, No. 473. Price Id. — Attachment of debts — Garnishee order — Retired pay of officer in army — Pension due but not paid — Bank crediting amount to customer. See Attachment. 6. ' — Company. See under CoMPAirr — Pension. ' — ■ Company — Ultra vires — Gratuitous payment — Pension to retired officer. See Company — Pension. 1. — Police — Royal Irish Constabulary. See Police. 5. — Police constable. See under POLICE. — Police pension society — Claim under the rules by policeman obliged to resign. See Canada — Pensions. 1. — Tea company — Trading and life assurance combined. See INSUEANCK (Life). 2. PEE STIEPES OE PEE CAPITA— Bequest of residue — ' ' Equally between " statutory next of kin. See Will — Eesidue. 1. — Per stirpes WiU — Construction — Gift to issue " according to the parent stock." See "Will — Issue PEBFOEMANCE— Contract— Impossibility. See under CONTRACT. PEEJUEY— Criminal law. See under Ceiminal Law — Perjury. PEEPETUATING TESTIMONY- Examination, Order for — Discretion of Court. See Legitimacy. 1, 2. PEEPETUATION OF TESTIMONY— Power of Court to direct trial of validity or — Lunatic so found — Lucid interval — Execution of deed. See Lunacy. 8. PEEPETUITY. See also under Remoteness. — Absolute gift. Cutting down — Gift over on a compound event — Remoteness. See Will— Absolute Gift. 3. 1. — Appointment — Remoteness — " Possibility on a possibility" — Gift to an unhnown person for life, and after his death to his children — Personal estate. The old rule against " a possibility on a pos- sibility," natoely, that although an estate may be limited to an unborn person for life, yet a remainder cannot be Umited to the children of that unborn person as purchasers, has no applica- tion to personal estate. By a marriage settlement personal estate was settled in trust, after life interests given to the husband and vrife, for the children of the mar- riage, or any issue born in the lifetime of the survivor of the husband or wife, in such shares and manner as they should jointly appoint. They appointed in equal shares to the three children of the marriage for life, and after their respective deaths to such of their children bom in the lifetime of the husband and wife as should attain twenty-one ; — Held, a good appointment, and not void for remoteness. In re Bowles, Ambdhoz v. Bowles Farwell J. [1902] 2 Ch. 650 ■ Charity- -Gif t to. Charity. 11. Company — Shares — Compulsory transfer at specified price in event of shareholder's bankruptcy. See Compaity — Shares. 24, Cy-prfes — Legal devise to unborn tenant for hfe with remainders in tail. See Cy-pres. 1. Dignity — Period of absolute vesting — Will — Construction. See Heirlooms. 1. Election — Power — Appointment. See Power of Appointment. 2, 5, 6. Lessor and lessee — Option to purchase re- version in fee — Interest in land — Charity. See Lease. 3. Married woman. See Husband and Wife — Restraint on Anticipation. 5. C 1903 ) OIGBSI' OJ* OASliS, 1901—1916. ( 1904 ) PERPETUITY— co?jiiM«ei. — Option to purchase reversion in fee — Validity — Covenant running with land. See Coven-ant. 4. — Power — Appointment — Election — Settle- ment. See Power ob Appointment. 2, 5, 6. — Power of appointment — Title — Independent alternative gifts — Validity of ultimate gift — Settled land. See Vendor and Puechasbe — Title. 11. — Eailway — Accommodation works — Place and time indefinite. See Railway — Accommodation Works. — Eailway — Severed lands — Grant of right to make " a tunnel " ■ — Uncertainty — Assignability. See Eailwat — Accommodation Works, — Kemoteness — Possibility on a possibility- Settlement — Appointment — Validity. See Power of Appointment. 23. 8. — Remoteness — Devise — Contingent remain- der — HquitaMc estate — Estate tail — Child, en •centre sa mire — Retrospective operation of gift — Relation back. A testatrix devised real estate to trustees upon trust to pay the income to M. during her life, and after her death to stand possessed of the corpus upon trust for the second and every younger son of M., "born or to be born," succes- sively, during his life, with remainder, after the death of each such son, upon trust for his first and other sons, successively, in tail male. The testatrix died in October, 1880, at which date M. had had (a) a son who died in 1887, (J) a son who was disqualified by the wiU from taking under the limitations, and she was preg- nant of (c) a third son, S., who was born in Feb., 1881. M. died in 1886, S. being then stiU living : — mid, affirming Buckley J., [1903] 1 Ch. 874, that the limitations after S.'s life estate were valid as not transgressing the rule against per- petuities. For the purpose of deciding a question of perpetuity arising upon a gift such as the above, there is an established rule that a child en ventre sa m&re at the time of the testator's death, who is subsequently born, must be treated as having been alive at the testator's death iZong V. Slacliall, (1797) 7 T. E. 100 ; 4 E. E. 73j ; and that rule is not to be departed from merely because it may be in the interest of the child to contend that the gift is void as infringing the rule against perpetuity. In re Wilmbe's Teusts. Mooee v. Wingfield C. A. [1903] W. N. 118 ; [1903] 2 CIi, 411 Note. See In re IVilmer's Trusts, Wingfield v. Moore, Parker J., [1910] 2 Ch. 111. See Estate Tail. 1. — Settlement — Power of appointment — Con- tingent remainder. See PowEE of Appointment. 2. — Underlease — Covenant for renewal — Personal covenant — Assignee of reversion. See Landloed and Tenant. 88. PEBPETUITY- — Will — Construction. See under Will — Perpetuities — Re- moteness. " PERSON." See Canada. — Railway. 1. — Lease — Assignment to limited company — Consent not to be withheld from " a respectable and responsible person " — Forfeiture. See Landlord and Tenant. 10. — Lottery — Ofienoe — Corporation. See Gaming. 14. — Name of Partnership — Firm — Transfer. See Company — Register. 3. " PERSONAL ESTATE "-Leaseholds. See Will — Leaseholds. 1. PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE — Non-exist- ence of legal — Sale. See Eecbivbr. 3. PERSONALTY — Charge of debts and funeral and testamentary expenses on realty — Non-exoneration of personalty. See Will — Exoneration. 1. — Power to charge limited sum on real estate — General gift of personalty — ESeot as to exercising power to charge realty. See Will— Charges. 3. — Eealty or — Conversion. See under CONVERSION. — Eealty or — Sale by mortgagee. See Mortgage — Sale. 3. PERVERTING COURSE OF JUSTICE— Publica- tion of articles in newspaper. See Conspiracy. 5. PESTS. See under Insects and Pests. PETITION— Bankruptcy. See under BANKRUPTCY. — Company — Winding-up. See under Company — Winding-up — Practice. — Patent — Prolongation — Questions to be considered. See Patent — Prolongation. 7. — Patents. See under Patent. — Payment into and out of Court. See under Peacticb — Payment, &c. — Payment out of Court — Service. See under Peactice — Service. — Summons — Married woman. See Husband and Wipe — Restraint on anticipation. 6. — Summons or — Payment out — Fund carried over to separate a,ccount. See Peaotice — Payment out of Court. 4. ( 1905 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1906 ) PETITION OF EIGHT — International law Annexation — Liabilities of conquered State ■ — Creditor's rights against conqueror — Act of State — Jurisdiction of municipal Courts. A petition o£ right alleged that, before the outbreak of war between the late South African Eepublio and Great Britain, gold, the produce of a mine in the Republic ownai by the suppliants, had been taken from the suppliants by officials acting on behalf of the Government of the Eepublic ; that the Government by the laws of the Republic was liable to return the gold or its value to the suppliants ; and that by reason of the conquest and annexation of the territories of the Republic by Her late Majesty the obligation of the Government of the Republic towards the suppliants in respect of the gold was now binding upon His Majesty the King. Held, on demurrer, that the petition dis- closed no right on the part of the suppliants which could be enforced against His Majesty in any municipal Court. There is no principal of international law by which after annexation of conquered territory, the conquering State becomes liable, in the absence of express stipulation to the contrary, to discharge financial liabilities of the conquered State incurred before the outbreak of war. "West Rand Centkal Gold Mining Co. v. Rex Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 391 — Rent not to be deducted from salary where the officer is entitled to quarters. See Victoria. 5. — Statutory duty to submit — Damages for breach must be assessed by a jury. See Canada — Petition of Eight. 1. PHARMACY ACTS. Poisons and Pliarmacrj Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 55), regulates the sale of certain poisonous sutstances, and to amend the Pharmacy Acts. — Medical profession. See under Medical Profession. — Sale of food and drugs — Standard strength of drugs — British Pharmacopoeia. See Adulteration. 4. 1. — Sale of poison — Label " Xame " of seller — Phannaci/ Act, 1868 (31 4'- .S2 Vict. c. 121), s. 17. By s. 17 of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, " It shall be unlawful to sell any poison .... unless the .... bottle .... in which such poison is contained be distinctly labelled with the .... name and address of the seller of the poison . . . and any person selling poison otherwise than is herein provided shall, upon a summary conviction .... be liable to a penalty . . . ." A duly qualified chemist sold poison which was contained in a bottle labelled with his trade name but not with his personal name. jHbM, thatthe"name " of the seller mentioned in the section includes his trade name ; that there had therefore been a sufficient compliance with the section ; and that the chemist was not liable to the penalty imposed by it upon a person who sells poison contained in a bottle not labelled with the name of the seller. Edwards v. Phakmaobutical Society of Great Britain Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K, B. 766 PHARMACY ACTS—, 8. — Sale of poisons — Order taken by canvass- ing agent — " Seller " — Pharmacy Act, 1868 (31 Sf 32 Vict. c. 12), «. 11. The deft., a seedsman and florist at Worcester, acted as agent to receive orders for a limited co. at Liverpool, who were the manufacturers of a preparation called " Weed Killer," which con- tained arsenic. The deft, took at his shop, for transmission to the CO., aa order for "Weed Killer," and received on account of the co. the price of the quantity ordered, for which he gave a receipt on a bill headed with the name of the CO. He subsequently transmitted the order to the CO., who sent the " Weed Killer " ordered to the giver of the order direct. The deft, was in the habit of taking, and dealing with, orders for " Weed Killer " in the manner above described, and he received a commission from the co. in respect of orders so transmitted by him and executed by the co. In an action in the county court against the deft, for a penalty for selling poison in contravention of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, s. 15, the county court judge gave judg- ment for the deft., on the ground that the deft, was not the seller of the " Weed Killer " within the meaning of the section, and he found as a fact that the deft, was in the position merely of a canvasser for the co., with authority to receive money on their account. On appeal against his decision ; — Held (affirming the judgment of Div. Ct., [1900] 1 Q. B. 454), that, there being evidence to support the county court judge's finding of fact, the Court was bound thereby, and that, upon that finding, the deft, did not seU the " Weed Killer " within the meaning of s. 15 of the Pharmacv Act, 1868. Pharmaceutical Society v. White C. A. [1901] W. N. 37; [1901] 1 K. B. 601 3. — Sale of poisons — Pliarmaceutical Society — Powers — Resolution — " Ouqlit to be deemed a poison''— Pharmacy Act, 1868 (31 auper inmate — Action for damages — Common employment. The employment of a pauper set to work by the uardians of the poor under the powers given to them by the Poor Law Acts and Orders is not contractual, but statutory, and therefore the defence of common employment is no answer to an action by a pauper so employed against the guardians to recover damages for injury suffered in such employment through the negligence of an officer of the guardians. But the setting the paupers to work is part of the administrative duties imposed on the guardians by statute, and an action by the pauper against the guardians for negligence of their officer in discharge of these duties will not lie. Levingston v. I/iirgan Guardians, (1868) I. E. 2 C. 1j. 202, distinguished. Drennan v. LimericTi GvMrdians, (1878) 2 L. B. Ir. 42, and Diinhar v. Ardee Guardians, [1897] 2 I. E. 76, followed. Decision [of a Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 538, reversed. Tozeland v. West Ham Dnion. C. A. [1907]W. N. 48 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 920 Note. This case was distinguished by BuckniU J., Ching v. Surrey County Council, [1909] 2 K. B. 762. See Schools. 14. 6. — Guardiansof the Poor — Disqualification for office — " Composition or arrangement with creditors " — Administration order — Local Government Act, 1894 (56 .j- 57 Vict. c. 73), 5.46, sub-s. 1 (c^—Dankniptcy Act, 1883 (46 S' 47 Vict. 0. 62), s. 122. Where a guardian of the poor obtains an administration order under s. 122 of the Bank- ruptcy Act, 1882, providing for the payment of less than 20s. in the pound in respect of his debts, he has made a " composition or arrangement with his creditors " within the meaning of s. 46 of the Local Government Act, 1894, and is disqualified for office. Observations on Lowe v. Lowrie (1902) 18 Times L. E. 553. Beadfield v. Cheltenham Guardians Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 137 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 371 6. — Illegitimate child — Settlement by resi- dence — ■Irremovability — Residence of child under sixteen with reputed parent — Acquisition of settle- ment under sixteen — Settlement and removal — Divided Parishes a.nd Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876 (39 ,5- 40 Vict. c. 61), ss. 34, ^5— Poor Removal Act, 1846 (9 ^- 10 Vict. c. 66), ss. 1, 3— Poor Removal Act, 1848 Q.I pay to the guardians a reasonable sum for the necessaries supplied to him. Such necessaries include not only a reasonable sum for the food, clothing, drugs, coal, gas, and water supplied, but also a reason- able sum in respect of the pauper's share of the establishment expenses incurred for the purpose of keeping up the infirmary as a place of residence for the paupers, such as the salaries of the officers of the infirmary and their rations and uniforms if supphed as part of the terms of their service, the cost of the furnitm'e, of the painting, repairs, and insm-ance of the building, of timber and other building materials, and the cleaning of wiuduws, the wages of certain workmen employed therein, a sum for printing and stationery, and the parochial rates payable in respect of the infirmary, and also a sum in respect of the capital cost of the site and building. St. Maet, Islington, Guardians OF THE Poor v. Bigsbnden. Bray J. [1910] 1 K. B. 105 13. — Maintenance of relti,/ tuns — Liahility of married daughter — Poor Relief Act, 1601 (43 Eli:, c. 2) s. 7 — Married Women's Proper/ g Act, 1882 (45 S- IG riot. 3. 75), s. 1, siih-s. 2. A mairied woman cannot be ordered to POOE LA-W- maintain her father under the Poor Law Acts, even though she has separate estate and is of sufficient ability to maintain him. PoNTYPOOL GuAJa- DIANS ». Buck. Div. Ct. [1906] W. N. 195 [1906] 2 K. B, 896 14. — " Misbehaviour " — Pauper — Disohedi- ence to lawful order — Poor Relief Act, 1815 (55 Geo. 3, c. 137), s. 5. Wilful disobedience by a pauper of a lawful order of a workhouse official is not necessarily "misbehaviour" within the meaning of s. 5 of the Poor Relief Act, 1815. Mile End Guaed- DIANS c. Sims Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 200 15. — Overseer — Solicitor — Exemption — Appeal to quarter sessions — Costs — Writ of privilege— Poor Relief Act, 1601 (43 Eliz. c. 2) s.b. A practising solicitor is exempt from serving the office of overseer of the poor, and if he is appointed to the office by a district council he is entitled to appeal to quarter sessions for an order to quash the appointment ; but if the district council do not appear on the appeal to oppose the solicitor's claim to exemption, quarter sessions have no power to order the district council to pay the costs of the appeal. Bex v. Derbyshire Justices. E.r parte New Mills Urban Council Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 26; 1 K. B. 449 16. — Parish of settlement — Additio7i to Parish — Pauper — Pivided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876 (39 Jf- 40 Vict. c. 61^— Poor Law Act, 1879 (42 ^- 43 Viet. c. 54). Parish A., to the area of which an addition has been made out of parish B., by an order under the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, does not lose its identity, and the settlement of a pauper in parish A. is not affected. The decision of the C. A., [1902] 1 K. B. 562, affirmed. Quaii-y, whether Reg. v. Tipton, (1842) 3 Q. B. 215 ; 61 E. E. 203, and the cases following it were rightly decided. "West Ham Union v. London County Council. H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N, 3 ; [1904] A. C. 40 — Poor-rate. See under Rates. — Public authority — Limitation of time for pro- ceedings — Poor law guardians. See Public Authoeities' Protec- tion. 5. 17. — Rate — Form of — Statement of periodfor which estimated — Retrospective rate — Distress warrant — Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869 (32 ,. Tallowin Div. Ot. [1904] 2 K. B. 763 See under Rates. ■ — Eating — -Franchise — Representation of the People Acts. See under Pakliament. 18. — • Removal — Adoption of pauper child iy guardiam—Poor Law Aot, 1899 (62 4' 63 Vict. c. 37), s. 1. Where the guardians of a poor law union have passed a resolution under the Poor Law Act, 1899, that the rights and powers of the parent of a child maintained by them shall vest in them, they are not precluded by that resolu- tion from subsequently removing the child to the union in which it has a settlement. Want- age Onion v. Bristol Union - - Div. Ct. [1906] W. N. 204 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 68 19. — Removal order — Notice of appeal — Validity — Entry of appeal at newt sessions — ■ Jurisdiction of subseqneTd sessions — Poor Relief Act, 1662 (13 # 14 Car. 2, c. 12), s. 1, 2— Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834 (4^5 Will. 4, e. 76) s. 81 — Poor Law Procedure Act, 1848 (11 S' 12 Vict. c. 31), s. 9. On Feb. 26, 1908, an order of removal of a pauper and her child from the Wayland Union to the Forehoe Union was made. Both unions are in the county of Norfolk. On Mar. 31, 1908, the Forehoe Union gave notice of appeal against the order. The notice did not mention any sessions as those to which it was intended to appeal. On April 8 a Court of quarter sessions for the county of Norfolk was held, but no appeal against the order of removal was entered for those sessions. The succeeding quarter sessions were held on July 1, 1908, and the appeal against the order was entered for those sessions. The parties treated the notice of appeal as being given for those sessions : — Held, that the sessions of July 1, 1908, had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and to decide whether it had been entered at the next practi- cable sessions so as to comply with the require- ments of the Poor Belief Aot, 1662, b. 2. Held, further, that as the parties treated the notice of appeal as having been given for the sessions of July 1, 1908, the objection could not be taken that it applied only to the sessions of April 8. Rex v. Nobfolk Justices. Ex parte Watland Union Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 463 20. — Removal of pauper from England to Ire- land — Order of justices made on erroneous state- ments of fact — Appeal by guardians of union in Ireland to which pauper ordered to he removed — Orounds of appeal — Pauper " Uaile to ie removed to Ireland " — Poor Removal Act, 1845 (8 4' ^ Vict. c. 117), s. 2 — Poor Removal {No. 2) Aot, 1861 (24 ^ 25 Vict, o 76), s. 2— Poor Removal Act, 1863 (26 ^ 27 Vict. c. 89), s. 7. The right of appeal to quarter sessions con- ferred upon the guardians of any union in Ireland by s. 7 of the Poor Removal Act, 1863, from an order of justices made under s. 2 of the POOR JiAW— continued. Poor Removal Act, 1845, and s. 2 of the Poor Removal (No. 2) Act 1861, ordering that a pauper be removed from England to the union in Ireland, is limited to one of two grounds. The appellants must shew either that the pauper was legally settled in some parish in England or was not in law liable to be removed to Ireland. Therefore where a pauper is admittedly liable to be removed to some union in Ireland, but is not removable to that union to which the justices (acting upon erroneous statements of fact by the pauper) have ordered her to be removed, a Court of quarter sessions wiU not, on appeal by the guardians of the union to which the pauper is so ordered to be removed, set aside the removal order. Local Government Boaed op Ireland V. Blackburn Guardians Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 454 21. — School district — Incorporated board of management — Dissolution of school districts- Property of dissolved district — Poivers of last acting managers — Transfer of Consols — Vesting order — Poor Lam Amendment Act, 1844 (7 ^ 8 Vict. c. 101), ss. 42, 43, 44, 'i&^MetropoVdan Pom- Amendment Act, 1869 (32 # 33 Vict, c.63), s. 1. — Dissolved Boards of Management and Guardians Act, 1870 (33 # 34 Vict. c. 2), ss. 1, 12, —National Debt Act, 1870 (33 4' 34 Vict. c. 71), s. 22 — Local Government Board — Validity of order — Form, of m-der. A school district formed under s. 40 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1844, and the board of management for that district formed under s. 42 of that Act, are distinct and separate entities, the latter being by s. 45 of the same Act constituted a corporation to hold the property of the district ; and when the district is dissolved by virtue of an order of the Local Government Board made under s. 1 of the Metropolitan Poor Amendment Act, 1869, the corporation created by s. 45 of the Act of 1844 remains in existence. In such a case the property of the district does not automatically vest in the last acting managers of the corporation by virtue of the words "shall be transferred to and vested in" in s. 12 of the Dissolved Boards, &c., Act, 1870, but must be transferred to them or to other parties, as the case may be, by a proper document, and the last acting managers or the survivors of them, as the last acting corporators, can for that purpose affix the seal of the corporation to the document. Quere, whether the Local Government Board, when they have issued an order under s. 1 of the Act of 1869 dissolving and fixing a date for the dissolution of a school district, have power from time to time by subsequent orders to postpone the date of dissolution. Quere, also, whether, when an order is issued under s. 1 of the Act of 1869 dissolving a school district, the Local Government Board ought not, " jirior to " issuing such order, to make an order under the section for the sale of the property of the managers of the district and the application of the proceeds. Semble, when the Local Government Board make an order under s. 1 of the Dissolved Boards, &c., Act, 1870, extending the period for which 3q2 C 1926 ) aiOEST OF OASES, l90l— 1916. ( 1926 ) POOR LAW — continued. the last acting managers of a dissolved district are to continue in office, the order should follow the words of the section, and should state the " special purpose " for which the last acting managers are to continue to act. MoETON v. Bank of Englaito - - Farwell J. [1904] W.N. 49; [1904] 1 Ch. 664 22. — Settlement — Capacity of deserted wife to aoqrdre a settlement — Poor Law Settlement (Scot- land-) Act, 1898 (61 S- 62 Vict. c. 21), .?. 1. By 8. 1 of the Poor Law Setlement Act, 1898. "No person shall be held to have acquired a settlement in any parish in Scotland by resi- dence therein, unless such person shall .... have resided for three years continuously in such parish and shall have maintained himself .... and without having received or applied for parochial relief ..." : — Held, that a married woman having a hus- band living from whom she has derived a settle- ment cannot, although deserted by him, acquire a settlement different from that of her husband. Gray v. Fowlie, (1847) 9 D. 811, affirmed. Decision of the Ct. of Sess., Scotland, (1901) 3 F. 705, reversed. EuTHBKGLBN Parish Council v. Glasgow Parish GoaNCiL. H. I. (So.) [1902] W. N. 106 ; [1902] A. C. 360 23. — Settlement — Division of Parish — Parts of parish, added to other parish by order of county council — Confirmation of order ty Local Qovernment Board — Local Oorernment Act, 1888 (51 ^ 52 Vict. c. 41), ss. 57, 59 ; Local Government Act, 1894 (56 S,- 57 Vict. c. 73), ss. 36, 42. By s. 42 of the Local Government Act, 1894, " "When an order under s. 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888, has been confirmed by the Loc. Govt. Bd., such order shall at the expiration of six months from that confirmation be presumed to have been duly made, and to be within the power of that section, and no objec- tions to the legality thereof shall be entertained in any legal proceeding whatever. By s. 36, sub-s. 10 of the Local Government Act, 1894, an order made by a county council in pursuance of Part III. of that Act is to be deemed to be an order under s. 57 of the Act of 1888. A joint committee of a county council and of the council of a county borough made an order with regard to a parish which, at the passing of the Local Government Act, 1894, was situate in more than one urban district, which order, in providing for the union of part of the parish with another parish and the constitution of the remaining part into a separate parish, further provided that the alteration of the parish should not liave the effect of destioying settlements already acquired therein prior to the coming into operation of the order : — • Held that, whether the order was made under the Local Government Act, 1888, or the Local Government Act, 1894, and whether or not there was originally jurisdiction to insert in the order the provision dealing with pauper settlements, s. 42 of the Local Q overnment Act, 1894, applied, and no objection to the legality of the order could be entertained, more than six months POOR LAW— C( having elapsed since its confirmation by the Loc. Govt. Bd. Decision of the Div. Ct., [1906] 2 K. B. 365, affirmed. Rex r. Middlesex Justices. Bx parte Walsall Union C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 581 — Settlement — Illegitimate child — Residence of child under sixteen with parent. See No. 6, alo've. 24. 1 — Settlement — Irremovahility — Residence — " Sospitals " — Poor Removal Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Vict. e. 66), s. 1. An institution partially endowed by a private person and founded with the object of providing a home and medical treatment, together with suitable employment and recreation, for persons suffering from epilepsy, the main part of the expenses being defrayed by payments of the inmates, is a " hospital " within the proviso to s. 1 of the Poor Removal Act, 1846. Judgment of the Div. Ct. [1902] W. N. 193 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 19, affirmed. Obmskirk Union V. Chorlton Union. C. A. [1903] W. K. 138; [1903] 2 K. B. 498 25. — Settlement — Irremovabiliyt — Residence for one year — Hu.^iand and Wife — Departure of husband — Animus revertendi — Residence of wife before and after departure of husband — Poor Removal Act, 1846 (9 S; 10 Vict. c. 66) s. 1— Poor Remoi-al Act, 1848 (11 ^- 12 Vict. c. Ill), s. I— Union Chargeahility Act, 1865 (28 <|-29 Vict. 0. 79), s. i— Divided Parishes Act, 1876 (39 ^- 40 Vict. c. 61), s. 35. By s. 1 of the Poor Removal Act, 1846, as amended by s. 8 of the Union OhargeabiUty Act, 1865, no person shall be removed from any parish in which such person shall have resided for one year next before the application for the warrant for removal. A married woman resided in a parish for part of a year with her husband, a foreigner having no settlement. The husband then went abroad intending to return. The wife continued to reside with her children in the parish for the remainder of the year, after the expiration of which, during her husband's absence, she became chargeable to the parish : — Held, that the married woman could not be removed from the parish. Reg. V. St. George-in-the-East, (1870), L. R. 5 Q. B. 364, followed. Guardians of Mcdtcay Union y. OuardiOinsof Bedminster Union, (1889) 14 App. Cas. 465, dis- tinguished. Tewkesbury Union v. Birming- ham Dnion Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 395 26. — Settlement and removal — Ulegitimate child — Settlement by residence — Irremovability — Residence by child uiider sixteen with parent — Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876 (39 A 40 Vict. c. 61), ss. 34, 35. An illegitimate child under sixteen resided with her mother in a parish for three years in such manner and under such circumstances in each of those years as would, in accordance with the statutes in that behalf, render her irremov- able. After she reached sixteen the question of her settlement arose : — Held, that by her residence she had acquired a settlement in that parish. ( 1927 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1928 ) POOE ZAW~omtmued. The decision of the C. A. [1904] W. N. 91 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 121, affirmed. West Ham Union V. HoLBEACH Union H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 134 ; [1905] A. C. 460 Note. See jVo. 6, aiove. 27. — Settlement — Pauper — Parish, Division of — Destruction of settlement — Divided Paris/ies and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, (39 ^~ 40 Viet. c. 61) — Local Government Act, 1894 (56 4' 57 net. 0. 7.S). A pauper who has acquired a settlement in a parish which is afterwards divided into more than one parish does not lose his settlement by the division. Heg. V. Tipton, (1842) 3 Q. B. 215, and the other cases which followed that one, overruled as to the above point. West Ham Union v. Edmonton Union H. L. (E.) [1907] W. ». 235 ; [1908] A. C. 1 28. — Settlement by residence — IrremoraMlity — Residence of child under sixteen with desm'ted mother — Acquisitionof settlement under sixteen — Settlement and removal — Poor Law Removal Act, 1846 (9 Si- 10 Vict. c. 66), ss. 1, 3— Poor Removal Act, 1848 (11 .)■■ 12 Vict. c. Ill), s. 1— Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876 (39 ^ 40 Vict. c. 61). ss. 34, 35. The question in this case for the opinion of the Court was, whether the paupers, M. P. and her Illegitimate child, were settled in Kingston- upon-Hull or not. The Court (Lord Alverstone C. J., Darling and Pickf ord JJ.) held (Darling J. dissenting), follow- ing the opinions expressed in West Ham. Union v. Holbeach Union, [1905] A. C. 450, and in Fullmm Parish v. Woolioioh Union, [1907] A. C. 255, that the appellants' contention was right, and that M. P. acquired a settlement in the parish of Newhaven. Kingston-upon-Htjll INCOEPOEATION FOR THE POOE V. HACKNEY Guardians Biv. Ct. [1910] W. N. 246 Note. See No. 6, above. 29. — Settlement by residenee — Maintenance vnthout reootcrse to common begging or receipt of 0?' application for parochial relief — Support by charitable institution — Bodily and mental unfit- ness for self -maintenance — Poor Law (Scotland') Act, 1898 (61 4- 62 Vict. v. 21), s. 1. Under s. 1 of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1898, which enacts that "no person shall be held to have acquired a settlement in any parish in Scotland by residence therein unless such person shall . . . have resided for three years con- tinuously in such parish and shall have main- tained himself without having recourse to common begging .... and without having received or applied for parochial relief " : — Held, that a person who had for three years continuously resided in a charitable institution in the appellant parish, and during that period had not had recourse to common begging and did not apply for parochial relief, had acquired a residential settlement, and that the fact that during the whole time of her residence she suffice J from m?ntaj weakness and chronic | POOE LA'W— continued. physical disease, which made her incapable of maintaining herself, did not take her out of the enactment. Kirhintilloch Parish Council v. Parish Council of Mastwood, (1902) 5 F. 274, approved. Judgment of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., Scotland, (1904) 6 F. 457, affirmed. Kilmalcolm Parish Council v. Glasgow Parish Council - H. I. (So.) [1906] W. N. 117 I [1906] A. C. 344 80. — Union, alteration of — Apportionment of property — Annual sums payable to union — Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834 (4 ^ 5 Will. 4, o. 76), s. 32. Where, on the separation of a parish from a union of which it previously formed part under the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, s. 32, the Local Government Board, by an order intended to be made under that section, directed that sums payable annually by the county council to the union under the Local Government Act, 1888, s. 24, sub-s. 2 (d), and s. 26, sub-s. 1, should be apportioned between the union and the parish in each year according to their respective rateable values for the time being ; — Held, that the Local Government Board had no power to mate such an order, inasmuch as s. 32 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, contemplates a final settlement between the two bodies based on an estimate of the existing pro- portionate values of their respective interests in the property to.be apportioned. Eeg. v. Local Government Board C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 210 POOR PRISONERS. See under Criminal Law— Poor Pri- soners. POOR RATE. See under London — Rates. Bates. POOR RATE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION ACT, 1869. See Bates. POET — "Limits of port" — Ships loading or unloading goods within limits of port — Natural port artificially enlarged. See Harbour. 4. PORT OF LONDON ACT, 1908 (8 Edio. 7, c. 68), provides for the improvement and better adminis- tration of the Port of London, and for purposes incidental thereto. PORTIONS — Advancements —Will — Construc- tion. See under Will — Advancement. — Mortgage — Priority. See Mortgage — Priority. 10. — " Portions " — Accumulation of income — Remoteness — Gift to children as a class — Period of ascertainment. See Accumulations. 8. — Settlement — Disentailing deed — Mortgages Priorities — Whether power released. See Settlement, 38. ( 1929 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1930 ) POETUCrU'ESE LAW — Divorce practice — Substi- tuted service of citations and petition — Letters o£ request refused. See DivoECE — Practice. 29. POSSESSION — Absolute gift — Actual possession — Intention. See Will— Absolute Gift. 7. — Bill of sale — Registration not renewed — Ap- parent possession. See Bill of Sale. 6. — Heirlooms — Trust of chattels as — Construc- tion—To be enjoyed with mansion house — Tenant in tail — Vesting — Actual possession. See Heirlooms. 3. — High bailifif's fees. See under COUNTY CouBTS — Bailiffs. — Infant tenant for life — Possession during minority — Guardian — Trustee. See Settled Land — Infants. 1. — Land surrendered to the Crown subject to subsisting contracts — Rights of Crown against trespasser. See New Zealand. 10. — Larceny — Deer usually kept in a forest — Kill- ing outside forest — Unlawful possession. See Criminal Lavi^ — Larceny. 3. — Lease — Death of lessee — Administrator ad colligenda bona — Power to sell — Entry into possession — Rent — Liability de bonis propriis. See Administration. 20. — Mines — Tenants in common — Working of part of mine by one co-owner — Adverse possession — Constructive possession — Account. See Mines. 14. — Mining lease — Forfeiture — Issue of writ con- taining inconsistent claims — Un- equivocal demand for possession. See Landlord and Tenant. 36. — Mortgagee — Extinguishment of title of second mortgagee — Effect of possession of first mortgagee — Non-suspension of statu- tory period. See Limitations, Statutes op. 16 — Power of revocation — Person entitled to the "actual possession." Sec Settlement. 37. — Recovery of possession — Public-house — Licences in jeopardy — Disputed title. See Receiver. 11, 12. — Restrictive covenants — Notice — Title by adverse possession — Statute of Limita- tions. See Vendor and Purchaser — Title. 13. — Right of entry of mortgagee — Relation back of right of possession — Trespass ante- cedent to entry — Right of action. See Mortgage — Entry. 1. 'SOSSSSSIOS— continued,. — SherifE's fees. See under Sheriff. — Ship — Mortgage — Imperilling security of mortgagee. See Shipping — Mortgages. 3. — Ship — Sale — Claim to share of proceeds in Court— Evidence. See Shipping — Sale. 1. — Substitutional gift — Death " before becoming entitled " to a share — Entitled in " pos- session " or in " interest." See Will — Substitution. 3. — " Tenant for life." See under Settled Land — Tenant for Life. — Title by adverse possession — Foreshore — ■ Crown, Rights of — Intention. See Seashore. 2. — Title by possession — Restrictive covenants — Notice — Acceptance of less than forty years' title. See Vendor and Purchaser — Title. — Writ of possession — Costs — Jurisdiction to make order. See Costs. 81. — Writ of possession — Writ of assistance. See Receiver. 10. POSSESSOKY TITLE— Will of woman under incapacity to devise — Entry of tenant for life — Rights of remaindermen. See Estoppel. 6. POSSIBILITY — Perpetuity — Possibility on a possibility — Settlement. See Power of Appointment. 28. " Possibility on a possibility ' — Remoteness. See Perpetuity. 1. -Appointment POST-CARD— Libel— Privileged commimication — Publication — Eviilence of malice. See Defamation — Libel. 14. POSTHUMOUS ILLEGITIMATE CHILD— Work- men's compensation — Dependant. See Master and Servant — Com- pensation. 42. POST-NUPTIAL SETTLEMENT. See under Settleuent. POST OFFICE. Post QtHceAct, 1904 (4 Mtc. 7, c. li), amends the Post Office Acts loith respect to cuimOat'iee commissions on money orders and the use of embossed and impressed stamps. Post Office Money Orders Act, 1906 (6 Mw. 7, 0. 4). Post OJice {Literature for the Slind) Act, 1906 (6 Bdw. 7, c. 22), is an act to facilitate the tra nsm ission by post of books and papers impressed for the use of the blind. Post Office Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 48), con- solidates enactments relatiri^ to the Post Office, ( 1931 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1932 ) POST OTFICS— continued. Mail Ships. See under Shipping — Mail Shipg. Postmaster-General, col. 1931. Savings Banks, col. 1931. Shop Sours, col. 1931. Hail Ships. See under Shipping— Mail Ships. Fostmaster-Creneral. Assistant Postmaster- General Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 14), is an Act to enable an Assistant Postmaster- General to sit in the Souse of Commons. — Licence of — Telephone — Power to lay cable along bridge without consent of railway- company. See TblegeAPH. 3. — Limitation of liability — Claim by bailee of contents of lost mail-bags — Possessory title as against wrong-doer. See Shipping — Collision. 42. — Monopoly — Private lines — Electric bell signals. See Telbgkaph. 4. Sayings Banks. Savings Banli Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 8), amends the Savings Banks Acts. Post Office Savings Bank Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 8), amends s. 11 o/ the Savings Banks Act, 1904. Post Office Savings Banks (Puhlic Trustee") Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 52), amends the Post Office Savings Bank, Acts, 1861 to 1908, with respect to deposits by the Public Trustee. — Savings bank — Deposit-book — Evidence — Delivery. See Donatio Mobtis Gadsa. 1 — 3. Shop Hours. See Shop Hours Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 31), s. 2, sub-s. 5, Schedule. POSTPONEMENT— Conversion. See under Con^'BESION. — Directors — Powers — Postponement of general meeting. See Company — Directors. 13. — WiU. See under Will — Postponement. POSTS— Streets, Statutory power to fix posts "in or under" — Trespass — Taking of land. See Steebts. 21. POULTRY. See under FOWLS. POWER- Eevooation. See under Revocation, POWER OF APPOINTMENT — Absolute gift- Property or power — Power to use capital if income not " sufficient." See Will— Absolute Gift. 6. — Absolute gift or .estate for life with power of appointment — Construction of will. See Will— Absolute gift. 2. — Ademption — Special testamentary power of appointment — Exercise — Subsequent compulsory sale of property subject to power. See Will — Ademption. 5. — Appointment — Validity — Remoteness — Rule against double possibilities. See No. 28, below. 1. — Bankruptcy of donee — Capacity of trustee to release power — Settlement — TAmited power of appointment — Ultimate reversioniit donee —Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 ^ 47 Vict. o. 52), s. 44 — Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (44 S- 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 52— Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 ^ 54 Vict. c. 5), s. 120. Order of FarweU, J. [1904] W.K 162 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 348, discharged bj' consent. On the point decided by FarweU J., namely, that the trustees in the bankruptcy of the donee of a limited power of appointment could not release the power for the benefit of the bankrupt's estate, the C. A. expressed no opinion. In re Rose. Hasluck (Teustee in the Bank- EUPTCY of E. T. Rose) r. Rose C. A. [1904] W. N. 199 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 94 — Bankrupt's will, Appointment by — Assets — Property divisible among creditors. See Bankeitptcy — Power of Appoint, ment. 1. — Conflict of laws — English testatrix domiciled abroad — Exercise by will in English form. See Conflict of Laws. 9. — Conflict of laws — Personalty — Execution — ■ Foreign domicil — Unattested will. See Conflict of Laws. 15, 16. 2. — Contingent Remainder — Perpetuity — Settlement — Power of appointment among childreji — Exercise of power — Appointment of income to children equally and of whole income to survivor for life. By a settlement made in 1844 on the marriage of W. and G. real estate was settled to the use of G. for her life, and after her death to the use of such children of the marriage in such shares and manner as G. should by will devise the same. The only two children of the marriage were L. (born in 1846) and A. (born in 1852). G. died in 1877, having by her will devised that the yearly income of the settled estate should be equally divided "during their respective lives between my daughters L. and A.," and that " in the event of the death of either the survivor shall receive the whole income," and that on her ( 1933 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1934 ) jPOWEK OF APPOINTMENT— eoreifoiie^Z. death the estate should be sold and the proceeds divided among the children of L. and A. : — Held, that the gift to the survivor was a contingent and not a vested estate, and as the survivor might be a person not ascertainable vrithin twenty-one years from the death of G., the gift was void as contravening the rule against perpetuities, Whitby v. Von Luedeckb Buckley J. [1906] 1 Ch. 783 — Costs of administering trust fund — Successive appointments of specific sums — Appoint- ment of residue. See Costs. 3. — Covenant to settle after-acquired property — Power or property. See Settlement. 12. — Cy-pres — Testamentary power — Excessive execution. See Ct-pees. 2. 8. — Beits — • General testamentary power — Exercise — Covenant to exercise power as security for loan — Liahility of appoivied fund for debts — J'riority. The donee of a general testamentary power of appointment over a fund borrowed money and as security covenanted witli the lender that he would make a will appointing that the loan should be a iirst charge on the fund and that he would not revoke the will. He made a will accordingly and died : — Held, that the lender was not entitled to priority as regards the fund over the appointor's general creditors ; for personalty appointed by vrill under a general power is subject to the pay- ment of the appointor's debts, as declared by Knight Bruce, L.J., in Fleming v. Buchanan, (1853) 3 D. M. & G. 976, 980. The decision of the C. A., In re Lawley, ZaUer v. Lawley [1902] W. N. 195 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 799, aflBrmed. Betfus v. Lawley H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 148 ; [1903] A. C. 411 — Divorce — Variation of settlements — Interest of cliild of dissolved marriage. See DIVOECB — Settlements. 10. — Divorce — Variation of settlements — Principle of quid pro quo. See DivoEOB — Settlements. 13. — Domicil — ■ Personal property — Settlement — WiU. ■ See Conflict of Laws. 7. 4. — " Buring coverture iy will or deed" — Execution of will durinx; coverture — Beatli of testatrix discovert — Exercise of power — Validity. By a marriage settlement, made in 1878, the trustees were to hold the trust funds upon trust, after the death of the wife, for such persons as she sho uld " during converture by will or deed appoint," and in default of appointment, then in trust for her statutory next of kin. By her will, made in 1884, in the lifetime of her husband, she appointed the settled funds to her five brothers and sisters in equal shares as tenants in common. The husband died in 1886. In 1898 the widow made a codicil to her will, appointing the plain tifis to be executors of her will and in other respects POWER OF APPOINTMENT— co?m;wm«(?. confirming her will. She died in 1908, dis- covert : — Held, that the execution by the lady of her wiU while under coverture, operated as a good exercise, of the power of testamentary appointment con- tained in the settlement, notwithstanding that she died discovert. Burnliam v. Bennett, (1845) 2 Coll. 254, and Cave V. Cave, (1856) 8 D. M. & G. 131, considered and applied. In re Illingwoeth. Bevie v. Aemsteong Eve J. [1909] W. N. 149 ; [1909]2Ch. 297 8. — Election — Perpetuity — Settlement — • Power — Appointment. When a testamentary appointment fails for infringing the rule against perpetuities, persons taking in default of appointment are not bound to elect between their interests in the settled fund and interests in the appointor's own pro- perty given to them by the will. In re Bradskaw, [1902] 1 Ch. 436, not followed. In re Beales' Settlement. Baeeett v. Beales. Warrington J. [1904] W. N. 206 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 256 A'ote. This case was followed by Buckley J., In re Wright, [1906] 2 Ch. 288. See Settlement. 36. 6. — Election — Real estate — limitations — Equitable estate in fee — JVo words of inheritance — Will Power — Appointment void for remoteness. A limitation in a deed of a trust of real estate for a class of children vsdthout any words of inheritance may confer the equitable fee upon them where the intention to do so is expressed or suflBciently shown on the face of the instrument. By a marriage settlement dated in 1831 real estate was conveyed to a trustee upon trust for the husband and wife successively for life, and after their deaths upon trust to convey and transfer the trust estate between or among the childi'en of the marriage as the husband and wife should jointly appoint, and in default as the survivor should appoint, and in default to all the children of the marriage who attained twenty- one, or married, in equal shares. The settlement contained a provision that no child taking under any appointment should receive anything more until all the other chUdi'en had received shares equal in value to the appointed share ; a power of advancement up to one-half of the value of each child's share ; and a gift over if no child attained a vested interest : Held, that there was on the face of the instrument amply sufficient indication of an intention that the children should take equitable interest in fee simple. In re Tringham's Trusts, [1904] 2 Ch. 187, followed. The husband, having survived his wife, by will, in exercise of the power given him by this settlement, appointed shai'es of the property to his three daughters for life, with remainder to their respective children, and gave his daughters interests in property of his own : Held, that the appointments being void for perpetuity, no case of election was raised by the will, ( 1938 ) DiaEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1936 ) POWER OF AVromiWE'S'S—ooMmed. In re Sradshaw, [1902] 1 Gh. 436, not followed. 2n re Oliver's Settlement. EvBBBD V. Leigh. Farwell J. [1904] "W. N, 191 ; [1905] 1 Oh, 191 mte. FoUowed by Warrington .J., In re Beale's Settlement, [1905] 1 CE. 256. See preceding Case. Followed by Buckley J., In re Wright, [1906] 2 Oh. 288. See Settlement. 36. Approved and followed by 0. A., In re.Nasli-, [1910] 1 Oh. 1. See Power of Appointvient. Eeferred to by C. A., In re Thursby^s Settle- me>a Trusts, [1910] 2 Ch. 181. See Power of Appointment. — Estate duty — Appointed fund — Eesidue — Testamentary expenses. See Eevenue — Estate Duty. 13. — Estate duty — • Appointment of specified amounts — Eesidue of fund— Incidence — WiU. See Eevbnub— Estate Duty. 27. — Estate duty — Exercise of general power of appointment by will — -Appointed fund — Eesidue. See Eevenub — Estate Duty. 4. — Estate duty — Incidence — Appointed fund — Eesidue. See Ebvbkub— Estate Duty. 15. — Estate duty — Incidence — Direction to pay testamentary expenses. See Will — Testamentary Expenses. 8. — Estate duty — Incidence — Will exercising power of appointment — Appointed fund. See Will — Testamentary Expenses. 11. — Estate duty. Liability to — Eesiduary estate taken under appointment empowered by the will. See New Zealand. 19. — Estate duty payable in respect of appointed fund — " Property passing to executor as such." See Revbkub — Estate Duty. 15. 7. — Excessive appointment — ApjjointTuent ■under special power to uses of existing settlement, or such as are " capable of taking effect " — Validity of limitation — Remoteness— Construction of will. Where under a special power of appointment a testator appoints to the uses or trusts of an antecedent instrument or such of them as are " capable of taking efEect," the phrase " capable of taking efEect " may be construed as meaning what the law allows to take efEect, and need not be confined to a reference to the uses or trusts which, by reason of the deaths of parties and other intervening circumstances, are still in fact existing, or capable of coming into existence ; and if therefore some of the uses or trusts fail by reason of the cestuis que trust not being objects of the power, or by reason of the rule against perpetuitieg being infringed, those uses or trusts POWER OE APPOINTMENT— coniimMeff. may be treated as excluded fi'om the appoint- ment. Dictum of Jessel M.E. in Line v. Hall, (1873) 43 L. J. (Ch.) 107, 108, considered and applied. In re Finch and Chew's Contbact. Kekewich, J. [1903] W. N. 129 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 486 8. — Execution — Document ^^ purporting " to be a will. Under a settlement dated in 1848 a married woman had a power of appointment amongst her children exercisable by any deed or deeds, writing, or writings, with or without power of revocation and new appointment, to be by her sealed and delivered in the presence of and attested by two or more credible witnesses, or by her last will or testament, " or any writing in the nature of or purporting to be a will or codicil." She signed a written document which was ex- pressed to be her " last wiU," and which, if valid as a testamentary instrument, would have oper- ated as an execution of the power. This docu- ment, having been insufficiently executed, was not admitted to probate : — Held, that although the document might not be " in the nature of " a will, yet, as it clearly " purported to be " the will of the donee of the power, it was a valid execution of the power. In re Beoad. Smith v. Deaegee. Kekewioh, J. [1901] W. N.90 ; [1901] 2 Gh. 86 Note. This case was not followed by Warrington J., In re Barnett, [1908] 1 Ch. 402. See No. 14, below. — Execution — Domiciled foreigner — Unattested will. See Conflict op Laws. 17. 9. — Execution — General power — Married woman — Appointment by will — Administrator with the will annexed — Right to receive fund. An administrator with the wiU annexed can give a valid receipt for settled personalty ap- pointed by will under a general power, even where the appointor was a married woman who died before the coming into operation of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75). Re Philbrich's Trusts (1865) 13 W. E. 570, and In Re Hosjdn's Trmts, (1877) 5 Ch. D. 229 ; 6 Ch. D. 281, applied. In re Peacock's Settle- ment. Kelcey 0. Haeeison. Swinfeu Eady, J. [1902] W. N. 51 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 652 10. — Execution — General testamentary power — Express reference required — General reference to all testamentary powers. A fund was settled in trust for such persons as the settlor should by will " expressly referring to this power " appoint. By her will the testator gave and devised the residue of her estate, both real and personal, of which she should die possessed or entitled to "and over which I shall have any power of dis- position by will" to certain beneficiaries : — Held, that this was sufiicient reference to execute the power, ( 1937 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1938 ) POWER OF APPOINTMENT— coraiiMMef?. In re Water house, (1907) 96 L. T. 688 ; 98 L. T. 30, and In re Bolt, [1908] "W. N. 76, applied. Phillips V. Cayley, (1889) iS Oh. D. 222, and In re Impe's Trusts, (1873) L. R. 16 Eq. 442, distinguished. In re LANE. Belli ■». Lane. Swinfen Eady, J. [1908] 2 Ch. 581 11. — Execution — Limited poioet — iVb other power — Exercise hy will — " Appoint, devise, and bequeath ''''^Sufficient reference — Evidence. A testatrix made the following disposition by her will : 1 appoint, devise, and bequeath my real estate and the residue of my personal estate to my trustees upon trust to sell or convert the same into money, and to pay and divide the pro- ceeds (after paying my debts, funeral and testa- mentary expenses) equally between " four named nephews and nieces, ' ' or such of them as shall be living at my decease." The four nephews and nieces survived the testatrix. It appeared that the testatrix had testamen- tary power of appointing a share of personal estate among her nephews and nieces, and evidence was tendered to shew that she had no other power of appointment : Held, that the evidence was admissible, and that the limited power was exercised. In re Teape's Trusts, (1873) L. E. 16 Bq. 442, and In re Swinburne, (1884) 27 Gb. Div. 696, followed. Dictum of ChattertonV.-C. in In re Richard- son's Trusts, (1886) 17 L. R. Ir. 436, 442, dis- sented from. In re Mayhbw. Spencee v. CUTBUSH - - Farwell J. [1901] W. N. 55 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 677 mte. Followed by Jeune, Pres., Kent v. Kent, [1902] P. 108. See No. 21, below. 12. ■ — Ei-ecution — Limited power — Testamen- tary appointment — Incomplete disjiosition — In- tention — " After the death of A." read " subject to A's interest." Under a marriage settlement the husband and wife took successive life interests in a trust fund, the wife's interest being cut down to one moiety on remarriage, and subject thereto the fund was settled on trust for the issue of the marriage as the husband should appoint, and in default of appointment for the sons at twenty-one or daughters at twenty-one or marriage, with the usual hotchpot clause. By his will, which recited that he had power to appoint the fund after the death of his wife, the husband appointed that ' ' after the death of my said wife " three- fifths of the fund should be held in trust for his elder son and two-fifths for his younger son, these sons being the only issue of the marriage. The wife having remarried after her husband's death : — Held, that the moiety of the income thereby set free during her life passed under the appoint- ment, the Court finding on the face of the will an intention to appoint the whole fund subject to the wife's interest, and being therefore at liberty, in accordance with the principle in Maddison v. Chapman, (1858) 4 K. & J. 709, 719, to read the words " after the death of my said wife " E^s " subject to my said wife's interest." POWER OF APPOINTMENT— coBifewaf?. In re Shuckbuegh's Settlement. Eobebt- SON V. Shuckbuegh - - Farwell J. [1901] 2 Ch, 794 13. — Execution — Power to appoint up to a limited amount — General power — Exclusion from benejit t/iereunder of person disputing will — Charge — Overriding power to appoint mixed fund — Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 27. W. by his will gave his real and personal estate to trustees in trust to permit his wife to receive the income during her life, and directed that she should have power by her will to appoint that the trustees of his will should on her death raise and set apart out of his estate and effects enough money to produce the sum of 21. Ws. per week, and that she should have absolute power by her will to dispose of that sum when raised and the income thereof as she might think fit, expressing by his will a wish that she should be able, if she desired, to direct the payment of the 21. 10s. per week to his son J. during his life, but that, if she should not think fit to exercise the power in favour of J., she should have full power to dispose of the sum so raised and the income thereof in such manner as she might in her uncontrolled discretion think best. " Subject as aforesaid" W. gave his estate and effects in trust, after his wife's death, in favour of his children. A power of sale was given by W.'s will, whereby it was also declared that any of W.'s children who should call in question his win should be deprived of all interest thereunder, and that if J. should do so, testator's wife should not be able to exercise the power to appoint in his favour. J. died before the wife, who by her will gave all the residue of her real and personal estate not thereby otherwise disposed of upon certain trusts : — Held, (1.) that a charge on tl{e testator's residuary real and personal estate for any sum which his wife might appoint under the power was created by the words " subject as aforesaid " ; (2.) that, notwithstanding the words as to the children calling in question the wiU, she had, in the events which happened, a general power of appointment in respect of the sum which might be raised ; (3.) that, although there was no trust for conversion, the power was an overriding one to appoint a fund of mixed realty and personalty ; and (4.) that, by virtue of s. 27 of the Wills Act, 1837, the power was exercised by the residuary gift in the wife's will. Ill re Jones, (1886) 34 Ch. D. 65, followed. In re Salvin, [1906] 2 Ch. 459, distinguished. In re Wilkinson. Thomas r. Wilkinson Parker J. [1910] 2 Ch. 216 14. — Execution — " M'r'ding or tvritings " — " Apjwintmewt made by will " — Testamentary document not provable as will — Validity — Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), ss. 1, 9, 10. Mrs. Barnett assigned a policy of assurance on her own life to trustees by a settlement which contained a proviso that it should be lawful for her at any time during her life " by any deed or deeds writing or writings with or without power of revocation to be by her duly executed in the presence of two or mor§ credible ( 1939 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( lUQ ) POWEE OF APPOINTMENT— Cfwfrmiieif. witnesses to revoke all any or either of the " proTisions of the settlement, and to • appoint other trusts in their place. She subsequently signed a document by which she did not in terms revoke any of the provisions of the settlement, but purported to make certain dis- positions of (inter alia) the property the subject of the settlement in testamentary form. This document was signed by her in the presence of two credible witnesses, but, inasmuch as her signature was not placed at the foot or end thereof, it could not be admitted to probate as a will. The question now raised was whether the document operated as an exercise of the power of appointment : — Held, that the document was a " writing in the nature of the will in exercise of a power," and therefore by s. 1 of the Wills Act, 1837, a " will " within the meaning of that statute ; it was therefore an " appointment made by wiU " within the first sentence of s. 10, and, inasmuch as it was not executed as a will in accordance with s. 9, it was invalid as an exercise of the power. In re Broad, [1901] 2 Gh. 86, not followed. In re Baenett. Dawes ii. Ixbr. Warrington J. [1908] W. N. 28 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 402 — Exercise — " Usual " clauses in settlements — Covenant to settle after - acquired property. See Settlement. 21. 15. — " Express " reference to power — Exercise iy iiAll — Sufficient reference. Sir John Eolt, who died in 1871, by a codicil to his will directed that, in the events which happened, a sum of 1500?. should be held in trust for such person or persons and for such purposes as his daughter Sarah should by any will or codicil " expressly referring to the present power " appoint. Sarah Eolt, by her will, after appointing executors and bequeathing certain legacies, pro- ceeded as follows : " All the rest residue and remainder of my real and personal estate not hereby or by any codicil or otherwise specifically disposed of and which I can dispose of by will in manner I think proper either as beneficially entitled thereto or under any general power I bequeath " to the persons therein mentioned. The present summons was taken out for the determination of the question whether the power of appointment given by the codicil of Sir J. Eolt had been validly exercised by the will of Sarah Eolt. Warrington J. said that the question was whether the will of the donee of the power " expressly " referred to the power. The contest was between the person entitled under Sarah's will and the persons taking under Sir John Eolt's will in default of appointment. It was said by the latter that there was no " express " reference in Sarah's will to the powers contained in Sir John Eolt's codicil. That codicil did not say that the donee of the power must " specifi- cally " refer to the power ; all it said was that there must be an "express" reference. "Express" was distinguished from "iipplied," POWEE OF APPOINTMENT— 0. and was intended to exclude an exercise which could only be implied by virtue of s. 27 of the WiUs Act, 1837, or in some other way. It would be going too far to say that no wiU could be an exercise of the power unless it " specifi- cally" referred to the power; the very use of that word " specifically " shewed that it was necessary to go outside the words of the will to express one's meaning. There was an " express " reference to the power. The donee of the power first gave all her estate, and then specified two modes in which she thought she had power to dispose of it — either as being beneficially entitled or vmder any power she might possess, that was, any power which gave her the power to select the objects of the gift and the mode in which the property should be enjoyed. If the donee had possessed several powers of appointment — although that was an aspect of the case to which no great importance was to be attached — they would have been referred to in the reference which she made to any power which she possessed. The power had, therefore, been validly exercised. In re Sir John Eolt. Eolt v. Buedbtt - Warrington (J.) [1908] W. N. 76 Note. This case was applied by Swinfen Eady J., In re Lane, [1908] 2 Ch. 581. See No. 10, ahove. 16. — Foreign donee of power domiciled atroad — Exercise of power — Power exercised in accord- ance with English law dut not with law of domicil — Will. Where an English power of appointment by will is exercised by a vriU executed in English form, though the appointor be domiciled abroad and the will be not validly executed according to the law of domicil, the document may be admitted to probate as a will for the purpose of the appointment, though not admissible for other purposes. This practice has been too long observed to be now disturbed. Muepht v. Deichler - ' H. L. (I.) [1909] W. N. 167 ; [1909] A. C. 446 17. — Fraud on power — Appointment void or voidaile — Mortgage ty appointee — Defence of hona fide purchas er without notice — Fund carried to separate account — Action to declare appoint- ment void — Priority. By a settlement on the marriage in 1877 of H. and his wife, certain funds were settled in trust for them and the survivor of them for their respective lives, with remainder to such of the children as they should by deed, or the survivor should by will or deed, appoint, and in default of appointment to the children who should attain twenty-one equally. As soon as the eldest surviving son of the marriage attained twenty- one in Oct., 1899, H. and his wife appointed 4000Z. to him, and about two years afterwards appointed the residue of the fund to him. These appointments were made under a bargain that the son would raise money to pay his parents' debts. He mortgaged his interests under the appointment to S., and sold the equity of redemption to a co., who assigned to the Property and Estates Co., aind ha,nded over thg proceeds tp his fg,ther, ( 1941 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910, ( 1942 ) POWER OF APVOISTMEmi—eorainued. In 1904 an action (Woudiridge v. Harvie) was commenced by a, mortgagee of Mrs. H.'s life interest for the carrying into execution the trusts of the settlement, to which aU the children of the marriage were defts. A com- promise of this action was agreed upon, and by an order dated Nov. 16, 1908, the compromise was approved and a sum representing the share appointed to the sou was carried to a separate account entitled " Share of the Property and Estates Co., Ld., and its incumbrancers subject to the life interest of Mrs. H. and her mort- gagee." The present action was commenced in 1909 by two of the daughters of the marriage asking for a declaration that the appointments were void as frauds on the power, and that the defts. claiming thereunder had no interest in the trust funds. The defts. were the transferees of the mortgage, the said co., and the trustees of the settlement. The pits, had signed the agreements for the compromise of the action of Woodhridge v. Ha/rvie, but the judge held upon the evidence that they had then no notice that the appoint- ments were invalid. NeviUe J. said that the appointments were very clearly frauds on the power, but on the evidence neither the defts. nor their predecessors in title had any notice of the fraud. But he thought on the balance of authority that a fi-aud on the power made the appointments void and not merely voidable, and therefore the defts. could take no interest under them, and the defence of purchase for value without notice was not open to them. There remained the question whether the carrying the funds to the separate account of the deft. co. gave them what was equivalent to a legal estate in the funds, and the pits, are precluded by this order from proceeding to set aside the appointments. The validity of the appointments was not a question raised in the action, nor had the pits, any notice of their invalidity at the time they signed the agreement for a compromise of the action. He did not think, therefore, that the defts. could, while their interest was still rever- sionary, acquire an interest in the funds which was equivalent to a legal estate. The pits, were not, therefore, precluded by the order from bringing this action and were entitled to the declaration claimed. Cloutte v. Stobey Neville J. [1910] W. N, 163 On Appeal : — The C. A. dismissed the appeal. Cloutte v. Stoeet C. a. [1910] W. N. 250 18. — Fraud on power — Exercise — Validity — Special jMwer — Appohitment to object of power on eondition of payvieitt of appolTctor's debts. Under the will of A. Cohen, dated in 1900, S. B. Cohen was the donee of a power to appoint a sum of 3000Z. per annum in his absolute discretion to his wife and children. By his wiU, dated In 1908, in exercise of the power he appointed and declared that the trustees of the wiU of A. Cohen should stand possessed of his share under the will upon trust to pay an annuity of 1200Z. to his wife during widowhood. POWER OF APPOINTMENT- her marrying again, and further to pay to her an additional annual sum of lOOZ. for the maintenance of each of his children until they attained twenty-one or married under that age. And he further appointed, in case his residuary estate should be insufficient to pay his just debts, that the said trustees should pay to his wife an additional annual sum of 500Z. so long as any of his debts should remain unpaid, or for a period of ten years from his death, whichever should be the shorter period, on condition that so long as she should expend the sum of 400Z. in every year in the payment of his debts, and after the debts should have been fully paid by her or after the expiration of ten years liom his death, whichever should be the shorter period, to pay to her, if she should have fuliilled the condition, instead of the said additional annuity of 500Z. an additional annuity of lOOZ. for the remainder of her life, and, subject to the trusts thereinbefore declared, he appointed the trust funds to his children. A. Cohen died in 1901, and S. B. Cohen died in 1909, leaving his widow, the plaintiff, and three children (infants) him surviving. His estate was insolvent. Summons taken out by the pit., now Mrs. Brookes, for the determination of the question iynter alia) whether the appointment of the annual sums to her on condition to pay her late husband's debts was valid. Held, that the condition in this case could not fairly be separated from the appointment. The case fell within the proposition laid down in Farwell on Powers (2nd ed.), p. 421 ; and the execution of the power was fraudulent and void as having been made for a purpose wholly foreign to the power. The appointment of the additional annuity of 500Z. was therefore bad. In re Cohen". Brookes v. Cohen Joyce J. [1910] W. N. 216 19. — General power — Execution — ExercUe by will — Apjjointment of executors and heftiest of pecuniary legacies — Estate of testatrix alone insufficient to pay debts and leqacies — Wills Act, 1837 (7 WiU. 4 ^ 1 Vid. c. 26), s. 27. S, S. by her will devised and bequeathed the residue of her real and personal estate to trustees upon trust to sell and to invest the proceeds as therein mentioned, and she declared that her trustees should stand possessed of one third part of the said trust funds and secm-ities upon trust to pay the annual income arising therefrom unto her daughter S. M. S. for life, and she declared that her trustees should upon the death of her said daughter stand possessed of the said one third part of the said trust funds and securities upon trust for such person or persons as her said daughter should by her last will or by any codicil direct or appoint, and in default of such direction or appointment, in trust for the next of kin, her said daughter. S. M. S. by her will made specific devises of her real estate and directed that the " remainder of my property in houses and lands " should be equally divided among all her nephews, with the condition that they should pay to each of her three nieces the sum of 500Z. She then made to be reduced to 600Z. per annum in the event of I certain specific bequests and concluded h?r wiU ( 1943 ) CiGBST 01* OASES, 190i— l9l0. ( 1944 ) tOWEE OF APPOINTMENT— co»ii«Meint hy will — Ecent in irli ich power to arise — Non-occurrence — Exercise of po wer during coverture — Married Women's Property Act, 1893 (56 # 57 Vict. c. 63), s. Z— Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 24. Under a marriage settlement property was settled upon trust for the wife and her husband for life, and if there should b8 no childi-en and the husband should die in the lifetime of the wife (both of which events liappened), then after his death in trust for her absolutely. Then followed a trust, in the event of the husband surviving the wife, giving her (subject to his life interest) a general power of appointment by will notwithstanding covertm-e, and subject thereto the trust funds were to go to her next of kin. The husband died in 1905 and the wife in 1908. By her will, dated in 1895, the wife, in exercise of the power and of all other powers (if any) thereunto enabling her, appointed that the trustees should after the deatii of her husband stand possessed of the property subject to the settlement for certain named persons, and, after making specific bequests, she gave her residue to her husband absolutely : — Held, that the effect of s, 3 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1893, was to make the will operate upon all that the testatrix had at her death ; that at her death, in the events which happened, the settled property was held upon trust for her and passed to the appointees as a specific disposition under her will. In re Jambs. Hole v. Bethunb Joyce J. [19091 W. N. (Correction 242) 236 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 16T POWER OF APPOINTMENT— cora;i»ae(i. — Married woman — Will — Appointment — Exercise of general power — Separate estate. See Husband and Wife — Separate Property. 2. 24. — Mistake — Forgetfulness — Settlement- Appointment — Deed, poll — Rescission — Intention — Equitable relief. An appointment by deed poll, made in entire forgetfulness by the appointor of an earlier appointment to the same person, may be re- scinded and set aside on the ground of mistake. Lady Hood of Avalon v. Maokinnon Eve J. [1909] W. N. 38 : [1909] 1 Ch. 476 — ITon-execution — Death of donee — Marriage settlement — Rectification — Parol evi- dence. See Settlement. 39. 25. — Partial exercise of, by doTiee — Range oj ion'estTnents authorized by insfrwment creating power — Extension of, by donee — Validity. Where the donee of a power of appointment does not appoint to objects of the power he cannot alter the range of investments authorized by the instrument creating the power. A testator by his will gave all his real and personal estate to trustees upon trust to sell and convert and to invest the proceeds in certain investments which did not include mortgages of leaseholds, and he directed them to pay the income of the trust estate to his wife for life, and after her death to hold the trust estate upon trust for such of his nine children as his wife should by will or codicil appoint, and in default of appointment upon trust to divide the same among his nine children in equal shares. The testator's widow by her will, in exercise of the power given her by the testator's will, appointed! certain sums to her daughters in respect of their one-ninth shares, and declared that the trustees of the testator's will might invest the moneys subjects to the trusts of that will in certain secm'eties which were not within the range of investments thereby authorized, including mort- gages of leaseholds. By a codicil to her wiU the widow, in fm-ther exercise of the power, declared that the trustees of the testator's will should hold two of the one-ninth shares of the trust estate upon trusts in favom' of certain objects of the power, and, subject to a slight modification in the ainounts of the sums appointed by her will, made by a second codicil, she allowed the bulk of the trust estate to pass under the testa- tor's wiU in default of appointment. After her death the trustees of the testator's will invested part of the trust estate upon mortgage of certain leasehold premises : — Held., that the trustees of the testator's will had no power to invest upon leasehold security funds representing shares subject to the trusts of the will passing in default of appointment. In re William Falconer's Trusts. In re Ann Falconer's Trusts. Property and Estates Co,, Ld. v. Frost - - Warrington J. [1908] W. N. 28 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 410 ( i947 ) biGESi 01* CASES, igoi— i9l0. ( 1948 ) POWER OF APPOINTMENT— coreirame^?. — Perpetuity — Power which might be exercised so as to create perpetuity, but not so exercised. See Vbitdob and PuEOHiSEE — Title. 11. ■ — Personalty — Execution — Foreign domicil — Unattested will — Extrinsic evidence of intention. See Conflict of Laws. 16. — Portions — Disentailing deed subject to anterior estates and powers annexed thereto — Mortgages — Priorities. See Settlement. 38. — Power — Execution — " Writing or writings " — " Appointment made by will " — Validity. See No. 14, above, — Power of disposition — Will. See under Will — Power of Disposition. — Probate duty claimed on property subject to special. See New South Wales. 28. 26. — Real estates — Equitable limitations — Appointment upon trusts for sale — Conversion. The rule laid down in Kenioortliy v. Bate, (1802) 6 Ves. 793 ; 6 E. E. 46, that a power to appoint land is well exercised by an appointment to trustees upon trust for sale, applied to a case where the limitations were equitable and trustees were directed to convey the property to such child or children, and " for such estate or estates, manner and form " as the donee of the power should appoint. In re EbdsATE. Marsh v. EBDaATB ■ Buckley J. [1903] 1 Ch. 356 — • Eemoteness — " Possibility on a, possibility." See Pbepbtuitt. 1. — Eemoteness — Special power of appointment — Exercise — Eule against perpetuities. See Will — Bemoteness. 5. S7. — Remoteness, Appointment void for — Covenant as to mode of execution of special testa- mentary power — W^ill — Election — Originating summons — Administration — Costs out of estate — Costs " as between solicitor and client " — R. S. C, 1883, Order LXV., r. 27, sub-r. 29 (iJ. S. C, Jan., 1902, r. 10). In applying the doctrine of election as to taking under or against an instrument, there is no distinction in principle between an appoint- ment which is void because it is in excess of the power and an appointment which is void as transgressing the rule against perpetuity. A covenant to exercise a special testamentary power in a particular way is void. W. B. by his wiU gave property upon trust for the children of A. B. as A. B. should by will appoint, and in default of appointment for the children equally. A. B. covenanted with the trustees of his marriage settlement to exercise the power in a particular way. A. B. by his will POWEB OF APPOINTMENT- made an appointment to his son for life with an appointment over which was void as transgress- ing the rule against perpetuity, and he also made a bequest of property of his own in favour of the son. The covenant was not satisfied by the terms of the will : — Held, that the son of A. B. was bound to elect between the interest bequeathed to him in the property of A. B. and his interest in default of appointment under the will of W . B. : Seld, also, that the covenant was void, and therefore could not be enforced against the estate of A. B. In re Warren's Trusts, (1884) 26 Ch. D. 208, distinguished. In re Beadshaw. Bbadshaw V. Beadshaw Kekewioh J. [1902] W. N. 15 ; 1902 1 Ch. 436 Note. Not followed by Warrington J., I71 re Scales' Settlement, [1905] 1 Ch. 256. See No. 5, above. Not followed by FarweU .J., In re Oliver's Settlement, [1905] 1 Ch. 191. See No. 6, above. Not followed by Buckley J., Tn re Wright, [1906] 2 Ch. 288. See Settlement. 36. 28. — Revocation — Settlement — Special power — Investment of part of trust fund in real estate — Appointment of real estate with power of revocation — Subsequent appointment of whole of trust fund without reference to previous appoint- ment — Inconsistency — Equitaile interest — A bsence of words of inheritance. A marriage settlement conferred upon the husband and wife a joint power to appoint the trust moneys, stocks, funds and securities com- prised in the settlement amongst children and issue, and the settlement contained a power to invest the trust funds in the purchase of real estate. The husband and wife appointed certain real estate purchased out of the trust funds, upon trust upon the death of the survivor for their eldest son, his heirs and assigns, with a power of revocation and reappointment, and subsequently, without referring to the previous appointment, they, in exercise of the power of appointment given to them by the settlement and of every other power enabling them in that behalf, appointed the whole of the trust moneys, stocks, funds, and securities comprised in the settlement, upon trust (subject to their respective life estates) for all their children equally : — Held, that the second appointment was not a revocation of the first. Per FarweU L.J. : Semble, if the second appointment had operated to pass the real estate, having regard to the absence of words of inheritance, the children would have taken life estates only. In re Tringham's Trusts, [1904] 2 Ch. 487, and In re Oliver's Settlement, [1905] 1 Ch. 191, explained. In re Thuesbt's Settlement. Geant v. Littledale - C. A. [1910] W N 181 ; [1910] 2 Oh. 181 29. — Scotland — Appointment — Limited power amongst donee's children — Exercisable by will — t 19i9 ) MGEST OF CASES, l90i— l9lO. ( 1950 ) POWER OF APPOINTMENT— C07iii««erf. Special formalities — Trust fund, — Donee domi- ciled in Scotland — Power duly exercised iy will — Suhsecpienf disposition nf part of fund — Holo graph codicil — Befective execution — Codicilvalid hy law if domicil — Probate in JEnglamd — De fective execution aided — Pro tanto revocation of piior appointment — Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. C.26), s. \0— Wills Act, 1861 (Lord Mngsdoimi's Act) (2i S- 25 Vict. c. Hi). The testatrix, a domiciled Scotswoman, was the donee of a special power of appointment over a trust fund in faTour of her children exercisalDle " by her last will and testament in writing or any codicil or codicils thereto to be signed in the presence of and attested by two or more witnesses." She made a will, with the necessary formalities, duly exercising the power and appointing the whole fund to her three daughters. Subsequently, by the first of a series of hologi'aphic dispositions written from time to time, and under the last of which her unattested signature appeared, she referred to the fund and gave thereout 5001. to each of her sons therein named. One son afterwards died, and then by a later writing of the series she cancelled the gift of 500Z. to him and gave it to her tliree daughters. The holograph writings were effective according to Scots law and were, with the will, admitted to confirmation in Scotland, and were also admitted to probate in England along with the will and as a codicil thereto : — Held — (1.) that the domicil of the testatrix being Scottish, s. 10 of the Wills Act, 1837, which does not extend to Scotland, had no application ; and that, quite independently of the provisions of Lord Kingsdown's Act, the codicil, having been recognized as a valid testa- mentary instrument by the Probate Division, was capable of operating as an execution of a power of appointment by a will over personal In re Price, [1900] 1 Ch. -442, foUowed ; (2.) that, there being no express revocation of the appointment by \vill, the codicil only revoked the will to the extent to which the appointment in the codicil efiectively interfered with the dispositions of the will : Duguid V. Fraser, (1886) 31 Ch. D. 449, followed ; and (3.) that the Com-t would aid the defective execution in favour of the two surviving sons, who were consequently entitled to 5001. each out of the fund, the rest of which went to the three daughters : Morse v. Martin, (1865) 31 Beav. 500, followed. In re Walker. MacColl i). Beuce Joyce J. [1908] W. N. 47 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 660 ■ — Settled fund — Wife's general power of appointment — Wife's contingent rever- sionary interest. See SETTLEMENT. 5. 80. — Settlement — Appointment — Special power of appointment — Appointmejit of trust funds for the time being subjecttothetrusts of tlie settlement — As.ngnment by appointee of his share in the trust funds aud alt other (if ant/) his estate and interest of and in all other the'trust funds for the time bevng subject to the trusts of the POWER OF APPOINTMENT— c settlement — Subsequent acquidtion of interest by trustees of settlement — Marriage settlement. By marriage articles dated in 1845 certain funds were settled upon trust for the husband, Sir E. W., for life, then for the wife. Lady W., for life, then for the children of the marriage as the husband should appoint, or in default of appointment by the husband as the wife should appoint. In 1876 Sir R. W. died without having exercised his power of appointment except as to a specific portion of the funds appointed in trust for a daughter. In 1879 Lady W. appointed that after her decease the trustees should stand posses.sed of the trust funds for the time being subject to the trusts of the articles (other than the sum appointed by Sir R. W.) in trust for the remaining six children of the marriage in equal shares. In 1893 one of the sons, William, by his marriage settlement assigned to trustees his one-sixth share of the trust funds (which he specified in a schedule) to which he was entitled on the death of his mother, and all other (if any) his estate and interest of and in all other the trust funds for the time being, subject to the trusts of the articles of 1845. By a codicU dated in 1878 Itfrs. B. directed that the property which she had left by her will to Sir E. W. should be transferred to the trustees of the marriage articles and be held upon the trusts thereof, and she died in 1900. Subsequently, in 1900, Lady W. appointed this property in trust for certain of her children (including William) : — Held, first, that the appointment of 1879 did not operate as an appointment of any moneys not then subject to the trusts of the marriage articles ; secondly, that William's marriage settle- ment passed only such estate as he then had in the trust funds ; and, therefore, that his share of the property bequeathed by Mrs. B."s codicil was not included in that settlement. Semble. The effect of Mrs. B.'s bequest was not to make the property an accretion to the funds originally settled by the marriage articles, but to create a new referential settlement of such property upon similar trusts. In re Wal- polb's Marriage Settlement. Thomson r. Walpole Joyce J. [1903] 1 Ch. 928 — Settlement. See under Settlement. — Settlement — Limited power of appointment — Dltimate reversion in donee — Bank- ruptcy of donee — Capacity of trustee to release power. See Xo. 1, above. 31. — Settlerrvent — Power to appoint in farour of a particrdar class — Donee of power herself a member of the class — Bight of donee to appoint to herself — Construction, of settlenient. Under a settlement the trust funds in a certain event were to be held in trust for such persons and purposes and in such manner as the settlor should by deed or will appoint, so only that every such appointment should be made to or in favour of one or more of a specified class of persons, and in default of appointment in trust for the members of the class equally. The settlor was herself a member of the class : — Held, that it was competent to the settlor ( 1951 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1952 ) POWEB OF APPOINTMENT— eo«JJMMe(?. under the power to appoint the trust funds to herself. Taylob v. Allhusbn - Kekewich J. [1905] 1 Ch. 629 33. — Sottlement — Real p-uperty — Appoint- ment — Validity — Remoteness — Rule against dmible possibilities — Successive limitations to unborn ehildren, — Election. The rule ooinmonly known as the rule against double possibilities, namely, that after an estate has been limited to an unborn person for life a remainder cannot be limited to any child of that unborn person, applies to equitable as well as legal estates. So held upon the authority of Many penny v. Denng, (1852) 2 D. M. & G. 145. Where by his will a testator makes an appointment which is held to be invalid -as transgressing the rule against double possibilities, and also confers benefits upon the persons entitled in default of appointment, no question of election arises. In re OUeer's Settlement, [1905] 1 Ch. 191, approved and followed. In re Bradshaw, [1902] 1 Ch. 436, overruled. Decision of Eve J., [1909] "W.N. 162 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 450, affirmed. In re Nash. Cook /■. Fbedekick - - C. A. [1909] W. N. 209 ; [1909] W. N. 326 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 1 33. — Special power — Exercise by will — Change of investment — Ademption — Premivms — " Capital money "—Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. o. 26), ss. 23, 24, 27— Settled Land Acts, 1882 (45 # 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 22, sub-s. 5, and 1884 (47 |- 48 Vict. o. 18), s. 4. A tenant for life of real estate who had under the settlement power to appoint the estate by will among his children after his own death exercised the power and appointed the estate among his children. Afterwards the testator granted under the Settled Land Act, 1882, leases of parts of the appointed property in consideration of premiums paid by the lessees. The premiums were paid to the trustees of the settlement and invested by them : — Held, that there being in the will no apparent intention to appoint the property representing the premiums, that property did not pass under the appointment. The decision of the 0. A. in In re Moses. Beddington v. Beddington, [1902] 1 Ch. 100, affirmed. The decision of Farwell J. in In re Dowsett, [1901] 1 Ch. 398, approved. Beddington v. Baumann - H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 212 ; [1903] A. 0. 13 34, — Special 2J0wei- — Exercise by mil — Use of word "ajjpoint" — Indications of contrary intention. By a settlement made in 1863 on the marriage of W. and X., leasehold hereditaments were settled upon trust, after the decease of the sur- vivor of them, for all and every the children and child of the marriage in such parts and shares as the survivor should by will or codicil appoint, W. survived X., and by his will, after making bequests of a watch, a picture, and an organ, he gave, devised, bequeathed, and appointed all the residue of his " estate," " real as well as personal,'" D.D, POWER OF APPOINTMENT— ooMiiMBerf. unto trustees, upon trust to convert into money such parts of " the said trust premises " as should not consist of money, and out of the proceeds to pay his funeral expenses and debts, and to pay and divide the residue of •' such trust moneys and premises unto and equally between " his sons A. , P., and R. (declaring that he made no pro- vision for his other children because they were sufficiently provided for). The testator then empowered his truste s to postpone the conver- sion of his "real and personal estate " for so long as they should think proper, and during the postponement to manage, lease, or let his " real and "leasehold estates," and out of the capital or income thereof to make any proper outlay for improvements, repairs, insurance, or otherwise for the benefit of his " real or personal estate," but declared that no property not actually pro- ducing income which should form part of his estate should be treated as producing income. The testator also declared that the trustees might invest the "trust moneys representing the shares" of P. and R. during their respective minorities in certain specified securities, and that during their minorities the trustees should pay the whole income of those shares to A. as their guardian for their maintenance : — Held, that the will did not operate as an exercise of the special power given by the settlement. In re Cotton, (1888) 40 Ch. D. 41, followed. In re Mayhew, [1901] 1 Ch. 677, distin- guished. In re Weston's Settlement. Nekves u. Weston - Buckley J. [1906] 2 Ch. 620 Note. Referred to by Gorell Barnes P., Wr Lowndes, [1908] P. 348. See No. 36, below. 35. — Special power — Limited power — Will — Execution of power — General gift — " Disposing power" — Power non-existent at date of will — ■ Exercising power by anticipation — I-ntention. H. H. the younger, by his will dated in 1884 and confirmed by a codicil dated in March, 1893, gave " all the residue of the property over which at the time of my death I shall have a disposing power " to trustees upon trust for sale, conversion, and investment, and directed them to pay the yearly income arising from his trust estate to his wife for life or widowhood, and subject to the trust aforesaid to stand possessed of his trust estate upon trusts for his children. H. H. the elder, the father of H. H. the younger, by his will, dated in June, 1893, em- powered each child of his by his or her will, or any codicil thereto, to appoint in favour of his or her wife or husband the whole or any part of the yearly income of his or her share of his (the testator's) residuary estate for the life of such wife or husband, and directed that a sum of 4000Z. thereby directed to be raised should^ be held upon the same or the like trusts and subject to the same or the lilce powers and provisions as were thereinbefore declared with respect to the share of his son H. H. the younger in the residue. H. H. the elder died in 1895, and H. H. the younger in 1899 leaving a widow and three 3 B ( 1953 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1954 ) POWEB OF APPOINTMENT— conttMMe^Z. children. H. H. the youngrer had no power of appointment exercisable in favour of his ividow other than the power contained in the will of his father : — Held., that the language of the will of H. H. the younger was not suificient to shew an intention to execute a non-existent special power, and accordingly that his will did not operate as an appointment under the power given him by the will of his father. Whether it is possible, as a matter of law, to execute by anticipation a special power not created until after the alleged execution, quo're. Decision of Byrne, J., [1900] 2 Ch. ,S32, affirmed. In re Hayks. Tdenbull v. Hayes C. A. [1901] W. N. 176 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 829 36. — Special power of appointTnent — Will — Exercise by earlier will — No exptress clause of revocation — Complete exercise of power — Later will alone admitted to probate. Whether a special power of the appointment has been exercised or not by will must depend, in the absence of any specific reference to the power, or the property subject to the power, upon whether it can be gathered from the terms of the wiU that the donee of the power had the ' power in mind and meant to exercise it. The testatrix (donee of a special power of appointment) made a will by which she duly and in terms exercised such special power of appointment. In a later and holograph will executed by her were these words, "I wish to leave at my death everything I have power to will to my husband " : — Meld, that the testatrix meant to exercise and did exercise the special power by the later will, and that that will revoked the earlier will. In re Weston's Settlement, Neeres v. Weston, [1906] 2 Ch. 620. referred to. Wriolbt «. Lowndes - Gorell Barnes, Pres. [1908] P. 348 37. — Special testamentary power — Release — Mestriotion on exercise in favour of particular object — Inconsistent appointment. The donee of a testamentary power of appointment among children and issue may covenant that he will not exercise the power in such a way as to reduce the share of a particular object below a certain amount, and thereafter the power can only be exercised subject to the limitation or fetter imposed by the negative covenant. Tlie donee may satisfy the covenant either by appointing by will to the covenantee the named sura or by so appointing to other objects as that there shall remain unappointed such a sum as shall result in the covenantee receiving the named sum, but the covenant cannot operate affirmatively as an appointment, since that would be to allow a power exercisable by will only to be exercised liy deed. Darieji v. Bnguenin, (1863) 1 H. & M. 730, overruled on this point. A lady had under her marriage settlement a testamentary power of appointment over a fund among her children and issue, and in default of appointment the fund was to be divided after the death pt the BHrviyor of the husband and wife POWEE OF APVOISTHENT— continued. among her children equally. In exercise of her power of appointment she appointed by her will a sum of 60,000Z. to be divided between her six sons and settled upon them and their children and the residue to be divided into sevenths and settled upon her six sons and her daughter and their children. Subsequently she covenanted with three of her sons not to exercise her testamentary power of appointment in such a way as to reduce their respective shares in the fund below 7000Z. apiece : — Meld, that the fetter imposed by these covenants involved the consequence that each of her seven children should receive 7000Z. absolutely as in default of appointment, and that the appointment operated only over the balance of the fund after deducting 49,000Z. 77i re EvEBBD. Molineux «. Evbebd. C. A. [1910] 2 Oh. 147 — Stamp — Settlement — Exemption. See Ebvenue —Stamps. 29. — Succession duty, Acceleration of — N6w title under appointment. See Revenue— Succession Duty. 1. 38. — Successive appointments — Cumulative or substitutionary — Election — Intention —Life interest — Forfeiture clause — Dispose or attempt to dispose of — Assignment to trustees of marriage settlement. Sir Thomas and Lady Tanored, acting under a power contained in a settlement to appoint in favovu' of children (other than an eldest son), appointed one-seventh of a sum of 7000Z. to each of two of their daughters. At the dates of those appointments there were living seven children besides an eldest son. After the death of Sir T. T., and when there were living only six children (besides an eldest son), of which six the two said daughters were two, Lady T. by two deeds poll appointed the whole fund equally to all her children other than the eldest son in sixths : — Held, that no question of election arose ; that the question depended upon the true construction of the deeds of appointment ; and that the two daughters who had each received one-seventh could not also take one-sixth, inasmuch as it was the intention of Lady T., as shewn by the last appointments, that the whole fund should go in qi -y 4-Viq England v. Lavers, (1866) L. R. 3 Eq. 63, explained and followed. A person entitled to a life interest, deter- minable if he should dispose or attempt to dispose of it, assigned it to the trustees of his marriage settlement upon trusts under which he was to receive the income for life. By the settlement he appointed the trustees his attorneys to receive the income, and gave them power to pay the expenses of managing the trusts : — Held, that this was not a disposition or attempted disposition of his life interest so as to cause it to be forfeited. Observations upon In re Porter, [1892] 3 Ch. 481. In re Tancred's Settlement, Sombb- viLLB )'. Tanored. In re Selby. Chttech v. Tancbed - Buckley J. [1903] 1 Ch. 716 ( 1955 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1956 ) POWER OF APPOINTMENT— co««««erf. — Tenant for life — Power to appoint portions — Disentailing deed — Mortgage of settled estates — Priori ty. See Settlement. 38. — Title — Perpetuity— Independent alternative gifts— Validity of ultimate gift— Settled land. See Vendor and Purchaser — Title. 11. — Trustees. See under Trustee. _ — Trustees, Appointment of new — Donee of power appointing himself — Validity of appointment. See Trustee — Appointment. 4. — Trustees, Power to appoint new — Appoint- ment of corporation jointly with in- dividual. See Trustee — Appointment. 6. — Trustees directed to pay and transfer the property to appointees — Deduction of title. See Vendor and Purchaser — Title. 15. 39. — Will — " Bequest of personal jpropeity desonhed in a general manner" — Exercise of general power of ajrpoiniTneni — Gift of stoclis, shares, aiid securities — Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 27. A married woman, having general powers of appointment under her marriage settlement and her father's wiU (subject to a life interest in her husband) over personal property which at the time of her death consisted of ry. and colonial stocks, made a will by which subject to her husband's life interest she bequeathed to her three sisters " all stocks, shares and securities which I possess or to which I am entitled." The husband survived the testatrix : — ■■ Held, that there was a " bequest of personal property described in a general manner " within the meaning of s. 27 of the Wills Act, 1837, which operated as an appointment of the stocks under the powers. Turnei- v. Turner, (1852) 21 L. J. (Gh.) 843, followed. In re Jacob. Mortimer v. Mor- timer - - Parker J. [1907] W. If . 40 ; [1907] 1 Oh. 448 — Will — Foreign donee of power — Exercise of power — Power exercised in accordance with English but not with foreign law. See No. 16 aiove. POWEE OF ATTOENEY— Agent— Borrowing- Excess of authority — Money had and received. See Principal and Agent. 4. — Agent — Scope of authority — Power to sell pro- perty belonging to principal — Mortgage. See Principal and Asent. 8. — Attorney innocently acting under forged power — Liability of agent — Third party — Indemnity. jSseiPBiNOiPAL AifD Agent. 3. POWEE OF ATTOENEY— ofl«««Meowei' of making Bides of Court under these Acts is vested. Rules of the Supreme Court (.May'), 1909, dated May 3, 1909, and came into operation 07i June 1, 1909. Reprintfrom W. N. 1909 (May 15), p. 183. See CtTBEBNT Indei, 1909, p. cliii. Rules of Supreme Court — Procedure on applioations for confirmation by the Cowrt of the reduction of the capital of companies wnd^er the Com2>anies (Consolidation) Act, 1908 (8 Edio. 7, c. 69). Reprint from "W. N. 1909 (May 15), p. 183. See CuEEBNT Index, 1909, p. cliv. Supreme Court- Fees — Order as to Supreme Court (June), 1909. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (July 10), p. 269. See Curbent Index, 1909, p. cliii. Rules of Supreme Court (August), 1909, dated Aug. 2.5, 1909, and came into operation on Oct. 12, 1909. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (Sept. 4), p. 307. See CtTRKENT Index, 1909, p. olix. Rules of Supreme Court (October), 1909, dated Oct. 21, 1909. I'hese mles were declared urgent. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (Cot. 30), p. 373. See Cueeent Index, 1909, p. clx. Supl-eme Court of Judicature Act, 1910 (10 Edw. 7 <|" 1 Qeo. 5, c. 12), is an Act to protide for the appointment of two additional judges of the High Court. Supreme Court Order. Order hy the Lord Chancellor, dated Aug. 2, 1910, applying Order XI., r. 8, of the Rules of the Supreme Court to the three countries of France, Spain, and Belgium. Reprint from W. N. 1910(Auif. 20), p. 270. See Cubeent Index, 1910, p. oxxi. Rules of the Supreme Court (July), 1910i dated Sept. 15, 1910. Reprintfrom W. N. 1910 (Sept. 24), p. 293. See Cubeent Index, 1910, p. cxxii. Aotion-^Secunder ACTION. A2)2Jearance. See under Appeaeance Chambers, col. 1961. Correspondence. See under Coeeb- SPONDENCB. Counter-claim, col. 1961. Court Business, col. 1961. Court of Appeal, col. 1962. Discharging Orders, col. 1962. JDiscovitinuance, col. 1963. Discovery. See under Discovert. District Registries, col. 1964. Dicisi-onal Courts, col. 1964. Form of Request, col. 1965. Formd Pauperis, col. 1965. PRACTICE— «(?«ii«K««;. Fricolous, Sic, Action, col. 1966. Hearing, col. 1966. Infants, col. 1966. Interest. See under Intbeest. Interlocutory Orders, col. 1967. Joinder, col. 1967. Judgment (Leave to Sign), col. 1969. Judicial Separation, col. 1970. Jury, col. 1970. Masters, col. 1970. Motions, col. 1971. Office Copies, col. 1972. Originating Summons, col. 1973. Particulars, col. 1974. Parties, col. 1974. Pauper, col. 1978. Payment, <|'c. (Payment into and out of Court) — Payment into Court, coZ. 1978. Payment out of Court, col. 1980. Petition. See under Petition. Pleadings, col. 1986. Privy Council Ap2)eals. See under Peivy Council. Production and Inspection of Docu- ments. See under Discovert. Receieer. See under Receiver. Reply, col. 1989. Representative Action, col. 1989. Rescind, Motion to, col. 1990. Review, col. 1990. Right to begin, col. 1991. Seffuestration. See under SEQUESTRA TION. Service, col. 1991. Setting aside. See under Setting Aside. Settled Land. See under Settled Land. Short Cause, col. 2001. Standing Over, col. 2003. Statement of Claim, col. 2003. Staying Proceedings, col. 2005. Striking out, col. 2008. Summary Jurisdiction. Sw under SOMMAEY JuBISDICTION. Summons, col. 2010. Summons for Directions, col. 2010. render, coZ. 2011. Third Parties, col. 2012. Title of Action, col. 2013. Truil, col. 2013. Undertakings, col. 2017. ( 1961 ) DIGEST Oi' CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1962 ) tEACTICE— ct)«f Writ, cul. 2021. Action. See under Action. Appearance. See under Appbakance. Chambers. B. S. C, Order LIV., relates to applications and proceedings at Chambers. R. S. C. QTuli/') (1901), Order LIV., r. 49. W. N. 1901 (July 13), p. 235 ; Correction, W. N., (Aug. 3), p. 245. See Cueeent Ikdex, 1901, p. cii. " f Order LIV., r. i V (10), the word ^'sureties" siibstituted for the word " securities." Order LIV., r. 21 added to. See R. S. C. iJvXy), 1905. W. N. 1905 (July 29), pp. 223, 224. See CUEKENT Index, 1905, p. cxxxi. — Appeal from order of judge at — Eailways, Regulation of — "Practice and pro- cedure " — Practice. See Appeaj,. 1. — Appeal from order made in chambere in district registry. See Appeal. 7. — Appeal from chambers — " Practice and pro- cedure " — Originating summons. See Appeal. 2. Correspondence. See under Cokkespokdence. Counter-claim. — Claim dismissed with costs — Counter-claim dismissed with costs — Form of judg- ment. See Costs. 16. — Counter-claim in personam — Action in rem — Foreign plaintiffs — Demurrage. See Shipping — Practice. 9. — Discontinuance of action before appearance — Collision. See Shipping — Practice. 7. — Security for damages — Collision — Action in personam — Foreign plaintiffs. See Shipping — Collision. 52. ■ — Third-party notice — Indemnity oyer against person not party to action. See Phactice— Third Parties. 1. — Trial — Action in Chancery Division — Counter- claim for defamation — Trial by jury. See Peactice — Trial. 1. Court Business. 'J-'be following statement was made on May 1 0, 190o, by Buckley J. with resi.cct to the business of the Court : — I desire to call the attention of the suitors to the fact that any action which is forthwith set PEACTICE (Court Business) — continued. down for trial before me may now be tried very quickly, probably early next week. I shaU be ready to try any such upon the expiration of the notice of trial, or with the consent of the parties even earlier. In default of work of my own I shall shortly offer my services in aid of the K. B. Div., and when I take up that work I shall, accord- ing 1;o my ordinary practice, continue it (except under exceptional circumstances) until I have cleared the list which I take over. From infor- mation which has reached me I have reason to believe that there are Chancery actions, some of them of weight and importance, which are ready or may be made ready for trial, but which have not been set down. In case any such are set down during the present week, I will take care that they shall not be postponed to any work which I take over from the K. B. Div. It is for the suitors to say whether they wHl avail them- selves or not. Peactice Note Buckley J. [1905] W, K. 82 Court of Appeal. See also under Appeal. Business of tlie Court — King's Bench Bicision Appeal Lists. Cozens-Hardy M.R. announced that it was proposed next sittings to make a change in the method of keeping the K. B. Div. lists of final appeals and new trials. Instead of two separate lists, one a final list, and the other the new trial paper, which for- merly were dealt with separately, v\[jth the result that the final list got into arrear while the new trial paper was being proceeded with, and vice versa, there would in future be only one list for both final appeals and new trials, which would be heard and disposed of by the Court in the order in which they were set down. His Lordship also stated that at the begin- ning of next sittings appeals from the K. B. Div. would be taken in both Courts of Appeal. Whether one Court would take the even numbers and the other the odd, he could not tor the present say, but both Courts would endeavour to keep level with each other. The interlocutory lists would be disposed of on days to be mentioned later on as occasion required ; the Chancery interlocutory appeals would 'be taken in Court- II., and the K. B. interlocutory appeals in Court I. Practice Notice, C. A. (Dec. 21, 1908) [1909] W. N. 6 Discharging Orders. — Discharge of judgment by consent — Compen- sation — Employers' liability. See House op Lords. 2. 1. — Ex parte order by Court of Appeal for service out of jurisdiction — Application to dis- charge order — R. S. C, Order XL, r. 1 (g). Application (by summons adjourned from chambers) to discharge an order made ex parte by the C. A. on Mar. 3, 1904, under Order Xl., r. 1 ((/), for service in Scotland on the applicants ae co-defts. in- the action. The preliminary question was raised whether this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application. Kekewich J. refeired to the Tearly Practice, ( 1963 ) DIGEST Oi* CASES, 190l— 19i0. ( i9fii ) PRACTICE (Discharging Orien^—ooniinued. 1904, p. 193 (where the article in the Solicitors' Journal is mentioned), and said that as the case of Honduras Banking Co. v. Compagnie Giiierale, iSi'c., though unreported, had not only been noticed in the Solicifors'' Journal, but had received recognition in books of practice which were in the hands of the members of the pro- fession and constantly used by them, he thought that he ouglit to regard the case as an authority for the proposition contended for, and that, although he might be surprised to find that he had jurisdiction to discharge an order of the C. A., he ought not to concern himself with any considerations for or against the propriety of the- procedure. The Court, therefore, entertained the application : — Held, however, upon the merits that the order of the C. A. had been rightly made, and the application wastherefore refused. BiLPOUR V. Wtlie - Kekewieh J. [1904] W. N. 72 — Registrar, Order of — Motion to discharge. See CoMPAjiY — Winding-up — Prac- tice. 10. DiscontinuaiLce. 1. — Action, Discontinuance of—Notioe^Pro- Cfsding talien in action after receipt of defence — Delivery of amended statement of claim — B,. S. C, 1883, Order XXVI., r. 1. Action by the pits, for an injunction to restrain the defts. from infringing their patents. At the trial the pits, alleged that they had dis- continued the action by a notice of discon- tinuance dated Oct. 1, 1907, and the only question arising for decision was whether that notice was an effectual one. The facts were shortly as follows : On March 13, 1907, the writ in the action was issued. On May 6 a motion was made by the pits, for an interlocutory injunction. By con- sent no order was made, the pits, undertalsing to set down the action for trial seven days after the delivery of the defence. On May 16 the pits, delivered their statement of claim, and on May 30 the defts. delivered their defence and particulars of objection. The particulars of objection (inter alia) raised certain questions as to the pits.' title. On June 24 the pits, amended this statement of claim by adding parties and amending the averments of title, and on July 29 they delivered their amended statement of claim. On Oct. 1 the pits, gave the defts. notice in writing of their intention to wholly discontinue the action. On an ex parte application of the defts., based upon the pits.' undertaking to set down the action for trial as above stated, the case was put into the paper. Warrington J. said that the only question ■was whether the pits, effectually discontinued the action on Oct. 1. On July 29, after the receipt of the defence, the pits., in consequence of certain interlocutory proceedings, delivered an amended statement of claim. That was not a mere formal proceeding on their part, but was done in order to enable them to prosecute successfully the action which without such amendment they could not have done. The delivery of that amended statement of claim was FBACIICE (Discontinuance) —continued. a proceeding other than an interlocutory appli- cation wi;hin Order xxvi., r. 1. The present case was not at alT like Spincer v. Watfs, 23 Q. B. U. 3.'iO, as far as the facts were concerneii, but the dicta of Lindiey L.J. applied. His Lordship in that case, referring to the rule (at p. 353). said: "I think that the exception (i.e., of interlocutory applications) throws some light upon the meaning of the words ' before taking any other proceeding in the action,' and having regard to it and to the object of the rule. I think what is meant is, ' taking any proceeding with thek view of continuing the litigation with the person against whom the proceeding is taken.' " The delivery of the amended siateraent of claim in the present case was. to use the words of Ijindley L.J., "taking a proceeding with the view of continuing the litigation with the person against whom the proceeding was aken." The notice of discontinuance was therefore bad. Action dismissed. Vickbrs, Sons & M. vxim, Ld. V. CovBNTEY Ordnance Works. Ld. Warrington J. [1908] W. N. 13 — Charitable institution — Discontinuance of week-day during testatrix's lifetime. See Ghamtt. 45. — Costs — Public authorities protection. See under Public Authorities Pro- tection. — Debenture-holder's action — Eight of plaintiff to discontinue after judgment. See Company — Debentures. 30. — Discontinuance of action before appearance — Counter-claim — C 'UisioD. See Shipping — Practice. 7. — Patent — Action for infringement — Discon- tinuance — Terms on which allowed. See Patent — Infringement. 6. — Patent — Particulars of objection — Leave to amend — Form of order — Discontinu- ance — Costs. See Patent — Particulars. 2, — Public authorities protection — Solicitor and client costs. See Co.-ts. 50. — Stay proceedings till costs of discontinued action by company paid. Application to — Contributory — Enforcing payment of calls. See Company— Winding-up — Contri- butory. 4. Discovery. See under Discovery. District Begiatries, R. S. C; Order XXXV., relates to proceedings in District Registries. Order XXXV., rule 9 added to. R. S. C. (July'), 1905. W. N. 1905 (July 29), p. 223. See Current Index, 1905, p. cxxxi. Divisional Courts. R. 8. C, Order LIX. (Divisional Coi(Hs), rr. 19, 20, added. Rejjrint from W. N. 1904 ( 1965 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1966 ) PRACTICE (Divisional Courts)— contintied. (Jan. 16j, p. 49. See Cuerent Index, 190i, p. CXX7. , On the sitting of the Div. Ct. (consisting of Lord Alverstone C.J. and Darling and Channell JJ.), the l/Ord Chief Justice made the following statement : — The judges of the King's Bench Division have been considering in what way they can best provide for continuous .sittings for each class of business as far as possible, and also for as little change as it may be possible to arrange in the constitution of the various Courts that are taking a particular class of business. We hope to be able to provide that a Divisional Court of three shall sit throughout the year whenever a Divi sional Court is required, and to maintain the personnel of the Court — that is to say, to secure that as far a.s possible the same judges shall sit fur a cotHiderable time during the sittings, or, if neoess iry, foralon.;er period than the sittings. Whether we shall be able t<< -it as a Court of three judges must depend to a great extent on th» calls that are made on the services of the King's Bench judges tor the performance of other duties, such as Circuits, Nisi Prius. and sn on ; but our great object is to have a Divisional Conrt, composed to a large extent of the same judges, sitting whenever required. We hope by that means to keep the list down, so that there will be substantially no arrears, and we shall be able to dispose of the cases now pending before the Court. It is the opinion of the King's Bench judges that as a result of the Divisional Court sitting as a Court of three judges the judgments will in all probability be such as will lay down the practice on the various points of practice that come before them, and will be a better guide to those who have to raise similar points than the judgments of a Divisional Court composed as hitherto of different judge; and sitting inter- mittently. We are aw re of the difficulties in our way, and if we find that we cann' 't arrange the business as we propose we must fall back on the old system ; but I have made this statement because we wish it known that the King's Bench judges are taking steps in the direction I have indicated with a view of having as little change as possible in the sittings of the various Courts. Peacticb Note - Div. Ct. [1901] W. N. 218 Form of Keqnest. Appendix — CouTity Court — Remitted actions^ R. S. a (July), 1905. W. N. 1905 (July 29), p. 224. See Cubeent Index, 1905, p. cxxxi. Forma Fanperis. — Appeal in formfi, pauperis, Leave to — Order granting leave discharged. See St. Lucia. 1. — Appeal in formS, pauperis — Special leave. See Ceylon. 6. 1. — Plaintiff suing in fornid pauperis— Solicitor, Amgmnent of — ■ Official solicitor — Order AT/., r. 26. Except under very special circumstances the official solicitor ought not to be assigned to assist a pauper litigant under Order XVI., r. 26. MouTMB r. JMlTOHBLL - C. A. [1901] W. N. 33 • [1901] 1 Q. B. 696 PRACTICE —co/iti n tied. Frivolous &c., Action. 1. — Frimlous and vexatinus action — Dig- missal — Caiise of action — Gambling debt — For- hearancR to sue. — Xew consideration. To an action couimenced by a bookmaker by specially indorsed writ for a sum alleged to be due on a stated account, the deft pleaded in his defence that the debts were gambling debs, and this was admitted by the pit. by his answer to interrogatories, but the pit. stated by his answer, as other considerations for the deft.'s indebtedness, the plt.'s forbearance to sue and bis giving time to the deft, at the latter's request. The deft, applied to have the action dismissed as being frivolous and vexatious ; — Held., that the forbearance to sue at the deft.'s request, in view of the possible ai ■prehen- sion of the deft, of the consequences of not paying the gambling debt, which it would be connpetent to the pit., consistently with the pleadings, to allege and prove, might constitute a new and valid consideration for the debt, and thaf the action ought not to be summarilv dismissed. GoODSON e. Grieeson - C. A. [1908] W. N. 55 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 761 2. — Frivolous and vexatious applications — Abuse of procedure — Interlocutory proceedi-ngs — Discretion — Co.^s — Form of order. Form of order for preventing the repetition of frivolous interlocutory applications in an action, Grepe v. Loam, f 1887) .S7 Ch. D. 168, applied. Order of Warrington J., [190.^] W. N. 88, affirmed. Lord Kinnaied r. Field C. A. [1906] W. N. 108 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 306 Hearing. — Patent — Petition for revocation — Hearing in Court. See Patent — Practice. 8. — Right of hearing — Married woman — Person in contempt — Costs. See Divorce — Practice. 8. Infants. See also under Iitpant. 1. — Infant defendant — Jfo defence — Motion, for judgment — Fkideiice by affidavit — R. S. C, Order XIX., r. 13 ; Order XXVIL, r. 11 ; Order XXXVI., r. 6. Action by a widow sigainst four def ts. to set aside a written agreement alleged to have been obtained by them from her by misrepresentation and under pressure. One of the defts. was an infant about nineteen years of age, and a guardian ad litem had been appointed for him. The guardian ad litem and the other defts. appeared to the writ, but put in no defence to the plt.'s statement of claim. The pit. now moved, under Order xxxvi., r. 6, for judgment against all the defts., and as against the infant deft, filed an affidavit verify- ing the allegations in tire statement of claim. Neville J. : I will follow Fitzwater v. Water- house, (1883) 52 L. J. (Ch.) 83 ; Gardner v. Tapling, (1885) 33 W. E. 473 ; otherwise great ( I96f ) blGES'f OF OASES, 1901— I9l0. ( 19^8 ) PRACTICE (Infants)— co«r!i»w^. expense might have to be incarred if, in the case of an infant deft, like the present, the action had to be set down for trial and the claim proved by the oral evidence of witnesses. You may take yoar order. Cheek i\ Cheek Neville J. [1910] W. N. 87 Interest. See under Iktebest. Interlocutory Orders. 1. — Order, wlwtlier firial or iiiterlocu/oi'y — Arbitration — Setting asidf. aiuard — Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 S,- 53 Vict. c. 49), ss. 5, 10, 11— R. S. C, Order Lvm., r. 3. Where, in an arbitration held under a sub- mission to arbitration cent lined in an agreement, the arbitrator made his award in the form of a special case, but a Div. Ct. subsequently made an order setting the award aside on the ground of misconduct on the part of the arbitrator : — Held, that the order so made was an inter- locutory an I not a fii lal order. In re Croasdell AND Cammell, Laiki) & Co. - C. A. [1906] W. N. 170 ; [1906] 3 K. B. 669 Joinder. 1. — Action for recovery of land — Joinder of other causes of action — Application for leave of Court— R. S. C, Order XVIIL, r. 2. A mining lease contained certain covenants by the lessees to work the mine properly and to allow inspection by the lessor of the mines and workings, and also a proviso of re-entry for breach of the covenants. On May i, 1907, the executors of the lessor issued a ' writ against the lessees claiming (1) recovery of possession of the mines ; (2) mesne profits ; (3) an injunction to restrain the defts. from worliing the mines improperly ; (4) an order on the defts. to allow inspection of the mines and workings ; (5) a receiver, and (6) damages ; but on the following day the pits, discontinued the action. On May 6 the pits, applied to the Court for leave to join other causes of action with their cldim to recover possession, the junior counsel for the pits, having certified, in accordance with what was stated to be the usual practice, that this was a proper case for leave to be granted, and upon his certificate leave was obtained. Thereupon this action was commenced for the same relief. Warrington J., [1907] W. N. 231, held that the claim in the writ for possession was incon- sistent with the claim for an injunction, and was not therefore an unequivocal demand for possession by which both parties were bound, and he dismissed the action with costs. In the course of the arguments a question arose as to the proper mode of procedure upon an application under Order xvili., r. 2, for leave to join other causes of action with an action for recovery of land. The C. A. intimated that it was improper in a matter which involved an important exercise of judicial discretion for counsel to certify that in the circumstances of the particular case leave ought to be granted, and for the Master to act PRACTICE (J omAer)— continued. upon that certificate. This discretion ought only to be exercised on proper evidence. [ Ultimately, after many days' argument, the appeal was settled on terms which were not disclosed to the Court.] MoORE r. UllCOATS Mining Co., Ld. Warrington J. [1907] W. N. 231 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 678 ; C. A [1908] W. N. (Erratum 40), 36 A^ote. Moore v. Ullcoats Mining Co., Ld., [1908] 1 Ch. 575 ; C. A. [1908] W. N. 35, 40. See Landlord and Tenant. 72. — Bankruptcy notice — Joinder of judgments in action and counter-claim. See Bankruptcy — Notice. 9. — • Contract to supply goods to company — Assignability- -Joinder of assignor in action. See Contract. 4. — Defendants, Joinder of — Railway and Canal Commission — Undue preference — Through rate. See Raii.,-way — Rates. 7. 2. — Joinder of causes of action — Action of toH — Allegation of joint tort — Alternative allegation of separate torts — Co.^ts — Costs against plaintiff of successful defendant — Addition to costs recover- able from tinmocessful defendant — Order XVI., rr. 4, 7. The pit. was injured by a collision between two vehicles, and brought an action against the respective owners. The statement of claim alleged that the injury to the pit. was caused by the joint negligence of the two defts. , and it also alleged in the alternative negligence on the part of eacli deft, causing the injury. No application was made to strike out either of the defts., and the case went to trial. The jm'y found negligence on the part of the deft, first named on the record, and negatived negligence on the part of the other deft. 5'he judge entered judgment for the pit. against the first-named deft, and judgment for the successful deft., with costs in each case. The judge fm'ther ordered that the costs so payable by the pit. should be included in the costs recoverable from the first-named deft. On Held, that after verdict and judgment it was too late to object to the jurisdiction to try the action on the ground that torts were alleged severally against the two defts. Held, also, that in an action of tort tried with a jury, in which relief is claimed against two or more defts. in the alternative, there is jurisdic- tion to direct that costs payable to a successful deft, should be included in the costs recoverable by the pit. from an unsuccessful deft. Per curiam : After the alteration of r. 1 of Order xvi.. following on the decision in Sinur- thwaite V. HanTiay, [1894] A. C. 494, the joinder, in an action of tort, of defts. against whom the right to any relief, in respect of or "arising out of the same transaction, is claimed, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, is authorized by r. 4 of the Order. Sanderson v. Bhjth 'Hieaire Co., [lOOSl 2 K. B. 533, applied. ( 1969 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1970 ) PRACTICE (Join&eT)—oo>di7med. Sadler V. Great Western By. Co., [1896] A. 0. 450, distinguished. BuLLOOK v. London General Omnibus Co. C. A. [1906] W. N. 224 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 264 3. — Joinder of causes of action — Leave of Court or judge — Leave given after issue of wi'it — iVairer of ohjection hy defendant — Stiles of Supreme Court, Order XVIII.. r. 2 ; Order LXX., rr. 1, 2. Leave to join another cause of action with an action for the recovery of land may be given by the Court or a judge after issue of the writ in which the causes of action have been improperly joined. Such a joinder is an irregularity only, and an objection to the writ on that gi'ound is capable of being waived by the defendants. In re FilcheT-, Pilcher v. IJmds, (1879) 11 Ch. D. 905, and Smurthwaite v. Hannay, [1894] A. C. '194, considered. Lloyd v. Great Western Dairies Co. - C. A. [1907] 2K. B. 727 — Parties to action — Joinder of defendants — Joinder of different causes of action. See Pbactick— Parties. 3. — Pauper — " Not worth 25?." — Married woman plaintiff — Joinder of husband. See Husband and Wife — Poor Law. 1. ■ — Payment of lump sum into Court — Joinder of several causes of action. See Practice — Payment, &o. 1. — Plaintiff's right to sue without Attorney- General —Water company — Trespass — Ultra vires. See Water. — Separate causes of action, combining in one action. See Patent — Practice. 9. — Several causes of action — Payment of lump sum into Coui't. See Practice — Payment, &o. 1. Judgment, (leave to Sign.) 1. — Action "for debt or liquidated demand in money" — Claim for instalment of contract price of ship — R. S. C, Order xir., r. 1 ; Order III., r. 6. The operation of Order III., r. 6 (A), and Order XIV., r. 1, is not coniined to cases in which the old action of debt would have been maintainable. By a contract between the pits, and the defts. for the construction of a steamer by the former the price of the steamer was to be 89,800?., to be paid by the defts. by five instalments, which were respectively to become due at different stages of the construction of the vessel. By the terms of the contract the hull and materials of the vessel were, upon payment of the first in- stalment, to become the absolute properly of the purchasers, subject only to the builders' lien for any unpaid pui-chase-mouey ; and, in the event of any instalment of the purchase-money remaining unpaid for fourteen days after the same was due, the builders were to be entitled to interest .thereon at 51. per cent, per annum PRACTICE (Jnigment')— continued. until payment, and, in the event of such default, they were to be at liberty to suspend the work, and the time of suspension was to be added to the contract time, or they might complete the vessel at any time after the expiry of fom'teeu days' notice given to the purchasers, and might sell her after completion, and any loss on such vessel was t-o fall upon the purchasers, and any balance of the proceeds of such sale which might remain, after satisfying all lawful claims of the builders, was to be paid by the builders to the purchasers. The first instalment of the purchase-money having by the terms of the contract become due, and remaining unpaid, the pits, brought an action for the same, and applied for leave to sign judg- ment for the amount so claimed under Order xiv., r. 1 :— Ifeld, that the case came mthin the provisions of Order xiv., r. 1, and therefore the leave so applied for might be gi-anted. Workman, Clark & Co. v. Llotd Beazileno C. A. [1908] W. N. 73 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 968 — Motion for judgment. See under Peactiob— MotionB. Judicial Separation. — Permanent alimony— Order of Probate and Divorce Division — Arrears — Action to recover — Husband and wife. See Divorce — Judicial Separation. 1. Jury. See also under Jury. — " Court of summary jm-isdiction " — Eeview of jury lists — Power to state a case. See Justices. 5. — " Crimping" — Right of accused to be tried by a jury. See Shipping — Crimping. 2. — Notice of intention to summon jury — Offer by promoters — Time for acceptance. See Lands Clauses Acts. .33. — Question whether for judge or jui-y — Cove- nant — Ecasonableness of restriction. See Restraint op Trade. 5. — Ti'ial — Action in Chancery Division — Counter- claim for defamation — Trial by jury. See Practice — Trial. 1. — Trial, Mode of — Jury — Discretion of Com-t — Act on petition. See Divorce — Practice. 1. • Withdrawal of case criticism. See Defamation- from — Libel — Honest -Libel. 5. Masters. Ifasters of the Supreme Court. R. 8. C, July, 1903. W. N. 1903 (July 25), p. 217. See Current Index, 1903, pp. Ixxvi., Ixxviii. — Appeal from decision of Master. See Appeal. 20. ( 1971 ) blGEST OV CASES, 1901—1910. ( im ) PEACTICE (illa,ateis)~coidimted. — Authority to Masters to take opinion of counsel. See Pkaoticb — Originating Sum- mons. 2. — Reference of action to Master — Appeal. See Appeal. 23. notions. 1. — Abandoned motion — jRU/ht to save motion. Where counsel has been duly instructed to move on the motion day mentioned in the notice of moiion, he is entitled on the motion day to save the motion by mentioning it to the Court at any time before the Court has risen for the day, and notwithstanding the fact that the Court has finished the hearing of motions. See Smith's Chancery Tractice, 7th ed. (1862), p. 248, note (2). Somhle, the statement of the effect of Re Compton-Sinith, (1857) 23 Beav. 284, in Daniell's Chancery Practice, 6th ed. (1884 ),vol. ii., p. 1559, and in Annual Practice, 1901, p. 947, is not accurate. Yapp v. Williams. Byrne J. [1901] W. N. 91 — Attachment — Breach of injunction — Motion — Conflicting afBdavits. See Attachment. 2. — Attachment, Motion for — Exhibits to affi- davit. See Attachment. 12. S. — Injunction — Transfer of stock — Restrain- ing order under the Court of Chancery Act, 1841 (5 Vict. c. 5), s. 4 — Title of mtice of motion. Ex parte application by an executor for an injunction to restrain the Bank of England, until the hearing of an originating summons which had been issued, from transferring or paying dividends on a fund standing in their books in the names of the testatrix and her niece : — Held, that the notice of motion was not . properly intituled : it ought also to be intituled in the matter of the trusts of the will ; and gi'anted an injunction till Feb. 28, i.e., over the next regular motion day but one. In re Couet OF Chanceey Act, 1841, and Pike. Byrne, J. [1902] W. If. 42 — Judgment, Motion for — Minutes — Debenture- holder's action. See Company — Debentures. 22. — Motion by defendant before pleading — Man- datory interlocutory injunction against plaintiff — Order to deliver up possession of a house — Practice. See Injunction. 2. 3. — Motion for judgment — Appearance, Moti-on for judgment in default of — I/ijunctum — Jurisdiction of High Court of Justice — Evidence. The claim indorsed on the writ was for " damages for libel contained in certain postcards published by the defendant and bearing certain post-mark dates and addresses. . . . And the pits, claim an injunction to restrain the deft, from writing and publishing libellous matter of and concerning the pits.' The pits, had filed a " statement " of claim PRACTICE QUotiomy-ooHtinued. under Order xix., r. 10, and moved that judgment be entered for them with costs, for an injunction to restrain the deft., her servants and agents, from writing and publishing of and concerning the pits, or any of them any libellous, blasphemous, or defamatory matter, for an interlocutory judgment for damages, and for an order for a writ of inquiry as to damages. Dymond v. a-oft, (1876) 3 Ch. D. 512, and Totmig V. Thomas, [1892] 2 Ch. 134, cited. Hamilton J. The pits, electing not to claim damages, there will be an injunction as prayed. Dykes -v. Thomson. - - Hamilton J. [1909] 1 W. N. 104 4. — Motion for judgment in default of defence — Specially indorsed writ — R. S. C,, Order XX., r.l; Order xxrn.,r. 11 ; Order XXX. The pit. in this action by a specially indorsed writ claimed — (1) repayment of 5000?. money lent by him to the deft., together with 145Z. interest thereon ; (2) in the alternative, an order that the deft, complete the security upon which the loan was made with certain incidental relief. The deft, duly entered an appearance, and required a statement of claim. On the summons for directions, which was heard on Mar. 15, the Master ordered that no further statement of claim be required, and that the deft, should deliver his defence within ten days. On Mar. 27 a fm'ther order was made by the Master that the deft, should deliver his defence within ten days peremptory. No defence was delivered, and on April 17 the pit. served notice of motion for judgment for bliol. and costs in default of defence : — Held, that the Master had dispensed with the statement of claim for the purpose of enabling the deft, to plead, and not for the purpose of enabling the pit. to move for judgment in default of defence. The Court, however, gave the pit. leave to amend his writ by striking out the claim for alternative relief and to re-serve the notice of motion. Milbank v. Feancis Byrne J. [1901] W. N. 91 5, — Practice Note. Buckley J. called attention to a printing error in the list of business for the remainder of the sittings. It was there stated that he would take motions on Mar. 25, and also on Mar. 27 motions by order. Both of these statements were mistaken. He was not going to take motions on Mar. 25, and he was not going to take them on the 27th by order, but in the usual way. The remaining motion days of these sittings were Mar. 20 and 27 and April 3, and on Tuesday, April 7, he would take any urgent motions which might require to be disposed of. - Buckley J. [1903] W. N. 68 — Short cause — Motion for judgment — Consent. See Practice — Summons for Direc- tions. 2. Office Copies, — Copies. See under Copies. — Duty to produce — Answer to interrogatories. See DISCOVEBY. 7 ( 1973 ) blGESf OF CASES, l90l— 1910. ( I9n ) PRACTICE ^coidiiiuerl . Originating Snmmons. — Administration — Costs out of estate — Costs "as between solicitor and client." See PowEK OF Appointment. 27. — Appeal from chambers — Final or inter- locutory order — " Practice and pro- cedure." See Appeal. 1. ■ — Articles of association — Questions affecting class of shareholders. See Company — Practice. 5. 1. — Construction — Question of fact — Juris- diction — B: S. C, Order LIV.A, rr. 1, i. By a deed of 1897 an executor handed over securities to a legatee upon terms which included a guarantee by the executor that until Dec. 31, 1903, the securities should be of a certain value. The legatee mortgaged his interest in the estate by a deed which did not mention the guarantee. The mortgagees, by a deed which recited (inter alia) the guarantee, sold the mortgaged property to L. He brought an action in the K. B. Div. against the executor claiming the alleged difEer- ence between the guaranteed value of the securities and the amount realized. This action was by agreement dropped and another action brought in the Ch. Div. The mortgagees then executed a deed conveying by way of confirma- tion to L. all the piemises comprised in the mortgage. L. discontinued his action, and took out an originating summons asking for a declara- tion that according to the true coustruction of the deeds the benefit of the guarantee had been assigned to and vested in him, and for an account : — ITeld, that inasmuch as questions both of fact and of construction were involved, and a decision of the questions of construction would not, in whichever way they were decided, necessarily put an end to the litigation, an originating summons under Order Liv.A was not the proper mode of procedure. Lewis r. Gkebn Warrington, J. [1905] W. N. 121 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 340 — Costs of taking and vouching account — Trustee — Neglect to account. See Trustee — Accounts. 2. — Mortgage — Refusal of Court to determine point on originating motion to extend time. See Company— Mortgages. 3. — Trustee, Improper investment by — Common account — Procedure. &e Trustee — Practice. 4. 2. — Sufficiency of-irroceedinffs — Authority to Masters to take opinion of counsel. Kekewich J., in dealing with a case on adjourned summons (which does not call for special notice), said that he greatly regretted to find that many summonses, from defect of parties, insufficiency of evidence, or from other causes, were not ready for hearing, and had to stand over, with the result that costs were incurred which ought not to have been incurred. He had consulted with the IWasters, and had. given them authority to require the opinion of PRACTICE (Originating Summous) — continued. counsel to be taken, where necessary. Cases were often sent up from the country and, without counsel seeing the papers, went before the Masters and were adjourned into Court. The authority thus given ought, of course, not to be used in an excessive degree, or where there was nothing to prevent the Master from deciding for himself as to the sufiSciency of the proceed- ings. But in difficult cases tlie opinion of counsel should be taken, and the Master should make a note for the taxing officer with a view to the allowance of the fee. Practice Note Kekewich J. [1903] W. N. 72 3. — T?'ust instrument — Declared trust void for illegality — Besulting truxt — Apjjlicntion to enforce — ]Vb question of construction — B. S. C, Order LIV.A, rr. 1, i ; Order LV., r. 3. Where the trust declared by an instrument is void for illegality, the settlor claiming by way of resulting trust is not a " cestui que trust under the trust of" that instrument and cannot therefore enforce the resulting trust by an origi- nating summons under Order LV., r. 3. Sernble. If no question of construction arises under the instrument, the Court, even if it has jurisdiction, will not give partial relief by making " a declaration of the rights of the persons interested " under the discretionary Order LIV.A, rr. 1, i, but will leave the whole matter to be dealt with in an action to enforce the resulting trust. Ill re Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (Parliamentary Fund Trusts). Addison v. Pilchee Swinfen Eady J. [1910] W. N. 210 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 647 — Trustee — Beneficiai'y — Same counsel. See Trustee — Practice. 2. Particulars. See also under Discovery. — Claim to ownership of bed of sti'eam — Deduc- tion of title — Statement of claim — Embarrassing. See Practice— Pleadings. 2. — Libel — Practice — Pleading — Defence of fair comment — Particulars. See Defamation — Libel. 13. — Patent. See under Patent — Particulars. Parties. See also under Parties. — Absent parties, Power to bind — Extent of jm'isdiction. See Compromise. 2. 1. — Addiiiji defendant — .Toint and several liability of trustees — Action against one trustee only — Application to join co-trv.'^tee for purpose if (wntribntion—R. S. C, 1SS3, Order XVI., r. 11. G. and C. were the trustees of a settlement. G. died, and X., his legal personal representa- tive, lived in Ireland. M. , the cestui que trust, brought an action against G., alleging a breach of trust by him and C, and claiming payment by G. of the amount lost by the breach. A third- party notice, by which G. claimed contribution ( 1975 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1976 ) PRACTICE (raitiea^—cmdin-ued. from the estate of C, and the order giving leave to serve it on X. in Ireland, were set aside by the G.A. without prejudice to an application by G., under Order xvi., r. 11, to add X. as a deft, to the action. McCheane v. Oylea, [1902] 1 Ch. 287. On the application to add X. being made, it was opposed by the pit. : — Held,, that X. ought not to be added as a deft, against the plt.'s wish. Dial V. Great Western Ry. Co. (1886) 34 W. R. 712, and Montgomery v. Foi/, Morgan ^ Co., [1895] 2 Q. B. 321, distinguished. MoCheanb v. Gyles (No. 2) Buckley J. 1902 1 Ch. 911 ; [1902] W. N. 67 2. — Adding or substituting plaintiff — R. S. a, Order XVI.,' rr. 2, 11. Where an action has through a bona fide mistake been commenced in the name of the wrong person as pit., the fact that the original pit. has no cause of action does not take away the jurisdiction of the Court to order the sub- stitution of another person as pit. Hughes v. Pump House Hotel Co. (No. 2") C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 485 See also Assignment. 6. — Administration — Contingent liabilities — Eetention of assets. See Administeation. i. — Admiralty — Practice — ^Action in rem — Writ — " Co-partners " — " Owners " — Misde- scription of plaintiff. See under Shipping — Practice. — Bankruptcy — Third parties. See under Bankruptcy — Third Parties. ■ Contingent future liabilities- See Administeation. -Distribution. i. — Contract — Special goods — Fixed prices — Pro- scribed customers. See CONTEACT. 5. — Corporation — Injunction — ^Attorney-General, Suing by. See Gas. 2. — Indemnity — Action quia timet — Present debt — No demand by bank for payment. See Peincipal and Surety. 2. — Joinder of Attorney-General. See under Attoeney-Geneeal. 3. — Joinder of defendants — Parties to action — Practice — Relief claimed agaiTist sereral defendants in the alternative — Joinder of different causes nf action— R. S.C, Order XVI., rr. i, 7. The power to join several defts. in the same action for the purpose of claiming relief against them severally or in the alternative under Order xvi., r. 4, is not confined to cases in which the causes of action alleged as against the several defts. are exactly identical, but extends to cases where the subject-matter of complaint as against the several defts. is substantially the same, although the causes of action as* against them respectively are, technically, different in form, and the several liabilities alleged against PRACTICE (Va,vtiea)—oonti?iued. them respectively are to some extent based on different grounds. By a contract between H. Brothers & Co., who were the owners of a line of steamers, and the pits., who were exporters of fi'ozen meat, carrying on business at Buenos Ayres, H. Brothers & Co. agreed to carry from the Argentine to Europe frozen meat to be shipped from time to time by the pits, on certain named steamers belonging to H. Brothers & Co. or on other suitable steamers in addition to or substitution for the named steamers. It was subsequently agreed that frozen meat should be shipped by the pits, on an additional steamer, procured by H. Brothers & Co., which was called the Devon and belonged to -another co., for carriage from Bahia Blanca to England on the terms of the first-mentioned contract. This meat was accordingly shipped, and the master of the Devon signed bills of lading in respect of it. In an action brought by the pits, in respect of damage to this meat alleged to have been caused by the unseaworthiness of the Devon, the pits, joined as defts. H. Brothers & Co. and the owners of the Devon, claiming against the former on the terms of the before-mentioned contract and against the latter upon the bill of lading : — Seld, that the defts. were rightly joined. Smurthwaite v. Hannay, [1894] A. G. 494, and Sadler v. Great Western Ry. Co., [1896] a; C. 450, discussed. Franltenhurg v. Great Horseless Carriage Co., [1900] 1 Q. B. 504, and Bulloch v. London General Omnibus Co., [1907] 1 K. B. 264, followed. COMPANIA Sansinena de Caenes Congeladas v. Houldee Beothees & Co. C. A. [1910] W. N, 150 ; [1910] 2 E. B. 354 — Land Transfer Act — Appeal from registrar — " Applicant " — Locus standi. See LAND Teanspee. — Lunatic, Action by — Parties — Committee of estate. See Lunacy. 2. — Municipal corporation — Illegal borrowing — Overdraft at bankers. See COEPOEATION. 4. — " Necessaiy or proper party " — ■ Writ — Foreign co-defendant — Service out of jurisdiction. See Shipping — Practice. 12. — Parties — Trade name — Passing-off action- Injunction. See Trade Name. 2. — Patent action — Infringement — Title to patent at date of writ — Equitable assignee- Legal owner not a party — Amendment See Patent — Practice. 5. — Pleading — Lost grant — Date and parties. See Peacticb — Pleadings. 3. — Power of Court to bind absent parties — Extent of jurisdiction. See Compromise. 2. ( 19" ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1978 ) PRACTICE (Parties) — eoTititmed. — Eepresentation of unborn children — Trustee — Settlement. See Maeeiagb. 4. 4. — Representatire actum — Action on lehalf of a class of the jmblio — Joinder of plaint! fi — Joinder of several causes of action — R. S. C, Order XVI., rr. 1, 9. Order xvi., r. 9, which provides for persons suing or being sued as representing a class, is not confined to persons who have or claim some beneficial proprietary right which they are asserting or defending. To justify a person suing in a representative character, it is enough that he has a common interest with those whom he claims to represent. Several pits, sued on behalf of themselves and all others the growers of fruit, flowers, vege- tables, roots and herbs, within the meaning of the Covent Garden Market Act, 1828, to enforce various preferential rights to stands in the markets, which they alleged to have been given to the class of growers by the Act. The deft, was the lord of the market : — Held, that without prejudging the construc- tion of the Act the pits, had an interest in common, and that the deft, was not entitled to have the action stayed either on the ground that the pits, had no beneficial proprietaiy right, or that the joinder of pits, claiming separate and different rights under the Act, both personally and as representing a class, would embarrass or delay the trial. Decision of C. A., [1899] 1 Ch. 494, affirmed by Lords Macnaghten, Morris and Eillanin, and Shand, the Earl of Halsbury L.C. and Lord Brampton dissenting. 'Temperton v. Russell, [1893] 1 Q. B. 435, reflected on. Quare, whether it was necessary to join the Att.-Gen. as a deft. Duke oy Bedfoed v. Ellis H. I. (E.) [1901] A. C. 1 — Kestricted power of liquidators of bank to sue in their own names. See Canada — Company. 3. 5. — Settlement — Trustee — Administration — Rejjreseiitation of trust estate. An action for breach of trust was brought by a beneficiary under a settlement against, as sole defts., the executors of one of the two trustees, but not the surviving trustee, of the settlement. The surviving trustee was also dead, and no new trustees of the settlement had been appointed, although the person in whom the power to appoint was vested was prepared to exercise it :— Held, that the representatives of the sur- viving trustee must be added as defts., or that new trustees of the settlement must be appointed and added as defts. 2n re Jordan. Haywaed V. Hamilton - Byrne J. [1904] W. N. 7 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 260 — Third parties. See under Practice — Third Parties. 6. — Title to sve — Contract entered into on lehalf of a Foreign Staf-e. There is no such rule as that the monarch or other titular head of a foreign sovereign State is PRACTICE (Parties) — continued. the only person who can sue here in respect of the public property or interest of that State. The Spanish Minister of Marine in Madrid and two other persons brought an action in the Ct. of Sess. against the respondents for damages for failure to deliver warships within the time stipulated by contract. The parties to the con- tract were described as "The chief of the Spanish Royal Navy Commission," and " the Commissary of the Commission (mentioning their names) both in the name and representation of his Excellency the Spanish Minister of Marine in Madrid, here- inafter called the Spanish Government on the one part, ' ' and the respondents (a shipbuilding CO. in Scotland) on the other part : — Held, reversing the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1901) 4 F. 319, that the Spanish Minister of Marine for the time being was entitled to maintain the action though he was not Minister of Marine at the date of the contract. Don Josb Kamos Tzquieedo y Castaneda r. Clydebank Engineeeing and Shipbuilding Co. - - H. I. (So.) [1902] W. S. 152 ; [1902] A. C. 624 — Trustees — Eepresentation — Future rights — Unascertained persons. See Fines and Eecoveries. 2. Pauper. — " Not worth 25Z." — Married woman plaintiff — Restraint on anticipation. See Husband akd Wife — Poor law. 1. Payment, &c. (Payment into and out of Court.) Payment into Court, col. 1978. Payment out of Court, col. 1980. Payment into Coiirt. — Charity land — Compulsory sale — Interim investment — Costs. See Lands Clauses Acts. 1. — Costs. See under Costs. — Costs — County Court, Judgment for defendant in. See County Couet — Costs. 4. — Indemnity — Costs — Life policy. See Insueance (Life). 14. 1. — Joinder of several causes of action- Payment of lump sum into CouH — R. S. C, Order XVI., r. 1 ; Order XXII., ■/-. 2. Order xxii., r. 2, of the R. 3. C. provides that payment into Court shall be signified in the defence, and that the claim or cause of action in satisfaction of which the payment is made shall be specified therein. In an action constituted under Order xvi., r. 1, brought by a number of pits, sevei'ally claiming relief in respect of the same transac- tion, the defts. paid a lump sum into Court, saying in their defence that the amount paid into Court was sufficient to satisfy the pits.' claims, but without further specifying the claims or causes of action in satisfaction of which the payment was made ; — ( 1979 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1980 ) PEACTICE (Payment into Covaf)— continued. PEACTICE— corfi?we(?. Seld, that the payment into Court was a good payment, and that if the pits, were embarrassed by it their proper course was to apply by sum- mons for particulars nf the payment. Benning V. ILFOBD Gas Co. Div. Ct. [1907] W. N. 106 ; [IdOff] 2 K. B. 290 — Libel — Pleading — Denial of liability. See Husband and Wife— Practice. 4. — Life insurance company — No sufficient dis- charge otherwise obtainable. See INSUEANCE (Life). 9. — Payment into Court— Scheme for adminis- • tration of charity — Coats of application for scheme — Lands Clauses Acts. See Charity. 12. — Payment into Court — Shipping — Salvage — Payment into Court with denial of liability — EecoTery of less than amount paid in. See Shippikq— Salvage. 20. — Payment into Court — Vested legacies — Interest until judgment — Infants. See Will— Legacy. 3. — Payment into Court of lump sum with denial of liability as to part of claim and with admission of liability as to part — Costs. See Costs. 47. 2. — Payment into Court without denial of liability — Action of libel — Death of plaintiff — Abatement of action — Jurisdiction as to dis- posal of nwney in Court — Payment to executor of plaimtiff. In an action of libel the deft, pleaded an apology and payment of money into Court. The pit. did not take the money out of Court ; and he died before the action came on for trial. An order was made by a judge at chambers that the money should be paid out to the executor of the pit. On appeal : — Seld, that the judge had power in his discre- tion to make the order. Brown v. Feeney. [1906] 1 K. B. 563, applied. Maxwell ». Viscount Wolselbt C. A. [1906] W. N. 225 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 274 3. — Payment into Court without denial of liability — Action of libel— Seath of defendant — Abatement of action — Application by defen- dant's executors for payment out of money — R. S. C, Order XXIL, rr. 1, 5. In an action of libel the deft, paid money into Court in satisfaction of the claim, without denying liability. The pit. did not take the money out of Court, and proceeded with the action. The action being yet untried, the deft, died, and the action therefore abated. The deft.'s executors thereupon applied for an order that the money in Court should be paid out to them : — Seld, that their application should be refused and the money paid out to the pit. Bbown V. Peenbt - - C. A. [1906] W. N. 66 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 563 Ifote. This case was applied by C. A., Maxwell v. yUcount WoUeley, [1907] 1 K. B. 274. See preceding Case. Payment out of Court. 1. — A,flidavtt of no incumbrances not re- quired — Practice — Petition — Payment out of personalty— B. S. C, 1883, Order XXIL, r. 1. Petition for the payment out of certain funds which had been paid into Court in an adminis- tration action, and which represented a trust legacy and residuary estate. The respondents were reversioners entitled under the trusts of the will which were being administered. The question arose whether an affidavit of no incum- brances ought to be made by the reversioners in respect of the personal estate. His Lordship desired that the matter should be mentioned again upon this point, so that the practice might be ascertained and settled once for all. Kekewich J. said that he had consulted two of his brother judges and some of the registrars with regard to the practice, and their view was that the rule requiring an affidavit of no incum- brances in the case of realty did not apply to personal estate. Although there might be cases where it would be necessary, he held that in the present case he would not require an affidavit of no incumbrances from any of the rever- sioners. Edwabds v. Geovb - Kekewich J, [1906] W. N. 191 — Brokerage — Proceeds of sale of investments. See Lands Clauses Acts. 31. — Consent of Charity Commissioners. See Chaeity. 14. — Costs. See under Costs. — Costs — Compulsory purchase — Money in Court — Payment out — Failure of part of summons — Order to pay interest-r- Costs of obtaining order — Practice. See Costs. 17. — Costs — Payment out of amount recovered. See Costs. 48. 2. — Duties — Paytnent out of Court. On July 2, 1907, on the petition of the parties interested, a sum of 111,6112. %s. ^d. Consols, standing to the credit of the above action to an account entitled " Account of the Settled Estate Legacy subject to duty," was ordered to be transferred out of Court to the trustees of the will and codicil of J. Bowes, the testator in the ■ action, to be held by them upon certain trusts in the said will and codicil mentioned under which the present Earl of Strathmore was tenant for life with remainders over. Under the Legacy Duty Act, 1796 (36 Geo. 3, c. 52), s. 19, the legacy duty on the settled estate legacy (being a legacy liable to be invested in la,nd and to be enjoyed by persons in succession) had to bo calculated by way of annuity on the various life interests until some person should Ijecome abso- lutely entitled ; and the duty had been assessed on the life interest of the present Earl and was payable by four annual instalments. One of these instalments had been paid, and the remaining three instalments were not yet pay- able. There was no other present claim for legacy duty on the capital of the legacy. ( llK-il 1 lUGKsT OF Oases, uku— iiiio. ( l'.>82 ■) PRACTICE (.Payment out of Court") — voiitiitxed. The registrar, having rog.ud to s. 'J5 of tho T.oCToy Duty Act, 1796, was of opinion thnt it was the duty of the Court to see tb.it all duties jiaj-.ible w'cio proxidoil for, and suggested that not only sliould the tliree reiuaiuiug iustaUiieius of the duty on the life interest of the present Earl be paid, but that a sum should lio retained out of the fund and remain in i.\iurt to provide for the duty on the capital of the Iegac,\- which would beoonie payable upon the death of the invscnt Earl, lie nccotilingly declined to lot the oriler .go, until all duty on the settleil estate legacy was paid or providoil for, without the speciiU direction of the judge. Neville J. : As this is a poiivt of practice, 1 roserveil my decision until I had an opportunity of eonsuUiug my brethren, I understand that all duty presently payable in respect of tlie sum ordere. New 'Warrinpton J, [1907] W. N, 188 7. — Fnnil in Court — Pui/iiunt out — S/iorc.i of midne - Sums iiiidor L'tV. — .Poi/mcnt to roprc' itenfotirt'.^ — I.titt'r,-< (>/ iidinini-c amended by describing the pits, as suing on behalf of themselves and all others the owners of cargo lately laden on board the s.s. Kniqht Commander, not being shippers of goods which are contraband of war, and the indorsements PRACTICE (Representative Action) — continued. amended by asking for a declaration that the defts. were liable to the pits, and to those on whose behalf they sued for breach of contract duty in and about the carriage of goods by sea. Per Fletcher Moulton L.J. : No representa- tive action c^n lie where the sole relief sought is damages. iVlABKT & Co., Ld. i: Knight Steamship Co., Ld. Sale & Feazee c. Knight Steamship Co., Ld. - - C. A. [1910] 2K. B. 1021 Rescind, Kotion to. 1. — Irregularity — Motion to rescind or can'y Master's order. Motion by a pit, asking that an order of the Master staying further proceedings in the action as frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the law, might be rescinded or varied, and the action be allowed to pj'oceed. The plt.'s claim in the action was for a declaration that she was a beneficiary under the trusts of a will of which the defts. Avere trustees, and for an account. The merits of the case do not call for notice. Kekewich J., in refusing the motion, observed that these motions to vary or discbarge an order made by a Master sitting as deputy for the judge and without the matter having been mentioned to the judge in person were wholly irregular, and he was desirous of stopping them. The Master's duty was to adjourn to the judge any matter which the suitor mshed, and no Master ever took upon himself to refuse to adjourn any ijuestion to the judge, though he might himself think the case to be perfectly clear. That was the proper course to take, and then it was for the judge to say whether he would decide it in chambers or adjourn it into court. If an order was made in chambers it was open to anyone to move to discharge the order in corat. He could not sanction the practice of seeking by a motion in com-t to discharge an order not made by the judge in per.son,but bythe Master. It must be understood that any motion of this character to vair or disehai'ge such an order would be refused with costsupon that ground alone, without going into the merits. In the present case the action would be dismissed with costs, including the costs of the application. Haeeington r. Kamage Kekewich J. [1907] "V. N. 137 yote. See In re Lord Toirnshend's Settlement, Swinfen Eady J., [1908] 1 Ch. 201 ; Luiiacij. 2. Review. 1. — Action to review — Order of High Court — Error in law apjiarent on face of order — Jurisdiction of High Court to rerieic. Since the passing of the Judicature .\et, 1873, the High Court has no jurisdiction to review its own order, in an action brought to ^ re- view the order on the ground of error in law, apparent on the face of it, the remedy of the party complaining being by appeal to the C. A. Chaeles Beight & Co. r. Sella e C. A. [1904] 1 K, B. 6 ( 1991 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1992 ) PRACTICE (RBviewy—ooniinued. — Appeal — Workmen's compensation — Refusal to direct review of taxation of costs. See Mastek and Servant — Practice. 2. — Auditor — Certiorari — Right of Court to review surcharge, Sre Local Goveenmbnt. 1. — Martial law — Convictions by Supreme Court — Jurisdiction. See Cape of Good Hope. 8. — Summons to review — Refusal — Solicitor and client — Costs — Taxation — Practice. See Appeal. 17. — Summons to review — No objection carried in — Duty of taxing officer. See Costs. 66. — Weekly payment — Workmen's compensation. See under Master and Servant — Compensation. Bight to begin. — Ship — Collision — Admission by defendants that partly to blame — Bui'den of proof — Right to begin. See Shipping— Collision. .53. Sequestration. See under Sequestration. Service. — Absence of personal service — Evasion of service. See Attachment. 17. — Acceptance of service — Solicitor — Under taking — Proceeding with action— Delay — Attachment. See Practice — Undertakings. 5. 1. — Amended writ — Re-serviee — Personal service — Xim-appearing defendant — Discretion of Court— R. S. C, Order IX., r. 2 ; Order xvi., r. 13; Order XVII., r. 4 ; Order XIX., r. 10; Order XXVIIL, rr. 1, 10 ; Order Lxril., rr. i, 5. There is no hard and fast rule that an amended writ, whatever be tlie nature of the amendment, must be re-served personally on a deft, who has not appeared to the original writ. The Rules of the Supreme Court make no provision for the personal .service of an amended writ, and therefore r. i of Order Lxvil. applies, and an amended writ may be served on a deft, who has not appeared by filing it with the proper oiBcer. Wlien this lia.s been done the Comt has jurisdiction to proceed to try the action as against such a deft. But the Court has a discretion in the matter, and, if it can see that there is any probability of injustice being otherwise done to the absent deft., it wiU require that he be served person.ally with the amended writ — e.g, if the indorsement on the writ has been amended in sucli a way .is sub- stantially to enlarge the relief claimed against him, and to make the writ in effect a new writ : Per Stirling L. J. : On granting leave to amend a writ the judge can, if he thinks it right to do BO, impose the condition that the amended writ PSACTICE (Sevnae,)— continued. sliall be served personally on the deft, who has not appeared to the original writ. An action was brought by a Colonial ry. co. and the then Governor of the Colony, who in the statement of claim was stated to be suing on behalf of the Government, One of the defts. did not appear to the wiit. A change of Governor took place, and, in pursuance of leave given by the Court, the writ was then amended by adding the name of the new Governor as a pit., and the statement of claim was amended by stating that he was suing on behalf of the Government : — Held, that the non-appearing deft, was suffi- ciently served by filing the amended writ in pursuance of r. 4 of Order Lxvii. Decision of SwinfenEady J., [1905] W. N. .58, reversed. The. Cassiopeia, (1879) 4 P. D, 188, Webster v, Myer, (1884) 14 Q. B, D. 231, Gee v. Pell, (1887) 35 Ch. D. 160, In re Hartley, [1891] 2 Ch. 921, and Tdling, Ld. v. Plythe, [1899] 1 Q. B. 557, discussed and explained. Jamaica Ry. Co. r. Colonial Bank - - C. A, [1905] W. N. 68 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 677 Xate. Applied by Swinten Eady J., Morison v. Telfer, [1906] W. N. 31. See lYo. 2, helow. Distinguished by Kekewich J., Southall De- i-elopment Syndicate, Ld. v. Dunsdon, [1907] W. N. IC. See Practice— Writ . 1. — Attachment generally. See under Attachment. — Attaelunent — Scottish judgment — Extension to England — Service on garnishee. See Attachment, i. — Attachment against two executors. Motion for — Service on one. See Contempt of Couet. 3. — Comp.any, Service of summons on limited — Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. jSfee Adulteration. 18. — Award — Practice — Service of notice of motion to set aside award on foreign company out of jurisdiction. See Arbitration — Practice. 3. 2. Default of appearance — No proceeding for a year — Notice of intention to proceed— Personal serrlce—B. S. C, 1883,, Order LXir., r. 13. Motion for judgment against T. in default of appearance. Early in 1903 the pits., who were stockbrokers, brought this action against T. and other defts. for a declaration that" they were jointly and severally liable to pay the pits. 1565Z. the balance due in respect of the buying and selling of certain shares, an order for pay- ment, an account if necessary, and such relief as might be necessary in respect of certain secin-itics deposited with the pits, to secure their account. T. was served with the WTit on Feb. 12, 1903, but went abroad without entering an appearance. His address was nn- known. The statement of claim was delivered to the appearing defts. on June 12, 1903, and subsequently filed against T. The defence of the appearing defts. was delivered on July 7, 1903, and tiie reply was delivered on July 31,' ( 1993 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1994 ) PRACTICE (SeiTice)--continued. } tl03. The action iiroceeded against the appear- ing deff«. until, on Feb. 22, 1905, it was com- promised on tlieir paving 120Z., and all pro- ceedings against them were stayed. The pits, had also received 71/. iu respect of part of the securities in their hands. On Nov. 2-1, 1'.I0.5, the pits., having obtained leave under Order XL. r. 9, moved for judgment against T., but Farwell J. held that as there had been no pro- ceeding for a year against him, a month's notice of intention to proceed must be given under Order L.xiv., r. 13. He aeco]'dingly refused the motion. On Nov. 28, 1905, the pits., being unable to serve T. personally, owing to his disappearance, filed a notice of intention to proceed and move for judgment against him, and on Jan. 23, 1906, they filed a fresh notice of motion for judgment. The motion came on on Feb. 3, and the only question was whether it was sufficient to file the notice of intention to proceed, or whether personal service was necessary. Swinfen Eady J. : I have consulted the Masters, and am informed that the actual office practice is correctly stated at p. 871 of the "Annual Practice," 1906. I think, however, that the recent decision of the C. A. in Jamaica Rij. Co. v. Colonitd Bank, [1905] 1 Ch. 677, covers the point and alters the office practice in this respect, and that where a deft, has been duly served and has not appeared, and there has been no proceeding for a year against him, the filing of a month's notice to jiroceed is a sufficient compliance with order LSIV., r. 13, and a personal service is unnecessary. The pits, being willing to give credit for the 1207. received from the other defts., and the 7\l. received in respect of part of the deposited securities, will have judgment against T. for the Viil. balance, and on satisfaction of this judgment they ^vill deliver up the rest of the deposit securities to him. T. must pay the costs of the action so far as they relate to the claim against him. MORISON v. Telfer Swinfen Eady J. [1906 J 'W. N. 31 — Exhibits, Service of — Motion for attachment — Affidavit in supi)ort. See Attachjient. 12. — Foreign company out of jurisdiction — Service of notice of motion to set aside award. Si-'e Arbiteation — Practice. 3. 8. — Fcireu/n cnrpnratiuu — Foreign company cufri/hif/ on ivxiuesx temporarily in England — Serricc of icrit icitlii/i the jurisdiction — " Stand" —li. S. 'C, Order ix., r. 8 ; Order LXX., r. 3. The defts., a foreign corporation, who were manufacturers of motor-cars abroad, hired a "stand" at the Crystal Palace for the exhibition of articles of their manufacture at a cycle show and exhibited at the show, which lastetl for nine (lays, among other articles, a motor-ear fitted witli tyres, which were alleged by the pits' to be an infringement of their patent. The defts.' " stand " was in charge of a person employed by them as their representative, whose duty it was to explain the working of the articles exhibited, and to take orders for and press the sale of the defts.' goods : — PRACTICE (Seiviee)— continued. Held, that, during the continuance of the show, the defts. were carrying on business so as to be resident at a place within the jurisdiction, and therefore could be served there with a writ in an action Ijy the pits, for infringement of their patent under' Order IX., i-. 8. DUNLOP PNEU- MATIC TiTRH Co. V. ACTIEN-GbSBLLSCHAFT PUR Motor i-nd Motoefahrzbugbau vohm. CroBLL & Co. C. A. [1902] W. N. 8 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 342 4. — Jurisdiction — English contract — Foreign defendant — Assets in foreign country — Seceirer — Service out of the juri.uliction — Wecessarg or l>roper jMrties — li. S. C, 1883, Order XI., '■■ 1 07). Since the Court has the same jurisdiction with regard to any conti'aet made, or equity between, persons in this country, respecting lands or a.ssets in a foreign country, as it has where the lands or property are situate in England, to allow service of the writ out of the jurisdiction in a case within the terms of Order XI., i. 1 (j), is not to extend the jurisdiction, but to enable the old jurisdiction to be exercised in cases where formerly this jurisdiction could not have been exercised by reason of defective rules of pro- cedm'e. In an action against (1.) a Dutch corporation's trustees of a debenture deed, (2.) the receiver, appointed under this deed, resident in England, and (3.) an English company having property and assets in Brazil, to enforce an alleged prior equitable charge, made in England, upon pro- perty and assets in Brazil, and now vested in the first deft. : — Beld, that as the first defts. were necessary and proper parties to the action, within the terms of Order xi., r. 1 (y), and that as the Court had jurisdiction to grant the relief asked, sci'vice of the writ on the first deft, ought to be allowed ; and on the application of the pits, a receiver of the assets in the debenture deed was also appointed. DuDEE r. .\MSTERDAMSCH; Trustees Kantoor Byrne J. [1902] 'W. N. 95 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 132 — Jurisdiction, Service out of — Prohibition — Defendant resident in Scotland. See County Court — Prohihition. 1. 5. — Jurisdiction, Sertice out of — Writ — Liiel in newspaper — Injunction— Judicial dis- cretion— R. S. C, Order XI., r. 1 (/). In an action against a newspaper co. registered in Scotland and carrying on business solely in that country, the pits, claimed damages for alleged libels in a newspaper belonging to the defts., and also an injunction against the repetition of the alleged libels within the jurisdiction. The circulation of the newspaper was practically confined to Scotland, although a few copies Avere sold on the bookstalls at two ry. stations just within the English border. The defts. disclaimed any intention of repeating the alleged libels in their newspaper, but intended to justify them at the trial : — Held that, although by their claim of an in- junction against a repetition of the alleged libels within the jurisdiction, and on the assumption that that claim was made bona fide, the pits. ( 1995 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 1996 ) PRACTICE (aervioe)— continued. had technically brought the case withiu the pro- Tisions of Order XI., r. 1 (/), the Court, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, ought to refuse leave to issue a writ for service out of the juris- diction, there being, under the circumstances, no reasonable probability that the pits, would obtain an injunction at the trial of the action. Watson & Sons v. " Daily Record " (Glas- gow), Ld. - . - C. A. [1907] W. N. 61 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 863 — Mayor's Court — Practice — Notice of appeal — Service on Sunday. See London — Mayor's Court. 2. — Necessaries — Default action in rem — Specially indorsed writ — Affidavit of service. See Shipping — Practice. 10. — Notice of judgment. Form of advertisement in Heu of service of — ■ Unregistered friendly society — Jurisdiction to wind up — Benefit society. See Friendly Societies. 2. — Notice to quit — Registered letter. See Landlord and Tenant. 55. — Notice to treat — Compulsory powers. See Lands Clauses Acts. 26. — Out of jurisdiction — Award, Application to enforce. See Arbitration — Practice, i. — Out of jurisdiction — Ex parte order by the Court of Appeal for service — Applica- tion to discharge order. See Practice — Discharging Orders. 1 — Out of jurisdiction — Foreign defendant. See Shipping — Practice. 12. — Out of jurisdiction. Leave for service — Charging order. See Charging Order. 2. 6. — Out nf jurisdiction — Procedure — Action for ireach of trust — Relief claimed iy defendant — Contribution — Third-party notice — Third party out of jurisdiction — " Aecexxary w prope party" — Service oat of jurisdiction — Service in Ireland — Appli cation for leave — Judicature A ct. 1873 (36 4' 37 Vii-t. t. 66), s. 24, sub-s. H— J?. S. C, 1883, Order XI., rr. I (^), 2 ; Ordei- XVI., rr. 11,48. The third-party procedure, which is the creature of the Judicature Act, 1873, s. 24, sub-s. 3, is governed, as regards service out of the jurisdiction of a third-party notice issued by a cleft, under R. S. C, 1883, Order XVI., r. 48, by Order XI., r. 1 ; so that a deft, can only obtain leave to serve such a no ice on a third party out of the jurisdiction when the subject-matter of his claim falls un er one or other of the specific cases mentioned in Order XI., r. 1, in which service of a writ out of the jurisdiction wiU be allowed. Thus where, in an action by a cestui que trust against the survivor of two trustees for breach of trust, the deft, applied under Order ii . r. 1 (g), for leave to serve the legal personal representative, resident in Ireland, of the deceased trustee, as being a " necessary or proper party " to the action, with a third-party notice issued PRACTICE (Seivioe)— continued. under Order XVI., r. 48, and claiming contribu- tion : — Meld, by the C. A., that Order XI., r. 1 (<'yment — B. S. C, Order XI., r. 1 (e). Where, in an action for the price of goods sold by sellers in England to foreigners resident abroad, it appeared that, though the contract of sale did not expressly state where payment for the goods was to be made, the implicatioD which, under the circumstances, reasonably arose from the contract was that it should be made in England : — Meld, that leave to serve notice of the writ upon the detts. out of the jurisdiction was properly given. Comber v. Leyland, [1898] A. C. 524, dis- cussed. Retinoids v. Coleman, (1887) 36 Ch. D. 433, and Rei.n v. Stein, [1892] 1 Q. B. 753, followed. Charles Ddval & Co. v. Gans C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 685 10. — Out of jiirisdiction — Setting aside — Discretion of Court — Comparatire cost and convenience — R. S. C, Order 1883, XI., rr. 1 (^), 2. Motion to discharge an order giving leave to serve notice of a writ out of the jurisdiction and to set aside the service. The pits, were Spaniards residing in Spain. The defts. were a co. registei'ed in England but carrying on business in Spain, and a Spanish lady residing in Spain, being the administratrix of the Spanish deft. Chavarri, who had died since the issue of the writ. The action related to the title to certain shares in the deft. co. claimed both by the pits, and the administratrix, and depended on ques- tions of fact relating to matters that had happened in Spain, and also on questions of Spanish law. The witnesses were all resident in Spain. An interim injunction restraining the co. from registering any transfer of the shares until trial had been obtained, and leave to serve the administratrix with notice of the writ was given under Order XL., r. 1 (jj), the administratrix being a necessary party to the action against the CO. The administratrix moved to discharge the order. In cases under rule 2 the Court was bound to regard the elements of comparative cost and con- venience though they might be small, but in PEACTICE (Service)— co«^ire««(i. cases under rule 1 its discretion was unfettered in that respect. Other matters might be more important than comparative cost and conveni- ence, and the Court would consider whether the true interests of justice would be best served by trying the question here, or leaving it to the foreign tribunal. In the present case, having regard to the fnct that the parties and witnes-ses resided in Spain, that if the action were tried here their evidence would have to be taken on commission or by the aid of a Spani.sh judicial tribunal, and that the Spanish law would have to be ascertained as a question of fact by the evidence of Spanish experts, whose evidence might be conflicting : — Held, that the Spanish Court was clearly the proper tribunal to deal with the matter. The order would therefore be discharged, and the service set aside. Lopez v. Chavaeei Farwell J. [1901] W. N. 115 — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — Foreign co- defendant — " Necessary or proper party." See Shipping — Practice. 12. 11. — Out of the jurisdiction, Writ for serrice — Breach of contract, ivhelher icithin or out of tlw jurisdiction — Wrongful dimissal — Letter written abroad^R. S. C, Order XI., r. 1 («). The pit. was employed by the deft., a foreigner resident abroad, as the London correspondent of a newspaper, of which the deft, was the pro- prietor. The deft, gave notice of dismissal to the pit. by a letter written and posted abroad to the pit. in this country. In an .iction for wrong- ful dismissal by the pit. against the deft., leave had been given to i.s.sue a writ of which notice was to be served on the deft, out of the juris- diction, and notice of the writ had been accordingly served upon him abroad : — Held, that, the alleged breach of contract having taken place out of the jurisdiction, the case did not fall within Order Al.,r. 1 (e), and therefore the writ and service must be set aside. Holland v. Bennett - C.A. [1902] W.N. 76 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 867 12. — Out of tJie jurisdiction, Serrice — Writ of Kummons — Contract " widch ought to be per- formed within the. jurisdiction" — Breach icithin the jurisdiction — Agent for foreign priitcipal — Employment in England and elsewhere — Implied covenant not to prevent agent acting — Breach in England — Order XI., r. 1 (e). By an agi-eement between the pits., who were insui-ance agents in London, and the defts., a Spanish insurance co., entered into at Tene- riffc, where the latter were domiciled, the defts. agreed to employ the pits, as their exclusive representatives for a period of five years in Eng- land and elsewhere. At the end of one year the defts. sent their agent-general to England, with auihority to revoke the agreement, which he did by notice in writing sent through the Loudon post to the pits, at their place of business. An action for breach of contr.ict was thereupon commenced, and an oi-der for service out of jm'isdiction was obtained. On appeal from the ( 1999 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2000 ) PBACTICE (Berjiee)—eo7dinued. refusal of a judge at chambers to set aside the writ and subsequent proceedings : — ffeld, that there was to be implied from the agreement a contract by the defts. not to do anything to prevent the pits, from acting as their representatives in England during the agreed term ; lliat the action was therefore founded on a breach within the jurisdiction of a conti-aot which, according to the terms thereof, ought to be performed within the jurisdiction, and that the order for service out of the juris- diction was rightly made under Order XI., r. 1 (e). MUTZENBECHEB ('. LA ASESUEADOEA ESPAKOLA - . C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 254 ■ Payment out. See under Peacticb- -Fayment, &o. — Personal service, Absence of — Evasion of service — Writ of attachment — Dis- obedience of order of Com-t. See Attachment. 17. 10. — Petition — Service — Payment out of CouH — Tmstee — Subsisting settlement — Tender of 303. Petition by a widow for payment out of Com-t to her of certain funds which had been paid into Court in an action brought to administer the trusts of the settlement made on her first marriage in 1860. The funds were thereby assigned to trustees upon trust, during the joint lives of herself and lier intended husband, to pay the income to her for her separate use, and after lier husband's death, if she slioukl sm-vive, to pay the income to her for her life, and after the death of the survivor of her ami her husband, upon trust for her children by that or any future marriage as such, sui-vivor sliould appoint, and subject thereto for her children who should attain twenty-one, or, being daughters marry, in equal shares, and if thei'e were no such children, for the petitioner absolutely. There was only one child, a daughter of the said first marriage, and she died an infant and unmarried. The petitioner's first husband died in 1874, and she was married three times after- wards. On her third marriage another settle- ment was imade whereby the funds in Court were settled subject to the subsisting trusts under the first settlement in favour of the petitioner's children upon trusts for her separate use for her life, and afterwards, in default of children, if she should survive her intended husband, upon trust for such persons as she should by deed or will appoint, and in default of appointment for her absolutely. , No settlement was made upon the petitioner's fourth marriage. Her fourth hus- band died in 19U6. The petitioner was now aged 67, and asked for the payment out of the rooney to herself on the ground that, being past child-bearing, she was absolutely entitled. The trustees of the settlement made on the third marriage was duly served. The surviving trustee of the settlement made on the first marriage had been served with the petition, but with a tender of 30s. for costs of perusal and a notice under R. S. C, OrdtT 65, r. 27 (19) that his costs would be objected lo if he appeared. The petitioner had not exercised her power of PRACTICE (Serriee)—contin'ued. appointment under the settlement of her first marriage. Swinfen Eady J. said that as the petitioner had not exercised her power of appointment the first marriage settlement was still subsisting, and that the practice of tendering 30s. for costs was never intended tu apply to the trustee of a subsisting settlement ; the petition must there- fore stand over to be served on the trustee in the usual way. Lowe v. Moore Swinfen Eady J. [1906] W. N. 142 — Probate — Practice. See under Peobatb. — Receiving order — Stay of proceedings — "Creditors" — Service of notice of appeal. See Bankeuptot — Practice. 14. 14. — Scottish Corporation carrying cm Imsi- ness in Englaiid — Sercice of writ of sumnwns — " Statutory provisioTis regulating service of pro- cess "— iJ. S. C, Order XL, t. 8. Order IX., r. 8, provides for the service of writs of summons of corporations " in the absence of any statutory provisions regulating service of process." The writ of summons in an action against the Bank of Scotland, upon a cause of action which apparently arose in Scotland, was served upon the manager of a branch of the deft, bank at the office of that branch in the City of IjOndon in accordance with Order IX., r. 8. The deft, bank was constituted under statutes wliich contained no provision for the service of process upon the bank. The Citation Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1882, relates exclusively to process issued from Courts in Scotland, and contains no pro- vision applicable to the service of process issuing from an English Com't : — Held, that the service effected upon the deft. bank as above mentioned was valid under Order IX., r. 8. LOGAN v. Bank op Scotland C .A. [1904] W. N. 139 ; [1904] 2 K. B, 495 — Scottish judgment — Extension to England — Service on garnishee. See Attachment. 4. ■ Service dispensed with. See under Peactice- -Payment, &c. — Service dispensed with — Petition for variation of man'iage settlement — Bankruptcy. See DivOECE — Settlements. 9. — Special case — Application for service on justices — Summary jm'isdiction. See Special Case. 1. — Substituted service — Divorce practice — Portuguese law — Letters of request refused. See DivoECE — Practice. 29. 15. — Suistituted service — JSfotice of appeal — Jurisdiction. The C. A. has jm'isdiction to make an order for substituted service of a notice of appeal : — see Re parte Warburg, (1883) 24 Ch. D. 364. In the present case, where the present address of one of the respondents to the appeal of the London County Council was unknown, so that jt ( 2001 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2002 ) PRACTICE ^Service) — continued. was impossible to serve him personally with the notice of appeal, the Ooui't made an order for substituted service upon him by posting a copy of the notice of appeal in a registered letter to his last linown addi-esa, and, if the letter should be retm-ned through the Dead Letter Office, then by publication in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper. In re LOJSDON COUNTY COUNCIL C. A. [1901] W. N. 7 — Substituted service on alleged lunatic — Ser- vice on Master in Lunacy. See New South Wales. 21. 16. — Siilstifuted sertnce icitJiin the jvrisdic- tion — Writ htiiedfur service out of jurisdiction — II. S. a, Order X. Where a concurrent writ has been issued for service out of tlie jurisdiction an order for sub- stituted service by post to several addresses, some witliin and some without the jurisdiction, is regular. Note to Order X. in Annual Practice, 1905, p. !>9. " In ordering substituted service on a person out of the jurisdiction, the kind of service ordered is not restricted to service out of the jurisdiction, but may be by substitution effected within the jurisdiction," approved. Western SUBUEBAN AND NOTTIKG HiLL PERMANENT Benefit BuiuDiNa Society v. Rucklidob Swinfen Eady, J. [1905] W. N. 141 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 472 17. — Third party notice — Leave to issue — Service on pit. — JBx parte application — i?. S. C, 1883 Order XVI., r. 48. An application in tlie Ch. Div. for leave to issue and serve a thii-d party notice under Order XVI., r. 48, need not be served on the pit. in the first instance, but may be made ex parte. It is always competent to the Coiu't or judge to requii'e the pit. or any other person to be served witli the application. Wye Valley By. Co. V. Hau-es. (1880) 16 Ch. D. 489, commented upon. FuKNESs, Withy & Co., Ld. v. Picker- ing Joyce J. [1908] W. N. 152 : [1908] 2Cli. 224 — Trustees, Application for appointment of new — Service on beneficiaries. See Trustee — Appointment. 9. — Trustee — Contempt — Disobedience of order to pay money — Service of order. See Attachment. 20. Setting Aside. See under Setting Aside. Settled land. See under Settled Land. Short Causes. (1908) Short Cause Rules on the Admiralty side of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division. See under Shipping — Short Causes. 1. — Affidavits in siippmi — Debentwe-hol der's action. This was a debenture-holdei's action which the Master liad directed to be set down as a short PEACTICE (Short CavLseB)— continued. cause to come on with minutes of the proposed order. Byrne J. said that in such cases as this, which came on as short causes without pleadings or notices of motion, copies of the affidavits in support ought to be left with the papers for the use of the judge. In re Church Stbetton Mineral Water Co. McLaughlin v. The Company - Byrne J. [1904] W. N. 48 2. — Costs — Motion for judgment in default of defence — Admissions — Consent by letter to judg- ment in chambers — B. S. C, 1883, Order XXVI., r. 1 ; Order XXXVIL, r. 11 ; Order XXXII., r. 6 ; Ovder XL., r. 1. A point of practice was raised in this case as to whether a motion in comt or a summons in chambers was the proper form of proceeding, In Aug., 1907, an action was commenced by the tenant for life in possession of a large estate against the deft., asking for a deelai-ation that the deft, was not entitled to any right of way over the plt.'s land, and for an injunction to restrain a trespass. A defence was delivered in Dec, 1907, in which the deft, claimed to be entitled to the right of way in dispute, as a member of the public. In Feb., 1908, the deft, gave notice of an application in chambers, pur- suant to Order xxvi., r. 1, that his defence rnight be withdi'awn or struck out ; and by a letter of Mar., 1908, liis solicitors wrote admit- ting the plt.'s claim and consenting to an order being made in chambers giring the pit. the relief to which he was entitled. The pit. elected not to accept the admission, being desirous of having the issue determined by a public adjudica- tion of the Com't. On Mar. 11, 1908, the matter came before the Master, and the deft, obtained leave to with- draw his defence. The pit. now moved under Order xsvil., r. 11, for judgment, in default of defence, for a perpetual injunction and costs, and the only question was whether he was entitled to the additional costs of obtaining the order in Court. Eve J. said that, under the circumstances of the case, the pit. was justified under the rules in setting down the action as a short cause, on motion for judgment in default of defence. He therefore made an order for a perpetual injunc- tion in the form asked for by the pit. That would include an order that the deft, should pay the costs of the action. Cooper- Dean i\ Bad- ham - Eve J. [1908] W. N. 100 — Debenture-holder's action — Motion for judg- ment — Pleadings. See Practice — Statement of Claim. 1. 3. — Papers for the judge. Buckley J. calle.i attention to the statement printed at the foot of his cause list on the Sittings Paper, that " any cause intended to be heard as a short cause must be so marked in the cause book at least one clear day before the same can be put in the paper to be so heard, and the necessary papers, including minutes of the pro- posed judgment or order, must be left with the judge's clerk one clear day before the cause is to be put into the paper." ( 2003 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2004 ) PRACTICE (Short CavLsea)— continued. His Lordship said : I have eight short causes in the paper to-day, and I thiuk in only cue case has that part of the rule which refers to leaving the necessary papers been complied with. I do not propose to take any steps this morning because sufficient notice has not been given ; but 1 want solicitors to understand that that rule must be complied with, and if it is not complied with the causes will be struck out. I shall mention the matter to Mr. Justice Byrne. Peaotice Note Buckley J. [1901] W. N. 78 4. — Prohate practh'e — Proof hi solemn form ■ — " Short cause." On tliis case, wliicli was in tlie list for lieariug on Monday, after motions, being called on, council for the deft, asked that the attesting witnesses to the will in question should be out of Com-t during the opening statement of counsel for the pit. The President thereupon inquired how the case came to be in the paper, no applica- tion having been made to liim for that purpose. Counsel for the pit. stated that one of the registrars at the principal Probate Registry had allowed it to be put in, and the case had been entered in the book kept there containing a list of short Probate causes. Counsel for the deft, also stated that this was the usual practice in such cases. The President said that he never authorized such a book or list to be kept, and the registrars had no authority to put cases into the Court list for that or any other Monday. It should be clearly understood that counsel must apply, on motion, to him (the President), or to the judge who might be taking Probate motions, for leave to have anj' short cause put into the list for any Monday, to bo disposed of after motions. Unless such application were made and leave obtained from the presiding judge, no case should be put into the Monday's list. In The Estate of SUGDBN - ' Jeune, Pres. [1904] W. N. 70 — Setting down for trial — Motion for judgment — Consent. See Peaotice— Summons. 2. — Shipping — Short causes. See under Shipping— Short Causes. Standing Over. — Witness actions — Business of the Court. See Peactice— Trial. 7. Statement of Claim. 1. — Selentiire-holder'saciion — Short cause- Motion for jvigment — Pleadings — Necessity for stiitement of claim — Pcpresentative order — R. S. C, Order XVI., r. 9. This debenture-holder's action came on for hearing on motion for judgment as a short cause. The action was brought by the holder of first debentures against the co., the present trustees of the debenture trust deed, and T. (on behalf of himself and all others the holders of the second debentures of the CO.), who had been added by amendment. The notice of motion asked for judgment in the terms of agreed minutes which were in PEACTICE (Statement of Claim)- common form, and the motion was, in accoj'd- ance with directions given by the Master, brought on without pleadings An affidavit in support had been iiled, although no directions to that effect had been given. Buckley J. made the order, saying that )ie adhered to the opinion which he bad expressed in In re Prinyle S,- Co., [1903] W. N. 207, that in such a case a statement of claim was un- necessary. The CO. appeared, and would be bound by the order. He had consulted Koke- wich and Warrington -TJ., and they agreed in this view, and he had been informed that Homer L. J., when a judge of first instance, had expressed a similar opinion. JSeld also that it was not necessary to make an order appointing T. to represent the second debenture-holders. In re Cadogan and Hans Place Estate (No. 2), Ld. Geaham v. Cado- gan AND Hans Place Estate (No. 2), Ld. Buckley J. [1906] \f. N. 112 Note. See also In re Dupoitt, Ld., Swinfen Eady J., [1906] W. N. 14, ne,ct Case. 2. — Debenture-holder's action — Summons fur directions — Order to set down action as a short cause on motion for judgment with agreed minutes — Necessity for statement of claim. Motion for judgment in a debenture-holder's action. The writ was issued on Nov. 16, 1905, and on Nov. 24 a receiver and manager was appointed on motion. The deft, co., however, found that it could not continue to carry on its business, and in order to save the expense of a statement of claim and trial it consented to the action being set down on motion for judg- ment with agreed minutes. On Dec. 16 the pit. accordingly issued a summons for directions, asking for an order '■ that this action be set down as a short cause on motion for judg- ment with agreed minutes in the form annexed hereto." On Dec. 23 the Master made the order, and on Jan. 2, 1906, notice of motion was given, and the action was set down accordingly. Swinfen Eady J. took the objection that there was no statement of claim. No statement of claim is necessary under the circumstances. The Master has not ordered pleadings, and the Com't can give judgment without them {In re Pringle ^ Co., Ld., [1903] W. N. 207). A motion is often treated as the trial of an action and final jiidgment given, although there are no pleadings. In the present case all the facts are stated on oath in the affi- davits filed on the motion for a receiver and manager-, and It is superfluous to restate them in an unsworn statement of claim. Swinfen Eady J. : There is no doubt about the jurisdiction, but as a matter of general con- venience I think there should be a statement of claim on these applications. Farwell J. has given a general direction to his masters to that effect, and I think the practice should be uni- form. Where judgment is given on a motion without i^leadings, the judge has all the affi- davits before him and the facts are fresh in his mind, but where, as in the present ease, the action comes on as a short cause, so that there are ( 2003 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. (. 2006 ) PEACTICE (Statement of Claim) — oontimied,. no affidavits before the Court, it is more con- venient to have a statement of claim. The case must stand over till a statement of claim is delivered. In re DnpONT, Ld. Dupont v. DupoNT, Ld. - Swinfen Eady J. [1906] W. N. 14 See III re Cudofjan and Hans Place Estate {No. 2), Ld., Buckley J., [1906] W. N. 112. See preceding Case. • — Discoveiy — ^Admissions by defence — Leave to inten'ogate defendant refused. See DISCOVEBT. 13. — Embarrassing — Pleading — Particulars. See Practice— Pleadings. 1. Staying Proceedings. — Arbitration. See under Aebitkation. - Company — Practices. See under COMPAKY- ings. - Company — Winding-up. See under Company- Fractice. Staying Proceed- Winding-up — — County Court. See under CorrNTY Court— Staying Proceedings. — Disputes between society and members — Eules — Arbitration — Ultra vires acts. See Industrial and Provident Society. 1. — Divorce — Wife's costs — Husband's petition — Jury discharged without verdict — Proposed retrial — Stay of proceedings until payment — Jurisdiction. See Divorce — Costs. 12. — Partnership — Mortgage of partner's interest — Kiglit of mortgagee to account — Arbitration clause. See Partnership. 16. — Ship — Berth note — Arbitration clause — " Dispute arising at loading ports." See Shipping — Practice. 3. 1. — Foreclosure action — Action in Chancery Bidsian — Concurrent action in King's Bench Division Judicature Act, 1873 (36 S' 37 Vict, c. 66), s. 24, sui-s. 5. As a mortgagee who brings an action in the Ch. Div. for an account of principle and interest due under the mortgage has a complete remedy by claiming in that action a pei'sonal order for payment, a second action brought in the K. B. Div., while the Chancery action is pending, to recover principle and interest, is improper, and should be stayed. Poulett\. ma, [1893] 1 Ch. 277, followed Williams r. Hunt C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 512 — Frivolous and vexatious iiroccedings. Sir PR.iCTicE— Frivolous, &c., Action, PEACTICE (Staying Proceedings) — continued. — Lease for term of years — Arbitration clause — Action for occupation rent. See Landlord and Tenant. 28. — Mortgage — Action in this country for declara- tion of rights to assist action in foreign i;ouLitry. See Shipping — Practice. 13. — Eeceiving order — ■' Creditors " — ■ Service of notice of appeal. See Bankruptcy — Practiee, 11. 2. — Staying action — Abuse of process of Court — Cause of action arising out of juriisdie- tion — Accessible Court where cause of action arose — Oppression — Injnxtice to defendant. An action was commenced in England, in which the pit., a married woman, claimed an account under a settlement made in India on the occasion of her marriage in 1897, and she further alleged a wilful default by the defts. , one of whom the plt.'s husband, had been appointed a trustee of the settlement by a subsequent deed, the other two being the original trustees of the settlement. The defts. were all domiciled in England, but were ordinarily resident in India, the plt.'s husband being a barrister practising in Calcutta, and the other defts. holding appoint- ments in the Indian Civil Service. The pro- perty comprised in the settlement was in India. From 1902 down to the commencement iif the action the pit. was living in France apart from her husband. She then came to England, where, as she aUeged, slie intended thenceforth to reside permanently. The husband and another of the defts. were served with the vnrit during their temporary presence in England. They applied to stay all proceedings in the action on the ground that it was an abuse of the process of the Court. The Court was of opinion on the evidence that the pit. had in fact brought the action in England instead of in India, not for any bona fide purpose, but in order to obtain an undue advantage over the defts., and that the continu- ance of the proceedings iu England would neces- sarily be productive of injustice to the defts. : — Held, that, in these circumstances, the action ought to be staved. Egbert v. Short, [1907] 2 Ch.20.5, approved. In re Norton's Settlement. Norton i: Norton . C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 471 3. — Staying action — Cause of action arising out of jurisdiction — Actimi brought rexatiously and oppressirely — Accessible Court where cMise of action arose. The Court will stay an action, brought within the jurisdiction, in respect of a cause of action arising out of the jurisdiction, if satisfied tliat no injustice will be done thereby to the pit., and that the deft, would be subject to such injustice in defending the action as would amount to vexation and oppression, to which he would not be subjected if an action were brought, in another and accessible Court, where the cause of action arose. Logan r. Bank of Scotland (No. 2) . - . C, A. [1906] 1 K. B. 141 ( 200? ) Dt&ES* OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2008 ) PKACTICE (Staying Proceedings)— fc-o»H««e.(^. A^ote. This case was applied by Warrington J., Eghcrt V. Short, [1907] 2 Ch. 205. See iiext Case. 4. — Staying action — Cause of action ari.iini/ out of jui-isdiction— India— Action Irought vexa- tiouAy and oppressively — Accessiile Court where cause of action arose — Inconvenience causing injustice to defendant. In 1902 a deed of separation was executed in India between the pit. and her husband, of which the deft, was the trustee. The pit. was the wife of an Amei-ican domiciled in India, and the deft, then and still was a solicitor practising at Madras. The husband made default in paying the allowance which by the deed he had coven- anted to pay, and the complaint of the pit. against the deft, was that he had wilfully oi- negligently delayed taking proceedings, and had so wilfully or negligently conducted proceedings against her husband that she had been unable to recover the moneys due to her in respect of the allowance. In Oct. 1906, the deft, happened to be in England on a holiday, and on the day before he left for India he was served with the writ in the action. At the date of the issue of the writ the pit. was temporarily in England, but left shortly afterwards for America, where she still remained. The pit. knew of her alleged cause of action when she was resident in India. On an application by the deft, to dismiss or stay the action on the ground that it was an abuse of the process of the Court : — Held, that, inasmuch as the alleged cause of action arose in India, and that the liability, if auy, of the deft. Avould have to be determined according to the law of India, and upon the evidence of Indian witnesses, the proper place for the action to be brought was India ; that the action was not brought bona fide in England ; that the injustice to the deft, in bringing the action in this country was so great that the Court would not allow the action to proceed ; and that the fact that; the pit. happened to be in England at the date of the issue of the writ was not in itself sufficient to preclude the Court from dismissing the action. Logan v. Bank of Scotland {Xu. 2), [1906] 1 K. B. ill, applied. Egbekt v. Shoet Warrington J. [1907] W. N. 131 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 205 A'ote. This case was approved by C. A., Iti re Norton's Settlement, [1908] 1 Ch. 471. See Xo. 2, above. — 1 Ch. 201 on col. 1990. Staying proceedings where submission to arbitration — Jurisdiction. See County Court — Practice. 17. ■ — Striking out name of one co-pIaintiflE. See COMPEOMISB. 3. — " Submission " — Agreement to refer dispute to foreign Court. See AkbitratiON— Submission. 1. 5. — Submission to arbitration — Eailway Passengers' Assurance Company's Acts, 1864 and 1892 (27 4' 28 Vict. c. cxxv. and 55 Vict. c. viii.') —Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 ^- 53 Vict. c. 49), «. 4. The Eailway Passengers' Assurance Com- pany's Act, 1864, contained provisions by which PRACTICE (Staying Proceedings) — continued. any question arising on any contract of insurance should, if either party required it, be referred to arbitration. Sect. 33 of the Act provided, that, if any policy-holder or his representatives should begin an action against the co. in respect of the matters to be I'eferred to arbitration under the provisions of the Act, the Cour't or a judge, on application by the co., might make an order staying all proceedings in the action. This Act was repealed by a consolidating Act of the CO. passed in 1892, but all contracts in force at the date of the repeal were to be valid and effectual as if the consolidating Act had not passed. The representative of the holder of a. policy issued under the Act of 1864, and containing a condition that questions arising under it should, if the CO. or the assured or hia representatives required it, bo" referred to arbitration in the manner specified in the co.'s Act, made a claim against tlie CO., who gave notice that they ]-equircd the question to be referred to arbitra- tion. The representative named an arbiti'ator, to whom the co. objected. No further steps were taken, and this action ujion the policy was commenced. The co. took out a summons to stay the proceedings in the action, and an order was made to that effect. On appeal : — Held, that, by virtue of the reservation in the consolidating Act, there was a subsisting sub- mission to arbitration to which s. 4 of the Arbi- tration Act, 1889, was applicable, and the Court or a judge had jurisdiction to make an order staying the proceedings in the action. Hodson V. Eailway Passengsbes' Assurance Co. C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 833 — Till costs of discontinued action by company paid — Contributory — Enforcing pay- ment of calls. See COMPAJSY — Winding-up — Con- tributory. 4. Striking Out. — Affidavit — Scandalous mattei- — Extracts from letters wiitteu without prejudice. See Affidavit. 3. — Death of co-respondent after suit commenced — Motion to strike out his name — Practice — Order. See Divorce— Co-respondent. 2. 1. — Defence, Strihi/ig out — Abuse of process of the Court, The defts. in an action to recover damages for negligence brought by a foreigner residing out of the jurisdiction, after obtaining an order that the pit. should give security for costs (with which he complied), delivered a defence in which they denied toe negligence and paid a sum of money into Court with a denial of liability.. With the defence was delivered a letter written by the defts.' solicitor, in which, after stating that the traverse of negligence was a technical plea merely to secure that the money paid into Court should remain there until the trial unless taken out by the pit. in satisfaction of his claim, he unreservedly undertook on behalf of the defts. not to contest liability at the trial : — Held, that the defence was a sham defence, ( 2009 ) blGER'f OF GASfiS, 1901— lolo. ( 2010 ) PRACTICE: (Striking Out) —coiitiiimd. aad must be struck out as being an abuse of the process of the Court. Remmington t. Scales, [1897] 2 Ch. 1, con- sidered and applied. Ceitchell v. IjONDON AND South Western By. Co. C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 860 — Karae of company as plaintiff — Majority of directors opposing — Costs. See Company — Practice. 1. — Xainc of one co-plaintiff — Practice ^S( ay of proceedings. See COMPEOMISB. 3. — Part of indorsement ou writ — Abuse of the process of the Court. See Practice — Pleadings. 1. — Pleading — " Frivolous and vexatious action " — Summons — Affidavit — Admissibility. See Practice — Pleadings, i. ■ — Pleadings — Reasonable cause of action. See Defamation — Slander, i. 2. — Pleadings, Strilting out — Reasonable cause of action — Relief against the Crown — Declaratory judgment — Attorney-General defendant— R. S. C, 1883, Order XXV., rr. 4, 5 —Finance (1909—1910) Act, 1910, Form IV. The pit., an owner of a Irouse and agricultural land, commenced tliis action against the Att.-Gen. to test the validity of the notices issued by the Commrs. of Inland Ke venue under the Finance (1909 — 1910) Act, 1910, commonly known as Form IV. By his statement of claim the pit. alleged that a notice under the Finance Act, 1910, Form IV., had been served upon him signed by the >Secretary to the Commj's. of Inland Kevenue, requiring him to deliver certain returns within thirty days under a penalty not exceed- ing 50Z. ; that certain requisitions in the said form were illegal and unauthorised, and that the Commrs. threatened to enforce the penalty for failuie to make the return. The pit. therefore claimed a declaration that he was not under any obligation to comiily with the notice or to furnish infoi'mation as thereby required. The Att.-Gen. took out a summons under E. S. C, Order xxiv., r. 4, to strike out tlie state- ment of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. Lush J., affirming a previous decision of the Master, made an order in the terms of the summons. The C. A. allowed the appeal. Cozens-Hardy M. K. said that Order XXI v., r. 4, was not intended to take the place of a demurrer, and ought not to be applied to an action iuvolv ing serious investigation of ancient law and ques- tions of general importance, and on this ground alone the pit. was entitled to have the action proceed to trial in the usual way, leaving the Att.-Gen. to take any objection he might be advised to raise by his statement of defence. As, however, the question had been argued whether the Att.-Gen. could be sued in a case like this, he thought it right to state his views on this point. It had been settled for centuries that in the Court of Chancery the Att.-Gen. might in some cases be sued as a deft, as representing the Crown, and that in such a suit relief could be given against the Crown. Pawlet v. Att.-Gen., (1658) Hardre's, PRACTICE (Striking Out)- rnntinued. Rep. 46.5, was an early authority on the point. Hodges. Att.-Gen., (1839) 3 Y. & C. Ex. 342, was a distinct authority that the Court had jurisdiction to maintain an action against the Att.-Gen. as representing the Crown, although the immediate and sole object of the suit was to affect the rights of the Crown in favour of the pit. The jurisdiction of the Court to make a declaratory judgment had been enlarged by Order XXV., r. .5, and there was no reason why this rule should not apply to an action in which the Att.-Gen., as representing the Crown, was a party, and the present was a case to which r. 5 might with advantage be applied. The pit. therefore in this case was entitled to assert his rights in an action against the Att.-Gen., and was not bound to proceed by petition of right. Dyson i: Att.-Gen. - C. A. [1910] W. N. 876 Summary Jurisdiction. — Summary Jurisdiction. See under JURISDICTION. Summons. — Adjourned summonses — Costs — Practice. See Will — Shelley's Case. 3. — Costs — Taxation — Summons to revicAV. See Costs. 66. — Criminal law. See under Ceiminal Law— Practice. — Cruelty to animals — Irregularity in form of summons — Criminal law. See Cruelty to Animals. 2. — Married woman — Removal of restraint on anticipation — Petition. See Husband and Wipe — Kestraint on Anticipation. 6. — Music, Seizure of pirated — Necessity for Sum- mons. See Copyright— Music. 3. — Originating summons. See under Practice — Originating Summons. Petition or summons. See under PRACTICE ■ Summons. Petition or ■ Probate Contentious Rules. See Probate — Practice. 9. • Time for return of — Sale of food and drugs. See Adulteration. 25. Summons for Directions. - Application for stay — Stop in proceedings. See Arbitration — Agreement to Refer. 1. - Consent of Court in Lunacy to bankruptcy proceedings. See Lunacy. 5. ( 2011 ) ttlGEST 0^ OASES, 1901—1910. ( mi ) FBACTICE (Sammons for Directions) — continued. — Necessity for statement of claim. See Peactice — Statement of Claim. 1. 1. — Notice of ajjpl'mation- to master — Inter- locvtory matter — Order in chamien disinisslnf/ action—Jumdiction — R. S. C, Order XXX., rr. 1, 2, 4, 5. Where a summons for directions has been issued under Order xxx., i. 1, there is jurisdic- tion, upon an application by a deft, in chambers for further directions on notice under rule 5, to strike out a statement of claim on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, and to dismiss the action with costs as frivolous and vexatious. An application of this nature is an interlocutory matter within rule 5, which is not controlled or limited by rule 2 to the matters therein particularly enumerated. Pbppbebll v. Hied - - Byrne J. [1902] W. N. 17 ; [1902] 1 Oh. 477 2. — Short cause — Setting down for trial — Motion for jiidgmeni — A'otice — Evidence — Con- sent— R.S. a, Order XVI., r.2\ ; Order XXX., r. 2; Order XXXVI., r. 14 ; Order XL., r. 1 ; Order LII., r.5. This debenture-holder's action came on for hearing as a short cause. The action was brought against the co. and two holders of subsequent debentures. All the defts. entered appearances, but one of them was not represented at the hearing. It appeared that on a summons for directions the Master had on Nov. 14, 190S, made an order that the action be set down for trial in Middlesex without pleadings, to be heard as a. short cause, and judgment applied for on minutes ; the evidence to be taken by affidavit. Notice of motion for judgment in the terms of a schedule to the notice was given by the pits. on Nov. 25 for Nov. 28 ; and an objection was taken at the hearing that this was not in compliance with the Master's order, and that ten days' notice of trial ought to have been given under Order xxxvi., r. 14. On the production of a consent brief for the deft, who had been absent, the Court ultimately made the order asked for. Inre Peingle & Co., Ld. Pownall v. Peinole & Go. [1903] W. N. 207 Note. See In re Dupotit, Ld., Swinfen Eady J., [1906] W. N. 14. See Practice— Statement of Claim. 2. Followed by Buckley J., In re Cadogan and Hans Place Estate (,No. 2), Ld., [1906] W. N. 112. See Practice— Statement of Claim. 1. — Stay of proceedings— Step in proceedings. See Aebiteation — Practice. 6. Tender. — Admiralty practice— Tender with denial of liability — Practice. See Shipping— Salvage. 28. _ Costs- Amount recovered under 2/.— Ad- miralty actions. See County Court- Co»tB. 11. PRACTICE (Tentet)— continued. — Salvage— Apportionment — " Runners." See Shipping— Salvage. 27. — Stock Exchange — Defaidt on — Tender of amount due on mortgage — Secui-ed creditor — Notice of act of bankruptcy. See BANKKUPTCr— Stock Exchange. 1. Third Parties. See also under Practice — Parties. — Attorney innocently acting under forged power — Liability of agent — Indemnity. See Peincipal and Agent. 3. — Bankruptcy. <&e under Bankeuptcy— Third Parties. — Bill outstanding in — Third party — Bank- ruptcy notice — Receiving order — Bill of exchange — Conditional payment^Dis- honoured bill. See Bankeuptcy — Notice. 3. — Company — Directors' Liability — Third-party procedure. See Company — Prospectus. 13. — Contract — Consideration — Breach of duty to take care — Intervening criminal act of third party causing loss. See CONTHACT. 10. — Costs — Taxation. See Solicitoe — Costs. 39 — 43. 1. — Counter-claim — Indemnitij over against person not party to action — Right of plaintiff to iisue third-party notice — R, S. C, Order XV I., r. 48. The right given by Order xvi., r. 48, to a deft., who claims to bo entitled to contribution or indemnity over against any person not a party to the action, to issue a third-party notice, is applicable to the case of a pit. iu an action against whom a counter-claim is raised by the defence, the pit. iu such a case being in the position of deft, to the counter-claim. Levi v. Anglo-Continental Gold Reefs of Rho- desia, Ld. Tayloe, Thied Paety C. A. [1902] W. N. 146 ; [1902] 2 K. B. 481 — Indemnity — Innocent misrepresentation. See Peincipal and Agent. 3. — Indemnity by third parties — Costs — Appeal — Costs as between solicitor and client — Practice. See Costs. 3. Insurance (Marine) — Third-party procedure — Policy of reinsurance. See No. 2, below. — Intervening Act of third party — Liability — Eifective cause of damage. See Negligence. 9. — Notice, Third party — Collision — Damage — Contract of indemnity. See Shipping — Collision. 78. — Notice, Third party— Leave to issue — Service on pit. See Peactice— Service. 17. ( 2013 ) DIGEST Of CASES, 1901— I&IO. C 20U ) PRACTICE (Third FsiTtiea)—co>itmued. — Notice, Third-party — Service out of jurisdic- tion — Coutributioii. See Practice— Service. 6. — Policy for beuefit of third party — Warranty agaiust suicide — Condition precedent. See Insurance (Life). 17. 2. — Tliird - party procedure — Insurance (^Marine) — Policy of reinsurance — U.S. C, Order xri., r. 48. Where in an action on a policy of marine insurance the defts. sought under Order xvi., 1. 48, to bring in as a third party the under%vriter of a policy of reinsurance on the same subject- matter : — Held, that the third-party procedure was not applicable to such a case, inasmuch as a contract of reinsurance was not one of "indemnity" within the meaning of the rule. Nelson v. Empress Assurauce Corporation, Ld. Faber, Third Party - C. A. [1905] W. N, 93 ; [1905] 2 K. B. 281 — Towage — Third-party notice — Appeal person not a party — Collision. See SHIPPING! — Collision. 78. by — Voluntary payment of premiums by third party. See Bankruptcy — Mortgfages. 1. Title of Action. — Shipping — Limitation of liability — Life claims. See Shipping — Limitation of Liability. i. Trial. 1. — Action in Chancery Dirision — Counter- claim for defamation — Trial by jury — R. S. C, Order XXXVI., rr. 2, 7 — Jvdicature Act, 1873 (36 4' 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 100. A deft, who counter-claims in respect of any of the matters specified in rule 2 of Order xxxvi. is not a pit. within tlie meaning of that rule, and is not entitled thereunder as of right to have the issues of fact raised by the counter- claim, tried by a jury ; but, in the absence of special circumstances, the Court in the exercise of its discretion will direct those issues to be tried by a jury, if so desired. A deft, in an action brought in the Ch. Div. to enforce an agreement for a compromise counter-claimed for relief in respect of various matters including libel, and applied that the action and counter-claim might be transferred to the K. B. Div. for trial by a jury : — Held, that the inclusion in the counter-claim of a claim for libel was nota ground for directing a transfer of the whole action, and, the deft, not desiring that the issues relating to libel alone should be sent to a July, the application was refused. Decision of Warrington J. affirmed. Lord KINNAIKD ( . Field C. A. [1905] W. N. 126 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 361 PRACTICE {Txi3\')—contmiied. — Amendment of pleadings at trial — Gaming — New consideration. See Gamino. 3. — Appeal. See under Appeal. — Colonies — Mode of trial applicable to — Practice and procedure See under Specific Titles op the various Colonies. — Costs. &e under CoSTS. — County Court. See under County Court. — Criminal law. See under Criminal Law — Practice. 2. — Damaijen — 3Vki trial — Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal — Order for new trial unless damayes reduced — Tort^ Verdict for excessive daniages. When in an action of tort the jury find a verdict for the pit. for a sum which the C. A. considers unreasonable and excessive that Court has no jurisdiction, without the def t.'s consent, to order that unless the pit. consents to reduce the damages there shall be a new trial. The opinion of the C. A. on this point in Belt V. Zawes, (1884) 12 Q. B. D. 356, overruled. Watt v. Watt - H. L. E. [1905] W. N. 60 ; [1906] A. C. 115 — Isle of Man. See under Isle of Man. 3. — Judgment in, default of appearance — • Applicationto restore — Extending tinte for ap2>U- cation — Trial of action— R. S. C, 1883, Order XXXVI; r. 33 ; Order LXIV., r. 7. In this case a clerk of the deft.'s solioitor deposed that on instructions from his principal he searched the Chancery Cause List to see if the case had been set down for hearing pursuant to notice, and on several occasions he searched the cause book of Swinf en Eady J. ; that he only searched the cause book of Swinf en Eady J. because the notice was given for the trial of the action before him, and that he forgot for the moment that such judge was not taking witness actions at that time, which were being tried by Farwell J. ; that not finding any entry in the said cause book, he had assumed that the action had not been set down, and that the notice of trial had lapsed ; that it was not until Nov. 29 that his principal was aware that the action had been tried when on that day he received a notice from the taxing Master fixing Dec. 5 for the taxation of the plt.'s costs of the action. Farwell J. : 1 am very unwilling to deprive a litigant from having his case heard. I think there has been a slip here. I understand the costs of the action are to be taxed to-day. There wiU be liberty to restore the action to the list on condition that the deft., within seven days of the taxing Master's certificate, pays all the costs that have been thrown away ami the costs of this application, and Wl. must be deposited in the joint names of the solicitors of both parties to par the taxed cost of this a|)plication. Ashton f. Emanuel Farwell J. [1902] W. N. 2S1 ( 2015 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2016 ) PRACTICE (Trial) -00 Id iiitwd. — Legitimacy Declaration Act — Petition — Mode of trial — Eight to trial by iury. See LEftlTIMAOY Dbolabation. 1. — New trial — Practice. See under specific Titles. 4. — New ti-ial. Application for — Action for personal injuries — Railway accident— Prospective loss of income — Excessive damages — Matters wrongly co?isidered by jury or wrong measure of damages adopted. The rule laid down in Praed v. Graham, (1889) 24 Q. B. D. 53— that a new trial will not be granted on the ground of excessive damages unless, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court is of opinion that the amount is so large that no twelve men could reasonably have given it — must be construed in the light of other decisions of the C. A., e.g., Phillips v. London and South Western Ry. Co., (1879) i Q. B. D. 406 ; 5 Q. B. D. 78, the effect of which is that a verdict may be set aside and a new trial granted if the Court, without imputing perversity to the jury, comes to the conclusion, from the amount of the damages and the other circumstances, that the jury must have taken into consideration matters which they ought not to have considered, or applied a wrong measure of damages. The decision in Rowley v. London and JViirth Western Ry. Co., (1873) L. E. 8 Ex. 221, adopted as showing that, in awarding damages for a prospective loss of income from professional or other earnings the jury ought not to give the pit. such a sum as, if invested, would produce the full amount of income which he would probably have earned, but ought in estimating the damages to take into account the accidents of life and other matters, and to give the pit. what they consider under all circumstances a fair compensation for his loss. Johnston r. Great Western Ry. Co. C. A. [1904] W. N. 92 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 250 5. — Ifew trial, Application, for — Misdirection — Omission of counsel to suggest questions to judge at trial. Application by deft, for a new trial of the action on the ground of misdirection by Wi-ight J., who tried the action. At the end of his sum- ming-up the learned judge asked the counsel whether they wished any other questions to be put to the jury, and the counsel on both sides answered in the negative. On the hearing of the application for a new trial it was objected on behalf of the pit. that the deft, was debarred from raising the question of misdirection, because his counsel did not suggest in answer to the judge any other ques- tion to be put to the jury. Neville v. Fine Art, ^c. Insurance Co., [1897] A. C. 68, and Seaton V. Burnand, [1900] A. C. 135, 143, were referred to:— Held, that there had been no misdirection and refused the application. Wbisbe v. Seoar C. A. [1904] W. K. 93 — New trial — Interpleader issue — Liverpool Court of Passage. See Bill of Sale. 2. PRACTICE (Trial')— continued. 6. — New trial — Notice of motion — Time — Action tried with jii.ry—R. S. C, Order- XXXIX., r. 4. Upon the trial of an action with a jury, the jury answered the questions of fact left to them by the judge, and were discharged. The judge then referred the question of the amount due to the pit. upon those findings to a special referee for report. Upon further consideration, after receiving the referee's report, the judge gave judgment for the pit. for a certain amount. Four days after the judgment, but a year after the verdict, the defts. gave notice of motion to the C. A. for (inter alia) a new trial : — Seld, that the date to be regarded for the pm-pose of giving notice of motion for a new trial under Order xxxix., i. 4, was the date of the findings of the jury, and not that of the judgment on further consideration, and that therefore the notice of motion, so far as it asked for a new trial, was out of time. Greene r. Croomb C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 277 ■ New trial must be on motion. See British Honduras. 1. — Service out of the jurisdiction. See under Practice — Service. 7. — Setting down for trial before pleadings closed — Business of the Court — Ineffective actions — Pleadings to ie delivered — Practice. The former practice of allowing actions to be set down for trial, before pleadings had been de- livered, ought now to cease, as it only opened the door to abuse and delay. The Court therefore ordered the action marked " Pleadings to be delivered " to be taken out of the list of witness actions, and a notice giving their names and other particulars to be affixed to the notice-boards of the Com't ; and the Court desired the solicitors in these cases to inform it whether the cases were still effective or not, with a view to striking out of the cause books such of them as had become ineffective, and giving directions for the trial of such of them as remained. Practice Note Buckley, J. [1901] W. N. 94 8. — Standing over — Witness actions — Busi-ness of the Court. Where parties to an action ask that it may stand over for their convenience, or for any reason which is not one which afiects the fair trial of the action, the application if acceded to is one which interferes unfairly with the con- tinuity of the list for the convenience or benefit of one suitor to the inconvenience or detriment of others. In witness actions a large number of parties, witnesses and others, have of necessity to hold themselves at the disposal of the Court when the action shall happen to be reached, and to render the uncertainty which necessarily exists as small as possible it is desirable that there should be as far as possible certainty as to the number of actions which stand befoi'e them for trial. I do not, therefore, allow actions to stand over simply because all parties agree, or for any reason not addressed to the fair trial of the action. I reserve to myself full liberty to deal with any particular case as I think the circum- stances justify. If an action were a long way 3t ( 2017 ) DIGEST OF CASES. 1901-1910. ( 2018 ). PEACTICE (Tiial)— continued. down the list and could not be reached, say for six weelfs, I should accept a less reason than would be required if it were within a short distance of being heard. But in any case I require a sufficient reason to justify an inter- ference with what would otherwise be the order of the list. Practice Note Buckley J. [1901] W. H. 107 Undertakings. — Bankruptcy. See under BASfKEUPTCY. — Costs, Security for — Undertaking by solicitor to refund — Practice — Appeal. See Costs. 60 1. — Injunction — Motion for inj-u/nction — Undertaliing — Cross-ufidniaking as to damages — Agreement ietween paiiies — Implied eross-vmder- taldng. As a general rule, where upon a motion for an injunction an undertaking is given to the Court in lieu of an injunction, a cross-undertaking in damages is not implied, but must be expressly asked for. So held by the C. A., reversing the decision of Farwell J., [1904] W. N. 182. Howard v. Press Printers, Ld. - C. A. [1904] W. N. 198 2. — Interlocutory injunction — XIndertaking — ImjMed cross-undertaldng as to damages — Action iy principal against agent — Counterclaim for dainages on cross-undertaking . Action by pit. co. as principals against deft, as their agent, claiming damages in respect of an alleged breach of the duty of the agent in send- ing out a circular letter shortly before the ter- mination of the agency, soliciting the pits.' customers. The pits, also claimed an injunction to restrain the deft, from making use of confi- dential information. The deft, oounterclaimed for an account, and also for damages in respect of an interlocutory injunction granted against him on Dec. 21, 190'1, on the e.v parte appli- cation of the pits. This order was made by Kekewich J. upon an alfidavit which his lordship now found not to have stated all the material facts. On Dec. 30, 190-1, the day before the ter- mination of the agency agreement, the injunc- tion was continued by the vacation judge. On Jan. 13, 1905, the matter came before Joyce J., and it stood over, the deft, giving a limited undertaking as to soliciting customers. No cross- undertaking by the pits, was mentioned. On Jan. 20, 1905, the motion for an injunc- tion was finally dismissed by Joyce J. The ques- tion was now raised under the counterclaim whether this cross-undertaking in damages by the pits, could be implied. Kekewich J. said that this question was a serious one afEecting the practice of the Com-t, and it was the first case which he was aware of in which it had been raised by the counterclaim in an action. If all the facts had been before him on Dec. 2], 1904, the e.c parte injunction of that date would not have been made, and the deft, would be entitled to an enquiry as to damages. By the order of Jan. 13, 1904, a limited undertaliiing was given by the deft., and PEACTICE (Undertakings)- any cross-undertaking by the pits, must be equivalent to it, and cover the same ground. With regard to the practice in this respect, Farwell J., in the case of Howard v. Press Printers, Ld., [1904] W. N. 182, considered that it was an invariable rule that when an injunction was moved for and an undertaking given to the Court, a cross-undertaking as to damages should be inserted in the order. But on appeal from this decision the C. A. ([1904] W. N. 198) held that there was no general practice to that effect. The general practice of the Court in the future was now expressed in the resolution adopted by the judges of the Ch. Div., which was to be found under Practice Note [1904] W. N. 203, namely, that whenever an under- taking to the Court was given in lieu of an interlocutory injunction, there should be inserted in the order a cross-undertaking in damages by the applicant, unless the contrary was agreed and expressed at the time. He intended to follow that practice, and he therefore directed an enquiry as to damages, unless the parties accepted his suggestion that 5Z. was the proper amount. Obbrrhkinische Metallwerkb, G. M. B. H. V. Cocks Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 127 3. — Motion for injunction — Undertaking — Cross-ufndertaking in damages. The judges of the Ch. Div. have adopted the following resolution : In future whenever an undertaking to the Com-t is given in lieu of an interlocutory injunction there shall be inserted in the order a cross-undertaking in damages by the applicant unless the contrary is agreed and expressed at the time. Practice Note - [1904] W. N. 203 4. — Motion for injunction — TJniertaking in — Undertakwig in lieu of injunction. The judges of the Ch. Div. have had under their consideration the practice as to an under- taking in damages where an undertaking is given in lieu of an injunction, and they have resolved that in future an undertaking in damages will follow as a matter of course without being mentioned wherever there is an undertaking given in lieu of an injunction, unless there is a stipulation expressed to the contrary. Practice Note [1904] W. K. 208 Solicitor. See under Solicitor- -ITndertakings. 8. — Solicitor — Writ of summon,'! — Service, Acceptance of — Entering appearance — Under- taking — Proceeding loith action — Delay — Writ eiiforceahle after twelve mont/i~t — Attachment — Application, Formof—R:S. f., 1883, Order VIII., r. 1 ; Order IX., r. 1 ; Order XII., r. 18. Where, with the authority of the deft, in an action, his solicitor accepts service of the writ on his behalf and gives a written undertaking, under K. S. C, 1883, Order IX., r. 1, "to enter an appearance in due coui'se," that undertaking is unconditional and must be performed forth- with, and, at the instance of the pit., it can be enforced by attachment of the solicitor under Order xil., r. 18, ( 2019 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 2020 ) PBACTICE (Undertakings)— ctf/jiiMKert!. The solicitors to the deft, in an action accepted, by his authority, service of the writ on his behalf, and at the same time gave the plt.'s solicitor a written undertaking to enter an appear- ance in due course, but, on account of a proposal by the deft, for settlement, the time for appear- ance was extended for two months. No appear- ance was ever entered, and no step was taken in the action for a further period of eighteen months, when the pit., desiring to proceed, required the deft.'s solicitors to enter appearance pursuant to their undertaking, which they declined to do, on the ground tliat their clients, considering the action at an end, had directed them not to enter appearance. Upon an application by the pit., under Order xil., r. 18, to attach the solicitors for breach of their undertaking, the 0. A., affirming Far- well J., [1900] W. N. 274, ordered the solicitors to enter appearance forthwith, with liberty to the pit. to renew his application in case of their default. An original vn-it of summons, notwithstanding the expiration of the twelve months limited by Order viii., r. 1, and even though not renewed under that rule, still continues effectual for all pm'poses except that of service, the limit of time applying to service only. An application by a pit. under Order XII., r. 18, to enforce by attachment a written under- taking by the deft.'s solicitor to enter an appear- ance to the writ, should be made and intituled, not in the action, but in the matter of the soli- citor, by virtue of the jurisdiction of the Court over its oiEcers. Per FarweU J. . A written undertaking by a solicitor acting on the authority of a deft., to enter an appearance to the writ, constitutes a contract on the part of the deft, by the solicitor or his agent to enter appearance, and differs from an ordinary contract only in that it may be enforced against the solicitor himself by attach- ment at any time within six years, provided the action continues effective. In re Kbelby, Son & Vbedbn - C. A. [1901] W. N. 8 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 467 6. — UndertaTdng to do an act on or before a fused day — Sermee of order containing iptider- takimg — Breach — Committal — Order fixing time for compliance, whether necessary. In this case Warrington J. said that he was satisfied on the evidence that the money in the deft.'s hands was money held by him as trustee of the testator's will. The only point of any importance was that the order of .Jan. 31 was not served upon the deft., but that fact was not an answer to the present application. The question was not one in reference to an order of the Court requiring a certain thing to be done, but to an undertaking given to the Court. It was not an undertaking to do a certain thing " forthwith," but an undertaking to pay a certain sum of money on or before a named day. The rule of practice as to undertakings as distin- guished from orders of the Court was clearly stated by Cozens-Hardy 3. in D ^. A ^ Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 484, 486. In that case the learned judge, after stating that the first objection taken by the def ts. was that the order, which contained PRACTICE (B ndertakings) — continued. the undertaking, had not been served upon them, said : " As to the iirst objection, I think it is not well founded. It is settled law that an order granting an injunction may be enforced by committal, although the order has not been served. It is sufficient if it be shewn that the deft, had notice of the order. There might be some doubt as to that statement being applicable after In re Tuck [1906J 1 Ch. 692, but for the present purposes that was not material. He continued : " If this holds good where a hostile order has been made, it must equally hold good where the deft, has voluntarily given an under- taking. Indeed, in such a case I think no notice at all is requisite, for, in the words of Chitty J. in Callow v. Young, (1886) 55 L. T. 544, it ' is not necessary to shew that the person sought to be attached had knowledge of his undertaking. He must be presumed to have known that he had given his undertaking.' Having regard to the settled practice of giving an undertaking in the terms of a notice of motion, it would be highly dangerous to hold that the deft, who had given an undertaking could disregard it unless and until the order was served. I do not think Kekewich J. intended to intimate a contrary opinion in Halford v. Hardy, [1899] W. N. 243." That disposed of one of the questions which his Lord- ship had to consider. But there was a second question, namely, whether where an undertaking was given to the Court to pay a sum of money within a limited time it was necessary to serve an order upon the deft, with an indorsement upon it warning him of his liability to committal in the event of his not complying with the under- taking within the time fixed. That question was to some extent discussed before Kekewich J. in Halford v. Hardy, [1899] W. N. 243, but when that case was fully considered it would be seen that it did not touch this point. In that case the undertaking given was to do something " forthwith,' ' and the question was not as to the service of the order upon the deft., but whether it was necessary before the order could be enforced that a limit of time should be fixed for compliance with it. In his judgment, Cozens- Hardy J. was quite justified in saying in D. v. A. 4- Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 484, 487, that he did not think that Kekewich J. " intended to intimate a contrary opinion in Halford v. Hardy, [1899] W. N. 243." The same question came before Byrne J. in CaHer v. Roberts, [1903] 2 Ch. 312, and again the question was not whether service of the order embodying the undertaking on the deft, was required, but whether it was necessary where the undertaking was to do something " forthwith" that an order should be made fixing a time for complying with it. The head-note to that case, so far as material, was this : " Where an undertaking to pay money into Court or to a joint account at a bank has been given, without fixing any time for payment, an order fixing a time is necessary, before the undertaking can be enforced ; though there may be cases of con- tempt so gross as to justify attachment without any supplemental order." Byrne J. (at p. 320) first referred to Order XLI., r. 5, and said : " That rule, as was pointed out by Sir George Jessel in Qilbert v. Endean, (1878) 9 Ch. D. 259, 3t2 ( 2021 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2022 ) PRACTICE (Trndertakings)—con)!i»ae(i. rloes not apply to an nudertaking. The ques- tion of the enforcement of an undertaking for payment of money was considered by Keke- wioh J. in Halford v. Hardy, [1899] W. N. 243. There the undertaking was not for the payment of money, but the order was ' forthwith ' to execute a certain indenture, and no time was mentioned further." Then he quoted the judg- ment of Kekewicla J. in that case and continued : "The case before Cozens-Hardy J. of B. v. A. Si- Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 484, does not involve this point, because the undertaldng there was to do something on or before a named day." It seemed therefore that Halford v. Hardy, [1899] W. N. 243, and Carter v. Soberts, [1903] 2 Ch. 312, were distinguishable because in those cases no day was fixed for the fulfilment of the under- taking. In the present case the day was fixed. The only question therefore was whether it was necessary that an order embodying the under- taking should be personally served on the deft. He had already stated that in his opinion it was not, and he thought that point was decided in the negative by D.y. A. <|- Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 484. There would therefore be the order asked for. Jn re Launder ; Launder r. Kiohaeds ■Warrington J. [1908] W. N. 49 Writ. — Certiorari, Writ of, refused — Temperance Act. See Canada — Temperance Act. 1. 1. — Default in appearance — Statement of claim filed — Suhaequeni amendmeitt of writ — Motion for judgment — Filing anotlier statement ofolaim^R. S. C, 1883, Order XX., r. 4. In this case Kekewich J. said that the case of Jamaica, Ry. Co. v. Colonial JBanh, [1905] 1 Ch. 677, did not seem to bear directly on the case before him, because in the present case the writ had been amended. If the pits, had been content not to amend, then, having filed their statement of claim, the authorities cited would have justified the Com-t in saying that the pits.' were right. The difficulty, however, arose fi-om the fact that the writ was amended, and the state- ment of claim was filed before the amendment. It was quite true that a pit. by amending his wi-it did not begin a new action, but still the writ was the basis on which depended the whole of the proceedings. If the deft, had appeared the diffi- ciilty could have been easily overcome, but where the deft, did not appear the Court had to see that all technicalities had been complied with. The statement of claim filed in this case referred on the face of it to the writ on which the pits., having amended, were not now suing. The amendment was of the slightest possible character, but nevertheless, the writ had been amended, and pits, were now proceeding on a difEerent writ from that which they originally served on the deft. That was his diflSculty, and he could not see anything to justify him in saying that the statement of claim filed under the original writ was to hold good after that writ had been amended, and, therefore, he was reluctantly obliged to hold that the pits, must file another statement of claim. SoUTHALL Development Syndicate, Ld. o. Dunsdon Kekewich J. [1907] W. N. 16 PRACTICE (WTity^oontmiied. — Defendant out of jurisdiction at date of issue of writ. ,'See Habeas Corpus. 3. — Execution, Writ of. See under Execution. — Joinder of causes of action — Lease of Court or judge — Leave given after issue of writ — VVaiver of objection by defen- dant. See Practice — Joinder. 3. — Xecessaries — Default action in rem — Specially indorsed writ — Afiidavit of service. See Shipping — Practice. . 10. — Sequestration, Writ of. See under Sbqubstkatiox. — Service. See under Peactice — Service. 2. — Special indoriement — Liquidated demand — Affi.d-arif in support — ^^ Any other person''' — Foreign litigant — Affidavit by solicitor — Information and belief — Order III., r. 6 : Order XIV., r. 1. The pit., who had acted as the legal represen- tative of the defts. during litigation in South America, sent in his bill of costs to their solicitor's in England, and afterwards issued a specially indorsed writ against them, claiming 1469?. for professional charges and disbursements. An application for leave to sign judgment under Order xiv. was supported by an affidavit made by a member of the Enghsh firm of solicitors who represented the pit. The afiidavit was sworn in London, and the deponent stated that he was a member of the firm of solicitors acting for the pit. ; that the defts. were justly and truly indebted to the pit. in the sum of 1469Z. for pro- fessional charges ; gave the history of the case ; and added that it was within his own knowledge that the debt was incm-red and was still owing, such knowledge being obtained from correspond- ence received from the pit. and from correspond- ence and conversations the deponent had had mth the defts.' solicitors, and that he was duly authorized by the pit. to make the affidavit : — Held', that there was a liquidated demand, but that the affidavit was irregular, inasmuch as the deponent was not a person who could swear positively to the facts and verify the cause of jurisdiction to make an order under Order XIV., r. 1, and his affidavit was only made on informa- tion and belief. The conditions imposed by the rule were not fulfilled, and the Court had no jurisdiction to make aii order under Order xiv. Lagos v. Gkunwaldt - C. A. [1909] W. N. 216 ; [1910] 1. K. B. 41 — Striking out indorsement on writ — Em- barrassing pleading. Se-e PkACTICE — Pleadings. 1. — - Writ of extent — Affidavit of debt, and danger — Sufficiency of affidavit — Motion to set aside writ. SsB Revenue — Writ of Extent. 1. — Writof fi. fa. — Execution creditor — Wrongful seizure — Indorsement on writ of fi. fa. — Debt paid before issue of writ. See Sheriff. 3. ( 2023 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2024 ) PEACTICE (yriif)— continued. — Writ of possession — Practice — Costs — Juris- diction to make order. See CosTSi 81. — Writ of possession — Writ of assistance — Order fixing time for obedience. See Eecbiveb. 10. — Writ of privilege — Overseer — Solicitor — Exemption — ^Appeal to quarter sessions — Costa. See Poor Law. 15. PKECATORY TRUSTS. See under Will — Precatory Trusts. " PRECINCTS "—Harbour— Boundary— Removal of sand from foreshore. See Habbour. 2. PRE-EMPTION — Highway— Dedication— Pre- sumption — Disused tramway — Railway company — Capacity to dedicate — Ad- joining owner — Eight of pre-emption. See Highway. 9. — Eight of — Contract to give " first refusal " of land — Negative contract. See Contract. 17. PREFERENCE— Bankruptcy. See under Bankruptcy — Preference. — Company. See under Company and Company — Winding-up. — Undue preference — Electric light. See under Electric Light. — Undue preference — Railway company — Eates. See under Railway. PREFERENCE SHARES— Company. See under Company and Company — Winding-up. PREFERENTIAL DEBT,— Bankruptcy. tSee under Bankruptcy — Preferential Debt. ■ — Friendly Society — Defaulting treasurer — Eemoval from office — Bankruptcy of treasuier. &e Friendly Societies, i. PREFERENTIAL PAYMENTS -Administration of assets — Executor — Specialty debt. See Administration. 8. PREFERENTIAL PAYMENTS IN BANK- RUPTCY — Poor and district rates — Water rate payable by meter— Appor- tionment. See Company — Winding-up— Prefer- ence. 5. PREJUDICE— Eeceipts "without prejudice"— Workmen's compensation. See Master and Servant — Prao tice. 19. PREMISES— East London Waterworks Act. See London— Water. 2. PREMIUMS ^Bankruptcy— Life policies— Pay- ment of premiums from date of receiy-^ ing order — Salvage — Interest. See Bankruptcy — Secured Creditors. 1. — Insurance. See under Insurance (Fire), Insur- ance (Life), Insurance (Marine), and Insurance (Professional). 1. PREROGATIVE— New Zealand Act— Prerogative not taken away except by express words — Special leave to appeal. See New Zealand. 16. PREROGATIVE OF CROWN. See under Crown. PREROGATIVE WRIT— Crown— Costs. See Mandamus. 1. PRESCRIPTION — Ancient Demesne — Fine on alienation — Statute Quia Emptores. See Manor. 1. — Ancient hghts. See under Light and Air. — Burgh — CuvStoms and rates — Charter — Eoads and bridges. See Scottish Law. i. 1. — Drain — Acquisitimi of easement by piMic-~Highway Act, 1835 (5 ,^ 6 Will. 4, a. 50), s. 67. The highway authority of a rural district had for upwards of twenty years maintained a pipe running from a highway through a bank which divided the highway from the deft.'s land adjoining, and had during that period caused the rain water collecting upon the highway to be discharged through the pipe on to the deft.'s land. The water on leaving the pipe did not fall into any channel, but- simply spread over the surface of the land. The deft, having obstructed the pipe, the highway authority and the Att.-Geu. claimed an injunction to restrain the deft, from continuing the obstruction on the grounds : first, that from their long enjoy- ment of the pipe it ought to be inferred that the highway authority had by agreement with the owner of the adjoining land acquired a right to keep open the pipe under s. 67 of the Highway Act, 1835 : and, secondly, that the public, as occu- piers of the surface of the highway for the statutory period, had acquired a prescriptive right to the easement of discharging the water on to the deft.'s land : — Seld, (1) that the pipe, being unconnected with any outfall channel, was not a drain within the meaning of s. 67 of the Highway Act, and that that section had consequently no applica- tion ; and (2) that the public right of passage was not such a right as was capable of having the easement claimed attached to it. Att.-Gen. v. COPELAND Lord Alverstone C.J. [1901] 2 K. B. 101 lYute. This case was reversed by C. A., [1902] IK.B. 690. See Highway. 8. ( 2025 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2026 ) r'R^SCTilT'IIOTH— continued. — Dignity — Jurisdiction — Non-alienability of oflBce of Standard Bearer of Scotland — Sale of office. See Scottish Law. 8. — Drainage, Prescriptive right of — Trade effluent. &B Sewbes. 15. — Fishery. See under FiSHEEiES. — Light and air. See under Light and Aih. 2. — Zost grant, Presumjition of — Inclosure Act — Award — Drainage, Preservation of — Re- striction of pasturage on road to sheep — Presump- tion of legal origin to support long user. A lost gi'ant cannot be presumed where such ■d, grant would have been in contravention of a statute. By an Act providing for the inclosure of certain commons, and their drainage in connec- tion with that of a larger area in a fen level, as a work of public utility, it was enacted that the herbage on roads to be set out under the Act should belong to the person or persons to whom the Inclosure Commrs. should by their award allot the same, and that in their award the Commrs. should insert such orders, regulations, and determinations to be observed and followed by the several proprietors, as should be necessary or proper to be inserted therein, for the com- pleting and maintaining of the said drainage and inclosure. By their award the Commrs. awarded that the herbage on certain roads, which adjoined watercourses, should belong to the surveyor of highways, to be by him let annually for the depasturing of sound and healthy sheep, but of no other cattle or stock whatever. The surveyors of highways had for more than fifty years made a practice of letting the herbage on the roads for the depasturing of a certain number of horses and cattle as well as sheep : — Held, that, upon the true construction of the Act and award, the prohibition of the pasturage on the roads of stock other than sheep was intended to be a permanent provision ; that it was meant, not merely for the protection of the allot- tees of land under the Act, but also for the pre- servation of the drainage system in the public interest ; that it was therefore not competent for the allottees or any body of persons to make a grant or release in favour of the surveyor of high- ways, so as to extend the right of pasturage to stock other than sheep ; and that consequently a legal origin could not be presumed in order to support the above-mentioned practice of the surveyors of highways. Decision of Cozens-Hardy J., [1901] 1 Ch. 22, reversed. Neavbeson v. Petbeboeough EUKAL DISTEICT COUNCIL C. A. [1902] W. N. 46 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 567 3. — JVavigation company — Prescriptive claim against statutory ^navigation company — Prescrip- tive claim to take surplus water only — User unlimited. The relators and pits., a statutory navigation CO. claimed to restrain the defts. from taking water from a river forming part of their PBESCRIPTION— cwn«i«Me(?. navigation. The defts. did not admit that the river was vested in the pits, and claimed a prescriptive right to take from the river super- fluous water not required for the pturposes of the navigation. The user proved was that the defts. took as much water as they required without regard to the needs of the naviga- tion : — Held by Neville J., that the prescription must be limited and defined by the user, and the user being unlimited and not confined to water not needed for the discharge of the statu- tory duties of the pit. co., the prescription was for a right which the pits, could not grant and which could not be obtained against them by prescription. Held by the C. A., that the pits, had not under their statutes any proprietary right in the water, and therefore the claim failed. The point decided by NeviUe J. doubted but not decided. Att.-Gen. c. Gbbat Noetheen Rt. Co. C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 775 — Street — Cost of improvements — Assessments — Laws of Canada. See Canada — Streets. 1. — Support, Bight of — Enjoyment clam — Ease- ment of necessity. See Suppoet. 1. — Way, Eight of — Easement — Presumption of lost grant — Inclosure of common land — Award of right of way — Non-user. See Way, Right op. 11. — Way — User. See under Way. PRESCEIPTIVE USE — Highway — Eight for foot passengers — Accumulated use attributable to two roads — Substituted roads. See Highway. 41. PRESENT—Right of prisoner to be present- Court of Criminal Appeal. See Ceiminal Law — Appeal. 18. PRESS — Local AutTiorities (^Admission of the Press to Meetings') Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 43), jirovides for the admission of repre.\enfatives of the Press to the meetings of certain Local Authorities. PRESUMPTION— Authority of wife to pledge husband's credit — Presumption arising from cohabitation — Election. See Husband and Wife— liability. 1 — Betting circular — Presumption of knowledge of infancy — Circular sent to under- graduate. See Betting Cieculae. 1. — Child-bearing, Woman past — Impossibility of issue — Widow who has had a child. See Evidence. 12. — Collision — Statutory presumption of fault — Foreign vessel outside limits of terri- torial jurisdiction. See Shipping— Collision. 55. ( 2027 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 2028 ) PBESUMPTION— coraiMMerf. 1. — Death — Person not heard of for seven years — Time of death — Continuanoe of life — Onus prolandi. A testatrix gave a share of the income of her residuary estate upon trust to be paid half-yearly equally to and between the children of her late niece during their lives, with divers trusts over. J., one of the children, sui'vived the testatrix, who died in 1890, but had not been heard of since Mar. 31, 1895, and an order was made declaring that he was to be presumed to be dead at the expiration of seven years from that date. Upon a summons by the trustees to determine how J.'s share of income should be dealt with : — Held, that tlie onus was on J.'s representative to prove that he survived the period when he was last heard of, and that his share ought to be dealt with on the footing that he died on Mar. 31, 1895. In re Phene's Irusts, (1870) L. K. 5 Oh. 139, discussed. In re Aldbesbt. Gibson ». Hall Kekewich T. [190S] 2 Ch. 181 — Death — Surrounding circumstances — Form of oath. See Probate — Fresumption of Death. 1. — Death without issue — Evidence — Sufficiency. See EviDENOB. 10. — Executors — No next of kin — Residue undis- posed of — Beneficial title of executors — Equal pecuniary legacies to all — Unequal specific legacies to some — Presumption of intention — Will. See Executor — Kesidue. 1. — Fisheiy, Common of — Profit a prendre — Fluctuating body — Prescription — Pre- sumption of legal origin. See Fishery. 8. — Highway — Dedication — Public footway — Private carriage-way along the same line. See Wat, Right of. 2. — Highway — Dedication — Roadside strip — Right of passage. See Highway. 37. — Highway — Dedication — Roadside waste — Evidence. See Highway. 38. — Highway — Dedication — Strip of land running alongside highway — Disused tramway. See Highway. 9. — Highway — Dedication — User of footway as cart road. See Trespass. — Highway — Drain — Water flowing from high- way — Presumption of legal origin. See Highway. 8. — Highway — Lost grant — Fee farm rents — Pay- ment for long period. See Highway. 18. — Highway — New or substituted highway — Formalities — Lapse of time. See Highway. 19. PEESUMPTION- — Highway — Rebuttal of presumption— SoU of highway — Ownership — Street in town — Crown — Lease. See Highway. 21 . — Leaseholds — Encroachment — Accretion to holding for benefit of lessor. See Limitations, Statute of. 11. — Legatee entitled to share on surviving testator — -Disappearance — No evidence of death. See Will — Survivor. 1. — Lost grant — Pasturage — Presumption of legal origin to support long user. See Prescription. 2. — Lost grant — Right to use of water. See Water. 1. — Manorial market — Extent of franchise — New streets — Dedication. See Market. 4. — Mistake — Number of legatees — Illegitimate children — Evidence of intention. See Will — Illegitimacy. 7. — Marriage — Evidence — Presumption from cohabitation. See Marriage. 6. — Mortgage — Merger — Subrogation — Payment off by stranger — Equitable transfer — Presumption that security is kept alive — Ignorance of mortgagor. See Mortgage — Merger. 1. — " Omnia prsesumuntur rite esse acta." See Probate — Execution. 3. — Oyster ponds on foreshore — Ancient user — Presumption of legal origin — Nuisance from sewage. See Fishery. 5. — Policy made payable to another — Purchase in name of a stranger — Presumption of intention. See Insurance (Life). 11. — Resulting trust — Evidence — Capital or income. See Husband and Wife — Property. 2. — Riparian proprietor — Presumption that bed of river passes ad medium filum — Island in middle of river. See River. 4. — Satisfaction — Lien — Merger — Lapse of time — Interest. See Lien. 1. — Ship — Collision — Failure to stand by — Statu- tory presumption of fault — Proof to the contrary. See Shipping — Collision. 55. — Subway approaches — Property in subsoil of road ad medium filum. See London — Conveniences. 1. — Trade fixtiures — Mortgage — Hire-purchase agreement — Rights of mortgagee against owner of machinery — Presumption of law. See Fixtures. 10. — Trade - mark — Registration — Presumption arising from long user. See Tbade-marf. 31. ( 2029 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2030 ) PRESUMPTION— co«rroiDi7ig iy agent — Excess of authority — Debts of principal paid with money borrowed — Melief of lender in, authority of agent — Equitable right of lender to recorer. The defts., a country firm, opened a branch of their business in London, and appointed an agent to carry it on. The defts. had an account with a London bank in their name, upon which the agent was entitled to draw. The agent had no authority to borrow money, but the banking account being low, he borrowed a sum of money of the pit., who was told that it was for the use of the firm, and believed that the agent had authority to borrow. The money was paid into the baulc, and part of it was used by the agent in the payment of obligations of the defts. Sub- sequently the defts. supplied further sums of money, which would have been suflBcient to meet their obligations, but for the agent drawing, on his own account, sums to which he was not entitled. The agent meanwhile borrowed other sums of money of the pit., portions of wliich were alleged to have been used in discharging further obligations of the defts. In an action to recover the amount so borrowed : — Held that, to the extent to which the money borrowed should be found on inquiry to have been in fact applied in paying legal debts of the defts., the pit. was entitled in equity to stand in the same position as if that amount had been originally borrowed by them. Bannattne v. D. & C. Macivbe C. a. [1906] 1 K. B. 103 — Broker — Usage of Stock Exchange. See under Stock Exchange. — Buildings — Persons altering drains — By-laws — Liability of agents carrying out work. See London — Buildings. 4. — Commission on sale of mining property — Sale completed on terms disapproved by agent. See Canad A—Principal and Agent. 1. — Company. See under OoMPANy — Principal and Agent. — Company— Secretary— Representations— Cer- tification of transfer— Estoppel. See COMPANT— Secretary. 2. — Contract — Action of deceit — Fraudulent representations — Public authorities protection. See Contract. 1. — Contract— Construction— Agency. See Contract. 2. PEINCIPAL AND AGENT- 5 Contract by agent on behalf of principal , — Want of authority — Liability of agent — Know- ledge of want of authority by other contracting party. A person who purports to contract as agent on behalf of an alleged principal is liable on an implied warranty of his authority only if the other contracting party relied on the existence of authority in fact. He is not so liable if, at the time of purporting to contract, he expressly disclaimed any present authority. CoUen V. Wright, (1857) 7 E. & B. 301 ; 8 E. & B. 647, followed. The observations of Mellish L.J. in Beattie V. Lord Ebury, (1872) L. E. 7 Ch. 777, 800, applied. The proposition in Smout v. llbery, (1842) 10 M. & W. 11, that there must be some wrong or omission on the part of the agent in order to make him personally li3.ble in respect of a contract made in the name of his principal, is negatived by Collen v. Wright. Halbot v. Lens Kekewich J. [1901] W. N. 6 ; [1901] 1 Ch, 344 — Contract of fire insurance made by agent without authority — Ratification by principal after and with knowledge of loss by fire — Whether ratification valid in law. See Insurance (Fire). 1. — Covenant in restraint of trade — Combination of firms — Separate businesses — Engage- ment by agent on behalf of combination — Reasonableness. See Restraint or Trade. 4. Custom House, Obligation of agent to pass goods through. See New South Wales. 27. ■ Dramatic copyright — Infringement — "Printed or cause to be printed " — Estoppel. See Copyright — Books. 1. ■ Equitable mortgagee — Conflicting equities — Priority — Estoppel — Mortgage. See No. 14, below. - Express trust — Moneys remitted to agent for special purposes and not accounted for. See Limitation, Statutes op. 20. - Fraud of insurance agent — Avoidance of policy — Recovery back of premiums. See Insurance (Life). 19. - Fraudulent misappropriation by agent — " Banker, merchant, broker, attorney, or other agent." See Criminal Law — Larceny. 5. - Husband and wife — Authority of wife to pledge husband's credit — Contract by wife " otherwise than as agent." See Husband and Wipe — Authority. 1. - Husband and wife — Goods supplied on order of ivife — Judgment against wife for part of entire price — Election not to sue husband for balance. See Husband and Wipe— Election. 1. ( 2033 ) DIGEHT OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2034 ) PRINCIPAL AND AGSST^oontinued. | — Insurance (Accident) — Misstatements in pro- posal made by agent of insurers without knowledge of insured. See Insueasice (Accident). 6. — Insurance (Life) — Voidable policy — Principal retaining benefit obtained by fraud of agent — Recovery of paid premiums. See Insurance (Life). 71). — Lease by mortgagee "as agent" — Covenant running with land. See Landlokd and Texant. 51. — Licensing Acts — Sale by licensed agent on behaU of unlicensed principal. See Licensing- Acts. 63. — Lunacy — Person appointed to carry on busi- ness of lunatic — Personal liability on contracts. See Lunacy. 26. 6. — Jltmacfemeitf of real ^'.states — Limited company appointed agent — Company employing its officials in the matiagement on contini.'ifilon and salaries — Articles of association— Accounts. The principle that, in a contract of agency between individuals, the agent cauuot malie a profit for himself beyond the remuneration fixed by the contract, equally applies to the directors of a corporation that contracts with an individual to act as his agent at a certain remuneration. Where, therefore, a limited co. agreed with the pit. to manage, develop, and realize his estates on certain terms, and in tlie course of such management employed one of its directors, who was a solicitor, to act professionally for the estates and paid his bills of costs, which included profit items ; another director, wlio was an estate agent, to manage at a salary a business connected with tlie estates ; an auctioneer, to act as auctioneer on all sales of the estates at the usual commission ; and gave its secretary, who was a chartered accountant, an additional salary for keeping the books of the estates, which were of a complex nature : — Seld, that in taking the accounts between the pit. and the oo. under the agreement all the above salaries, commissions, and profit costs must be disallowed, although the co. had power under its articles of association to employ its officers in such capacities and to pay them. Kavanagh v. Worldng mail's Benefit Building Society, [1896] 1 I. R. .56, approved. Bath c. Standard Land Go. - - - Neville J. [1910] W. N. 206 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 408 — - " Mercantile agent " — Authority to pledge. Extent of — Custom of particular trade. See Factor. 1. — Mine — Liability for contravention of general rule by manager. See Justices. 6. — Money paid to agent under mistake of fact — When recoverable back. -See RAILWAY — Kates. 2. PEINCIPAL AND KGl^'SI— continued. — Partner, Right of, to inspection by agent — Books and accounts. See Paetnbeship. t. — Power of attorney — Construction — General words — Ejusdem, generis — Borrowing iy agent — B^presentation of authority — Excess of authority — Money paid into hanhing account of principal — Money in possession of prriTicipal— Money had and received to use of principal — Mis- appropriation hy agent — Lialrility of 2>rinoipal to lender — Conduct — Constructive notice — Estoppel. The pit. carried on business as a tobacco merchant in Melbourne, Australia, under a firm name. He also had a London office bearing the firm name, at which the business of purchasing and paying for goods in London and shipping them to Melbourne was carried on. While absent in Australia he appointed an agent at the London office under a power of attorney, describing him (the pit.) as of Melbourne trading as a tobacco merchant under the firm name, and authorizing the agent for him (the pit.) and in his name, or in his trading name, " to purchase and to make any contract for the purchase of any goods in connection with the business carried on by me as aforesaid," and to make such purchase either for cash or on credit, with power to modify or cancel the contracts for purchase, and "where necessary in connection with any purchase made on my behalf as aforesaid, or in connection with my said business " to make, draw, sign, accept, or indorse any bills of exchange or promissory notes which should be requisite or proper in the premises, and to sign the plt.'s name or his trading name to any cheques on his banking account in London. The agent, purporting to act under the power of attorney, obtained a loan of 4000Z. from the defts., a iirm of cigar merchants in London who had previously had frequent business dealings, including loan transactions, with the pit. On applying for the loan the agent, who was well known to the defts., represented that the power of attorney authorized him to borrow money, and that the loan was required for the purposes of the plt.'s business. At the same time he pro- duced to them the power itself, but, being satisfied with his assurances, they did not read it. On receiving the 4000Z. the agent handed to the defts. as security bills of exchange for the amount accepted in his own name per pro the plt.'s firm. He then paid the 4000Z. into the plt.'s London banking account, di'ew it out by cheques di'awn by him under the power, and applied it to his own use. The pit. being at that time in Australia, had no knowledge of the loan transaction. In an action by him against the defts. to restrain them from negotiating the bills upon the ground that they had been accepted without his authority, and upon a counter-claim by the defts. against the pit. for the 4000L as money had and received by him to their use : — Held, (1) upon the construction of the power of attorney, that it gave the agent power to purchase only, with such powers as were necessarily implied by the appointment of the agent as purchasing agent, and did not confer ( 2035 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 2036 ) PRINCIPAL AND AGENT— contmued. authority to borrow ; and (2) that the primary cause of the loss of the lOOOZ. was the neglect by the defts. of ordinary business precautions when lending the money to the agent, and that they were therefore estopped by this neglect, and also by constructive notice that the agent had no power to borrow, from claiming it as money had and received by the pit. to their use. Qiuere, per Vaughan Williams L.J., whether the circumstances were such as to entitle the pit. to plead ignorance or absence of means of know- ledge of the transaction as constituting by itself a sufScient answer to the deft.'s claim as for money had and received. Marsh v. Keating, (183i) 1 Bing. N. C. 198 ; 2 01. & F. 250 ; 37 R. K. 75, discussed. Decision of FarweU J., [1901] 1 Oh. 261, affirmed. Jacobs r. Morris - - - C. A. [1902] W. N. 48 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 816 — Promissory note — Signature in blanlc — Fraudulent negotiation of note by agent — Eights of bona fide indorsee for value — Negotiable instrument. See Promissory Note. 3. — Receiver and manager — Receiver's remunera- tion — Priorities. See OOMPANT — fteceiver. 13. — Sale by club to agent of member. See Licensing Acts. 55. — Sale of poisons — Order taken by canvassing agent — " Seller." See Pharmacy Acts. 2. — Salvage — Agreement — Position of ship's agent Ratification. See Shipping — Salvage. 1. 8. — Scope of authority — Power of attorney — Power to sell property belonging to principal — Property held as mortga,gee — Mortagee's statu- tory power of sale — Power to give discharge for mortgage money — Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (44 i),- 45 txct. v. 41), .,. 21, swb-s. 4. A power of attorney authorized the agent to sell any real or personal property then or thereafter belonging to the principal, and also to receive and give a discharge for any moneys then or thereafter owing to the principal by virtue of any security : — Held, that it did not authorize the agent to seJl property held by the principal as mortgagee under the mortgagee's statutory power of sale. Decision of Kekewich J. affirmed. Sect. 21, sub-s. 4, of the Oonveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, which provides that the power of sale conferred by that Act upon mortgagees may be exercised by any person for the time being entitled to give a discharge for the mortgage money, refers to the executors, administrators, and assigns of the mortgagee, and does not extend to a person entitled to give a discharge as agent. In re DowsoN AND Jenkins's Contract C. A, [1904] W. N. 129 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 219 — Scope of authority — Tortious act of one partner. See Partnership. 20. PRINCIPAL AND A6:EST— continued. — Receiver agent of debenture-holders — Assets charged by receiver. See Company — Receiver. 6. 9. — Secret commission — Sub-agent — Priuity of contract — Fiduciary relation — Money had ana received. Agents, who were employed for commission to procure an advance of money for their principals, employed for that purpose, with the assent of the principals, a sub-agent, on the footing that he should share the commission with them. The sub-agent was aware that the agents were acting in the matter for their principals. He succeeded in procuring the advance of the required amount by a CO. Without the knowledge of the agents or their principals, the sub-agent received from the CO. a commission for inti'oducing the business to them : — Held, that, on tlie facts, there was evidence that the contractual relation of principal and agent had been established between the princi- pals and sub-agent ; and, secondly, that, even if no privity of contract existed between them, the sub-agent stood in a fiduciary relation to the principals, and was therefore accountable to them for the commission which he had received from the CO. On a claim in an action, to which the co. was not a party, made by the principals against the sub-agent to recover commission received by him as aforesaid, it appeared that by the agreement between the co. and the sub-agent further sums by way of commission on the transaction would become payable in the future to the sub-agent by the co. : — Seld, that the Com't must decline to make any further declaration of right with regard to such sums than that the sub-agent would become indebted in respect of them to the principals when and as he should receive the same. De Bussche v. Alt, (1878) 8 Ch. D. 286, and Uster 4- Co. v. Stubbs, (1890) 45 Ch. D. 1, followed. Powell & Thomas v. Evan Jones & Co. C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 11 10. — Secret profit — Rigltt to retain commis- sion. An agent to sell property who has sold the property but received a secret profit fi-om the pm'chaser must not only account for that profit to his principal, but is not entitled to any com- mission from his principal. Andrews v. Ramsay & Co. - Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 635 3i'ote. Distinguished by Div. Ct., Hippisley v. Knee Brothers, [1905] 1 K. B. 1. See next Case. Discussed by Neville J., Nitedals Taendsfik- fahrih v. Bruster, [1906] 2 Ch. 671. See M. 13, below. Principle of, applied by Neville J., Stubbs v. Slater, [1910] 1 Ch. 195 ; C. A. [1910] 1 Oh. 632. See Stock JSJxchange. 1. 11. — Secret profit received by agent without fraud — Right of agent to retain his commission. The pit. employed the defts., auctioneers, to sell goods for him by auction upon the terms that they were to be paid a lump sum by way of commission, and were further to be paid " all out ( 2037 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2038 ) PEINCIPAL AND AGENT— conimMetZ. of pocket expenses," including the expenses of printing and advertising. The def ts. in due course sold the plt.'s goods. In rendering their account of the out of pocket expenses to the pit. they debited him with the gross amounts of the printers' bill and of the cost of advertising in the newspapers, they having in fact received dis- counts both from the printers and the newspaper proprietors — a fact of which the pit. had no knowledge. There was evidence of a general custom for printers and newspaper proprietors to deal with auctioneers as principals, and to allow them a trade discount oil their retail charges, which discount they would not aUow to the auctioneers' customers if they dealt with them du-ectly, and the def ts. in omitting to disclose the fact of the discounts to the pit. did so in the honest belief that they were lawfully entitled under the custom to receive the discounts and retain them to their own use : — Held, that although the defts. were not en- titled to debit the pit. with the gross amounts of the printing and advertising bills, inasmuch as by the terms of the employment they were only to be paid tlieir actual out of pocket expenses, yet, as they received the discounts without fraud, and as the duty to account correctly for tlie out of pocket expenses was merely incidental ta and separable from their main duty connected with the sale of tlie goods, the omission to disclose the receipt of the discounts to the pit. did not dis- entitle them to retain their commission . Andrews v. Ramsay, [1903] 2 K. B. 633. dis- tinguished. HippisLBT c. Knee Beothebs Div. Ct. [1904] W. N. 186 : [1905] 1 K. B. 1 Xote. See jfeceding Ca.fie. — Share certificate issued by secretary — Forgery — Scope of employment. See Company — Forgery. 2. 12. — Shiphroher — Charferparty — Signature as aqeiit — Right to sue as principal. By a contract in charterparty form, dated Feb. 3, 1908, between the pits., who were ship- brokers, and the defts., who were timber mer- chants, in which the pits, were described as agents for owners of a steamship to be named later, and the defts. as charterers, it was agreed that the steamship should load at a foreign port, about the latter half of June, a cargo of timber from the agents of the charterers, and should deliver the same in London on being paid freight at a certain rate. The contract was signed by the pits. " by authority of and as agents for owners." The pits, were not in fact acting for principals, nor had they made a contract for a steamship to carry the cargo, but were themselves principals in the transaction. This was, how- ever, not known to the defts. On May 22 the pits, entered into a charterparty with shipowners for the cliartcr of a steamship to carry the cargo, the pits, being described therein as agents for charterers, at a rate of freight less than that specitied in the contract nf Feb. 3. The defts.' names were inserted by the pits, in the charter- party as the charterers, and the charterparty was signed by tlie pits, "as agents for merchants." In making the charter the pits, were not in fact PRINCIPAL AND A.G'ES'i—continued. acting as agents for the defts., but were them- selves principals. The cargo was shipped under bills of lading reserving freight at the rate specified in the charter of May 22, and was duly delivered at the port of discharge, and the bills of lading freight was paid. In an action by the pits, to recover the diffierence between the freight so paid and that reserved by the contract of Feb. 3, the defts. contended that, as the pits, had made that contract as agents, they were not entitled to sue upon it as principals ; — Held, that as the pits, in making the contract of Feb. 3 had in fact no principals, but were themselves the principals, they were entitled to sue upon it and to recover the freight reserved thereby. Hakpee & Co. c. Vigees Beothbes Pickford J. [1909] 2 K. B. 649 — Shipping. See under Shipping — Principal and Agent. — Signature of party to be charged — " Person " — Corporation — Signature by agent of company. See Adulteration. 20. 13. — Sole agent — Knmeruns transactions — DUJionestj/ in some — Right to retain commission — Sole agent for sole of prime ipnl's goods — Selling goods ofrical traders — Aeconnt of profits. Where the transactions between a principal and his agent are severable, and in some of them the agent has been honest whilst in others he has been dishonest, he is entitled to his commission in .all the instances in which he has been honest, but is not entitled to it in all the instances in which he has been dishonest. Andrews v. Ramsay S' Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 635, discussed. When an agent, bound to sell only his princi- pal's goods, in breach of his duty sells the goods of his principal's competitors in trade, he must account to his principal for the profits he has made on .ill such sales. NiTEDALS Taendstik- FABEIK r. Brdstee - - Neville J. [1906] W. N. 173 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 671 — Stock Exchange — Right of broker to indem- nity from client — Payment made by broker without client's authority, Se.e Stock Exchange. 7 — 9. — Strike — Trade union — Authority of branch officials to bind union — Eatification. See Trade Union. 2. — Trade union, Liability of, for wrongful acts of agents. See Teade Union. 8. — Trust, Express — Moneys remitted to agent for special purpose — Action for account. Sec Limitations, Statutes ok. 20. 14. — Trustee and cestui que truit — Equitable niorti/ngee- -Conflicting equities - — Priority — yegligence — EnaHing third pcr-ion to commit fraud — E-ttoppel — Receipt clause — Conreyancing and Lam of Property Act, 1881 (11 S' 1« Vict. c. 41), .V. 55. R. delivered to a stockbroker a mortgage bond for 2000^. with instructions to sell it. The bond was one of a series issued by the Tyne Improve- ment Commrs. under a private Act which ( 2039 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2040 ) PRINCIPAL AND AGlETSlT—contumnd. incorporated the Commissioners Clauses Act, 1847. That Act requires that all transfers of mortgages should be registered. Induced by the false representations of the broker, R. executed two deeds of transfer, by which the mortgage bond was transferred to the broker in two portions of 15001. and 500^. respectively. These transfers were in a form prescribed by the schedule to the Commissioners Clauses Act, and were expressed to be made in consideration of 1500Z. and 500L respectively paid by the broker to R. They were duly registered. The broker borrowed lOOOL from the deft. W. and executed a formal sub-mortgage of the bond to him, pro- ducing the transfers as proof of title. This mortgage was not registered. The broker had apphed the money to his own use and absconded. This action was brought by R. for retransfer of the 'bond fi'ee from the mortgage to W. : — Meld, that where an owner of property gives all the indicia of title to another person with the intention that he should deal with the property, the principles of agency apply, and any limit which he has imposed on his agent's dealing cannot be enforced against an innocent pui'chaser or mortgagee from the agent, who has no notice of the limit. If the owner has not only transferred pro- perty to an agent or trustee, but has acknow- ledged that the transferee has paid full consideration for it, he is estopped from assert- ing his equitable title against a person to whom the transferee has disposed of the property for value. The statement in a transfer of mortgage made in a form prescribed by statute, that the mortgage is transferred in consideration of I. paid by A. to B., without any express receipt clause, is sufficient to create this estoppel. On both these grounds the equitable title of R. was postponed to W.'s charge. Perci/ Mei-Hck v. AUwaod, (1857) 2 De G. & J. 21, explained and followed. Carritt V. Real and Personal Advance Co., (1889) 42 Oh. D. 263, explained and distin- guished. EiMMER r. Wbbstee - Farwell J. [1903] W. N. 86; [1902] 2 Ch. 163 Note. This case was discussed by C. A., Bui-glB v. Conitantine, [1908] 2 K. B. 434. See Tnostee— Shares. 1. — Trustees' liability — Fraud of agent — Con- structive notice — Relief. See Teustee — Breach of Trust. 2. 15. — Undisclo.sed principal — Manager of hotel — Licence taken out in name of ma-nager Presumption as to hotel being tied — Liability of owner,i for urtauthorized purchase of spirits by mamager. The defts., who were the owners of an hotel, appointed a manager of the hotel ; the licence was taken out in the name of the manager, whose name also appeared over the door. The manager had been told by the defts. to order spirits from a certain brewery (with which the pits, were in no way connected) and from no other place, but, in contravention of his PRINCIPAL AND AGENT- instructions, the manager ordered whisky from the pits. The pits., who did not know that the defts. had prohibited the manager from buying spirits from any other place than the particular brewery, supplied the whisky to the manager at the hotel and gave credit to him only. Sub- sequently, upon discovering that the defts. were the real owners of the hotel, the pits, sued them for the price of the whisky : — Meld, that the pits, were entitled to maintain the action, inasmuch as there is no presumption, where a person deals with the licensee of an hotel and knows nothing of the real owner, that the licensee is a mere manager with limited authority, and that the hotel is tied. Where a person is the licensee of an Iiotel and is known to be the licensee, and nothing is brought to the attention of a seller to indicate to him that the position of the person with whom he is deal- ing is that of a mere manager of a tied house, the seller who trades with the licensee as a principal and afterwards discovers that he is an agent is entitled to sue the real principal when disclosed, notwithstanding any limitation placed by the principal on the authority of the licensee. Watteau v. Fenwick, [1893] 1 Q. B. 346, followed. JDaun V. Slmmina, (1879) 41 L. T. 783, dis- tinguished. KiNAHAN & Co. V. PAEEY Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 389 16. — Untrue statements by agent — Measure of damages — Ship — Freight. Where an agent employed to conduct negotia- tions for his principals makes an incorrect state- ment to them that he has concluded a contract on their behalf, the measure of damages for his breach of duty is the loss actually sustained by the principals in consequence of the misrepre- sentation, and does not include profits that the principals might have made if the representation had been true. The respondents employed the appellants to find freight at a certain rate per ton for one of the respondents' ships. The appellants reported that they had concluded a bargain for the charter of the vessel. In fact, no bargain had been concluded ; diflerences which the appellants had hoped to get rid of existed and proved Invincible. Three days after the report of the transaction the respondents learned that the proposed charterers had refused to proceed with the charter. On receiving this information the respondents made no effort to look for an equally advantageous freight, but used their ship under a current contract at a much lower rate per ton. The respondents first brought an action against the alleged charterers, and then against the appellants, claiming in effect the difference between the two rates of freight as damages :— Held, altering the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1903) 40 S. L. E. 305, that the main part of the claim was unten- able, but that the respondents were entitled to damages for trouble which they had incurred, outlays on telegrams and the. like ; and that they were also entitled to the expenses of their action against the alleged charterers down to the closing of the record. ( 2041 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2042 ) PRINCIPAL AND AG:ETiiT—contimied. Cassaioglou v. Gibis; (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 220 ; (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 797, affirmed. CoUen V. Wright, (1857) 7 E. & B. 301 ; (1858) 8 E. & B. 647, distinguished. Chr. SALVESEN & Co. V. EbdebiAktiebolagetN"okdstjbenan H, L. (So.) [1905] W. N. 72; [1905] A. C. 302 — Workmen's Compensation. See under Master and Servant — Compensation. — Writ of summons — Service out of the juris- diction. See under Pkacticb — Service. PRINCIPAL AND SURETY — Administration bond — Duration of sureties' liability. See ArrSTEALlA. 1. — Bankruptcy — Fidelity bond — Surety — Default of trustee — Penal interest — Liability of surety. See Bankruptcy — Trustee. 1, 2. — Bankruptcy of principal — Proof of surety for estimated amount of liability to pay future interest and premiums — Double proof. See Bankruptcy — Proof. 8. — Bond — Sureties — Default — Eights of trade creditors. See Company — Bond. 1. — Corporation — Dissolution — Bona vacantia — Chattels real — Limited company lessees — Sureties for payment of rent during the term. See COEPOEATION. 10. — " Creditor " — Bankruptcy — Fraudulent preference. See Company — Winding-up — Prefer- ence. 1. — Grant of administration — Sureties dispensed with. See Peobate — Sureties. 1 — 3. 1. — Chtarantee — Bond to secure fidelity of employee — Death of swret;/ — Kotice — Determina- tion of liability. Where a bond is given by a surety for the integrity of a person, in consideration of that person's being appointed to an office by the obligee of the bond, the liability of the surety will not, unless expressly so stipulated in the bond, be determined by his death. In re Ceace. Balpoue p. Ceace - Joyce J. [1902] W. N. 34 ; [1902] 1 Oh. 733 — Guarantee — Insurance — Suretyship — Release of guarantor. See Company — Guarantee. 2. 2. — Indemnity — Action quia t'unet^-Present debt — Joint and several guarantee of overdraft at banli — No demand, by hanlt for payment — Parties. Where there is au actual accrued debt secured by a guarantee and one of several co- sureties is liable, and admits liability for the amount guaranteed, he has a right in equity to compel the principal debtor to relieve him from his liability by paying off the debt. This equitable relief is not limited to cases where the creditor has refused to sue the principal debtor. PRINCIPAL AND SURETY- Banelaugh v. Hayes, (1683) 1 Vern. 189; Nisbet V. Smith, (1789) 2 Bro. C. C. 579; Wooldrldge v. Xorria, (1868) L. E. 6 Eq. 410, and Mathews v. Saurin, (1893) 31 L. E. Jr. 181, followed. Suggested limitation in Padwick v. Stanley, (1852) 9 Hare, 627, not followed. Dale 4- Perry v. Zolley, (1808) 2 Bro. C. C. 582, n., and Hugh^s-Hallett v. Indian Mammoth Gold Mines Co., (1882) 22 Ch. D. 561, dis- tinguished. Semhle, neither the creditor nor the co-sureties need be parties. Ascheeson v. Tebdegae Dey Dock and Wharf Co., Ld. Swinfen Eady J. [1909] W. N. 168 : [1909] 2 Ch. 401 — Landlord and tenant — Disclaimer — Lease determined as between lessor and lessee. See Bankeuptcy — Disclaimer. 2, 3. — Liability of sureties to be sued — Contract — Breach — Damages. See Conteact. 8. — Lunatic — Committee and receiver — Default — Accounts — Death of lunatic — Subse- quent receipts — Surety — Liability. See Lunacy. 1. — Married woman — Sm'ety for husband — Im- movables in Transvaal. See Conflict op Laws. 13. 2a. — Mortgage — Collateral security — TacJi- ing. The right of a surety to the benefit of a col- lateral security is not in abeyance tiU he is called on to pay. South V. Bloxam, (1865) 2 H. & M. 457, explained. Dixon v. Steel • Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 178 ; [1901] 2 Oh. 602 — Mortgage — Foreclosure — Tacking — Consolida- tion — Postponement of surety. See Mortgage — Foreclosure. 3. — Mortgage debt — Mortgage insurance policy — Construction — Indemnity — Guarantee — Co-suretyship — Contribution. A bank advanced 4000?. upon a mortgage of a public-house. The mortgage deed contained a joint and several covenant by the mortgagor and D. (who, it was recited, " had agreed to join as surety for the mortgagor ") to pay to the bank, on demand by them left at the public-house, the principal and interest, subject to a proviso that D.'s liability should be limited to lOOOZ. ; and the deed provided that the power of sale conferred on mortgagees by the Conveyancing Act, 1881, should be exercisable at any time after such demand without any fra'ther notice ; and it was also provided and agreed that although, as between the mortgagor and D., D. was only sm'ety for the mortgagor, yet, as between D. and the bank, D. should be considered as principal debtor for the whole mortgage debt. The mort- gage deed also contained a covenant by the mortgagor to insure the mortgage debt and interest with the pit. co. in the name of the bank. Accordingly a mortgage insurance policy was effected with the pit. co., whereby the co, agreed that, if the bank should become entitled under their power of sale to sell the mortgage ( 2043 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2044 ) PRINCIPAL AND SURETY— coMtiraae*?. premises and should give notice in writing thereof to the cc, the co. would after the expira- tion of six months from the receipt of the notice pay the principal and interest ; and it was agreed that thereupon the bank should assign to the CO. the mortgage debt and all securities therefor at the time of granting this policy. The CO. were aware of D.'s covenant. Under this policy, the mortgagor having made default, the 00. paid 5000L for principal, interest, and costs. The mortgaged property realized 4000Z., and the securities for the debt were transferred by the bank to the co. The co. claimed to recover the 1000?. balance against D.'s estate under the covenant in the mortgage deed : — Held, (1) that the policy was not a contract of indemnity, but was a contract of suretyship ; but (2) that upon the true construction of the contract the co. were not co-sureties with D. so as to entitle him to contribution, but were guarantors to the bank against the default of both the mort- gagor and D. The principle of Craytharne v. Swinburne, (1807) 14 Ves. 160 ; 9 E. E. 264, applied. Decision of Swinfen Eady J. [1903] W. N. 140 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 670, reversed. In re DEN- TON'S Estate. Licenses Insurance Cor- POEATION AND GUARANTEE FuND, LD. V. Denton C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 178 4. — Novation — Release of principal dettor — Discharge of surety. In 1903 P. as surety executed mortgages of certain property of his own to a bank to secure the overdraft of P. Brothers, a firm in which he was not a partner. The mortgage deeds all con- tained a provision that the bank should be at liberty without afieoting their rights under the mortgages (among other things) " to vary exchange or release any other securities held or to be held by the bank for or on account of the moneys thereby secured or any part thereof " .... "and to compound with, give time for payment of, and accept compositions fi'om and make any arrangements with the debtors or any of them." In 1908 P. Brothers, being insolvent, called their creditors together, and a scheme was arranged whereby a co. was formed who should take over certain properties of the firm for realiza- tion and should issue debentures to the creditors at the rate of 25s. for each 11. of their debts in full discharge thereof. The bank in accordance with this scheme applied for debenture stock on a form which contained an express agreement by the applicants to accept such debenture stock in full discharge of aU their claims against P. Brothers. Tlie amount of the debt in respect of which debenture stock was to be issued was 1900Z. This amount was arrived at by deducting from the total debt due to the bank 1630?., the value put upon securities held by them on the property of the firm ; but no deduction was made on account of P.'s mortgages. The interest on the debenture stock not having been paid, the bank threatened to sell the property comprised in P.'s mortgages. In an action by P. for recon- veyance of the mortgaged property on the footing that nothing was due on the mortgage : — Held, varying the decision of Neville J., [ 1 909 1 PRINCIPAL AND SV^B,^E,'ri~~colain%ed. W. N. 261, that as to the 1900?. the debt was completely discharged and therefore the sm-ety's property was released ; but that as to the 1 630?. the debt remained unpaid, although the principal debtor was released ; consequently that by the express terms of the mortgage deeds the surety's property continued liable. Cowper V. Smith, (1838) 4 M, & W. 519, and Union Banli of Mancliester v. Beech, (1865) 3 H. & C. 672, followed. Commercial Banh of Tasmania v. Jones, [1893] A. 0. 313, distinguished. Perry 'o. National Provincial Bank of England C. A. [1910] W. N. 20 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 464 Administration • Sureties dispensed with with will annexed. See Probate — Administration 1. — Trustee in bankruptcy — Default — Penal interest — Liability of surety — Unpaid remuneration of trustee — Set-off — Disbursements. See Bankruptcy — Trustee. 1, 2. PRINTING MACHINERY— Hotel bedrooms- Lessor and lessee — Nuisance. See New Zealand. 6. — Noisy neighbourhood — Trade district — In- junction. 5ee Nuisance. 11. PRIORITY— Alienation by " devisee " — Mort- gage of equitable estate — Purchaser for value without notice. See Administration. 26. — Appointment void or voidable — Fraud on power — Mortgage by appointee. See Power op Appointment. — Attachment of debts — Execution — Eights of garnishor — Debentm-e-holder — Pri- orities. See Attachment. 5. — Bankruptcy — Administration of bankrupt's estate — Priority of the Crown — New South "Wales Bankruptcy Act, 1898. See New South Wales. 2. — Charging order for costs on property " re- covered or preserved " — Charge on ship — Constructive notice. See Shippin a— Charging Orders. 1. — Chose in action — Assignment abroad — Notice. See Conflict of Laws. 2. — Company — Debenture-holders and debentures. See under COMPANY — Debentures. — Company — Eeceiver. See under Company — Receiver. — Company — Winding - up — Parliamentary company — Distribution of assets — Preference shares — Deficiency of capital. See Company— Winding-up — Assets 1. — Company generally. See under Company — Priority. ( 204.-, ) DIGEST OF GASES, 1901— 1930. ( 2046 ) VRWRITY-continuei/. — Costs — Charging order— Costs of plaintiff's solicitors — Cost of trustees — Trustees' right of indemnity. See SOLICITOK — Costs. 9. — Costs — Insufficient fund — Priority of adminis- trator's costs — Practice. (S'cc Costs. 2. — " Costs of petitioning creditor " — Trustee's solicitors' costs. See BAiTKRUPTCT — Costs. 3. — Covenant to exercise power as security for loan — Liability of appointed fund for debts. See Power of Appointment. 3. — Debenture-holders — Receiver — Rolling stock — Proceeds of sale. See Railway — Seceiver. 2. — Debt — Same debt assigned to different persons — Notice to debtor. See Assignment. 5. — Dock dues — Right to detain vessel until dues paid — Maritime lien for crew's wages. See Harbour. 3. — Equitable assignment — Fund in Court — Notice — Stop order. See Husband and Wife — Property. 1. — Equitable execution — Effect of order — Un- ascertained residue — Charging order. See Receiver. .1. — Equitable mortgage — Notice — Fraud of vendor's solicitor — Possession of title- deeds. i9ep Vendor and Purchaser— Priority . 1. — Equitable mortgagee — Conflicting equities — Estoppel — Receipt clause — Mortgage. See Principal and Agent. 14. — Execution — Building agreement — Plant on premises — Lien of building owner — Seizure by sheriff. Se-e Sheriffs. 1. — Foreign ship — Wages — Repairs — Maritime lien — Necessaries. See Shipping — Wages. 2. — Hire-purchase agreement — Subsequent equit- able mortgage. See Fixtures. 2. — Insurance . — Life policy — Mortgages — Priorities — Notices. See Insurance (Life). 10. — Marshalling for payment of mortgage — Priority of cestui que trust — Voluntary settlement. See Settlement, is. — Mortgagee or assignee of share, Rights of — Dissolution — Sale of share to co-partner — Accounts. See Partnership. 23. Mortgages. See under Mortgage- -Priority. PKIOEITY— ra»if««e(/. — Mortgages — Priority as between mortgagees depends upon date of advances, not of registration — Law of South Africa. See Cape of Good Hope. 9. — New South Wales Life, &c., Insurance Act, 1902— Crown — Priority of payment. See New South Wales. 14. — Partner, Death of — Partnership assets — Authority to mortgage — Lien of deceased partner's executors — Notice. See Partnership. — Partnership. See under Partnership. — Partnership action — Solicitor — Lien for costs — Charging order. See Solicitor — Lien. 4. — Portions — Mortgage. See under Mortgage — Priority. — Portions — Mortgages. See under Settlement. — Receiver and manager — Order to borrow — First charge given to lender. See Company — Receiver. 1. — Reversionary trust fund — Notice to one of several trustees — Death of trustee who had notice. See Assignment. 10. — Rolling stock — Proceeds of sale — Debenture- holders. See Railway. — Eeceiver. 2. — Salvage — Competing maritime liens — Insuffi- cient proceeds. See Shipping — Salvage. 22. — Settlement — Portions — Mortgages. See under Settlement. -i- Shares — Registration — Transfer in blank — Equitable mortgage — Notice. See Company — Shares. 22. — Ship — Registered owner holding as trustee — Negligence — Principal and agent. See Trustee — Shares. 1. — Special Act — Rent-charges — Prior incum- brances. See Improvement of Land. 1. — Trustees' costs — Property " preserved." See Solicitor— Costs. 9. — Trustee's negligence — Omission to get posses- sion of title-deeds. See Mortgage— Priority. 6. — Voluntary debt — Cre« Officers iPemiom') Act, 1902 (2 Edw. 7, c 9), amends tlie Prison Act, 1877 (40 4'- 41 Vict. c. 21), loith respect to the Allow- ances of Prison Officer's under s. 36. ( 2047 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2048 ) PRISON, ■ESG-LKSn—PhotogmpUng, Jj-o., of PrisoTiers Regn., dated Feb. 22, 1906, made by the Secretary of State under the Penal Servitude Act, 1891, s. 8, for the Measuring and Photo- graphing of Prisoners. St. K. & 0. 1906, No. 160. Price \d. PRISON, ENGLAND— iZjiZej dated April 8, 1908, made by the Secretary of State under the Prison Act, 1898 (61 ^ 62 Vict. c. 41), and the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907 (7 IJdw. 7, o. 23), /or the treatment and custody of appellants not admitted to bail. St. E. & 6. 1908, No. 288. — County courts. See under County Couets. — Crown prerogative — Exemption — Prison Com- missioners — Local Board — By-law. See Cbown. 2. PRISONERS. See under Criminal Law. — Slander — Statements made in witness-box and in preparing proof — Evidence. See Evidence. 11. PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW. See under Conflict of Laws. — Nullity of marriage — Bigamy — Marriage in England between Englishwoman and domiciled Frenchman. See DIVOECB— Nullity of Marriaga. 1. PRIVATE STREETS. See under London Stbbets. Streets. PRIVIES. See under Water-closets. . — Cleansing of, and cesspools — Power of local authority to undertake duty of. See Local Government. 27. — Undertaking by local authority to cleanse — Neglect of duty — Reasonable excuse. See Looal Government. 28. PRIVILEGE — Communication between solicitor and client — " Evasion " of statute — Practice. See Discovery. 16. — Crown, Chattels belonging to — Prerogative — Distress for rent — Landlord and tenant. See Crown. 5. — Crown, Privilege of — Action between subjects involving rights of the Crown — Bight of Crown to transfer action to Revenue side. See Crown. 6. — Defamation — Commission issued by bishop — Witness — Pluralities Act. See Defamation — Pluralities Act. 1. — Discovery. See under Discovery — Practice. — Distress. See under Distress. — Libel. See under DEFAMATION— Iiibel, D.D, PRIVILEGE— co«iwiiMe(?. — Libel— Trade Protection Society— Communi- cations to subscribers not privileged. See Australia. 5. — Slander. See under Defamation — Slander. — Solicitor — Evidence — Private examination. See Company— Winding-up— Exam- ination. 1. PRIVILEGE, WRIT OP- Solicitor- Overseer- Exemption — Appeal to quarter sessions — Costs. See Poor Law. 16. PRIVITY OF CONTRACT— Broker— Principal and agent. See under STOCK EXCHANGE. — Contract with promoter for benefit of intended company — Ratification — Adoption — Patent — Licence — Burden attaching to property — Eight of action. See Company — Contracts. 2. — Secret commission — Sub-agent — Fiduciary relation — Money had and received. See Principal and Agent. 9. — Voidable contract — Assignment of contract — Money had and received. Action for. See Vendor and Purchaser- Con- tracts. 4. PRIVITY or ESTATE — Administration — Lease- holds — Contingent future liabilities — Indemnity. See Executor — Indemnity. 1. — Head-lessor, Rights of — Rent — Sale of goods by receiver — Distress, Loss of remedy by- See Mortgage — Receiver. 1. PRIVY COITNCIL APPEALS. Appearance Orders — 0. in C, dated Mar. 20, 1905. W. N. 1905 (April 8), p. 91. See Current Index, 1905, p. xcii. Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 51), amends the law loith i-espeet to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the Court of Appeal in England. The Judicial Committee Rules, 1908, dated Dee. 21, 1908. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (Jan. 16), p. 60. See Current Index, 1909, p. cxxxi. Judicial Committee, 0. in C, dated Oct. 18, 1909, malii/ng conti/nvAng order directing tlwjt all appeals to Hii Majesty in Council shall be referred to tlie Judicial Committee. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (Nov. 27), p. 387. See Current Index, 1909, p. cxlii. Australia ( Western') — Judicial Committee — 0. in C, dated June 28, 1909, regulating appeals from the Supreme Court of Western Australia to IBs Majesty vn Council. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (Aug. 7), p. 291. See Current Index, 1909, p. cxliii. WinAward Islands — Judicial Committee — 0. in C, dated Jvme 28, 1909, regulating appeals from the Cowrt of Appeal fm' the Winmoard 3TJ ( 20-19 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—11)10. ( 2050 ) PBIVY COUNCIL APP-EALS— continued. Islands, sitting in Barbados, or from the Chief Justice of Barbados to His Majesty in Council. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (Aug. 21), p. 299. See CuBBENT Index, 1909, p. cxlvi. Windward Islands — Judicial Committee — 0. in C. regulating apjieals from the Court of Appeal for the Wriulward Islands sittinq in St. Vincent, or from the Supreme Court of St. Vincent, to His Majesty in Council, dated June 28, 1909. Reprint from W. N. (1909) Aug. 21, p. 301. See Gtjeeent Index, 1909, p. cslix. Windward Islands — Judicial Committee- 0. in C. regulating appeals from the Court of Appeal for the Windward Islands sitting in Grenada, or from the Supreme Court of Grenada, to His Majesty in Council, dated June 28, 1909. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (Aug. 21), p. 301. See CuBBENT Index, 1909, p. cl. Leeward Islands — Judicial Committee — 0. in C. as to appeals from the Supreme Court of the Leeward Islands to His Majesty in Council, dated June 28, 1909. Reprint fi-om W. N. 1909 (Aug. 21), p. 302. See Cubbent Index, 1909, p. cli. Queensland — Judicial Committee — 0. in C, Oct. 18, 1909, regulating appeals to His Majesty in Council from the Supreme Court of the State of Queensland. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (Nov. 27), p. 387. See Cueeent Index, 1909, p. cli. Australia (^South') — Judicial Committee — 0. in C, dated Feb. 15, 1909, regulating appeals to His Majesty in Council from the Supreme Court of the State of Australia. St. R. & 0. 1909, No. 202. Nigeria (^Southern) — 0. in C, dated Feb. 15, 1909,//'om. i/i« Supreme Court of Judicature for the Colony and Protectorate of Soutliern Nigeria. St. R. & 0., 1909, No. 203. Price Id. New South Wales— Judicial Committee — O.in C, dated April 2, 1909, regulating appeals to His Majesty in Council from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Reprint fi-om W. N. 1910 (Feb. 19), p. 76. See Cubbbnt Index, 1910, p. ex. Canada — Alberta — Judicial Committee — 0. in C, dated Jan. 10, 1910, regulating appeals to His Majesty in Council from the Supi'eme Court of AlbeHa. Reprint from W. N. 1910 (Feb. 19), p. 78. See Cubebnt Index, 1909, p. cxi. New Zealand — Judicial Committee — 0. in C, dated Jan. 10, 1910, regulating appeals to His Majesty in Council from the Court if Appeal and from tlie Supreme Court of New Zealand. Reprint fi-om W. N. 1910 (Feb. 19), p. 76. See Cubbent Index, 1910, p. cxi. Prince Edward Island — Judicial Committee — 0. in C, dated Oct. 13, 1910, regulating appeals to His Majesty in Council from the Su2>reme Court of Prince Edward Island. Reprint from W. N. 1910 (Oct. 29), p. 347. See Curebnt Index, 1910, p. cxii. Canada — Saskatchewan — Judicial Committee — 0. in Cdated Oct. 13, 1910, regulati?ig appeals to His Majesty in Council from tlie Supreme Court of Saskatchewan, in tlie Dominion of Canada. Reprint from W. N. 1910 (Oct. 29), p. 847. See Cubbent Index, 1910, p. cxii. PRIVY COUNCIL APPEALS- Tasmania — Judicial Committee — 0. in C, dated Nor. 7, 1910, regulating appeals to His Majesty in Council from the Supreme Court of the State of Tasmania. Reprint from W. N. 1910 (Nov. 19), p. 368. See Cubbent Index, 1910, p. cxiii. New Bruuswioh — Judicial Committee — 0. in C, dated Nor. 7, 1910, regulating appeals to His Majesty in Council from tlie Sujfi'eme CouH of tlie Province of New Brunswick. Reprint from W. N. 1910 (Nov. 19), p. 365. See Cukebnt Index, 1910, p. cxiii. Canada — Manitoba — Judicial Committee — 0. in C, dated Nov. 28, 1910, regulating appeals to His Majesty in Council from the Cmirt of Appeal of the Provi nee of Manitoba, in the Dominion of Canada. Reprint from W. N. 1910 (Dec. 10), p. 377. See Cubebnt Index, 1910, p. cxiv. Pricy Council of England, Acts of the Colonial Series (F. — Record Works). Price Ws each. Appeals, col. 2050. Practice, col. 2051. Appeals. See Africa. Ambeica. austealia. Bbchdanaland. British Guiana. Beitish Hondukas. Canada. Alberta. British Columbia. Manitoba. New Brunswick. Noeth-West Teebitoeies. Nova Scotia. Ontaeio. QUBBEO. VancouviIe. Cape of Good Hope. Ceylon. China and Cobea. Constantinople. Gueensky. Hong Kong. India. Isle of Man. Jamaica. Jeeset. Malta. Maueitius. Natal. Newfoundland. New South Wales. ( 2051 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2052 ) PRIVY COUNCIL (Appeals)— OT/rfi/fMed. New Zbalaitd. qubenslaot). St. Lucia. SiEERA Leone. Straits Settlements — Settle, ment of Singapore. Tasmania. Transvaal (Africa — Trans- vaal). Turks and Caicos Islands. Victoria. Windward Islands. Zanzibar. Practice. See also uuder Colony. — Patents — Proceedings before Judicial Com- mittee. See under Patent. PEOBATE. Administration, col. 2(1.52. Ambiguity, col. 2053. Annuity, col. 2053. Canaellation, col. 2053. Citation, col. 2058. Codicils, col. 2053. Colonial Duties, col. 2054. Colonies, col. 205i. Conduct Money, col. 2055. Conflict of Laws, col. 2055. Contentious Rules, col. 2055. Costs, col. 2055. DoinicU, col. 2057. affect of Prohate, col. 2057. Mngrossments, col. 2058. JEstate Duty, col. 2058. Execution (^Execution of Will), col. 2058. Foreign Domicil, col. 2059. Grant (^Grant of Administration'), col. 2060. Illegitimacy, col. 2061. Incorporation, col. 2061. Land Tramfer, col. 2062. Lunacy, cul. 2062. Marriage, col. 2063. Misconduct, col. 2063. Mutual Wills, col. 2063. Nuncupative Will, col. 2063. Power of Appointment, col. 2064. Practice, col. 2064. Presumption of Death, col. 2068. I'&QiA.TE -continued. Priority, col. 20G8. Prohate Duty. See under Revenue. — Probate Duty. Prohate Duty, col. 2068. Production of Prohate, col. 2069. Rectification of Will, col. 2069. Renunciation, col. 2069. Rewcatimi, col. 2069. Scotland, col. 2074. Soldier's Will, col. 2074. Sureties, col. 2075. Ti'UJitees, col. 2076. Administration. See also under Administration. 1. — Administration hand — Practice — Administration — Intestate estates — Duchy of Lancaster — Death of liolder of title — Death oj administrator appointed hy lier — Nominee of her executors — Form of grant — Sureties dispeiised with. The Court allowed the executors appointed under the wlU of her late Majesty Queen Victoria to nominate a person to talie a number of grants for their use in the estates of persons who had died domiciled in the County Palatine of Lan- caster, and which had been either wholly or partially unadministered. The Court, however, while consenting to dis- pense sureties, required that, inasmuch as the administrator was not to take for the use of the Sovereign, but for the use of the late Sovereign's executors, he should enter into the usual adminis- tration bond. In the Goods op Best. Jenne, Pres. [1901] P. 333 2. — Administration de bonis non — Original administrator believed to he dead — Probate Act, 1857 (20 ^' 21 Vict. c. 77), s. 74. The original administrator of a deceased intes- tate could not be found and was beHeved to be dead. Additional assets having been discovered due and payable to the estate of the intestate, the Court, by virtue of s. 74 of the Probate Act, 1857, granted administration de bonis non to one of the next of Idn, upon her affidavit that she believed the original administrator (her brother) to be dead or beyond the seas. In the Estate of Sakbb. Bargrave Deaue J. [1909] P. 233 3. — Sureties dispensed with — Practice — Ad- ministration with loill annealed — Advertisements for claims agai7ist estate — Administrators' under- taking to retain a certain portion of estate to mset pos-nble debts— Probate Act, 1857 (20 <^ 21 Vict, c. 77), s. SI— Order. The sole executrix and universal legatee and devisee of the deceased died without having obtained probate of his will. Advertisements having been inserted for any creditors of his estate, and no answers having been received thereto, the executors of the executrix, on applying for a grant of administra- tion with the will of the testator annexed, were excused from linding sureties, and their personal bond alone was accepted, upon their undertaking 3u2 ( 2053 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2054 ) PROBATE (Administration) — continued. to retain, for the space of one year, assets of the testator equivalent to about four times the amount of his known debts (including his funeral expenses), in order to meet any possible claims against his estate. In the Estate of Harper. Bargrave Deane J. [1909] P. 88 Ambiguity. — Administration (with will annexed) to resi- duary legatee — Absolute gift cut down, by later wordt-, to life interest. See Will — Absolute Gift. 1. — "Will— Latent ambiguity — Gift to "my grand- daughter" — Partial blank — Parol evi- dence — Grant of probate. See Will — Ambiguity. 2. Annuity. — Death of annuitant before probate— Kight to value of annuity'. See AlCNUiTY. 4. Cancellation. 1. — Erroneous impi'ession of testator as to the effect of an earlier settlement — Will — Probate of cancelled document. A testator, on the execution of a will in 1895, caused a will of 1882 to be cancelled under the erroneous belief that funds comprised in a settle- ment of 1855 would, in the absence of certain provisions in the will of 1882, be divided equally amongst the children of his first marriage. In 1896 he executed a fresh will, and revoked the will of 1895, and later in 1896 he executed two codicils, but the settled funds were not mentioned in any of the documents of 1896. In a suit by the executors propounding the will and codicils of 1896 together with the will of 1882 :— Meld, that the will of 1882 was, in law, a valid and subsisting testamentary document, and that it should be included with the three docu- ments of 1896 in the probate. Stamford r. White Jeune, Pres. [1901] P. 46 Citation. 1. — AdminUt rat'uin, with loill annexed — Specific legatee — Limited grant — Probate Act, 1857 (20 # 21 Vict. c. 77),'s. 73. The Court, without requiring citation of next of kin, made a limited grant of administration, with will annexed, under s. 73, to the sole bene- ficiary named in the will. In the Goods of Jenny Watson (1858) 1 Sw. & Tr. 110, followed. In the Goods of Baldwin Gorell Barnes J. [1903] P. 61 Codicils. 1. — 117?^ and codicils — Construction — Form and position of writing forming second codicil. A testamentary document, whether will or codicil, requires no special form of words. Where a document, duly executed and pro- pounded as a second codicil, was written wholly on one page of one piece of paper, and formed, according to the evidence given in support of it, one transaction, it was held to be entitled to prolate along with the will ancj first codioij. PROBATE (Coiicili)— continued. although a material portion of the second codicil was written in a space above the signatures to the first codicil. Oldeotd v. Habvet Bargrave Beane J. [1907] P. 826 2. — Will — Codicil — Revocation — Inconsis- tency — Admission to probate — Codicils of same date — No evidence of priority of execution — Par- tial inconsistency. Prima facie every testamentary document duly executed in accordance with the provisions of the Wills Act ought to be admitted to probate. But, if there are two testamentary documents of the same date and it cannot be ascertained which of them was executed first, and their provisions are so inconsistent that they cannot stand to- gether, the presumption in favour of admissibility will be rebutted, and neither document will be admitted to probate. But when the provisions of two testamentary documents, the prigrity of which is uncertain and in neither of which there are express words of revocation, are apparently inconsistent, the Court will endeavour so to construe the words that if possible the two documents may stand together and may both be admitted to probate as express- ing together the whole testamentary intention of the testator. The statement of the law in Williams on Executors, 7th ed. vol. i. p. 162 ; 9th ed. vol. i. p. 138, approved and adopted. A testatrix executed two codicils, both dated the same day, their provisions being to some extent inconsistent. The evidence of an attesting witness proved, in the opinion of the C. A., that the two codicils were executed on the same occasion and practically simultaneously. There was nothing to shew which was in fact executed first. Gorell Barnes J. refused to admit either codicil to probate, on the groand that an intro- ductory clause in each shewed that it was intended to operate only in the event of the testatrix surviving her husband, whereas she died before him : — Seld, by the C. A., that, on the true con- struction of the introductory clause, the codicils were not contingent or conditional, but were intended to operate in any event : Held, also (by Vaughan Williams and Romer L.J J., Cozens-Hardy L.J. doubting), that the provisions of the two codicils were not so incon- sistent that they could not stand together, and that both ought to be admitted to probate. Townsend r. Moore C. A. [1905] W. N. 4 ; [1905] P. 66 Colonial Duties. — Victoria Administration and Probate Act- Colonial death duty. See Will — Colonial Duties. 1. Colonies. 1. — Colonial Probates Act, 1892 (55 ^- 56 Vict, c. 6) — Resealing — Limited grant. A colonial grant, though unlimited, may be resealed in the United Kingdom, provided that the proper conditions prescribed by the Colonial Probates Act, 1892, have been complied with, In the Goods op Smith - . Bncknill J. [1904] P. 114 ( 20S5 ) DIGEST OF GASES, 1901— 19l0.- ( 2066 ) 'P'ROBAT'E—confimied. Conduct Money. 1. — Practice — Attendance in Com-t for cross- examirtation — Court of Probate Act, 1857 (20 4' 21 Viet. d. 77), ». 26. Upon a motion to attach a person for not complying with an order made under s. 2t) of the Probate Act, 1857, directing his attendance in Court for cross-examination as to his knowledge of a certain testamentary paper : — Held, that the motion must be refused, no conduct money having been tendered. In the Estate of Haevet - Gorell Barnes, Pres, [1907] W. N. 74 ; [1907] P. 239 2, — Practice — Attendance of witnesses for examination. Motion to attach the respondent (husband) for disobeying an order directing him to attend at the Divorce Eegistry for examination as to his means. The wife (petitioner) had no separate estate. Sir Gorell Barnes, Pres., said that he had come to the conclusion that conduct money was payable when the Court ordered the attendance of a witness for examination. Therefore, the technical objection must prevail and the motion must be dismissed. Townbnd v. Townbnd (July 10, 1905) Gorell Barnes, Pres. [1907] P. 239, a. Conflict of Laws. — Limitations, Statute of — Cause of action — Grant of letters of administration — Powers of registrar. See Hong Kong. 3. — Unattested wiU — Domiciled foreigner — Lease- holds — Administration with will an- nexed. See Conflict of Laws. 17. Contentious Rules. — Probate Contentious Eules, 1862, r. 100— Summons — Service. See Probate — Practice. 8. Costs. 1. — Costs out of the estate— Will — Undue — influence and fraud unsuccessfully pleaded — Practice. Where the facts surrounding' the making of a will bring the case within the principles laid down in Brovm v. Fi^h-ei; (1890) 63 L. T. 465, Fultmi V. Andrew, (1875) L. E. 7 H. L. 448, and Tyrrell v. Painton, [1894] P. 151, and impose upon the party propounding the will, not merely the onus of proving due execution and testa- mentary capacity but the additional burden of removing the suspicion attaching to the making of the will, a person opposing it is prima facie justiiied in pleading undue influence and fraud, and, though unsuccessful, ought not to be condemned in costs unless the circumstances of the case be such as to render it unreasonable for him to raise such issues. Where a defendant put forward those pleas and failed, the Court, following the case of Orton V. Smith, (1873) L. E. 3 P. & M. 23, ordered that the costs of the defendant, as between party and PROBATE (CoBtB)— continued. party, be allowed out of the estate, after the pit., who succeeded in discharging the additional onus of proof cast upon her in the case, should have first falcen her costs, as between solicitor and client, out of the estate. Wilson v. Bassil Walton J. [1903] P. 239 Note. This case was commented on by Gorell Barnes P., Sjriers v. English, [1907] P. 122. See JYo. 3, ' 2. — JUxecutors — Costs. Executors, who are also residuary legatees, are in the same position, as to costs, as any other party who unsuccessfully propounds a will. Where executors, who were also named as residuary legatees, had ample opportunities of forming an opinion as to the testamentary capacity of the deceased, and, acting upon their opinion, propounded a will or wills, which, in the result, were pronounced against, after verdict of a jury, on the ground of testamentary incapacity and want of Imowledge and approval of the contents : — Seld, that not only was this a case in which their costs should not be allowed out of the estate, but that, following the general rule that costs follow the event, they should pay the costs of the deft. ; but not of any of the parties cited, whose interests were practically identical with those of the deft. BimghtQn v. Knight, (187B) L. E. 3 P. & M. 64, distinguished. TwiST v. Ttb Gorell Barnes J. [1902] P. 92 — Death of vendor before completion — Costs of probate — Sale of leaseholds — Vendor's will — Costs — Taxation. See Lands Clauses Acts. 19. 3. — Practice — Costs. The two main principles which should guide the Court in determining that costs in a probate suit are not to follow the event are, firstly, where the testator or those interested in the residue have been the cause of the litigation ; and, secondly, if the circumstances lead reasonably to an investigation in regard to a propounded docu- ment. In this latter case the costs may be left to be borne by those who incurred them ; in the former, the costs of unsuccessfully opposing probate may be ordered to be paid out of the estate. Neither of those principles, which, however, are not exhaustive, justifies a plea of undue influence unless there were reasonable grounds for putting it forward. Wilson V. Sas.iil, [1903] P. 239, commented on. Spiebs v. English Gorell Barnes, Pres. [1907] P. 122 4. — Practice — Costs — JS'ew rule — S. S. C, Order LXV-, r. 14 (rf). Under the additional rule (Order LXV., r. 14 id") ), the Court ordered the costs of both pit. and deft, to be charged on and paid out of the corpus of certain real estate devised by the will to successive life tenants. [In another case, the costs of all parties were ordered to be paid out of the residuary shares of four defts. (there being six in all, interested ( ) DIGKST OF OASES, 1901— IfllO. ( iOr,8 ) PEOBATE (Costs)— continued. under tbe will in the residuary estate to the tes- lator), these four defts. being held to have caused the litigation]. Dean c. Bulmek Jenne, Pres. [1905] P. 1 yoic. This case was referred to by Kekewich J., In re rieherstaff, [1906] 1 Ch. 762. See Administration. 24. 6. — Practice— Co!it.-(—yeio Rule~B. S. C, Order LXV., r. 14 ((Z). In pronouncing for the mil, the Court ordered that the costs of all parties be paid out of that portion of the residuary estate passing under the wiU to four out of the six defts. Harrington V. Butt Gorell Barnes J. [1905] P. 3, n. 6. — Practice — Oo.sts — Ta.i:atioii — Quantum — Interference with discretion of rei/ixtrar. As a general rule the Coui-t will not interfere with the decision of the taxing registrar upon a mere question of quantum. In the Estate of Ogilvib. Ogilvie *■. Massey C. A. [1910] P. 243 7. — Practice — Mule 41 (^Contentions Rules, 1862)— i?. S. a, Order XXL, r. 18— Suit for revocation of Prolate — Xutice by plaintiff to cross-examine. In construing Order XXI., r. 18, the principles which guided the old Ecclesiastical Courts and afterwards the Probate Court, ought to be con- sidered ; and, following out those principles, a distinction is to be drawn between a party who seeks to call in and obtain revocation of probate, and a party who enters a caveat and takes the ordinary steps in opposing a will being admitted to proof. A notice given under Order XXI., r. 18, by a pit. who claimed revocation of probate, held bad. Beale v. Beale (1874) L. R. 3 P. & M. 179, approved. Tomalin ». Smaet | Jeune, Pres. [1904] P. 141 — Probate action — Contract by parties that costs shall be paid out of the estate — Infant co-contractor — Illegality. 16. See Contract. 8. — Probate suit — Costs. Where a principal beneficiary takes instruc- tions himself and causes a will to be prepared by a solicitor upon those instructions, but the soU- citor does not see the testator, the circumstances so far invite inquiry as to justify the Court in refusing to condemn in costs a party opposing probate of the will. ArLWIN r. Aylwin Jeune, Pres. [1902] P. 203 Domicil. See also under DOMICIL. — Foreign domicil. See under Probate — Foreign Domioil. Effect of Probate. — Will — Codicil consisting of list oF names and pecuniary amounts — Gift of legacies. See WiU— Probate, Effect of. 1. PROBATE — contiii ucd. Engrossments. Probate Engbossmekts.] Dictum by the PreHident of the Probate Division. Reprint from W. N. 1901 (Jan. 26), p. 53. See Current Index, 1901, p. xcTii. Estate Duty. — Exemption — Trust for conversion into realty — Payment of probate duty. See Revenue — Estate Duty. s. Execution. (Execution of Will.) 1. — Acknowledgment — Discrepancy between attestation clause and affidavit of attesting icitness — Xo enidence of any writing on first page at time of e-eecution. In the case of a holograph will, the whole operative portion of which was T\Titten on the first page of a sheet of paper, the attestation clause containing the signature of the testator was written on the second page and stated that the wiU was " signed " by the testator in the presence of the witnesses. An affidavit, made by one witness only, stated that they did not see the first page at all, and set forth facts pointing to acknowledgment only in the presence of the witnesses : — Held (by Sir F. Jeune, doubting), that the will was entitled to probate without notice to the next of kin. In the Goods of Moore Jeune, Pres. [1901] P. 44 2. — Clause in imll imei-ted by inadvertence of solicitor — Heading over — Testamentary capa- city — Due e-cecution — Knowledge and approval — Presumption of law. Without impugning the general rule of law that a competent testator who reads over his will, or to whom it is read over, is to be held to have approved its contents, it is still open to the tribunal before whom the question of the validity of the document may come to find as a fact that the will was not read over in a proper way. The general rules stated in Guardhouse v. BlacUurn, (1866) L. R. 1 P. & III. 109, and com- mented on in Fultoti v. Andrew, (1875) L. K. 7 H. L. 448, discussed. Garnktt-BotpiblD'!'. Garnett-Botpield Jeune, Pres. [1901] P. 338 3. — Infornud docifinent — Execution — Wttne.w dead — Xo attestation clau.'ic — Xoeridence of handwriting of one witness — Presumption: " Omnia prcesumuntur rite esse acta." The Com-t (Sir F. H. Jeune, Pres.) extended the presumption of law — " Omnia prsesumuntur rite esse acta " — to the case of an informal holograph document containing no attestation clause what- ever, and in regard to which there was no evidence to prpve the handwriting of one of the persons (both of whom were dead) wliose names appeared near the signature of the testatrix at the foot or end of the document. In the Goods of Pevbeett Jeune, Pres. [1902] P. 20B 4. — Testamentarg papers — Execution by one person of codicil of the otiier person — Jlistahe — Intention— Effect — Refusal (f probate. Two sisters executed codicils similar in terras. By mistake each sister executed the ( I'Oog ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2060 ) PROBATE (Execution)— cw«««««7. codicil intended for, and purporting to be, that of the other. Upon application after the death of one of the sisters for probate of the codicil executed by her : — Held, that the intention to execute the document propounded being wholly absent, probate must be refused in respect of the whole document, notwithstanding that it contained some testamentary dispositions which were intended by the testatrix, being, in fact, common to the two documents executed. In the Estate of Meter Gorrell Barnes, Pres. [1908] P. 358 5. — Unattached papers forming will — Identification — Execution — Achwwledgment and attestation. If it be clearly established by parol eyidence that the pieces of paper propounded as a will were held together in some way and were so produced to the attesting witnesses and acknow- ledged by the testator as his will, and his signa- ture thereon was shewn to them and declared by the testator to be his signature, the attestation of the document by the attesting witnesses in the presence of the the testator renders it a duly executed wiU and entitles it to probate, although the pieces of paper were not attached by any mechanical fastening. Lewis v. Lewis Bargrave Beane J. [1908] P. 1 6. — IFZK — Mista/ie — Inadvertence of solicitor — Opportunity for reading ocer — Due execution — Want of knowledge and approval — Words eliminated from proiate. Where the solicitor •*ho drew the will of the testatrix mistook the extent of her interest in certain landed estates, and the will was accord- ingly executed devising only her " undivided moiety of and in" the said estates, the Court, notwithstanding the fact that a draft of the wiU had been sent for her approval, and she had returned the said draft with certain alterations in other parts, found as a fact that she did not know and approve of the clause as drawn, and directed that the restrictive words should be eliminated fi'om the probate. Beisco ■». Baillie Hamilton Jeune, Pres. [1902] P. 234 — Will — Several sheets of paper — Destruction of two — Effect — Revocation. See Pbobate — Eevocation. 9, Foreign Domicil. 1. — Administration — Will — Chant to foreign administrators — Executors passed over — Practice The Court wiU follow the gi-ant of the foreign domicil, unless the administrators appointed by the foreign Court are, by the law and practice of this country, personally disqualified from taking a grant here. Thus, where a testator died domiciled in Belgium, leaving a will and codicil in English form appointing executors, and also leaving a Belgian wiU, the Court made a grant of adminis- tration with all three documents annexed in favour of two persons who had been appointed administrators of the deceased's estate abroad. PROBATE (Foreign Domicil) — contimisd. in accordance with the law of the domicil. In the Goods oi' Mbatyaed Jeune, Pres. [1903] P. 126 2. — Foreign domicil, wiU,\and marriage — JSni/lisli domicil subsequently acquired — Practice — Wills Act, 1861 (24 ^ 25 Vict. u. 114), s. 3— Construction. The 3rd section of the WiUs Act, 1861, the title of which is, " An Act to amend the law with respect to wiUs of personal estate made by British subjects " : — Held (by Gorell Barnes J.), not to be limited in its operation to the will of British subjects, but to extend to the will of a foreign testatrix, made before her marriage, and in strict con- formity with the law of her foreign domicil at that time ; according to which, marriage does revoke a will : Held, further, that the English domicil acquned by the testatrix after the date of the will and after the date of the marriage did not affect the question of the validity of the will, but that, as the will in terms provided, in accordance with the law of the former domicil, that the executorship should be limited to the space of one year, the grant of probate must be limited to one year from the date of the death of the testa- trix. In the Estate of Gkoos Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 269 Grant. (Grant of Administration.) — Corporate creditor — Grant of administration to officer — Retainer. See EXECUTOK — Retainer. 2. — Domiciled foreigner — Unattested wiU — Lease- holds — Lex rei sitse — Lex domicilii. See Conflict op Laws. 17. 1. — Executor, Appointment of — Practice — Will of domiciled Italian — Probate refused — Administration until will annexed granted. Even where the husband consents, the Court will refuse to grant probate to the executor named in tlie will of a married woman, who dies domiciled abroad ; but with such consent, will make a general grant of administration with the will annexed. In the goods of Hallyiurton, (1866), L. B. 1 P. & M. 90, and In the goods of Trefond, (1899) P. 247, commented on and explained. In the Goods of Vannini Jeune, Pres. [1901] P. 330 2. — Husband and wife — Commori Form of oath to lead grants of administration — Practice. Where a husband and wife with all their children were said to have perished in a massacre, the Court, upon affidavits that they were believed to have died intestate and uninsured, granted letters of administration to the respective next of kin of the husband and wife ; and, further, gave leave to vary the usual form of oath to lead the grants, by allowing the administrator and administratrix to swear that the husband and wife perished at the same time (named) and that after due inquiries, there was no reason to believe that either survived the other. In the Goods OF Betnon. - Gorell Barnes J. [1901] P. 141 ( 2061 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2062 ) PBOBATE (Bra.nt^—oontiniierl. 3. — Sureties dispensed with — Prolate Act, 1857 (20 S- 21 Vict. c. 77), s. 81. In a case of an estate where all the debts had been paid, and the persons applying for adminis- tration were entitled, as the duly constituted legal personal representatives in two other estates, to receive the whole of the residue, the Court dispensed with sureties and directed that the bond of the applicants alone should be accepted. In the Goods of Patok Jeune, Pres. [1901] P. 188 lUegitimacy. — Illegitimate child born after date of will. Probate granted to. iSeeWiLL — Illegitimacy. 1. Incorporation. 1. — SejmbHcation of will by codicil — Refer- ence in ivill to future document — Incorporation. The testatrix, by a will made in 1895, gave to M. E. S., during her life for her own absolute use and benefit, all her furniture, books, plate, and personal effects, and, after the death of the said M. K. S., the testatrix directed that her trustees should give to such of her friends as she (the testatrix) might designate in a book or memO' randum, to be found with her will, "the different articles specified for such friends in such book or memorandum . . . ." The will also declared that M. R. S. was to have absolute power to dis- pose of any articles not specifically disposed of by the testatrix : — Held, that as the " book or memorandum " was refeiTed to in the will as a futm-e document, the codicil, which confirmed the will, could thereby only be taken to speak of the book as a future document, even although it was in fact written before tlie date of the codicil ; Held, therefore, that the book was not incor- porated and could not be included in the probate. In the Goods op Smart Gorell Barnes J. [1902] P. 238 2. — Will and codicils. The testator made a will in 1894, and a holo- graph codicil in 1898, both duly executed and attested. The will of 1894 had been settled by his con- veyancing counsel, whom he had known for many years, and who had transacted much of his private business. In 1902 a codicil was drawn by a confidential clerk of the testator to what the clerk believed to be the last will of the deceased, the testator having vouched that he had executed a will, though without giving any date ; and the clerk, assuming that such a will had been executed, based it on an incomplete draft handed to him by the deceased. This codicil was duly executed and attested, the testator saying, " This is a codicil to my last will." It carried out his wishes, so far as it went ; but some points, as to which the testator was still undecided, were left over for further consideration. The testator died shortly after executing this codicil : — Held, that the will of 1894, the codicil thereto of 1898, and the document executed as PROBATE (Incorporation) — continued. a codicil in 1902, were all to be admitted to probate. Eyeb v. Eyeb Buoknill J. [1903] P. 131 3. — Will and unexecuted memorandum. In order to admit parol evidence for the pur- pose of identifying a document referred to in a will and intended to be incorporated, the description of the document in the vriU must definitely refer to an existing document. If the will can be construed as referring to an existing or future document, parol evidence is not admis- sible. Decision of Gorell Barnes, Pres., [1907] P. 228, reversed. Univeesity College op North Wales v. Tayloe - C. A. [1907] W. N. 217 ; [1908] P. 140 Land Transfer. — Costs to come " out of the estate " — Insuffi- cient personalty. See Administeation. 24. Escheated land — Administration — Creditor, See Land Teansfee. 1. Lunacy. 1. — Lnnacy of one of the executors after pi'ocinff will — Revocation of probate — Fresh grant to remaining executors — Form of grant — Practice. Where one of three executors, who had proved a will, subsequently became of unsound mind, the Court, on the application of the others, revoked the grant, and made a fresh grant of probate to the applicants, reserving power to the lunatic, in case he should become of sound mind and apply, to join in the probate. In the Estate of Shaw. Gorell Barnes J. [1905] P. 92 2. — Practice — Lunatic defendant — Position of official solicitor, if appointed guardian ad litem Costs — Will torn up in testator's presence vnth- out his autJiority — Subsequent ratification inad- missible — Words missing fram will witen pieced togetlier — Oral evidence — Probate — Form of order. The official solicitor, if appointed guardian ad litem to a lunatic deft, in a probate suit, has no greater rights and is in no better position than any other solicitor appearing for a party in a probate suit, except that he will probably be allowed, out of the estate, costs properly incurred in the conduct of the defence. Where a will has been torn up without the testator's authority, he cannot, by any subsequent ratification of the destruction, render the act a valid revocation of the will. The dictum of Butt J. in MilU i: Jlillward, (1889) 15 P. D. 20, approved. The Court wiD not order to be inserted in the probate words actually missing from a torn will which has been pieced together, but the prac- tice to be followed in such a case, where satisfactory oral evidence is before the Court proving what the missing words were, is to allo\N' a document shewing what those words are proved to have been to be annexed to the pro- bate. Gill r. Gill Bargrave Deane J. [1909] P. 157 ( 2063 ) DIGEST OF OASES, l90l— 1910. ( 2064 ) PROBATE— co«ii?we(f. Marriage. See also under Maekiagjs. 1. — Marriage — Pedigree — Evidence. — Ad- ministration suit. The Court, in the absence of any official record, accepted, as sufficient prima facie evidence of a marriage of the parents of an intestate, a statement contained in an extract from a Scottish marriage register of the year 1868 (the bridegroom being the intestate's brother), in which, under the heading " Name, surname, and rank or profession of father," appeared the names and descriptions of both parents of the bridegroom. Wiglbt ■«. Solicitor to the Tebasuet Jetme, Pres. [1902] P. 233 Uisconduct. 1. — Administration — Grant — Oitatioii — Practice — Administration of Estates Act, 1529 (21 Men. 8, c. 5) — Widow passed over on ground of marital misconduct. On an application for a grant of administra- tion to the son of an intestate, passing over the widovr on the ground of marital misconduct, which had been established in a suit by the intestate, the Court made the grant to the son without requiring the widow to be cited. In the Goods of Middleton, (1888) 14 P. D. 23, distinguished. In the Estate of Fbost Bargrave Beane J. [1905] P. 140 Mutual Wills. 1. — Fresh will made by party who pre- deceases the otlier — Notice on death — Mo relief to surrivor. Where two persons have made an arrange- ment as to the disposal of their property and executed mutual wills in pursuance of that arrangement, the one of them who prede- ceases the other dies with the implied promise of the survivor that the arrangement shall hold good ; and if the survivor, after taking a bene- fit under the arrangement alters his will, his personal representative takes the property upon trust to perform the contract, for the will of the one who has died first has, by the death, become irrevocable. But, on the contrary, where the one who dies iirst has departed from the bargain by executing a fresh wiU revoking the former one, the survivor, who has, on the death of the other party to the arrangement, notice of the alteration, cannot claim to have the later will of the deceased set aside or modified, either by way of declaration of trust or other- wise. Stone r. Hoskins. Gorell Barnes, Pres. [1905] P. 194 Nuncupative Will. 1. — Volti/nteer soldier — Minor — Wills Act (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 11 — In actual military service. The test to be applied in considering whether a nuncupative will of a soldier is entitled to probate under the 11th section of the Wills Act, is whether, before the will was made, some step has under orders been taken by the soldier in view of and preparatory to joining the forces in the field. PROBATE (Nuncupative "Will)— continued. A printer's apprentice, who was a private in a volunteer battalion and resided with his father in Chichester, sent in his name for active service in the war then being waged in South Africa, was certified as fit by the medical inspector, and, pursuant, to an order, went into barracks at Chichester, and while there made his will, being at that time under twenty-one years of age. An order was subsequently received from the military authorities pursuant to which he embarked with his regiment, and he died from a wound received in battle : — Held, that by taking the step of going into barracks with a view to being drafted to the seat of war, he had brought himself within the operation of s. 11 of the Wills Act, and that he was, at the time he made his will, " a soldier in actual military service " ; and, consequently, that his will, though made at a time when he was under age, was entitled to probate. In the Goods of Hiscook. Jeune, Pres. [1901] P. 78 Power of Appointment. — Special power of appointment — Will — Exer- cise by earlier will — No express clause of revocation — Later will alone admitted to Probate. See PowEB OF Appointment. 28. Practice. 1. — Administration — Intestacy — Divorce — ■ Former hu.Hband j)assed over idtkout citation — Probate Act, 1857 (20 ^- 21 Vict. c. 77), s. 73— Sureties required to justify. A divorced spouse, whether petitioner or re- spondent, ceases to have an interest in the estate of the other party to the dissolved marriage who subsequently died intestate ; and, in such a case, the Court will pass over the surviving spouse without citation, but, in granting administration to the next of kin, will require the sureties to the administration bond to justify. In the Estate op Wallas - Bargrave Beane J. [1905] P. 326 2. — Administration — Intestacy — Limited foreign grant — Assets in Etigland—Fiill grant under s. 73 tofm-etgn administrator. In a case where the Court of the domicil of a deceased person, part of whose assets consisted of personal estate in England, had made a grant of administration limited in time, this Court made, under s. 73 of the Probate Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 77), a general grant to the foreign administrator. In THE Estate of Levy. Bargrave Deane J. [1908] P. 108 3. — Administration pendent lite — Concur- rent suits in Chancery and Probate Dimsions — Creditors — Siirelies. In a creditor's action in the Chancery Division for the administration of the estate of a deceased person, the defts. in that action being respec- tively the pits, and defts. in a probate suit relat- ing to the testamentary documents of the deceased, the Probate Division, on the application of the .plaintiffs in the Chancery action, who, were, however, not parties to the probate suit appointed as administrators pendente lite the I same persona who had been appointed receivers ( 2065 ) DIGEST OF CASES. 1901— 1910. ( 2066 ) PROBATE (rTa.ctice)—co)iti7iued. by the Chancery Division, and with the same surety. In the Estate of Cleaver Gorell Barnes, Pres. [190S] W. N. 136 ; [1905] P. 319 4. — Attachment — Solicitors Act, 1860 (23 ij' 2-t Vict. c. 127), s. 26 — Unauthorised person — Lodgi'ng caveat — Ministerial act. Lodging a caveat is a ministerial act ; and a person, not being a solicitor, who performs this act on behalf of another, is not liable to attach- ment under s. 26 of the Solicitors Act, 1860. In re Pajttok. Jevine, Pres. [1901J W. N. 116 ; [1901] P. 239 — Costs — Practice. See under Probate — Costs. 5. — Joint grant — Administration with will annexed — Sole e.vecntri.e incapahle of actliuj — Joint grant to nominees of sole executri.r — Court of Probate Act, 1857 (20 S' 21 Viet. c. 77), 5. 73. Where a sole executrix and universal legatee was incapable, owing to ill-health, of taking probate, the Court allowed a joint grant of administration, with the will annexed, to be taken by her nominees. In Ike Goods of Roberts, (1858), 1 Sw. i: Tr. 64, followed. In the Estate of Davis Bargrave Deane J. [1906] P. 330 6. — Married tvoman — Separation order under the Sumvnary Jurisdiction. (^Mai ried. M'omen') Act, 1895(58 4-59 Vict. u.'A'i)— Will— Administration — Husband surmmng — Daughter (a minor') also surviving — Forub of order. A motion which had reference to the estate of a married woman who obtained, some years before her death, a separation order against her husband under the Summary Jurisdiction (Mar- ried Women) Act, 1895, and subsequently made a will. On Dec. 19, 1904, an application was made on motion that a grant of letters of administration with the will annexed should be made to the curator or guardian during the minority of J. The form of the motion, as filed, had been for a grant under s. 73 of the Probate Act, but counsel, at the hearing, submitted that he was entitled to a full grant, in view of the wording of s. 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, and the late President (Sir Francis Jeune), upon the election of guardian by the minor being brought in, acceded to the form of application submitted by counsel, and made the grant without requiring the husband to be cited, but said that the sureties to the administration bond must justify, as was required by Sir J. P. Wilde in the ease of In the Goods of Stephenson (1856) L. E. I. P. & M. 287. A report of the case appeared in the Law Journal Reports. The order was drawn up in the Probate Registry in the regular form adopted in such cases, that is, covering only such property as the deceased had acquired since the date of the separation order, but the applicant not being satisfied therewith, mentioned the matter to the present pi-esident (Sir Gorell Barnes) on Feb. 13, 1905, when his Lordship directed that the motion PROBATE (Practice)— co/i«Miwec?. should be restored to the paper and be brought on for reargument. The case has, however, never been reargued, and it is understood that the order stands in the form insisted on in the Probate Registry. The practice, therefore, remains unaltered, and the case before Sir F. Jeune became, under these circumstances, unxeportable. In the Estate OF Jones Jeune, Pres. [1905] W. N. 10 7. — Oath of Adminidratrix — Next of hin — Probate practice — Administration — Intestacy — Probate Act, 1857 (20 # 21 Vict. c. 77), x. 73. Motion for administration under s. 73 of the Probate Act, 1S57. Gorell Barnes J. : It may be worth while to mention in Court, though I am not required to pronounce judgment, that I have had the papers in the case of In the Goods of Reed, (1874) 29 L. T. (N.S.) 932, looked up, and I find that the order made in that case was that administration should be granted " on the usual affidavits shewing her title to the grant being filed in the registry," and that when the matter got into the register the applicant swore an affidavit stating that she believed that the deceased died vrithout father, and that she was the only next of kin ; but, when the grant went, it appears to have been con- sidered by two registrars, who both initialled the grant and let it go to her as next of kin. This was right, because she was the mother, and was as much next of kin as the father. I do not think, therefore, that the report of the case ought to be acted upon without more consideration, for ■ the examination of the cases seems to shew that the report does not give fully what took place. I have also had the papers in the case of In the Goods of Pridham (1889) 61 L.T. (N.S.)302, looked up, and it may be of interest to state that the return fi'om the officer who took the note of the hearing in the C. A. was to the effect that the Court stated that the decision was not the subject of appeal. The actual wording of the officer's note is : " Apphcation refused : this is not a subject of appeal." The report (p. 303) of the case states that "The Lords Justices held that the rule of practice must bow to the exigen- cies of each particular case. They would have been fully prepared to follow the authority cited (2« the Goods of Reed') if the facts in this case were, in their judgment, sufiiciently strong. Upon the evidence, however, they had come to the conclusion that the present application must be refused, and the appeal would, therefore, be dismissed." Then, from what the registrar has told me, the applicant, who had been thus refused, took out a citation, and, upon affidavit of non- appearance thereto, filed a fresh motion, which was also rejected. I suppose that the applicant was trying to get in under s. 73, and was refused — though the reason why is not stated — I suppose because, if the person, whom it was sought to pass over, were dead, s. 73 did not come into operation. After being so refused, the applicant in that case did swear tlie usual oath and take the grant as next of kin. In the Goods op Jackson Gorell Barnes J. [1902] W. N. 215 8. — Proced^ire — Intervener — Probate action — Married woman — "Proceeding instituted^' — ( 206? ) DIGEST OF CASES, I90l--i9l0. ( 2068 ) PROBATE (Practice)— co««;mer/. i Independent interest — Separate estate — Restraint on anticipation — Costs of opposite party — Form oforder—R. S. C, 1883, Order XIL, r. 23—Fro- iate Cowrt Rules, 1862 (^Contentions JSusiness'), r. 6 —Married Women's Property Act, 1893 (56 S: 5V Yiot. V. 63), s. 2. A summons by a, married woman under R. 0. S., 1883, Order xii., r. 23, and Probate Oourt Eules, 1862, r. 6, for leave to intervene in a pending probate action for the piu'pose of asserting her independent interest in the subject- matter, is a "proceeding instituted" by her within s. 2 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1893, and therefore the Com-t has jurisdic- tion to order, if it thinks fit, the costs of the action, as from the date of the summons to inter- vene, to be paid out of her separate property, including property \vhich is subject to a restraint on anticipation. The fact that the married woman may have obtained an order giving her leave to intervene in the action " as a pit.," followed by a delivery to the deft, of a pleading whereby she " adopts the pleadings of the pit.," does not the less render her intervention a " proceeding instituted " by lier within the section. ■ Order of Jeune Pres. affirmed, with a variation. Ckickitt r. Orickitt. (Ckickitt ISTERVENING) C. A. [1902] W. N. 94; [1902] P. 177 — "Short cause" — Probate practice — Proof in solemn form. See under Pkactice— Short Cause. PROBATE (Practice)— co?rfim«e«i. return thereof is sufficient. In re HAlLSToNB. HoPKiNSON f. Cabtee - C. A. [1909] W. N. 58 ; [1909] P. 118 11. — Universal decisee and legatee — No exe- untor named — Administration or prohate — Title of administrator to real estate — Prohate Court — Land Transfer Act, 1897 (60 .J- 61 Vict. o. 65), s. 1, sub-s. 1 ; s. 24, ««i-s. 2. The universal devisee and legatee of a testa- mentary paper in which no executor is named, is entitled to administration with the will annexed, but not to probate according to the tenor of the will. The practice of the Probate Court hithei-to prevailing in this respect has not been altered by the Land Transfer Act, 1897. Pel- StirUng, L.J. : The title of an adminis- trator, though it does not exist until the grant of administration, relates back to the time of the death, both as to real estate (by virtue of s. 1, sub-s. 1) as well as to personalty. In the Goods OP Prysb C. a. [1904] W. N. 104 ; [1904] P. 301 12. — Will torn injjieces atid pasted together again — Persons not sui juris interested in in- testacy — Probate, on motion, to executrix. The Court, upon motion by the sole execu- trix, granted probate of a will- which had been torn up and afterwards pasted together again, notwithstanding the fact that the persons in- terested under an intestacy were not sui j uris and no guardian ad litem had been appointed by the Court to represent them. In the Goods op Brassington Gorell Barnes J. [1902] P. 1 9. — " Special circumstances " — Person miss- ing entitled in priority to applicant — Adminis- tration—Prolate Act, 1857 (20 4' 21 Vict. 77), s. 73. The " special circumstances " of each parti- cular case are to be considered by the Court in granting or refusing administration under s. 73 to a person not primarily entitled to a grant ; and, where the "special circumstances" justify the conclusion that the person who would be entitled in priority to the applicant may reason- ably be presumed to be dead, the Court should grant administration to the applicant, upon his swearing that he believes himself to be the next of kin of the deceased. In tlie Goods of Pridham, (1889) 61 L. T. 302, explained. Intlie GoodsofReed, (1874) 29 L. T. 932, and In the Goods of Callieott, [1899] P. 189, approved and followed. In the Goods op Chapman Jeune, Pres. [1900] P. 192 — " Special circumstances "—Sureties dispensed with. See Probate — Sureties. 3. 10. — Summons — Sen-ice — Prohate Con- tentious Rules, 1862, r. 100— iJ. -S'. C, Order liv., r, iii— Judicature Act, 1873 (36 ^- 37 Vict. c. 66), ss. 16, 2S— Judicature Act, 1875 (38 ^- 39 ) lot. c. 77), s. 18. Kule 100 of the Probate Contentious Eules, 1862, remains in force notwithstanding Order LIV., T. 4e, of the Bules of the Supreme Court, and therefore in the case of a summons in a pro- bate action one clear day's service before the Presumption of Death. 1. — Practice — Surrounding circumstances — Form of oath. The Court will, under certain circumstances, modify the usual form of oath in a case of pre- sumption of death. Where a passenger on a cross-channel steamer was missed when within about four miles from the port of arrival in France, the Court allowed a creditor, who was seeking administration, to swear that he believed the person in question died on that occasion, upon an affidavit that notice of motion had been duly served upon the wife and daughter of the presumed deceased. In the Estate op Walker - Gorell Barnes, Pres. [1909] P. 115 Priority. — Administration — " Special circumstances " — Person missing entitled in priority to applicant. See Probate — Practice. 9. Probate Duty. See under Revenue- Probate Duty. — New South Wales slamp duties — Share of I deceased partner — Business carried on in the colony. See New South Wales. 32. — Probate duty — Duty claimed on property subject to special power of appoint- ment by deceased. See New South Wales. 28. ( 2069 ) DIGEST OP CASES, l90l— ]9i0. ( 2070 ) Probate (Probate 'DvAj')— continued. — Specialty debt in New South Wales lialjle to duty in Victoria. See Victoria. 6. Production of Probate. — Company — Shares — Executors — Production of probate — Transfer to Nominal consideration— See Company — Shares. Rectification of Will. 1. — Practice — ^S ill — Residuary clause — Clerical error — Motion to reotify — Order to strike out words — Refusal to insert another word. Upon an application to rectify a clerical error in the residuary clause of a will : — Held, that words might be struck out, but that no fresh word could be inserted. Intlie Goods of Bushell, (1887) 13 P. D. 7, and Inthi Goods of Huddle.%ton, (1890) 63 L. T. 25.5, disapproved. In the Goods of Schott Jeune, Pres. [1901] P. 190 Renunciation. 1. — Gh'ant of administration — Grant to person luithout interest in the estate — Renuncia- tion of ue.rt of kin solely entitled in distribution. The Court granted administration to a person who had no interest in the estate of an intestate, where the only next of kin, the sole person en- titled in distribution, had renounced the right to the grant. In the Goods of John.ion, (1862) 2 Sw. & Tr. 595, followed. In the Goods of Trigg Gorell Barnes J. [1905] P. 42 2. — Grant of administration — Intestacy — Renunciation by next of Jdn — Probate Art, 1857 (20 4' 21 Vict. c. 77) s. li—Grant needed to complete title to leaseholds — " Special circum- stances " — Grant to more remote of kin (brother) refused. Dnder an intestacy, the sole property to which the deceased was entitled consisted of a one-third undivided share in certain leaseholds under the will of her grandfather, of whose estate the deceased's brother (the present ap- plicant) was administrator de bonis non and himself entitled to another one-third undivided share. The sole next of kin renounced, and the husband of a deceased next of kin also re- nounced, and expressly consented to the brother taking a grant, which was required in order to complete the title on sale of the leaseholds in question : — Held, that no "special circumstances" had been shown for invoking the aid of s. 73, and that the application by the brother for adminis- tration must be refused. In the Goods of Brothkrton Gorell Barnes J. [1901] P. 139 Revocation. 1. — Administration — JVearest hnown rela- tives — Oatli — Revocation of former grant — Costs, Motion for revocation of a grant of adminis- tration made by Gorell Barnes J. in the form and under the circumstances noted [1902] W. N. 213, 2U. Some nearer relatives had since then made themselves known : hence the present application. PROBATE (Revocatioil) — continued. Counsel for the administratrix said he could not contest the right on the present application to have the gi-ant revoked. That grant was taken by his client in the form it was, under pressure from Gorell Barnes J., who insisted that she should swear that she was the next of one executor kin, and refused to allow any modified form of Breach of trust oath, such as had been adopted in certain cases 11. ' (then cited : noted [1902] W. N. at p. 216). This course, which Gorell Barnes J. had forced upon her, had troubled her greatly at that time and ever since, as she had conscientious objec- tions to swearing such an oath, and she had paid the money received by her as administratrix into a separate banking account, looking upon herself only as trustee thereof for the real next of kin. Some six months or more before she took out the general grant, she had taken a grant ad coUigenda bona, and the estate had really been preserved through her instrumen- tality. She ought, therefore, to have not merely the costs of administration, but also such costs as she had properly incurred in relation to the estate of the deceased, though not paid as ad- ministratrix. Jeune, Pres. That seems quite reasonable. The administratrix has behaved very properly throughout. The grant to her must be revoked and a fresh grant made as now asked. In the Goods of Jackson Jeune, Pres. [1903] W. N. 106 — Declaration of partial validity — Words or clauses omitted from probate. See Cbtlon. 7. 2. — Dependent relative revocation — Unful- filled intention to execute fresh will. The doctrine of dependent relative revoca- tion may apply to a case where the document intended to be substituted for that which was destroyed is non-existent, and has never existed as a valid testamentary paper. (So held by Gorell Barnes J.) Upon a finding of fact that the testator de- stroyed his will with the intention that it should be revoked conditionally on his executing a fresh wiU :— Held (by GoreU Barnes J.), that, as he did not execute a fresh will, the will destroyed was entitled to probate. Dtxon v. Solicitor to THE Treasury. Gorell Barnes J. [1905] P. 42 3. — BUappearance of administrator — Motion — Revocation — Fresh grant to creditor — Practice — Intestacy — Administration. The original administrator of a deceased intestate disappeared and could not be traced. Fresh assets having become payable to the legal personal representative of the deceased, and the next of kin, other than the original administrator, declining either to renounce or to apply for a grant, the Court revoked the original letters of administration which had been granted to the deceased's brother, and made a fi-esh grant at the instance of a creditor. IN THE Estate of French Samuel Evans, Pres. [1910] P. 169 4. — Document executed on a certain date but not dated — Costs. The testator having made a will in 1896 and a codicil in 1898, the substantial effect of which ( 2071 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2072 ) PROBATE (Revocation)— e()»«MmeS«eBBVENUE — Stamps. 14. PROMISSORY OATHS. See under Oaths. PROMOTER— Company. See under Company — Promoter. — Lands Clauses Act, See under Lands Clauses Acts. PROOF — Administration — Insolvent estate — Income tax — Method of calculation. See Administbation. 14. — Bankruptcy. See under BANKRUPTCY — Proof. — Bankruptcy of shareholders — Proof in bank- ruptcy for liability in respect of future calls — Effect as to paying shares up. See Company— Bankruptcy. 2. — Burden of proof — Lien passing to trustee in bankruptcy. See Bankeuptcy — Trustee. 5. — Collision — Inevitable accident — Onus of proof — Compulsory pilotage — Singapore Harbour. See Shipping — Collision, 59. — Company — Winding-up. See under Company — Winding-up — Proof. — Compromise with one trustee — Release pro tanto of the other — Eight to prove in the bankruptcy of another trustee. See Trustee — Eelease. 1. — Creditor — Proof for interest — Solvent com- pany — Gaming and wagering contract — Interest on sums deposited as cover. See Company — Winding-up — Proof. 1. — Damage, Proof of — Company — Prospectus — Non-disclosure of contract. See Company — Prospectus. 12. — Divorce — Foreign marriage — Expert evidence — Practice. See Divorce — Foreign Marriage. 1. — Domicil of origin — Abandonment — Acquiring fresh domicil — Evidence — Onus of proof. See Domicil. 2. — Gaming debt — New consideration — Provable debt. See Gaming. 1, 8X ( 2081 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2032 ) PBOCF — co/itiimed. — Infant — Necessaries — Evidence — Onus of proof — Sale of goods. See INFAUT— NeoesaarleB. X. — Mayor's Court — Alternative modes of proof, one shewing jurisdiction, the other not. See Prohibition. 1. — Negligence — Burden of proof — Telegraph Acts — Damage — Compensation. See Negligbkcb. — Negligence — Burden of proof — Statutory duty — Coal Mines Regulation Acts. See Mastbe and Servant — Negli- gence. 1. — Onus of proof — ^Accident — Evidence — Infer- ence — "Workmen's compensation. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 88. — Onus of proof — Damage to cargo — Bill of lading — Charterparty. See under Shipping — Charterparty. — Onus of proof — Lost acknowledgment — Parol evidence — Specialty debt — Bond. See Limitations, Statutes op. 3 — Onus of proof — Ship — Damage to jetty — Negligence — Force majeure. See Shipping — Negligence. 1. — Onus of proof — Trade-mark — Kectification of register. See Trade-mark. 8. — Onus of proof — Workmen's compensation — Jurisdiction of arbitrator — Award ter- minating at a future date — Prospective order. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 130. — Onus of proof — Workmen's compensation — Notice of accident — Failure to give notice. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 111. — Proposal for a scheme — Debtor's application to expunge a proof dismissed — Adjudi- cation. See Bankruptcy — Costs. 7. — Receiving order — Proposal for a composition rejected by the creditors — Debtor's application to expunge a proof — Locus standi of debtor — Costs. See Bankruptcy — Receiving Order. 5. — Ship — Collision — Admission by defendants that partly to blame — Practice — Burden of proof — Eight to begin. See Shipping — Collision. 63. — Ship — Collision — Failure to stand by — Statutory presumption of fault — Proof to the contrary. See Shipping— Collision. 55. — Verdict-— Absence of exact proof of cause of injury — Order setting verdict aside reversed. See Canada— Praotioe. 11. TROOV— continued. — Workmen's compensation — Refusal to undergo operation — Cause of incapacity — Onus of proof. See Master Airo Servant — Compensa- tion. 170. PSOPEETT AND INCOME TAX. See under Revenue — Income Tax. PROSECUTION — Costs of unsuccessful prosecu- tions — ■ Prosecutions before borough justices — Justices Clerks Act, 1877. See Local Government. 8. — Offences by bankrupt — Filing of report of official receiver. See Bankruptcy — Offences . 1 . PROSPECTUS— Company. See under Company — Frospeotas. — Directors' liability. See under Company — Prospectus. PROTECTED TRANSACTION— Bankruptcy. See under Bankruptcy — Protected Transaction. PROTECTORATE — Habeas corpus — Foreign country in which the Crown has juris- diction. See Habeas Corpus. 2. PROVIDENT SOCIETIES. See Industrial and Provident Societies. PROVINCIAL LEeiSLATURE— Powers of. See under Parliament. PROXY— Company. See under Company — Voting. — Powers of directors — Influencing votes — Pay- ments for proxy papers and stamps — Ultra vires. See Railway — Directors. 1. — Shareholder only to be proxy — Nomination of unqualified proxy — Disqualification removed before proxy is used. See India. 2. PUBLIC — Acquisition of easement by public— — Drain— Prescription — Highway. See Prescription. 1. — Corporation — Ultra vires — Special Ast — ■ Covenant not to erect buildings — Restriction of powers given for benefit of public. See Vendor and Purchaser— Cor- poration. 1. — Secret trust — Trust for benefit of public, but so that they should acquire no rights — Charity. See Will— Absolute Gift. 9. ( 2n83 ) DIGEST OV OASES, 1001—1910. ( 2084 ) PUBLIC AUTHOaiTIES PROTECTION — Act done in " intended " execution of public duty. See Shipping— Costs. 1. 1, — Action for damages for death of deceased person — Statute of Limitations — Deceased''s right of action barred — Public authority, Aiiinn against — Fatal Accidents Act, 1846 (9 1^' 10 Vict, c. 93), s. 1 — Public Awtlwiities Protection Act, 1893 (56 ^- 57 Vict. c. 61), s. 1 (a). An action can onlj^ he maintained by the representative of a deceased person under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846, wliere that person could, if alive, have himself maintained an action in respect of his injuries against the deft. The husband of the pit., having in 1902 sus- tained injuries, as it was alleged, through the negligence of tlie defts., a public authority, ulti- mately died of those injuries in 1904. The pit. having commenced an action against the defts. under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846, to recover damages for his death : — Held, that the action could not be main- tained, inasmuch as the right of action of the deceased, if alive, would have been barred by the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, s. 1 (a). Williams v. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board C. A. [1905] W. N. 68 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 804 — Action for declaration of title- tinuance of injury. See Highway. 38. •Delay — Con- — Contract — Action of deceit — Fraudulent representation — Public authorities pro- tection. See Contract. 1. — Costs — Creation of urban district — Subtrac- tion of parish from rural district. See Local Government. 12. — Costs — " Solicitor and client " — Electric lighting. See Corporation. 16. — Costs — Taxation — Action against public authority. See County Court — Costs. 7. — Injunction — Nuisance — Pollution of river — Continuance of injury. See KiVBR. 1. 2. — I/imitation of action — Magistrate — Improper eonviotion — Distress — Public A-ut/iori- ties Protection Act, 1893 (56 4- 57 Vict. c. 61), s. 1. A magistrate, having convicted and fined the pit. for an oSence under the Vaccination Acts, issued a distress warrant in default of payment of the fine, and a distress was put in on the plt.'s premises accordingly. Subsequently the con- viction of the pit. was quashed for want of juris- diction. In an action by the pit. against the magistrate for illegal distress : — ■ Seld, that the period limited by s. 1 of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, began to run from the entry on the plt.'s premises, and not from the "date of the conviction. Polley .. FORDHAM ' ^^.; Div. Ct. [1904] 3 K. B. 345 PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROTECTION— wrf(?. 3. — Limitation of action — Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 ^- 57 Vict, c. 61), *. 1. The protection given by the Public Authori- ties Protection Act, 1893, extends to a county council or other public authority in their capacity as owners of a tramway acquired and worked by them under statutory powers, and an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by a passenger on one of their tramcars in consequence of the alleged negligence of their seiTants must therefore be commenced within six mouths of (he act, neglect, or default complained of. The Ydun, [1899] P. 236, followed. Parker V. London County Council Channell, J. [1904] 2 K. B. 801 Note. This case was followed by C. A., Lyles v. Southend-on-Sea, [1905] 2 K. B. 1. See ne.rt Case. — Limitation of time for bringing .iction. Sec Highway. 29—32. 4. — Limitation of time for bringing action — Tramiumj icorlied by municipal autlwrity — Injury to passenger — Action for damages — Public Autliorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 # 57 Vict, c. 61), .«. 1. A municipal corporation constructei.1 and worked an electric tramway under the authority conferred on them by an Order made by the Light Kailway Commrs., in pursuance of the Light Railway Act, 1896, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, and having, therefore, by s. 10 of that Act, the force of a statute. On the con- struction of the Order the Court held that it imposed on the corporation an obligation, after the tramway had been opened for traffic, to run cars and to carry passengers in them. A passenger on one of the cars, who had paid his fare and had taken a ticket in the ordinary form, without any special conditions, was while travelling injured by the fracture of the conduct- ing-rod, which fell upon him. He brought an action against the corporation for damages, alleging that the accident had happened through the negligence of the defts. or their servants : — Held, that the action was in substance founded on a breach by the defts. of their duty as a public authority under their Light Railways Order ; that they were entitled to the protection given by the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 ; and that, as the action had not been brought within six months fi-om the happening of the injury, it must fail. Decision of Bigham J. afiirmed. The Ydun, [1899] P. 236, and Parher v. London County Council, [1904] 2 K. B. 501, followed. Lyles r. Southekd-on-Sea Cor- PORATION C. A. [1906] W. N. 63 • [1906] 2 K. B. 1 5. — LimitcUion of time for proceedings — Claim under contract — Contract incidental to public duty — Poor law guardians — Limitation of time for payment — Claim incurred or become due — Amount to be ascertained by arbitration Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 ^' 57 Vi^;t. 0. 61)— i'oo)' Law (Payment of Debts) Act 1859 (22 4' 23 Vict. 0. 49). 3x3 ( 2083 ) DIGKST OF CASES, IflOl— IfllO. ( 20S6 ) PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROTECTION— co«M. PUBLIC HEALTK—coiithnw?. The guardians of F. catered into a, contract with S., a builder, for certain works required by them for the purpose of carrying out their public duties. The works were completed on May 3, 1901, and paid for in Sept. of that year. S. then claimed an additional sum by way of damages for loss alleged to have been caused by negligence and frequent changes of plans on the part of the defts. The contract contained an arbitra- tion clause, and the plt.'s claim was referred to arbitration in Nov. 1902. The defts. took two preliminary objections — (1.) that the claim was for neglect of default in the execution of the defts.' public duty, and proceedings had not been commenced within six months as required by the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, and (2.) that the amount claimed became due, if at all, on or before May 3, 1901, and by the Poor Law (Payments of Debts) Act, 1839, could only be paid within the half-year commencing Mar. 30, 1901, or within three months afterwards. This action was brought for the determination of these two points of law : — Held, (1.) that the plt.'s claim was in respect of a private duty arising out of a contract, not for any negligence In performing a statutory or public duty, and the Public Authorities Protec- tion Act did not apply ; (2.) that the sum (if any) owing to the pit. did not become due within the meaning of the Poor Law (Payment of Debts) Act, 1859, imtil the amount was ascer- tained by arbitration according to the contract. Shaepington c. Fulham GuABDIA2J"S rarwell J. [1904] W. N. 146 [1904 J 2 Ch. 449 — Liverpool Sanitary Amendment Act, 186i — Buildings, Demolition of — " Court " — Public health. Si'e Local G-oveenment. 2. — Nuisance — Pollution of stream — Sanitary authority — Neglect of duty — Continu- ance of injury. See ElVEE. 1. — Solicitor and client costs. See under Costs. PUBLIC AUTHORITY— Costs- See Costs. 50. -Several issues. PUBLIC BODY— Costs— Taxation. See under SOLICITOE — CostB. PUBLIC BUILDING — Hospital—" Public pur- pose." See London — Buildings. 11. PUBLIC DOCUMENTS -Evidence-Ancient re- ports to Government departments — Depositions — Maps and charts. See Custom. 1. PUBLIC HEALTH. See also under specific Titles of subject- matter of Public Health. Fublic Health Act, 1904 (4 JEdw. 7, c. 16) oiables regulations to he made for carry- ing into effect eonnentions with respect to the prevention of danger arising to public health from vessels and tlw prevention of the conteyance of infection by nuans of vessels. Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 53), is an Act to amend the Public Health Acts. Public Health Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, t-. 6), is an Act to mahe the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, u'ith respect to the proinsi.on and regu- lation of marhets applicable in rural districts. See under Maeket. Public Health Acts Amendment- Act, 1907. Circular, Bee. 23, 1907, to Councils of Municipal Boroughs and X'rban ami Rural Bistricts. 1908. {R.—Loc. Govt. Bd.-). Price Id. PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON). See ispeoific Sub-headings and Cross- references under London. PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND). . See under SCOTTISH Law. PUBLIC-HOUSE— Licensing Acts. See under Licensing Acts. — Manager of — Evidence of implied authority — ■ False imprisonment. See Mastee asd Seefant — False Im- prisonment. 1. PUBLIC LIBRARY. See under Libeaey. PUBLIC MEETINGS. See under MEETINGS. — Capture — Property of alien enemy — Validity of insurance. &■« Insueancb (Capture). 1. — Recognizance to be of good behaviour — Jurisdiction . See Justices. 12. PUBLIC MORALITY— Interests of— Divorce- Variation of settlements — Discretion of Court. See DivoECB — Settlements. 15. PUBLIC POLICY— Breach of promise of marriage — Promise by maiTied man. See Maeeiage. 1. — Capture — Loss before commencement of war — Seizure by enemy's G overnment of pro- perty of its own subject. See Insueance (Maeine). 1. — Domicil — "Alimentary provision" — Validity of restriction as against husband's mortgagee. See Conflict op Laws. 6. — Illegitimate children — Class gift — Future children — Uncertainity. See Will— Illegitimacy. 3, 4. ( 2087 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2088 ) PUBLIC rOLlCY—coTdhmed. — Insurance of products of mine in foreign country — Declaration of war — Seizure by enemy's G overnment of things insured — Validity of insurance. See Insurance (Captueb). 1. — Jointiu-ing — Power of — Construction — Validity. See Settlement. 32. — Newspaper reporter — Unusual stipulation — Infant — Eeasonable protection of covenantee. See Kbstraint of Trade. 7. — Restraint of trade. See under Eestbaint on Trade. — Salvage — Negligence of tug that of her master — Services rendered by tug to tow — Claim of crew of tug. See Shipping— Salvage. 29. — Trade union — Objects of union — Rules — Parliamentary representation — Ultra vires. See Trade Union, i. — Will — Condition ■ — Forfeiture — Entering naval or military services — Invalidity. See Will— Conditions, i. PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE. See under RECORD OFFICE. PUBLIC RIGHTS —Statutory contract with land-owner — Subsequent contract in derogation of same — Damages. See Railway — Contracts. 2. PUBLIC UNDERGOUND LAVATORIES— Land tax. See Land Tax. 2. PUBLIC WORKS LOANS ACTS are Acts to grant money for the purpose of certain local loans out of the Local Loam Fund, and for other purposes relating to local loans. PUBLICATION— Libel. See under Defamation — Libel. — Libel — Privileged communication — Post-card — Evidence of malice. See Defamation— Libel. 14. — Libel in newspapers — Intention to defame plaintiff. See Defamation — Libel. 8. — Newspaper — Perverting course of justice — Criminal law. See Conspiracy. r>. — Patent — Prior publication or user — Amend- ment of specification — Renewal fees — Appeal from Western Australia. See Patent — Registration. 1. — Eight to prevent — Posthumous letter — Pro- prietorship of copyright. See COPTBIGHT— Books. 3. PUBLICATION— cwrfkKwZ. — Tending to prejudice fair trial — Contempt of inferior Court — Jui'isdiction of King's Bench Division to attach for. See Contempt of Court. 7. — Unpublished picture — Common law right — Infringement — Pirated copy — Innocent publication — Damages. See Copyright — Pictures. 3. PUBLISHER— Author and— Copyright— Equit- able assignment — Story not in existence — Complete copyright. See Copyright — Books. 2. — Author and publisher — Registration — Agree- ment — Musical composition — Assign- ment — Entry on register. See Copyright — Music. 2. — Author and publisher — Sale of copyright to publisher on royalties — Bankruptcy of publisher — Trustee carrying on busi- ness. See Bankruptcy — Trustee. 3. — Encyclopaedia — Ownership of copyright in contributions. See Copyright — Encyclopsedia. 1. PUBLISHING— Fraudulent statements— Officers of public companies — Manager de facto. See Criminal Law — Larceny. 10. PUMPING — Operations of waterworks — Causing water to percolate out of stream — Cause of action. See under Water. PUMPING STATION— Erecting— Water Com- pany — Powers — Sinking well — Ultra vires. See under Water. — Sewer — Compensation or pui'cliase. See Sewers. 16. " PURCHASE-MONEYS "—Brewery company- Debenture trust deed — Licensing Acts — Compensation. See Brewers. 3. — Lands Clauses Acts — Investment. See under Lands Clauses Acts. PURCHASER. See under Sale. — " Purchaser " — -.Devise to testator's " right heirs" — Co-lieircsses — Joint tenancy or- co-parconary. See Inheritance. 1. — "^'eudor and pm'chaser. See under Vendor and Purchaser. PURSER — Workmen's compensation. See Master and Servant— Compen- sation. L'OSi) ) DIGE.ST OF CAf-KS, 1901—1910. ( 2090 ) Q. QUALIFICATION— Description of nature of qualification — Power of revising barris- ter to amend. See Paeliament. 11 — 14, 16, 18. — Shares — Director — Vacation of office. See Company — Directors. 17. QTJANTUM MERUIT— Director— Vacating office — Company's lien on directors' shares for repayment of fees. ■* See Company — Directors. 6. QUARRIES— Notice of Accidents Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 53). — Mines and minerals — Gravel and saud — Regulation of railways. See Mines. 6. • — Stone-quarry — Manor — Custom — Eight to get stone — Court rolls — Evidence. See Common. 3. QUARTER SESSIONS. Asxizes and Quarter Sessums Act, 1908 (8 £ihv. 7, C.41). — Adulteration — Jurisdiction of Court of quarter sessions to hear appeal. See Adulteration. 10. ■ — Appeal to, from requirement of factory inspector — Sanitary conveniences. See MASTER AND Servant — Factory Acts. 6. — Appeal to quarter sessions — Motor car — Evi- dence. See Motor Cars. 3. . — Assessability of — Income tax — Interest of money — Licensing Act — Compensation fund — Deposit at bank. See Revenue — Income Tax. 23. — Case stated from — Enactment that order of the quarter sessions shall be final — Pension of police constable. See Police, i. — Costs — Licensing justices — Jurisdiction. See Licensing Act.s. 21. — Costs of appeal to — Payment by treasurer of. county or borough . See Justices. 4. ~- Evidence at — Licence ■ — Renewal — Cross- examination as to licensed houses not included in report. See Licensing Acts. 38. — Highways. See under Highway. QUARTER SESSIONS— CO /dinued. — Incorrigible rogue — Sentence by quarter sessions — Appeal — ^Vagrancy. See Criminal Law — Appeal. 13. — Licensing Acts — Compensation authority — Appeal to quarter sessions of county. See Licensing Acts. 23. — No separate Court of — Costa of unsuccessful prosecutions — Borough having separate commission of the peace. See Local Government. 8. — Overseer — Solicitor — Exemption — Appeal to quarter sessions — Costs — "Writ of privilege. See Poor Law. 15. — Poor law — Desertion — Separation order — — Lunatic — Irremovability — Appeal to quarter sessions. See Poor Law. 2. — Power to state case — Renewal of licence — Admissibility of report as evidence before quarter sessions. See Licensing Acts. 62. — Rating appeals. See under Rates. — Rating appeal — Cases stated bj' quarter sessions — Time for fiUng special case. See Crown Office. 1. QUAY — Worlimen's compensatiou. See under Master and Sekvai.t — Compensation. QUEBEC— Laws of. See under CANADA. QUEENSLAND.— Prfci/iV CahJeAct, 1901 (1 Edu.\ 7, c. iV), provides for the coiistrnction and wording of a suhmarine cable from the Island of Ynncourer to N'eic Zealand and to (Queensland. — Australia generally. See under Australia. 1. — Australian Commomcealth Act, 1903, s. 39, sub-s. 2 — Construction — Act not retro- sjiective — Sight of appeal in mU pending when the Act zoaj ^)«-5Sf rf. ( 2091 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2092 ) QUEENSLAND— ewjrfwrae^. Held, that, although the right of appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland to His Majesty in Council given by the G. in C. of June 30, 1860, has been talten away by the Australian Com- monwealth Judiciary Act, 1903, a. 39, sub-s. 2, and the only appeal therefrom now lies to the High Court of Australia, yet the Act is not retro- spective, and a right of appeal to the King in Council in a suit pending when the Act was passed and decided by the Supreme Court after- wards was not taken away. Colonial Sdqae Eefining Co. v. Ievimg. P. C. [1905] A. C. 369 Note. See next Case, 3. — Power of the Commonwealth Parlia-ment — Power to impose an excise duty to tahe effect ''rom the datecrf the minister's proposal — Common- wealth Acts, Nos. U and 14 o/1902 — Constitution Acts (63 S- 64 Vict. (^ImperiaV), c. 12), sa. 51, 90 — Constniction — Law of Australia. On July 26, 1902, Excise Tariff, 1902 (No. 11), was passed by the Commonwealth Parliament, imposing certain uniform duties of excise, includ- ing a duty on manufactured sugar, the produce of Austrafla, as from Oct. 8, 1901, the day on which the minister had moved a resolution to tliat effect in Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Representatives. On Oct. 16, 1902, the Customs Tariff, 1902 (No. 14), was passed, which imposed uniform duties of customs as from the same date. In a suit by the appellant to recover back excise duties on manufactured sugar collected from them between Oct. 8, 1901, and July 26, 1902, on the grounds (1.) that it was ultra vires of the Commonwealth Parliament to impose them until the actual imposition of uniform custom duties ; (2.) that the duties were imposed in a manner which discriminated between States : — Held, that Excise Tariff, 1902, was intra vires of the Commonwealth Parliament under the true constitution of the material sections of the Constitution Act (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12). Neither 3. 90 of that Act nor any other section expressly or impliedly prohibited the imposition of uniform excise duties previously to that of uniform cus- toms duties. After that event the power to impose excise duties was exclusively vested in the Commonwealth, and the power of the States in that respect ceased. Under s. 51 Parliament has power, in accordance with the usual practice, to impose the duties as from the date of the resolution (s. 4 of Excise Tariff, 1902) ; — Meld, also, that a. 5 of Excise Tariff, .1902, which allowed an exemption in the case of goods on which customs or excise duties had been paid under State legislation before Oct. 8, 1901, is not a discrimination between States within the mean- ing, of s. 51 of the Constitution Act, but is applicable to all the States alike, for a purpose which was temporary and necessary. Colonial SuGAE Refining Co. <: Ievino P. 0. [1906] A. C. 360 Mte. See preceding Case. 3. — Practice — Setting ande — Action for malicious prosecution — Verdict set aside — New trial. (iVlEENaiANB— continued. In dischargjug the verdict of a jury, the Court must be satisfied that there is such a preponder- ance of evidence against it as to make it un- reasonable and almost perverse that the jury, when instructed and properly assisted by the judge, should have returned it. Metropolitan Ry. Co. v. Wright, (1886) 11 App. Cas. 152, followed. A verdict for damages for having been adjudged insolvent maliciously and without^ reasonable and probable cause was rightly set aside when it appeared that, assuming the pit. was not keeping out of the way of his creditors with a view to delay them, there was evidence which might lead a reasonable man to believe that he was. The question of reasonable and probable cause should not be left to the jury, but determined by the judge on facts found by the jm-y. Cox »." English, Scottish, and Australian Bank, Ld. - - - . p. C. [1905] A. C. 168 — Privy Council Appeals. See under Peivy Council. 4. — Rates — Queensland Local Authorities Act (/1902, ss. 192, i^5— Construction— General rates — Application of general rates levied in one division to construction of works in aiwthei: Held, that according to the true construction of ss. 192, 265, of the Queensland Local Authorities Act of 1 902, the respondents (the council of the city of Brisbane being its duly constituted local autho- rity) are not entitled to expend the produce of general rates levied upon the rateable lauds in one division of their area upon works constructed in another, in the absence of a resolution under s. 265 declaring in the mode provided by that section that such works are general works and that their cost shall be defrayed out of general revenue. The appellant sued, as representing an association of ratepayers, for a declaration that in the absence of such resolution the balance of all general rates received in the, several divisions, after deduction of all items chargeable to general revenue, shall be expended solely upon works within the respective limits thereof ; the respon- dents claimed that they were authorized in their discretion to apply the whole of the general rates received by them upon any works within any division without regard to the actual amount of the general rates received by them in respect of any of the divisions : — Held, that both contentions must be over- ruled. The effect of the sections is in the absence of such resolution to limit the power of expenditure upon works in a division to the amount of general rates received in it, but not to preclude the application of any unexpended balance thereof to the general purposes of the whole area. Att.-Gen. foe Queensland v. Beisbanb City Council - - - P. c' [1909] A. C. 683 QUEENSTOWN HAEBOUR-CoUision-Narrow channel. See Shipping— Colli»ion. 56. ( 2093 ) DIGEHX OB" CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2094 ) ftUIA TIMET ACTION— Indemnity. See Peincipal and Surety. 2. — Smallpox hoapital — Evidence— Admissibility. See NuiSAJTCB. 10. ftUIET ENJOYMENT— Covenant for— Breach. See Laudloed and Tenant. 26, 64—68. — Covenant for — Tenant for life — Power to appoint portions — Mortgage of settled estates — Priority — Implied release of power. See Settlement. 38. — Lessor and lessee — Printing machinery and hotel bedrooms — Nuisance from noise and vibration. See New Zealand. 6. ftUIT- -Notice to — Registered letter. See Landlord and Tenant. QUIT — continued. — Notice to quit — Tenancy at yearly rent- Three months' notice — Expiration of notice. See Landloed and Tenant. 51. — Validity of notice to quit. See Landlobd and Tenant. 55. QUITTANCES — Copyholds — Delay in enfran- chisement — Compensation — Interest. See Lands Clauses Acts. 15. QUO WAHKANTO— Remedy by— CouncUlor— Disqualification — Bankruptcy. See COEPOEATION. 9. QUOBUM — Directors — Breach of regulations by — Validity of Act as regards third parties. See Company — Directors. 18. — Directors — Resolution, Validity of — Interested director. See Company — Directors. 19. ( 2093 ) DIG ESI' 01' CASEB, 1901—1910. ( 2096 ) R. RACING. See under Gaming. RACIK& TIPS — Prohibition of sale of papers devoted to — By-law — Validity — Keason- ableness. See Local Government. 5. RAILWAY. Railway and Catial Traffic Acts, 1854, 1873, 1888, atid 1894 ; aiid other Statutes. With the General Rules of the Bailivay and Canal Com- mission. 1910 (H. — Legal). Price Is. Railway and Catial Traffic Acts, Sjc. With the General Rules of the Railway and Canal Commission. Price \s. 1907 (H.— Legal). Railway and Canal Commission ^- Rules, dated Jan. 1, 1909, made by the Railway and Canal Commissioners in pursuance of s. 20 of the Railioay and Canal Traffic Act, 1888 (51 ^- 52 Vict. c. 25), varying rules 60 and 65 of tlie Railway and Canal Commission Rules, 1889. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (May 22), p. 191. See CUEEENT Index, 1909, _?;, clii. In General, col. 2097. Accidents, col. 2097. Accommodation Works, col, 2097. Amalgamation, col. 2099. Arbitration, col. 2100. Bookstalls, col. 2101. Bridges, col. 2101. Buildings, col. 2102. Canada Railway. See under Canada — Railway. Carriage, col. 2102. Carriage Licence, col. 2107. Carrier, col. 2107. Compensation, col. 2108. Contracts, col. 2108. Costs, col. 2109. Deposit, col. 2109. Directors, col. 2111. Dock Company, col. 2112. Dogs, col. 2112. Electric Cars, col. 2112. Mectrical Powers, col. 2112. Engine-driver, col. 2113, RAILWAY — continued. Engineer, col. 2113. Engines, col. 2113. False Imprisonment, col, 2113. Fences, col. 2114. Fires, col. 2114. Foreshore, col. 2114. Highway, col. 2114. Income Tax, col. 2114. India. See under India. Investments, col. 2114. Lands Clauses Acts, col. 2114. Level Crossings, col. 2115. Light Railways, col. 2116. Luggage, col. 2117. Maps, col. 2118. Mines {Mines and Minerals), col. 2118. Negligence, col. 2123. Notice of Accidents, col. 2123. Omnihus, col. 2123. Parliamentary Deposit. See under Railway — Deposit. Passengers, col. 2123. Payment out of Court, col. 2125. Plans, col. 2123. Poor Rates, col. 2125. Powers, col. 2125. Practice, col. 2126. Railway and Canal Commissioners, col. 2127. Rates, col. 2127. Receiver, col. 3132. Refreshment-rooms, col. 2133. Sales, col. 2133. Servants, col. 2133. Sidings, co?. 2133. Stamp Duty, col. 2135. Street Railway, col. 2135. Sunday Trading, col. 2135. Telephone, col. 2136. TtfZZs, coZ. 2136. Trucks, col. 2136. Tunnel, col. 2136.- ( 2097 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2098 ) B,AIJjVf AY— conti/iued. Vendor and Purchaser. See under Vendor and Pueohasek — Rail- ways. Water, col. 2137. Way, Right of, col. 2137. Workmen's Compensatwii, col. 2137. In OeEeral. — Gaiiadian railways. See uDder Canada — Railway. — Claim to take lands for railway purposes — Compensation — Cape of Good Hope Act. See Cape of Good Hope. 7. — Joint owners, Eights of — Agreement to con- struct a railway jointly — Construction. See New South Wales. 80. — " Railroad " — Tramway — Workmen's Com- pensation. See Master and Servant — Com- pensation. — .Shop — Temporary newspaper stall at railway station — Notice of hours of employment of young persons. See Shop. 1. — Stamp — "Conveyance on sale" — Sale, what amounts to — -Miueials under railway. See Revenue — Stamps. 11. — ytamp duty — Increase of nominal capital. See Kevbnde — Stamps. 2, 2a. — iStreet — Paving — " Back roads " — " Cross roads " — Summary jurisdiction — Local government. See Streets. 17. Accidents. Prevention of Accidents Rules, 1902, made Ai/g. 8, 1902, hi/ Soard of Trade j)ursueoiJication of details of expemes — Amounts charged for ser- rices otlier than conveyance — Regulation of Rail- xrays Act, 1873 (36 ^- 37 Vict. c. 48), s. 14. A ry. CO., against whom an order has been made by the Eailway Commrs. under the Regu- lation of Railways Act, 1873, s. 14, is bound to specify the particular amounts charged in a rate for the carriage of goods in respect of each of the services performed by them other than convey- ance on their line. Colman v. Great Eastern Ry. Co., (1882) 4 Ey. & Can. Cas. 108, and JBirchgrore Steel Co. v. Midland Ry. Co., (1887) 5 Ky. & Can. Cas. 229, approved. PiCKFORDS, Ld. c. Londou and North Western Et. Co. C. A. [1908] 1 K, B. 7S2 7. — Rates — Pitwood — 3Ieasurement weight or actual weight — Maximum charge varying ivith distance — Goods carried for part of journey over another company's line — Sow maximum charge for each part to de calculated — Great Western Railway Company QRates and Charges) Order Confirmation Act, 1891 (54 Si 55 Vict. c. ccxxii.'). Under the Great Western Railway Company (Bates and Charges) Order Confirmation Act, 1891, the CO. are not bound to carry pitwood for mining purposes by measurement weight at the rates specified in the schedule thereto as appli- cable to goods in Class C. If the customer claims the benefit of the Class C rates, the co. may charge those rates on the actual machine weight ; on the other hand, if the pitwood be consigned at measurement weight, the co. are entitled to charge the rates applicable to goods in Class 1. The maximum rates which under the said Act the CO. are entitled to charge for the carriage of goods, and which maximum rates vary inversely with the distance carried, apply only to carriage over the oo.'s own lines ; and where goods are carried under a through contract with the CO. from a point on their own line to a point on another co's line, the portion of the journey which is over the foreign co's line is to be treated as a separate journey, in respect of which the co. are entitled to charge the maximum rate autho- rised by the foreign co.'s Act as applicable to a journey of that distance, irrespective of the distance which the goods may have previously been carried over the co.'s own line. GREAT Western Ry. Co. i\ Caswell & Bowden, Ld. Walton J. [1904] 2 K. B. 608 8. — Rates and charges — Intent to avoid pay- ment, of "tolls" — Railway Clauses Act, 1845 EAILWAY {CB.Tiisige)—contin'iied. their ry., and delivered to the respondents' servant consignment notes in which the goods had been misdescribed by the appellants with the object of procurring the carriage of the goods at a lower rate than would have been charged if they had been correctly described. No express demand was made by the respondents' servant for an account of the goods, but by the course of busi- ness known to the appellants the goods would not have been received by the respondents if consignment notes had not been delivered. The appellants were charged, under ss. 98 and 99 of the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, with giving a false account of the goods with intent to avoid the pay j:ent of the toUs in respect thereof, and convicted : — Meld, that ss. 98 and 99 apply to cases where the ry. co. are themselves acting as carriers ; that the conviction was right, because, assuming that it was necessary to prove that there had been a demand for an account, there was evidence on which the magistrate could find that there had been a demand. But, qutere, whether, where a false accouut is delivered, it is necessary to prove a demand. Barr, Moering & Co. r. London and North Western Ry. Co. Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 113 (8^9 Vict. c. 20), ss. 98, 99. The appellants brought to the respondents' goods station three cases of goods for the purpose of having them carried by the respondents on 9. — Trucks — Carriage of coal in traders' trucks — Delay in traTisit — Demurrage for un- reasonable detention of truclis — London and North Western Railway Company {Rates and Charges) Order Confirmation Act, 1891 (54 ^' 55 Vict. c. ccxxi.'), s. 6. By s. 6 of the London and North Western Ry. Co. (Rates and Charges) Act, 1891, where merchandise is conveyed in trucks not belonging to the CO., the trader is entitled to recover from the CO. a reasonable sum by way o£ demurrage for any detention of his trucks beyond a reason- able period. Coal in owners' trucks was conveyed by a ry. CO, for the applicants, a iirm of coal merchants, from certain collieries on their line of ry. to the applicants' reserved sidings in London, the trucks being returned to the collieries without addi- tional charge ; the average duration of the transit during a period of twelve consecutive months was two and a half working days. The applicants complained that in thirty-three instances during the twelve months their trucks had been detained an unreasonable time in transit, the time taken in nineteen instances being four days, in twelve instances five days, in one instance six days, and in one instance seven days, and they claimed to be entitled to demurrage in respect of the unreasonable detention of these trucks : — ■ Held, first, that s. 6 applied to a claim for detention of the trucks during transit, and not merely to cases where the detention occurred before its commencement or after its conclusion ; secondly, that the time occupied in the thirty- three instances, in the transit being largely in excess of the average, the onus was upon the defts. to show that the period of detention of the trucks was not unreasonable, and that they had failed on the facts to discharge that onus ; and, thirdly, that a sum of 6rf. per ten-ton truck per day was a reasonable allowance in respect of the ( 2107 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2108 ) BAILWAT (Carriage) — continued. detention. Chaerington, Sells, Dale & Co. V. London and North Western Ky. Co. Railway and Canal Commission [1906] a K. B. 437 — Trucks — Eight of trader to provide — Deduc- tion. See No. 1, above. Carriage Licence. — Cars on light railway. See Eevbnxjk — Carriage licence. 4. Carrier. 1. — Bainageable goods carried iinpacked — Owner's risk — ReasoTiable condition — Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854 (17 ^ 18 Viet. c. 31), s. 7. The pit. had for many years consigned to the defts. for carriage wooden cisterns lined with lead, which were fitted with a cross- bar, and had attached a lever which projected above the edge of the cistern ; they were carried by the defts. unpacked at the ordinary rate of carriage and at co.'s risk. Many of the crossbars and levers having been broken in transit, owing, as the defts. alleged, to their brittle nature and to their not being protected by packing, the defts. gave notice in 1907 that they were not, and would not be, carriers of certain specified damageable goods (including cisterns) except when they were properly pro- tected by packing. After the notice, the pit. continued to consign cisterns for carriage by the defts., but the defts. required him to sign at the time of sending a special consignment note, headed " Consignment note for damageable goods when not protected by packing." The consignment note contained in substance a notice that the defts. would not carry the specified damageable goods (a list of which was given) at co.'s risk except when properly protected by packing, but that the sender might consign them not so protected if he agreed to relieve the defts. from liability for loss or injury, except on proof that it arose from wilful mis- conduct on the part of their servants. Then followed a form of agreement by which the sender agreed to the above terms and also to the conditions on the back of the consignment note, one of which conditions was, " The co. will not be liable for any loss of, or damage to, or delay of goods resulting from their not being properly protected by packing." There was no alterna- tive rate of carriage. The pit. having sued to recover damages for injury done to cisterns in course of transit : — Seld by Buckley L.J. and Kennedy L.J. (Vanghan Williams L.J. dissenting), that the goods were carried by the defts. by virtue of their statutory obligation under s. 2 of the Bailway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, to afford reasonable facilities for the carriage of traffic ; that the requirement of packing was not a refusal of reasonable facilities ; and that the condition imposed on the carriage of unpacked articles in the signed consignment note was a just and reasonable condition within the meaning of s. 7 RAILWAY (Cixtiei')— continued. of that Act. SUTCLIFFE V. Geuat Western Et. Co. - - - C. A. [1910] W. N. 13 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 478 Compensation. 1. — Coal required to be left nnworked — Rail- ways Clauses Consolidation A(^, 1846 (8 I'ief. 0. 20), s. 78. The executors of W. E. were the reversioners and J. & Co. were the lessees for twenty-one years of certain lands in the county of Durham, and of the mines and minerals under the same. The North Eastern Railway Co. were- autho- rized by Act of Parliament to make and maintain a ry. on part of these lands, and their special Act incorporated the Bailways Clauses Consolidation Act. In 1892 J. & Co,, being desirous of working the coal under part of the ry., gave notice to the ry, CO., in conformity with s. 78 of the Railwayfi Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the ry. co. by notice required them to leave certain coal un worked, and expressed their willingness to pay to the parties entitled thereto all such compensa- tion as might be payable according to law. The question for the arbitrator was as to the amount of this compensation. If the coal had not been required to be left unworked it would in the ordinary course of working have been worked out by J. & Co., and they would (as the arbitrator found) have made out of such coal a profit of 7302., and the reversioners would have received in respect of it 1552. The ry. co., however, contended that, as it would not be possible for J. & Co. to have worked out within the time of their lease all the coal lying under the lands leased to them, they were only entitled to receive by way of compensation the extra expense to which they were put by leaving the coal required to be left and working out other coal which was more expensive to get, and that the reversioners were entitled, not to the royalties which they would have received in respect of the coal required to be left, but to the diminution in the value of their reversion by the coal required to be left being left unworked and other coal which would not otherwise have been reached being taken by the lessees. The arbi- trator stated his award in the form of a special case for the opinion of the Court. Bigham J. gave judgment for the claimants, holding that, as the words of s. 78 were compen- sation " for such mines," the ry. co. must pay for the coal which the coal owner was precluded from taking by reason of the ry. co. having served its notice and that it was not a question as to compensating the mine owner for the loss which he might have sustained by reason of the inter- ference with his working of the mine. He was entitled to have the actual value of the coal which he was prevented from bi-inging to the surface. Eden's Executors i-. North Eastern By. Co. - Bigham J. [1906] W. N. 170 Contracts. 1. — Contract — Constniiition — Agreement to contribute to expenses of promoting railway bill. The House affirmed the decision of the First Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1900) 37 S. L. E. ( 2100 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2110 ) EAILWAY (Contracts)— (■()«/ Imml. 820, and dismissed the appeal with costs. Calbdoniau Ey. Co. v. Kiekcaldy and Dis- trict Ey. Co. - H. L. (So.) [1901] W.N. 102 — Contract — Penalty for non-completion of line — Liquidated damages — " Actual cost." See Cape of Good Hope. 12. — Contract — " Whole operation of its railway." See Canada — Railway. 1. 2. — Private Act — Statutory oiUr/ations — Statutorij contract with landowiw — Suhsequent contract in derogation of same — Public rights — Ultra vires — Specific performance — Damages. In 1887 the private Act of a ry. co. con- tained provisions for the protection of B., a landowner, whereby the co. was bound, unless otherwise agreed between the co. and B., to construct and maintain a station at W. close to B.'s property ; the station was in due course erected. In 1900 the co.'s undertaking was transferred to and became vested in the South Eastern Ey. Co., who subsequently, in ignor- ance of the provisions of the Act of 1887, contracted for valuable consideration with the pit. to pull down the station at W. and erect another nearer to the plt.'s property. In an action by the pit. for specific performance or Held (Eomer L.J. dissenting), that the con- tract with the pit. was ultra vires, as it was not competent to a ry. co. to take the land and then to do that which the statute pro- hibited, and it made no difference that the prohibition was not in the interest of the general public, but for the protection of a private owner, and that the action must be dismissed. Decision of Farwell J., [1905] W. N. 93 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 280, reversed. Corbett «. South Eastern and Chatham Ey. Co.'s Managing Committee - C. A. [1906] W. N. 106 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 12 Costs. — Costs in obtaining order of Light Eaihvay Commissioners — Solicitor — Chancery or parliamentary scale. See Solicitor— Costs. 7. — Interim investment — Brokerage and other charges — Eailway stock. See Lands Clauses Acts. 20. Deposit. 1. — Parliamentary deposit — Abandonment — Costs of inquiries necessary for distribution of deposit — Practice. By a ry. co.'s Act and the Act for its abandonment the parliamentary deposit was directed to be applied in payment, first, of com- pensation to landowners, and secondly, of credi- tors, and subject thereto to be repaid to the depositors. The depositors took out a summons for distribution of the deposit, and an order was made directing inquiries whether there were any landowners or others entitled to compensation, and any debts which ought to be paid out of the deposit. These inquiries were conducted by the depositors, and resulted in a certificate that no EAILWAY (Deposit) — continued. one was entitled to compensation ; that the claim of one creditor must be disallowed ; but there were debts which ought to be paid out of the deposit exceeding its amount : — Held, on a summons taken out by the deposi- tors, that they could not be allowed the costs of the inquiries in priority to payment of the creditor's debts. In re Wrexham, Mold and ConnaKs Qttay Ry. Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 261, distinguished. In re Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Eailway Acts, 1891 to 1896, and In re Lincoln and East Coast Eailway Acts, 1897 TO 1902 Farwell J. [1903] W. N. 184, 186 ; [1903] 3 Ch. 711 2. — Parliamentary deposit — Agreement^ Breach — Injunction. The deft. co. was incorporated under the Light Eailways Act, 1896, by the Lastingham and Eosedale Light Eailway Order of 1900, which authorized the construction of a light ry. in Yorkshire. By the terms of that order the powers of the deft. co. for the compulsory pur- chase of lands were to cease after the expiration of three years from the date of the order, and if the ry. was not completed within five years fi'om the commencement of the order, or such extended time as the Board of Trade might approve, then the powers granted to the deft. co. for complet- ing the same were to cease. A deposit of 3000^., required to be made by the same order, was advanced by the pit. to the deft. co. By an indenture of Nov. 26, 1902, the deft. co. cove- nanted with the pit. that neither they nor any person on their behalf would, without the con- sent of the pit., serve any notice to treat upon any persons or enter into any contract or agree- ment with any persons or incur any other liability which might in any way directly or indirectly charge or incumber the said deposit, or whereby any monies might become payable out of the said deposit to any persons other than the pit. I'he deposit was invesied in consols in the name of the Postmaster-General and assigned to the pit. The period for compulsory purchase of the land, and the period for the completion of the work, which had been extended by an order of 1903, expired on July 31, 1905, and July 31, 1906, respectively. The deft. co. bad acquired no lands and taken no steps towards construc- tion of the ry. The pit. alleged that in breach of the' covenant contained in the indenture of Nov. 26, 1902, the deft, co., without the consent of the pit., obt-ained from the Board of Trade an extension of time for completion of the works to July 31, 1907, thus enabling the deft. co. to incmr further liabilities which would form incum- brances on the deposit ; and they had also issued certain debentures. The pit. now moved for judgment in default of appeai'ance by the defts., and asked for an injunction to restrain the defts., without the consent of the pit., from serving any notice to treat upon any pei-son, or entering into any agi'eement with any person, &c., &c. (following the words of the covenant in the agreement of Nov. 26, 1902). Kekewich J. said that it was a matter of ( 2iii ) i)iCT^sT olr CASES, i90l— ieio. ( 2ii2 3 RAILWAY (Deposit) — continued. some importance, and applications of this character must be narrowly looked into by the Court. The Legislatui'e had provided for a deposit to be made to meet the costs incmTed and liabilities -imposed by the exercise of the powers of the co., and anything which prevented the proper application of the fund would be directly against public policy and could not be sanctioned. He could not deny the right of those who advanced the money to have it protected, and there having been a direct cove- nant entered into, he could enforce it and pre- vent the CO. from dealing with the fund in con- travention of that covenant. The injunction, therefore, would go in the terms asked for. Beecham v. Lasting-ham and Rosedale Light Rt. Co. - Kekewioh J. [1907] W. N. 101 3. — Parliainentarij deposit — Special Act — ■ Undertaliing abandoned — Payment oitt of deposit — No Abandonment Act — Parliamentary Deposits Act, 1846 (9 4- 10 Vict. o. 20), s. Z—Parliatnen- tary Deposits and Bonds Act, 1892 55 S; 56 Tict. e. 27), s. 1, mb-ss. 1, 2, 3. Where the usual deposit has been paid into Court under the Parliamentary Deposits Act, 1846, in furtherance of a special Act subse- quently passed authorizing the construction of a ry., and the undertaking is afterwards aban- doned, the deposit can be dealt with by the Com't under s. 1 of the Parliamentary Deposits and Bonds Act, 1892, without a special abandon ment Act being obtained. In re Tobeington AND OKEHAMPTON RY. BILL NeviUe J. [1906] W. N. 221 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 186 Directors. 1. ■ — Powers of directors— Af plication of com- pany's funds — Circulars to sliarekolders — In- fluencing votes — Payments for proxy papers and stamps — Ultra vires. A controversy had been going on for some years between the directors of a ry. co. and a body of shareholders with reference to ques- tions of policy afEecting the management of the CO. : previously to the half-yearly general meetings called for Feb. and Aug., 1906, the directors sent to each shareholder a circular setting out the facts and the views of the directors and asking the support of the share- holders at the meeting ; with this was enclosed a stamped proxy paper containing the names of three of the directors as proxies, with a stamped cover for return. The expenses of printing, posting, and stamping these documents were paid for out of the funds of the co. Officers and servants of the co. had also been directed to call upon some of the shareholders with a view to obtaining their votes for the directors. In an action by the shareholders to restrain the CO. and the directors from using the funds of the CO. in paying expenses thus incurred : — Held (reversing the decision of Warring- ton J.), that it was the duty of the directors to inform the shareholders of the facts, of their -policy, and the reasons why they considered that this policy should be maintained and supported by the shareholders, and that they were justified D.D. RAILWAY (Directors) — continued. in trying to influence and secure votes for this purpose, and, accordingly, that expenses which had been bona tide incurred in the interest of the CO. were properly payable out of the funds of the CO. Studdert v. Grosvenor, (1886) 33 Oh. D. 628, overruled on this point. Pickering v. Stephenson, (1872) L. B. 14 Eq. 322, explained. PEEL v. LONDON and Nobth- Wbsteen By. Co. - C. A. [1906] W. N. 208 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 6 Mte. As to costs in this action, see Peel w.London and North Western Ry. Co. {No. 2), Parker J., [1907] 1 Ch. 607. Costs. 30. Dock Company. — Amalgamation — Supply of water to dock from source on property of railway company. See Railway— Amalgamation. 1. Doga. 1. — Carrier— Just and reasonable condition — Carnage of dogs — Declaration of value — Extra charge ill respect of dogs worth more than 21. — Percentage on excess value — Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 185* (17 4" 18 Vict. c. 31),i.7. A contract signed by a person delivering a dog for carriage to a ry. co. stated that the co. would not be common carriers of dogs, nor would they receive dogs for carriage except on the condition that they should not be responsible beyond the sum of 21., unless a higher value was declared at the time of delivery to the co. and a percentage of IJ per cent, paid upon the excess of the value so declared : — Held, that the above-mentioned condition was just and reasonable within the meaning of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, s. 7, and, there having been no declaration of value, protected the ry. co. from liability beyond the amount of 21. iu respect of the loss, through the negligence of their servants, of the dog delivered to them for carriage. Williams v. Midland Ry. Co. - C. A. [1907] W. N. 266 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 225 Electric Cars. — Electric cars not real estate — Appeal fi'om Ontario. See Canada — Railway. 2. Electrical Powers. Railways (Electrical Powers') - Act, 1903 (3 ISdw. 7, 0. 30), facilitates the introduction and use of electrical power on railways. Rules, dated Feb. 17, 1904, made by Board of Trade with respect to applications under the Rail- ways (Electrical Power) Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 30). St. R. & 0. 1904, No. 266. — Metropolitan Electric Supply Company— Sup- plying electrical energy outside areas- Injunction. See Electbic Light. 3. 3 Y ( 2113 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2114 ) RAILWAY — continued. Engine-Driver. — Engine-driver — Workmen's compensation — Stone wilfully thrown at train. See IffiASTEK AND SERVANT — Compen- sation. 116. — Engine-driver — Workman killed while dis- obeying well-known rule of employer. See Master and Servant — Compen. sation. 117. Engineer. — Workmen's compensation — Alteration of rail- road — " Engineering work." See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 79—8.5. Engines. 1. — Con-mmption of smoke "as far as prac- ticable " — Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 S; 9 Vict. c. 20), s. Ui—Segulation of Railways Act, 1868 (31 ,J- 32 Vict. c. 119), s. 19. By s. 114 of the Railways Clauses Consolida- tion Act, 1845, a railway locomotive engine using coal or similar fuel emitting smoke must be constructed on the principle of consuming and so as to consume its own smoke, and a penalty is attached to the user of an engine not so constructed. By s. 19 of the Begulation of Railways Act, 1868, it is made an offence under s. 114 if an engine, although constructed on the principle of consuming its own smoke, fails to do so, as far as practicable, through the default of the CO. or its servants. An engine of the respondents, properly con- structed on the principle of consuming its own smoke, emitted dark smoke for a short time while running on their ry. on two occasions at an interval of rather more than an hour ; the •smoke was not emitted t'lrough any defaidt in the stoking or management of the engine. The coal used was of a bituminous character, and was a good hard steam coal, and was the normal locomotive coal in use in some districts. If Welsh coal, which was twice as costly, had been used, less smoke would have been omitted : — Held, that the engine had not failed to con- sume its own smoke as far as practicable through any default of the ry. co. within the meaning of s. 114 of the Bail ways Glauses Consolidation Act, 1845, as amended by s. 19 of the Begulation of Railways Act, 1868. London Countt Council V. Great Eastern By. Co. Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 312 — Invitation to travel on engine — Liability for negligence of servants. See Negligence. 4. False Imprisonment. 1. — Railway company — Special constable — Arrest on suspicion of felony — Liability of com- pany. A special constable of a ry. co. is the servant of the CO., and if in the course of his employment he aiTests a person on suspicion of felony with- out having any reasonable grounds for his sus- picion, an action for false imprisonment will lie against the co. Lambert v. Great Eastern By. Co, - C. A. [1909] W. N. 186 ; [1909] 3 K. B. 776 "RklVflKy— continued. Fences. 1. — Railway company — Defective fence — Negliyence — Turntable — Infant tresspasser — Invitation t-o danger. A ry. CO. kept a turntable unlocked (and therefore dangerous for children) on their land close to a public road. The co.'s servants knew that children were in the habit of trespassing and playing with the turntable, to which they obtained easy access through a weU-worn gap in a fence which the ry. co. were bound by statute to maintain. A child between four or five years old playing with other children on the turntable having been seriously injured : — Seld, that there was evidence for a jm-y of actionable negligence on the part of the ry. co. The decision of the Irish C. A., [1908] 2 LB. 242, reversed, and the judgment of Lord O'Brien C.J. and the decision of the K. B. D. (Ireland) restored. Cooke v. Midland Great Western Railway op Ireland - H. 1. (I.) [1909] W. N. 56 ; [1909] A. C. 229 Fires, Railways Fires Act, 1905 (5 JEdw. 7, c. 11), gives compensation for damage by fires caused by sparlcs or cinders from railway engines. Foreshore. — Power of the Dominion to legislate for pro- vincial Crown property — Laws of British Columbia. See Canada — Crown Lands. 1. Highway. — Highway — Dedication — Presumption — Strip of land running alongside highway — Disused tramway — Eailway com- pany — Capacity to dedicate. See Highway. 9. Income Tax. — ■ Income tax — Annuity — Sale of railway — Purchase-money — Payment by annual instalments with interest. See Ebvende — Income Tax. 4. India. See under India. Investments. — Trustee — Nominal debentures under Local Loans Act. See Trustee- Investments. 11. Lands Clauses Aots. — Compensation — Site of a chui'ch. See Lands Clauses Acts. 8, — Compulsory powers — Notice to treat — Service, See Lands Clauses Acts. 10. — ; Entry on land before determination of piu'- chase-money — Bond. See Lands Clauses Acts. 32, 1, — Land compnlsorily taken — Limited owner — Compensation fm- yersonal injury., inconvenience ( 2115 ) DIGEST OS' OASES, 1901-1910. ( 2116 ) EAILWAY (lands Clauses Acts) — continued: or annoyance — Lands Clauses ConsoUdatimi Act, 1845 (8 4- 9 Vict. 0. 18), s. 73. Part of the purohase-mouey of land taken by a ry. 00. may be alloted to a limited owner as compensation for personal injury, inconvenience, or annoyance upon evidence that this compensa- tion had been allowed for in fixing the price, though no particular sum had been apportioned for that purpose when the price was fixed. In re Satjndeeton Glebe Lauds. Ex imrte'Ss^CTO^ OF Saundeeton Farwell J. [1903] W. N. 32 ; [1903] lCli.480 — Payment out Lo company — Evidence — De- livery of bond to company. See Lands Clauses Acts. 32. Level Crossing's. — " Accommodation works " — Grant of easement. See Railway — Accommodation Works. 1. 2. — Accommodation loorhs — Level crossing — Agricultural land — Change of condition — Ease- ment — Alteration of user — Increase of iurden — I'ennl'i cliii — Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 4- 9 Vict. c. 20), .s. 68. Where a level crossing has been made under s. 68 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, to connect agricultural lands severed by a ry., the landowner's future user of the crossing is not restricted to the purposes (such as agricul- tural purposes) for which it was used at the time the ry. was constructed ; but he is not entitled to use it so as substantially to increase the burden of the easement by altering or enlarging its character, nature, or extent, as enjoyed at that time. Whether the change of user increases the burden is quite a question of fact in each case. For many years after the time it was made an agricultural level crossing was used for the occasional passage of sheep and cattle, the keys of the gates being borrowed from a neighbouring signalman, who kept the signals at danger till the animals had crossed. The neighbourhood having changed its agricultural character, the landowner let a field to a tennis club, who climbed the gates and used the crossing daily in large numbers. It was proved that owing to the large main line traffic and the shunting from an adjoining colliery siding this user was exceedingly dan- gerous to the club members, and would subject the ry. to a gi'catly increased strain and burden in watching their line and managing their traffic so as to avoid accidents : — Held, that this user was unlawful, and would, if necessary, be restrained by injunction. Heg. V. Broion, (1867) L. E. 2 Q. B. 630 ; Great JVorthern Rij. Co. v. M'Alister, [1897] 1 I. R. 587 ; and Great Western. Bij. Co. v. I'albot, [1902] 2 Oh. 75il, applied. United Land Co. v. Great Eastern Ry. Co., (1875) L. E. 10 Ch. 586, and FincU v. Great Western Ry. Co., (1879) 5 Ex. D. 254, distin- guished. Tas'f Vale Ry. Co. v. Gordon Canning. Swinfen Eady J. [1909] W. ». 108 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 48 RAILWAY (Level Crossings)— eo«i»«KC(i. 3. — Highway — Road raised to level of rail- way — Approaches to crossing — Repair of road- way of approaches. A ry. CO. being authorized to carry their ry. across a high road on the level, con- structed the ry. at a slightly higher level than the road, and, in order to bring the road up to the level of the ry., raised it by means of inclined " approaches " on either side of the ry. under powers conferred by their special Act. The Act was silent as to any obligation of _tho CO. to repair the roadway upon the approaches : — Held, that tliere was imposed upon the co. by the common law, as a condition of the statutory authority to interfere with the high road, an obligation to keep in repair the roadway upon the whole of the approaches, including those portions which lay outside the fences of the ry. Hektfoedshirb County Council c. Gbbat Eastern Ry. Co. C. A. [1909] W. ■&. 124 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 403 4. — Obligation, to maintain gates — Straying horse — Railways Glacises Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 # 9 Vict. c. 20), «. 47. Sect. 61 of the Railways Clauses Consolida- tion Act, 1845, provides that if a ry. shall cross a highway, which is a footway, on the level, the CO. shall erect and maintain good and sufficient gates or stiles on each side of the ry. where the highway shall communicate there- with. The plt.'s horse, without any negligence on the part of the pit., strayed on to a public foot- path, which the defts.' ry. crossed on the level, and passed through a gate, erected by the defts., on to the ry. and was killed by a passing train. The fastening of the gate was defective. Held, that the defts. had failed to maintain a good or sufficient gate as required by s. 61 ; that the defts.' duty under the section was not a duty owed only to persons lawfully using the footpath ; and that the defts. were liable to the pit. for the loss of his horse. Parkinson r. GAESTAN& AND KnOTT END Ry. Co. Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 61S 6. — Repair of roadway—Road raised on in- clined planes— Railways Clauses Act, 1845 (8 S,- 9 Vict. c. 20), .V. 16. ' \ 1 A ry. CO., being authorized to carry their ry. across a high road upon the level, constructed the ry. at a slightly higher level than the road, and, in order to haing the road up to the level of the ry., raised it by means of inclined planes on either side of the ry. under the powers conferred by s. 16 of the Railways Clauses Act, 1845 :— Held that there was no obligation upon the ry. CO. to repair the roadway upon the inclined planes, notwithstanding that their act in inclining its surface might have made its maintenance more expensive than before. West Lancashire Rural District Council v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Ry. Co. Wright J. [1903] 2 K. B. 394 Light Railways. Light Railway Commissioners (Salaries) Act 1901 **'•• 7. ,^S),p,-ov-idesforthepayme,a of another of the Light Railway Commissioners. 3 Ya ( 2117 ) DIGEST OV CASEB, 1901—1910, ( 2118 ) SAILWAY (Light Eailways) — cuntinuetl. Additional Rule dated May, 1904, made by Board of Trade with respect to Notices to be given and Deposits viade in cases where alterations of work are proposed durinq Progress of Application. St. E. & 0. 1904, No. 977. 1. — Carriage — Local authority — Licence to ply for hire — " Omnibus " — " Hackney Carriage " —Town Police Claitses Acts, 1847 (10 ^- 11 Vicf. D. 89), s. 37, and 1899 (52 cf- 53 Vict. c. 14), i>-. 3. i— Light Railways Act, la^li (59,^-60 Vict. r. 48), The carriages used on a light ry. constructed and worked under the powers given by the Light Kailways Act, 1896, and orders made thereunder are not " omnibuses " or ' ' hackney carriages " within the meaning of the Town Police Clauses Acts, 1847 and 1889, and do not, therefore, require to be licensed to ply for hire in the streets of a town under s. 37 of the Act of 1847. YoRKSHiEE (Woollen District) Elbotbic Thamways v. Ellis Div. Ct. [1905] 1 K. B. 396 — Carriage licence — Cars on light railway. See Eevenub — Carriage Licence. 4. ■ — Compulsory purchase. See under RAILWAY — Compulsory Purchase. — Costs — Taxation — Chancery or parliamentary scale — Costs of obtaining Light Eailway Order. See Solicitok— Costs. 7. 2. — Order incor2>orating Lands Clauses Acts — Arbitration — Costs — Tamtion by Master of Supreme CowH — Review of taxation — Light Bail- ways Act, 1896 (59 .5- 60 Vict. c. 48), ss. 12, 13— Lands Clauses (^taxation of Costs) Act, 1895 (58 A- 59 Vict. u. 11), .s. 1. Where an order under the Light Railways Act, 1896, incorporates the Lands Clauses Acts, and on a submission to arbitration under the Light Railways Act the arbitrator awai-ds costs to be paid by one of the parties to tlie submis- sion, either party can require under the Lands Clauses (Taxation of Costs) Act, 1895, 3. 1, that the costs shall be taxed and settled by one of the Mastei'S of the Supreme Court, whose decision is not open to review. In re UA2WINGS, Ld. AND Middlesex County Council C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 61 — Rates. See under Rates — Railway. Luggage. — Liability for loss of luggage — Passengers' luggage carried free of charge. See Caheiek. 1. 3. — Bailicny conqmmj — Passenger's luggage carried free of charqe- — Articles over ralue of 101.— Liability fur ' l(is.'<~-Carriers Act, 1830 (11 Geo. i S; 1 Will. 4, r. 68), ss. 1, 2. The provisions of the C;>rrii.'rs Act, 1830, ajiply to ordinary jiersonal luggage of a passenger which by the rcgs. of the ry. cos. he is entitled to have carried fi-ee of charge. Casswell r. Cheshire Lines Committee Div. Ct. [1907] W. N. 140 ; [1907] 2 K, B. 499 RAILWAY— e««;;«(/e.'D GeEAT WESTERN Ky. Co. C. A. [1904] W. N. 192 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 68 — Parcels -C'oiiAeyance of hmd with minerals — Adjoiniiii; railway the boundary — Highway. See Vendor akb Purchaser — Minerals. 1. 6. — Repeal of priar Act — Beserrntioii of rested righU — Arh'it ration and /nrard nltrn vires — Costs of arhitratio)! — Lands Clntises CunsuUda- lionAct^li^in (8 <5' '.» )'ict. f. 18), s. 34. Land was bouglit by a ry. co. in 18.39, the conveyance being expressed to be in accordance with a special Act by which minerals were to be deemed to be excepted out of tbe purchase and the mining rights were defined. A special Act of 184(i repealed the prior Act with a proviso that the repeal should not affect any conveyance, contract, or thing e.xecuted, made or dtme under the repealed Act. The Railways Clauses Con- solidation Act, 184.5, and the Lands Clauses Con- solidation Act, 184"i, were incorporated in the Act of 1846. The ownei' of minerals under the land gave the co. notice of his intention to work the minerals, and claiming that the mining rights were regulated by the Acts of 1846 and 1846, and required an arbitration under the Lancls Clauses Act, 1845. The co. attended the arbitration under protest, and the umpire made an award giving the owner of the minerals com- ]icnsation under the Acts of 1845 and 1846. The owner haA'ing sued the co. on tlie award to recover the sum awarded and the costs of the arbitration : — Held, that the effect of the proviso in the Act of 1846 was that the mining rights were regu- lated by the repealed Act and not by the Rail- ways Clauses Act, 184.5 ; that the arbitration and award were ultra vires, .and that the owner of the minerals was not entitled to the sum awarded or to the costs of the arbitration. The reascraing of the C. A. on the above points, [1899] 1 Q. B. 921, disapproved, for the reasons there given by Collins L..T. London and North Western Ry. Co. r. Walker - H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N, 104 ; [1903] A. C. 289 — Reservation of minerals — Conveyance of sur- face — Costs. See Lands Claoses Acts. 35. 7. — Sandstone — Mines of coal, ironstone, slate, or other minerals — 'Raihrays Clauses Con- solidafioH (Scotland) Act, 1845 (8 .\- 9 Tict. c. 33), ss. 7U, 71 — Itaihvays Clauses Consolidation (En(iland) Act, 1845 (8 ,?■ 9 Vict. c. 20), .v.v. 77, 78. By s. 70 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845 (which corresponds to s. 77 of the Raihv,ays Clauses Consolidation (England) Act, 1845), " The (ry.) co. sliall not be entitled 10 any mines of coal, ironstone, slate nr otlier minerals under -any land purchased Ijy them, except only such parts thereof as shall be necessary to lie dug or carried away, or used in RAILWAY (Mines) — continued. the construction of the works, unless the same shall have been expressly purchased ; and all such mines, excepting as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be excepted out of the conveyance of such land,', unless they shall have been exprei-sly named therein and conveyed thereby'" : — Held (re\crsing the decision of the t'ccond Division of the Ct. of Scss.. Scotland, (1909) S. C. 277), that sandstone is not a mineral within the meaning of the section. North British Ry. Co. V. BuDHiLL Coal aud Sandstone Co. H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 223 ; [1910] A. C. 116 8. — Tunnel — Suhjacent and adjacent .injjjwrt — Purchase of upper seam.s of coal tinder tunnel — Hight to support from uudrrl i/ing seam — Limit of forty yards — Raihrays Clauses Con.wHdation Act, 1845 (8 j;- 9 Vict. c. 20), ss. 77 to 85. In this case the pits, sought injunctions to restrain the defts. from working the minerals in such a manner as to i^'ithdraw (1) vertical or lateral support from the tunnel ; (2) lateral support from the tunnel outside a distance of 40 yards therefi'om, and (3) vertical nr lateral support from the two seams of coal lying under the tunnel and above the minerals which the defts. now desired to work. Eve. J. held that the pits, were not entitled to any of the injunctions claimed, and in gi^ang judgment said, with reference to the first injunc- tion, that the transaction and form of grant of July 10, 1852, did not prevent the application of the Railways Clauses Consohdation Act, 1845 ; London and Xortli Western Rij. Co. v. Acltroijd. (1862) 31 L. J. (Ch.) 588 ; that the purchase was a compulsoiy one in that it was made and posses- sion given while the compulsory powers were in force : Hooper v. Bourne, (1880) 5 App. Cas. 1 . and that there was nothing to limit the mining sections of the Act to land acquired compulsorily, so that the question of voluntary or compulsory acquisition was immaterial. With regard to the third injunction claimed, he said that it was of no importance whether the transaction of 1878 was a payment of compensa- tion evidenced by a conveyance or whether it was in fact a sale and purchase. In either case it carried no right of supjiort from the underlying minerals, lieing in truth a purchase of land within s. 77, and could not be sncces.sfnlly set up as a ground for claiming the relief asked by the third injunction. With regard to the second injunction, if j\'c»i Moss Colliery, Ld. v. Manchester Corporation, [1908] A. C. 114, were the only authority dealing with the respective rights of landowner and undertakers to support from minerals outside the prescribed area, he would have felt himself bound to hold that such rights must be ascertained by the application of the common law and not liy reference to tlie statutory code, but he tlionght that the very point had been decidefl by the Hou.se of Lords in Creat Western Ry. Co. v. Bennett. (1867) L. R. 2 H. L. 27. imder'the Rail- ways Clauses Consolidation Act, in which the House, in coming to the conclusion that the mine- owner was entitled to compensation under certain land which, as appeared fi'om the case and appendix, included land both inside and outside ( 2123 ) DIGKST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2124 ) RAILWAY (Mines) — continued. the prescribed area, thereby decided that the railway was not entitled to support from any of the minerals under the land outside the area. Having regard to that decision he considered himself bound to hold that the pits, did not enjoy any common law right of support from the def ts.' minerals beyond the prescribed distance. Lon- don AJifD North-Western Rt. Co. c. Howlby Park Coal and Cannbl Co. - Eve J. [1910] W. N. 163 Negligence. — Railway company — Defective fence — Turn- table — Infant ti'espasser — Invitation to danger. See Railway — Fences. 1. Kotice of Accidents. Railway — Safety — Kotice of acaidents — Order made 'by the Board of Trade^ Deo. 21, 1906, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1871, s. 6, and the Railways (^Prevention of Accidents') Act, 1900. s. 13 (2). St. E. & 0. 1906, No. 947. Price, \d. Omnibus. 1. — OmniMts ivsiness — Railway company- Incidental powers — Ultra rirra. A ry. CO. without express power to run omnibuses ran omnibuses in a way which was in this House held as a matter of fact to be not incidental to or consequential upon their statu- tory powers : — Held, that the co. must be restrained from carrying on the omnibus business, and that the undertaking required and sanctioned by the C. A. was impranticable. Decision of the 0. A., [1907] W. N. 5 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 81, reversed. Decision of Warrington J., [1906] 1 Ch. 811, restored. Att.-Gbn. and Birkenhead Cor- poration V. Mebsbt Ry. Co. - H. L. (E.") [1907] W. N. 173; [1907] A. C. 416 Parliamentary Deposit. See under Railway— Deposit. Passengers. 1. — BreaTt journey, Right to. A contract by a ry. co. to carry a passenger from one station to another does not in the absence of special terms entitle the passenger to break the journey at any intermediate station. AsHTON V. Lancashire and Yokkshibb Ry. Co. - - Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 313 2. — Fare — Passenger travelling on after giving up ticliet at station for which it is avail- able. The deft, intending to travel by a particular train from H. to M. on the pits.' railway, took a ticket to S., an intermediate station, and after giving up this ticket on the arrival of the train at S., remained in the carriage and tendered to the plt.'s servant Id., which was the amount of the fare from S. to M.— the difference between the fare from H. to S. and the through fare from H. to M. being 9d. The pits, refused the amount RAILWAY (Passengers)— flfffflimaefZ. tendered, but allowed the deft, to travel on in the same train to M., and sued him for the excess through fare : — Held, that the pits, were entitled to recover. London and North Wbstbrn Ry. Co. v. HiNCHCLiFFB Div. ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 82 3. — Liahiiity of railway companies — Loss of life from eseplosives in a railway carriage — Neg- ligence — Onus prdbandi — Appeal from- Bengal. Ry. cos. are bound to use proper care and skiU in carrying their passengers ; thoy are not liable as common carriers of passengers independently of negligence. Where a passenger was killed in a ry. carriage by an explosive illegally introduced into it : — Held, that the ry. oo. was not liable in dam- ages unless guilty of negligence in permitting the fireworks to be brought into the carriage. As it was not the duty of the co. to search every parcel carried by a passenger, the onus was on the pit. to shew that the parcels containing the fireworks suggested danger. Collett V. London and, Noi'tli Westei-n Ry. Co., (1851) 16 Q. B. 984, explained. East Indian Ky; Co. 1!. Kalidas Mukerjee P. C. [1901] A. C. 396 4. — Negligence — Passenger — Closing of car- riage door. Where a passenger is seated in a ry. carriage the fact that his finger is crushed owing to the shutting of the carriage door by a ry. servant on the platform is not evidence of negligence in an action against the ry. co. There is no duty cast upon the servfints of a ry. CO. to give warning of the shutting of a car- riage door to passengers who are actually seated inside the carriage and are not in the act of getting in or out of it. Dbury v. North Eastern Ry. Co. Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 322 5. — Negligence — Railway company — Failure of railway servants to close carriage doors 'before starting the train — Passengers — Damages for personal injuries. In an action of damages for personal injuries brought by a passenger against a ry. co. the pursuer averred that %vhile standing on the plat- form of their station he was struck and injured by an open carriage door. That it was the duty of the defenders and the invariable practice of ry. cos. to close the doors of compartments before a train was allowed to leave the station, but this they negligently failed to do on the occasion of this accident, and thereby an open door caused the injury to the pursuer : — Held (reversing the judgment of the First Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1908) S. C. 48), that there was a relevant averment of negligence by the defenders, inasmuch as facts were averred from which a jury might infer negligence ; and that the pursuer was entitled to a trial by jury. ToAL V. North British Ry. Co. - H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W. N. 136 ; [1908] A. C. 362 — Omnibus business — Incidental powers - Railway company — Ultra vires. See Railway— Omnibus. 1. ( 2125 ) DIGEST OF CASRS. 1901—1910. ( 2126 ) EAILWAY (VaBsengBrs)— continued. — Passenger's luggage carried free of charge — Articles over value of 101, — Liability for loss. See Caebiee. 1. — Third-class passengers — Fai'e of a penny per mile. See Canada — Bailway. 6. Payment out of Court. — Evidence — Delivery of bond to company. See Lands Clauses Acts. 32. Flans. 1. ■ — Statutory jiowers — Deposited plaits — IJmits of denaiion — Medium, fihim — Raihcays Clauses Consolidation Act, 18i5 (8 ^'' 9 Viot. c. 20), s. 16. The general provisions of s. 15 of the Rail- ways Clauses Act, 1845, which permit the medium filum of the line to be placed on the line of devia- tion shemi on the deposited plans, apply only to the plans for construction of a new line, nut to those for a junction with an existing line. Finclt T. Londo-n and Sojitli Western liy. Co., (1890) a Ch. D. 330, followed. Cardiff Ey. Co. r. Tapp Vale Et. Co. - - Farwell J. [1906] W. N. 105 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 289 Poor Bates. See under Railway — Bates. Powers. 1. — Ectemion of powers — Railway com- pany — Application of assets — Construction of extension line — Creditors — Separate iindertalting. An existing ry. co. incorporated by statute was emoowered by a later special Act to make extension rya., the rys. and worlds and the land and property acquired for the extension to form a separate undertaking with separate capital, and as between the general and the separate undertaking the expenses of niiiintainiug and working the separate undertaking to be paid out of the revenue of the separate undertaking. There being no provision either in the special Act or in the contract for constructing the exten- sion to limit the liability of the co. for the expenses of construction to the assets of the separate undertaking : — Held by Lord Loreburn L.C. and Lord Maonaghten (Lord Ashbourne dissenting), that the contractors were entitled to be paid out of the general undertaking the sums due to them for the construction. The decisions of the K. B. D. and the C. A. in Ireland (not reported) reversed. In re Ogilvie, (1871) L. R. 7 Ch. 174, approved. S. Peaeson fc Son, Ld. r. Dublin and South Eastern Ry. Co. H. L. (I.) [1909] A. C. 217 2. — Powers exercisable for limited period — Expiraticn of time — Company in lauful posses- sion of land — Poiuer to construct railway. A special Railway Act empowered the Great Western Ry. Co. to make rys. and construct junctions between their line and the rys. of the Midland Co. and provided that if the junc- tions were not completed within five years the powers granted should cease, The Great EAILWAY (^6-fiets)— continued. Western Co. made the rys. but had not com- pleted the junctions before the end of the five yeara : — Held, that there was nothing in the Act to prevent the Great Western Co. from completing the junctions by virtue of their ownership of their own land and a licence to use the land of the Midland Co. The decision of the C. A., sub. nom. Ch-eM Western Ry. Co. v. Midland Ry. a., [1908] 2 Ch. 644, affirmed. MIDLAND Ey. Co v. Great M'esteen Ry. Co. - H. 1. (E.) [1909] "W. N. 167 ; [1909] A. C. 445 3. — Railway company — Statutory powers — Unreasonahle use — Injunction. Pit. was lessee of a house. Deft. co. was in- corporated by Act of Parliament, for the purpose of making an underground electric ry. Deft. co. had acquired the piece of land immediately adjoining plt.'s house for the purpose of con- structing a station on their vy. For this purpose they were making three large shafts within a few feet of the plt.'s house. Def ts. worked day and night in the construction of these shafts, and it was alleged that they threatened to continue so working for a period of several years. Pit, brought this action for an injunction to restrain the def ts. from working so as to occasion a nuisance by night. The statement of claim alleged : " The carrying out of the said works by night is an unreasonable and vexatious abuse of the powers conferred on the def ts. by Parliament, and by reason thereof the plt.'s house is rendered unfit for use as a dwelling-house, and the pit. has suffered great loss and damage." Defts. moved to strike out the statement of claim as shewing no reasonable cause of action, Farwell J. refused this motion, but allowed the case to be argued as if it had been set down for the decision of the preliminary question of law. whether the unreasonable and vexatious use of statutory powers in carrying out works autho- rized by the statute gave rise to acauseof action, where negligence was not alleged : — Held, that the case was covered by the decision of Lord Lyndhui'st in Coats {or Coatee) V. Clarence Ry. Co., (1830) 1 Russ. & My. 181 ; 32 E. R. 183 ; Preface, v. The whole question in that case was whether the Court had power to interfere to stop unreasonable action on the part of a ry. co., and the Lord Chancellor had inter- fered. The point of law must therefore be decided in favour of the pit. Roberts r. Char- ing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Ry. Co. Farwell J. [1903] W. N. 13 Practice. — Appeal for order of judge at chambers — Prac- tice and procedure." See Appeal. 2. — Costs of inquiries necessary for distribution of deposit — Parliamentary deposit — Abandonment — Practice. Sec Railway — Deposit. 1. — New trial, Application for — Railway accident — Prospective loss of income — Excessive damages. Sef Practice— TriaJ. 4. ( 2127 ) DIQEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 3128 ) EAILWAY (Fraotioe)— co««i«me«Z. -— Bailway Passengers' Assurance Company's Acts — Practice— Staying proceedings — Submission to arbitration. See Peactiob — Staying Proceedings. 6. Bailway and Canal Commissioners. Hallway — Private sidinga — RuJe made bi/ i/ie Mailioay and Canal Commiastonem, in purstiance of tlie 20th section of the Mailway mid Canal Trafjio Act, 1888, in i-elation to applications to the Commindoners made under s. ^ of the Railway {Private Sidings') Act, 1904. W. N. 1906 (Feb. 11), p. 67. See Current Index, 190.o, p. xcix. Rules dated April 30, 1902, made by the Railway and Canal Commrs. in pursuance of the I2th section of the Railway Employmeyit (^Prevention of Accidents') Act, 1900, in relation to applications to the Commrs. made under ss. 8 and 10 of that Act. St. E. & 0. 1903, No. 354, L. 5. — Sidings. See under Railway — Sidings. Bates. See also under Railway — Carriage. Rates. — Assessment — " Land used only as a railway." See Rates. 34. 1. — Carriage of goods — Reduction of " rate authorized " where company does not provide truchs — Meaning of "rate authorized," — Great Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Order Confirmation Act, 1891 (54 <5' 55 Vict. c. ccxii.), Sclied,, s. 2 (b). By the schedule to the Great Western Rail- way Company (Rates and Charges) Order Con- firmation Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. coxxii.), s. 2 (Jb), it is provided that, in certain cases where the co. do not provide the truclis in which merchandise is carried on the ry., the "rate authorized for conveyance " shall be reduced by a sum which shall, in the event of difference between the co. and "the person liable to pay the charge," be determined by an arbitrator : — Held, that " the rate authorized for convey- ance " in the above-mentioned enactment means the actual rate in force for the time being as published in the co.'s book of rates, and not the maximum rate which the co. are by the schedule authorized to charge. Sptllers & Bakers, Ld. V. Great Western Ry. Co. - C. A. [1909] ■W.N. 47; [1909] 1 K. B. 604 2. • — Inequality of charge — Railways Clavjses Act, 1845 (8 ^- 9 Vict. c. 20), s. 90— Motley paid to agent under mistake of fact — IVhen recoverable back. The pit. contracted with the M. Ry. Co. for the carriage of coke breeze from a station on the M. Ry. to a station on the defts.' ry. at a certain specified through rate per ton. The goods having been delivered, the pit. paid for the carriage at the agreed rate to the defts. as the collecting agents of the M. By. Co. The pit. subsequently discovered that the M. Ry. Co. had in their published book of rates a through rate between the same stations charging a less sum per ton for coke breeze if nsed for fuel purposes. The coke RAILWAY (Bates) — continued. breeze carried for the pit. was intended to be used for other than fuel purposes. The pit. sought to recover from the defts. the difference between the two rates, upon the ground that differential charges for the caiTiage of the same article according to the purposes for which it was used was a breach of the provisions of s. 90 of the Railways Glauses Act, 1845, which requires " that all such tolls be at all times charged equally to all persons and after the same rate .... in respect of all ... . goods .... of the same description conveyed .... over the same portion of the line of ry. under the same circumstances." There was no evidence that the M. Ry. Co. had in fact ever carried coke breeze for fuel purposes at the lower rate for any particular persons, but the lower rate had been in existence as a published rate for several years, including the whole period covered by the transactions with the pit. The payments by the pit, to the defts. had been made voluntarily and without compulsion. Before any notice to the defts. of any claim by the pit. that he had been overcharged they had settled in account with the M. Co. in respect of the payments so received by them on the M. Co.'s behalf : — Held — (1.) That, assuming s. 90 to apply to the case of carriage at a through rate over more than one ry., as to which the Court expressed no opinion, it was necessary, in order to establish an inequality of rates under that section, to shew that some persons had in fact been charged at the lower rate, and that of that the existence of the lower rate upon the rate book was no evidence. (2.) That, even if there was a breach of that section, the money could not be recovered back from the defts., who had received it as innocent agents and settled for it with their principals before any notice of the overcharge ; and that this applied equally to that portion of the money received by them, which, in the ordinary course under their traffic arrangement with the M. Co., they would be entitled to retain to their own use as representing their share of the through rate for the portion of the transit over their ry., the money having been paid by the pit. as a lump payment under a contract to which the defts. were not parties. Tayioe v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. - Div Ct. [1906] W. N. 100 ; [1906] 2 K. B. 65 — Link line — Actual net earnings within parish — Interest on cost of construction. See Rates. 35. 3. — Poor-rate — Assessment — Ziability of railway company — Sidittgs — Running lines. The principal question raised by the case was whether certain ry. lines in the parish of Hornsey should be treated as running lines, or whether they should be considered as sidings and there- fore rated as indirectly productive. The Great Northern Ry. Co., in addition to carrying-goods to King's Cross over their own lines, carry goods over the Metropolitan Ry. to a goods station belonging to them, and also they carry other goods over the Metropolitan Ry. to stations on other rys. In consequence of the very large passenger traffic on this ry., goods can only be ( 21-29 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2130 ) RAILWAY (Bates) — oontinued. carried on these lines at certain hours, and con- sequently when a train arrives at the station in the parish of Hornsey, it has to be divided, and the trucks destined for stations other than King's Cross have to remain where they arc for a con- siderable time. Extra lines and sidings are therefore necessary for this purpose, and also for the purpose of shunting, which takes place on these extra lines during about eight hours in each day, when the lines are not occupied by trucks waiting to be forwarded over. the Metro- politan By. Without these extra lines and sidings, which are known as relief lines, it would be impossible for the Great Northern Ey. to carry on the passenger traffic in respect of which the parish of Hornsey receives rates on the mileage system. It was contended for the ry. CO. that the goods traffic placed on these relief lines was still upon its journey to its destination, and that the lines were, therefore, on the prin- ciple of AssessTnent Committee of Stockport Union V. Lonclon and NoTth Western Ry. Co., (1898) 78 L. T. 180, part of the running line : — Held, that the relief lines were in the nature of a storage station and produced traffic in- directly, and that they must be rated accordingly. Gbeat Nokthbrn Ry. Co. v. Edmonton Union and Ovbesbbrs op Hoknsey Cliannell J. [1906] W. N. 115 — Eailwaj' — " Land used only as a railway " — Light railway. See Eatks. 34. — Eailway — Link-line — Interest on cost of construction — Eateabie value. See Eates. 35. 4. — Raihoay rates — Short distance — Mer- chandise ' ' conveyed " iy tlie company partly on its own railway and partly on anothej' railway. By clause 11 of the schedule to the London and North Western Eailway Company (Eates and Charges) Order Confirmation Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. 0. coxxi.), "Where merchandise is conveyed for an entire distance which does not exceed .... in the case of merchandise in respect of which no station terminal is chargable six miles, the co. may .... make the charges for conveyance authorized by this schedule as for ... . six miles . . . . : Provided that where merchandise is conveyed by the co. partly on the ry. and partly on the ry. of any other co. the ry. and the ry. of such other co. shall for the purpose of reckoning such short distance be con- sidered as one ry." The London and North Western Ey. Co. accepted goods for conveyance for an entire distance partly on their own ry. and partly on the ry. of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Ey. Co. ; in one instance the entire distance was less than six miles, in another instance the distance con- veyed over the London and North Western line was more than, and over the Lancashire and Yorkshire line was less than, six miles. In both instances the traffic was taken by the engines of the respective cos. over their own lines, except that, for convenience of working, the engine of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Co. piclvcd up the traffic at a siding on tlio London and Nortli Western lino about two miles short of the RAILWAY (Rates) — continued. junction of the two rys. and conveyed it thence to its destination : — ITeld by Vaughan WiUiams L.J. and Fletcher Moulton L.J. (Buckley L.J. in part dissenting), that the proviso only applied where the total transit was less than six miles and there was a conveyance or carriage by the London and North Western Ey. Co. over both the rys., and that there had not been such a conveyance by that 00. merely because they had received -the traffic to be carried to its destination at a through rate. In the first instance, therefore, the London and North Western Co. were entitled to charge two short distance rates, and in the second to charge a mileage rate over their own line and a short distance rate over the line of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Co. Semble, the expression ' ' conveyed " in the proviso does not refer merely to the physical haulage of the traffic. Decision of the Ey. and Canal Commission, [1906] I K. B. 577, affirmed on different grounds. Lancashiee and Cheshire Coal Associa- tion V. London and North Western Ey. Co. AND Lancashire and Yorkshire Ey. Co. C. A. [1907] W. N. 167 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 902 — Eates and charges — Eeasonableness a question for jury. See Eailway — Siding. 3. 6. — Reasonable facilities — Agreed throtigh rates — Application for through rates of same amount but differently apportioned — Jurisdiction of Railway Commissioner.'! — Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888 (51 Sj- 52 Vict. c. 25), s. 25. The Eailway and Canal Commissioners have no jurisdiction under s. 25 of the Eailway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, to entertain an applica- tion for a new apportionment between the several ry. cos. over whose lines through traffic is carried of an existing through rate for that traffic. Where an agreed through rate for through traffic over the lines of two or more ry cos. is in existence, and the apportionment of the rate between the ry. cos. has been agreed upon, and there is no threat on the part of any of the cos. to withdraw the rate, the Eailway and Canal Commissioners have no jurisdiction to entertain an application for an order for a through rate of the same amount as the existing rate bnt differently apportioned between the several ry. cos. IManchester Ship Canal Co. v. London and North Western Ey. Co. Railway and Canal Commission [1910] 2 K, B. 913 6. — Regulation — Increase of rates — Reason- ableness — Change in condition of trad-e — Evidence —Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894 (57 .(■ 58 Vict. c. 54), s. 1. By s. 1, sub-s. 1, of the Eailway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, where a ry. co. have since Dec. 31, 1892, increased, or thereafter increase, any rate, then, if any complaint is made that the rate is unreasonable, it shall lie on the co. to prove that the increase of the rate is reasonable. Upon a complaint that an increase of a rate for the carriage of coal as from Aug. 1, 1900, over the def ts.' rys. was unrea-sonable, an order ( 213t ) BraKST OT? CASKS, 1901—1910, ( 2132 ) RAILWAY (Bates) — continued. was made that, if the defts. relied for jusfcifica- tion on any change in the mode or expense of carrying coal, they were to give particulars thereof. No such particulars were given. At the hearing before the Railway Commissioners it was proved on behalf of the defts. that in 189B, at the request of the colliery owners, owing to the depression in the coal trade, the defts. reduced the rates for the carriage of coal ; that in 1900 the coal trade was in a prosperous con- dition, the price of coal having risen consider- ably ; and that on Aug. 1, 1900, the defts. raised the rates to what they had been in 1895 before the reduction was made. The Commissioners (Sir James Woodhouse dissenting) having found that the increase of the rates was reasonable ; — Held, that the evidence as to the rise in the price of coal was not given for the purpose of proving an increase in the expense of cariying the coal, but for the purpose of proving that the depression which was the cause of the reduction in the rates had passed away and had been suc- ceeded by a period of prosperity, and therefore the evidence was not excluded by the order for particulars ; and that, consequently, there was evidence upon which the Railway Commissioners were entitled to find that the increase of the rates was reasonable. Judgment of the Railway and Canal Com- mission, [1908] 1 K. B. 771, .affirmed. NOETH Staffordshire Colliery Owners Associa- tion V. North Staffordshire Ry. Co., London and North Western Ry. Co., Great Western Ry. Co., and Shropshire Union Rr. and Canal Go. C. A. [19081 W. N. 171 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 765 — Signal-box — Poor rate — Assessment. See Rates. 33. 7. — 2'hrough rate — Jomder of defendants — Undue iireference — Railii'o.y and Canal Com- mission — Practice. Traders who complain of a through rate as being an undue preference must join as defts. all the cos. concerned in making the through rate. Chauce & Hunt, Ld. < . London and North Western Ry. Co. Court of Bailway and Canal CommiEsion, [1909] 1 K. B. 550 8. — Traffic mwnageinent — Difference in treatment — Undue preference — Purchase of land — Special agreement — Adequate consideration — Payment in cash and services — Railiray and Canal Traffic Act, 18.54 (17 4- 18 Vict. c. 31), s. 2 —Railway and Canal Traffic Art, 1888 (51 4' 52 Vict. 0. 25), s. 27, stiJj-ss. 1, 2. A " difference in treatment " within the meaning of sub-s. 1 of s. 27 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, between rival traders by a ry. co. may be justified and explained by an agreement bona fide entered into by the ry. co. and a trader under which land is taken and arrangements are made for what is to be done on and with reference to the land so taken. An agreement of purchase made in good faith between a ry. co. and a trader, whereby the latter receives payment partly in cash and partly in services to be rendered by the ry. co. on land RAILWAY (Rates) — continued. the subject-matter of the agreement at rates lower than those charged to other traders, is not bad in law as against public pohcy. Per Fletcher Moulton L.J. : Agreements for the acquisition of land are not rendered invalid by containing, as part of the consideration from the ry. co., stipulations as to easements and services over the land so acquired. Decision of the Railway and Cianal Com- missioners, [1909] 1 K. B. 486, affirmed. HoL- WBLL Iron Co. i: Midlaijd Ry. Co. C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 296 9. — Tramroad — Land " ti-ied only a.i a rail- way constructed under any Act of Parliament " — Local Gorernment — General district rate — Assessment— PiMic Health Act, 1875 (38 .$• 39 Vict. 0. 55), s. 211, sub-s. 1 (i). Where a tramroad has been constructed by a tramroad co. under an Act of Parliament upon the co.'s land and the tramroad is in fact a railway and is used only as a railway con- structed under an Act of Parliament for public convenience, the co. is entitled to be assessed in respect of the railway at one-fourth of its net annual value by virtue of s. 211, sub-s. 1 (i), of the Public Health Act, 1875. Decision of the C. A., [1907] 1 K. B. 568, affirmed. THORNTON URBAN COUNCIL r. Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Co. H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 91 ; [1909] A. C. 264 — Tramway — Tramroad — Land " used only as a railway constructed under any Act of Parliament." See Rates. 34. Receiver. 1. — Appointment, of receirer — Jurisdiction — Judgment creditor — Railway not open for jmllic traffic — Railway Companies Act, 1867 (30 4- 31 Vict. 0. 127), i. 4. Appeal against an order of Farwell J., [1901] W. N. 24, appointing, on the petition of judg- ment creditors of this ry. co., a receiver of the property and undertalcing of the co. Farwell J. held that, under s. 4 of the Railway Companies Act, 1867, the Court has jurisdiction to appoint a receiver of the undertakings of a ry. co. even though the ry. is not yet complete for public traffic. The Court allowed the appeal, and dismissed the petition. Without deciding whether there was jurisdiction to appoint a receiver in such a case, but as.suming that there was jurisdiction, still a receiver ought not to be appointed when there is not, and probably will not, until the line is opened for traffic, be any money for him to receive. Per Rigby L.J. (V. Williams L.J. doubting) : Even if a receiver were appointed before the ry. was open for public traffic, the Court would prob- ably give a judgment creditor leave to levy exe- cution on chattels of the co., notwithstanding the appointment. In re Manchester and MilfordRy. Co., (1880) 14 Ch. D. 645, 651, explained. In re Knott End Railway Company's Act, 1898 C. A. [1901] W. N. 64 ; [1901] 2 Ch, 8 ( 3133 ) DIGEST OF CASKS, 1901—1910. ( 2134 ) RAILWAY (R6ceiyei')~contm'ued. 2. — Rolling stoclt — Proceeds of sale — Dehen- ture-holders — Pfiority — Railway Companies Act, 1867 (30 .j- 31 Vict. c. 127), ss. 4, 23. Boiling stock and other chattels of an in- solvent ij. CO. were sold to another ry. co. under the provisions of a statutory agreement which directed the proceeds of sale to be paid to a receiver already appointed under s. i of the Railway Companies Act, 1867, and gave the purchasing co. the exclusive right of working the insolvent co.'s ry. for ten years on certain terms : — Held, that the proceeds of sale constituted money received by the receiver within the mean- ing of s. 4, and the holders of mortgage deben- tures charging the undertaking were therefore entitled to those proceeds under s. 23 in priority to unsecui'ed creditors. Torhshire Railivay Wagon Cu. v. 3{aclure. (1882) 21 Ch. D. 309, 314, and In re Hulk Barnslei/ and West Riding Junction Ry. Co., (1888) 40 Ch. D. 119, 130, applied. In re LISKEAED AND CAEADON Ry. CO. Swinfen Eady J. [1903] W. N. 155 : [1903] 2 Ch. 681 Befreshment-rooms. — Exemption of. See Shop Hours Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 31), s. 2, Sched. Sales. — Sale of railway by mortgagee — Order of Court — Law of Ontario. See Canada— Railway. 8. Servants. — Failure of railway servants to close carriage doors before setting train in motion. See Railway — Passengers. 5. — Workmen's Compensation. See under Railway — Workmen's Com- pensation. Sidings. Railways {Private Sidings') Act, 1904 (4 JSdw, 7, c. 19), aviendsthelaw relating to private sidings on railioays. No application under s. 3 of Railtuay (Private Siding.^) Act, 1904, shall he iiled uiitliout consent of Coinmissoners. Draft Rule. Reprint from W. N. 1904 (Dec. 17), p. 333. See Cubeent Index, 1904, p. cxxiii. 1. — Adjoining owner — Private branch, rail- ways — Private sidings — Openings for communica- tion with railway — Right to require openinj/s — ■ Limitations on rigid — Railway Regulation Act, 1842 (5 ^' 6 Vict. c. 55), s. 12 — RaUways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 <$• 9 Vict. c. 20), s. 76. Sect. 76 of the Railways Clauses Consolida- tion Act, 1845, under which owners or occupiers of land adjoining a ry. may make private branch rys. communicating with the ry., and require the ry. 00. to make openings in their rails, and such additional lines of rails as may be necessary for effecting communication, is applicable only to communications required by the owners of the RAIliWAY (SiiingB)— continued. branch rys. for the purpose of using the ry. with their own engines and carriages, and does not entitle an adjoining owner, who makes a siding, to demand communication with the ry. for the purpose of establishing a claim to facilities for his traffic. Seld, also, that the limitation of the right of communicfition, between a ry. and a private branch ry., to places where the communication can be made with safety to the public, and with- out injury to the ry. and without inconvenience to the traffic thereon, does not relate solely to the structural difficulties of making an opening, but has reference also to difficulties arising from working the traffic on the ry. Decision of the Railway Commissioners, [ 1 902 1 1 K. B. 381, reversed. Lancashiee Beick and Teeea Cotta Co. .-. Lancashiee and Yoek- shieeRy. Co. - C. A. [1902] W. N. 46; [1902] 1 K. B. 651 2. — Dock company — lAnes ivithin area of dock estate — Continuous line nf railway communi- cation — Tlirough dates — Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888 (51 ^- 52 Viet. c. 25), s. 25— Regulation of Railways Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict, c. 48), .!. 3. A dock CO., constituted under Acts of Parlia- ment, had, in pursuance of provisions in their Acts, laid down within their dock lines of rails and sidings, connected with the line of a ry. co., for the purpose of the carriage of goods in the trucks and wagons of the ry. co. from and to the system of the ry. co. to and from the quays and warehouses in the docks. The Acts of the dock CO. did not, in respect of these lines and sidings, incorporate the provisions of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Acts or contain any of the usual statutory provisions with regard to rys. The dock CO. applied to have through rates fixed by the Ry. Commrs. in respect of traffic from the quays and warehouses in their docks to certain places on the ry. co.'s system under s. 26 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, which pro- vides, in substance, that the facilities to be afforded by ry. cos. under s. 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, in cases where a ry. forms part of a continuous line of ry. communi- cation, shall include the due and reasonable receiving, forwarding, and delivering by every ry. CO., " at the request of any other such co.," of through traffic to and from the ry. of any other such CO. at through rates : — JSeld (reversing a decision of a majority of the Ry. Commrs.), that, under the provisions of their Acts, the applicants were not a " ry. co." in respect of the before-mentioned lines and sidings, and that those lines and sidings were not a " ry.," and did not form part of a " con- tinuous line of ry. communication," within the meaning of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, and therefore the applicants were not entitled to through rates under s. 26 of that Act. London and India Docks Co. r. Geeat Easteen Ry. Co. and Midland Ry. Co. C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 568 — Poor rate — Assessment— Liability of railway company— Running lines. See Railway — Bates. 3. ( 2135 ) DIGEST 01" CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2136 ) RAILWAY {Siiinga)—oo)dmued. Private sidings — Rule Tiuide by the liailway and Canal Commissioners, in pursuance of the •20th section of the Railway and Canal traffic Act, 1888, in relation to applications to the Com- missioners made under s. 3 of tlui Railway (_Private Siditiys) Act, 1904, W. N. 1905 (Feb. 11), p. 67. See Current Index, 1905, p. xciv. 3. — Rates and c/iarges — " Suc/i reasonable sum as the comjjany may think Jit in each case " — Reasonableness a question for jury — Provisional Order of Board of Traili Midland Railway Company (Jiates and Charges) Order Confrmation Act, 1891 (54 ..J- 55 Vict. L. ccri.c.'). The schedule of maximum rates and charges annexed to a provisional order of the Board of Trade with reference to the Midland Ky. Co. fixed as the minimum charge " for. any accom- modation or services rendered by the co. within the scope of their undertaking by the desire of a trader and in respect of which no provisions are made by this schedule such reasonable sum as the CO. may think iit in each case." The CO. gave notice to a trader that they would make a certain charge for wagons remaining on the co.'s " wait order sidings " beyond a specified time and sued for the 1 charges : — Held, that this was accommodation provided by the co. within the scope of their undertaking wthin the meaning of the schedule, and that the reasonableness of the charges was a question of fact for a jury. Decision of the C. A., [1908] 2 K. B. 356, affirmed. Midland Ry. Co. k. JilyERS, Rose & Co. H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 13 Stamp Duty. — Double duty — Transfer of powers, liabilities, and immunities to another railway company. See REVENnB — Stamps, li. Street Railway. — Conditional power to remove snow from railed tracks — Implied obligation to remove snow from the streets. See Newfoundland. 3. — New lines — Laws of Ontario. See Canada — Streets. 2. — New street — Paving expenses — " Owner " — Restrictions on user imposed by special Act. See London — Streets. ■ — Ontario Act, 55 Vict. c. 99 — Sale and pur- chase of street railway system — Ex- clusive power of purchasers to operate — Construction. See Canada — Railway. 7. Sunday Trading. — Sunday trading at railway refreshment rooms — Actual or intending passengers. See New South Wales. 34. RAILWAY — continued. Telephone. — Bridge carrying road over railway — Power to lay cable along bridge without con- sent of railway company — Licence of Postmaster-G eneral. See Telegraph. 3. Tolls. 1. — Equality — Undue preference — Vltra virc-1 — Shareholder — Action by shareholder against railwiiy company and preferred customer '-'Railways Clauses Act, 1845 (8 4' 9 Vict. o. 20), s. 90 — Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854 (17 ^' 18 Vict. c. 31), s. 2. If a ry. co. carries goods for a customer at a lower rate than that charged to other customers, it may be an undue preference and give to other customers a right to complain before the Railway and Canal Commissioners, but it is not an act ultra vires the co'., and it gives no right to a sliareholder of the co. to bring an action against the CO. and the preferred customer for an account and an order that the preferred customer should make good the deficiency, or for an inj unction to restrain further preferences. Anderson «. Mid- land Ry. Co. - Buckley J. [1901] W. N. 209 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 369 Trucks. — Carriage of goods. See under Railway — Carriage. 1. — Regulation — Provisional order — Demur- rage of Trucks — Arbitration — Right of action for damages for detention — Jurisdiction — Great Western Railway Company {Rates and Charges) Order Confirmation Act, 1891 (54 ^- 55 Vict, c. civ^ii.), «. 6. A Railway Act confirming a provisional order, after providing that when merchandise is con- veyed in trucks not belonging to the co. the trader shall be entitled to recover from the co. a reasonable sum " by the way of demurrage " for. any detention of his trucks beyond a reasonable period, enacted that any difference arising under this section shall be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade at the instance of either party : — Held, that a claim by a trader for damages caused by undue detention of his truck and cost of hij'e of another in lieu thereof was a difference arising under that section, and could be deter- mined only by an arbitrator appointed under the Act. Decisions of theK. B. Div.,7?«* v. Mavylebone County Court Judge and Great Western Ry. Co., Ea: parte Phillips 4' Co., [1906] 2 K. B. 426, and of the C. A., [1907] 2 K. B. 664, reversed, and decision of the county court judge restored. Great Western Ry. Co. c. Phillips & Co. H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 35, 40 ; [1908] A. C. 101 Tunnel. 1. — SuperflMous land — Tunnel — Surface of land over tunnel — Space above usque ad ccelwm— TelegrapJi wires — Statute of Zimitations. A disseisor can acquire against a ry. co. under the Statute of Limitations a title to the surface of land vertically over a tunnel used by the ( 2137 ) DIGEST 01' CASES, 19ul— 19I0. ( 2138 ) RAILWAY (^:^xnxiel)—co/ltillued. CO., and he thereby acquires a title, not to the surface only, but also usque ad ocelum. Ill re MetrojKlitaii BUti'ictRy. Co.aiid Cos/i, (1880) 13 Ch. D. 607 ; Mirfoii v. Luitdojt and JVorth Western My. Co., (1879) 13 Gh. D. 268 ; and Bohhett v. South Eaxtern Rij. Co., (1882) 9 Q. 'B. D. i24, discussed and considered. MIDLAND Ky. Co. c. Weight Byrne J. [1901] W. N. 38 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 738 Vendor and Purchaser. ' See under Vendor and Pukchasek — Railways. Water. — Cutting off water — Non-payment of rate. See ^VATEE. 7. — Biparian owner — Abstraction of water for purposes unconnected with riparian tenement.. 1. See Watek. Way, Right of. ■ — User for domestic aud business purposes — Substitution of railway station. See Way, Eight of. 7. Workmen's Compensation. — Engine-driver — Stone wilfully thrown at train. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 115, 116. — Engine-driver — Worljman Idlled while dis- obeying well-known rule of employer. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 117. — Kailway carter. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 118, 119. — Kailway guard — Earnings — Lodging allow- unce. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 120. RAIK WATER — Sewer — Drain receiving drain- age from more than one building. See London — Sewers. 3. RANGES ACT — Lands taken compulsorily — In- jurious affection of adjoining lands. See Defence Acts. 1. RAPE — Criminal law. See under Criminal Law — Rape. RATE — Carriage of goods. See under Railway — Carriage (Car- riage of Goods). RATES. Note. — The Cases under this lieading relate ouly to places outside the County of London. As to London — See under London — Rates. Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, .^c, Continwa- tiun Act, 1901 (1 Edio. 7, c. 13), cont limes the I 'Rk'i'ES— continued . ■Agricultural Ratex Act, 1896 (59 Si 60 Vict. c. 16), the Tithe Rentcharge {Rates) Act, 1899 (62 S, 63 Vict. c. 17), the Agricultural Rates, Congested Districts, and Burgh Land Tax Relief {Scotland) Act, 1896 (59 ^- 60 Vict. c. 37), and the Local Taxation Account (Scotland:) Act, 1898 (61 ^- 62 Vict. c. 56). 1. — Ajipeal — A.^sessinent committee — Failure to obtain relief on objection to valuation list — Ap- peal against suh.^equent rates — Condition prece- dent — Poor-rate — tfnioii Assessment Committee Amendment Act, 1864 (27 ^- 28 Vict. c. 39), .v. 1. Where a person rated to the relief of the poor in a country parish has objected, under s. 1 of the Union Assessment Committee Amendment Act, 1864, before the assessment committee of the union to his assessment in tlie valuation list in force for the parish ; and, having failed to obtain the relief he 'asks for, has appealed to sessions against the then current poor-rate made in con- formity with the valuation list, it is a condition precedent to the right of appeal against a subse- quent rate made in conformity with the same list that he should again have given the notice of his objection to the valuation list required by s. 1, and have failed to obtain relief from the assess- ment committee. Reg. V. Great Western Rg. Co., (1869) L. II. 4 Q. B. 323, followed. Reg. V. Justices of Denhigkshire, (1885) 1.3 Q. B. D. 451, distinguished. Eex r. Essex Justices Div. Ct. [1901] W. N. 231 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 180 3. — Appeal — County rate — Appeal against hasis or standard — Appeal against rate — Parish aggrieced — " Cause of appeal" — Time for appeal — Retrospectice alteration of basis — Jurisdiction —County Rate Act, 1852 (15 .j- 16 Vid. c. SI), ss. 17, 22. Tlie appeal given by s. 22 of the County Rate Act, 1852, to a parish which is " aggrieved by any rate or assessment " made upon the county rate basis to " the next quarter sessions of the peace after such cause of appeal shall have arisen " must be brought to the next practicable quarter sessions after the parish is in fact aggrieved by the rate ; the appeal is not to the next practicable quarter sessions to be held after the parish finds out that it is aggrieved. A county rate whicli affected the parish of M. was made in Oct., 1904. In Jan., 1905, as the result of an appeal by a ry. co. against their assessment to the poor rate in the parish of M. , the rateable value of the parish for the purpose of tire county rate basis or standard was reduced by a considerable sum. On April 17, 1906, the parish council of M. gave notice of appeal to the next quarter sessions against such part of the basis or standard as affected that parish, and also against the rate existing upon that basis or stau- dard, tliey alleging that they only knew of the result of the .appeal by the ry. co. a)id its effect on the county rate basis on Mar. 28 ; — Held, that the parish council had not appealed against the county rate to the next quarter ses- sions after the " cause of appeal " had arisen within the meaning of s. 22 of the County Rate Act, 1852, and that, therefore, the quarter ( 2139 ) DIGEST OF CA.SES, 1901—1910. ( 2U0 ) RATE S— continued. sessions had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the rate. On an appeal to quarter sessions under s. 17 of the County Bate Act, 1852, against the basis or standard of the county rate, the Court has no power to make an order that an alteration of the basis or standard shall have a retrospective effect. West Bidin& of Yoekshike County Council r. Middleton Paeish Council Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 167 3. — Appeal — General district rate — Inclu- xiun in estimate of restrospectice charges more thajt six montlhs old — Local go-oernment — PuMic Health Act, 1875 (38 4' 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 210, 218, 269. By s. 210 of the Public Health Act, 1875, an urban sanitary authority may make a general district rate, which may be made either prospec- tively in order to raise money for the payment of futm-e charges and expenses, or restropectively in order to raise money for the payment of charges and expenses incurred at any time within six months before the making of the rate. By s. 218 the urban sanitary authority, before making a general district rate under the Act, is to cause an estimate to be prepared of the money required for the purposes in respect of which the rate is to be made, which estimate is to be entered in the rate-book and to be open to public inspection ; with a proviso that the estimate is not to be deemed part of the rate nor in any way to affect its validity : — Held, that the proviso to s. 218 does not operate to take away the general right of appeal to quarter sessions against a general district rate given by s. 269 of the Act, where it appears from the estimate that payment of a debt more than six months old is to be made out of the rate. Smith c. Southampton Coepoeation Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 244 — Appeal — Notice of objection to assessment committee. See No. 27, helow. 4. — Appeal — Special se-isioiis — Notice of appeal — Parish council — Poor-rate — Parochial Assessment Act, 1836 (6 ^- 7 Will. 4, c. 96), s. 6— Local Government Act, 1894 (56 4" 57 Viet. c. 73), s. 6, sub-s. 1, and s. 52, sub-s. 5. Where, upon a poor-rate being made in a rural parish having a parish council, an appeal against the rate is brought to special sessions under s. 6 of the Parochial Assessment Act, 1836, it is now, since the passing of the Local Govern- ment Act, 1894, a condition precedent to the jurisdiction of the justices to hear the appeal that the appellant should have given notice of appeal to the parish council. Kex c. Tewkes- bury Justices - Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 39 — Appeal against poor-rate — Consent of guar- dians. See PooE Law. 1. 8. — Appeal from special sessions — .Jurisdic- tion of quarter sessions over costs before special sessions — Poor-rate — ParocMal Assessments Act, 1836 (6 Si 7 Will, i, c. 96), ,s. 6. Where, upon an appeal from special sessions under s. 6 of the Parochial Assessments Act, 1836, the quarter sessions allow the appeal, the 'R&.'t'&a— continued. quarter sessions have jurisdiction to set aside the order of the special sessions giving costs to the successful party at the special sessions, and also to order that the unsuccessful party at the special sessions shall be paid the costs incurred by him at the special sessions. Bex v. Cornwall Justices Div. Ct. [1903] W. N. 106 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 178 — Arrears —Judgment for arrears of rates — Kctrospective rate — Mandamus — ■ Judicial discretion. See No. 42, below. 6. — Assessments — Composition in lieu of rates — Statutori/ exemption — 52 Geo. 3, c. 49, ss. 3, 5—2 S,- 3 Will. 4, c. 66, ss. 2, i—City of London Sewers Act, 1848 (11 S- 12 Vict. c. 163), .s. 169. A statute of 1812 enacted that a fixed com- position in lieu of rates which had been volun- tarily paid by the Treas. in respect of Crown property in the City of London should be paid every year for ever out of the consolidated customs to the rate collectors, and that the premises should be exempt from all rates and assessments, though tiiey might become private property. A statute of 1832 repealed so much of the Act of 1832 as made the composition payable out of the consolidated customs, and enacted that the collectors should collect tlie composition, and no more, from the occupiers of the property, which was about to be sold by the Treas. The premises having become private property, the occupiers were assessed to rates under the City of Loudon Sewers Act, 1848 :— Held (affirming the decision of the C. A.), that upon the true construction of the arrangement made in the statutes of 1812 and 1832 the exemp- tion applied to future as well as existing fates and assessments, and that it was not affected by the City of London Sewers Act, 1848. London Coepoeation «. Netheelands Steamboat Co. - H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 263 1. — Assessment — Glasgow Court Houses Act, 1890 (53 4- 54 Vict. c. Inii.')— Construction of statute. The House reversed the decision, (1901) 3 F. 103, of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess. and restored the judgment of the Lord Ordinary with costs both here and below. Lanark County Council v. Glasgow Couet Houses COMMES. H. L. (So.) [1902] W. N. 236 — Boarding-house keeper — Special Act — " Do- mestic purposes" — "Trade or business." See Water. ' — Burial board — Transfer of powers of — Ex- penses — Poor-rate — General district rate. See BUEIAL. 7. 8. — Burial ground — Burial ground separated from church — Churchyard — LialnVity to poor rate — Profit derived from burial ground— E,remption from poor rate — Premises '• exclusively appro- priated to p^Mic i-eligious worship" — Poor Sate Exemption Act, 1833 (3 ^- 4 Will. 4, c. 30). A parson in whom was vested by statute the freehold of a burial ground in connection with ( 21^1 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— I9l0. ( 2142 ) 'RAI'ES—cuHtimied. the church received for his own use burial fees and similar charges ; — Ifeld, that as the beneficial occupier of the burial ground he was liable to the poor rate, and was not exempt by virtue of the Poor Bate Exemption Act, 1833. Decision of the G. A., [1908] 1 K. B. 835, &,fiirmed. Winstauley v. Noeth Ma2?chestee Overseers H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 233 ; [1910] A. C. 7 9. — ColUctur — Poor-rate collector (Ireland') — Iran-ifer of editing officer.^ to county council — Scheme.fur collection of poor-rate — Semuneration — Zocal Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, c. 37, .5. 115, swJ-6-.s. 10-16, 18. Sub-s. 18 of s. 115 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, does not apply to poor-rate collectors transferred to a county council, at any rate so far as the fixing the amount of their remuneration is concerned. Provision for their remuneration is made by sub-s. 11 : — So held by the Earl of Halsbury L.C. and Lords Macnaghten, Davey, and Eobertson, Lord Lindley dissenting. The decision of the C. A. (I.), [1902] 2 I. B. 637, reversed, and the order for the mandamus discharged. Local Government Board poe Ireland c. Rex H. L. (I.) [1903] W. N. 149 ; [1903] A. C. 402 — Corporation — Borrowing powers — Obligation on corporation to mortgage rates by way of security for loan — Municipal corporation. See Corporation. 2. — Covenant by landlord to pay rates — Under- lease — Privity of contract — Underlessee not an "assign." See LANDLORD and TBNAlfT. 11. — Covenant by lessor to pay rates — Water rate. ^e Landlord and Tenant. 69. 10. — Dbstress — Charges — " Keeping poxxes- ■lion" of goods seized — "Man in 2'cssemon" — Poor rate— Distress (Costs') Act, 1817 (57 Geo. 3, c. 93), s. 1 ; Sched.— Distress (Costs) Act, 1827 (7 4' 8 Geo. 4, c. 17)— Police Act, 1890 (53 .f 54 Vict. c. 45), s. 23. A constable who had levied a distress for poor rates for an amount not exceeding 201. removed the goods seized to a police station for safe custody ; they were there locked up in a cupboard, the key of which was hung up in the police station ; after remaining there for five days they were sold by public auction : — Held that, under ■■<■ table of fees authorized by s. 23 of the Police Act, 1890, and approved by Secretary of State, the constable was entitled to make a charge of Is. per day for " keeping possession " of the distress. Per Lord Alverstone C.J. : The expression " man in p(jssessinn," as used in the schedule to the Distress (Costs) Act, 1817, means a man in possession of the goods seized, and is not confined t.) a man in possession upon the premises where the seizure took place. SooTT i;. Denton Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K. B. 456 11. — Distre.'is — K.rpeiiM'.^ of distres.i— Poor- nU-e— Distress (CosU) Act, 1817 (57 Geo. 3, c. 93), "RkTYtB-contiimed. s. 1, Scliedule— Distress {Costs) Act 1827 (7 S, 8 Geo. i, c. n)— Distress for Rates Act, 1849 (12 # 13 Fict. c. 14), .9. 1. The provisions of the Distress (Costs) Act, 1817, as applied by the Distress (Costs) Act, 1827, to distresses for poor-rate, still remain in operation, and are not impliedly repealed by the Distress for Rates Act, 1849, s. 1 ; and therefore, in the case of a distress for poor-rate in respect of an amount not exceeding 20/., it is illegal to make any charge for the expenses of the distress in excess of the scale given in the schedule to the Distress (Costs) Act, 1817. Hill V. Pannifer, [1904] 1 K. B. 811, over- ruled. Headland v. Costbe. C. A. [1905] W. N. 2 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 219 — Distress, Expenses of — Poor-rate. See Distress. 17. — Distress — Paving expenses — Landlord and tenant. See Distress. 6. — Distress — Poor-rate — Reasonable cost of selling distress. See Distress. 18. 12. — Distress — Recovei'y of rates — Illegal distress — Dlabilitg of overseers far act of assistant overseer. A justices' warrant of distress for rates, which was addressed in the statutory form to the over- seers and constables, was handed by one of the overseers to the assistant overseer, who was em- powered by the terms of his appointment to per- form all the duties of an overseer. The assistant overseer, purporting to act in the execution of the warrant, was guilty of an illegal and excessive distress : — Held, that the overseers were not responsible for the act of the assistant overseer. Bakee r. AViCKS. Lord Alverstone C.J. [1904] W. N. 74 ; [1904] 1 K.B. 743 — Distress for poor-rate — Jurisdiction — Reason- able charges for taking, keeping, and selling — Action to recover excess. See County Court — Jurisdiction. 2. — Dock company — Continuous line of railway communication — Through rates. See Railway — Sidings. 2. — Dock rates — Shipping — Exemption from — Lighter — London and St. Katherine Docks Act. See Shipping— Docks. 1. — Dock rates — Shipping — Exemption from — Lighter — West India Docks Act. See Shipping — Socks. 2. — Exemption from rates — Liability to repair ratione tenurie. See Highway. 26. 13. — Factory loith mnch'in^ry, Rating of — Machines used in connection loitk hereditament, but remaining the personal property of the I tenant— Poor-rate. ( 2143 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2144 ) iLATES—cmtinued. Tenants' machinery placed in a factory, and used therewith for the business of the factory, whether it be affixed to the freehold or not, may be taken into consideration so as to increase the amount in assessing the factory to the poor rate. The law and practice to this effect have been too long established to be now overruled. Kieby r, HuNsiiET Union Assessment Committee H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 3 ; [1906] A. C. 43 — Flats — Poor rate — Valuation — Kateable value — Deductions from gross value. See London — Flats. 1. — Form of rate — Statement of period for which estimated — Retrospective rate — Distress warrant. See POOE Law. 17. — Franchise — Qualification — Non-payment of rate — Passive resister. See Parliament. 13. — Franchise — Eating. See under Pabliambnt. — Gas rate, Arrears of — Eight to recover from incoming tenant. iSeeGAS. 1. 14. — Gravel pits — Exhaustion of subject- matter of assessment — Value of occupation wlien rate made — Poor-rate — Occupation — Land. A CO. purchased of the owner of a bed of gravel the gravel in three separate plots of land, with the right to dig and remove it. A time was fixed in each case in which the gravel might be taken out, and the co. were bound to level the ground and replace the top soil, and to give the owner possession at the date named. The CO. were assessed in one assessment in respect of their occupation of the three plots, and a rate was subsequently made on the basis of this assessment. When this rate was made the co. were still in occupation of the three plots, and ' were at work on the gravel in one of them, but all the gravel in the other two plots had been taken out, and they were only used as storage ground for gravel dug by the co. On a case stated at quarter sessions : — Held, that the co. were rateable on the value at the time of making the rate, of the land in their occupation, and that the annual value ought to be taken at the amount of rent or royalty at which the same could then be reasonably ex- pected to be let to a tenant from year to year, regard being had to the value of the gravel in the unexhausted plot, added to the value of the exhausted plots for storage purposes. Faenham Flint, Geavbl and Sand Co. ■w. Faknham Union - C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 272 — Harbour Acts — Greenock Harbour Acts — Judicial factor — Eeceiver — Power to increase rates. See Scottish Law. 20. 16. — '■'■House " — " M/tatitant " — " Occupier " — Bating — House occupied otherwise titan as a dwelling-Iwuse — Parish of St. Paul, Covent Garden — Rector^s rate — 12 Car. 2, c. 37 — 51 Geo. 8, c. ol., s. 2. D.D. RATES— co;rfi»Mf(/. Houses in the parish of St. Paul, Covent Garden, were used as warehouses, counting- houses and offices. They had formerly been used for residence, but no longer contained bed- rooms, kitchens, or fireplaces, and no person slept there. They could readily be fitted for use as dwelling-houses : — Held, that they were liable to the rector s rate as "houses" within the meaning of 51 Geo. 3, c. cL, b. 2. The decision of the C. A., [1905] "W. N. 35 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 669, reversed. Lewin '«. END H. I. (E.) [1906] W. N. 95 ; [1906] A. C. 299 — Justices — Disqualifying interest — Rating appeal — Possibility of bias. See Justices. 7. 16. — Justices — General district rate — Kun- payinent — Applicatioii for order for j'a^yinent — " S-ufficient cause " for non-payment — Over- payment of previous rates — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 4- 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 256. Part of a, tramroad, the property of the appellants, lay within the respondents' district, and another part lay within an adjacent district. In 1904 the appellants appealed against a general district rate for that adjacent district to which they had been assessed in respect of the full rateable value of the part of the tramroad within that district, the ground of appeal being that the tramroad was a railway within s. 211, sub-s. 1 (b), of the Public Health Act, 1875, and that the appellants were therefore only liable to be assessed in the proportion of one fourth part of its annual value. In 1905 the respondents agreed that, if the appellants should pay the respondents' general district rates for 1905 and 1906, to be levied on an assessment in respect of the full rateable value of the part of the tram- road within the respondents' district, the respondents would, in the event of the then pending appeal being successful, repay to the appellants any money overpaid by them for those two rates. The appellants accordingly paid those rates. In 1909 the appeal was decided by the House of Lords in favour of the appellants. Subsequently the respondents applied to justices for an order under s. 256 of the Public Health Act, 1875, for payment by the appellants of the respondents' general district rate for 1908. On the hearing of the application it was admitted that, in consequence of the House of Lords' decision, the respondents had in hand money overpaid by the appellants for the respondents' 1905 and 1906 rates more than suflicient to satisfy the 1908 rate. The justices made an order for payment : — Held, that " sufficient cause for non-pay- ment" within the meaning of s. 256 had been shewn, and that the order of the justices must be set aside. Blackpool and Fleetwood Teameoad Co. v. Bispham with Noebbbck Ueban Disteict Council Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 692 17. — Jtistices — Poor rate — Non-payment of — Application for distress warrant — Sufficient cause for non-payment — Matter appealable to guaHer sessions — Jurisdiction of justices to go behind rate. A rate was made by a local authority under 3z •( 2145 ) tolGEST OF CASES, lOO'l— 1916. { 21i6 ) RATES — continued. a local Act which provided that occupiers of land used only " as a ry. constructed under the powers •of any Act of Parliament for public conveyance" should be assessed in respect of one fourth part only of the value. The Act gave to any party ■aggrieved by a rate a right to appeal to quarter sessions. It also provided that if any person 'failed to pay the rate due from him he might be ^summoned before a justice, and if " no suiBcient cause for the non-payment " of the rate should be shewn a distress warrant should be issued. The respondents were assessed to the above- mentioned rate on the aggregate rateable value of a tramroad and certain other property. A demand note tor the amount of the rate was served on the respondents, in which they were charged on the full rateable value of the whole hereditaments, but they did not appeal to quarter sessions. A summons having been issued against them for non-payment of the rate, it was ad- mitted by the local authority that, on the assumption that a decision of the C. A. then under appeal to the H. of L. was correct, so much of the respondents' rateable hereditaments as consisted of a tramroad was a railway of the kind mentioned in the local Act, and that the respondents should have been charged on one fourth part only of its value. The parties also agreed the sum to which the demand should on the above assumption have been reduced. Under these circumstances the justices refused to issue their distress warrant for the full amount of the demand note : — Held by Lord Alverstone C.J. and Walton J. (Bigham J. dissenting), that the respondents had shown sufficient cause for the non-payment of the larger amount, and that the justices were j ustified in their refusal. By Bigham J., that the objection to the assessment was matter of appeal to the quarter sessions, and could not be taken before the justices on an application for a distress warrant. Dixon r. Blackpool and Fleetwood Team- EOAD Co. Div. Ct. [1909] 1 K. B. 860 ' — Landlord and tenant — Lessor's covenant to pay present and future rates — Sub- letting at a profit — Increased assessment to rates — Liability of lessor. See Landlord and Tenant, 70. — Lands taken compulsorily — Deficiency in assessment — Poor-rate. See London— Bates. 1. 18. — Licensed previises — Comjjensationcharge — Poo7- rate — Rateable value — Deduction — Ex- pense necessary to coviirmnd rent — Licensed jjremises — Licen^nng Act, 1901 (4 Edw. 7, c. 23), s. 3 — Parochial Assessments Act, 1836 (6 S; 7 Will. 4, c. 96), s. 1. In estimating the rateable value of fully- licensed premises the amount of the annual charge imposed in respect of the premises under s. 3 of the Licensing Act, 190i, cannot be deducted, the charge not being an e.xpense necessary to maintain the premises in a state to command the rent thereof within s. 1 of the Parochial Assessments Act, 1836. So held, affirming judgment of Div. Ct. BATES — continued. [1906] 2 K. B. 899. Waddle v. Sundee- land'Union - C. A. [1908] W. N. 27 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 642 19. — Limitation of time — " Complaint "— Justices — Recover ij of rates — PracticeSum- mary Jurisdiction Act, 18i8 (11 # 12 Tic?. c. 43),,s. 11. The occupiers of a rateable hereditament, which had been assessed to certain poor-rates and general district rates upon the rateable value in the valuation list then in force, ap- pealed against the poor-rates. Before the appeal was heard, payment of the general district rates was demanded by the local authority, and a sum was paid and accepted on account of each of those rates. The rateable value of the premises in the valuation list having been reduced as a result of the appeal, the figures of the general district rates already made were altered in the rate-book, and payment was demanded of the balance owing of the rates so reduced. Pay- ment having been refused, a summons to en- force payment was issued at a date which was more than six months after the demand of the original amount of the rate, but within six months of the demand of the balance of the rate as amended : — Held, that the matter of complaint, within the meaning of s. 11 of the Summary Jurisdic- tion Act, 1818, was the non-payment of the balance of the rates as amended, that it had therefore arisen within six months of the issue of the summons, and that the right of the local authority to recover the balance was not barred by the provisions of that section. Keeton r. Sheffield Coal Co. Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 26 20. — Lodgings — Apartments or lodgings — Apartments, Tenement ivlwltij let out in — Owner — Agent to collect rents — RateaTnlity — Repre- sentation of the People Act, 1867 (30 4- 31 Vict, c. 102), s. 7. An agent who is employed by the owner of a dwelling-house, situate in a parliamentary borough, and wholly let out in apartments, to collect the rents on his behalf is not liable to be rated as owner under s. 7 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867. Nokes r. STRONG Div. Ct. [1909] 2 K. B. 625 21. — Lodgings — Apartments or lodgings — Rateability of owner — Parliamentary borotu/h — Tenement wholly let out in apartvients or lodgings — Rejiresentation of the People Act, 1867 (30 ^- 31 Vict. c. 102), s. 7— Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869 (32 ^- 33 Vict. c. 41), ss. 3, 4. The appellants were the owners of tenements situate in a borough which in the year 1867 was, and ever since had been, a parliamentary borough. The tenements were wholly let out in apartments or lodgings not separately rated within the meaning of s. 7 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867. Purporting to act under that section, the rating authority rated the appellants as owners, instead of the occupiers of the tene- ments, without allowing them any commission, abatement, or reduction ; — Held, that the appellants were properly rated ( 2U7 ) DIGEST OP OASES, 1901—1910. ( 2li8 ) BATE S — continued. as owners (instead of the occupiers) under s. 7 of the Kepresentation of the People Act, 1867, and were therefore not entitled to any com- mission, abatement, or reduction from the amount of the rate. Dai-u V. Wallis, [1908] 2 K. B. 131, over- ruled. That portion of s. 7 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, which provides for the rating of owners of houses wholly let out in apartments or lodgings not separately rated has not been repealed by implication by the Poor Bate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, or otherwise. "White and Hales v. Islington COEPOEATION - C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 133 22. — Lodijings — Apartments or lodgings — Rating — RateabUitg of owner — Parliamentary horoiigh — Abatement or deduction — Tenement wlwllij let out in apiiHinents or lodgings — Repre- sentation of the People Act, 1867 (30 S' 31 Vict, c. 102), .s. 7 — Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869 (32 S- 33 Viot. a. 41), ss. 3, i. The respondent was the owner of a tene- ment situate in a borough which in the year 1867 was, and ever since had been, a pari, borough. The tenement was wholly let out in apartments or lodgings not separately rated within the meaning of s. 7 of the Representa- tion of the People Act, 1867. Purporting to act under that section, the rating authority rated the respondent as owner, instead of the occupiers of the tenement, without allowing him any com- mission, abatement, or deduction : — Held, that the Act under which the respon- dent was rateable as owner instead of the occupiers was not the Representation of the People Act, 1867, but was the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and that he was entitled to the commission, abatcfuent, or deduction specified in s. 3 or s. 4 of the later Act. Davis (on Behalf of the Islington CoEPORATiON) r. Wallis - - Div. Ct. [1908] W.N. 58 ; [1908] S K.B. 134 — London, City of — Exemption from taxes and assessments — Consolidated rate. See Statute. 2. — Non-payment of rates — Committal — Release — Jurisdiction — Punitive order. See BANKBT7PTCY — Committal. 1. 23. — Occupation — Empty building — Inten- tion to use when occasion requires. A firm of manufacturers purchased a building with the object of having premises to which they might transfer their business in the event of their existing factory being burnt or other emergency arising. They put into the building and affixed to the walls some shafting and wooden benches suitable for their business, but no engine or motive power, and it was incapable of being used for that business until further fitted up for the purpose. There were no chattels in it, and except as above mentioned it was wholly empty : — Held, that the act of the owners in keeping the premises in readiness for use in their business RATES — continued. at any moment that they might be required am'ountedto occupation of the premises by them, so as to render them liable to be rated in respect of them. BoEWiCK r. Southwaek Coepoea- TiON .... Div. ct. [1908] W. N. 224 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 78 24. — Outgoing occupier — Apportionment of rate — Demand — Distress warrant. A poor rate having been made and duly demanded of a ratepayer, he subsequently during the currency of the half-year for which the rate was made went out of occupation, and thereby became liable to pay only so much of the rate as was proportionate to the time of his occupation. No fresh demand for a proportion o£ the rate was made upon him, but he neither paid nor tendered any portion of it. On a summons for non-pay- ment of the rate the justices ascertained tlie proportion which was due and forthwith issued their distress warrant for that amount : — Held, that they had jurisdiction to do so. Mansel f. Itchen Ovbrsbbes - - Div. Ct. [1906] W. N. 14 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 221 25. — Parks — Public Park — Poor rate — Rateable value — Beneficial occupation — Liver- pool Improvement Act, 1865 (28 ^' 29 Viet. c. xx.), ss. 14, 16 — Liverpool Imjjrovement and Water- works Act, 1871 (34 S; 35 Vict. u. cliexxiv.'), s. 52. A corporation, not charged with the duty of providing a public park, were empowered by statute to purchase land which they might think suitable for public parks or playgrounds and places of recreation for the inhabitants of the borough, and to lay out and appropriate the same for any of such purposes, and to make by- laws for the management and regulation tliereof . They were also empowered to sell or lease all or any part of the lands so acquired which should not be required for the purposes of the Act, and (by a further statute) to malce by-laws for regu- lating the days and hours during which any park was to be open or shut, and the prices of admis- sion on any special occasion, provided that the days on which the park might be shut should not exceed seven days in any one year. The cor- poration purchased land which they formed into a park and appropriated to the public use, and made a by-law under which the park might be closed for not more than seven days in'any one year, and the corporation might cliarge or allow the person to whom the use of the park on those days was granted to malce a charge for admis- sion, not exceeding five shillings for~each 'person. The park had not been closed for fifteen years, when the corporation had permitted it to be used for a fete in aid of a local charity, and a charge for admission was made by the persons so using the park : — Held, that the corporation were not occupiers of the park for rating purposes, and that the park was not rateable to the poor rate. Lambeth Overseers v. London Count g Council, [1897] A. C. 625, discussed. Livekpool Coe- POEATION V. West Derby Union Assess- ment Committee C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 647 3z2 ( 2149 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2150 ) SATES — continued. — Partial exemption of land covered with water in Woolwich — Appeal. See LOjS'DON — Rates. 2. 26. — Payment — " A tei'ni not exceediruj three months " — Tenancy from week to week — Poor Hate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869 (32 ,5- 33 Vict. c. 41), ss. 1, 2. A tenancy from week to week determinable by a week's notice on either side is a tenancy for "a term not exceeding three months" within ss. 1 and 2 of the ]?oor Eate Assess- ment and Collection Act, 1869. Hammond r. Fabeow Div.Ct. [1904] W. N. 108 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 332 — Pier — Unauthorized construction — Nuisance — Kates for passengers — Kates for vessels "mooring" — Recovery of rates paid under protest. See PiEB. 1. 27. — Practice — Appeal — Notice of objection to assessment committee — Time — A'^ext practic- able sessions — Poor rate — Poor Belief Act, 1743 (17 Geo. 2, c. 38), s. 4 — Union Assessment Com- mittee Amendment Act, 1864 (27 Si 28 Tid. c. 39), s. 1. On an appeal against a poor-rate made on April 21, 1903, or the ensuing year, it appeared that the appellants had not given notice of objection to the valuation list upon which the rate was based till Oct. 26, 1903. There had been meetings of the assessment committee on May 15 and Aug. 13, and Courts of quarter sessions were held on June 27 and Oct. 27. The appellants having failed to obtain relief at the meeting of the assessment committee held on Xov. 12, appealed against the rate to the quarter sessions held on Jan. 2, 1904 : — Held, that, the notice of objection to the valuation list having been given during the currency of the rate, and, it not having been proved that the appellants had been guilty of unreasonable delay, the appeal must be con- sidered as having been brought to the next practicable quarter sessions within the meaning of the Poor Relief Act, 1743, s. 4, and therefore was not too late. Judgment of a Div. Ct., [1905] 1 K. B. 89, affirmed. Imperial and Grand Hotels Co., Ld. r. Cheistchurch Guardians C. A. [1905J W. N. 92 ; [190S] 2 K. B. 239 28. — Practice — Aiipeal — Notice of appeal — Notice to assessment committee — Entry and respite of appeal — Poor rate — Union Assessment Committee Amciuhnent Act, 1864 (27 A' 28 Vict, c. H9), s. 1. Sect. 1 of the Union Assessment Committee Amendment Act. 186i, requires the appellant against a poor rate in certain cases to give to the uuion assessment committee " twenty-one days' notice in writing previous to the special or quarter sessions to which such appeal is to be made." The respondents gave the union assessment committee less than twenty-one days' notice previous to the quarter sessions next after the decision appealed apfainst : — /leld, that the respondents were entitled at the said quarter sessions to enter continuances B.AI'ES— continued. and respite the appeal to the next quarter sessions in accordance with the practice existing under previous statutes requiring similar notices. Decision of the C. A., reported as.B&r v. West Riding of Yorkshire Justice.-!, [1908] 2 K. B. 635, affirmed. Dbnaby Parish Ov'EESEERS r. Denabt and Cadeby Maix Collieries, Ld. H. I. (E.) [1909] W. N. 82 ; [1909] A. C. 247 29. — Practice — Appeal — Poor rate — Valua- tion list — 'Rateable value — Statutory e.re?nption fi'om liahility fo poor rate — Insertion of rateable value of exempted piremises — Mandamus to assess- ment coininitlee — 7 Geo. 3. c. 37, s. 51 — Valuation {Metropolis^ Act, 1869 (32 S,- 33 Vict. e. 67). By a reclamation Act of 1766 certain land then forming part of the bed of the river Thames was authorized to be inclosed and embanked by the owners of adjoining wharves and land, and the land so inclosed and embanked was to vest in them "free from all taxes and assessments whatsoever," an exemption which in Sion College v. London Corporation, [1901] 1 K. B. 617, was held to be limited to the poor rate and not to extend to the consolidated rate. In preparing the quinquennial valuation list for a parish in which certain of the exempted premises were situate, the overseers inserted their gross values in the appropriate column, but in the column for rateable value they inserted merely the word "exempt" without any figure of value ; the list so prepared was adopted by the assessment committee. The Corporation of London, who as a rating authority were interested in the preparation of the valuation list as the basis for the consolidated rate, applied for a writ of mandamus to compel the assessment com- mittee to insert the rateable values of the various properties in the appropriate column in the valuation list : — Held (reversing the decision of a Div. Ct.), that, assuming there was a duty in the assess- ment committee to insert the rateable values of the exempted properties in the valuation list, the Corporation as a rating authority had a right of appeal to quarter sessions under s. 32 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, and having an alternative and effective remedy, were not entitled to a mandamus ; and, further, that, even if the Corporation had no statutory right of appeal under that section, the safeguards provided by that Act as a whole were amply sufficient to protect the interest of all parties interested, and the Court ought not, by granting a mandamus, to insert further safeguards in the Act. Per Vaughan Williams and Fletcher Jloulton L.JJ. . It was the duty of the assessment com- mittee to insert both the gross and rateable values of the exempted properties in the valua- tion list. Rex v. City op London Assessment Committee - C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 764 — Practice — Appeal, Rating — Case stated by quarter sessions — Crown OflBce Rules. See Crown Office. 30. — Practice — Valuation li.1t — A.sse,^smpnt committee — Objection of ratepayer that a.iscssment too high — Power of committee to raise objectors' ( 2151 ) RATES— cowHwerf. assessment — Union Assessment Committee Amend- ment Act, 1864 (27 ,(• 28 Vici. c. 39), .?. 1. A rate was made based upon the valuation list then in force, and a demand note for the rate was served upon u, ratepayer. He gave notice of objection to the assessment committee, under s. 1 of the Union Assessment Committee Amend- ment Act, ISei, that the assessment in the valua- tion list of the premises in respect of which he was rated was too high. The assessment com- mittee heard the objection and, instead of merely refusing him relief, raised the assessment and amended the valuation list accordingly. They gave notice of the amendment to the overseers, who accordingly altered the current rate and served upon the ratepayer a fresh demand note for a larger sum based upon the increased assess- ment. The ratepayer paid the amount of the original demand note, but refused to pay more. On a complaint for non-payment of the balance the magistrate refused to issue his distress warrant : — Held, that the assessment committee had no power to raise the ratepayer's assessment, that the amended rate was subsequently a nullity, and that the magistrate was right in dismissing the complaint. HuDSOK r. Rhodes Div. Ct. [1908] W. N. 224 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 85 31. — Practice — Valuation list — Supple- mental lists — Rating — JVbtice of objection — ApjMcation to respite appeal — Waiver of condi- tion precedent to appeal — Poor rate — Union Assessment Committee Amendment Act, 1864 (27 S' 28 Vict. 0. 39), s. 1. Sect. 1 of the Onion Assessment Committee Amendment Act, 1864, enacts that no person shall be empowered to appeal to any sessions against a poor rate made in conformity with the valuation list unless he shall have given to the assessment committee notice of objection against the list and shall have failed to obtain such relief as he deems just. If a person has given notice of objection against the valuation list and has failed to obtain relief, the fact that a supplemental valua- tion list, not containing his hereditament, has been approved by the assessment committee after the notice of objection was given does not render it necessary for him to give a fresh notice of objection, before appealing to quarter sessions ; and, if he does not appeal against the rate in force at the time the notice of objection was given, he is entitled to appeal, without further notice of objection, against a subsequent rate made in conformity with the same valuation list, provided that the appeal is to the next practicable quarter sessions after the decision of the assessment committee. Beg. V. areat Western By. Co., (1869) L. R. 4 Q. B. 323, a,nd Beg. v. Justices of Deniig/ishire, (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 451, discussed. Per Farwell and Kennedy L.JJ. : A re- spondent to a rating appeal, who applies for and obtains a respite of the appeal, does not by so doing waive an objection to the validity of the notice of objection. Ehondda Valley Beeweeibs Co. v. Pontypeidd Union Assess- ment Committee C. A. [1909] W. N. 39 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 652 DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2152 ) 'RATES— continued. — Preferential payments in bankruptcy— Poor and district rates — Water rate payable by meter — Apportionment. See Company — Winding-up — Prefer- ence. 5. 32. — Procedure — Poor rate — Valuation list — Metropolis — Qttinquennial valuation — Effect of omission to give notice of increase of valuation — Valuation Metropolis Act, 1869 (32 4' 33 Vict, c. 67), .IS. 9, 45. On the application for a distress warrant to recover the balance of a rate made by the ap- pellants upon the respondents, it was contended that, as the appellants had failed to give tiie respondents notice of the increase in the rateable value of their premises as required by s. 9 of the Valuation (Jiletropolis) Act, 1869, the valuation list was not the valuation list for the time being in force in regard to them, and that they were only, therefore, liable in respect of a rate based on the rateable value of their premises as ap- pearing on the previous valuation list ; — Held, that this was not an objection which could be taken on the application for the dis- tress warrant, but must be raised by an appeal against the valuation list or against the rate. Westminstee Coepoeation v. Aemy and Navy Auxiliaey Co-opeeative Supply, Ld. Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 125 — Queensland — Queensland Local Authorities Act — Construction. See Queensland. 4. ■ Railway. See also under Kailwat- -Bates. 33. — Railway — Indirectly pi-oductive por- tion of — Signal-bo,v — Poor rate — Assessment. The signal boxes of a ry. are for purposes of parochial rating to be treated, not as part of the running line, but as part of the indirectly productive portion of the ry., and are conse- quently to be separately assessed in the respec- tive parishes in which they are situated. Mid- land Ry. Co. v. Pontefeact Assessment Committee Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 189 34. — Bailway — " Land used only as a rail- way" — General district rate — Assessment — PuMic Health Act, 1875 (38 4' 39 Vict. c. 5!5), s. 211, .swh-s. 1 (J) — Light Railways Act, 1896 (59 4- 60 Vict. c. 48), s. 12, sul-s. 2, A CO. were the owners of a light ry. con- structed under an order made under the Light Railways Act, 1896. Thery., which physically resembled a tramway, was laid along certain open streets, and the order, while preserving to the public their ordinary right of passage over the highway, provided that the co. should have the exclusive use of the ry. for carriages with flange wheels. The co. having been assessed to f the general district rate in respect of their occupation of the ry. : — Held, upon the construction of s. 12, sub-s. 2, of the Light Railways Act, 1896, that s. 21l| sub-s. 1 (*), of the Public Health Act, 1875, applied to light rys. ; and that, notwithstanding the user by the public of the surface of the streets in exercise of their right of passage, the co. ( 21. -iH ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2134 ) "RKTl&S—cuntlniircl. were occupiers of land used only as a ry. con- structed under the powers o£ an Act of Parlia- ment for public conveyance within the meaning of s. 211, and were consequently entitled to be assessed to the general district rate in respect of the ry. at one-fourth only of its net annual value. Decision of the C. A., [1907] 2 K. B. 256, affirmed. Wakefield Corporation c, Wake- field AND District Light Ey. Co. H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 124 ; [1908] A. C. 293 35. — Uailway — L'lnlt line— Actual wet prim- ings loithin luirish— Interest on cost of cunut ruc- tion— Profits made outside jxirixh — Btiteahle ralue, Test of —Bent " reasonably " to ie ex- pected — Poor rate — Parochial Assessment Act, 1836 (6 4- 7 Will, i, c. 96), s. 1. In assessing the rateable value of a section of a railway link line within a parish the cost of construction of the link line, which connects two great systems, is not as a matter of fact and business experience a measure of the rent at which that section of the line may reasonably be expected to let within the meaning of the Parochial Assessment Act, 1836, and evidence of the interest on the costs of construction is not admissible. The Act in speaking of a rent at which a hereditament may " reasonably " be expected to let excludes the idea of an oppressive demand fixed upon imagined necessities. Decision of the C. A. in the Banlmry Case, [1907] 1 K. B. 717, reversed, and decision of the K. B. D., [1906] 1 K. B. 597, restored. Decision of the C. A. in the Sheffield Case, [1908] 1 K. B. 750, reversed as a corollary of the Banbury decision, and decision of the K. B, D. restored. Great Central Ry. Co. v. Banbuky Union. Sheffield Union r. Great Central Ey. Co. H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 250 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 78 36. — Railway — Quinquennial rah/ation — Prorisioyial list — Reduction of value of railniay tlirough competition of tramways and tul/e rail- tcays — "A?ii/ cause" — Mandaiinis to assessment committee to appoint valuer — Railway company — Poor rate — Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 (32 S,- 33 Vict. c. 67), s. 47. Where competition by tramways, tube rail- ways, and lines of motor omnibuses, all of which were in existence at the time when the last quinquennial valuation list for a metropolitan parish was made, has, in subsequent years of the quinquennial period, caused a large and continuous decrease of the receipts of a ry. co. in respect of local passenger traific over a portion of their line situated in the parish, whereby the rateable value of that portion of their line has been reduced, s. 17 of the Valuation (Metro- polis) Act, 1869, is applicable, and if, upon a requisition by the co., the overseers make defaidt in sending a provisional list to the assessment committee in pursuance of sub-s. 1 of the before-mentioned section, it becomes the duty of the assessment committee under sub-s. 2 of the section to appoint a valuer to make such a list. Eex 'V. Southwark Assessment Com- mittee C. A. [1909] W. N. 4 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 374 'Rk'i'ES— continued. 37. — Railicay — Water rate — Domestio pur- poses — Railicay ptirpo-ws — Railway -Citation — Sanitary conveniences — Metropolitan Water Board (^Charges) Act, 1607 (7 Edw. 1, c. clxxi.), ss. 8, 16, 25. The Metropolitan Water Board (Charges) Act, 1907, provides by s. 8 for a supply of water for " domestic purposes " at the request of the owner or occupier of any house or building occupied as a separate tenement within the limits of supply of the Metropolitan Water Board at a rate based on the rateable value of the house or building. The same Act by s. 16 provides for a supply of water by measure for "purposes other than domestic " at the request of any owner or occupier of any premises situate as therein described at rates varying with the quantity supplied. By s. 23 " domestic purposes " are deemed to include water-closets and baths of a certain capacity, but are not to include a, supply of water for '■ railway purposes." A ry. CO. owned a station situate as described in s. IG and within the limits of supply of the Board. The station was separately rated ; it contained no stationmaster's house, but con- tained waiting rooms, a porter's room, and a booking office ; on the up and down platforms were urinals and two water-closets, one for passengers and one for the stafi ; there was also on each platform a tap from which water was drawn for drinking and for cleansing the plat- form : — Meld, that the water supplied by the Board for these pm'poses was supplied for " railway purposes " within s. 25, and was therefore supplied for "purposes other than domestic" Avithin s. 16. Decision of Div. Ct. (Phillimore and Bucknin J.J.), [1910] 1 K. B. 801, affirmed. Metropolitan Water Board r. London, Brighton, and South Coast Ey. Co. C. A. [1910] W. N. 209 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 890 — Eailway company. See under Railway — Rates. — Eailway company — Carriage — Measurement weight or actual, weight. Sec Railway — Carriage. 7. 39. — Rent of hypothetical tenant — Eridence of 2'rofits — Poor rate — As.se.ssment — Set annual ralue. In estimating for the purposes of a poor-rate assessment the rent at which premises may be reasonably expected to let, the circumstances of the actual occupation are matters to be con- sidered, including the receipts and expenses of the business carried on there ; although (as in the case of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board) the occupiers cannot make profits for their own benefit, but are required by statute to apply them to specific purposes. The decision of the C. A., [1900] 1 Q. B. 113, affirmed. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board r. Birkenhead Union Assessment Committee H. I. (E.) [1901] W. N. [1901] A. C. 175 40, — Rent-cliarge — Rent-cliarges imposed for protection of land from sea — Poor rate — ( 2153 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2156 ) ^AtlES— continued. Rateable value — Necessary expenses to command rent — Pamchial Assessment Act, 1836 (6^7 Will. 4, c. 96), s. 1. In a district under the statutory jurisdiction of commissioners of sewers rent-charges were imposed on lands A and B for the maintenance of works necessary to protect the district from incursions of the sea. Some of the lands within the district shared the benefits of this protec- tion, though they were not liable to, and did not contribute towards, the maintenance of the ■H orlis : — Held, that upon assessing to the poor rate the tenants of lands A and B they were entitled to a deduction from the rateable value in respect of the rent-charge, or such proportion thereof as was the proper share of lands A and B respec- tively, on the footing that all the protected lands were taken to contribute rateably having regard to the protection they received. Decisions of the K. B. D., [1906] 2 K. B. 147, and the C. A., [1907] 2 K. B. 460, reversed. Geeen r. Newpobt Union. Stead r. New- port Union - H. L. (E.) [1908"! W. N. 220 ; [1909] A. C. 36 — Eetrospective rate — Hospital, Agreement by local authorities for joint use of — Mandamus to levy retrospective rate — Excusable delay. See Local Goveenmbnt. 15. — Scottish law. See under Scottish Law. — Sea — Necessary expense to command rent — Kent-charges imposed for protection of land from the sea — Poor rate — Rateable value. See Xo. 40, above. 41. — Sewage farm — Sewage farm let by sewerage board to tenant — Poor rate — Assess- ment. A sewage farm was let by the owners (the sewerage board) to a tenant : — Held, that in assessing the tenant to the poor rate in respect of his occupation of the farm, the rating authority, when estimating the rent which a hypothetical tenant would be willing to pay, must take into consideration not merely the actual rent paid by the tenant, but the benefit accruing from the farm as a means of enabling the board to discharge their statutory duties ; and that the board was not to be excluded from the list of possible hypothetical tenants. Decision of C. A., [1907] 1 K. B. 630, affirmed. Davies !-. Seisdon Union H. I. (E.) [1908] W. N. 135 ; [1908] A. C. 315 42. — Sewers — Arrears of rates, Judgment for — Retrospective rate — Mandamus — Discretion — Local govermnent — Rural authority — Construc- tion of sewers — " Sjiecial expenses" — Contribu- tory area— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 Sf 39 Vict. e. 55), ss. 28, 229, 230. Special expenses for di-ainage works were incurred by the pits, upon terms the result of •achich was. that money was due each year from "RkTES— continued. the def ts. to the pits., and the amount so due was recoverable by the def ts. from three contributory parishes for whose benefit the special expenses were incurred. By mistake the pits, did not for several years call upon the. def ts. to pay the full amount properly due, and less was paid till Sept., 1904. In April, 1905, the pits, drew attention to the mistake and called upon the defts. to pay the balance due in respect of several previous years up to Sept., 1904, and to make payment for the future on a proper footing. The defts. paid on the lower scale till Sept., 1905, and thenceforward paid in full. They were unable to recover part of the arrears from the contribu- tory parishes and declined to pay the arrears ; whereupon the pits, brought an action to recover the arrears and for a mandamus to enforce the levy of a rate to satisfy them. The defts. ad- mitted that the pits, were entitled to judgment for the arrears, but contended that a mandamus to enforce payment of a retrospective rate would be illegal : — Held (varying the order of Neville J., [1908] 1 Ch. 222), that the Court had a discretion to grant a mandamus for enforcing the levying of a rate to meet obligations for special expenses of former years if the circumstances justified it; that there was no reason for granting a, man- damus to enforce payment of the arrears up to 1904 ; but that, inasmuch as a demand was made and might have been complied with in the course of the current year 1904-5, a mandamus ought to be granted to enforce payment of the amount due for that period. Oeotdon Coepoeation ).-. Geoydon Rubal Disteict Council C. A. L1908] W. N. 150; [1908] 2 Ch. 331 Note. This case was followed- by Neville J., Wolstanton United Urban Council v. UuTrntall Urban District Council, [1910] 2 Ch. 347 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 232. See Local Government. 15. 43. — Sewers — Underground sewers — Sewer covered by embanhnent — Payments received for use of sewer — Diminution in value of surface — Poor rate. The exemption of underground sewers foom liability to poor rate is anomalous, and will not be extended. Therefore, in order that a new sewer which is prima facie rateable may escape from such liability, it must fall strictly within the limits of the authorities by which the exemp- tion was established — that is to say, it must not occupy or affect the surface, and no payment must be made to its owners for the use of it by others. A sewer authority constructed a. sewer for the purpose of conveying the sewage of their district to the sea. Part of this sewer was carried on concrete arches above the surface of the ground, part of it was below the natural surface of the ground, and the rest of it was covered by an embankment. The land upon which the embankment was constructed con- tinued to be assessed for the purposes of the poor-rate as before, no change in the assessment of it having been made by reason of the making of th.e qmbankmept., Thp sewer authority re- ( 21i57 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2158 ) BATES — continued. ceived payments annually from other authorities for the use by them of the sewer ; — Held, that the sewer, including the portions of it 'covered by the embankment and under- ground, was rateable to the poor rate. West Hamy. London County Council, [1893] A, C. 562, discussed. Judgment of the Div. Ct., [1900] 1 Q, B. 365, affirmed. YSTEADYroDWG and Ponty- pridd Main Sewbeage Boabd v. Nbwpokt Assessment Committee C. A. [1901] W. N. 28 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 406 — Sewers rate — Gas mains liable to be rated as unsewered property — Law of Victoria. See Victoria. 9. — Shipping — Ship — Dock rates — West India Dock — Exemption from dock rates — Lighter. See Shipping— Docks. 8. 44. — Sj)orting rig/Us, jRateaKlity of — Assess- ment in proportion of one-fourth of net anmial value — General district rate — Rating Act, 1874: (37 ^- 38 Vict. c. 54), «. 6— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 # 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 211. Where a right of sporting over land within the district of an urban sanitary authority is severed from the occupation of the land, and is let, s. 211 of the Public Health Act, 1875, does not apply to entitle the lessee of that right to be assessed in respect of the same to the general district rate in the proportion of one-fourth part only of the net annual value thereof. Alton Urban Council v. Spicee Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 678 — Street — Owners for the time being liable for the rates. See New South Wales. 33. 46. — Surcharge, — General district rate — Power to rate owner instead of occupier — Reduced assessment — Oioner in occupation of premises — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 .5' 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 211, sub-s. 1 (a). Rule nisi to the auditor of the accounts of the Bhondda Urban Council to shew cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue to bring up and quash a certificate of surcharge. The council had exercised the option given by s. 211, sub-s. 1 (a) of the Public Health Act, 1875, to rate " the owner, instead of the occu- pier," where the rateable value of the premises liable to assessment does not exceed lOl., in which case the section provides that the owner " shall be assessed on such reduced estimate as the urban authority deem reasonable of the net annual value, not being less than two-thirds nor more than four-fifths of the net annual value." There were in the district of the council numerous cases in which the owner was also the occupier of rateable hereditaments, the rateable value of which did not exceed 10^., and in these cases the owners were rated and assessed upon only two-thirds of the net annual value of their hereditaments. In ten of these cases the auditor, contending that the council had no power to rate owners who were also occupiers of the hereditaments rated, upon the reduced assess- .mont, had surcharged two members of the BATE S—cont i nmd. council ' ' who had taken part in the meeting at which tlie rate in question had been made" a sum representing the difference between the aggregate amount actually demanded and collected from the said ten persons and the aggregate amount which would have been collected from them if they had been rated on the full net annual value of the hereditaments respectively occupied by them. The Court discharged the rule and confirmed the surcharge, on the ground that the provisions of s. 211, sub-s. 1 (a) of the Public Health Act, 1875, as to assessing an owner on a, reduced annual value do not apply to cases where the owner is himself the occupier of the premises to be rated. The Court ordered the costs to be paid by the Rhondda Urban District Council. Rexd. Peopeet Div. ct. [1910] W. N. 245 46. — lender of part of rate — Obligation of magistrate to issue distress warrant fm' whole — Poor rate. A rate having been duly made in a parish, a ratepayer tendered to the overseers a portion of the sum that he was liable to pay in respect of the rate, but refused to pay the balance. The overseers refused to accept part payment of the rate, and preferred a complaint before the magis- trate against the ratepayer for a refusal to pay the rate. At the hearing the ratepayer again tendered in Court a portion of the sum due from him, which was again refused ; whereupon the magistrate refused to issue a distress warrant for more than the amount of the balance : — Held, that under the circumstances the magistrate was not bound to issue his distress warrant for the whole amount of the rate. Rex II. Gillespie Div. Ct. [1904] W. N. 12 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 174 — Tramroad — General district rate — Assessment —Land "used only as a railway con- structed under any Act of Parliament " — Tramroad. See Railway — Bates. 9. — Tramway — Separate assessment of tramway engine-houses — Law of Victoria. See Team WAYS. 14. 47. — Valuation — Public-house — Quinquen- nial valuation — Provisional list — Reduction of value — Increased licence duty — "Any caiise " — mandamus to Assessment Committee to appoint valuer — Poor rate — - Metropolis — Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 67), «-. 47 —Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910 (10 Mtc. 7. c. 8), ss. 43, 44 ; Sched. I., C. The heavy increase in the duty imposed by the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, upon licensed premises in the metropolis : — Held, to be prima facie evidence of a reduc- tion in value within s. 47 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, so as to entitle the tenant, if default is made by the overseers in sending a provisional list to the assessment com- mittee piu'suant to sub-s. 1, to require the assessment committee to appoint a person to make such a list pursuant to sub-s. 2 of that section. Re.x v. Shoreditch Assessment Committee. Ejc parte Morgan ,C. A. [1910J 2 K, B. 859 ( 2159 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2160 ) "RLTSi^—continued. 48. — Valuation list, Appeal against — Removal of appellant's name from list — Alteration of assess- ment — Recovery of rates paid pending appeal — Poor rate — Procedure — Valuation (Metropolis') Act, 1869 (32 J)' 33 Vict. c. 67), s. 4i. By s. 44 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, where in consequence of the decision on any appeal under the Act to assessment sessions or a superior Court an alteration in the valuation list is made which alters the amount of the assessment, contribution, rate, or tax levied there- under, tlie difference, if too much has been paid, is to be repaid or allowed. Upon a case stated by quarter sessions on an appeal by the pit. against a valuation list, the Court held that the pit. was not the rateable occupier of the premises, and was not liable to be rated in respect thereof. The vestry perform- ing the duties of overseers having refused to repay to the pit. the amount of certain rates levied by them under the valuation list and paid by him during the pendency of the appeal pro- ceedings, the pit. brought an action against them to recover the sums so paid : — Held, that, although the effect of the appeal had been to strike the plt.'s name altogether out of the valuation list, there had nevertheless been an alteration in the valuation list which altered the amount of the assessment, contribution, rate, or tax levied thereunder within the meaning of the section, and that the pit. was entitled to recover. Bueton v. Bloomsbuey Vestry Mathew J. [1901] 1 K. B. 650 49. — Warehouse — Occupation — Intention to occupy, A warehouse belonging to a warehouseman was used by him for the purpose of being let as a whole, or in separate floors or rooms, for the storage of goods, or of receiving goods for storage at a rate per ton or per pacl^age per week. The warehouse having been rated to certain rates made for a city, the warehouseman, during the currency of these rates, gave notice to the rating authority that he had gone out of occupa- tion of the warehouse. At that time there were no goods in the warehouse, and it was closed and the warehouseman had given notice to the CO., which supplied water for the purposes of the hydraulic lift on the premises, to cut off the water supply, which they did, and had removed the weights, scales, and trucks used for weighing and trucking goods on the premises to an adjoining warehouse which belonged to him. The water supply could, however, at any moment be restored on notice to the co., and the weights, scales, and trucks brought back, when- ever required ; and the warehouseman was still prepared to receive applications for the hire of storage rooms in the warehouse, and ready and willing to reopen and receive goods into it, pro- vided that enough goods were offered to fill haJf of the whole capacity of the warehouse, that being the smallest quantity for which bethought it worth while commercially to open the ware- house ; and a bill was posted on the premises stating that they were to let : — Held, that there was no cessation of occupa- tion of the warehouse by the warehouseman^ RATES— coMW»«e■. 14. The deft, was tenant of a public-house under an agreement, dated in 1893, whereby the pits, agreed to let and the deft, agreed to take the premises for one year certain. Under the agree- ment the deft, was not to do, or cause or sufEer ( 2171 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2172 ) 'KECmVER—continued. to be done, any act, deed, or thing whereby the licence miglit be jeopardized, suspended, forfeited or lost ; he was, upon quitting the premises, to assign over the licences to the pits. ; and he was to reside on the premises, and not to shut them up, or cause or sufEer the same to be shut up, or the trading thereon to be suspended. It was thereby also agreed that if the tenaiit should commit any breach of the agreement, or the licences should be jeopardized, the tenancy should cease, and the landlords should have power at once, without notice or legal proceedings, to re- enter upon the premises and resume possession thereof. The deft, continued tenant upon the terms of the agreement until Nov., 1901, when he closed the house and went away. In an action for recovery of possession and for a receiver, the Court appointed a receiver of the licences and of the rents and profits, ordered the licences to be handed over to the receiver, and gave him possession of the premises so far as was necessary for the purpose of preserving the licences. Ghaemngton" & Go. v. Cajip Joyce J. [1901] W. N. 844 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 386 JVote. Form of order in, discussed and modified by C. A. Zeney ^' Sons, LcL. v. Callinqham aiid Thompson, [1908] 1 K. B. 79. See A^o. 11, ahove. 13. — Purchase by receiver without leave of ttie Court — Partition action — Sale ty mortgagee. A receiver appointed by the Com-fc cannot purchase the property of which he is receiver without the leave of the Court, even where the sale is made, not in the action in which he was appointed, but by a mortgagee selling with leave outside the action. Alven V. Bond, (1841) Fl. & K. 196, approved. Decision of Swinfen Eady J., [1907] 2 Ch. 292, affirmed. Nugent v. Nugent C. A. [1908] W. N. 37 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 546 — Railway. See under Eailway — Receiver. 14. — Security — Boni of limited company — Ultra vires. A receiver had been appointed in a debenture- holder's action, and the receiver had brought in by way of security a bond of the Railway Pas- sengers' Assurance Co., Ld., for lOOOZ., given to two of the jMasters, and conditioned to be void if the receiver discharged Iiis duties. The co. which gave this guarantee purported to act under the powers of their special Act of Parliament (the Railway Passengers' Assurance Act, 1897 (60 Vict. c. xiv.) ), by s. 2, sub-s. ii., of which it was provided that the business of the co. was to com- prise, in addition to the business described in s. 9 of their Act of 1892, " the insurance of compensation or indemnity in respect of loss or damage occasioned to any person or persons by any act or default of any other person or persons." It was stated that in 1899 North J. had refused to accept such a bond as security for a receiver, and that although similar bonds had been accepted on many occasions, there was a doubt whether they were not ultra vires the co. under their Act. The Court came to the conclusion that there RECEIVER — continued. was no reason why this bond should not be accepted, and that it did fall within s. 2 of the Act of 1897, It did not appear that the effect of the section was the reason for the objection to the bond by North J. The Court did not think there was anything so far as the section was concerned which made the giving of this bond beyond the scope of the authority of the co. In re Spieitine, Ld. Owen v. Spieitine, Ld. C. A. [1902] W. N. -124 — Service out of the jurisdiction — Necessary or proper parties. See under Peactioe— Service. — Vendor and purcliaser. See under Vendoe and Pubchasee— Receiver. — Water rate from "owner," Recovery of— Receiver of rents. See under Watee. — Win — Life interest — Restraint on alienation — Charge on future income— Forfeiture — Moneys in hand of receiver. See Will— Forfeiture. 3. RECEIVING— Pleading— Indictment — Oniission of "feloniously." See Ceiminal Law — Larceny. 11. RECEIVING- ORDER— Bankruptcy. See under BANKRUPTCY — Receiving Order. — Jurisdiction to make, in lieu of committal order — Absence of evidence of means. See County Couet — Jurisdiction. 4. — Married woman — Separate trading — Separate property — Jurisdiction — Banliruptcy. See Husband and Wipe — Bank- ruptcy. 1. — Stockbroker — Right of Stock Exchange creditor to petition in bankruptcy. See Stock Exchange. 3. RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS — Evidence — . Prisoner called as witness on behalf of fellow prisoner — Grose-exaniiuation. See Ckiminal Law — Receiving. 1. RECITAL — Ambiguity — Explanation by refer- ence to recital in ^codicil — Gift to a class — Lapse. See Will — Ambiguity. 1. — Erroneous recital — Mistake" — -Alleged ad- vance — Hotchpot clause. See Will— Mistake. 1. — Evidence — Admissibility — Voluntary settle- ment — Trustee in bankruptcy. See Fraudulent Conveyance. 3. — Implying covenant from. See Covenant. 2. — Twenty years old — Title. See Vendoe and Pubchasee— Title', 12. RECOGNIZANCES. See under OeiminaIj Law— Recogni- ( 2173 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2174 ) EECONSTRUCTION— Company. See under COMPANY — Kecoustruction. RECONVERSION. See under CONVBESION. RECONVEYANCE— Trust property to innocent settlor — Variation of settlements — No issue of marriage. See Divorce — Settlements. 16. RECORD BOOK— Bankruptcy— Trustee's record boolc — Debtor's claim to inspect. See Bankruptcy — Books. 1. RECORD OFFICE. Public Eecoed Ofpioe.] Order in Council dated April 21, 190i. Additional rule for the disjjosal of documents which are not considered of sufficient p^Mic value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office. Reprint from W. N. 1904 (April 30), p. 150. See Cukebnt Index, 190i, p. cxxiii. Eecoed Office.] Order in Council ap- vroving additional rule^ extending Rules for Disjiosal of Valueless documents to the Board of Inland Revenue and the Office of Land Revenue Records and Enrolments. St. R. & 0. 1904, No. 661. Catalogue of Manuscripts and other objects in the Museum of the Fuilic Record Office, with Xotes hy Sir H. C. Maxwell Lijte, K.C.JB. Seco?id edition, 1904. Price &d. 6hiide to the various Classes of Documents preserved in the Public Record Office. Srd edition. Price 7s. 1908 {F. — Record Worhs). Manuscripts and, other Objects in the Museum of the Public Record Office. Catalogue of, with brief descriptive and historical notes. oth edition. Price 6d. 1908 QF. — Record M'orjis'). Public Record Office. Addition to Rules for Disposal of Valueless Documents. Order m Council dated June 4, 1908. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (June 13), p. ITS. See Current Index, 1908, p. cxxiii. Record Office, England. Order in Council, June i, 1908, approving an addition to tfie Mules of June 30, 1890, for the dis])osal of documents \ which are not of sufficient value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office. St. R. & 0. 1908, No. 479. Price Id. RECORDERS, ETC.— Recorders, Stipendiary Magistrrites, and Clerlis of the Peace Act, 1906 (6 Edtv. 7, e. 46), makes piwisioji as to the ap- pointment of deputies for recorders, stipendiary ■magistrates, and clerfts of the peace, and for the temporary perfoi-mance of the duties of these officers in cases of vacancies. RECORDS — Land Revenue Records and Enrolments, Office of — JVoticc under the Public Offices Fees Act, 1879, dated Mar. 14, 1903. Reprint from W. N. 1903 (Maroli 28), p. 88. See Current Index, 1903, p. Ixxii. RECOVERY— Land tax— Redemption— Keoovery of interest — Lapse of time. See LmiTATiONS, Statute of. 9. — Bates — Limitation of time—" Complaint." See Rates. RECREATION— Immemorial use by inhabitants of ground for — Encroachment. See Scottish Law. 5. RECREATION GROUND (PUBLIC)— Street- Paving expenses — " Owner." See London — Streets. 9. RECTIFICATION — Company practice. See Company — Memorandum. 15. — Company — Register of members. See Company — Shares. 3. — Conveyance. See Vendor and Purchaser — Minerals. 1. Vendor and Puechasee— Mistake. 1. , — Deed — Mistake — Solicitor and client — Inde- pendent advice. See Solicitoe — Fiduciary Relation. 1. — Marriage settlement — Mistake — Parol evidence ^Non-execution of a power — Death of donee. See Settlement. 35, 39. — Register — Land transfer. See under LAND Transfer. — Settlement, Variation of — Order — Power of Court to rectify. See under DivoECE — Settlements. — Shares, Transfer of — Eectiiication of register — " Usual common form." See Company — Shares. 25. — Trade mark — Registration. See under Teadb Maek. — Will — Residuary clause — Clerical error — Motion to rectify — Order to strike out words — Refusal to insert another word. Sec Probate — Rectification of Will. 1. RECTOR. See under ECCLESIASTICAL LAW — Clergy. — Corporation sole — Power to hold personalty — Mortmain — Irregular investment in land. See Corporation. 14. RECTORY— Lease of — Advowson — Pluralities Act, 1838. 5ee Ecclesiastical Law — Rectory. 1. REDEMPTION— Banla-uptcy. See under Bankruptcy — Redemption. — Land Law (Ireland) Act — Redemption of liability for rent out of estate in- demnified therefrom — Eight over in- demnified lands. See Irish Law. 1. — Land tax — Annual sum payable by way of interest — Charge on premises. See Limitations, Statute of. 9. — Mortgages. See under Moetgagb— Redemption. — Tithe. See under Tithe. REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS — Franchise — Registration. See under PARLIAMENT. ( 2173 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2176 ) EEDUCTION — Will — Suspicion — Defect in attestation. See Scottish Law. 30. REDUCTION OF CAPITAL— Company. See under COMPAKT — Reduction of Capital. RE-ENTRY — Covenant not to assign without consent — Power oE re-entry on breach — Statutory powers — WaterworliS com- pany — Landlord and tenant. See London — Water. 1. — Covenantor, Ke-entry of — Liability for breach by his assigns — Restrictive covenant. See Covenant. 7. — Covenants — Breaches — Compulsory purchase by public body — Severance of reversion. See Lease. 2. — Landlord and tenant. See under Landlord and Tenant. — Lessor's right of — Trespasser — Title against lessee — Surrender of lease. See Limitations, Statute op. 10. REFEREE— Official referee— Appealing, Mode of. See Appeal. 22. — Official referee — Discretion as to costs — Leave to appeal. See Costs. 8. REFERENCE— Of action to Master— Appeal- Practice. See Appeal. 23, 2i. — ■ Power of appointment. See under Power op Appointment. REFERENCE TO ARBITRATION. See under Arbitration. REFORM ACT— Franchise- Eegistration. See under Parliament. REFORMATORY— Inebriates. See under Drunkenness. REFORMATORY SCHOOLS. See under Schools. REFRESHER FEES— Taxation. See under Costs. REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENCES — Sale of wine without licence — Unlicensed restaurant. See Licensing Acts. oi. REFRESHMENTS— Contract-Performance im- possible. See Contract. 24. REFUSAL — " First refusal " — Contract to give — Negative contract. See Contract. 17. REFUSE— Removal of. See under LONDON — Removal of Refuse. REeiSTEE— Company. See under COMPANT— Regiflter. D.D. REGISTER— (?tf;rf«n«cfZ. — Company — Register of members — Rectifica- tion — Deceased member — Executors, whether to be described as such in register. See Company — Register of Members. 1. — Laud Registry. See under Land Registry. — Land transfer — Rectification. See Land Transfer. 8. — Rectification — Trade-mark. See under Trade-mark. — Registration. See under Registration. REGISTRAR— Appeal fi'om-Company- Wind- ing-up. See Company — Winding-up — Prac- tice. 5. — Costs. See under Solicitor — Costa. — County Court — Appeal to judge from registrar — Interlocutory application — Order. See County Court — Appeal. 5. — Land transfer — Appeal from registrar — Parties — Locus standi. See Land Transfer. 4. — Order of — Motion to discharge — Company — See Company — Winding-up — Prac- tice. 10. — Registration. See under REGISTRATION. — Solicitor — Annual certificate — Duty of regis- trar — Discretion. See Solicitor — Certificate. 1. — Transfer of actions — Practice — Proceedings in chambers. See Company — Winding-up — Prac- tice. 23. REGISTRATION. See under Specific Titles of subject- matter of registration. — Assignment for benefit of creditors — Deed executed abroad — Title to goods in England. See Conflict of Laws. 1. — Fraud in procuring — Transfer of native lands. See New Zealand. 9. — Prior registration of conveyance by defaulting owner — Actual purchase must be proved. See Canada — Land. 2. — Western Australian Transfer of Land Act, 1893 — Wrongful registration — Measure of damages. See Australia. 8. REGISTRY (DISTRICT)— Appeal from order made in chambers in — Practice. See Appeal. 7. REGRANT — Confiscation — Construction of re- grant of native lands — Trust. See New Zealand. 5. 4 a ( 2177 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2178 ) REHEARING — Shipping Casualties and Appeals anil Mehearing Rules, 1907. Reprinted 1910. See under SHIPPING. — Costs of rehearing petition — " Costs of peti- tioning creditor." See Banketjptcy — Costs. 3. — Evidence on — Practice — Abortive trial — Rehearing — Evidence on former hearing. See Criminal Law — Practice. 1. REINSURANCE— Constructive total loss—" To pay as may be paid thereon " — Salvage charges. See Insurance (Marine). 21. — Policy of reinsurance — Practice — Third party procedure. See Practice — Third Parties. 2. — Unreasonable delay of voyage — Material al- teration of risk. See Insurance (Marine). 23. REINVESTMENT— In land— Costs. See Lands Clauses Acts. 22. RE-ISSUE — Debentures — Registration — Crea- tion of charge. See Company — Debentures. 34. RELEASE — Bankruptcy, Capacity of trustee in, to release power of appointment. See Power of Appointment. 1. — Conditional releases — Composition — Schemes of arrangement. See Bankruptcy — Arrangements. 6. — Debts — " Paid in full " — Payment in cash. See Bankruptcy — Annulment. 1. — Easement — Tenant for life — Sale or exchange. See Settled Land — Easement. 2. — Extradition — Arrest and remand of accused — Writs of habeas corpus — Jurisdiction — Procedure. See Canada — Extradition. 1. — Grant or release — Conveyance by husband and .wife of moiety of wife's land — Husband's rent-charge not mentioned. See Deeds. 6. — Judgment debt — Joint and several debt — Release to one co-debtor — Extinguish- ment of debt. See Accord and Satisfaction, i. — Novation — Release of principal debtor — Dis- charge of surety. See Principal and Surety. 4. — Power of appointment — Bankruptcy of donee — Capacity of trustee to release power. See Power op Appointment. 1. — Power of appointment — Married woman — Restraint on anticipation. See Power op Appointment. 22. — Special testamentary power — Restriction on exercise in favour of particular objects — Inconsistent appointment. ^ec Power op Appointment, 37. 'KEL&hS'Z— continued. — Tenant for life — Power to appoint portion.5 — Disentailing deed — Mortgage of settled estates — Implied release of power. See Settlement. 38. — Trustees. See under Trustee — Release. RELIGION- Advancement of— Charitable be- quest — Uncertainty. See Charity. 43. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION— Change of— Infant- Ward of Court — Religion of father — Discretion of Court. See Infant — Guardian. 2. REMAINDERMAN— Tenant for life and. See under Settled Land. REMANET SENTENCE— Penal servitude— Order that sentence for new offence run con- currently with, or commence after ex- piration of remanet sentence — ^Jurisdic- tion of Court. See Criminal Law — Appeal. 16. REMARRIAGE — Variation of settlement — Re- straint on anticipation — Jurisdiction — Remarriage after petition but before order. See Divorce — Settlements. 14. REMITTAL — Action to county court — Reduction by amendment of writ. See County Court — Practice. 10. REMITTED ACTION— County Court. Practice. See under County Court. REMOTENESS. See also under Perpetuity. — Absolute gift, cutting down — Gift over on a compound event. See Will— Absolute Gift. 3. — Accumulation of income — " Portions " — Period of ascertainment. See Accumulations. 8. — Appointment — Rule against double possibili- ties — Election — Settlement. See Power of Appointment. 82. — Collision — Damage — Loss of use of vessel — Working at a, loss to establish new trade. See Shipping — Collision. 22. — Collision — Subsequent total loss — Proximate cause — Temporary repairs. See Shipping — Collision. 77. — Contract — Consideration — Breach of duty to take care — Damages. See Contract. 10. — Damages. ''See under DAMAGE AND DAMAGES. 3. — Damage, Measure of — Risk of future subsidence. See Mines. 13. — Damage — Nervous shock resulting from fright. See Negligence. 7. ( 2179 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2180 ) fLEMOT'ESESS— continued. — Damage — Savage dog — Third person — Liability of owner. See Dogs. 2. — Damage — Slander— Special damage. See Defamation — Slander. 5. — Fowls straying on highway — Damage to passenger — Liability of owner. See Trespass. — Independent alternative trusts — Validity of ultimate trusts — " Trusts aforesaid." See Settlement. 45. — Mine — Subsidence — Measure of damages — Risk of future subsidence, See Mines. 13. — Option to purchase reversion in fee — Validity — Covenant running with land. See Covenant, i. — Power — Appointment — Perpetuity. See under POWER OP APPOINTMENT. — Ship — Collision — Claim for compensation for loss of life — Remoteness of damage. See Shipping — Collision. 25. — Uncertainty — Illegality — Statutory confirma- tion. See Contract. 17. — Win — Construction. See under Will — ^Eemoteness. — Will — Perpetuity — Executory limitation — Contingency. See Will — Executory Iiimitations. 3. — Workmen's compensation — Surgical opera- tion. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 171. -Interfering with EEMOVAl— Check - weigher - worker — Coal mine. See Mines. 2. — Company — Liquidator, Application to remove — Circularising shareholders — Contempt of Court — Company. See Contempt of Couet. 5. — Company — Winding-up — Voluntary liqui- dator — Removal of — Practice. See Company — Winding up — Liquidator, i. — Fixtures. See under Fixtctebs. — Name put up by local authority. See Steeets. 12. — Obstruction to public right of way by private individual — Costs. See Wat, Right of. 8. — Pauper. See under Poor Law. — Refuse. See under London — Refuse. — Tapestries — Right of removal — Question between devisee and legatee. See FiXTUEES. 7. — Trustees — Grounds for removal — Practice. See Administration. 31. BEMVNEBATION. See also under COSTS, and under Specific Titles of subject-matter of remunera- tion. — Company. See under COMPANY and Company- Wind iNG-up. — Local inquiry — " Expenses " — Liability of district council. See Local Government. 19. — Procurators-Fiscal, Remuneration of — Pre- liminary inquiries into non-prosecuted cases. See Scottish Law. 21. — Solicitor. See under Solicitor. , — Trustees. See under Trustee. RENEWAL— Lease. See under LANDLORD AND TENANT. — Lease by mortgagor in possession — Lease including land other than mortgaged land — Option to determine — Option to renew. See Mortgage — Leases. 1. — Licence. See under LICENSING Acts. — No right of renewal — Trustee — Leaseholds forming part of trust estate — Reversion purchased by trustee — Ownership of the fee. See Trustee — Purchase. 1. RENT — Action for — Res judicata — Landlord and tenant — Agi-eement for lease — Defence, no concluded agreement — Second action — Defence, Statute of Frauds — Estoppel See Estoppel. 4. — Back rents paid to receiver — Right of first mortgagee against receiver. See MoETGnGE — Receiver. 2. — "Best rent" — Collusive bargain for reduction of'rent. See Settled Land — Leases. 12. — Costs — Taxation — Collection of rents — Com- mission. See Solicitor— Costs. 33. — Crown, Chattels belonging to— Prerogative — Distress for rent — Privilege — Landlord and tenant. See Crown. 5. — Debenture trust deed — Leaseholds — Mort- gage by sub-demise — Receiver — Rent, Liability for. See Mortgage— Receiver. 1. — Distress for rent — Bankruptcy. See under Bankeuptoy — Distress, — • Distress for rent. See under Distress, Landloed and Tenant, 4 A2 ( 2181 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2182 ) "KETST— continued. — Equitable mortgagee — ^Eight to receive rents — Claim by tenant for repayment. See Mortgage — Rents. 1. — Hiring agreement witli option to purchase — Eight of owner to sue for arrears of rent after retaking possession. See Bailment. 1. — Interim rents — Settled land. See under Settled Land — Interim Sents. — Land Law (Ireland) Act — Redemption of liability for rent out of estate indemni- fied thei'efrom — Eight over indemni- fying lands. See Irish Law. 1. — Landlord and tenant. See under Landlord and Tenant. — Lease — Death of lessee — Administrator ad coUigenda bona — Power to sell — Entry into possession — Liability de bonis propriis. See Administration. 20. — Lease — Liability of assignee for rent due before adjudication of bankruptcy. See Bankruptcy — leases. 1. — Licensing Act — Compensation charge — "Eent payable " — Income tax. See Licensing Acts. 12. — Mining lease — Tenant for life — Powers of leasing — Varying minimum rent. See Settled Land — leases. 5. — Occupation rent — "Vendor in occupation of land sold — Delay. See Vendor and Purchasbe — Interest. 2. — Paving expenses — Payment by occupier — Eight of deduction from rent — Distress. See London — Streets. 12. — Payment of rent — Property in sub-soil — Mistalce — Estoppel. See Conveyance. 3. — Petition of right — Eent not to be deducted from salary where the ofiScer is entitled to quarters. See Victoria. 7. — Rates — Railway — Link line — Eent " reason- ably " to be expected. See Eates. 35. — Eeceiver, Use or occupation by — Head-lease — Breach of covenant — Damages. See Mortgage — Eeceiver. 1. — " Eents, issues and profits " — Settled land — Trustees — Open brickfield — Royalties. See Settled Land — leases. 10. — Vendor and purchaser. See under VENDOR AND PURCHASER — Bents. RENTS AND PROFITS— Account— Mortgagee in possession — Rests. See Mortgage — Accounts. 1. RENT-CHARGE— Annuity— Charge on land- Specific devise — Will. See Annuity. 13. 1. — Charge on fee simple — Application to raise arrears by sale — Effeet of creating term, Wiiere a rent-charge is charged on the fee simple, but a term of years is vested in trustees upon trust that when the rent-charge is in arrear the trustee shall out of the rents and profits, or by mortgaging or demising the term, raise and pay the rent-charge, the owner of the rent-charge must resort to the term, and is not entitled to an order for sale of the fee simple to raise arrears of the rent-charge. Hall V. Hurt, (1861) 2 J. & H. 76, followed. Blackbuhne t. Hope-Edwardes Buckley J. [1901] 1 Ch. 419 — " Chattels real " — Intestacy — Rent-charge on leaseholds. See Will— Chattels Real. 1. — Conveyance by husband and wife of moiety of wife's land — Husband's rent-charge not mentioned — Release of grant. See Deeds. 6. — Corporate lauds — Power to sell — Considera- tion — Perpetual rent-charge. See Corporation. 8. 2. — Freehold rent-charge — Mortgage of land subject to — Possession of land not taJien hy mortgagee — Whether mortgagee liable for rent as terre-tenant. In 1S70 the owner of certain houses in Man- chester conveyed tliem to a purchaser in fee subject to a chief rent of 8Z., whicli the purchaser covenanted I o pay. That chief rent subsequently vested in the pit. In 1884 the then owner of the houses mortgaged them, and in 1887 the mortgage was transferred to the deft. In 1907 the mortgagor failed to pay the interest on the mortgage, and the deft, appointed a receiver under the Conveyancing Act, 1881. The houses having become dangerous were condemned, and became derelict : and in 1909 the receiver resigned his position. The pit. being unable to get the rent from the mortgagor brought this action against the deft, to recover a half-year's rent due Midsummer, 1909, claiming that he was the terre-tenant of the premises and as such was liable. For the deft, it was coatended that a mortgagee who had never been in possession is not terre-tenant. The judge gave judgment for the pit. : — Held, that the deft., being in his capacity of mortgagee the legal owner of the premises, and being by reason of the mortgagor's default entitled to enter upon possession at any time if he chose to do so, was the terre-tenant and liable as such for the rent, notwithstanding that he had never in fact been in actual possession. Appeal dismissed. Cundiff r, Fitzsimmons Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 270 — • Jointure — Arrears — " Incumbrance affecting the inheritance " — Discharge out of capital moneys. See Settled Land— Jointures. 1. ( 2183 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910, ( 2184 ) EENT-CHARGE— fyrtii'WjierZ. — Personal covenant to pay rent-charge — Remedy when barred. See Limitations, Statutes op. 23. — Eates. See under Bates. — Special Act — Prior incumbrances — Priority. See IMPEOVEMBNT OP LAND. 1. — Tithe. See under Tithe. — Tithe — Fees — Redemptions of rent-charge under the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1891— Inclosure, &c., Expenses Act, 1868. See under Inclosuke Act. EENTINCIATION— By executor— Charge on ex- pectancy — Notice to executor — Priority — Assignor executor. See Moetg-a&e — Priority. 7. — Probate — Practice. See under Probate — Kenunoiation. BEPAIES— Breach of covenant— Title— Lease- hold house — Open contract — Production of receipt for rent. See Vendor and Puechasee — Title. 7. — Bridges. See under Bridges. — Bridge carrying public highway over railway — Liability. See Scottish Law. 3. — Carriage road — Recovery of expenses — Juris- diction of metropolitan police magis- trates. See London— Carriage Koad. 1. — Copyhold — Breach of obligation of copy- holder to repair — Forfeiture — Manor. See COPTHOLDS. 3. — County council — Main road — Maintenance and repair — Mandatory order. See Local Goveknment. 9. — Flats, House let in — Liability of landlord for disrepair of roof. See Neglig-engb. 6. — Foreclosure — Account — Cost of repairs — Receiver. See Mortgage — Foreclosure. 1. — Foreign ship — Wages — Maritime lien — Priority — Necessaries. See Shipping- Wages. 2. • — Highway. See under Highway. _ — Hire-purchase agreement — Liability to repair hired chattel — Lien as against owner. See Lien. 2. — Implied obligation to maintain and — Lociis — Stanch — Royal Charter, Validity of. (See "Water Highway. 1. — Landlord and tenant. See under Landlord and Tenant. — Leasehold house — Liability for repairs — Mort- gage — ■ Foreclosure — Disclaimer by mortgagee of all interest in house. See Will — Leaseliolds. 2. REPAIRS- co?rfkMe(^. — Lunatic — Administration of estate — Charge — Costs. See LlTNACT. 3. — Mansion-house — Dilapidations — Salvage — Expenditure out of capital — Jurisdic- tion. See Will — Mansion-house. 1. — Mechanics' Institute — Borrowing powers- Enlarging billiard-room. See LiTBEARY AND SCIENTIFIC INSTI- TUTIONS. 1. — Mortgage of ship — Repairs by mortgagor — Salvage loss — Underwriters. See Shipping — Mortgages. 2. — Mortgages. See under Mortgage — Repairs. — Negligence — Disrepair — • Liability of local authority for accident arising fi'om. See Sewers. 3. — Negligent repair — Injury to driver arising from defect — Liability of contractor. See Negligence. 3. — Patent — Infringement — Fitting new com- ponent part. See Patent — Infringement, i. — Private or occupation roads — Dedication as highway. See Inclosure Act. i. — Railway — Level crossing. See under RAILWAY — level Orossingi. — River — Grant of exclusive passage for boatsi &c. — Implied obligation to maintain and repair. See Water Highway. 1. — Settled land. See under Settled Land. — Sewer—" Single private drain" — Liability to repair. See Sewers. 6. — Ship — Right of mortgagee to policy money without paying for repairs. See Shipping— Mortgages. 2. — Tramways. See under Tramways. — Trustee — Investment — Breach of trust — Leases — Depreciation. See under TRUSTEE — Investments. — Water — Neglect or refusal to supply — Def ec t in communication pipe — Liability of consumer to repair. See Water. — Workmen's compensation — Hydraulic lift — " Engineering work " See Master and Seevant — Compen. sation. 84. REPATRIATION — Seamen — Shipping— Col- lision — Payment by consul — Norwegian law. See Shipping — Seamen. 8. ( 2185 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2186 ) BEPAYMENT— Equitable mortgagee— Eight to receive rents — Claim bj tenant for re- payment. See MoETOAGB— Eenti. 1. — Estate duty. See EEVBNnB — Estate Duty. REPEAL — Jurisdiction — Criminal lunatic — Vesting order. See LirifACT. 27. — Statute — Implied repeal— Mortmain — Gift for maintenance of churchyard. See Chaeitt. 35. EEPLY. See under Phacticb — Eeply. — Eight of plaintiff to reply — Practice. See CouNTT Court — Practice. 14. BEFOBT — Offences by bankrupt — Prosecution — Filing of report of official receiver. See Bankhuptcy — Offences. 1. BEPOETBR— Newspaper — Unusual stipulation — Infant — Keasonable protection of covenantee — Public policy. See Restbaixt of Trade. 7. EEPOETS — Ancient reports to Government departments — Evidence — Public docu- ments — Depositions — Maps and charts. See Custom. 1. EEPEESEKTATION — Solicitor and client — Breach of duty — Adverse title. See Estoppel. 2. -~ Trustees — Future rights — Unascertained persons. See Fixes and Eecovebies. 1. EEPEESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE, See under Rates, Parliament. .EEPEESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOT- LAND) ACT, 1868. See under Scottish Law. EEPEESENTATIVE ACTION— Action by ship- pers of goods on a general ship on behalf of themselves and other shippers of goods in the same ship. See Practice— Eepresentativo Action. 1. - — Parties — Action on behalf of a class of the public — Joinder of plaintiffs. See Practice — Parties. 4. EEPUDIATION— After decree for specific per- formance — Interest on purchase-money — Costs. See Vend'or and Purchaser — Contract. 2. — Contract, Construction of — Breach — New trial must be on motion. .Sfe British Honduras. 1. — Contract for delivery of goods by instalments — ^Vrongful repudiation of contract by buyer — Waiver. See Sale of Goods. 8. EEPTIDIATION- co«ii«24eif. — Infant borrowing member — Mortgage for advances — Repudiation on attaining twenty-one. See Building Society. 2. — Master and servant — Contract of service — Wrongful dismissal — Breach of Re- strictive covenant as to trading. See Master and Servant — Contract of Service. 5. EEPUBLICATION— Will. See under Will — BepubUcation. EEPUGNANCT— Absolute gift— Gift over on death " without a will and childless." See Will— Abiolute Gift. 8. BEPUTED OWNEESHIP— Bankruptcy. See under B.4NKBUPTCY — Order and Disposition ; and under Bankruptcy — Beputed Ownership. — Distress — Protected goods — Landlord and tenant. See Distress. 8. — Traders — Bank loan to purchase goods — Secured creditors. See Bankruptcy — Traders. 1. BEQiriSITION ON TITLE— Contract— Rescission — Arbitrary exercise of power to rescind contract. See Vendor and Purchaser — Condi- tions of Sale. 5. BES JUDICATA— Action for rent— Defence, no concluded agreement — Second action — Defence, Statute of Frauds — Estoppel. See Estoppel. 4. 1. — Action to set aside jiidgment — Alleged fraud — Revocation of probate — Ifature of evidence necessary to maintain action — Motion to stay proceedings. In order to maintain an action to set aside, on the ground of fraud, a judgment establishing a will and granting probate of it, the pit. must adduce evidence of facts discovered since the judgment which raise a reasonable probability of the success of the action. If the pit. does not do this, the proceedings in the action will be stayed on the motion of the deft. Per Vaughan Williams, L.J, . The evidence need not necessarily be of such a character that it would be evidence in the action. The questipn in each case is, whether the fact alleged to have been discovered is so evidenced and so material as to make it reasonably probable that the action will succeed. If it is, the action ought to be allowed to proceed, so that the pit, may have an opportunity of obtaining discovery in it. Per Cozens-Hardy, L.J. : Though in most cases a judgment obtained by fraud can be set aside only as against the person who committed or procured the fraud, this limitation does not apply to. an action to set aside a judgment granting probate of a will, inasmuch as a will must be either good or bad against all the world. Judgment of Gorell Barnes J., [1902] P. 62, refusing to stay proceedings in an action to set ( 2187 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2188 ) BES JUmCATA—contmued. aside, on the ground of fraud, a judgment establishing a will, reversed, fresh evidence having been adduced upon the appeal. Birch v. Birch C. A. [1902] W. N. 72; [1902] P. 130 — Affiliation proceedings — Paternity of child — Judgment of quarter sessions — Action for seduction, See Estoppel. 3. ^ — " Final " judgment — Estoppel — Appeal. jSfee Practice — Pleadings. 1. — Foreclosure — Mortgage — Order nisi for fore- closure on a principal charge and four supplementary charges — Omission of fifth supplementary charge. See MORT&AGE — Foreclosure, i. — Habeas corpus — Appeal — Estoppel by judg- ment — Absence of adjudication as of record. See Habeas Corpus. 1. — Jurisdiction to appeal from assessment officer — Appeal from Ontario. See Canada — Eailway. 2. — Mortgage — Payment into Court by trustees under Trustee Act, 1893 — Payment out. See Limitations, Statute op. 14. — Will, Construction of — Destination of the subject of void gifts — Residuary legatees — Next of Itin — Appeal from the Straits Settlements. See Straits Settlements. — ■ Worlimeu's compensation — Application to review — Change of circumstances. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 125. — "Workmen's compensation — Change of circum- stances. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 125. Workmen's compensation — Weekly payment ended by arbitrator — New circum- stances — Power of arbitrator to review again. See Master and Servant — Arbitra- tion, 1. RESCISSION— Contract — Variation— Parol evi- dence — Statute of Frauds. See Contract. 13. — Contract of sale — Power to rescind where objection as to title insisted on — Absence of title to mines in property sold. /See Vendor AND Purchaser — Title. 1. — Executed contract — Misrepresentation — Absence of fraud — Delay. See Contract. 14. — Mistake — Forgetfulness — Appointment — ■ Deed poll. See Power of Appointment. 24. — Practice — Motion to rescind or vary Master's order — Irregularity. See Practice — Rescind, Motion to. 1. RESCISSION — cont'mued. — Prospectus — Irregular allotment — Cancella- tion of allotment — Ultra vires. See Company — Prospectus. 1. — • Receiving order — Jurisdiction to rescind — Abuse of process of Court. See Bankruptcy — Receiving Order. 6. — Sale of life policy — Death of assured before contract — Common mistake — Rescission after completion — Contract. See Insurance (Life). ICi. — Vendor and purchaser. See under Vendor and Purchaser — Rescission. RESEALING— Colonial probate— Limited grant. See Probate — Colonies. 1. RESERVE — Auctioneer — Personal liability — Sale subject to reserve — Lot knocked down at less than reserve. See Auction. 4. RESERVOIR—" Building " — Reservoir autho- rized by special Act — Supervision of district surveyor. See London — Buildings. 1. — Freshwater Fisheries Act — ■ Definition of limits by Board of Trade certificate. See Fishery. 1. — ■ Land compulsorily taken — Special adapta- bility for reservoir — Compensation — Waterworks. See Water. — Mining lease — Compensation — Waterworks — Capital or income. See Settled Land— Leases. 5. — Waterworks — Right to support from minerals under adjacent lands— Limit of forty yards. See Mines. 15. RESETTLEMENT— Will. See under Will — Resettlement. RESIDENCE— Bequest on conditions— Forfeiture — Unmarried. See Will— Condition. 5. — Compauy regil^ta^ed abroad — Directors' meetings in England and abroad — Majority of directors in England. See Revenue — Income Tax. l.i. — Condition or trust — Fetter on power of sale. See Settled Land — Sale. 7. • Foreign residence. See Domicil. 3. - Lease — Covenant — Personal residence Assignment to limited company carry- ing on brewery business. See Landlord and Tenant, is. - Matrimonial — Nullity suit — Jurisdiction. See Divorce— Nullity. 7. • Tenant for life — Forfeiture clause — Non-resi- dence — Validity of condition. See Settled Land — Forfeiture. 1. ( 2189 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2190 ) EESIDENCE— co)irovi^ions for the financial arrangements of the year. Finance Art, 1908 (8 Edir. 7, c. 16), grants certain duties of Customs and Inlund Revenue, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating REVENUE — continued. to Customs and Inland Revenue and the National Deht, and to malie other provisions for the financial arrangements of the year. Isle of Man (^Customs') Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, e. 9), amends the law with respect to Customs duties in the Isle of Man. Local Taxation licences, England. 0. in C, Oct. 19, 1908, fixing date of Transfer of certain Local Taxation Licence Duties to County Councils and Comity Boroughs under s. 6 of the Finance Act, 1908, and mahiTig provisions therefor. St. R. & 0. 1908, No. 844. Price Id. General Council of the Bar. Report uponthe question of appeals from the Commissioners under Part I. of the Finance Act, 1909. W. N. 1909 (Aug. 14), p. 295. Customs and Excise, Board of. O. in C., Feh. 15, 1909. The Excise Transfer Order, 1909. St. E. & 0. 1909, No. 197. Revenue Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 43), is an Act to amend the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue, and for other purposes connected ivlth finance. Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910 (10 Edw. 7, e. 8), is an. Act to grant certain Duties of Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise'), to alter other duties and to amend tlie law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), and to make other finjincial provisions. Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910 — Super-tax. Regulations made iy the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under s. 72 (8.). Eeprint from Vf. N. 1910 (June 18), p. 229. See Cueeent Ixdex, 1910, p. c. Finance (1909-10) Act, X'iW ~ Increment value duty. Rules made by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under s. 3, sub-ss. 2 and 3. Eeprint from W. N. 1910 (July 30), p. 257. See CnEBENT Index, 1910, p. civ. Finance (1909-10) Act, mO — Liquor Licences Duties. Hotels and Restaurants. Reprint from W. N. 1910 (Aug. 13), p. 268. See Cueeent Index, 1910, p. cv. Finance (1909-10) Act. 1910. Liquor Licences Duties. Clubs. Regulatioyis, dated July 9, 1910, nutde by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise under s. 48 (5) of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910 (10 Edw. 7, c. 8"). Reprint from W. N. 1910 (Aug. 20), p. 270. See Cueeent Index, 1910, p. cvi. Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910 — The Land Values (Reference) Rules, 1910, dated July 25, 1910, made by the Reference Committee for England under s. 33 of the Fitmnce (1909-10) Act, 1910 (10 Edw. 7, c. 8). Reprint from W. N. 1910 (Sept. 10), p. 281. See Cueeent Index, 1910, p. cvi. Finance Act, 1910 (10 Edw. 7 ,?■ 1 Geo. 5, c. .So), is an Act to grant certain duties of Customs and Inland' Revenue, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue and the Natloniil Debt, and to malic other provisions for the financial arrangements of the year. ( 2199 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2200 ) 'REVE^VE—continned. Carnage Lieeiiee, col. 2199. Colonial Duties, ool. 2202. Corporation Duty, col. 2202. Costs, col. 2203. Criminal Law, col. 2203. Customs, col. 2203. Death Duties, col. 2203. Dogs, col. 2201. Estate Duty, col. 2205. Excise, col. 2225. House Duty, col. 2226. Income Tax, col. 2231. Inhahited House Duty. See under Revenue — House Duty. Land Revenue Records and Enrolvients. See under Land REVENUE Rbcoeds AUD Enrolments. Land Tax. See under Land Tax. Land Values, col. 2252. landlord's Property Tax, ool. 2252. Legacy Duty, col. 2253. Licences. See under Plate. Licensing Acts, col. 2254. Liquor Licences Duties, col. 2254. Male Servants. See under Revenue — Servants. Motor Cars. See under MOTOR CABS. National Debt. See under National Debt. Plate, col. 2254. Practice, col. 2254. Prolate Duty, col. 2254. Servants, col. 2255. Settlement Estate Duty. See under Revenue — Estate Duty. Stamps (^Fees and Stamps'), col. 2256. Succession Duty, col. 2269. Uninhalited House Duty. See under Revenue — House Duty. Writ of Extent, col. 2273. Carriage licence. 1. — Carriage — Licence — Exemption,'! — Cus- toms and Inland Bevienue Act, 1888 (51 ^ 52 Vict. c. 8), s. 4, sub-s. 3. A vehicle is not exempt from the carriage tax under s. 4, sub-s. 3, of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, unless it is solely " constructed or adapted for use . . . for the conveyance of any goods or burden in the course of trade or hiisbaudry." It is not enough that it is in fact solely used for that purpose if it is constructed or adapted for use for other purposes as well. Dictum to the contrary in Hanworth v. EEVENUE (Carriage Licence) — continued. Williams, (1903) 67 J. P. 315, dissented from. MooBE c. Lewis - Div. Ct. [1905] W. N. 162 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 27 2. — Carriage — Licence — Exemption — Cus- toms and Inlarid Revenue Act, 1888 (51 Vict, c. 8), s. i, sub-s. 3. The appellant was summoned for keeping a carriage without a licence. The carriage in question was a two-wheel spring cart made of light varnished wood. It had a movable seat with a padded back and a movable cushion secured by straps. It had two steps on each side, and over both wheels were varnished splash-boards. The appellant, who was a farmer and rope maker, used the cart for the purpose of taking ropes and farm produce to a neighbouring market, where he had two stalls. It was his practice to take his wife and son with him in the cart along with the goods to help him in serving customers at the market. He had another vehicle which he used for ordinary driving purposes, and for which he held a licence. The justices found that the appellant, his wife and son, were " burden " within the meaning of the above section, and that the cart had been bona fide constructed solely for the purpose of carrying goods or burden in the course of the appellant's business ; but that as it was capable of being used for other pur- poses, the appellant failed to bring himself within the exemption, and had committed the offence charged. The Court held that the mere fact that a cart is capable of being used for other than the exempted purposes does not prevent the exemption from applying. They agreed that the description of the cart did not preclude the justices from finding that it was " con- structed for use solely " for the exempted pur- poses, and that the appellant, his wife, and son, were under the circumstances " burden in the course of trade." Appeal allowed. Cook V. HoBBS Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 219 3. — Carriage — Licence — Exemption-— Used solely for the conveyance of burden — Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888 (51 Vict. c. 8), s. 4. Appellants, S. and P., were dairy farmers, residing at Witham. They owned a farm at Thorpe, which is about thirty miles from Witham. This farm was worked for them by a bailiff named E., who had charge of the farm. Amongst other things in E.'s charge was a milk van belonging to the appellants which conveyed the appellants' milk churns daily from the farm to Thorpe railway station. The van was specially constructed for the conveyance of milk churns, and had the apel- lants' names painted on it in letters of the statutory size. The appellants had taken out no licence in respect of the van. On one occa- sion B., after delivering the churns at the sta- tion for his own purposes and without the knowledge or authority of the appellants, drove the van to Clacton-on-Sea, a distance of five-and-a-half miles, where he met his wife. He put up the horse and van and went ( 2201 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2202 ) EETENTTE (Carriage Licence) — continued. with her to a place of amusement, remaining there some hours. He subsequently drove his wife and her sister and a third woman back to the farm in the van. The appellants were summoned under s. 27 of the Customs and Inland Eevenue Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. 0. 14), for keeping the van without a licence. By s. 4, sub-s. (3) of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888 (51 Vict. c. 8), a carriage licence is not required for a " waggon, cart, or other such vehicle, which is constructed or adapted for use, and is used solely for the conveyance of any goods or burden in the course of trade or husbandry," provided that ib also satisfies certain othenicon- ditions. The justices at petty sessions held that havingi regard to the, above user by E., the van, not having been solely used for the con- veyance of burden, was one for which a licence was required, and they convicted the appel- lants. On appeal the Quarter Sessions affirmed the conviction. Held, that as the appellants had placed E. in charge of the farm generally, they were responsible for his act in using the van for the purpose for which he did, audi consequently failed to bring themselves within the exemp- tion. Appeal dismissed. Steutt v. Clift Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 212 4. — Cars on light railway — Light Rail- ways Act, 1896 (59 |- 60 Vict. c. i?,)— Customs ami Inland Revenue Act, 1888 (51 1^ 52 Tict. c. 8), 5. 4. A light ry. constructed under an order made under the Light Railways Act, 1896, is a "railway" within the meaning of s. 4 of the Customs and Inland Eevenue Act, 1888, which exempts from the licence duty on " car- riages " thereby imposed any carriage drawn or propelled upon a ry. by steam or elec- tricity or other mechanical power. Att.-Gen. V. YoEKSHiEE (Woollen Disteiot) Eleoteio Team WATS, Ld. Bray J. ri907] W. N. 191 ; tl907i 8 K. B. 991 6 . — Exemptions — Cart only occasionally used for driving the farm hands to and, from their worlt — Revenue Act, 1869 (32 ^ 33 Vict, c. 14) — Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888 (51 ^ 52 Vict. c. 8), s. 4, sub-s. 3. (1.) The appellant Latchford was an officer of Inland Revenue stationed at Crowle, in the county of Lincoln, and the respondent was a farmer living at South-end Farm, Crowle. (2.) On Jan. 22, 1906, an information was exhibited by the appellant against the respon- dent for the recovery of a penalty for keeping a carriage without a licence, contrary to the provisions of s. 27 of the Revenue Act, 1869. (3.) The justices sitting at petty sessions dis- missed the information. (4.) Upon appeal to quarter sessions the following facts were admitted or proved in evidence : — On Sept. 16, 1905, the respondent was seen by the appellant driving a cart, which also contained his brother, his cousin and a small child. The re- spondent's brother and cousin had both been assisting the respondent with his farm-work during the harvest season and on the day in REVENUE (Carriage Licence) — continued. question. (5.) The respondent's cousin was re- gularly employed on the farm, and on Sept. 16 had brought meals for those who were at work in the harvest field from the farmhouse, which was some distance away. The respondent's brother was spending a holiday with respon- dent, and was not usually employed on the farm. (6.) The respondent, who was the owner of the cart, had not taken out a licence in respect of it. (7.) The respondent was in the habit of using the cart for the conveyance of farm implements and produce on the farm, and also for the purpose of occasionally driver ing his farm hands to and from their work dn the farm, and the cart was adapted for use and used solely for farm purposes. (8.) Upon these facts the Court of Quarter Sessions came to the conclusion that farm labourers driven to and from their work were " burden in the course of ... . husbandry" within the mean- ing of the exemption contained in s. 4 (3) ftf the Customs and Inland Eevenue Act, 1888, and dismissed the appeal. (9.) The question for the opinion of the Court was whether the Court of Quarter Sessions were right in dis- missing the appeal : — Meld, that the justices were right. If the Legislature wished to tax these carts they must do so in clear language. The cart was only occasionally used for driving the farm hands to and from their work. Appeal dis- missed. Latchfoed v. Kelsey Div. Ct. [1907] W. N. 89 Colonial Duties. — Colonial death duty — " Debts " — Victoria Administration and Probate Act. See Will — Colonial Duties. 1. Corporation Duty. 1 . — Real -property — Principle of assess- ment — " Annual value, income, or profits " — Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885 (48 ^ 49 Vict. c. 51), s. 11. Sect. 11 of the Customs and Inland Eevenue Act, 1885, imposes on bodies corporate or un- incorporate, in respect of all real and personal property belonging to them, a duty payable yearly at the rate of 5 per cent, upon " the annual value, income, or profits of such pro- perty after deducting therefrom all necessary outgoings, including the receiver's remunera- tion, and costs, charges and expenses properly incurred in the management of such pro- perty." The Surrey County Cricket Club, an unin- corporated body of persons, were possessed of real and personal property, the real property consisting of a building and land in the metro- polis held under a lease for years and used by them for the purposes of a cricket club. Their reoeiptsi included large sums in respect of gate- money and other payments received from per- sons admitted to view the cricket matches played on the ground. The club was carried on at a profit : — Beld, that the gate-money and other pay- ments received from the public were not ( 2203 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2201 ) EEVENUE (Corporation Duty) — continued. " annual value, income, or profits of the pro- perty " within the meaning of s. 11 ; that the annual value of the real property should be arrived at in the same way as upon an assessi ment of annual value made for the purposes of the property tax under Sched. A. of the Income Tax Alct (16 & 17 Vict. c. 34), and that the club were entitled to include the esti- mated cost of repairs as a permissible deduc- tion from that annual value. In re Surke^ CoDNTy Oeicbet Club - - Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 400 Costs. — Licensing , Acts — Appeal from decision of Inland Eevenue Commissioners — Dis- cretion to order payment of costs by Commissioners. See Licensing Acts. 22. Criminal Law. — Information on Kevenue side of King's Bench Division. See Ceiminal Law — Appeal. Customs. — Customs Laws, The. Including the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, with the En- actments amending and extending that Act, and the Present Customs Tariff for Great Britain and Ireland; also the Customs Laws and Tariff for the Isle of Man ; with other Enact- ments affecting the Customs, and Notes of the Decided Cases. By Nathaniel J. Highmore, of the Middle Temple, Barxister-at-Law, Solicitor for H.M. Customs. (Published by Stevens & Sons, Ld., 119 and 120, Chancery Lane, W.C.). Price &s. 1906 (T.— Miscellaneous). — Adulteration — Jurisdiction of Court of Quarter Sessions to hear appeal. See Addlteeation. 10. — Victoria customs — Using ship stores, duty being unpaid — Penalty for breaking * seals on ship goods. 'See ViCTOEiA. 6. — Victoria customs and excise duties — " Mo- lasses refined in bond." See Victoria, i. Death Duties. Cape of Good Hope — Order in Council, Nov. 20, 1908, enrolling Order in Council of Aug. 13, 1895, applying s. 20 of the Finance Act, 1894, to the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. St. B. & 0. 1908, No. 1142. Grenada, Island of — Order in Council, Oct. 18, 1909, applying s. 20 of the Finance Aot, 1894, to the Island of Grenada. St. B. & 0. 1909, No. 1227. Price Id. New South Wales — Order in Council in applying s. 20 of the Finance Aot, 1894, to Nev) South Wales. St. B. & 0. 1905, No. 615. Tu'kon Territory — Order in Council, Jan. 10, 1910, applying s. 20 of the Finance Aot, 1894, to the Yukon Territory. St. E. & 0. 1910, No 68. 'RWJ'ESV'Z— continued. Dogs. 1. — Exemption— Dogs for tending sheep and cattle — Consent of petty sessional Court — Jurisdiction to inquire whether more than one dog necessary — Customs and Inlamd Re- venue Act, 1878 (41 .f 42 Viet. c. 15), s. 22, sub-s. 2— Dogs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 32), s. 5, sub-s. 1. By s. 22, sub-s. 2, of the Customs and In- land Kevenue Act, 1878, a farmer or shepherd may fill up and sign a declaration in the pre- scribed form stating the number of dogs kept by him solely for use in tending sheep or cattle or in the exercise of the calling or occu- pation of a shepherd, and upon delivering the declaration so filled up and signed to the proper person he shall be entitled to receive a certificate of exemption from duty in respect of the dog or dogs, not exceeding two in num- ber, kept by him solely for use as above mentioned. By s. 5, sub-s. 1, of the Dogs Act, 1906, the grant under s. 22 of the above Act of a certificate of exemption from duty in re- spect of a dog shall require the previous con- sent of a petty sessional Court, but such con- sent shall not be withheld if the Court is of opinion that the conditions for exemption mentioned in the said section apply in the case of the applicant. A farmer claimed exemption from duty in respect of two dogs which were kept by him solely for use in tending sheep and cattle, one being specially trained to tend sheep, and the other to tend cattle. The justices in petty sessions found that only one dog was neces- sary fox the applicant, and refused their con- sent to the grant of a certificate of exemp- tion for more than one dog : — Held, that the justices had only jurisdiction under s. 5, sub-s. 1, of the Dogs Aet, 1906, to inquire whether the conditions specified in s. 22 of the Act of 1878 applied, namely, whether the applicant was a farmer or shep- herd, and whether the dogs in respect of which exemption was claimed wexe kept by him solely for use in tending sheep or cattle, or in the exercise of the calling or occupation of 6 shepherd, and as those conditions were ful- filled, the justices had no power to refuse their consent to exemption for two dogs be- cause they were of opinion that, in the cir- cumstances, only one dog was necessary. Johnson v. Wilson - - Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 150 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 497 2 . — Inland Se-oenue — Crown — Duties in respect of dogs — Penalty for keeping dog laithout licence — Information dismissed — Order to pay costs — Costs paid to clerk to justices — Debt due to Crown — Summary Jurisdiction Aat, 1848 (11 ^ 12 Vict. a. 43), ss. 18, 31— Dog Licences Act, 1867 (30 ^ 31 Vict. 0. 5), ss. 4, S^Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 ^ 43 Viet. c. 49), s. 16— Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890 (53 ^ 54 Vict, c. 21), s. 33, sub-s. 2. On informations laid by an oificer of In- land Kevenue under s. 8 of the Dog Licences Act, 1867, against three defts. respectively ( 2205 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2206 ) REVENUE (DogB')~conthmed. for keeping' a dog without a licence the jus- tices dismissed the informations and ordered the defts. to pay certain sums as costs under s. 16 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879. The defts. paid the costs to the clerk to the justices. On an information iiled by the Att.-Gen. claiming from the clerk to the justices as a debt due to the Crown the residue of the sums so received by him after deducting the amount of certain fees authorized to be taken by him by an authorized table of fees and allow- ances : — Held, that the Crown was entitled to re- cover. Att.-Gen. u. Claek - - Channell J. [1909] 2 K. B. 7 Estate Duty. 1. — Agricultural Property — Principal value — Land, in the ocoupation of a tenant — Policies of insurance — No part of the -premiums paid hy the deceased — Property passing at the death — Finance Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict, c. 30), ss. 1, 2, sub-s. (d) ; s. 7, suh-s. 5. In estimating, for the purpose of estate duty, the principal value of agricultural land in the occupation of a tenant, when no part of such principal value is due to the expecta- tion of an increased income, the proviso to s. 7, sub-g. 5, pf the 'Finance Act, 1894, applies, and the tenant is entitled to have the prin- cipal value limited, as therein provided, to " twenty-five times the annual value, as as- sessed under Schedule A of the Income Tax Acts, after making such deductions as have not been allowed under that assessment, and are allowed under the Succession Duty Act, 1853, and, making a deduction for expenses of man- agement, not exceeding 5 per cent, of the annual value so assessed." E., upon the occasion of his marriage in 1843, assigned four policies of insurance, and his wife assigned a sum of 3,500Z. to trustees. Under the provisions of the settlement the policies were kept up, and the annual pre- miums paid, exclusively out of the income of the moneys of the wife, until the death of E. in 1898, when the moneys secured by the poli- cies became payable : — Held, that the moneys payable under the policies were liable to estate duty under s. 2, sub-s. (d), of the Finance Act, as being an " interest purchased or provided by the de- ceased, either by himself alone, ox in concert or by arrangement with any other person, to the extent of the beneficial interest accruing or arising by survivorship or otherwise on the death of the deceased," and therefore pro- perty " deemed to pass " within the meaning of the section. Att.-Gen. p. Eobinson, [1901] 2 Jr. E. 67—92 - [1901] W. N. 192 Note. Approved of by C. A., Att.-Gen. v. Murray, [1904] 1 K. B. Ki.j. See J\o. 18, below. 2. — Allowance — Incumbrances — BoTia fide creation — Consideration — " Wholly for the deceased's own use and, benefit " — Finance Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict. c. 30), s. 7, sub-s. 1 (a). BEVENTTE (Estate Hutj')— continued. E., institute of entail in possession of estates in Scotland, without the consent of his son and grandson (the next two heirs of en- tail) disentailed the estates, acquired the fee simple under the Scotch Entail Acts, and se- cured to the satisfaction of the Court the ascertained values of the respective interests of his p,on and grandson by bonds in their favour charged on the fee simple. By later bonds he charged the fee simple with interest due on the first bonds. A desire to lessen the estate duties payable on his death was E.'s motive in these transactions, but they were all open, straightforward, and genuine, not ficti- tious or colourable. Upon K.'s death : — Beld by Lord Loreburn L.C. and Lords Macnaghten and Atkinson (Lords Collins and Shaw of DunfermUne dissenting), that the bonds were incumbrances created bona fide for full consideration in money or money's worth wholly for E.'s own use and benefit and took efi'ect out of his interest within b. 7, sub-s. 1 (a), of the Finance Act, 1894, and that deductions accordingly . ought to be allowed in assessing the estate duties. The decisions of Bray J., [1907] 2 K. B. 923, and the C. A., [1908] 2 K. B. 729, afiirmed. Att.-Gen. v. Duke of Eichmond AND GOEDON H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 185 ; [1909] A. C. 466 3. — Annuities — Amount set apart to pay — Settlement estate duty — Property settled by^ will — Bequest of residue — Finance Act, 1891 (57 ^ 58 Vict. c. 30), s. 5, sub-s. 1 ; s. 22— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 2, sub-s. 1. A testator by his will devised and be- queathed all his real and personal estate to trustees on trust for conversion into money, and out of the moneys so produced to pay his funeral and testamentary expenses, and debts, and certain pecuniary legacies given by the will, and to set aside a sufficient amount of the residuary estate upon trust to pay annuities for life to certain persons, and, subject to that provision, to divide the residuary estate in certain proportions among residuary legatees. The trustees did, in pursuance of the testator's directions, set aside out of the residuary estate a certain amount, which they invested so as to produce an income sufficient to pay the annui- ties : — Held, that the fund so set aside was pro- perty settled by the testator's will within the meaning of the Finance Act, 1894, s. 5, sub- s. 1, and therefore settlement estate duty was payable upon it. In re Campbell - 0. A. [1901] W. N. 228 : [1902] 1 K. B. 113 — Annuity payable to trustees for settlement — Interest as " holder of an office " — Trustee. Sfo Eevenue — Succession Duty. 2. — Annuities — Will — EepubUcation by codicil after passing of an Act. See under Will — Testamentary Ex- penses. ( 2207 ) DItfEST OP OASES, 1901—1910. ( 2208 ) REVENUE (Estate Hxitj)— continued. 4 . — Apportionment — Real estate — Mar- riage settlement — Charging sum on death of settlor — Will of settlor— Specific devise — In- cidence of duty — Finance Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict. c. 30), s. 1 ; s. 7, sub-s. 1 ; s. 9, suh^ s. \ ; s. 14, sub-s. 1. On the death of an owner in fee who, by his marriage settlement, had charged the real estate with the payment after his death of a sum of money to be held on the trusts therein declared, and who, by his will, had subse- quently devised the same real estate in strict settlement : — Held, that s. 14, sub-s. 1, of the Finance Act, 1894, applied, and that his executor, having paid estate duty on the real estate, was entitled to recover from the trustees of the marriage settlement an amount equal to the proper rateable part of the estate duty in respect of the sum so charged. In re Haoket. Haoket v. Gahdineb Joyce J. [1907] W. N. 37 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 385 — Costs of administering trust fund. See Costs. 3. — Direction to pay out of specific fund. See under Will — Testamentary Ex- penses. 6. — Entail — Property — Estate duty paid by a deceased heir of entoM an^ not specifi- cally charged pn entailed estates — Finance Act, 1894 (57 i^ 58 Vict. c. 30), s. 2, sub-s. 1 (a) ; s. 9, sub-ss. 2, 3, 5 and 6 ; s. 22, sub- s. 2 (a), (c). By the Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30), s. 2, sub-s. 1, " property passing on the death of the deceased shall be deemed to include — (a) property of which the deceased was at the time of his death competent to dis- pose." By s. 9, sub-s. 1, " The estate duty on an estate .... shall be a first charge on the property in respect of which duty is leviable." By 6ub-s. 2, " On an application .... the Commissioners shall grant a certificate of the estate duty paid in respect of the property." By sub-s. 3, " The certificate of the Commis- sioners shall be conclusive evidence that the amount of duty named therein is a first charge on. the lands." By sub-s. 5, "A person re- quired to pay the estate duty in respect of any property shall . . . have power to raise the amount of such duty .... by the sale or mortgage of, or a terminable charge on, that property." By sub-s. 6, "A person having a limited interest in any property who pays the estate duty in respect of that property shall be entitled to the like charge as if the estate duty in respect of that property had been raised by means of a mortgage to him." By s. 22, sub-s. 2 (c), " Money which a person has a general power to charge on property shall be deemed to be property of which he has power to dispose." An heir of entail who had paid out of his own money estate duty due in respect of the entailed estate on the death of his predecessor died without having taken any steps to charge D,D. KEVENUE (Estate Ttaty)— continued. the sum so paid on the entailed estate. The Crown having claimed an account and estate duty on the sum so paid from his executors : — Held, reversing the decision of the First Division of the Ct. of Sess. (Lord Eobertson dissenting), (1904) 6 F. 347, that the money became automatically a statutory charge on the estate, and was placed by the statute in the same position as if the heir of entail pay- ing the duty actually held a bond over the estate for the amount ; and that accordingly the deceased heir of entail at the time of liia death had a vested transmissible interest in the amount of the estate duty he had paid, and was competent to dispose of it. Held, also, that the Finance Act of 1894 •was not to be construed according to the tech- nicalities of the law in England or Scotland', but according to the ordinary popular signifi- cation of the words employed. Lokd Advocats V. ConNTBSS OF Moray - H. L. (So.) [1905] W. N. 134 ; [1905] A. C. 631 — Entail — Propulsion of fee — "Acceleration." See Revenue — Succession Duty. 3. 6. — Entailed estate — Money held in trust to puncTiase lands in Scotland or England), ^q be entailed — Settlement estate duty — Finance Act. 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict. v. 30), s. 23, sub- ss. 14, 16. By s. 23, sub-s. 14, of the Finance Act, 1894, " The expression settled property shall not include property held under entail." By sub-s. 16, " where an entailed estate passes on the death of the deceased to an institute or heir of entail who is not entitled to disentail such estate without " . . . . consent, " settle- ment estate duty as well as estate duty shall be paid in respect of such estate " :, — Held, that money vested in trustees for the purpose of purchasing at their discretion lands in Scotland or in England to be strictly en- tailed is not " entailed estate " within the meaning of the Finance Act, 1894, and is not liable to "settlement estate duty." Semble, per Lords Macnaghten, Brampton, Robertson, and Lindley, that if the money had been directed solely to be laid out in land in Scotland to be strictly entailed according to the Scottish law of entail, the money, in the sense of the Finance Act, 1894, would be " entailed estate," and therefore liable to "settlement estate duty." Decision of the First Division of Ct. of Sess. as to the Ct. of Exchange in Scotland', (1901) 3 F. 440, affirmed. LoM> AdvooaTB v. Stewart, (1901) 3 Eraser, 440 ; Ct. of Sess. (So.), [1901] W. N. 189 - H. L. (Sc.) [1902] , W. N. 106 ; [1902] A. C. 344 7. — Exemption — "Any settled property" — " Person competent to dispose " — Finance Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict. c. 30), o-. 5, sub-s. 2. By a marriage settlement personal property was settled in trust for the husband for life, after his death for the wife for life, and after the death of the survivor for such persons aa the wife by deed or will should appoint. JThe 4b ( 2209 ) DJUEfST OF CASES, 1901—1910. 2210 ) REVENUE (Estate 'Duty')— continued. wife died, having exercised tlie power of ap- pointment by will. Upon hex death estate duty was paid under the Finance Act, 1894, in respect of her expectancy, upon the principal value of the settled property, the value of her husband's life interest being deducted. Upon the husband's death the Crown claimed estate duty again upon the principal value of the settled property. The settlement trustees paid the claim, but afterwards petitioned for the return of the amount, less the value of the hus- band's Ufe interest, alleging that on his death estate duty became payable (if at all) only on the value c/l his Ufe interest : — Held, that estate duty having been paid upon the settled property since the date of the settlement, namely, upon the wife's death, s. 5, sub-s. 2, exempted the settled property from estate duty until the death of a person who was at the time of his death or had been at any time during the continuance of the settle- ment competent to dispose of the property, and that the husband not being such a person, the trustees were entitled to a return of the amount for which they petitioned, and that if they had claimed the return of the whole sum they had paid upon the husband's death they would have been entitled to it. The decision of the Q. B. Div. and the C. A. in Ireland, [1900] 2 I. R. 281, 400, aflSrmed upon the grounds given by Palles C.B. The judgment of Rigby L.J. in Att.-Gen. V. Doddington, [1897] 2 Q. B. 373, approved. Inland Eevendb Commes. v. Pkiesiley H. L. (I.) [1901] W. N. 103 ; [1901] A. C. 208 8. — Exemption — Settlement of pefsoiial proferty — Trust for conversion into realty — Payment of probate duty — Finance Act, 1894 (57 |- 58 Vict. 0. 30), s. 21, sub-s. I. By the Fiaance Act, 1894, s. 21, sub-s. 1, " Estate duty shall not be payable on the death of a deceased person in respect of personal property settled by a will or disposition made by a person dying before the commencement of this part of this Act, in respect of which pro- perty " probate duty (among other specified duties) " has been paid, or is payable, unless .... the deceased was, at the time of his death, or at any time since the will or disposi- tion took effect had been, competent to dispose of the property." Under the will of a testator, who died in 1849, his residuary personal estate became vested in trustees upon trust to invest it in land, and to settle the land to the use of two persons in succession for life, with remainders over in tail male. Piobate duty was paid on the testator's personal estate, and the residue of the same was invested in land, which was settled in accordance with the directions of the will. On the death of the second tenant for life in 1900, the Crown claimed estate duty in respect of the land ; — Held, that the estate duty claimed was not payable, the case coming within the exemption created by the above-mentioned sub-section. Judgment of Channell J., [1904] 1 K. B. ' EEVENUE (Estate 'Duty')— continued. 749, reversed. Att.-Gen. v. Eael of Londes- BOEOUQH C. A. [1904] W. N. 188 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 98 — Expectancy, Assignment by person entitled in — Persons having " an absolute in- terest therein," Who are. See Ke VENUE— Legacy Duty. 1. 9. — Expeetanay, Interest 'in — Incumbrances created by reversioner — Deductions — Finance Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict. c. 30), s. 21, sub- s. 3. By the Finance Act, 1894, s. 21, sub-s. 3, " Where an interest in expectancy in any pro- perty has, before the commencement of this part of this Act, been bona fide sold or njort- gaged for full consideration in money or money's worth, then no other duty on such property shall be payable by the purchaser or mortgagee when the interest falls into posses- sion, than would have been payable if this Act had not passed ; and in the case ol a mort- gage, any higher duty payable by the mort- gagor shall rank as a charge subsequent to that of the mortgagee." A tenant in tail in remainder to freehold estates raised money during the lifetime of the tenant for life (a) by granting annuities or rent-charges charged upon the property, (^b) by purchasing an annuity and charging his interest in expectancy with the capitalized value, and (c) by a mortgage of his interest in expectancy : — Held, that the annuities granted by the re- versioner were in the nature of mortgages and not of sales for a valuable consideration ; that the exemption in s. 21, sub'-B. 3, of the Finance Act, 1894, was an exemption in favour of a purchaser or mortgagee, and not of a vendor or mortgagor, and that the reversioner was not entitled under s. 21, sub-s. 3, on the death of the tenant for life to exemption from estate duty in respect of any of the incumbrances created by him. In re Vernon Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 297 10. — Foreign bonds payable to bearer — Bonds physically situate in the United King- dom — Marketable securities — Finance Act, 1894 (57 4' 58 Vict. o. 30), s. 1 ; s. 2, sub- s.2. Foreign bonds and certificates payable to bearer, passing by delivery, and marketable on the London Stock Exchange are, when physically situate in the United Kingdom at the death of the owner, liable to estate duty under the Finance Act, 1894, even though the deceased was a foreigner domiciled abroad. Decision of the C. A., [1908] 1 K. B. 1022, affirmed. Winans v. Att.-Gen. (No. 2) H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 249 ; [1910] A. C. 27 11. — Foreigner domiciled abroad, Disposi- iion by — Property situate abroad — Disposition to English company on trusts enforceable by English law — Succession duty — Finance Act, 1894 (57 ^ 68 Vict. a. 30), s. 2— Succession Duty Act, 1853 (16 * 17 Vict. c. 61), ss. 2, 7, 8, 16. In 1892 a foreigner domiciled in Austria ( 2211 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2212 ) EEVENUE (Estate J}-a.ty)^cuiitimed. gave by a deed in the English language and form to an English co., constituted under the Companies Acts, and having its registered office in London, certain stocks, shares, and securities to a large amount upon the terms and conditions that the oo. would permit the donor to receive the income thereof during his life, and, after his death, would apply the same, and any investments substituted for them imder the powers of the deed, for the benefit of Eussian Jews generally, and prin- cipally for the promotion of the emigration of Bussian Jews from Europe, and of their settle- ment in various countries outside Europe. The CO. had been formed to carry out the same objects, and at the time of the execution of the deed the various securities comprised therein were transferred to the co. by the donor. The whole of the co.'s business was, under the articles of association, transacted by a council which sat at the principal office of the co. in Paris. The ordinary and extraordinary general meetings of the co. were held at their regis- tered office in London, but formal business only was transacted there. In 1896 the donor, who was still domiciled in Austria, died. At that time the principal part of the securities subject to the deed were foreign securities situate abroad, and the documents of title thereto were abroad, a small proportion only of the property subject to the deed being in England :— Beld (affirming the judgment of Bidley and Darling JJ., [1900] 2 Q. B. 556), that there was on the death of the donor a succession by the CO. within the meaning of s. 2 of the Suc- cession Duty Act, 1853, and that therefore suc- cession duty under that Act, and, consequently, estate duty under the Finance Act, 1891, were payable upon the principal value of all the property which was subject to the trusts of the deed of 1892 at the donor's death. Att.- Gen. v. Jewish Colonization Association C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 123 12. — Grant by the Croivn of coal duty — Tenement — Entailable hereditament — Conver- sion of coal dvjty into annuity — Redemption of annuity — Purchase of real estate — Actual tenjmt in tail — Bestraint on barring entail — 30 Geo. 2 (^Private), c. x., No. 34—39 Geo. 3 (Private), c. Ixxxiv. — 39 ^ 40 Geo. 3 (Public), c. 43 — 39 4' *0 fi^^o- 3 (Local and PersonaT), c. ciii. — 1 Vict. (Private), c. scxxiv. — 31 ^ 32 Vict. (Private), e. iv. — Statute de Vonis Con- ditionalibus (Westminster 11., 13 Edw. 1, c. 1) — 34 ^ 35 Een. 8, c. 20 — Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833 (3^4 Will. 4, o. 74), is. 15, 18— Finance Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict. a. 30), ss. 2, 5, subs. 5. By letters patent King Charles II. granted to the first Duke of Bichmond and the heirs of his body a certain coal duty, then vested in the Grown, of twelve pence per chaldron of sea coals, stone coals or pit coals, to be Sold, shipped, carried, or vended, forth or out of the river or haven of Tyne, to hold the same unto and to the use of the said first Duke of Eichmond and the heirs of his body, yielding EEVENUE (Estate Duty) — oonti/nued. and paying therefor yearly to His Majesty, his heirs and successors, the yearly rent of 11. 6s. 8d. By an Act of Parliament of 30 Geo. 2, after reciting that the third Duke of Bichmond had become seised to him and the heirs of the body of the first Duke of Richmond in tail general of the said coal duty, and was desirous that the said coal duty should, in default of issue male of his own body, go to his brother and the heirs male of his body, and was also desirous of making a jointure in favour of his intended wife, but that the limitations in the grant of Charles II. could not be varied without the authority of Parliament, it was en- acted that the third Duke of Bichmond should be seised of the said coal duty unto and to the use of the third Duke of Bichmond and the heirs male of his body, and that in default of heirs male of the body of the third Duke of Bichmond the said coal duty should go unto and to the use of the brother of the third Duke of Bichmond and the heirs male of his body, with a remainder to the heirs of the body of the first Duke of Eichmond ; and it was further enacted that it should be lawful for the third Duke of Bichmond to limit the yearly sum of 3000Z. payable out of the said coal duty to the use of his intended wife for her life to be in bar of all dower and thirds which she might thereafter claim out of the said coal duty. By an Act of Parliament of 39 Geo. 3, after reciting that the ultimate reversion in the said coal duty was vested in the Crown, it was en- acted that the Commissioners of the Treasury might on behalf of the Crown contract with the third Duke of Eichmond for the purchase of the estate and interest of all persons in the said coal duty for an annuity payable out of the Consolidated Fund. By s. 2 of this Act the annuity was made payable to the third Duke of Bichmond and the heirs male of his body, and, in default of heirs male of his body, to the brother of the third Duke of Bichmond and the heirs male of his body, and, in default of heirs male of his body, then unto the heirs of the body of the first Duke of Bichmond, and, in default of heirs of the body of the first Duke of Bichmond, then it was enacted that the said coal duty should revert to the Crown ;< and it was enacted that the third Duke of Eichmond and the heirs male of his body, and the brother of the third Duke of Eichmond and the heirs male of his body, and the heirs of the body of the first Duke of Eichmond should have the same power of disposition of the said annuity as they had in the said coal duty, and that the said annuity should go to such persons as would have been entitled to the said coal duty if the Act had not been made. By an indenture dated Aug. 19, 1799, and made in pursuance of this Act, the Commis- sioners of the Treasury contracted with the third Duke of Bichmond for the purchase of all the interests in the said coal duty for an annuity of 19,000?. payable out of the Consoli- dated Fund to the persons entitled thereto 4b 2 ( 2213 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 2214 ) REVENUE (Estate Duty )-~cijiiHnuerl. according to the limitations declared in s. 2 of the Act. This iudentuie also contained provi- sions enabling the annuity to be redeemed by the purchase of 3 per cent, consolidated bant annuities in the names of the Lord High Trea- surer or First Commissioner of the Treasury for the time being and certain other trustees therein mentioned, with power to the person for the time being entitled to the annuity or dividends to appoint new trustees other than the Lord High Treasurer or First Commis- sioner of the Treasury. This indenture was subsequently confirmed by an Act of Parlia- ment of 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 43. By an Act of Parliament of 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. ciii., the third Duke and any future Duke of Eichmond were empowered to jointure a wife as therein provided, such jointure to be in bar of aU dower ; and the trustees were em- powered to invest three-fourths of the annui- ties in the purchase of real estate to be 'con- veyed to the use of such persons as the annuity of 19,000Z. would have stood limited if the same had not been funded and re- deemed ; and it was provided that the person in possession of the premises should be liable for waste, and should have certain powers of leasing and exchange and a limited power of cutting timber. Under the powers of this Act and of Acts of Parliament of 1 Vict. c. xxxiv., and 31 & 32 Vict. 0. iv., the late Duke of Eichmond be- came entitled to certain real estate at Good- wood, in the county of Sussex, which had been purchased and conveyed to the same uses to which the annuity of 19,000^. would have stood limited if the same had not been funded or re- deemed, and subject to the provisions by the Act of 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. ciii., declared :■ — Held, (1.) that after, and probably before, the passing of the Act of 30 Geo. 2 the coa! duty was a tenement within the meaning of the Statute De Douis Conditionalibus, and an entailable hereditament ; (2.) that the effect of the Acts of 39 Geo. 3 and 39 & 40 Geo. 3 was to substitute the annuity of 19,0OOZ. for the coal duty ; (3.) that the late Duke of Eichmond was actual tenant in tail of the Goodwood estates within the meaning of s. 15 of the Fines and Eecoveries Act, 1833. And, it having been admitted that the coa] duty was not given as a recompense for any service rendered by the grantee to the Grown within the meaning of the statute 84 & 35 Plen. 8, c. 20 : — Held, (4.) that the Duke of Eichmond was not by any other Act restrained from barring his estate tail within the meaning of s. 18 of the Fines and Eecoveries Act, 1833 ; and, con- sequently, (5.) that the late Duke of Eichmond was competent to dispose of the Goodwood estates at tlie date of his death witliin the meaning of s. 2 of the Finance Act, 1894 ; and, therefore, that on his death estate duty became payable on the principal value of those estates. Att- Gek. v. Duke of Eichmond, Gordon and Lennox (No. 2) Bray J. [1907] 2 K. B. 940 REVENUE (Estate Duty)— rn/rf/wwi. — Incidence— Direction, to pay testamentary expenses. See under A\'iLL— Testamentary Ex- penses. 13. — Incidence— Exercise of general power of, appointment by will — Appointed fund — Re- sidue — Testamentary expenses — Finance Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict. a. 30), ss. 1, 2, 6, sub- s. 2 ; s. 7, sulr-ss. 6, 7 ; s. 8, sub-s. 4 ; i-. 9, sub-s. 1 ; s. 22. Where a general power of appointment over a reversionary interest in a fund expec- tant upon the determination of a life interest in the testator and of a subsequent life interest in a person who survived him is exercised by will, the corpus of the fund is, under s. 2, 'sub- s. 1 (S), of the Finance Act, 1894, property which passes on the testator's death, and estate duty is payable on the corpus under s. 8, sub- s. 4, by the person to whom the property passes for a beneficial interest in possession, or by the trustees in whom the fund is vested. It is not payable by the executors of the will, and is consequently not a testamentary ex- pense. In ftiese circumstances the question whether the fund passed to the " executors as such " within s. 9, sub-s. 1, does not arise. In re Dixon. Penfold v. Dkon - Buckley J. [1901] W. N. 243;; [1902] 1 Oh. 248 yote. Followed by C. A., In re Sadlei/, [1909] 1 Ch. 20. Si-e ^'o. 15, Mow. — Incidence — Testamentary expenses. Direc- tion to pay. See under Will — Testamentary Ex- penses. 14. — Incidence — Legacies payable out of ffind representing realty and personMty — Finance Act, 1894 (57 .f 58 Vict. u. 30), ss. 1, 8 {sub-s. 4), 9, 14 {sub-s. 1), 21. A testator who died in 1869 (and therefore before the coming into operation of the Finance Act, 1894), after bequeathing certain legacies, gave his residuary realty and per- sonalty to trustees upon trust to convert the same and pay his funeral and testamentary ex- penses and debts and the legacies therein- before bequeathed, and to invest the residue, and out of the income to pay his widow an annuity of 5001. And he directed that after the widow's death the trust funds should be held upon trust to pay thereout certain lega- cies amounting to 9000?., and to divide the residue amongst certain persons named in the will. In an administration action a sum of Consols was carried over to the account of the annuity. The widow died in 1900 (after the Act came into operation), and in 1901 payment of the legacies was ordered, and inquiries were directed to ascertain the persons entitled to the residue. Under s. 1 of the Finance Act, 1894, estate duty was payable on the widow's death on so much of the Consols as represented real estate ; but under s. 21, sub-s. 1, the duty was not payable on the portion representing personal estate. The proportion representing real estate was taken as twelve-seventeenths of the whole ( 2215 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2216 ) BEVENTJE (Estate Onty^—contimied. fund, and the estate duty on twelve-seven- teenths of the legacies (90002.) was 223i. That and the legacy duty were paid, and the diffei- ence between the aggregate of the two sums and the 9000Z. was paid to the legatees ; — Held by Buckley J., that the pecuniary legatees were not persons entitled to a sum charged on the property within s. U, sub-s. 1, and that they were not liable for the 2231., but were entitled to be recouped the amount out of the portion of the fund representing real estate : Held by the C. A., upon the construction of s. 8, sub-s. 4, that the pecuniary legatees ought to bear the 2232. Per Vaughan Williams L.J. : In re Coun- tess of Oxford, [1896] 1 Oh. 257, is a decision on the construction of the Finance Act, 1894, that in all cases where estate duty becomes payable for which the executor is not made accountable by s. 6, sub-s. 1, the duty must be paid ultimately by the persons beneficially entitled in proportion to their shares. Beeey V. GaukeoQER C. a. [1903] W. N. 88 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 116 Xote. This case was referred to by Kekewich J., De Queftenlle v. De Quetteville, [1905] W. N. 85 ; C. A. [1905] W. N. 130. See WiU— Testa- mentary Expenses. 14. 15. — Incidence — personal property — Exer- cise by will of general poider of appointment — Estate duty payable in respect of appointed fund — " Property passing to executor as such " — Legal and equitaVle assets — Finance Act, 1894 (57 »^ 58 Vict. o. 30), s. 6, sub-s. 2 ; s. 9, sub-s. 1. The estate duty payable in respect of per- sonal estate appointed by will under a general power of appointment is not a charge upon the appointed property, but is payable by the exe- cutor out of the testator's personal estate. So held by the C. A., reversing the decision OT "Pfl.TKPT' T In re Treasure, [1900] 2 Ch. 648 ; In re Maddock. [1900] 2 Ch. 372 ; In re Power, [1901J 2 Oh. 659 ; and In re Dobson. [1907] 1 Ch. 284, overruled on this point. In re Moore, [1901] 1 Ch. 691 ; In re Dixon, [1902j 1 Ch. 248 ; In re Eearnsides, [1908] 1 Ch. 250 ; and In re Orlebar, [1908j 1 Ch. 136, followed. In re Hadley. John- son V. Hadley C, A. [1908] W. N, 220; [1909] 1 Ch. 20 16. — Insurance — Policy of life insurance — Settled property — Finance Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict. 0. 30), ss. 1, 2, 3. By s. 1 of the Finance Act, 1894, estate duty is granted upon all property which passes on the death of a person dying after the com^ mencement of the Act. By s. 2, " property passing on the death " is to be deemed to in- clude (sub-s. 1 (d)) any annuity or other in- terest purchased or provided by the deceased to the extent of the beneficial interest accru- ing or arising by survivorship or otherwise on the death. Sect. 3 exempts from estate duty property passing on the death of the deceased REVENUE (Estate Duty)- by reason only of a bona fide purchase from the person under- whose disposition the pro- perty passes, where such purchase was made for full consideration in money or money's worth paid to the vendor for his own use or beneiit. A tenant for life of freehold estates, being in pecuniary difficulties, entered into an arrangement with his son, the tenant in tail in remainder, by which the entail was barred, and the fee was then mortgaged to secure ad- vances to the father. The father was also possessed of policies on his own life to an amount substantially equivalent to the amount of the mortgage debt, which poUcies were, pursuant to the arrangement, assigned to trus- tees, who were to receive all policy moneys (if any) that might become payable during the life of the father and apply them in reduction of the mortgage debt, and subject thereto were to hold all policy moneys and accumulations in trust for the son. The father's life interest was assigned to the trustees, who were out of the income to pay the mortgage interest and the premiums on the policies and other specified outgoings, and to divide the surplus income up to a certain amount between father and son and create a sinking fund out of the ultimate surplus. On the father's death the trustees re- ceived the policy moneys and paid them over to the son : — Held, that the sums payable under the poli- cies were an " interest purchased or provided by the deceased " within the meaning of s. 2, sub-s. 1 {d) ; that the arrangement did not amount to an assignment of the policies to the son, but was an arrangement by virtue of which an interest in the policies passed to the son on the father's death ; that the transac- tion was in the nature of a family arrange- ment and not a purchase by the son, and that therefore the exemption from estate duty con- tained in s. 3 did not apply. Att.-Gen. v. Hawkins Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 285 17. — Insurance — Policy of life insurance — Interest provided by the deceased — Family arrangement — Finance Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict. 0. 30), s. 2, sub-s. 1 (d) ; s. 3. A tenant for life of real estates had raised money by charges on his life estates and in- surance policies on his life. By a family arrangement in 1885 between him and his son (the tenant in tail) the estates were disen- tailed and re-settled ; the fee was mortgaged by father and son for an amount to pay off the father's debts ; the policies were assigned to the son ; the rents and profits of the estates were held in trust to pay the interest on the mortgage, the premiums on the policies, an annuity to the son, and the residue for the father for life, with remainder to the son in fee. On the father's death the policy moneys were paid to the son, and the Crown claimed estate duty thereon from the son under the Finance Act, 1894, s. 2, sub-s. 1 (d) : — Held that, in the true view of the family arrangement, the son had made an absolute purchase of the policies for valuable considera- tion — nay, for much more than the full value ; ( 2217 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2218 ) EEVENTTE (Estate 'D-aty')— continued. that this was not a, case of an " interest pio- vided by the deceased, either alone or in con- cert with any other person " within the mean- ing of s. 2, snb-s. 1 (. paid the estate duty in respect of both the real and per- sonal estate out of the personal estate. The lunatic died intestate in 1903 ; his income was more than sufficient for his maintenance. ( 2221 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2222 )i EEVENTJE (Estate 'Duty')—eo7itinued. the surplus rents of his real estate were accu- mulated during his life, and the accumulations were more than sufficient to have paid the amount of the estate duty attributable to the real estate. The lunatic's next of kin claimed to be entitled to a charge on his real estate for the amount of duty paid in respect thereof out of his personal estate : — Held (afBrming the decision of Far well J., [1905] 2 Ch. 384), that, assuming the payment of the estate duty created a charge upon the real in favour of the personal estate, any charge which might have existed at the time of the payment of the duty on the realty out of the personalty in favour of the personalty was extinguished before the death of the lunatic ; that as there was no interest in the lunatic requiring the charges to be kept alive, and, under the circumstances, no person who could require the charge to be raised, it had merged. Held, also, that the case was covered by Lord Compton v. Oxenden, (1793) 2 Yes. Jun. 261. In re Hole. Davies v. Witts C. A. [1906] W. N. 65 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 673 — Eeal estate — Exoneration — " Equitable charge.'' See Administeaiion. 9. — Eeal estate — Trust for conversion — Failure of objects of trust — Eealty or per- sonalty. See Settlement. 23. 26. — Reversionary interest — Fiimiice Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Viet. o. 30), s. 7, sub-s. 6. Where under s. 7, sub-s. 6, of the Finance Act, 1894, the person accountable for the estate duty on an interest in expectancy has exercised the opinion given by that sub-sec- tion, and deferred the payment of the duty in respect of that interest until that interest has fallen into possession, the amount on which the duty is payable is the value of the interest when it has fallen into possession, and not merely its value on the death of the deceased'. In re Eyee Bray J. [1907] 1 K. B. 331 27. — Settled fund — Special power — Ap- pointment of specified amounts — Of the " clear " amount or value — Residue of fund — Incidence — Will — Construction. By his will, made in- 1883, the donee of a special power of appointment over a settled trust fund directed that certain portions of the fund " of the clear amount or value," and, subsequently, " of the like amount or value," therein specified should be appropriated and retained upon the trusts therein declared in favour of certain objects of the power, and that the residue of the fund should be appro- priated and retained upon trust for another object. The donee died in 1906 : — Held, that the words " of the clear amount or value " and " of the like amount or value " exempted from estate duty the portions of the fund in respect of which those words were used, and that such duty must be borne by the residue of the fund. In re Currie, (1888) 57 L. J. (Ch.) 743 ; 36 W. E. 753, and In re Saunders, [1898] 1 EEVENUE (Estate J)ntj}—eo7itinued. Ch. 17, applied. In re Oox-well's Teusts. KiNLOCH-COOKE V. PUBLIC TE0STEE Joyce J. [1909] W. N. 227; [1910] 1 Ch. 63 — Settled estates. See under SETTLED La2vD — Estate Duty. — Settlement — Eeal estate — Trust for conver- sion — Failure of objects — Will — Elec- tion — Estate duty — Liability. See Settlement. 23. 28 . — Settlement estate duty — Estate con- tingently settled — Repayment — Finance Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict. o. 30), ss. 5, 8. Trusetes were directed to hold the residue of a trust estate for the truster's unmarried daughter in life-rent, and her children in fee, it being provided that if she had no children the fee should go as she might direct by any writing under her hand, and, failing such direction, to certain third parties. On the death of the truster in 1895 the trustees paid estate duty and settlement estate duty on the residue as a settled estate under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1894. The fiaughter died unmarried on Jan. 11', 1898. Pu her death estate duty was claimed and paid on the residue as an imsettled estate. In an action by the trustees for repayment of the amount paid as settlement -estate duty, on the ground that the estate was only settled contingently on the daughter leaving issue, and that this contingency had not arisen, held (affirming judgment of Lord Stormouth-Dar- ling), that as there was no enactment in the Finance Act, 1894, or otherwise entitling the trustees to repayment, they were not entitled to repayment. Smith (Watheeston's Trus- tees) V. Lord Advocate [1901] Ct. of SesB. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 167 — Settlement estate duty — Direction to pay. See under Will — Testamentary Ex- penses. 29. — Settlement of several estates to dif- ferent uses — Estates subject to mortgages of different amounts — Creation of term in one estate for purpose of discharging mortgages on all — Payment off df mortgages by trustees of term — Recoupment of estate duty by per- sons entitled to estate benefited — " Person en- titled to any sum charged " — Estate duty — Incidence — Finance Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict, c. 30), s. 14, sub-s. 1. By the Finance Act, 1894, s. 14, sub-s. 1, " In the case of property which does not pass to the executor as such, an amount equal to the proper rateable part of the estate duty may be recovered by the person, who being authorized or required to pay the estate duty in respect of any property has paid such duty, from the person entitled to any sum charged on such property (whether as capital or as an annuity or otherwise), under a disposition not containing any express provision to the contrary " : — Held, that a person entitled to the benefit of a trust for the application of the rents and ( 2223 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. C 222i ) aSVENUE (Estate Jinty')— continued. profits of an estate in the discharge of the in- oumhrances on his own estate was not a per- son " entitled to any sum charged " on such estate " whether as capital or as an annuity or otherwise " within the meaning of the sub- section. A testator settled his A., B., and C. estates to different uses in strict settlement, and limited his D. estate to trustees for a term of 1000 years, and subject to the term he settled the estate as to one moiety to the uses declared of the A. estate, and as to the other moiety to the uses declared of the B. estate. And he declared that the term of 1000 years was limited to the trustees upon trust to apply the rents and profits of the D. estate in the discharge of the mortgage debts and other gross sums charged upon the four estates or any of them : — Held, that the estate duty payable in re- spect of the D. estate was a first charge on that estate and was raisable by mortgage or sale theieiofi, and' (that the interest(lon any mortl- gage so raised was payable out of the rents and profits of that estate with no right of recoupment of either capital or income as against any other of the estates. In re Eael OF Stamfoed and Waeeingtost. Payne ii. Grey Warrington J. [1910] W. N. 114 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 83 ; [1910] W. N. 277 — Solicitor and client — Disbursements. See under Solicitok — Costs. — Succession duty. iSee also under REVBNnB — Succession Duty. — Succession duty — Gift of annuities " without any deduction except legacy duty." See Will — Testamentary Expenses. 2. 30. — Succession duty — Gift to a charitable society — Reservation df^ annuity to donor — Bona -fide 'purchase — Partial consideration — finance Aot, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict. o. 30), s. 2, guh-s. 1 (c) ; s. 3, sub-s. 2 — Succession Duty Aot, 1853 (16 ^ 17 Viot. c. 51), s. 7. In 1889 500Z. was paid to the directors of an unincorporated charitable society, in lieu of a legacy, and upon the terms of a resolutiojq of the directors of the society that the trustees of the society should be authorized to pay to the person from whom the 500L was re- ceived, and to his wife if she survived him, an annuity of 251. The annuity was not charged upon or secured by the property of the society, and was paid by the directors as one of the ordinary outgoings of the sociely. The- commercial value of the annuity in the year 1889 was 210Z. The payer of the 500Z. and his wife, who survived him, died after the date of the Finance Act, 1894. The Crown claimed that on his death estate duty became payable by the society on the 600Z. under s. 2, sub-s. 1 (c), of the Act ; and that on her death succession duty became payable on the 500Z. under s. 7 of the Succession Duty Act, 1853 :— Held, that the transaction was a gift and not a bona fide purchase of an annuity, and that consequently estate duty Was payable on EEVENUE (Estate TivXy)— continued. the full sum of 500?., without any reduction in respect of the value of the annuity. Held, also, that, the disposition of the 500i. not being a bona fide sale, succession duty was payable under s. 7 of the Succession Duty Act, 1853. Judgment of Phillimore, J., [1902] 1 K. B. 416, reversed. Att.-Gen. v. Johnson. C. A. [1903] W. N. 66 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 617 Xute. Followed hy 'SAAle.-y 3., Att.-Gen. v. Holden, [1903] 1 K. B. 832. See No. 19, above. 31. — Succession, duty — Settlement 'by Act oj Parliament — Restriction against alienation — Power of jointuring — Power of Sale — Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 58 —Finance Act, 1894 (57 f 58 Vict. c. 30), s. 5, sub-ss. 1, 2, 5 ; s. 22 — Succession Duty Act, 1853 (16 f 17 Viot. c. 51), ss. 2, 4. The power of sale conferred by s. 58 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, upon a tenant in tail in possession of lands settled by Act of Par- liament with a restriction upon alienation does not make such a tenant in tail a person cap- able of alienating the lands so settled within the meaning of sub-s. 5 of s. 5 of the Finance Act, 1894, which provides that where lands are so settled by Act of Parliament that no one of the persons successively in possession thereof is capable of alienating the same, the property passing on the death of any person in possession of the lands shall be the interest of his successor therein, and such interest shall be valued for the purpose of estate duty in like manner as for the purpose of succession duty. Estate duty payable under sub-s. 5 of s. 6 is payable out of income and not out of capital. By a private Act passed in the reign of Henry VjCII. to give effect to la family arrange- ment with reference to Lord Broke's estates, a portion of the estates was settled upon his two daughters A. and E. and the heirs of their bodies as co-parceners with cross-remainders between them, and it was provided that no tenant in tail should alienate the estates except for the purpose of jointuring a wife — an exception which the Court construed as implying a power in the tenant in tail under the existing law to jointure by will. Owing to the failure of the heirs of the body of A. the entirety of these estates had now become vested in the heirs of the body of B. The Crown claimed (1) that estate duty was payable on the death of each tenant in tail in possession under sub-s. 5 of s. 6 of the Finance Act, 1894 ; (2) that upon the grant of a jointure by will succession duty was payable by the widow, either under s. 2 or under s. 4 of the Succession Duty Act, 1853, in respect of one moiety of her jointure, on the footing that her interest was a succession derived as to one moiety from A., and as to the other moiety from E. as predecessor, it being conceded that as to the moiety derived from E. the succes- sion duty was covered by the payment of estate duty as provided by s. 1 of the Finance Act, 1894 .— Held, (1) that sub-s. 5 of a. 5 of the ( 2225 ) DIG£«T OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2226 ) REVENUE (Estate Duty)— eo»im«ed. Pinance Act, 189i, applied ; (2) that decessor of the join tress was either husband or E., the lineal ancestress of band, and that no succession duty was In re Bolton Estates Aot, 1863. Joyce J. [1904] 2 Ch. 289 — Tenant for life — Instalments, Duty by — Interest on unpaid duty- on inheritance. See Settled Land — Duties the pre- her own the hus- payable. payable -Charge 1. — Testamentary expenses. See under Will — Testamentary Ex- penses. — Will — Testamentary expenses. See uBder Will — Testamentary Ex- penses. Excise. InlaTuL Revenue Departmenli. Exoise Licences to which s. 6 of the Finance Act, 1908, ajipUes. Memorandum as to tlie Acts relating to the powerx of Citmniissioners of Inland Bereime and their officers i/i relation to such licences, and In pvocfedinijs for the recovery of penalties imposed hy siu)h Ads. Oct., 1908. il908 T.— (Miscellaneous). Price Id. 1 . — Beer — Licence to sell beer by retail — Soliciting or taking order at place other than that specified in licence — Inland Revenue Act, 1867 (30 ^ 31 Vict. c. 90), s. 17. A grocer, having an excise licence for the sale of beer by retail at one of his shops, took an order for beer at another of his shops in respect of which he had no such licence : — Held, that he was liable to the penalty im- posed by s. 17 of the Inland Revenue Act, 1867, upon persons who, without having a proper excise licence authorizing them so to do, take orders for spirits, wine, or other articles, for the dealing in, retailing, or selling whereof an excise licence is by law required. Elias v. Dunlop Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 266 2. — " Dealer in spirits " — Licence — Duty — Sale of spirits out of bond for ship!s stores — Excise Licence Act, 1825 (6 Geol. 4, c. 81), s. 2. A ship's stores merchant, who sells spirits out of bond to foreign-going vessels as ships stores, is a " dealer in spirits " within the meaning of s. 2 of 6 Geo. 4, c. 81, and must, therefore, for that purpose take out the excise licence required by that statute. Tinwell v. Mayhook Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 790 3. — Saccharin—Excise licence — Manufac- ture of saccharin — Prescribed booh — Finance Act, 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. 7), s. 9— Revenue Act, 1903 (3 Edm. 7, c. 46), s. 2— Regulations {No. 633 of, Stt. R.^0., 1904). The " manufacture of saccharin " in the Finance Act, 1901, and the Revenue Act, 1903, means the " bringing into being as saccharin." The appellants subjected certain " 330 saccharin " (i.e., saccharin 330 times as sweet as sugar) to a chemical process, the result of which was that in some cases " 550 saccharin " (i.e., saccharin 550 times as sweet as sugar) was produced!, in others a mixture sweeter EEVENUE (Zxcwe)— continued. than 330, but not so sweet as 550 saccharin, and in a few cases a mixture less sweet than 330 saccharin : — Eeld (per Bray and Darling JJ., Ridley 0. dissenting), that the appellants were not manufacturing saccharin within the meaning of the Finance Act, 1901, so as to be compelled to take out the excise licence required by s. 9 of that Act and a. 2 of the Revenue Act, 1903, and to obtain from an ofiicer of Inland Revenue a book such as is prescribed by the Regulation No. 633 of the Statutory Rules, 1904, inasmuch as the substance the appellants dealt with was always saccharin both before and after their treatment of it. McNicoL v. Pinch Div. Ct. [1906] W. N. 143; [1906] 2 K. B. 332 4. — Spirits — Baitraction of spirits from loood of empty cask — Possession of spirit/ naturally exuding from wood of cask—" Ex- tracted "—Finance Act, 1898 (61 ^ 62 Vict, c. 10), s. 4, sub-s. 1. By s. 4, sub-s. 1, of the Finance Act, 1898, "A person shall not (a) subject any cask to any process for the purpose of extracting jany spirits absorbed in the wood thereof ; or (&) have on his premises any cask which is being subjected to any such process, or any spirits extracted from the wood of any cask " : — Beld,^ that, in order to convict of jthe offence of having on the premises spirits extracted from the wood of a cask, the spirits must have been extracted either by an active process intentionally applied to the cask for that pur- pose, or by allowing the cask to remain in a position where it would be affected by the external temperature, with the knowledge that the temperature would cause the spirits to exude from the wood and collect in the bottom of the cask ; but that the innocent possession of spirits which had, owing to the operation of natural causes and without any intent on the part either of the owners or of their servants, exuded from the wood and collected at the bottom of the cask did not amount to the possession of spirits " extracted " from the wood of the cask within the meaning of the section. Beld, further, that the owners of the cask would be liable under the section for the in- tentional act of their servants, though com- mitted without their own knowledge or ap- proval. Robinson Beothebs v. Dixon Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 701 House Daty. 1 . — Exemption — Business premises — " Profit " — Mutual insurance society — Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1878 (41 ^ 42 Viat. c. 15), !. 13, sub-s. 2. The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1878, s. 13, sub-s. 2, exempts from inhabited' house duty " every house or tenement occupied solely for the purpose of any trade or business, or of any profession or calling by, which the occupier seeks a livelihood or profit." The Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assur- ance Society had no share capital and no ( 2227 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2228 ) REVENUE (House Jixi.ty)—coiitin'iied. shareholders. Its membership consisted exclu- sively of the holders of policies of life insur- ance effected with the society, and of the pur- chasers of annuities from it. The bulk of the members were the holders of " participating " policies, i.e., members who were entitled to share in the surplus assets of the society as brought out at each septennial investigation of its affairs ; but a small proportion of the policy holders and all the annuity holders (who also were proportionally few in number) had no such right of participating in the sur- plus assets. The society did not directly in- sure, or grant annuities to, persons who were not members of the society, but it reinsured the risks of other life insurance companies. Its accumulated funds, which were of very large amount, and from which it derived a large income, were invested in stocks, shares, and other securities, and it also, to a small extent, purchased reversions. The society having claimed exemption from inhabited house duty under the above enact- ment in respect of premises which it occupied solely for the purposes of its business, the surveyor of taxes maintained that the exemp- tion founded on did not apply, in respect that the society, being a .mutual insurance society, could make no trade or business profits, or at all events, if it did to some extent make trade or business profits, that it did not occupy the premises for the sole purpose of making such profits : — Held, that the premises in question fell within the exemption, in respect that they were solely occupied by the society for the pur- poses of its business by which it sought to make a profit. Observed, that the word " solely " in the statute qualified the word " occupied " and not the words " any trade or business," &c. New York Insurance Co. v. Styles, (1889) 14 App. Gas. 381, and Mtiat v. Shaw Stewart, (1890) 17 Rettie, 371, distinguished. Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Asstjkanoe Society V. Allan (1900) 3 Eraser, 129 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1901] W. N. 185 2 . — Exemption of houses occupied for trade — Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1878 (41 |- 42 Vicf. c. 15), s. 13. The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1878, s. 13, sub-s. 2, enacts : " Every house or tenement which is occupied solely for the purposes of any trade or business or of any profession or calling by which the occupier seeks a livelihood or profit shall be exempted from the duties [on inhabited houses j by the said Commrs. upon proof of the facts to their satisfaction." A house, consisting of two storeys, was occupied by the owner — the lower floor as a public-house, and the upper floor as a dwell- ing-house. The only access to the public- house was from the street. The only access to the dwelling-house was by a separate entrance from the street : — Held (reversing judgment of First Division, (1898) 25 Bettie, 1040), that the public-house REVENUE (House Jinty')— continued. was not subject to assessment for inhabited house duty, in respect that it was either (1) |a separate house which was not a dwelling-house in the sense of the House Duty Acts, or (2) a separate tenement exempted from assessment by the Act of 1878. Geant v. LangstoN',- (1900) 2 Eraser, 49 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1901] W. N. 186 [A report of this case on appeal to the House of Lords will be found in [1900] A. 0. 383.] mitc. Followed by Swinfen Eady J., Ilford Park Estates, LA. v. Jacols, [1903] 2 Ch. 522. See Biilldi7ig. 3. — Income tax — Inhabited house duty — ^Annual value adopted for preceding year— Conclusiveness. See Revenue — Income Tax. 20. 3. — Inhabited house duty — Different tene- ments occupied solely for business — Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1878 (41 ^ 42 Vict, c. 15), s. 13, sub-ss. 1, 2. The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1878, enacts, s. 13, sub-s. 1 — " Where any house being one property shall be divided into and let in different tenements, and any of such tenements are occupied solely for the purposes of any trade or business .... the commrs. may give relief from duty. (2) Every house or tenement which is occupied solely for the purposes of any trade or business, or of any profession or calling by which the occupier seeks a livelihood or profit, shall be exempted from the duties [on inhabited houses] by the said commrs. upon proof of the facts to their satisfaction, and their exemption shall take effect although a servant or other person may dwell in such a house or tenement for the protection thereof." A house of four storeys owned by a bank was occupied as follows ; — The first floor by a firm of vTTiters to whom it was let, and the other three floors by the bank, the ground floor being used as the offices of the bank and the second floor as the official residence of the bank accountant. Access to all the floors from the street was by a door which opened into a vesti- bule. In the vestibule there was a door to the bank office, a front stair leading to the first floor, and a door to a passage leading to the bank agent's room and to a back stair, which was the access to the second floor. There was a door between the two stair's which was kept locked. The first and second floors were each shut off from the staircase by outer doors on the landings. From the bank agent's house on the second fioor there was a bolt in connection with the lock of thei safe in the bank office. The whole house, with the exception of the first floor, having been assessed for inhabited house duty, the bank appealed, and maintained that the ground floor being occupied solely for the business of banking was entitled to exemp- tion : — Held, on the facts, that there were such means of internal communication and such structural connection between the bank offices ( 2229 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2230 ) REVENUE (House H-aij^—coiitmued. and the house of the agent, and also such Iden^ tity of occupation, that the bank premises could not be regarded as a separate tenement in the sense of s. 13 of the Customs and Inland Eevenue Act, 1878. Union Bank op Scotland v. Inland Bevenue Commrs. (1901) Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 174 4. — " Inhabited dwelling-house " — Ocou pation — Bouse not lived in during year oj assessment — Bouse Tax Act, 1851 (11 ^ 15 Vict. a. 36), s. 1. Where the owner of a house, who has lived in or let it as a furnished dwelLing-house, keeps it furnished and ready for habitation as a dwelling-house, he is assessable in respect thereof to inhabited house duty under s. 1 of the House Tax Act, 1851, notwithstanding that during the year of assessment no person has lived or slept in the house. Smith (StJHVEYOE or Taxes) v. Dauney - - Channell J. [1904] 2 K. B. 186 5. — Landlord's property tax — Inhabited house duty — Exemptions — " Almshotise " — " Bouse provided for the reception or relief oj poor persons " — Borne for ladies in reduced circumstances — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5^6 Vict. 0. 35), s. 61, r. 6— Bouse Tax Act, 1808 (48 Geo. 3, c. 55), Sched. B, Case IV. A home for ladies in reduced circumstances was founded and endowed by a lady, who con- veyed it to trustees in fee simple on trust to appropriate and use it for that purpose. The inmates were to be ladies of fifty years old oi upwards, possessed or in the actual enjoyment of a fixed yearly income of not less than 26Z. and not more than 55Z. Each inmate was en- titled to the use of the common room, and to the exclusive use of an 'unfurnished bedroom and sitting-room, and to be supplied with coals, gas, and attendance free of cost ; the inmates provided their own furniture, food, clothingi washing!, and medical attendance ; ' the food was cooked and served by the staff. The income of the endowment fund was applied to the payment of salaries, servants, wages and board, repairs, upkeep of fabric and of house- hold and cooking utensils, and in providing gas and coals for the inmates and staff. There were no subscriptions to the home from the public : — Beld, that the institution was exempt from landlord's property tax and inhabited house duty, as being an " almshouse " within the meaning of 5 & 6 Tict. c. 35, s. 61, r. 6, and a " house provided for the reception or relief of poor persons " within 48 Geo. 3, c. 55, Sched. B, Case IV. Teustebs op Maey Clabk Home t'. Anderson - Channell J. [1904] 2 K. B. 654 6. — Offices belonging to and occupied with dwelling-house — Exemption in favour of build- ings occupied only for purposes of trade) w profession—iS, Geo. 3, c. 55, Sched. B, r. 2—57 Geo. 3, c. 25, s. 1— Bouse Tax Act, 1851 (14 ^ 15 Vict. 0. 36), Sched.— Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1878 (41 * 42 Viot. u. 15), s. 13, sub-s. 2. BEVENTJE (House 'Dtity')— continued. The respondent was the owner and occu- pier of a dwelling-house with its appurten- ances, and an office within the same curtilage as the dwelling-house, the office being used by him solely for the purpose of his profession as a solicitor. The dwelling-house fronted the public street, from which there was one common entrance both to the dwelling-house and the office by means of a passage under part of the dwelling-house to a yard at the back of the house ; the office had been built in the yard at a later date than the dwelling- house itself. The front door of the house was in the passage, and there was an outer door at the end of the passage nearest to the street which was open all day, but was shut and locked at night, when all communication was cut off between the street and the whole of the premises, including both dwelling-house and office. There was no structural communication or covered passage between the dwelling-house and the office, which latter could only be reached from the dwelling-house by crossing the yard : — Beld, that the office was occupied with and constituted part of the dwelling-house for the purpose of assessment to inhabited house duty, and that it did not fall within the exemption contained in s. 13, sub-s.. 2, of the Customs and Inland Eevenue Act, 1878, in favour of tene- ments occupied solely for the purposes of a trade, business, or profession. NlOHOLLS v. JIALIM Walton 3. [1906] 1 K, B. 272 7. — School buildings — " Other offices " — 48 Geo. 3, c. 55, Sched. B— -Bouse Tax Act, 1851 (14 4- 15 Vict. 0. 36). The appellant was the occupier of a dwell- ing-house and premises, which he used for the purposes of a boarding school. He also occu- pied adjacent buildings, which were separated from the first-mentioned premises by a wall. There was a door in the wall through which by means of a covered-in passage there was communication between the premises on each side of the wall. The adjacent buildings were respectively used as a chapel, a gymnasium, class-room, fives court, and for such like school purposes in connection with the boarding school, other than the ordinary purposes of a dwelling-house : — Beld (reversing the judgment of Philli- more J.), that the adjacent buildings must be included in the valuation of the premises for the purposes of inhabited house duty, as being offices belonging to and occupied with the dwelling-house within the meaning of rule 2 of Sched. B of 48 Geo. 3, c. 55. Browne v. EuETADO C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 723 — Trade, Exemption of houses occupied for. ^>c Xo. 2, atoce. 8. — Working classes. Dwellings for the — Exemption — " Separate dwellings " — Revenue Act, 1903 (3 Ed^o. 7, <,-. 46), s. 11, sub-s. 1 (a). The appellants were the owners of build- ings erected by them under powers conferred by the Housing of the Working Classes Act, ( 2231 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. C 2232 J) REVENUE QHoase Duty)— 6'o«i(s«K(;,/. 1890, for the purpose of providing accommo- dation for men of the working classes. The three upper floors consisted of separate sleep- ing rooms 01 cubicles arranged round a central hall ; not more than one man was allowed to occupy each cubicle, which could be locked on the inside. The ground floor contained dining and reading-rooms, lodgers' kitchen, lavatories, and washhouse, which were used in common by the occupants of the cubicles, and also the quarters of the superintendent and staff. Each occupant paid sixpence a night foi the use of the cubicle and of the other rooms and oflSces ; he was not admitted to a cubicle before 7 p.m. and was obliged to vacate it before 8.30 a.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. on Sundays ; smoking and the use of lights in the cubicles were strictly prohibited : — Held, that the cubicles, being only sleeping places, were not separate dwellings, and that the building, so far as it was used as a dwell- ing-house, was not used for the sole purpose of providing separate dwellings within the mean- ing of s. 11, sub-s. 1 (a), of the Revenue Act, 1903, and was not entitled to exemption from inhabited house duty. London CouNTy Coun- cil V. Cook Walton J. [1906] 1 K, B. 278 Income Tax. — Administration — Insolvent estate — Proof by creditor — Income tax — Method of calculation. See Administeation. 14. 1. — Allowances — Oharitable purposes — Ad- vancement of education — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5^6 Vict. c. 35), s. 61 ; Rule 6, s. 8f Ride 3, s. 105. The University College of North Wales was incorporated under a Royal Charter dated June 4, 1885. The object of the college, as set forth in the charter, was to provide in- struction in all the branches of a liberal edu- cation, except theology, and especially such instruction as might enable residents in the six counties of North Wales and elsewhere to qualify for degrees in arts, science, and other subjects, except theology, at the University of Wales (which was subsequently constituted by Eoyal Charter, dated November 30, 1903, and of which the University College of North Wales was made a constituent college) or at any of the universities of the United Kingdom for the time being empowered to grant degrees, and also to give such technical or other in- struction as might be of immediate service in professional or commercial life, and further to promote higher education generally. The deed of settlement provided that the property of the college, which was derived from voluntajy donations, subscriptions, be- quests, and an annual Government grant, was to be applied by the council of the college as to part to the general pur- poses of the college, and as to part to providing scholarships. The capital moneys of the college were invested in proper- ties covered by Scheds. A, C, and D of the Income Tax Act. The college h^d paid income EE VENUE Qlnoome T&x.)— continued. tax amounting in three years to 606 J., of which 120Z. was paid in respect of income derived from property which was the subject of specific trusts, such as scholarships. The col- lege claimed an exemption in respect of the whole of its property. The Commissioners allowed an exemption in respect of 1201., but they refused to allow it in respect of the general revenue of the college. The Div. Ct. held ,([1908] W. N. 92), on the authority of Commissioners for Speoial Purposes of Income Tax v. Pemsel, [1891] A. C. 531, that the property of the college was vested in trustees for charitable purposes within the rules as to allowances imder ss. 61, 88, and 105 of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and that the college was therefore entitled to the exemption claimed in respect of the whole of its income, and they made absolute a rule nisi for a mandamus against the Commissioners. The C. A. dismissed the appeal, upon the ground that the case was covered by Commis- sioners for Special Purposes of Income Tom T. Pemsel, [1891] A. C. 531. Rex v. Commis- sioners FOR Special Purposes of Income Tax. Ex parte University College op North Wales C. A. [1909] W. N. 57 2. — Annuities, Sale of — Assessment on revenue from invested funds — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5^6 Vict. c. 35), Sched. D, s. 102— Income Tax Act, 1853 (16 ^ 17 Vict. c. 34), s. 40 — Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888 (51 ^ 52 Vict. c. 8), s. 24, sub-s. 3— Costs where Crovm litigant. By the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, s. 24, sub-s. 3, upon payment of any interest of money or annuities charged with income tax imder Sched. D and not payable or not wholly payable out of profits or gaius brought into charge to such tax, the person by or through whom such interest or annuities shall be paid shall deduct thereout the rate of income tax in force at the time of such pay-i luent, and shall forthwith render an account to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of the amount so deducted or of the amount deducted out of so much of the interest or annuities as is not paid out of profits or gains brought into charge. The appellant co. carried on the ordinary business of a life insurance co., including the granting of annuities. The co-partnership! con- tract of the CO. provided that every policy of insurance or other obligation should contain a clause declaring that the capital stock and funds of the co. should be the only fund answerable for any demand tmder such policy or other obligation. The co. had a very large annual income from interest, dividends, and rents, from which income tax was deducted at the source. The income from interest, divi- dends, and rents was ample sufficient to pay the annuities in full. The co. also had an income from premiums, but if the income from interest, dividends, and rents had been de- ducted from the co's revenue the trading of the CO. would have resulted in a quinquennium deficit. No formal appropriation of the in- come from interest, dividends, ^.nd rents ,w»s ( 2233 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2234 ) EEVEMJE (Income Ta,x)^couHnHfd. made in the books, nor was any partionlai fund specially charged with the payment of the annuities. In paying their annuities the CO. deducted the amount of income tax due in respect thereof and retained the amount of the tax so deducted : — Seld (reversing the decision of the First Division of the Court of Session, (1909) S. C. 847), that the co. were entitled to retain for their own benefit the whole of the income tax deducted from the annuities, for where annui- ties are charged upon a tax-bearing fund from which the tax has been deducted at its source and which is amply sufficient to pay them in full, although not set apart for that purpose, they cannot be held to be not " payable " or not wholly ' ' payable out of profits or gains brought into charge " within the meaning of the Act. Held, also, that the claim to the tax having failed, the Crown was liable for the costs in the Court below and in the House in the same manner as if the action had been between subjects. Edinburgh Life Assubance Co. v. Lord Advocate - H. L. (So.) [1909] W. N. 257; [1910] A. C. 143 3. — " An-miity " ■ — Purchase-money — Pay- ment by annual instalments with interest — ■ Income Tax Acts, 1842 and 1853 (5 JC 6 Vict. c. 35 ; 16 .^ 17 Vict. c. 34), Scheds. C and. D. The Secretary of State tot India had power by contract to purchase a railway, paying for the purchase the full value of all the shares or capital stock of the railway company, with the option of paying instead of a gross sum " an annuity " for a term of years, the rate of ini terest to be used in calculating the annuity being determined in a specified way. The Secretary of State purchased the railway and exercised the option to pay an annuity instead of a gross sum. The annuity was paid half- yearly, each payment representing, as to part, an instalment of the purchase-money, and as to the rest, interest on the amount of the pur- chase-money unpaid : — Held, that the Income Tax Acts do not tax capital as income, and that income tax was payable only upon that part of the annuity which represented interest on the unpaid pur- chase-money. The decision of the C. A. i[1903}W.iN.' 37 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 194, affirmed. Seoeetaky of State in Council of India v. Scoble C. A. [1903] IK. B. 494; H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 116 ; [1903] A. C. 299 Xntc Undistinguishable, Mast India Ry. Co. T. Secretary oj State in Council of India, C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 413. See next Case. 4. — Annuity — Sale of railwoA/ — Purchase- m.oney — Payment by annual instalments with interest — Income Tax Acts, 1842 (h If & Vict. c. 35) and 1853 (16 ^ 17 Vict. c. 34), Scheds. C and D. The East India Co. were, under contracts made between them and the pit. co., entitled BEVENUE (Income Tax) — continued. to purchase thiee rys. belonging to the pit. CO. at certain dates respectively for gross sums to be ascertained as therein provided, the East India Co. having an option, instead of paying the gross sum, of paying for the ry. by means of what was described as an " annuity " to be paid to the pit. co. for a term of years. The rights of the East India Co. under these con- tracts subsequently became vested in the deft. When the deft.'s right of purchase accrued as regards two of the rys., but before it accrued as regards the third ry., an arrangement was made between the pit. co. and the deft, for the purchase by the deft, of three rys. simul- taneously, in consideration of an annuity for a term of years calculated at the rate pf 61. 12s. 6d. per annum for every 1001. of the pit. co.'s stock commuted at 125Z. This amount of 61. 12s. 6d. was stated in an Act of Parlia- ment confirming the arrangement to have been arrived at on the basis of 51. 7s. 6d., part thereof being interest at the rate of H. 6s. per cent, per annum on the said amount of 125Z., and of a sum of 5s., other part thereof, being the amount required to be set aside and in- vested half-yearly in every year at a like rate of interest in order to produce by means of a sinking fund the capital sum of 1251. or thereabouts at the end of the term for which the annuity was payable. On payment of the annuity income tax had been deducted by the deft, in respect of the whole of the annual payment. The pits, contended that the deduc- tion should only have been of income tax in respect of so much of the payment as repre- sented interest on unpaid capital in accordance with the decision in Secretary of State in Council of India v. ScoMe, [1903] A. C. 299 (see preceding Case) : — Held, that the fact that the purchase of the rys. had been carried out by agreement, before the date at which the deft.'s right of purchase accrued as regards one of the rys., did not constitute a valid legal distinction between the present case and Secretary of State in Council of, India v. Seohle, [1903] A. C. 299, and that the pits.' contention was correct : Held, further, that it was not correct to treat the before-mentioned statement in the Act of Parliament as indicating what propor- tions of the annual sum were respectivelj) payable in respect of capital and interest on unpaid capital. East India Ky. Co. ■('. Seoeetaey of State in Council of India. C. A. [1905] 2 K. B. 413 5 . — Annuity or annual patyment — Deduc- tion of inccmie tax — Income Tax Acts, 1842 (5^6 Vict. c. 35), s. 102 ; 1853 (16 if 17 Viet. u. 34), s. 40 — Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881 (51 f)' 52 Vict. c. 8), s. 24, sub-s. 3. The pit., the owner of a leasehold interest expiring in 1912 in certain property which was sublet at a gross rental of 1925i. but sub- ject to the payment of a ground rent of 300Z. to the superior landlord, contracted with the defts. for the sale to them of his interest, the transaction being carried out by two deeds ( 2235 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901— I'JIO. ( 2236 ) REVENUE (Income Tax) — continued. of even date. By the first deed the pit. con- veyed and assigned the property to the defts. for the residue of the term, subject to the payment of the 300?. ground-rent to the superior landlord (which the defts. covenanted to pay), the consideration for the assignment being expressed to be the payment by the defts. of the sum of 1000^. to the pit. and the execution by the defts. of a deed of even date. By the latter deed the defts. covenanted vrith the pit. to pay him until the last day of the term the sum of 1625A per annum by quarterly payments ; no sum was fixed as the total amount to be paid. In making the quarterly payments the defts., acting under s. 40 of the Income Tax Act, 1853, and s. 24, sub-s. 3, of the Customs and Inland Kevenue Act, 1888, deducted income tax at the current rate, and the pit. sought to ]'ecover the amounts so deducted : — Held, that the intention of the transaction was that the pit. should continue to receive as income to the end of the term the same net amount that he had previously received as rent ; that the payments were payments of an annuity or other annual payment within the meaning of s. 40 of the Income Tax Act, 1853, and were not the payment of a fixed amount by instalments, and that the deductions in respect of income tax had therefore been pro- perly made by the defts. Chadwick v. Peael Life Insdhance Co. - Walton J. [1905] 2 K. B. 507 6. — Bank — Purchase of, btisiness of another bank — Establishment of branch — Sucdession to business — Income Tacs Act, 1842 (5^6 Viof. c. 35), s. .100, Sched. D, First and Second Cases, Bute 4. The respondent, a bank with a large capi- tal, whose head office was in London, and having numerous branches in England and Wales, purchased in 1899 the business and premises and other assets of the County of Stafford Bank, which had a comparatively small capital, and carried on business only at Wolverhamption. The respondents then for the first time opened a branch at that place upon the premises so purchased, and there carried on business with the manager and staff previously employed by the County and Staf- ford Bank. The profits and expenses of the business so carried on at Wolverhampton by the respondents were merged in those of their concerns as a whole, and there were no means of ascertaining whether there were any profits, or the proportion of increase or decrease, if any, in the profits of the respondents' bank, which had arisen from the business purchased as aforesaid. In the three years respectively subsequent to 1899, the respondents, in com- puting the arverage of their profits under the First Eule of the First Case in s. 100, Sched. D, of the Income Tax, 1842, did not include any profits earned by the County of Stafford Bank. Additional assessments were made upon them so as to include such profits, on the ground that there had been a succession by them to the business of the County of Stafford Bank within the meaning of the Fourth Eule REVENUE (Income Tax) — continued. applicable to the First and Second Cases in Sched. D. :— Beld (reversing the judgment of Eidley J., [1903] 2 K. B. 249), that there had been such a succession, and therefore the additional assessments were rightly made. Bell v. National Peovincial Bank of England, Ld. C. A. [1904] W. N. 3; [1904] 1 K. B. 149 7. — Benefice, Incumbent of — Perquisites or profits accruing by reaSion of office — Gramt by affiliated bramch of Queen Victoria Olergy Sustentation fund — Public office or employ- ment of profit — Income Tax Acts, 1842 (5^6 Vict. C. 35), :?. 146 ;i 1853 (16 '^ IT Vict. c. 34), s. 2, Sched. E. The appellant, a beneficed clergyman, received for several years an annual grant of money from a diocesan branch affiliated to the Queen Victoria Clergy Sustentation Fund, a body incorporated with the object of providing adequate remuneration for the beneficed clergy for the work done by them ; the fund was not intended to be merely a clerical charity. The funds of the diocesan branch were adminis- tered by a council whose aim was to raise the incomes of all benefices under 200^ per annum in value to that amount. The council did not take into consideration the personal circum- stances of the particular incumbent, but the onus rested upon the applicant of deciding whether his own circumstances justified him in applying for a grant. The incumbent of a benefice of less than 200^. a year was not necessarily entitled to a grant, but the giving, withholding, continuance, and discontinuance of grants out of the funds were matters wholly within the discretion of the council. Where a benefice fell vacant during the year for which the grant was made, the giant was divided between the outgoing and incoming incumbent in proportion to the length of time for which each had been incumbent : — Held (reversing the decision of a Div. Ct., [1901] 2 K. B. 761), that the grants received by the incumbent from the diocesan branch were " perquisites or profits accruing by reason of his office " within the meaning of the first rule contained in s. 146 of the Income Tax Act, 1842, for charging duties under Sched. E, and that he was therefore liable to pay income tax under Sched. E upon them. Hbebeet v. McQuADE C. A. [1902] W. N. 140 ; [1902] 2 K. B, 631 8 . — Benefice, Incumbent of — Profits ac- cruing by reason of office — Easter offerings — Office or employment of profit — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 ^ 6 Vict. c. 35), s.146 ; S^ched. E, rr. 1 — 4. Voluntary Easter offerings of money given as a freewill gift to the incumbent of a bene- fice as such for his personal use are, if given for the purpose of increasing his stipend, assessable to income tax as " profits accruing to him by reason of his office " under Sched. E, r. 1, of the Income Tax Act, 1842. Decision of C. A., sub nom. Cooper v. Blakiston, [1907] 2 K. B. 688, affirmed. Blakiston v. Cooper H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 3 ; [1909] A. C. 104 ( 2237 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2238 ) BEVENTJE (Income Ta,K)~coii.tinued. 9. — Brewery, Profits of, — Deductions — Tied liceTised houses — Compensation charge — Licensing Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, o. 23), s. 8— Income Tax Act, 1842 (5^6 Vict. c. 35), s. 100 ; Cases 1 and 2, r. 1 ; Sched. D. A CO., which carried on the trade of brewers, were, solely for the purposes and as part of their business and as a necessary in- cident of the profitable working thereof, the owners of licensed houses which they let to tenants, who covenanted to buy all their beers from the co., and in consideration thereof the tenants paid to the co. a less rent than the annual value of the houses would warrant. By means of these houses, which were substan- tially part of the plant or outfit necessary to carry on the business profitably, the co. were enabled to earn increased profits, upon which they paid income tax. The co. were com- pelled, under s. 3 of the Licensing Act, 1904, to allow to &e tenants of the licensed houses certain deductions from rent in respect of the co.'s share of the annual compensation charge imposed on the licensed houses, and the co. claimed that, in arriving at the amount of the profits of their trade as brewers assessable to income tax, a deduction ought to be allowed in respect of the sum which they were com- pelled to pay for the compensation charge, as being an expense incurred in carrying on that trade : — Held by Cozens-Hardy M.E. and Parwell L.J. (Kennedy L.J. dissenting) that, on the facts as found by the Commrs. for the General Purposes of the Income Tax Acts, the sum which the co. were compelled to pay for the compensation charge was a payment neces- sary to enable them to earn profits as a brewery co. and might properly be deducted from the profits with a view to ascertaining the balance on which income tax had to be paid. Decision of Channell J., [1909] 1 K. B. 711, reversed. Smith (Sueveyok of Taxes) V. Lion Brewery Co., Ld. - - - C. A. [1909] W. N. 177 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 912 10. — Brewery business — Expenses of, ap- plications for new licences — Deductions — Balance of profit — Income Tax Aot, 1842 (5 i^ 6 Vict. e. 35), s. 100, Sched. D. The respondents, a brewing co., with the view of increasing their trade, were in the habit of making applications to the licensing justices for new licences to houses owned by them or in which they were interested. It was the practice of the licensing justices to require the applicant for a new licence to offer to surrender an existing licence as a preli- minary to the grant of a new one ; and in order to meet this requirement the respon- dents were in the habit of paying certain annual sums to the holders of certain existing licences for the right to call for a surrender of those licences if the justices required it. The sums so paid, together with the other expenses incidental to their application for new licences (such as law costs and the cost of printing and advertising), the respondents claimed, in those EEVENUE (Income Tax) — continued. cases in which their applications for new Ucences were unsuccessful, to deduct as a necessary annual trade expense in the compu- tation of their profits and gains in their trade as brewers for the purposes of income tax : — Held, that the sums so expended were employed as capital in the trade, and that the deduction, consequently, could not be allowed. Southwell v. Savill Brothbbs, Ld. Div. Ct. [1901] W. N. 120; [1901] 2 K. B. 349 — Business carried on in the colony or profits received. See New Zealand. 20. 11. — Charge upon property in excess Of^ annual value — Interest on borrowed money — Right to deduct and retain income tax — Iii- terest " paid out of profits or gains brought into charge " — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5^6 Vict. c. 35), s. 60, No. IV., r. 10— Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888 (51 ^ 52 Vict. e. 8), s. 24, sub-s. 3. The London County Council i^ bound to pay income tax under Sched. A upon the annual value of property occupied by the council, and cannot deduct it out of the amount of income! tax which is payable in respect of their con- solidated stock, and for which the council is bound to account to the Crown. Thei decisions of Channell J., [1904] 2 K. B. 635, and of the C. A., [1905] 2 K. B. 375, reversed. Att.-Gen. «. London County Coun- cil H. L. (E.) [1907] "W. N. 73 ; [1907] A. C. 131 — Colony, Transactions of purchase in — Profits on sales in London — Agency commis- sion — ^New Zealand Land and Income Tax Assessment Act, 1900. See New Zealand. 21. — Company — Debenture — Deficient security — Principal or interest — Appropriation of payment — Income tax. See CoMPAiiY — Debentures. 8. — Company — Directors' fees. See Company — Directors. 16. 12. — Company — Exemption — Income not exceeding 160Z. — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 ^ 6 Vict. c. 35), s. 163~Finance Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. c. 30), s. 34. A limited co. registered under the Com- panies Acts is not exempt from liability to the payment of income tax by reason merely of its income not exceeding 160Z. a year. Mylam v. Market Haeboeouqh Advertiser Co. Fhillimore J. [1905] 1 K. B. 708 13. — Company — Interest ffom foreign in- vestments — Receipt in the United Kingdom — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5^6 Vict. c. 35), s. 100, Sched. D, Fourth Case — Income Tax Act, 1853 (16 ^ 17 Vict. c. 34), s. 2, Sched. D, s. 5. Interest aiising from foreign securities and paid abroad is not "received in the United Kingdom " within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, 1842, s. 100, Sched. D, Fourth Case, and is therefore not chargeable with income tax under that clause, unless it is remitted to the United Kingdom. ( 2239 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2240 ) BEVENTTE (Income Tat)— continued. A life assurance society carried on business at home and abroad, the head office being in London, where the accounts and balance-sheet^ were made up, the profits ascertained and the dividends paid. The interest upon the society's foreign secniities paid abroad was received there by their agents, and part of it was applied abroad for the purposes of the society. All the interest on foreign securities was taken into account in the balance-sheets upon which the profits were ascertained : — Held, that taking the interest into account was not equivalent to a receipt in the United Kingdom, and that income tax was not charge- able upon that part of the interest which was not remitted to the United Kingdom. The decision of the C. A., [1901] 1 K. B. 153, reversed. Geesham Life Assueance Society, Ld. v. Bishop - H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 106 ; [1902] A. C. 287 JVote. Disapproved of by Ct. of Sess. (6c.) , Standard Life Assurance Co. v. Allan, [1902] W. N. 176. See No. 26, lelow. 14. — Oompcmy — IrvoestmenU by oompamy in the Colony — TaaxMe income — Victorian In- come Tax Act, 1895, ss. 5, 10. Sect. 10 of the Victorian Income Tax Act, 1895, provides a special mode of computing taxable income in favour of those cos. which, not having their principal office or place of business in Victoria, nevertheless have part of their " receipts or assets and liabilities " within the Colony : — Held, that by the true construction of that section, the appellant co., in order to have the benefit thereof, must shew that it carries on part of its trade in the colony ; the above expression representing the component parts of a trading co.'s balance-sheet : Held, further, that the appellant being a mutual insurance co. which did not insure or otherwise trade in the colony, but only in- vested certain funds there, was not within the section. Its income derived from its Victorian investments was taxable income under s. 5 in the mode applicable to tajfpayers generally. Scottish Pkovident iNSTiinTiON v. Commis- sioner OF Taxes P. C. [1901] A. C. 340 15 . — • Company — Besidence — " Person re- siding in the United Kingdom." — Company registered abroad — Head office and directing povjer in United Kingdom — Income Tarn Act, 1853 (16 ^ 17 Vict. c. 34), s. 2, Sehed. D. A CO. registered abroad, but having its head office in London, where the meetings of the directors are held and where the directing and controlling power is exercised, is assessable to income tax on the whole of its profits as " a, person residing in the United Kingdom " within the meaning of s. 2, Sched. D of the Income Tax Act, 1853. GoBEZ & Co. v. Bell Channell J. [1904]iW. N. 70 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 136 16. — Company resident in United Kingdom — Preponderating mujority of shares in com- pany abroad — Control — Income Tax Act, 1842 (6 I 6 Vict. c. 36), s. 100, Sehed. D, Gate 1. BEVENUE (Income Tax) — continued. An English co. carrying on business in the United Kingdom owned 98 per cent, of the shares in a foreign co., which gave it a pre-i ponderatiug influence in the control, eleotioM of directors, &c., of the foreign co. The re- maining shares in the foreign co. were, how- ever, held by independent persons, and there was no evidence that the English co. had ever attempted to control or interfere with the management of the foreign co. : — Held, that the foreign co. was not carried on by the English co., nor was it the agent of the English co., and that the English co. was not, therefore, assessable to income tax under the first case of Sched. D of 5 & 6 Vict, c. 35, B. 100, upon the full amount of the profits of the foreign co. Judgment of Phillimore J., [1902] 2 K. B. 450, affirmed. Kodak, Ld. v. Claek C. A. [1903] W. N. 37 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 505 17 . — Company resident in United Kingdom — Shares held in foreign company — Control — Income Ttix Act, 1853 (16 ^ 17 Viof. o. 34), Sched. D. An English co. carrying on business in the U. K. was the holder of all the shares in a German co. : — Held, that that fact alone did not make the business of the German co. the business of the English CO. so as to render the English co. Liable to income tax under Sched. D. of 16 Jc 17 Vict. c. 34, upon the full amount of the profits made by the German co. ; and that the English CO. was only liable to pay income tax upon such profits of the German co. aa had been received in this country. Decision of Walton J., [1906] 2 K. B. 856, affirmed. Geamophone and Typeweitee, Ld. v. Stanley C. A. [1908] W. N. 88 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 89 Note. Followed by C. A. Salmon v. Quin ^ Axtens, Ld., [1909] 1 Ch. 311 ; H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 442. See Company— Directors. 12. — Deduction of income tax — Separation deed — Alimony — Annuity. See next Case. 18. — Divorce — Separation deed — Alimornif — Ded/uctUm of, income tax — Indome Tax Act, 1842 (5^6 Vict. c. 35), ss. 102, lOi— Income Tax Act, 1853 (16 ^ 17 Vict. a. 34), s. 40— Annuity. ' A divorce suit was compromised by the parties agreeing upon a deed of separation, whereby it was referred to an arbitrator to determine the amount of the wife's alimony, and, the arbitrator having fixed the amount, the husband, by a supplemental deed, cove- nanted to pay the annual sum awarded by the arbitrator to trustees in trust for the wife : — Held, that the annuity was payable less income tax. Decision of Kekewich J., [1906] iW. N. 68 ;i [1906] X Ch. 768, affirmed. In re Baeey's Trusts. Baeey v. Smaet - - c. A. [1906] W. N. 153 ; C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 368 — Duty of trustee to deduct income tax — Annuity. See Teustee— Income Tax. 1. 4c ( 2241 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2242 ) REVENUE (Income Ta.x)~-contm-ued. 19. — Gas company — Standard rate of divi- dend — Payment of dividend free of income tax —Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 .^ 6 Viet. v. 35), ss. 40, 54, 60, Sched. A, No. iii., r. 3. " By the special Act of a gas co. it was provided that the profits to be divided among the shareholders in any year should not exceed a given rate : — Held, that in arriving at the rate of divi- dend the profits ought to be calculated as in- clusive and not exclusive of the amount pay- able for the year in respect of income tax. The decision of the C. A., Att.-Gen. v. Ashton Gas Co., [1904] 2 Oh. 621, affirmed. AsHTON Gas Co. v. Att.-Gen. - H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 10 — Incumbent of benefice. See Nos. 7, 8, above. 20. — Inhabited house duty — Annual value of premises — Premises let on lease — Covenant by lessor to pay fire insurance premium — Be- duction — Annual value adopted for preceding year — Conclusiveness — Finance Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, e. 4), s. 6, sub-s. 3 — House Tax Act, 1808 (48 Geo. 3, c. 55), Sched. B— House Tax Act, 1851 (14 ^ 15 Vict. o. 36), ss. 1, 2 ; Sched.— Income Taa Act, 1842 (5 ,)(• 6 Vict. c. 35), s. 60, Rule No. 1 — Income Tax Act, 1853 (16 ^ 17 Viot. 0. 34), s. 2, Sched. A. By s. 6, sub-s. 3, of the Finance Act, 1905 (which is a common form provision in the finance Act of most years), " the annual value of any property which has been adopted for the purpose, either of income tax under Scheds. A and B. in the Income Tax Act, 1853, or of inhabited house duty, during the year ending on April 5, 1905, shall be taken as the annual value of such property for the same purpose during the next subsequent year," but this provision is not to apply to the metropolis : — ' Held, that the annual value adopted for the preceding year was by the above provision made conclusive of the annual value of the property during the next subsequent year for income tax and inhabited house duty. Semble, where the lessor of premises cove- nants to pay the fire insurance premium thereon, a deduction in respect of the premium so paid cannot be made from the rent payable to him by the lessee for the purpose of arriv-^ ing at the annual value of the premises for assessment to income tax under Sched. A and inhabited house duty. Tuenbe v. Caelton Channell J. [1909] 1 K. B. 932 21. — Insurance {Fire) — Deductions for un- expired risks — Fire insurance company. A CO. carrying on the business of fire, sick- ness, accident, and guarantee insurance (as distinguished from life insurance) is not en- titled, in estimating the balance of its profits chargeable with income tax, to deduct or make any allowance for estimated risks unexpired at the end of the year. Scottish Union and National Insurance Co. V. Inland Revenue, (1889) 16 R. 461, and Imperial Fire Insurance Co, v. Wilson, (1876) 36 L. T. 271, affirmed. REVENUE (Income Tax) — continued. Decision of the First Division of Ct. of Sess., (1907) S. 0. 1004, affirmed. Geneeal Accident, FniE, and Life AsstrRANCE Coe- POEATION, Ld'. v. MoGowan - H. L. (Sc.) [1908] W. N. 9S ; [1908] A. C. 207 22. — iTisurance, Premium on life — Deduc- tion— Income Tax Act, 1853 (16 ^ 17 Vict, c. 34), s. 54. Wliere under a life insurance poHcy the insurer advances the annual premium to the assured as a loan on the security of the policy, and gives him receipts for the premium as " paid," the assured is not entitled to deduct the amount of the premium from his profits and gains under Sched. D. of the Income Tax Act ; for it is not in fact " paid by him' " within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 34), s. 54. So held by the Earl of Halsbuiy L.C. and Lords Macnaghten, Davey, Robertson, and Lindley, Lord James of Hereford' dissenting. The decision of the 0. A., [1903] 1 K. B. 514, affirmed. Hunter v. Rex - H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 66 ; [1904] A. C. 161 23 . — Interest of money ■ — OompcTisation fund — Deposit in a bank — Assessabiliiy of quarter sessions — Payment of interest without deduction of tax — Liability of payee — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 I" 6 Viet. c. 35), ss. 40, 43 ; Sched. D — Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888 (51 |- 52 Vict. c. 8), s. 24, sub-s. 3— Licensing Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 23), s. 3 ; Licensing Rules, 1904, r. 60. Quarter sessions, as the compensation authority under the Licensing Act, 1904, are assessable to income tax in respect of the in- terest payable upon so much of the compensa- tion fund as is placed upon deposit in a bank. Sect. 24, sub-s. 3, of the Customs and In- land Revenue Act, 1888 — which provides that upon payment of any interest of money charged with income tax under Sched. D-, and not payable out of profits or gains brought into charge to such tax, the person paying the interest shall deduct thereout the rate of in- come tax in force, and shall render an account to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of the amount so deducted, and such amount shall be a debt from such person to the Crown — does not relieve the person to whom the in- terest is paid from liability to pay the income tax where the tax has not been deducted by the person who pays the interest, but merely gives an additional remedy to the Crown against the latter person. Glamoegan Qtjae- tek Sessions v. Wilson - - Bray J. [1910] 1 K. B. 725 24. — Interest or annuities — Deduction of income tax from — Customs and Inland Re- venue Act, 1888 (51 ^ 52 Vict. c. 8), s. 24, sub-s. 3. In paying the dividends on their consoli- dated stock out of the Consolidated Loans Fund, the London County Council are bound under s. 24, sub^s. 3, of the Customs and In- land Revenue Act, 1888, to account to the Crown for the income tax which they deduct ( 2243 ) DIGEbT OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2244 ) EEVENUE (Income Tat)— continued. from the dividends, so far, only as the divi- dends are not paid out of their income v^hich has already, been charged' with, income tax. Where the dividends are paid partly out of rents and profits from their- lands charged with income tax under Sched. A, partly out of in- terests on loans to local authorities charged with income tax under Sched. D and (where those receipts are insufficient) partly out of moneys raised b-y rates, the! council are entitled to retain for their own benefit so much of the deduction for income tax which they make on the dividends as is equal to the income tax paid both under Sched. A and Sched. D. Decision of 0. A., [1900] 1 Q. B.. 192, re- versed. London ConNTY Codncil v. Att.- Gbn. H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 26 — Interest on borrowed money — Charge upon property in excess of annual value — Eight to deduct and retain income tax. See No. 11, above. 26 . — Investments — Colonial investments, Interest from — Remittances not identified, at capital — Income Tone Aot, 1842 (5 .^ 6 Vict, c. 35), s. 100, Sched. D, Case 4. By s. 100 of the Income Tax Act of 1842 it is provided that the duty chargeable under Sched. D, Case 4, in respect of interest from " securities " in the Colonies, &c., is to be com- puted on the sums which have been, or will be, received in Great Britain in the current year. A mutual life assurance society with its head ofBce in Edinburgh, and where its man- agement was exclusively vested in directors, sent to Australia for investment down to the end of 1898 a total sum of 1,504,000Z. The total remittances made to this country to the same date was 716,500?., while the total funds in Australia, including accumulated interest and deducting all Australian expenses to the same date, was 1,822,207?. The funds still re- maining in Australia thus exceeded by 318,207?. the sums sent there for investment. The amount remitted to this country from Australia in 1898 was 217,350/. All ;this except 6000?. was intermixed with the society's funds in Australia, and the society did not shew in their statement that the balance of 212,330?. was in fact capital sent home : — Held, affirming the decision of the First Div. of the Gt. of Sess., (1901) 3 F. 874, that the Income Tax Commrs. had rightly charged the 212,350?. with income tax. Scottish Peovident Institution v. Allan H. I. (Sc.) [1903] W. N. 86; [1903] A. C. 129 — Licensing Acts. See under Licensing Acts. 27. — Master— Assistant master at school — Increase of, salatry — Uability to income tans — Scheme for provident fund — Income Tax Acts, Sched. E. At a meeting of the Commissioners, S., an REVENUE (Inoome lax)— continued. assistant master, appealed against an assessment made upon him, under Sched. E of the Income Tax Acts, in the sum of 385?., in respect of his emoluments as assistant master received from the governors of the college for the year ending April 5, 1901, on the ground that the assessment included 35?., not liable to taxation, being the amount placed to his credit by the governors under a provident fund scheme for the year 1900. S. was an assistant master having not less than five years', but less than fifteen years' service. The scheme in question provided with re- spect to such assistant masters that " the fol- lowing increase of salaries shall be granted from the date on which the scheme came into operation, subject to the conditions hereinafter mentioned " — (a) An increase of 5 per cent., and (c) a, further addition of 5 per cent, from the same date, subject to the conditions that an assis- tant master having less than ten years' service, who resigned his appointment or from any other cause than ill-health ceased to belong to the college, should be entitled to receive the total increase sanctioned by (a), and the accu- mulations thereof, 'but should not be entitled to receive the additional increase sanctioned by (c), or the accumulations thereof, and that any master who was removed for, or had to resign on account of, misconduct should not receive the additional increasefeanctionedt by ((0 oi. the accumulations thereof. By other provisions of the scheme all assistant masters were required to become members of the fund at the expira- tion of five years from their respective ap- pointments. The increases of salary provided by the scheme were not to be paid to the masters, but were to be retained by the governors and accumulated at compound in- terest for the purpose of forming the provi- dent fund. Masters who had serVed ten years or upwards, and who retired before the age of sixty for any other cause than misconduct, were to receive the total sums due to them under (a) and (c), and the accumulations thereof. The additional increase of salary pre- scribed by (c) remaining unissued was to re- main a credit to the fund fox the purpose of enabling the governors to deal with excep- tional cases requiring and deserving assist- ance : — Held, that the true effect of the scheme was to add 35?. to the salary of the respondent^ and that he was liable to pay income tax upon that sum under Sched. E. Smith (Sobvetob OP Taxes) v. Steetton - Channell J [1904] W. N. 90 28. — Mortgage — Imterest at 5 per cent, per annum, payable in lump, sum at uncertain date — Deduation of income tax — " Yearly interest " —Inoome Taos Act, 1853 (16 ^ 17 Vict. c. 34), s. iO— Revenue (No. 1) Act, 1864 (27 * 28 Vict. c. 18), s. 15. By a mortgage of June 1, 1888, the mort- gagor covenanted that on his death or on his son's death, whichever event should first happen, he, his executors, administrators, or 4c 2 ( 2245 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2246 ) REVENUE (Income Iilk)— continued. assigns, would pay to the mortgagee the prin- cipal sum secured, together with simple in- terest thereon at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum, reckoned from Aug. 10, 1887, up to the time of such death, and, if the aggre- gate amount of such sum and interest or any part thereof should not then be paid, would pay interest on the unpaid part by equal half- yearly payments, the first of such payments to be made at the expiration of six' calendar iiLOnths from the death of the mortgagor or his son, whichever event should first happen, and would make these payments without any de- duction. The mortgagor predeceased his son and died in 1906. His executor paid to the mortgagee interest on the aggregate sum, con- sisting of principal and interest found due at the mortgagor's death. He now proposed to pay off the aggregate amount due on the mort- gage, and he claimed the right in doing so to deduct income tax on so much of the aggregate sum as represented interest. Held, that the interest had not been capi- talized by the contract between the parties; that, inasmuch as the interest was calculable by the year, it was " yearly interest " within s. 40 of the Income Tax Act, 1853, although it was payable in a lump sum at an uncertain date ; and that the mortgagor's executor was entitled to deduct income tax. Bebb V. Bunny, (1854) 1 K. & J. 216, followed. Goslings ^ Sharpe v. Blake, (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 324, distinguished. In re Obayen's MORTOAGE. DaVIES V. CbAVEN Warrington J. [1907] W. N. 187 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 448 29. — Neglect to deliver "a true and cor- rect siatCTnent "-^Property and income tax — - Return of pro-fits under Sched. D — " Deliver statement as aforesaid " — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5^6 7iot. c. 35), ss. 52, 55. The respondent, being required by s. 52 of the Income Tax Act, 1842, to deliver " a true and correct statement in writing " of his gains and profits under Sched. D, delivered an in- correct statement, not fraudulently, but (as the jury found) negligently, that is to say, not to the best of his judgment and belief accord- ing to the rules : — Held, that the penalty imposed by s. 55 of the same Act for neglecting " to deliver any statement as aforesaid " is not limited to a tase of non-delivery, but is applicable also to the present case. Decision of the C. A., [1909] 1 K. B. 694. reversed and decision of Lord Alverstone C.J. restored. Att.-Gex. v. Till H, L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 249; [1910] A. C. 50 — New South Wales Land and Income Tax Assessment Act, 1895 — Default assess- ment conclusive unless questioned under the Act. See New South Wales. 31. 30, — Nitrate grounds situate Ubroad — Pro- fits and gains — Deduction to meet exhaustion of material — Deduction on account of diminu- EEVENtTE (Income Tax) — continued, tion of capital — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 .^ 6 Vict. a. 35), s. 100, Sched. D ; First Case, r. 3 ; s. 159. An English co. owned land abroad which they had bought for a la,rge sum, and where they carried on a manufacture of nitrates and iodine by working up certain deposits found on the land. In estimating their yearly profits and gains from the sale of the nitrates and iodine for assessment to the income tax under Sched. D : — 'Held, that the co. were not entitled to make any deduction in respect of the exhaustion of the deposits. The decision of the C. A., [1905] 1 K. B. 184, affirmed. Aliauza Co. f. Bell H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 168 ; [1906] A. C. 18 31. — Prohibition — Jurisdiction of Commis- sioners for district — Trade carried on partly in Great Britain — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 ^ 6 Vict. a. 35), ss. 106, 108, 111—117. An English co., incorporated under the Companies Act, had its registered ofBce in the district of Clerkenwell, and there carried on a business, in respect of the profits of which they were chargeable to income tax under under Sched. D by the Commrs. for that dis- trict. For the purpose of the assessment of the CO. in respect of their profits, the Commrs.^ drew the inferences of fact that, having regard to the relations existing between the co. and an American co. trading at Rochester in the United States, the bulk of the shares in which was held by the English co., the business and profits of the American co. were technically the business and profits of the Eng'lish co. , that the head, seat, and directing power of the co. were at the registered ofEce in London, and that, if the profits of the business carried on at Rochester were technically the profits of the American co., that co. was for all pur- poses the agent of the English co. The English CO. applied for a virrit of prohibition; to the Commrs. to prohibit them from assess- ing that CO. in respect of the profits of the American co., on the ground that the business of the American co. was not in truth the busi- ness of the English oo., and that the Commrs. therefore had not, and could not by an erro- neous decision on the facts give themselves, jurisdiction to assess the English co. in respect of the profits of that business : — Held, that, the Commrs. having jurisdiction under the Income Tax Act, 1842, s. 106, to assess the English co. to income tax in respect of profits of a business, carried on either whoUv or in part only in Great Britain, they had for the purposes of that assessment jurisdiction to decide all questions of fact necessary for ascertaining the amount of those profits, and therefore prohibition would not lie, the proper remedy, if the decision of the Commrs. were wrong in point of law, being by appeal upon a case stated. Rex v. General Commrs. of Taxes for the District OF Clerkenwell C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 879 32. — PutUc offices or employment of profit — Incumbent of iene/ice — Orantfrom QueenViotoria Clergy Sustenance Fund — Income Tax Acts, 1842 ( 2247 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2248 ) BEVENUE (Income Tax:)— continued. (5 4^ 6 Vict. c. 35), «. 146 ; 1853 (16 ,]• 17 V\ct. c. 34), 5. 2, ScheA. E. The Court was of opinion that the grant was not in the nature of a personal gift to the par- ticular incumbent, but was a grant in augmenta- tion of the value of the benefice ; they therefore held that the amount of the grant was charge- able with income tax under Sched. B as being profits accruing by reason of the appellant's office or employment and reversed the decision of the Div. Ct., [1901] 2E;.B. 761. HsKBEETr. McQUADB C. A. [1902] W. N. 140 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 631 33. — Mendence — " Persons residing hi the United Ki'ngdom'" — Company resident abroad — Head offices abroad — Genen'al meetings abroad — Directors'' meetings in England and abroad — Majority of directors in England — Company's business in England and abroad — Income Tax Act, 1853 (16 ^- 17 Vict. c. 34), o. 2, Sched. D. A foreign corporation may reside in this country for the purposes of income tas. The test of residence is not where it is registered, but where it really teeps house and does its real business. The real business is carried on where the central management and control actually abides. Whether any particular case falls within that rule is a pure question of fact, to be determined not according to the construction of this or that regulation or by-law, but upon a scrutiny of the course of business and trading. Decision of the C. A., [1905] 2 K. B. 612, affirmed. De Bbbes Consolidated Mines, Ld. 11. Howe (Sueveyoe of Taxes) H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 168 ; [1906] A. C. 455 34. — Salary — Deductions — Contribution to Thrift Fund — Sum payable or chargeable by virtue of Act of Parliament — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 # 6 Vict. c. 35), s. U6— Manchester Cor- poration Act, 1891 (54 <^- 55 Vict. c. covii.'). A municipal corporation were by a local Act empowered to establish a fund for the encourage- ment of thrift among their officers and servants, and with a view to providing a sum of money which, in the event of the retirement or death of any person in the service of the corporation, who had contributed to the fund, should be available for himself or his representatives, and to frame a scheme for that purpose. By a scheme framed by the corporation in pursuance of the Act, it was provided that persons in the service of the corporation should respectively contribute to the fund a certain percentage of their salaries, to be from time to time deducted from those salaries by the corporation. In accordance with the requirements of the Act, the scheme provided that the amount so contributed by each con- tributor should be repaid with interest to him, upon his retirement from the service of the cor- poration, or in the event of his " death in that service," to his personal representatives : — ■ Held, that amounts deducted in pursuance of the scheme from the salaries of persons in the service of the corporation did not come within the words " sums payable or chargeable on the same by virtue of any Act of Parliament where the same are really and bona fide paid and borne EEVENTJE (Income Tax)—contimied. ■ by the party to be charged," and therefore they could not be deducted from the amounts of the salaries for the purpose of assessment to income tax under Sched. E. Appeals from judgments of Phillimore J., [1902] 2 K. B. 298. HUDSON*. Geibble. Bell V. Geibble C. a. [1903] W. N. 37 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 517 — Sale of annuities — Assessment on revenue from invested funds. See jVo. 2, above. 35. — Sewer — Vested in local authority — "Hereditament" — '^ Capaile of a,ctual occupa- tion"— Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 Sj- 6 Viet. c. 35), s. 60 ; Sclicd. A, Mules I, III A sewer was made, controlled by, and vested in a local authority in pursuance of statutory powers. It was rated to the poor rate. The local authority made no profit or gain out of it. The cost of making and maintaining it was paid for by a public loan repayable by annual instal- ments. The moneys for the repayment were found partly by contributions levied from neigh- bouring district councils whose sewage went through the sewer and partly from rates ; and this was the only income. Upon an assessment to income tax as to a portion of the sewer : — Held, that the local authority was chargeable to income tax in respect of the annual value of that portion of the sewer as a hereditament capable of actual occupation under the Income Tax Act, 1842, s. 60 ; Sched. A, Eule I. Decisions of Walton J., [1906] 1 K. B. 294, and of the C. A., [1907] 1 K. B. 490, affirmed. ysteadtpodwg and pontypridd main Sewekagb Boaed v. Bensted H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 149 ; [1907] A. C. 264 36. — Thames, River — Exemption — Existing tax — Thames Co?iservancy Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict. c. clxxxvii.), s. 289. Sect. 289 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1894, provides that, "notwithstanding anything in any Act," the properties therein mentioned shall be exempt from all pari, rates, taxes, and payments whatsoever. The respondents, the conservators of the river Thames, claimed exemption under this section from the payment of income tax for the years 1905 and 1906 in respect of properties within the section. The surveyor of taxes contended that, income tax being an annual tax, the income tax for the years 1905 and 1906 was not a tax existing at the date of the passing of the Thames Con- servancy Act, 1894, and that the respondents were, therefore, not entitled to the exemption claimed : — Held that, though income tax is in form an annual tax, the income tax payable in the years subsequent to 1894 must, for the purpose of the exemption, be deemed to be a tax which was existing at the date of the passing of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1894, and that the respon- dents were, therefore, entitled to the exemption claimed. Stewaet r. Thames Consbeyatobs Bray J. [1908] 1 K. B. 893 ( 3249 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2250 ) REVENUE (Income Teit)— continued. 37. — Trade — Balance of profits — Deduc- tions — Jia'penses incurred in earning profits — Loss arising from Tiegligence — Hotel — Injury to guest — Damages — Income Tax Act, 18i2 (5 4' 6 Vict. 0. 35), s. 100 ; Sohed. D. A brewery oo. owned an inn which was carried on by a manager as part of their busi- ness. A customer sleeping in the inn was injured by the fall of a chimney, and recovered damages and costs against the co. for the injury, which was owing to the negligence of the co.'s servants. Held, that the damages and costs could not be deducted in estimating the balance of profits for the purpose of the income tax, the loss not being connected with or arising out of the trade, and not being money wholly and exclu- sively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade. Decision of the C. A., [1905] 2 K. B. 350, affirmed. Stbong & Co., or Eomsby, Ld. e. WOODIPIBLD (SUEVBTOB OF TAXES) H. 1. (E.) [1906] W. N. 169 ; [1906] A. C. 446 38. — Trade, Manufacture, ^-c, ProfiU of — Average of three years preceding year of assess- ment — Trade first set up within period of three years — Single ship company — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5^6 V\ct. c. 35), *. 100 ; Sched. D, Case 1, r. i. By s. 100 of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and by case 1, r. 1, in Sched. D of that Act, duty to be charged in respect of any trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern in the nature of trade, not contained in any other schedule of the Act, is to be computed on a sum not less than the full amount of the balance of the profits or gains of such trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern upon a fair and just average of three years, end- ing on such day of the year immediately preced- ing the year of assessment on which the accounts of the said trade, manafaoture, adventure, or concern are usually made up, or on April 5 preceding the year of assessment ; provided always, that in cases where the trade, manufac- ture, adventure, or concern has been set up and commenced within the said period of three years, the computation is to be made for one year on the average of the balance of the profits and gains from the period of first setting up the same. A limited co. registered under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1904, was formed to purchase and trade with a certain steamship mentioned in the memorandum of association and, in the event of the loss, sale, or disposition of that vessel or of any vessel subsequently acquired, to acquire from time to time some other steamship, but so that the CO. should not own at any one time more than one ship ; and the oo. was to carry on the business of shipowners with respect to such steamship. The articles of association provided that there should be a manager of the co. iu lieu of directors ; that the manager might insure the steamship for the time being owned by the co. ; and that he might in the event of the loss of the steamship for the time being owned by the cc, with the approval of the shareholders, buy another steamship out of the proceeds of the insurances of the ship so lost, or he was to divide REVENUE (Income Tax)-^cnntmued. and pay the net proceeds of the insurances rate- ably amongst the shareholders and wind up the CO. The CO. acquired the steamship mentioned in the memorandum of association and traded with her from 1901 till April 1, 1906, when she was lost at sea. In May, 1906, the manager of the CO., with the approval of the shareholders, pur- chased a second steamship out of the proceeds of the insurances on the first. On Oct. 17, 1906, the CO. commenced trading with the second steamship : — Held, that the co. carried on one trade or adventure throughout with the two ships in suc- cession, and that the trade or adventure which they carried on with the second ship was not first set up on Oct. 17, 1906, when that ship began trading. Therefore, for the purpose of assessment to income tax for the year 1907-8, Held, that the co. were to be assessed on the balance of their profits and gains on an average of three years preceding the year of assessment, and not for one year on the average of the balance of the profits and gains from Oct. 17, 1906. MBKOHISTON STBAMBHIP Co. ;:. TUBNEK Bray J. [1910] 2 K. i. 923 39. — Trade, Profits of — Deduction for depre- ciation of plant iy wear and teai — Customs and Iidand Revenue Act, 1878 (41 Jj' 42 Vict. c. 15), *. 12. By s. 12 of the Customs and Inland Eevenue Act, 1878, income tax commrs., in assessing trade profits or gains, are to allow " such de- duction as they may think just and reasonable as representing the diminished value by reason of wear and tear during the year of any machi- nery or plant used for the purpose of the concern and belonging to the person or co. by whom the concern is carried on." A firm of shipowners owned a fleet of vessels of the average age of thirty-one years. Prior to the year of assessment there had been allowed yearly from the gross profits assessed to Sched. D an amount by way of deduction for diminished value by reason of wear and tear, and sums amounting in the aggregate to 96 per cent, on the first or prime cost of the vessels (including such sums as had been expended upon them by way of addition or repairs other than ordinary annual repairs) had been allowed : the existing, or breaking-up, value of the vessels during the year of assessment was more than 4 per cent, of the first or prime cost. There was no agi-eemeut between the shipowners and the commrs. that the allowance for depreciation should be calculated on the basis of its being an allowance which would at the end of a period of years, taking into account the break- ing-up value of the vessels, replace the ship- owner's' capital, and that after that date no further allowance should be made : — Held, that the commrs. were bound under s. 12 to consider to what e.xtent there had been a diminution of value by reason of wear and tear during the year of assessment and to decide what was a just and reasonable allowance to make in respect of such depreciation, and that ( 2251 ) DIGEST OF CASE8, 1901—1910. ( 2252 ) REVENUE (Income T&x^—ouidmued. they were not entitled to take into account the allowances made in previous years : — JSeld, also, that a hulk, which had formerly been a sailing-ship, but which had been dis- mantled and had had its rudder removed and was used as a floating warehouse for coal, was " plant " within the meaning of the section. John Hall, Jun. & Co. v. Rickman Walton J. [1906] 1 K. B. 311 — Traders (Association of) for keeping up prices — Deductions. See next Case. 40. — Traders — Deductions — Association of traders for Tieeping up prices — Payments made hy trader to association — ^^ Money wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the pwposes of stich trade " — Income Tax Act, 18i2 (5 4' 6 Vict. c. 35), s. 100, Cases 1 and 2, r. 1 ; Sohed. D. The appellants, who were manufacturers of steel hoops, were, with two other firms who carried on similar businesses, members of an association, called the Steel Hoop Manufacturers' Association, which was formed for the purpose of keeping up prices and thus enabling its mem- bers to earn larger profits by agreeing to adhere to fixed prices and thereby preventing competi- tion among themselves. By the rules of the asso- ciation each of the firms was entitled to a fixed percentage of the total orders ; the books of each firm shewing the quantities of steel hoops invoiced were to be audited every six months, and an account was then to be made up shewing the proportion due to each firm, and in the event of any firm having invoiced more than its proper percentage it was to pay into a pool the sum of 10s. on each ton of the excess, which amount the association distributed in due proportion amongst those firms who had invoiced less than their proportionate quantities. The appellants, in arriving at the amount of the profits of their trade assessable to income tax, claimed to deduct the excess of the total payments made by them to the association over the amounts received therefrom on an average of the three preceding years, such excess cousisting of the excess of payments to the pool over the receipts there from, and payments towards the administration expenses of the association : — Seld, that the excess so paid by the appel- lants was " money wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of" their trade within the meaning of r. 1 of the rules applicable to cases 1 and 2 of s. 100, Sched. D, of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and that therefore the appellants were entitled to the deduction claimed. Guest, Kben, & Nbttlefolds, Ld. V. FOWLEE Bray J. [1910] 1 K. B. 713 41. — Unincorporated association — Exemp- tion — Income not exceeding 160Z. — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 4-6 Vict. c. 35), ss. 40, 163, 168, \92—Finxmce Act, 1894 (57 | 58 Vict. c. 30), s. 34. An unincorporated association is not exempt from liability to the payment of income tax by reason of its income not exceeding 160Z. a year. Decision of the First Division of the Ct. of Sess. (as the Ct. of Exchequer), Scotland, (1904) BEVENUE (Income Xax)- 7 F. 119, reversed. Curtis r. Old Monkland CONSEEVATIVE ASSOOIATION - H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 3 ; [1906] A. C. 86 — Victoria — Validity of income tax imposed by a State on a Commonwealth salary. See ViCTOElA. 7. 42. — Water — Burgh watei-worlis — Profits of trading in water — Sale of water outside com- pulsory area — Application of profits to sinking fund. The local authority of the burgh of Irvine, in the exercise of their statutory powers, entered into contracts to supply with water the parish of Stevenston and the burgh of Saltcoats, districts outside the compulsory area of Irvine. The con- tracts provided that a sum should be payable annually by Stevenston and Saltcoats respectively, the amount of which, subject to a deduction of 10 per cent., was to be the amount produced by a compulsory water rate upon all assessable sub- jects within these districts, leviable by their own local authorities. The rate of assessment was to be the same as that from time to time imposed within its compulsory area by the local authority of Irvine : — Held, (1) that the sums payable by Stevenston and Saltcoats, although leviable in these districts as a compulsory rate, were, as regarded Irvine, the price of water supplied outside its compul- sory area, and that the surplus, so far as derivable from this source, was profit, and chargeable with income tax ; and (2) following Mersey Docks and Hariour Board v.lMcas, (1883) 8 App. Cas. 891, that it was not a valid ground of exemption that profit so earned was appropriated to a sinking fund. Haeris v. Irvine Buegh Coeporatiok-, (1900) 2 F. 1080 Ct. of Sess. (Se.) [1901] W. N. 182 Inhabited House Duty. See under Revenue — House Duty. Land Bevenue Beoords and Enrolments. See under Land Revenue Records AND Enrolments. Land Tax. See under Land Tax. 1. Land Values. Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910 — Increment Value Duty. Bules made J>y the Commissioners of Inland Bevenue under s. 3, sub-ss. 2 and 3. Reprint from W.N. 1910 (July 30), p. 257. See Current Index, 1910, p. civ. Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910 — The Land Values (Reference) Rules, 1910, dated July 25, 1910, made ly the Reference Committee for Eyigland under s. 33 of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910 (10 Fdw. 7, c. 8). Reprint from W. N. 1910 (Sept. 10), p. 881. See Cueeent Index, p. ovi. Landlord's Property Tax. — Exemptions— " Almshouse "—Home for ladies in reduced circumstances. See Revenue— House Duty. 5. ( 2253 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910, ( 2254 ) 'KEW'ESV'E.—coidiiiued. Legacy Duty. 1. — Krjjcftancij — AiifiUi itDient hy pcr.^on en- titled in e^rpci-tancy — Persons hating " an absolute interest therein" Who arc — Things gicen fn he enjoyed in snrces:.iun — Legacij Dutij Act, 1796 (36 &eo. 3, c. 52), s. 14. By s. 14 of 36 Geo. ?,, c. 52, no legacy duty shall be paid on articles or things not yielding any income, and given for the benefit of or to be enjoyed by difiereut persons in succession, whilst the same shall be so enjoyed in kind only by persons not having any power of selUng or dis- posing thereof so as to convert the same into money or other property yielding an income ; but if the same shall come to any persons "having an absolute interest therein," then legacy duty shall be chargeable and paid thereon by those persons. By the will of the second Marquis of Ailesbury certain articles and things were directed to be enjoyed as heirlooms by the person or persons for the time being beneficially entitled to the testator's mansion-house under the hmitatious of existing settlements. At the testator's death the mansiou-hoiise stood limited, under those settle- ments, to the use of the third Marquis for life, with the remainder to the use of Viscount Saver- nake in tail male, with remainders over. Subse- quently, by a resettlement made in the lifetime of the third Marquis, the estate tail in expectancy of Viscount Savernake was cut down to a life interest, with limitations over ; and the heirlooms were assigned to trustees upon trust to allow them to go, devolve, and remain as heirlooms, together with the mansion-house, according to the limitations of the resettlement. Viscount Savernake died, having survived the third Marquis : — Held, that the trustees of the resettlement were ijersous " having an absolute interest" in the articles and things within the meaning of s. 14, and were, therefore, liable to pay legacy duty in respect of them. ATT. -Gen. r. Bruob Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B, 391 Liability of legatee. See Annuity. 11. 2. — Settlement — Indemnity, Right to — Rever- sionary share — Settlement of part — Covenant for further assuranvc. In all cases of assignment of reversionary interests the legacy duty which becomes payable on their falling into possession falls, in the absence of express contract, on the assignee. Where the owner of a reversionary interest settles a .part of it, there is no rule which throws the burden of the legacy duty upon the part retained, and a covenant for further assurance does not bind the settlor to indemnify the settled fund against legacy duty. In re Ebpington. WODEHOUSB r. SOOBELL Farwell J. [1904] W. N. 88 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 811 Licences. See also under Plate. REVENUE— coaiiMMet?. Licensing Acts. — Licensing Acts — Compensation on non- renewal of licence — Mode of ascertain- ing value of licence. See under LlCENSllTG ACTS. Liquor Licences Duties. Finance (1909-10) Act. 1910. Liquor Licences Duties. Clubs, Reynlatiim.i, dated July 9, 1910, made by the Commi.ixioners of Customs and Excise under s. 48 (5.) of th-e Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910 (10 Sdw. 7, c. 8). Reprint from W. H. 1910 (Aug. 20_), p. 270. See CuEEBKT Index, 1910, p. cvi. Male Servants. See under Ebvbnub — Servants. Motor Cars. See under Motor Cars. National Debt. See under National Debt. Plate. 1. — Licence to deal in plate — Sale of pacliets of tea containing coupon.^ — Rri-es cons^isting of plate— Rercnue Act, 1867 (30 .<• 31 Vict. u. 90), ss. 1, 3. By 30 & 31 Vict. c. 90, s. 3, it is made an offence for a person to do any act or carry on any trade or business for which a licence to deal in plate is required without having a licence. The appellants sold packets of tea each con- taining a coupon, and gave notice that they would give prizes, consisting, amongst other things, of gold watches, for the largest number of these coupons presented to them by persons during a certain period : — Held, that this was a dealing in plate for which a licence was required, and that the appel- lants were, therefore, rightly convicted under the section. Scott & Co. v. Solomon Div. Ct. [1905] 1 K. B. 577 Practice. — Costs — Revenue cases — Special case — Costs before case 'put on file — Practice. See Costs. 52. Probate Duty. — Duty claimed on property subject to special power of appointment by deceased. See New South Wales. 28. — Estate duty — Exemption — Trust for con- version into realty — Payment of probate duty. See Revenue— Estate Duty. 8. — New South Wales Stamp Duties Act — Share , of deceased partner. See New South Wales. 32. — Specialty debt in New South Wales liable to duty in Victoria. See Victoria. 6. ( 2255 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2256 ) REVENUE (Probate B\itj)—contmued. — Will — Direction to pay out of specific fund — Will made before Finance Act, 189'1 — Death after Act — Estate duty. See Will — Testamentary Expenses. 20. Servants. 1. — Male servant — " House porter'" — Porter employed at Hook of flats — Employment in trade or Jnmness — Revenue Act, 1869 (32 <|- 33 Vict. 0. 14), ss. 18, 19. A male servant was employed as porter at a block of residential flats, whicli were let to different tenants. His duties were to attend, work, and clean the lifts, to keep the brasswork, staircases, front steps, and back yards clean, to take coals to the various flats, to bring down the dustbins by means of trade lifts from each flat, to attend in the hall and open the doors when necessary, and to call cabs or fetch carriages and carry luggage for the tenants : — Held, that the servant was a house porter and therefore a "male servant" within the definition of that term in s. 19, sub-s. 3, of the Revenue Act, 1869, and that therefore his employer was liable to pay the duty imposed in respect of him by s. 18 of the Act. There is no general exemption from duty contained in the Revenue Act, 1869, in respect of a male servant employed for the purposes of a trade or business. WhUeley v. Burns, [1908J 1 K. B. 705, considered. Mabchakt l: London County Council Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 148 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 379 2. — " Male servant " — Staile-boy — Appren- tice — Assessed taxes — Revenue Act, 1869 (32 ^' 33 Vicz. c. 14), s. 19, sub-s. 3. The employer of an apprentice under a bona fide contract of apprenticeship is not required to take out a licence for the apprentice as a male servant under s. 18 of the Revenue Act, 1869, even though the apprentice is employed in one of the capacities specified in the definition of " male servant " in s. 19, sub-s. 3, of that Act. HOEAN V. Hathob Div. ct. [1910] W. N. 14 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 288 3. — Male servant — Waitei — Coolt — Steward — Persons employed as in trading establishment — Customs and Inland Rerenve Act, 1869 (32 <5' 33 Vict. c. 14), s. 19. The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1869, which imposes a. tax upon male servants, is prima facie intended to apply only to servants employed in private establishments, and not to servants employed for purposes of trade, even though they may be employed in any of the capacities enumerated in the Act as being included in the expression " male servant." Whitelby r. Burns - Div. Ct. [1908] W. N. 42 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 706 Note. This case was discussed by Div. Ct., Marchani. V. London County Council, [1910] 2 K. B. 379. See yo, 1, above. Settlement Estate Duty. See under Revenue — Estate Duty, TU'EV'ESVE.— continued. Stamps. (Fees and Stamps.) Reduction of Stamp Duty on Marine Policies fm- a Voyage. Finance Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 16), ^. 5. 1. — ■ Agreement for sale — Goodwill — Agree- ment " made " in the United Kingdom — " Pro- perty locally situate out of the United Kingdom " —Stamp Act, 1891 (64 .^'- 55 Vict. c. 39)', i. 59, sub-s. 1. By s. 59, sub-s. 1, of the Stamp Act, 1891, any contract or agreement " made " in the United Kingdom for the sale of any estate or interest in any property "except lands .... or property locally situate out of the United Kingdom . . . . " is chargeable with the same ad valorem duty as if it were a conveyance on sale. An agreement is "made" in the United Kingdom within the meaning of that section if it is executed in the United Kingdom by a party to the agreement whose execution is required to make the instrument on the face of it complete. The words "property locally situate out of the United Kingdom " are not confined to realtj' and may include the goodwill of a business. An agreement in writing to sell the premises of a wholesale manufacturing business carried on abroad together with the goodwill of the business for a lump sum was executed by the vendor abroad and by the purchaser in England. The vendor covenanted not to engage in any similar trade within fifty miles of the existing premises. All the customers of the business were abroad : — Held, that the agreement was "made" in England, but (the Earl of Halsbury L.C. dis- senting) that the goodwill was " property locally situate out of the United Kingdom ' ' within the meaning of the section, and that the agreement was therefore not chargeable with the ad valorem duty. The decision of the C. A., [1900] 1 Q. B. 310, affirmed. Smslting Co. of Australia, Ld. v. Inland Revenue Commrs., [1897] 1 Q. B. 175, com- mented on. Inland Rbvbnvb Commbs. v. Mullee & Co.'s Margaeinb, Ld. H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 110; [1901] A, C. 217 — Bailiffs— High bailiff's fee. See under County Coukt — Bailiffs. 3. — Company — Capital of company — " In- crease of registered capital " — Stamp duty — Resolution of company authorizing directors to increase capital — Subsequent issue of shares by directors— Stamp Act, 1891 (54 ^j 55 Vict. u. 39), s. 112. By s. 112 of the Stamp Act, 1891, "a state- ment of the amount which is to form the nominal share capital of any co. to be registered with limited liability shall be delivered to the Regis- trar of Joint Stock Companies .... and a statement of the amount of any increase of registered capital now registered or to be regis- tered with limited liability shall be delivered to the registrar, and every such statement shall be charged with an ad valorem stamp duty of 2s. ( 2257 ) DIGEST OF CASES. 1901—1910. ( 2258 ) REVENUE (Stamps)— nudiimed. for every lOOZ oJ: the amount of such capital or increase of capital, as the case may be." The articles of association of a co. gave the directors power, with the sanction of a general meeting, to increase the capital of the co. by the creation and issue of new shares. A resolution was passed at a general meeting of the co. that " the directors be, and they are hereby authorized to increase the capital of the co. by an amount not exceeding the nominal sum of 5,O0O,000Z., by the creation and issue from time to time of new ordinary shares of U. each." The directors thereupon passed a resolution that " the capital of the CO. be Increased by 200,000?. by the creation and issue of 40,000 new ordinary shares of 5Z. each " ; on July 1, 1908, the directors passed a further resolution increasing the capital by 2,800,000?, The Crown claimed stamp duty under s. 112 of the Stamp Act, 1891, in respect of an increase of capital of 5,000,000?. The defts. contended that they were only bound to pay stamp duty in respect of an increase of capital of 3,000,000?., the amount of capital actually created and issued by the direc- tors of the CO. : — Held, that "registered capital " in s. 112 of the Stamp Act, 1891, meant authorized capital, i.e., maximum amount of capital which the co. had power to issue ; and that, by the resolution of the CO. there had been an increase of that capital by 5,000,000?., upon which sum ad valorem stamp duty was payable. Att.-Gen. t. Anglo-Aeoentine Tramways Co. Channell J. [1909] W. N. 53 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 677 3. — Company — ConsoUdatiu/i of flehentii.re stocli — Issue of loan capital — Stamp duty — Finance Act, 1899 (62 S, 63 Tict. e. 9), s. 8. Under the powers of their special Act a co. incorporated in the United Kingdom " modified the rights " of the holders of their existing debenture stock (which bore interest at 4 per cent.) by dividing it into two classes of deben- ture stock, A and B, in certain proportions, called in and cancelled the certificates of the existing stock, and gave to the holders certifi- cates of the new A and B stock (which bore interest at 3 per cent.) in such amounts as to give to each holder interest equivalent to his former interest. The interest on the B stock ranked next after the interest on the A stock : — Held, that this was an " issue of debenture stock " within the meaning of the Finance Act, 1899, s. 8. and that the co. were liable to the duties impo.sed by the Act. London and India Docks Co. v. Att.-Gen. H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 7 4. — Cottpany — Dehentm'e — Given in snh- stltution for a lUie security " — " Marlietable security"— Stamp Act, 1891 (54 S' 55 Vict. c. 39), Sclied. I. The appellant co., incorporated under the laws of Victoria, was formed to take over the assets and liabilities of two existing companies, one of which was a co. registered in England having an issue of debentures. The holders of these debentures by agreement delivered them REVENUE (Stamps)- coMi!i*me(?. up, and accepted in lieu thereof debentures of an equivalent amount issued by the appellant co. : — Held, that the debentures of the appellant CO. were not "given in substitution for a like security " within the meanintc of sub-head 4 of the heading " Marketable Security " in the 1st schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, and were therefore liable to bear stamp duty to the full amount. Judgment of Channell J.. [1904] 1 S.. B. 767, affirmed. Mount Lyell Mining and Ry. Co. r. Inland Revenue Commes. C. A, [1905] 1 K. B. 161 5. — Company — Deienture stock, Coiwolida- tioji of — Issue of loan capital — Stamp duty — Finance Act, 1899 (62 ,5- 63 Vict. c. 9), ,s. 8. By the special Act of the deft. co. three different debenture stocks of the 00., being re- spectively 3 per cent., 4 per cent., and 4J per cent, stock, and amounting to 411,852?., were extinguished, and in lieu thereof there was created a new 3 per cent, debenture stock. The holders of the original 3 per cent, stock received the same nominal amount of the new stock, and the holders of the 4 per cent, and 4J per cent, stocks received new stock to such nominal amount as at the rate of 3 per cent, would yield to the holder the same amount as was payable in respect of the stock previously held. The amount of the new debenture stock requisite to carry out the Act was 529,136?., and stock to this amount was inscribed in the names of the persons entitled thereto, and certificates were issued in exchange for the old certificates : — Held, that the new debenture stock was loan capital which the co. had proposed to issue within the meaning of s. 8 of the Finance Act, 1899 ; and that they were bound to deliver the statement of the amount proposed to be secured by the issue, and to pay the stamp duty imposed by that section upon such a statement. Judgment of Ridley J., [1903] 2 K. B. 86, reversed. Att.-Gen. v. Regent's Canal and Dock Co. - - C. A. [1904] W, N. 3; [1904] 1 K. B. 263 — Company — Preliminary expenses — Registra- tion fees — Stamp duty on capital — Pay- ment by promoter. See Company — Costs. 2. — Company — Winding-up — Voluntary liqui- dator — Duty to stamp and file contracts with respect to shares issued for a con- sideration other than cash. See Company — Wiading-up — Liqui- dator. 7. 6. — Company tvith liability limited otlienvise tliKii by i-eyist ration — Increase of amount of nominal share capital aiithorized by Act — Transfer of powers, liabilities, and immunities to another railicay company — Double duty — Stamp duty—Stamp Act. 1891 (54 S' 55 Vict, c. 39), s. 113. The G. Ry. Co. was incorporated by an Act of Parliament in 1899 with a capital of 2,400,000?., and duly paid the duty thereon under the Stamp Act, 1891. The B. Ry. Co. ( 2259 ) DIGEST OF GAMES, 1901—1910. ( ^2^0 ) REVENUE {Stamps.')— coiitimied. was incorporated by an Act of 1897 wilh a capital of 600,000;., and duly paid tlie duty thereon under the Act of 1891. By an Act of 1902 all the powers, rights, privileges, liabilities, and immunities of the G. Ey. Co, were trans- ferred to the B. Ey. Co., and the G. Ey. Co. was dissolved : — Seld, that by the transfer there was "an increase of the amount of nominal share capital of the B. Co. authorized by " the Act of 1902 to the extent of 2,400,000?., and that the duty thereon must be paid by the B. Ky. Co., under the Stamp Act, 1891. Ge^at Nobthekn, Piccadilly and Brompton Ry. Co. v. Att.-Gbn. H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 1 7. — Cunmyanoe — Contingency- — Ad valorem duty — Consideration — Consideration payable on contingency — Stamp Act, 1891, (5i S)' 55 Vict. c. 39), s. 56, sui-s. 2, s. 57. Part of the consideration for the sale of a co.'s assets to another co. was that the buying CO. should pay out of its profits to the selling co. an annual dividend of 3 per cent, upon capital issued, after paying to its own shareholders a 5 per cent, dividend upon its shares : — Held, that the dividend of 3 per cent., though payable on the contingency or more than one contingency, was " money payable periodically " within the meaning of the Stamp Act, 1891, a. 56, sub-s. 2. The decision of the C. A., [1905] 1 K. B. 174, affirmed. Ukdeegeound Electbic Ry. Co. Off London, Ld. v. Inland Ebvende Commes. H. L. (E.) [1906] W. N. 2 ; [1906] A. C. 21 8. — Conveyance on sale — Dissolution of com- pany and reincorporation by same Act — Vesting of property of old company in new — Finance Act, 1895(58 S- 59 Vict. c. 16), s. 12. By a special Act of Parliament a limited oo. was dissolved and reincorporated with additional powers, the property of the dissolved co. being thereby vested in the new co., and the share- holders being given stock of the new co. in substitution for the stock of the dissolved co. theretofore held by them : — Ifeld, that the property of the dissolved co. " vested by way of sale " in the new co. within the meaning of s. 12 of the Finance Act, 1895, notwithstanding that there was no contract of sale between the two cos. by reason of their never having been in existence at the same time. Att.-Gen. t: Felixstowe Gas Lioht Co. Bray J. [1907] 2 K. B. 984 9. — • Conveyance on sale — Family arrange- ment. By two deeds made between B. and H. (who was the heir to B.'s settled estates), after reciting that H. had undertaken the payment of the mortgages on the estates, and that B. was indebted to H. in certain sums, it was witnessed that in pursuance of a family arrangement B. conveyed to H. his unsettled estates subject to the mortgages, and also certain specified chattels ; but power was reserved to B. and H. to cancel, alter, or make void the family arrangements at any time : — Meld, that the deeds were conveyances on REVENUE (Stamps) — continued. sale, and were chargeable with ad valorem stamp duty. Marquess op Bristol v. Inland Revenue Commes. Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 336 10. — " Conveyance on sale " — Matter or thing to be done in the United Kingdom — Property in France — Conveyance executed in France — Con- sideration payable in England — Stamp duty — Stamp Act 1891 (54 ^' 55 Vict. c. 39), s. 1 ; s. 14, sub-s. 4 ; «. 54 ; Sched I. By a deed of " apport," executed in France, property in France was transferred by one English 00. to another English oo., the considera- tion for the transfer being shares in the latter CO. which were to be issued, and delivered to the former co. in England. Stamp duty having been claimed as on a " conveyance on sale " in Sched I. to the Stamp Act, 1891, on the ground that the instrument related to a " matter or thing to be done in the United Kingdom " within s. 14, sub-s. 4, of the Act : — Meld, that the instrument was a " conveyance on sale " within the meaning of the Act, and that it was liable to duty thereunder. Decision of C. A., [1906] 2 K. B. 834, reversed. Inland Revenue Commes. '«. MAfLE & Co. (Paris), Ld. - H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 244 ; [1908] A. C. 22 11. — "Conveyance on sale'" — Sale, what amounts to — Minerals under railway — Statutory obligation not to work — Receipt for compensation — Undertahing by mine owner not to work — " Might nut before in existence " — Stamp Act, 1891 (54 4- 55 Vict. c. 39), ss. 54, 60, Sched. I.— Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 4' 9 Vict. c. 20), ss. 78, 79. A colliery co., who were the owners of coal under and adjacent to a ry., gave notice to the ry. CO. under s. 78 of the Railways Clauses Con- solidation Act, 1845, of their intention to work the coal. The ry. co. thereupon gave notice to the colliery co. under the section that they were willing to make compensation for the coal. The amount of the compensation having been fixed by arbitration, the ry. co. paid that amount, and the colliery co. executed an instrument under seal by which they acknowledged receipt of the amount in satisfaction of all claims by them in respect of the coal, and undertook to leave the coal unworked : — Meld, that the instrument so executed was not chargeable with the ad valorem stamp duty payable upon a " conveyance on sale " under the Stamp Act, 1891. By A. L. Smith M.R., Collins L.J., and Stirling L.J. : The right of the ry. co. to have the coal left unworked came into existence when the notices were given under s. 78 of the Rail- ways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and there- fore that right was not a " right not before in existence" within the meaning of o. 60 of the Stamp Act, 1891, at the date of the instrument. By Collins L.J. and Stirling L.J. : The trans- action between the colliery co. and the ry. co. was not a " sale " of property or any interest in property within the meaning of the Stamp Act, 1891. Judgment of Div. Ct., [1899 J 2 Q. B. 652, ( 2261 ) DIGEST OF CASES. 1901—1910. ( 2262 ) REVENUE (Stamps)— cosiiwMe*?. affirmed. Great NoETHtp.K Ey. Co. r. Inland Revenue Commes. C. A. [1901] W. N. 21 [1901] 1 K. B. 416 12. — Conrcyujice dv transfer — Devixe of real estate — Assent in writi nrj of execvtur — Stamp Act, 1891 (54 4-.55 Vict.ord9'),s.62,a7idFirstSc/ted'ule —Land Iransfer Act, 1897 (60 A- 61 Vict. c. 65), ^. 3. By s. 3, sub-s. 1, of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, " at any time after the death of the owner of any land his personal representatives may assent to any devise contained in his will. . . " : — ITeld, that an assent in writing, made in pursuance of the above section under the hand but not under the seal of the executor, was not " an instrument .... whereby any property on any occasion, except a sale of mortgage, is trans- ferred to or vested in any person " within the meaning of s. 62 of the Stamp Act, 1891, and was, therefore, not liable to stamp duty as a conveyance or transfer. Kemp v. Ii^'las'D Revenue Cojimes. Phillimore J, [1905] 1 K. B. 581 13. — Foreclosure order before 1898 — Stump Act-, 1891 (54 .5- 55 Vict. c. 39), .v*. 51, 57— Finance Act. 1898 (61 .f 02 Vict. c. 10), s. 6. Sect. 54 of the Stamp Act, 1891, provides that " for the purposes of this Act the expression ' conveyance of sale ' includes . . . every de- cree or order of any Court .... whereby any property, or any estate or interest in any pro- perty, upon the sale thereof is transferred to or vested in a purchaser. ..." Sect. 6 of the Finance Act, 1898. provides that " for the removal of doubts . . it is hereby declared that the definition of ' conveyance on sale ' in the said s. 54 includes a decree or order for . . . foreclosure " : — Held that the later section was declaratory, and therefore retrospective, so that an order of 1896 foreclosing a legal mortgage required stamping as a '■ conveyance on sale " within the earlier section. Att.-Gen. v. Tlieolald. (1890) 21 55 Vict. c. 39), s. Vl.sub-s. 6 (b) ; s. 88 ,■ First Schedule, " Mortgage,'" iSr. (2) — Revenue Act, 1908 (3 £dic. 7,'c. 46), s. 7. By an indenture dated May 28, 1897, certain freehold and leasehold hereditaments were by direction of a brewery co., respectively conveyed and demised to trustees. The indenture con- tained a covenant to surrender to the use of the trustees certain copyholds, and an assignment to them of a goodwill and other matters. By the indenture it was agreed that the trustees should stand possessed of the hereditaments and pre- mises upon the trusts contained in an indenture dated May 20, 1897. The indenture of May 20, 1897, after reciting (inter alia) that the co. had determined to issue ( 2267 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 2268 ) BEVENUE (Stamps)— continued. certain debenture stock, to be constituted and secured as therein proTided, contained a covenant by the oo. with the trustees that the co. would cause the hereditaments to be forthwith con- Teyed to and vested in the trustees for securing the payment by the co. of the debenture stock and the dividends thereon, with a provision for reconveyance to the co. upon proof that all the stockholders had been paid off or satisfied and upon payment of all costs incurred by the trustees in relation to the indenture. The indenture also created a floating charge upon all the property and assets for the time being of the co. In addition to other provisions for the maintenance and enforcement of the security thereby created, the indenture contained (clause 33) a provision that if default should be made in keeping the mortgaged premises in a good state of repair and working condition, and so insured as in the inden- ture specified, the trustees might from time to time repair or renew, or insure (as the case might jequire), the mortgaged premises or any part thereof, and the co. would on demand repay to the trustees every sum of money expended by them for the above purposes, with interest at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum from the time of the same having been expended, and until such repayment the same should be a charge upon the mortgaged premises. The indenture was stamped with 2s. Sd. per cent, upon 230,000^., the amount to which the stock was limited, and 23,0002., the premium at which the stock was redeemable at the co.'s option. Debenture stock to the amount of 223,2002. was subsequently issued by the co. upon the security of the indentures : — Seld, that clause 33 of the indenture of iSIay 20, 1897, although one of the provisions referred to in the indenture of May 28, 1897, subject to which the trustees were to stand possessed of the hereditaments, did not make the latter indenture a security for money or stock without limit within the meaning of s. 12, sub-s. 6 (b), of the Stamp Act, 1891, and that therefore the Comrars. of Inland Revenue were bound to adjudicate the liability of the indenture to duty. Seld, further, that the indenture of May 20, 1897. was the primary security, and the indenture of May 28, 1897, a mortgage by way of further assurance, within the meaning of the head of the first schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891—" Mort- gage, Bond, Debenture, Covenant," sub-head (2) ^and that therefore, in addition to the duty to which the indenture of May 28, 1897, was liable as a conveyance ou sale, duty at the rate of 6d. per cent, upon 223,2002., the amount of the debenture stock issued, was payable upon it. Sect. 88 of the Stamp Act, 1891, contemplates that a primary security may be a deed on which, at the time it is executed, there has been no money lent or advanced. Sect. 7 of the Eevenue Act, 1903, is not retro- spective, and the duty which is payable on a deed is that which was payable at the date of its execution. Loed Stjffibld v. Inland Revenue Commrs. - Bray J. [1908] 1 E. B. 865 See also No. 19, above. REVENUE (Stamps) — oontinued. 28. — Settlement — Alteration of security by subseqnsnt deed — Stamp Act, 1891 (54 ^ 55 Vict. 0. 39), First Soiled. In the First Sched. to the Stamp Act, 1891, " settlement," defined as" any instrument .... whereby any definite and certain principal sum of money or any definite and certain amount of stock, or any security is settled or agreed to be settled in any manner whatsoever," is made liable to ad valorem stamp duty. By an ante-nuptial contract of marriage A. bound himself in the event of his wife surviving him to pay to her an annuity of 4002., and in security of said annuity A. bound himself and his heirs to infeft his wife in certain lands. The contract of marriage was impressed vrith a stamp duty and was adjudicated as duly stamped. Subsequently A. desired to sell the lands form- ing the security and his wife agreed to. consent to the sale on condition that the annuity was otherwise secured ; accordingly A. in place of the said security executed a deed by which he con- veyed to trustees certain property upon trust, for (inter alia) the payment of the annuity provided to the wife in her marriage contract and subject thereto upon trust for A. himself. The Crown claimed that the deed of trust was chargeable with an ad valorem stamp duty as being a " settlement " : — Seld (aflirming the decision of the First Division of the Ct. of Sess. (1909) S. C. 248), that the deed was not a " settlement " under the Stamp Act, 1891. Inland Revenue v. Oliver H. I. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 160 ; [1909] A. C. 427 29. — Settlement — Power of appointment — Exemption — Stamp Act, 1891 (34 ^- 55 Vict, c. 39), s. 106, Soiled. I. By a settlement funds were to be held by trustees on certain specified trusts for the benefit of the settlor's children. The settlement con- tained a provision that the trustees might at the request of any of the children revoke the trusts concerning that child's settled share, and resettle that share for the benefit of a certain specified class of persons. Ad valorem duty was paid on that settlement under the Stamp Act, 1891, Sched. I., head " Settlement." Subsequently, at the request of the appellant, who was one of the children, and in contemplation of his marriage, the trustees by deed revoked the trusts of the original settlement concerning his share, and declared that during his life it should be held on trust to pay the income to him, and on his death should be transferred to the trustees of his marriage settlement, which was of even date, upon the trusts declared concerning the same in that settlement. By the marriage settlement, to which the trustees of the original settlement were not parties, the appellant's share was settled on trusts which were within the power of resettle- ment given to the trustees under the original settlement ; — Held, that the case was not one in which several instruments were executed for effecting a settlement of the same property within s. 106 of the Stamp Act, 1891 ; and that the marriage settlement was within the Stamp Act, 1891, ( 2269 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910, ( 2270 ) REVENUE (Sta,mfB)—co)tti)i.ued. Sched. I., head " Settlement," and not within the exemption therein of an " instrument of appointment relating to any property in favour of persons specially named or described as the objects of a power of appointment," and that it was therefore, liable to ad valorum stamp duty. Judgment of a Div. Ct. (Kennedy and Philli- more JJ.), [1901] 2 K. B. 342, affirmed, BUSSBL V. Inland Revenue Commes. C. A. [1901] W. N. 235 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 142 — Sheriff's fees. See under Shehipf. — Solicitor, Payment by — Stamp duty on capital of company — Costs — Taxation. See SoLiciTOE— Costs. S. 30. — • Iramiuays — Lease — Repair of road — Payment ill lesseex in lieu of repair — Purchase of electrical energy from lessors — ^^Lease'" — "Bond or cotenanf" — ''Covenant relating to the matter of the lease"— Stamp Act, 1891 (64 Jf' .55 Vict. u. 39), s. 4; .s. 77, suh-s. 2, and Schedule, Title "Bond." I3y a lease of tramways to a traction co. by a municipal corporation, made pursuant to the Tramways Act, 1870, the co. were to pay rent at a fixed rate per cent, on the cost of the original purchase. They were also to pay to the lessors a given sum per mile of road along which the tram- ways were laid, in lieu of repairing 'any portion of isuch road, and maintaining the tramways, except the rails and electric bonds laid thereon. The minimum amount payable under this clause was 900i. per annum, and a power of distress was reserved in respect of it. They were also bound to purchase from the vendors all electrical energy required for the purpose of the tramways, and to pay for the same at a given rate, the minimum sum payable in any one year being 4000Z. On a case stated: — Held, that the 900Z. payable in respect of the repair of the road was rent, and that ad valorem duty was payable upon it under s. 4 of the Stamp Act, 1891: Held, also, that the 4000?. payable in respect of the supply of electriail energy was not rent, btit that it was payable under a covenant made in further consideration for the lease, and relating to the matter of the lease, within s. 77, sub-s. 2, of the Stamp Act, 1891, and that the instrument was not chargeable with ad valorem duty in respect of it. British Electeic Traction Co r. Inland Revenue Commes. C. A. [1902] 1 K. B.441 — Unstamped agreement — Evidence. See Company — Eeoonstruction, 3. Succession Duty. 1. — Acceleration of succession — Settlement — Power to appoint settled estate — Mcercise of power — Interest of appointee under settlement — New title -under apj)uintinent — Succession Buty Act 1853 ( 16 S,' 17 Vict. c. 51), .w. 2, 15. By a settlement made by a, father on the marriage of his son, who was a party to the deed an estate was conveyed by the father to trustees to such uses as the father and son should by deed jointly appoint, and in default of and until such appointment to the use of the father for life, and REVENUE (Succession Duty) — continued. after his decease to the son in fee simple in case he should survive his father ; but if he died in the lifetime of his father leaving a son who should attain the age of twenty-one years, then to the use of that son, and, if there was no such son who attained the age of twenty-one years, then to the settlor in fee simple. By a subse- quent deed the settlor and his son, in exercise of the power of appointment in the settlement, jointly appointed the estate to the son in fee. On an information claiming succession duty : — Held, that the son took the estate by a new title under the deed of appointment, and not by a succession the title to which had been accele- rated by the surrender or extinction of any prior interest within the meaning of s. 15 of the Suc- cession Duty Act, 1853, and that succession duty was not payable. Att.-Gen. o. Eabl of Sel- BOENE C. A. [1908] W. N. 241 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 388 — Annuities — Will — Republication by codicil after passing of aa Act. See Will — Testamentary Expenses. 2. 2. — Annuity payalle to trustee for settle- ment — New trustee appointed on death of former trustee — " Substitutive limitation " — Succession Duty Act, 1853 (16 <|- 17 Vict. c. 61), s. 2 — Estate Buty — Proferty passing on death — Exception — interest as " holder of an office " — Trustee— Finance Act, 1894 (57 S,- 58 Viet. u. 30), ,s. 2, Sub-s. 1 (S). By an indenture property was settled upon three named trustees upon trust that they and the survivors and survivor, and [the executors and administrators of such survivors, or other the trustees or trustee for the time being of the settlement (thereinafter called " the trustees or trustee "), should, so far as material, pay " an annual sum of 2001. each to the trustees or trustee while acting in the trusts by way of remuneration for their services, and in addition to any payments for professional services," and subject thereto upon trust to pay the income of the property according to the direction of the settlor during her life, with remainders over. The settlor during her life had power to appoint a new trustee or new trustees for the purposes of the trust. One of the orignal trustees died, having received the annual sum of 200Z. up to the date of his death, and the settlor appointed a new trustee in his pluce. The Groivn claimed succession duty upon the annual sum of 2001. to which the new trustee became entitled upon his appointment, and also estate duty and settle- ment estate duty upon the principal value of the capital fund yielding the annual sum of 2001 : — Held, (1.) that the new trustee did not become entitled to the annual sum of 2001. by reason of the settlement upon the death of the former trustee within the meaning of s. 2 of the Succession Duty Act, 1853, but by reason of the settlement coupled with the vacancy and his appointment as trustee, and that succession duty was not payable ; and (2.) that the interest which the deceased trustee had in the property was an interest only as holder of an office, namely, the office of trustee, within the exception in s. 3, sub-s. 1 (ft), of the Finance Act, 1894, and ( 2271 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 2272 ) RKVENTIE (Sucoessian Duty)— i that estate duty and settlement estate duty were not payable. Att.-Gbn v. Eyres ChanueU J. [1909] 1 K. B. 723 — Charitable society, Gift to a — Eeservation of an annuity to the donor — Bona, fide purchase — Partial consideration. See Kevenue— Estate Duty. 30. — Estate Duty See under Revenue — Estate Duty. 11. 3. — Mntail — Propulsion of fee — "-Accelera- tion" of succession — Suooession Jhity Act, 1853 (16^-17 Hci. c. 51), ss 2, 15. By s. 15 of the Succession Duty Act, 1853, " Where the title to any succession shall be accelerated by the surrender or extinction of any prior interests, then the duty thereon shall be payable at the same time and in the same manner as such duty would have been payable If no such acceleration had taken place." The late Earl of Buchan being in 1872 heir of entail in possession of certain entailed estates in Scotland under an entail prior to 1848, the appellant, who was his eldest son and heir apparent, agreed with his father to propel the entailed estates so that the appellant should tnjoy them as from Sept IS, 1871. The father and son thereupon executed a disposition of the entailed estates, and the father's interest therein ceased. But inasmuch as the estate could not be disentailed until the appellant attained the age of twenty-five years, it was further agreed that when the appellant attained that age the estates should be disentailed. This was done in 1875. The appellant also undertook to raise a large sum of money on the estates to pay ofE the debts of the Earl of Buchan. In 1898 the late Earl of Buchan died, some years after he had ceased to be owner of the entailed estates. The Crown claimed succession duty under ss. 2 and 15 of the Succession Duty Act of 1853, founding their claim on the ground that under the original deed of entail of 1664 the appellant had an expectant right of succession and this right would open to him by devolution on the death of the late Earl of Buchan, his father, and the transaction above referred to, by which there was a propulsion of the estates to the next heir, namely the appellant, was an acceleration of the succes- sion : — Held, aflSrming the decision of the First Division of the Ct. of Sess. (1907), S. 0. 849, that succession duty was payable by the appellant under s. 15 of the Act on the ground that he had a title to the succession capable of being "accelerated," and that title had been accelerated by the surrender or extinction of the father's prior interest. Eael of Buchan v. Lord Advocate - H. L. (So.) [1908] W. N. 241 ; [1909] A. C. 166 4. — Estate duty — Succession duty — Property situate abroad — English mil — Trust for con- veriion — Liaiility to duty. A testator, domiciled in England, by his will left the residue of his real and personal estate, including a tea estate situate in Assam, to trustees in trust to convert it into money and invest the proceeds, and out of the income thereof to pay certain life annuities, and subject D.D. REVENUE (Suooession Duty) — continued. thereto and until the death of the last surviving annuitant to pay the surplus income to certain persons in equal shares and to the survivors or survivor of them. The wiU contained no gift over either of the income or of the corpus upon the death either of the last surviving annuitant or of the last surviving person entitled to the surplus income. The trustees were authorized by the wiU to work the tea estate until it was sold, and also to postpone the sale and conver- sion of any part of the estate as long as they might think it desirable, and it was thereby provided that in the meantime the annual produce of the unconverted part should be applied in the same manner as if it were income arising from the proceeds of conversion. The trustees were resident in England, and the will was proved in England. The trustees, in the exercise of their discretion, postponed the sale of the tea estate, and while it remained unsold two of the persons entitled to shares of the surplus income died : — Seld, that the amount by which the sur- vivors' shares of the surplus income was increased upon the deaths of the said two persons was not, even so far as that .increase was attributable to the profits of the tea estate, property situate out of the United Kingdom, and that succession duty, estate duty, and settlement estate duty were payable in respect of the increase so attributable to the tea estate. Att. Gen. v. Johnson - - Bray J. [1907] 2 K. B. 886 — Ontario Succession Duty Act — Provincial taxation of property not within the province ultra vires. See Canada — Bevenue. 2. — Property situate abroad — Disposition to English company on trusts enforceable by English law. See Revenue— Estate Duty. 11. - Quebec taxes apply to Quebec successions. See Canada — Bevenue. 3. — Settlement by Act of Parliament — Restriction against alienation. See Revenue— Estate Duty. 31. 6. — Tenant for life — Memainder in tail — JHasentailing deed — Alienation — Succession de- rived from alienee — Succession Duty Act 1853 (16 4- 17 Vict. 0. 51), ss. 2, 15. A., tenant for life of real property, and B., tenant in tail in remainder, executed a disentail- ing deed and sold and conveyed the property to C. On C.'s death D., as C.'s devisee, became entitled in possession to the property and paid succession duty thereon. Then A. died and the Crown claimed succession duty from B. and D. as on a succession from A. : — Held, that succession duty was payable by D., to be calculated on the life of D. The decisions of Ridley J., [1903] 2 K. B. 71 and the Court of Appeal, sub nom. Att.- Gen. v.' JDuhe of Northwmherlamd, [1904] 1 K. B. 762 affirmed. ' ' In re Cooper and Allen, (1876) 4 Ch. D. 802 overruled upon this point. DuKB OP Noeth- UMBEELAND «. ATT.-GeN. - - H L (E ") [1905] W. N. 118; [1905] aI C.'ioe. 4d ( 2273 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2274 ) REVENUE (SuoceBsion Duty) — continieed. 6. — Will — Legacy — Payable out of realty — Application of income to maintenance of legatee — Uncontrolled discretion of trustees — Succession duty— Legacy Duty Act, 1796 (36 Geo. 3, c. 52). s. 11 ; Stamp Act, 1815 (55 Geo. 3. c. 184), Soiled., Part III., r. 2 ; Revenue Act, 1845 (8 s. The plates had been passed by Lloyd's surveyor at the maker's works, and they were each numbered by the makers with the number of the vessel and with marks showing the position which each plate was to occupy in the vessel : — Held, reversing the decision of the First Div. of the Ct. of Sess., (1902) 4 F. 345, that the contract was for the purchase of a " complete ship," and the materials in question could not be regarded as appropriated to the contract or sold under the Sale of Goods Act. ( 2285 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2286 ) SALE OF GOODS — coivtinued. Seat/i ^ Co.Y. Moore, (1886) 11 App. Cas.350. followed. Keid v. Macbeth & Gray H. L. (So.) [1904] W. N. 60 ; [1904] A. C. 22 — Bankruptcy — Contract induced by fraud of purchaser — ^Vendor's right to disaffirm contract — Mutual dealings — Set-off — Damages for fraud. See Bankeuptcy — Sale of Goods. 1. — By description — Award "based on custom sub- sequently found not to exist — Custom inconsistent with written contract. See Aebiteation — Award. 2. 2. — Condition, Implied — Breach — Measure of damages — Beer — Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 ^- 57 Tict. c. 71), ss. 11, 13, 14, sul-s. 2, 53, siib-s. 2. The defts. contracted to sell by description to the pits, sulphuric acid, commercially free from arsenic. The pits, did not make known to the defts., either expressly or by implication, the purpose for which they required the acid. In breach of the implied condition that the acid should correspond with the description in the contract, the defts. supplied the pits, sulphuric acid which was not commercially free from arsenic. The pits, by the exercise of ordinary care might have discovered the presence of arsenic in the acid ; but they did not do so, and, in ignorance of the fact, used the acid in the manufacture of brewing sugar in the shape of inrert and glucose, which they sold to brewers who used it in the brewing of beer. The beer thus made was rendered poisonous, and the brewers suffered loss in respect of which the pits, were liable to them. The pits, also lost the price of the acid, which was rendered worthless to them, and the value of other goods spoilt through being mixed with the acid ; and the goodwill of their business was damaged : — Held, that the pits, were entitled to recover from the defts. the price of the acid and the value of the goods spoilt, but not the damages payable by the pits, to the brewers or the damage to the goodwill of the pits. ' business. Bostoqk & Co. V. Nicholson & Sons, Ld. Bruce J. [1904] 1 K. B. 726 3. — Conditions as to resale attached — JVotioe — Right of sub-pwchaser to disregard conditiom. On the sale of goods a condition as to the price at which they may be resold cannot, in the absence of agreement, be imposed on a sub- purchaser, even though he bought with notice of the condition. A retail trader bought from the agent of the licensee of a patent an article manufactured by the licensee under the patent. On the inside of the lid of a box in which the article was packed was printed a condition that the goods were not to be resold at less than a specified price. The retail trader had sold some of the goods at less than the specified price. In an action by the licensee to restrain the retailer from so doing ; — Held, that, even if the retailer bought with notice of the condition, it could not be enforced against him. Decision of FarweU J. reversed. Decision of Swinfen Bady J. in Toddy 4' Co. SALE OF GOODS- V. Sterious # Co., [1904] 1 Ch. 354, approved and adopted. McGeatheb v. Pitcher C. A. [1904] W. N. 144 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 306 4. — Contract — Goods not according to speci- fication — Ri-ght to reject — Stipulation against rejection. A contract for the sale of laths to be shipped, and to be " about the specification stated below," provided that the property in the goods was to be deemed to have passed to the buyers when the goods were put on board, and contained a clause that, if any dispute arose under the stipu- lations of the contract, the buyers were not to reject any of the goods, but the dispute was to be referred to arbitration. The sellers having put on board laths which were not of the specified lengths : — Held, that the buyers were justified in reject- ing these laths on their arrival in this country, and were not bound by the terins of the contract to accept them subject to an allowance to be fixed by arbitration. Vigees Beothees v. Sakdeeson Beothees - - Bigham J. [1901] 1 K. B. 608 5. — Contract — Sample, Sale by — Variutioa in quality between bulk and .sample — Validity of custom for buy a- not to reject — Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 ^ 57 Vict. o. 71), ss. 15, 55. A contract in writing for the sale of barley at an agreed price per bushel provided that the barley at the time of shipment under the con- tract was to be " about as per sample," and con- tained an arbitration clause. The buyers having rejected the barley for inferiority to the sample, the sellers relied before the arbitrator upon a custom of the London Com Exchange, applicable to such contracts, by which the buyer was not entitled to reject for difference or variation in quality, unless the same was excessive or un- reasonable, and was so found by arbitration under the contract. The arbitrator found that the barley was not " about as per sample," so as to entitle the sellers to insist upon payment of the full contract price without any allowance ; but that the inferiority was not excessive or unreasonable, nor so great as to amount to a difference of description, and he awarded that the buyers were not entitled to reject the barley, but must accept it with an allowance in price in respect of the inferiority : — Held, that the custom was good in law, not being unreasonable or uncertain or in contradic- tion of the written contract, and that the award must therefore be upheld. In re Walkers, WiNSBE & Hamm and Shaw, 8qn& Co. Chaunell J. [1904] 2 E. B. 162 — Contract — Validity — Condition attached to goods. See CONTEACT. 30. 6. — Cont7-act — Wa/rranty — Implied condi- tion as to fitness — Merchantable quality — Patent or trade name — Evidence — Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 ^- 57 Vict. c. 71), s. 14, sub-ss. 1 and 2. Under a contract in writing which contained no mention of the particular purpose for which they were required, the pits, bought " the 24/40 h.p. Fiat omnibus " they had inspected and ( 2287 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2288 ) SAIE OF OtOOHS— continued. "six 24/40 h.p. Fiat omnibus chassis" at an agreed price. The articles when deliTered were not fit to perform the work required of them. In an action for damages : — Meld, that this was not a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or trade name, and that there was an implied con- dition that the goods should be reasonably fit for the purpose for which they were required within a. 14, sub-s. 1, of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, and also that they should be of merchantable quality within sub-s. 2 of the same section, and consequently that the pits, were entitled to recover damages for breach of the contract. Per Farwell, L.J. : No evidence of any antece- dent or subsequent negotiations to prove express warranty was admissible in such a contract. The proviso at the end of sub-s. 1 of s. 14 assumes the absence of any express assurance by the seller and deals only with the case of express or implied information by the buyer of the pur- pose for which he requires the article, so framed as to shew that he relied on the seller's skill or judgment, but the seller is not bound to refrain from carrying out his order for a particular article because it is ill adapted for the purpose mentioned in the order, provided the article has in fact a patent or trade name under which it can be ordered. The condition implied by sub-s. 2 of s. 14 that the goods are of merchantable quality applies to all goods bought from the seller who deals in goods of that description whether they are sold under a patent or trade name or otherwise. Bristol Tramways, &o., Gareiage Co., Ld. V. Fiat Motors, Ld. - C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 831 7. — C i. f. contract — "Terms net cash" — Paymetit against ship^tig documents —Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 ^ 57 Vict. v. 71), ss. 16, 18 (?■. 5), 28, 34. By a contract in writing dated Oct. 13, 1904, the def ts. agreed to sell to Vaux & Sons, Ld., 100 bales of choice brewing Pacific Coast hops of each of the crops of the years 1905 to 1912 inclusive ; the hops to be shipped to Sunderland ; payment for the hops "at the rate of 90 shillings sterling per 112 lbs., c. i. f. to London, Liverpool, or Hull (tare 5 lbs. per bale). Terms net cash." Time of shipment to be during the months of Oct. to Mar. inclusive. The contract entitled the sellers to consider the entire unfulfilled portion of the contract violated by the buyers, in case of refusal by them to pay for any hops delivered and accepted thereunder, or if the contract or any part of it was otherwise violated by the buyers. In Aug., 1908, Yaux & Sons, Ld., assigned their rights under the contract to the pits., and express notice thereof in writing was given to the defts. Some correspondence ensued between the parties as to the 1909 crop, the defts. requiring payment for the hops against the shipping documents, and the pits, requiring the defts. to submit samples to them of the hops to be shipped, and the samples being accepted to give delivery in bulk in accordance with the samples, and stating that otherwise they would only pay for the hops against delivery and examination of each bale. The defts. in reply stated that this SAIE OF GOODS — contimted. was a clear breach of the contract by the pits., ' and that they would not ship the 100 bales of the 1909 crop. The pits, thereupon brought this action to recover damages for breach of the con- tract, and the defts. counterclaimed for damages for breach. Hamilton J. held that the delivery of the hops, under the contract, conditional upon their being in conformity with the contract, was delivery at the port shipment, and from that time the risk and the property passed to the buyers ; and that accordingly payment of the price must be made against the shipping docu- ments which completed the delivery of the goods in accordance with the contract ; the right of the pits, to examine the hops on arrival and to reject them if they were found not to be in con- formity with the contract remaining unimpaired. The defts. were therefore entitled to judgment on the claim and counter-claim. Biddbll Bros. v. E. Clemens Hobst Co. - Hamilton J. [1910] W. N. 238 8. — Contract for delivery of goods iy instal- ments — Wrongful repudiation of contract by buyer — Waiver by buyer of performance of con- ditions precedent — Inferiority of portion of goods to description in contract. A contract provided for the sale of rosewood for shipment in 1903, to be delivered at Hull in instalments during that year, cash payable against bill of lading. While the first consign- ment of rosewood was on the sea, the buyers repudiated the contract and refused to accept any rosewood under it upon the ground that the seller had committed a breach of a collateral oral agreement not to supply rosewood to any other person in the trade during 1903. When the bill of lading for the first consignment was tendered to the buyers they refused to accept it or to pay for the rosewood comprised in it ; the rosewood was therefore sold by the seller as against the buyers, and the seller claimed as damages from the buyers for their refusal to accept the con- signment the difference between the contract price and the price at which it was sold as against the contract. The second consignment, consisting of the balance of the rosewood, was likewise refused by the buyers on the same ground and sold as against them. It subse- quently came to the knowledge of the buyers that a portion of the rosewood in the first con- signment did not answer the description of the quality of rosewood in the contract, and it was admitted that there was some inferiority in a portion that would be compensated for by an allowance of about 6 per cent, on the value of the consignment. The second consignment was in accordance with the contract. The seller having sued the buyers for damages for not accepting the rosewood, the judge at the trial found as a fact that the collateral oral agree- ment relied upon by the buyers had never been entered into : — Held (affirming the judgment of Kennedy J.), that the original repudiation of the contract by the buyers was wrongful, and that by refusing to take delivery of the consignments on arrival on the ground that they had abready repudiated ( 2289 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2290 ) SALE OF GOOJiS— continued. the entire contract the buyers had waived the performance of conditions precedent on the part of the sellers, who were entitled to damages based upon the difEerence between the contract price of the rosewood and the price at which it had been sold by them as against the contract. Bbaithwaite v. Foreign Hakdwood Go. C. A. [1906] S K. B. 643 0. — Contract for sale of cattle at price inclnding cost, freiriht, and insurance — Contract by seller to insure cattle "against all risks" — Warrant!/ in policy against " capture, seizure, o.nd detention " — Slaughter of cattle in conse- quence of Government 2}rohibitvm against landing — Liahility of seller. Cattle were bought at Beunos Ayres, at a price including cost, freight, and insurance, for shipment to Durban ; by the contract of sale the seller was to insure the cattle " against all risks." The seller obtained, and handed to the buyer, a policy of insurance, which was an ordinary " all risks " Lloyd's policy, but which, in accordance with the usual practice among insurance brokers and underwriters with regard to such policies, contained a warranty against " capture, seizure and detention, and the conse- quences thereof." Disease broke out among the cattle on the voyage, and on arrival at Durban the authorities forbade their landing, and the cattle were consequently slaughtered. The under- writers having refused to pay upon the policy, except in regard to risks not affected by the warranty, the buyer brought an action against the seller to recover damages for breach of contract to insure the cattle " against all risks " : — Held, that the contract was not satisfied by the procuring of a policy which did not protect the buyer from loss arising in consequence of the cattle not being able to land, and that the seller was, therefore, liable to the buyer in damages for breach of contract. Decision of Channell J., [1907] 1 K. B. 685, affirmed. YuiLL cfe Co. c. Scott Eobson. C. A. [1908] W. N. 4 ; [1908] 1 K. B. 270 10. — Delivery of goods not of contract description — Hesale by purchaser — Condition — Warranty — Exclusion by terms of contract of liability for breach of ioai~rant.y . The defts. sold seed by sample to the pits., the terms of the sale as expressed in the sold note being that they sold on the conditions printed on the back of the note about 27^ quarters common English sainfoin at forty shillings. The material condition on the back of the sale note ran : " Sellers give no warranty express' or implied as to growth, description, or any other matters ... " Seed equal to sample was delivered under the contract, and a portion o£ it was resold by the pits, as common English sainfoin. The seed" delivered was not, nor was the sample, common English sainfoin ; they were both the seed of giant sainfoin, which was of inferior quality to that contracted for. The difference between the two seeds was indistin- guishable, and the mistake was only discovered by the plt.'n sub-purchaser when the seed sown by him came up. The pits, reasonably and SALE OF G:Qa'a%— continued. properly settled a claim for damages brought against them by their sub-purchaser, and now claimed to recover from the defts. the amount so paid : — Held by Vaughan Williams L.J. and Far- well L.J. (Fletcher Moulton L.J. dissenting), that the pits., having accepted and resold the seed, had put it out of their power to treat the description of the article sold as common English sainfoin as a condition, On a breach of which they were entitled to reject the goods, and could only treat it as a warranty, a breach of which would ordinarily entitle the purchaser to damages ; but that upon the true construction of the condition printed on the back of the sold note the defts. had excluded all liability capable of enforcement by an action for breach of warranty. Howcroft V. LaycocV, (1898) 14 Times L. K. 460, overruled. Wallis, Son & Wells v. Peatt & Ha-stnes C. a. [1910] 2 K. B. 1003 11. — Estoppel — Fraudulent conversion of goods — Loss to one of two iniwcent per.sons through fraud of a third person — Power of disposition of qoods given to a clerk — Sale of (roods Act, 1893 (56 S- 57 Vict. u. 71), s. 21. The appellants, who were timber merchants, warehoused with a dock co. the timber they imported, and instructed the dock co. to accept all transfer or delivery orders signed by their clerk. The clerk had their authority to make limited sales to their known customers. The clerk under an assumed name fraudulently sold timber of the appellants to the respondents, who knew nothing of the appellants or of the clerk under his real name, and who bought and paid the clerk for the timber in good faith. The clerk carried out the sales by giving the dock co. orders for the transfer of timber into his assumed name, and then in that name giving delivery orders to the respondents : — Held, that the appellants, not having held out the clerk to the respondents as their agent to sell to the respondents, were not estopped from denying the clerk's authority to sell ; that the clerk, having no title or apparent authority himself, could not give the respondents any title, and that the appellants were entitled to recover from the respondents the value of the timber. The decision of the C. A. [1901] W. N. 157 ; [1901] 3 K. B. 697, reversed, and the judg- ment of Mathew J. restored. Faequharson Brothbes & Co. V. C. King & Co. H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 122 ; [1902] A. C. 328 — Execution — Warrant sent to foreign Court — Binding the property in goods of execu- tion debtor — Time. See County Court — Execution. 6. — Executor. See under Executok. — Forfeiture of prohibited goods by innocent bolder. See New Zealand. 18. — Fraud of debtor — Title of trustee in bank- ruptcy. See Bankeuptcy — Trustee. 10. ( 2391 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2292 ) SALE OF GOOJiS—cotitiimed. 12. — Frauds, Statute of — Contract not to ie performed within a year — Writing signed hy the party to ie charged — Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, 0. 3), s. i— Sale of Goods Acts, 1893 (56 ^- 57 Vict, c. 71), s. 4. Sect. 4 of the Statute of Frauds (so far as it relates to agreements not to be performed within a year) applies to agreements for the sale of goods, and is not repealed by the Sale of Goods Act, 1893. Therefore an agreement for the sale of goods is not taken out of the operation of the above proTision of the Statute of Frauds by reason of there having been acceptance and actual receipt by the buyer of part of the goods so sold. Pkestbd Miners Co. r. Gaenbe, Ld. Walton J. [1910] W. N. 196 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 776 On Appeal: — The C. A. dismissed the appeal. Pebsted MlHBKS Co. V. Gaenee, Ld. - - - C. A. [1910] W. N. 276 13. — Implied condition as to quality m- fitness — MercJiMntable quality — Right of rejec- tion — Form of contract — Severability — Rejection of later iTistalments after acceptance of earlier instalment — Sale of goods Act, 1893 (56 <^' 57 Vict. 0. 71), s. 14. An English dealer ordered from a foreign manufacturer a large number of motor horns of different descriptions and prices, "delivery as required." The horns were delivered in several instalments. The buyer, after accepting the first instalment, rejected the later instalments on the ground that the goods were not of merchantable quality. In an action tor the price of the goods the official referee found that a large proportion of the horns were dented and badly polished owing to defective packing and careless worlcmanship, but that they could easily have been made merchantable at a trifling cost, and he declined to hold that the con- signment as a whole was unmerchantable and gave judgment for the seller with an allowance to the buyer in respect of the defective goods ; and this judgment was affirmed by the Div. Ct. On appeal : — Held, (1.) upon the construction of the con- tract, that the acceptance of the first instalment did not preclude the buyer from rejecting the later instalments; (2.) that the buyer was justified in rejecting the later instalments as unmerchantable. Jackson v. Rotax Motoe AND Cycle Co. C A. [1910] W. N. 206 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 937 — Infant. See under Infant. — " Mercantile agent " — Authority to pledge, Extent of — Custom of particular trade. See Factob. 1. 14. — Negligence — Dangerous goods — Know- ledge of vendor— Duty of vendor to purchaser — Warranty of fitness — Sale of Goods Act, 1898 (56 # 57 Vict. c. 71), s. 14. Where the vendor of a tin containing disin- fectant powder knew that it was likely to cause danger to a person opening it, unless special care was taken, and the danger was not such as SALE OF GOQJiS— continued. presumably would be known to or appreciable by the purchaser, unless warned of it : — Held, that, independently of any warranty, there was cast upon the vendor a duty to warn the purchaser of the danger. Where one of the rules of a co-operative society stated that no warranties were given with goods sold by the society, except on the written authority of one of the managing directors or the assistant manager : Query, whether the rule had the effect of ex- cluding the implied warranty that an article sold for a particular purpose is fit for that purpose. Claekb and Wife e. Aemy and Navy Co- OPEEATivE Society, Ld. C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 155 15. — Passing of property imder unenforceable contract—Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 ^- 57 Vict, c. 71), s. 4, sub-s. 1. Semble, the fact that a contract for the sale of goods does not comply with the requirements of s. 4 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, though it renders the contract not enforceable by action, does not make it void, and does not prevent the property in the goods from passing under it to the purchaser. Nicholson V. Bower, (1858) 1 E. & E. 172, discussed. Tayloe r. Geeat Eastern Ry. Co. Bigham J. [1901] 1 K. B. 774 16. — Purpose fur which goods required — Reliance on .seller's skill — Milk supplied for con- sumption — Implied warranty of fitness — Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 ^- 57 Vict. c. 71), s. 14, suh-s. 1. By 3. 14, sub-s. 1, of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, it is enacted that— "Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply .... there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reason- ably fit for such purpose." The defts., who were milk dealers, supplied the pit. with milk which was consumed by himself and his family. A book in which the daily supply was entered was interleaved with a printed notice of the precautions taken by the defts. to supply milk pure and unadulterated and free from the germs of disease. The milk supplied contained germs of typhoid fever, and the plt.'s wife was infected thereby and died. The existence of the germs could only be dis- covered by prolonged investigation. In an action, upon an implied warranty under s. 14, sub-s. 1, of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, to recover the expenses to which the pit. had been put by the illness and death of his wife : — Held, that the purpose for which the milk was supplied was sufEoiently made known to the sellers by its description, that- [there was evidence that the buyer relied on the seller's skill, and that there was an implied condition under the Act that the milk was reasonably fit for consumption, although the defect was not discoverable at the time of the sale. Feost i). Aylbsbuey Daiey Co. C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 608 C 2293 ) DIGEST OF CASBS, 1901—1910. ( 2294 ) SALE OF GOODS — continued. — Sale of goods c.i.f. — Title of seller or buyer to the excess insurance money. See INSUEANCB (Marine). 25. 17. — Sale or return — Sale for cash only — Passing of property — Pledge — " Act adopting tlie traTisaction" — Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 ^- 57 Vict. 0. 71), s. 18, r. 4. The pit., a manufacturing jeweller, delivered jewellery to H., a retail jeweller, on the terms of a memorandum headed " On approbation. On sale for cash only or return. Goods had on approbation or on sale or return remain the property of W. (the pit.) until such goods are settled for or charged." H., being informed by li. that he had a customer who might buy the goods, delivered them to L. upon the terras of his paying cash or returning them in a few,days. L. had no customer, and fraudulently pledged the goods with the deft., a pawnbrolicr. In an action to recover the goods from the deft. : Held, that the goods were not delivered to H. " on approval, or on sale or return or other similar terms" within the meaning of s. 18, r. 4, of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 ; that the terms of the memorandum shewed that the intention of the pit. and H. was that the property in the goods should not pass to H. until he paid for them or was debited with the price by the pit. ; that consequently the property in the goods had not passed out of the pit., and that he was entitled to recover from the deft. Judgment of Bray J., reported [1905] 2 K. B. 172, ai&med. Weiner v. Gill : Weiner v. Smith - - C. A. [1906] W. N. 157 ; [1906] 8K. B. 674 Note. Explained and distinguished by G. A., Weiner V. Harris, [1910] 1 K. B. 285. See Factor. 2. 18. — Shi}) — Pa.Hsinq of propiertij — Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 # 57 Vict. c. 71), ss. 16, 18, 02 — Scottish arrestment of ship in course of Where it appears to bo the intention of the parties to a contract for the building of a ship that the vessel is not to be delivered and finally accepted until after an official trial off a foreign coast, and until after conditions of the contract have been fulfilled as to speed, consumption of coal, capacity, &c., the property in the ship does not pass to the purchaser while the vessel remains uncompleted, although the contract contains stipulations for tlie price to be paid by instalments at certain periods of construction. The respondents, a Glasgow firm of ship- builders, agreed to build two ships for an Italian firm, according to certain specifications and under the superintendence of an agent appointed by the Italian firm, for a certain amount payable by instalments at specified stages of construction ; but delivery of the ships was not to be considered to be completed till they had passed trials at Greenock and off the Italian coast. Before the ships were fully constructed, but after several instalments had been paid, the appellants, an English firm of shipbuilders, arrested the ships in Scotland for debt alleged to be due to them by the Italian co., but on the petition to the SALE OF GOODS- First Division of the Court of Session the arrest- ments were recalled : — Held, (aflfeming the decision of the First Division), that no intention was shevsm in the contract to make delivery of or to pass 'the property in the ships before they were completed, and that the arrestments were properly recalled. Sir James Laing & Sons, Ld. v. Barclay, CUKLE & Co. H. L. (Sc.) [1907] W. N. 243 ; [1908] A. C. 38 — Special goods — Fixed prices — "Wholesale and retail afeeraents. See Contract. 27. 19. — Utiascertained goods — Delivery orders Vnpaid sellers lien— Assent to suh-sale — Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 # 57 Vict. c. 71), s. 47. By s. 47 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, it is declared that the unpaid seller's right of lien or retention or stoppage in transitu is not affected by any sale or other disposition of the goods which the buyer may have made, unless the seller has assented thereto : — Held, that the mere assent of an unpaid seller to a sale by the buyer of an unascertained portion of the goods is not such an assent as is contemplated by the above section as affecting the unpaid seller's right of lien. To affect the lien the assent must be given in such circum- stances as to shew an intention on the part of the unpaid seller to renounce his right against the goods sold by the buyer. The defts. sold oil to certain merchants. The merchants sold a portion of this oil to the pits., giving them delivery orders addressed to the defts., and directing the latter to deliver to the pits, or their order " ex our contract." The pits, presented these "orders to the defts., who either sent word that they were in order, or retained them without comment, and in either case they entered in their books the names of the pits. "While the merchants were punctual in their payments to the defts. the latter regularly delivered oil on these orders to the pits, or then- sub-purchasers. The merchants fell into arrear with their payments, and the defts., claiming to exercise their right of lien as unpaid sellers, refused to make any further deliveries against the merchants' delivery orders. In an action by the pits, against the defts. :— Held, that the defts. had not assented to the sales by the merchants to the pits, so as to preclude them from exercising their right of lien as unpaid sellers : — Stoveld V. Hughes, (1811) U East, 308, and Pearson v. Dawson, (1858) E. B. & E. 448, dis- tinguished. MoRDAUNT Brothers r. British Oil and Cake Mills, Ld. - Piokford J. [1910] 2 K. B. 502 — Vendor and purchaser. See under Vendor and Purchaser. 20. — Warranty — Beer .wld by retail — Pit- iiess for consumption — Implied luarraiity — Breach — Damages — Sale if Goods Act, 1893 (56 .y 57 Vict. c. 71), s. 14. By s. 14, sub-s. 2, of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, " Where goods are bought by description ( 2296 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2296 ) SALE OF QOOJiB—emtinued. from a seller who deals in goods of that desorip- tion (whether he be the manufacturer or not) there is an implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality ; provided that if the buyer has examined the goods, there shall be no implied condition as regards defects which such examination ought to have revealed." The deft, kept a beerhouse in which the beer suppUed to customers, for consumption on the premises was that of a particular firm of brewers only. This fact was known to the pit., who frequented the beerhouse for the purpose of buying the beer of that firm. The beer con- tained arsenic, by reason of which the health of the pit. was injured. In an action to recover damages for breach of warranty : — Meld, that the beer had been bought by description within the meaning of ». 14, sub-s. 2, of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, and that, as examination by the buyer would not have revealed the detect, the deft, was liable on an implied warranty that the beer was of a merchantable quality. - Wrbn v. Holt C. A. [1903] IK. B. 610 21. — Warranty, Implied — Fitness for par- ticular jmrpose — Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 . 3. — Bridge carrying public liighway orer railway — Liability to maintain roail — Glasgow Police Act, 1866 (29 ,$■ 30 Vict. c. cch-.ciii?,. ss. 310, ZlC—City of Glasgow Act. 1891 (5i ,?■ 55 Yict. c. cca-x.). s. 35 — Bailwaifs Clauses Cnusuli- dution {Scotland) Act, 1845 (8 S,- 9 Vict. c. 33), s. 39 — Caledonian Builway (Additional Powers) Act, 1872 (35 S,- 36 Vict. v. c.vic), ss. 4, 26. By s. 39 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 33), " If the line of the ry. cross any turnpike road or public highway . . . either such road shall be carried over the ry. or the ry. shall be carried over such road by means of a bridge . and such bridge with the immediate approaches and all other necessary works connected therewith shall be executed and at all times thereafter main- tained at the expense of the co." In 189S two streets, B. and C, previously forming part of the county district, were with other areas in- cluded within the boundaries of the city of Glasgow. A third street, S., was declared a public street in 1894. Prior to 1899 parts of these streets were carried over rys. belonging to the appellants \>j means of bridges which were constructed by the appellants. The city of Glasgow claimed that tlie roadways of these three streets over the bridges and the approaches thereto fell to be maintained and repaired by the appellants. B. and C. had been respectively a statute labour road and a turnpike road, and S. had been a private occupation road. The appellants contended that the section only applied to county roads and not to streets in a town : — Held, affirming the decision of the First Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1906) 8 F. 755 ; (1908) S. C. 244, that B. and C. were public highways, and therefore the appellants were bound to maintain the roadways where they crossed their ry., and the approaches to tlic bridges ; but that as to S., it being proved that it was a private street when the appellants' ry. bridge was constructed, the appellants were not bound to maintain the roadway. CALEDONIAN By. Co. v. Glasgow Corporation H. L. (So.) [1908] W. N. 219 ; [1909] A. C. 138 4. — Bnrgli — Customs and rrite.'. — Charter — Prescription — Soads and Bridges {Scotland) Act, 1878 (41 4- 42 Vict. c. 51). The House affirmed the interlocutor of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., Scotland, dated Nov. 20, 1900. Bernard & Co. r. Haddington 1\Ta6istrates H. L. (So.) [1901] W. N. 246 SCOTTISH LAW—cmifiniied. — Burgh county — Area within ancient royalty. See Local Government. 2a. 5. — Bvrgh 2>roperty — Immemorial use by in- kahita/iits of ground for recreation — Encroach- ment — Concurrent judgvients. There is no law or settled practice of this House to prevent it from differing even from two concurrent judgments of fact, and this House cannot decline the duty of formally expressing its own judgment. Observations of Lord Herschell L.C. in Owners of the "P. Caland" and Freight v. Glanwrgan Steamship Co., [1893] A. C.207, 215, and in Mclntyre Brothers v. McGarin, [1893] A. C. 268, 27.",, explained. In Scottish law at least forty years' use by the inhabitants must be proved in order to establish «. right of recreation by immemorial user, and the evidence to establish the right must be of the same character and as strong^ as in the case of prescription — that is, it must show that the right claimed has been enjoyed nee vi nee clam nee precario. The respondent, an individual burgess of a burgh, raised an action for interdict against the appellants and other persons encroaching on a strip of ground consisting of a few yards in length and breadth, situated on the edge of a river, on the plea that the ground in question bad from time immemorial been dedicated by the magistrates of the burgh to the use of the burgesses and inhabitants for the purpose of recreation and amusement, and the bleaching and drying of clothes. The magistrates, who were made parties, lodged a minute that the operations complained of were not a disadvantage to the burgh : — ffeld, reversing the decision of the Lord Ordinary and the First Division of the Ct. of Sess., Scotland, (1899) 2 F. 107 ; (1902) 4 F. 771, that the ground in question had not from time immemorial — that is, for a period of forty years — been dedicated or appropriated by the magis- trates to the uses nor the purposes of recreation. MONTGOMERIE & CO. r. "WALLACE-JAMES H. L. (Sc.) [1904] W. N. 3 ; [1904] A. C. 73 — Burgh Sewerage, Drainage and Water Supply Act, 1901. Sec Se\yers. 13. 6. — By-law — Ultra eires — Ice-cream vendor's licence — lawful day — Ediniiirgh Corporation Art, 1900 (63 .?■ 64 Vict. c. cxx.eiii.), s. 80, as amended l)y Edinburgh Corjjoratioti Order Con- firmation Act, 1901 (1 Ediv. 7, ('. clx.v,rii'.}, s. 57. By s. 80 of the Edinburgh Corporation Act, 1900, as amended by Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1901, any person selling ice-cream (except iii a duly licensed hotel) without a licence from the magistrates " who are hereby empowered to grant the same " for the house, building, or premises where such ice- cream is kept for sale or sold shall be liable to a penalty : Provided that such licence shall run from the date of issue until May 15 next en- suing, and upon removal from the date of expiry of the licence so renewed to May 15 succeeding such expiry, " unless the same shall be sooner ( 2319 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2320 ) SCOTTISH LAW— continued. forfeited, revoked, or suspended," and tbat " every person licensed .... to sell ice-cream, under the provisions of this Act who shall .... sell ice-cream, except during the hours of ' ' 8 A.M. and 11 p.m. "on any lawful day, or at such extended hour at night as the magistrates may by special regulation in particular cases and for reasons assigned permit," shall be liable in a penalty. No form of licence was annexed to the statute. The magistrates proposed to issue the fol- lowing licence : " (1) That the said licensee shall not keep open said premises, or sell or permit the sale of ice-cream therein, on Sunday or on any other day set apart for public worship by lawful authority. (2) That the said licensee shall not keep open said premises, or sell or permit the sale of ice-cream therein before 8 o'clock in the morning or after 11 o'clock at night. (3) That the said magistrates, or any of them, may at any time suspend or revoke this licence " : — Held, reversing the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1903) 5 ¥. 480, that the conditions of the licence were ultra vires. Eossi r. Edinburgh Coepobation H. L. (Sc.) [1904] W. N. 192 ; [1905] A. C. 21 — " Charitable or religious institutions and societies " — Trust disposition and settle- ment — Uncertainty. See Will — Uncertainty. 1. — Charity — Uncertainty — Bachelors and widowers — Gift for indigent. See Chakity. 22. — Company — Debenture-holders and guarantors — Scheme of arrangement — ^Preference to assets of company. See Company — Arrangement. 2. — Conflict of Laws — " Alimentary provision " — Validity of restriction as against hus- band's mortgagees. See Conflict op Laws. 6. 7. — Contract — Breach — Damages — Coii- struction of documents. The House reversed the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., dated July 3, 1909, and restored the decision of the Lord Ordinary (Lord Johnston), dated July 18, 1908. The appellants to have the costs here and in the Courts below. JUephan-Eeeguson Lock-Bar Pipe Co. v. British Aluminium Co. H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 67 — Contract — Breach — Waiver — Damages. See Contract. 7. — Contract — Penalty or liquidated damages — Time limit — Waiver. See Contract. 19. — County court — Prohibition — Alternative remedy — Service out of the jurisdiction. See County Court — Frohibltiou. 1. — Covenant to settle after-acquired property — Scots domicil — Spes successionis. See Settlement. 19. — Damages — Interdict too wide — Measure of damages. See Damage and Damages. 2. SCOTTISH LAVr—continned. 8; — Dignity — Jurisdiction — Non-alienaliUty of office of Standard Bearer of Scotland— Sale of offices — Prescription — Soots Act, 1455, c. 44. Meld, that all heritable ofBoes are not adjudg- able, and that the office or dignity of Hereditary Royal Standard Bearer of Scotland being vested in the appellant's family by right of blood could not be carried by any decree of the Ct. of Sess., nor adjudged nor be lost to the appellant's family except under circumstances which had not occurred. -?/eW,itheref ore, that the respondent, the Earl of Lauderdale, had no right or title to the office or dignity of Hereditary Royal Standard Bearer of Scotland. Decision of the First Division of the Ct. of Sess., Scotland, (1905) 7 F. 1045 ; (1908) S. C. 1237, reversed. Cocklmrn of Langton\ Case, (1747) Mor. Diet. 150 ; (1755) H. L. 1 Pat. App. 603, com- mented on. Weddebbuhn v. Earl op Lauderdale H. I. (Sc.) [X910] W. N. 92 ; [1910] A. C. 342 — Divorce. See under Divorce — Scotland. — Divorce — Foreign jurisdiction — Law of Scot- land — Putative marriage — Legitimacy of issue. See Marriage, (j. 9. — Divorce — Foreign jurisdiction — Puta- tive marriage — Law of Scotland — Good faith of spouses — Error of fact — Srror of laio. S., whose domicil of origin was Scottish, went in or about 1880 to Canada, where he married a wife in 1883. He lived with her there until the beginning of 1895. She then left him and joined W., with whom she had previously com- mitted adultery. S. then went into North Dakota and, after a nominal residence of ninety days, procured a divorce, which was admittedly invalid according to the laws of Scotland or Canada, because S. was not truly domiciled in North Dakota. Adultery was not alleged in the divorce proceedings, and the divorce was granted on grounds which would not be held sufficient in Scotland or in Canada. Soon after the divorce W. and the divorced wife of S. went through the form of marriage in San Francisco. The deft, was the only child of this marriage. If legitimate, he was entitled, as heir in tail male of the father of W., to certain lands in Scotland and to certain stocks in English rys. held upon trust for the persons entitled to the lands. The pit., the next tenant in tail in remainder, brought this action for a declaration that the deft, was illegitimate, and that the pit. was entitled to the income of the investments other than the lands. The defence was that the deft, was legitimate by virtue of the doctrine of the canon law as to putative marriage, namely, that the children of an invalid marriage will be legitimate if the spouses, or one of them, have entered into the marriage bona fide and in ignorance of the im- pediment. There was conflicting evidence on the question whether this doctrine of putative marriage was part of the law of Scotland or not, but it was admitted that, if it was, the ignorance of the spouse must be founded on an error of fact ( 2321 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2322 ) SCOTTISH L&Vr—co}di>med. aud not an error of law. The ignorance alleged in this case was that the spouses did not know that the North Dakota divorce would not be recognized in Scotland. The judge refused to decide the first point, but held that the ignorance alleged was an error of law and not an error of fact, whether the domicil of W. at the date of the marriage was Scottish or Canadian. The deft, was therefore illegitimate, even if the doctrine of putative marriage was part of the law of Scotland. The declaration asked for was made. Semble, a divorce granted by a foreign Court having full jurisdiction on grounds not recognized by the law of Scotland will not be recognized by tlie Scottish Courts. In re Stirling. Stieling r. Stihling - Swinfen Eady J. [1908] W. N. 130 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 344 10. — Bivm'ce — Wife's costs. Where the wife is successful in her defence to an action of divorce the rule of the law of Scot- land is to give the wife her costs as between agent and client. Geant v. Geajtt H. L. (Sc.) [1905] A. C. 466 — Domicil, Acquisition of — Intention — Legitim. See Domicil. 1. — Education of Defective Children (Scotland) Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 10). — Election — Right of election — Estates in Scot- land and Australia — Two separate wills. See New South Wales. 38. ■ — Employer resident in Scotland — Jurisdiction of county court where accident occurred. See Mastee and Servant — Praotice. 17. 11. — Dntail — Restrietion — Provision for widow — Deduction from free rental — Entail Provisions Act, 1824 (Aberdeen Act"), 5 6eo. i, c. 87, s. 1. By s. 1 of the 5 Geo. i, e. 87, it was provided that the annuity to the widow of the deceased heir of entail " shall not exceed one-third part of the free yearly rent of the said lands and estates where the same shall be let, or of the free yearly value thereof where the same shall not be let, after deducting the public burdens, life-rent provisions, the yearly interest of debts and pro- visions, including the interest of provisions to children .... and the yearly amount of other burdens of what nature soever affecting and burdening the said lands and estates, or the yearly rents or proceeds thereof, and diminishing the clear yearly rent or value thereof to such heir of entail in possession, all as the same may happen to be at the death of the grantor " : — Held, affirming the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1902) 5 P. 48, that on the calculation of the widow's annuity the heir of entail in possession was not entitled to make deduction for upkeep of estate, buildings, and fences, or for management and super- intendence of the estate, these outgoings not being, in the sense of the statute, burdens affecting either the estate or its rents. Earl OP Galloway v. Dowager Countess of Galloway H. 1. (So.) [1903] "W. N. 196 ; [1904] A. C. 50 SCOTTISH LAW— continued. — Estate duty — Money held in trust to purchase lands in Scotland or England to be entailed. See Ebvenue — Estate Duty. 6. — Evidence — Scottish document registered in Scotland — Production in England im- possible — Secondary evidence of con- tents. See Vendor and Purchaser — Con- tract. 2. 12. — Farming lease — ArKtratian — Lease — Outgoing tenant — Sheep stock valuation — Agri- cultural Holdings {Scotland) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 64), .s. 11, sul)-s. 8 — Farming lease. By s. 11, sub-s. 1, of the Agricultural Hold- ings (Scotland) Act, 1908, " All questions which under this Act, or under the lease, are referred to arbitration, shall, whether the matter to which the arbitration relates arose before or after the passing of this Act, be determined, notwith- standing any agreement under the lease or other- wise providing for a different method of arbitra- tion, by a single arbiter in accordance with the provisions set out in the Second Schedule to this Act." The appellant was tenant of a farm under a lease which contained the following clause : — The appellant binds himself at the expiry of his lease to " leave the sheep stock on the farm to the proprietors or incoming tenant according to the valuation of men mutually chosen with power to name an oversman" : — Held (affirming the decision of the First Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1909) S. C. 1254), that the valuation of the sheep stock was re- ferred to "arbitration" in Scottish law, and consequently fell within o. 11, sub-s. 1, o£ the Act of 1908, which section superseded the pro- visions of the lease. Stewart v. Williamson H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. H. 119 : [1910] A. C. 455 Fatal Accidents and Sudden Peaths Inquiry {Scotland) Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 35). — Fishing, Mussel — Eight of Crown to giant. See Fishery. 3. 13. — Heritage — Right in secnritij — Messen- ger-at-arnix — Heritalle Securities {Scotland) Act 1894 (57 S- 58 Vict. c. 41), ss. 8, 10— Scottish law. By the Heritable Secui-ities (Scotland) Act, 1894, 3. 8, any creditor who has exposed for sale under his security the lands held in security .... may apply to the sheriff for decree in the terms of Sched. D. thereto annexed, and the sheriff may " after service on the proprietor and on the other creditors, if any, and after such • intimation and inquiry as he may think fit, grant such application and issue decree in the said terms. On such decree being pronounced and an extract thereof in whicli said lands shall be described at length or by reference recorded in the appropriate register of sasine, the right of redemption reserved to the debtor shall be extinguished, and the creditor shall have right to the lands disponed in security in tlie same manner and to the same effect as if the disposi- tion in security had been an irredeemable dis- position as from the date of such decree." By ( 2323 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2324 ) SCOTTISH LAW—eontinned. s. 10 " no purchaser from the creditor or other successor in title in the lands shall be under any duty to inquire into the regularity of the pro- ceedings under which creditor has acquired right to the lands held under his security by virtue of the provisions contained herein, Or be affected by any irregularity therein, without prejudice to any competent claim of damages against such creditor. " In 1895 certain creditors presented a petition under s. 8 of the above Act. The appellant, the proprietor of the lands, did not appear. The sheriff granted decree. Thereafter the creditors sold the lands and granted dispositions in favour of the purchasers. In 1901 the original proprietor brought an action against the creditors and purchasers for reduction of the citation and execution of service upon him of the petition in the sheriff Court, alleging that the service had been executed by a messenger-at-arms, who was not an officer of the sheriff Court ; and he pleaded that such service, with all that had followed thereon, including the disposition to the purchasers, was null and ineffectual : — Seld, affirming the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1902) 4 F. 957, that, assuming the service to be as stated, the error was an " irregularity in the proceedings " within the meaning of s. 10 of the Heritable Securities (Scotland) Act, 1894, and consequently that the right of the purchasers was not affected thereby. Suthebland v. Thomson (Manages OF Standard Life Assurance Co.) (Second Appeal) - - H. L. (So.) [1905] W. N. 172 ; [1906] A. C. 51 — Highway — Eight for foot passengers — Pre- scriptive use — Accumulated use attri- butable to two roads — Substituted roads. See HlGHWAV. 41. — Income tax — Sale of annuities — ^Assessment of revenue from invested funds. See Eevbndb — Income Tax. 2. — Innkeeper — Liability of innkeeper for goods deposited " expressly for safe custody." See Innkeeper. 1. — Insurance (Accident) — Condition in policy — ■ Claim to be made within a year of registration. See Insurance (Accident). 2. — Insurance — Professional — Widows' fund limited to members of a, society — Contributor expelled from society. See Insueauce (Professional). 1. -7- Judgment — Scotch judgment — Extension to England — Garnishee order nisi — Service on garnishee. See Attachment. 4. 14. — Landlord amd tencmt — Forfeiture of lease — Condition to take over sheep at expiration of lease. A tenant in a letter offering to take a lease of a farm for ten years from 1897 stipulated that at his " awaygoing at the expiration of the lease " SCOTTISH L&W—contimied. the landlord should take over the sheep at a valuation. The lease contained a clause that the lease should be forfeited for non-payment of rent, and, the tenant having failed to pay five half-years' rent, the landlord put an end to the lease in Feb., 1902, and refused to take over the Held, reversing the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., reported as Stewart V. Marquis of Breadalbam^, (1903) 5 F. 359, that " awaygoing " must be taken to mean the legal expiration of the lease, and that the land- lord on the tenant's default was not bound to take over the sheep. Marquess of Brbadal- BANE V. Stewart - H. I. (So.) [1904] W. N. 60 ; [1904] A. 0.217 — Landlord and tenant — Insanitary house — Claims by wife and children for damages for typhoid fever caused by defective drains. See Landlord and Tenant. 43. — Landlord and tenant — Sheep stock on expiry of lease — Refusal of new landlord to take over sheep. See No. 12, above, 15. — leases — Power of heir of entail in possession to burden the estate — Obligation to take over sheep stock on expiration of lease — Custom. The appellant was tenant of a sheep farm forming part of an entailed estate in Scotland. The lease granted by the late heir of entail was for fifteen years from Whit Sunday, 1903, with an option to either party to terminate the lease at the end of the fifth year. The appellant at his entry upon the farm was required to take over the sheep stock from the outgoing tena,nt at a valuation, and the lease contained the following clause : — The tenant " shall dehver at the end of the lease to the landlord or incoming tenant as far as possible not more than the same number of sheep and the same classes as he receives on his entry and the proprietor agrees that the" tenant " or his representatives shall receive the same prices as he paid on his entry." The appel- lant paid to the outgoing tenant 1,319Z. in 1903. In 1907 the late heir of entail in possession died and the respondent succeeded to the estate as next heir of entail. After her succession she repudiated the obligation to take over the sheep, and on the appellant not acquiescing she gave notice to terminate the lease on Whit Sunday, 1908. The appellant then raised this action concluding for declarator that the obligation was binding on the respondent as heiress of entail. The respondent did not represent the grantor of the lease, nor was she liable for his debts : — Held, affirming the decision of the First Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1908) S. C. 628, that the respondent was not liable under the obligation, as no heir of entail can be liable to pay a debt of a previous heir which has not been made a charge upon the estate itself and which is not authorized by the deed of entail. Gillespie v. Riddell H. L. (So.) [1908] W. N. 219 ; [1909] A. C. 130 ( 2325 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2326 ) SCOTTISH ZAW—co)ithived. — Licensing Acts — Refusal to renew certificate — Absolute discretion o£ magistrates. /S'fc Licensing Acts. i. — Lien for improvements on real estate in Scotland, Enforcement of — Jurisdiction. See Practice — Pleadings. 1. 16. — 3Iarriage contract — Conquest — Wife's avqvirenda — Accumulations of income — Legitim — Married Women's Property {Scotland) Act, 1881 (41 S- i'> Vict. c. 21), ss. 7, 8. By ante-nuptial marriage contract executed in 1848 the wife bound herself to convey to trustees the whole funds and estate real and personal which she might hereafter " conquest and acquire by purchase accession or otherwise." The trustees were directed to pay the income of the trust estate to the wife during her life for her own separate benefit and use exclusive of the jus mariti, and by a clause in the contract the provisions in favour of children were to bar any claim they might make under the head of legitim : — Held, affirming the decision of the Ct. of Sess., (19U2) "j F. 191, that the clause of conquest did not extend to estate which at the dissolution of the marriage by the death of the husband con- sistetl of or was purchased with accumulations of the wife's separate income ; (2) that the only child of the marriage was not entitled to legitim out of his mother's estate. JIackenzie I . ALLAEDES H. L. (So.) [1905] ■W. N. 67 ; [1905] A. C. 285 17. — 31aster and servant — Burgh surveyor — E.rtvii irorli — Delatj. The pursuer was appointed in 1868 surveyor of police by the police commrs. of Dundee at a salary of 400?. (subsequently raised to 500Z.), and continued in that oiHce and (after 1894) as burgh surveyor to the town council until 1906. By the terms of his appointment it was stipulated that he should devote all his services to the business of the commrs. During the thirty- eight years of his employment he did work for the commrs. in excess of what was contemplated at the time of his appointment, and particularly in regard to the promotion of various Bills in Parliament. On three occasions they paid him an honorarium, but otherwise he received no additional remuneration for his work. In 1906 he claimed and brought an action against the commrs. for 15,000?. in respect of extra work : — Held (affirming the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., Scotland, (1909) S. C. 971), that there was no evidence on which they could be held to be liable. Mackison c. Dundee JlAGiSTRATES H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 67 ; [1910] A. C. 285 18.-- Master and servant — Common employ- ment- f^'ompensation — Prar tire --Judicature Act of Scotland (6 GeoA, v. 120), s. il)-Slieriff Court cases. The House being of opinion that there was a material question of fact left undetermined by the Second Division of the Ct. of Ses^., (1909) SCOTTISH LAVT— continued. S. C. 152, remitted the cause back to the Court below to pronounce a finding on the said question in accordance with the practice in cases origi- nating in the Sherifi Court, Scotland. BuTLEE or Black c. Fife Coal Co. H. L. (Sc.) [1910] 'W. N. 194 — Mines — Mines of coal, ironstone, slate, or other minerals — Sandstone. See Eailwat — Mines. 7. — Mines and minerals — Lease — Absolute pro- hibition. See Mines. 8. 19. — Parliament — Franchise — Right of women graduates to vote — Representation of the People {Scotland) Act, 1868 (31 A'- .32 Vict. c. 48), .««. 27, 28 — Cyiiversities Elections Amendment {Scotland') Act, 1881 (44 4'- 4.T Vict. c. 40), s. 2, s^ii-ss. 3, lU, 16— Universities {Scotland) Act, 1889 (52 4- 53 I7rf. c. 55), s. 14, sub-s. 6. By s. 27 of the Eepresentation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, '• Every person whose name is for the time being on the register .... of the general council of such university, shall, if of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity, be entitled to vote in the election of a member to serve in any future Parliament for such univer- sity in terms of this Act " ; and by s. 28, sub-s. 2, the following persons shall be members of the general council of the respective universities : — All persons on whom the university to which such general council belongs has after examina- tion conferred" the degree of M.D., &c., "any other degree that may hereafter be instituted." The appellants were five women graduates of the University of Edinburgh, and as such had their names enrolled on the general council of that university, and they claimed as graduates and members of the general council the right to vote at the election of a member of Parliament for the university : — Held (affirming the decision of the Extra Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1908) S. C. 113), that the appellants were not entitled to vote in the election of the parliamentary representative of the university. There is no evidence of any ancient custom for women to vote in parliamentary elections. Nairn v. University of St. Andrews H. L. (Sc.) [1908] -W. N. 250 ; [1909] A. C. 147 — Patent — Interpretation of specification — In- fringement by licensee — Damages. See Patent — Infringement. 7. — Poor law — Settlement by residence — Support by charitable institution. Sec Poor Law. 29. — Power of appointment — Appointment — Donee domiciled in Scotland — Codicil valid by law of domicil — Probate in England — Defective execution aided. See Power of Appointment. 29. — Practice — Decreet of Ct. of Sess. in Scotland — Certificate registered in High Court. See liECEIVEE. 2. ( 2327 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2328 ) SCOTTISH LAW— continued. — Practice — Witness — Taking the oath — Kissing the book. See Oaths. 1. ■ — Eailway — Bridge carrying public highway over railway- — Ijiability to repair. See -Vo. 3, atove. — Railway passenger — Damages for personal injuries — Failure of railway servants to close carriage doors before starting the train. See Eailway — Passengers. 5. — Railway — Reservation of minerals — Convey- ance of surface — Costs. See Lands Clauses Acts. 35. — Rates — Assessment — Construction of statute — Glasgow Court Houses Act. See Rates. 7. 20. — Mates — Judicial factor — Receiver — Fomer to iiwrease rates — Greenoch Sariour Act, 1880 (13 ^ a Vict. c. clxx.), s. 70— Greenock Harbour Act, 1888 (51 ^ 52 Vict. c. cxiii.), ss. 21, 22. By the Greenock Harbour Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. clxx.), s., 70, " Every application for a judicial factor under the provisions of this Act shall be made to the sheriff, and on any such application the sheriff may by order in writing, after hearing the parties, appoint some person to receive the whole or a competent part of the rates and duties and other revenues of the trust, until all the arrears of interest or of principal, as the case may be, . . .be fully paid." The appellant, as judicial factor of the Greenock Harbour Trust, claimed to be entitled to demand for sugar shipped into or unshipped from vessels (foreign) at the port and harbour of Greenock the rate of Is. 3d. per ton, being the maximum rate authorized by the Greenock Harbour Act, 1880. This rate was fixed by the appellant in opposition to the wishes of the respondents, the Greenock Harbour trustees, who insisted that the rate should be only lOd. per ton, the rate fixed by the respondents prior to the appointment of the appellant : — Held (affirming the decision of the First Division of the Ct. of Sess., Scotland, (1908) S. C. 944), that the judicial factor was merely a receiver of the tolls and income of the under- taking and not its manager, and that he had no implied authority to increase or destroy the different sources of revenue. Caemichael r. Gebenock Hahboub TEtrSTBES - H. L. (So.) [1910] W. N. 58 ; [1910] A. C. 874 21. — Remuneration of Procurator Fiscal — Preliminary inquiries into non-prosecuted cases — County General Assessment Act, 1868 (31 4' 32 Vict. c. 82), s. 3, sub-ss. 2 and 3 — Rogue Money Act, 1724 (11 Geo. 1, c. 20), s. 12. In an action for debt, the debt must be established either by contract or at common law or by statute. Sect, 4 of the County General Assessment Act, 1868, authorized an assessment to be imposed called the " county general assessment " ; and s. 3 provided that " the following sa,larie6, fees, outlays, and expenses, namely (sub-s. 2) : The SCOTTISH L&Vr— continued. salaries or fees and necessary outlays of Pro- curators Fiscal in the Sheriff and Justice of Peace Courts .... in so far as such salaries, fees, and outlays are at present in use to be paid by each county." Sub-s. 3 : " The expenses incurred in searching for, apprehending, sub- sisting, prosecuting, or punishing, criminals : — in so far as any such salaries, fees, outlays, and expenses are not by law or usage payable or pro- vided from other funds thaii those raised by the Commrs. of Supply, may be defrayed by the said commrs. out of the ' county genqral assess- ment.' " Under the Rogue Money Act of 1724, certain fees had been paid to the Procurators Fiscal for criminal prosecutions. Subsequently those charges which lay on the county were undertalien by the Treasury, and eventually a salary in lieu of fees was paid to the Procurators Fiscal. The Procurator Fiscal of the lower ward of Lanark alleged that his salary only included cases which were reported or went to trial and made a claim for remuneration for those oases in which he made inquiry, but which went no further. Since 1851 the county council had refused to pay this claim. And from 1851 to 1868, when the County General Assessment Act came into force, no attempt had been made by the then Procurator Fiscal to compel the county to pay, although accounts by the Procurator Fiscal were furnished at different periods : — Held (reversing the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., Hart v. Cotiriiy Council of the County ofLaTiarli, (1902) 40 S. L. R. 117), that it could not be said that in the county of Lanark " it was in use " to pay these fees at the date of the Act of 1868, and therefore the county was not liable. Lanaek County Council c. Haht H. I. (Sc.) [1904] W. N. 66 ; [1904] A. C. 235 Reserved minerals — Conveyance of service only. See Lands Clauses Acts. 35. — River — Riparian proprietors. Rights of — Ab- straction of the whole of the water from river — Ex adverso mill owners. Sec ElVEE. 4. — Sale of goods — Passing of property — Scottish arrestment of ship in course of building. See Sale op Goods. 1. — Salmon fishing — Abstraction of water by mill owner — Right to interdict by upper fishery proprietors. See FiSHEBY. 11. 22. — Servitude — Construction — Bond to secure amenity — Meaning of tlie word " wn- seendy " in a bond of servitude. The pm-suers, proprietors of a feu, raised an action against the defenders, the proprietors of an adjoining feu held of the same superior, to enforce building restrictions. These restrictions were contained in a bond of servitude, by which the defenders bound themselves and their succes- sors not to erect on any part of an adjoining piece of ground " any building of an unseemly description." Tlie pursuers alleged that the defenders were about to allow the erection of ( 2329 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2330 ) SCOTTISH LAW—contmued. unseemly buildings within the meaning of the bond of servitude : — Seld (affirming the decision o£ the First Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1906) 8 F. 1109) that a condition against the erection of buildings of " an unseemly description " was too vague and indefinite to be valid as a permanent restraint on the use of property. MtjkrAY r Duira H. 1. (Sc.) [1907] "W. N. 123 ; [1907] A. C. 283 — Service of writ of summons — Scottish cor- poration carrying on business in England. See Pkacticb — Service. 14. — Settled estates — English settlement — Real estate in Scotland — Improvements on Scotch real estate — Capital moneys — Jurisdiction. See Settled Land— Scotch Estate. 1. — Settled land — Land in Scotland — Feu — Juris- diction — Application to Scottish Courts — Form of order. See Settled Land — Leases. 9. — Settlement — Contract in Scotch form — Eng- lish trustees — ^Husband's life interest. See Conflict of Laws. 6. — Settlement — Effect of divorce on children's provisions — Income undisposed of. See Divorce — Settlements. 1. — Settlement, Marriage — Domicil. See Conflict of Laws. 8. — Sewers — Burgh Sewerage.Drainage and Water Supply (Scotland) Act, 1901 — Failure to give notice. See Sewees. 13. — Shipping — Collision — Firth of Forth a " narrow channel " — Damages for loss of life — Ship in fault. See Shipping — Collision. 25. — Shipping — Demurrage — Charterparty — Bill of lading not put in evidence — Hypo- thetical case. See Shipping — Charterparty. 32. 23. — Shops — By-law — Ultra rires — Power of iiiai/lstratex to close s/iops at 10 p.m. — Burgh Police (^Scotland) Act, 1892 (55 S; 56 Vict. c. 55), sx. 316, 317, 318, .380, and 1903 (3 Mw. 7, c. 33), s. 82, xiih-x. 2. By s. 380 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. i;. 55), a penalty is imposed on the occupier of any building for the sale or consumption of provisions or refreshments who opens his premises for busin&ss before 5 o'clock in the morning or keeps them open after mid- night. By s. 82, sub-s. 1, of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903, any building used as an icecream shop must be registered. By s. 82, sub-s. 2, town councils of burghs in Scotland may make by-laws (subject to confirmation of the sheriff and the Secretary for Scotland : s. 318 of the Act of 1892) in regard to the hours of opening and closing of premises registered as icecream shops, "the hours for business not being more restricted than fifteen hours daily." SCOTTISH LAW— co/aimted. The defenders, the town council of a burgh, made a by-law by which it was illegal for such premises to be kept open except between 7 o'clock in the morning and 10 o'clock at night : — Held (aflirming the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1906) 8 F. 564), that the by-law was not ultra vires or unreason- able. Da Peato r. Paetick (Pkovost, &c., of) H. L. (Sc.) [1907] W. N.67 ; [1907] A. C. 153 — Stamps — Stamp — Settlement — Alteration of security by subsequent deed. See REVBNnE — Stamps. 28. ■ Stream — Natural stream- See Stream. 1, 2. -Pollution. 24. — Streets — Burgh — Building regulatio-nx — " Widtli,'^ Meaning of., in respect to existing streets — Glasgow Building Regulatimis Act, 1900 (63 J- 64 Vict. c. cl.-). Sect. 9 of the Glasgow Building Regulations Act, 1900, Part II., which has a general heading " Streets," provides for the formation by the defenders of a " register of public streets," in which are to be entered various particulars as regards all public streets then in existence, and, inter alia, the "point of commencement and termination " and the " width," and enjoins the marking of such streets, and the area thereof, on an ordnance survey map. The First Division of the Ct. of Sess. and three other judges held that the " width " as used in the Act meant in the case of existing public streets the actual width, and, secondly, that the action of the pursuers raised while the register was in preparation and before the statutory period was exhausted was competent, but premature : — Held, that the decision of the Ct. of Sess., (1905) 7 F. 1020, was right, and must be affirmed. Caledonian Ry. Co. v. Glasgow Coepoka- TION - H. L. (Sc.) [1907] W. N. 67 ; [1907] A. C. 160 Note. See next Case. 25. — Streets — Burgh — Fixing ividth of exi.it- ing street — Glasgow Building Segulations Act, 1900 (63 <5- 64 Vict. c. cl.'). The Glasgow Building Regulations Act, 1900, makes provision for a register of public streets in Glasgow, and by s. 20 imposes restrictions upon the erection of any building upon ground adjoining any street, and for the purpose enacts that the " width " of any public street shall be the '' width " set forth in the register where such width is entered therein. And the width of any public street of which the dimensions are not set forth in the register . . . shall be fixed by the master of works : — Held (affirming the decision of seven judges of the Ct. of Sess., (1905) 6 F. 1034), that the master of works was bound to fix as the width of a public street the width of the street actually existing. NisBET c. Hamilton - H.I. (So.) [1907] W. N. 67 ; [1907] A. C. 168 yotc. See preceding Case, ( 2331 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2332 ) SCOTTISH lAW—contUmed. 26. — Succession — Construction of wiU — Resi- due of estate " to heir entitled to succeed under a deed of entail " — Lands disentailed — Intestacy. The testator directed his trustees to entail his Kintail estate upon a series of heirs, specified in a tailzied destination clause, and gave certain beneficial interests in the residue of his estate " to the heir for the time being entitled to succeed under the said deed of entail " upon bis attaining the age of twenty-four. On his attaining twenty-one the institute heir of entail took advantage of the Entail Amendment (Scotland) Act of 1848, s. 27, and before any deed of entail had been executed obtained from the Court an order to have the estate of Kintail conveyed to him in fee simple, and he evacuated the tailzied destination, thus destroying the entail ; he afterwards died un- married before attaining the age of twenty-four. The next of kin claimed that, in the circum- stances of the entail, the residue had fallen into intestacy : — Seld (affirming the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1907) 8. G. 139), that the residue did not fall into intestacy, as the will declared that the beneficial interest therein was to go to the heir for the time being under the tailzied destination, and it was not a condition of such heir succeeding to the said interest that he should be in the position of heir of entail of Kintail under a deed of entail. Baroness Wessblenyi r. Jamieson H. L. (So.) [1907] W. N. 195 ; [1907] A. C. 440 27. — Superior and vassal — Casualty composition — Singular successor — Annual value of minerals. The measure of the right of a superior to a casualty or composition on the entry of a singular successor is the year's rent for which the land is let for the time, and this rent includes mineral rents or royalties where coal or other minerals are being worked ; and it makes no difference that the minerals are approaching exhaustion. Dulte of Hamilton v. Allan's Trustees, (1878) 5 E. 510, approved. Appeal from the decision of the Ct. of Sess., Scotland, (1900) 2 F. 1218. Earl of Home v. Lord Belhaven and Stenton H. 1. (So.) [1903] W. N. 104 ; [1903] A. C. 327 28. — Superior and vassal — Feu contract — Stipulations for additional feu duty for ground " on which buildings shall be erected." The House reversed the decision of the First Division of the Ct. of Sess., Scotland, (1901) 3 F. 933, and allowed the appeal with costs both here and below. M'Fablanb v. Sir John Maxwell Stirling Maxwell. H. L. (Sc.) [1902] W. N. 206 . — Trade name — Injunction — Similarity of name. See Trad* Name. 5. Trust — Gift of whole or annual income according to trustees' discretion — Assignation. See Trustee— Discretion. 1. •— Trust — Will — Denuding — Vesting. See Trust. 2. SCOTTISH LAVr— continued. — Vendor and purchaser— Contract— Sale of estate by general name— Use of plan. See Vendor and Pukohasbr— Plan. i. 29. — Vendor and Purchaser — Plan — Heritage — Sale by estate name. This action was a dispute as to how much land was bought from the appellant by the respondent on a contract of sale. Both parties alleged they made a valid contract and differed only as to what was sold. The appellant alleged he sold according to a "plan." The respondent contended that he bought according to an instrument of dissentail of Dec. 31, 1886, which was a dissentail of the "Lands and Barony of Dallas." The " plan" referred to the Estate of Dallas." The House being of opinion that there was a valid and binding sale of the estate of Dallas according to a "plan," reversed the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1909) S. C. 1198, and restored the judgment of the Lord Ordinary with costs. Gordon Cumming v. HOULDSWORTH. H. L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 186 ; [1910] A. C. 537 — Water— Eight of support for water-pipes- Minerals under pipes. See under WATER. ZO.— Will — Reduction — Agent alleged to benefit under will prepared by him — Suspicion— Defect in attestation. The rule that where a will is prepared by n party who takes a benefit under it, that is a cir- cumstance which forms a just ground of suspicion and requires clear and satisfactory proof thatthe instrument contains the real intention of the testator, does not authorize the Court to consider suggestions of fraud or undue influence of which no foundation is laid in evidence. Decision of the First Division of the Ct. of Sess., Scotland, (1907) S. C. 1240, affirmed. LOW V. Guthrie -H. L. (Sc.) [1909] W. N. 81 ; [1909] A. C. 278 Will — Uncertainty — " Such charitable or public purposes as my trustee thinks proper" — Trust. See Will — Uncertainty, i. — Workmen's Compensation. See under Master and Servant— Compensation. SCOTSMAN— Divorce — Foreign domioil, alle- giance, or residence of co-respondent — Liability for costs or damages. See Divorce— Co-reBpondent. 3. SCREEN— To prevent acquisition of right to light — " Building " — Open spaces. See Burial. 5. SEA— Fishings. See under Fishery. — Foreshore. See under Foreshore. — Poor rate — Necessary repairs to command rent — Kent-charge imposed for protec- tion of land from the sea. See Kates. 40. ( 2333 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2334 ) SEA — continued. — Bates — Rent-charges imposed for protection of land from sea. See Bates 40. SEA FISHEEY. See under Fishery. SEAL— Great Seal {Offices) Act, lS7i— Abolition of feex — Order of the Lord ClianreVor, dated May 19, 1904. Reprintfrom W. N. 1904 (June 4), p. 197. See Current Index, 1904, p. cxvii. — Corporation — Contract not under seal. See Corporation, (i, 7. — Retainer of solicitors by resolutions not under seal — Subsequent affixing of seal after work partly done under retainer. See Local Government. 29. SEALING — Debentures — Resolution to issue series of debentures — Issue. See Company — Debentures. 3.5. — Resealing — Colonial probate — Limited grant. See Probate — Colonies. 1. SEAMEN. See under Shipping- — Seamen. Employer's liability — Compensation. See Master and Servant ■ pensation. UU— 166. . Com- SEAECH—Water bailiff. Powers of— Right to search suspected person's pocket. See Fishery. 12. SEASHOEE. See also under Foreshore. — Grown lands — Grant of foreshore by the Crown — Pier — Unauthorized construc- tion — Public nuisance. See Pier. 1. — Custom to dry fishing-nets — Charges in user — Recession of sea — Land added by accretion. Sec Custom. 1. 1. — Foreshore — Conveyance of la iid " hounded by the seashore " — Parcels — Finns — Falsa demon- si ratio — Evidence — Admissibility — Professional duty — Deceased surveyor — Field-book entries. In a conveyance the land granted was described as " situate on the seashore." The exact dimensions of each side of the plot were then given as well as its area, and it was stated that the plot was bounded on the south by other land of the grantor, on the east and north re- spectively by speciiied roads, and " on the west by llie seashore." Reference was then made to a Yiiau indorsed ou the deed. The plan shewed the dimensions as stated in the description : — Held, tliat the word " seashore " must be taken to mean tlie " foresliore " in its strict legal sense, i.e., the laud situate between medium high and low water-marks : — Held (by Vaughan Williams and Stirling L.JJ.), that the laud between the plot and the foreshore did not pass to the grantee, but that the grantor was estopped from saying that the land to the west of the plot was anything but " seashore," and that the grantee was entitled to SEASKO^E— continued. ' free and unrestricted access to the sea from every part of his western frontage over every part of the land lying between that frontage and the sea. Per Vaughan Williams L.J. : The ordinary rule — that an erroneous statement as to dimen- sions or quantity, or an inaccuracy in a plan, will not vitiate a suflBciently certain definition of the land granted by a deed — did not apply, because in this deed the dimensions were part and parcel of the description itself, not an addition to that which had been already certainly defined. Held, by Romer L.J., that the land lying between the western side of the plot and the line of medium high water-mark passed by the conveyance to the grantee. Decision of Swinfen Eady J., [1904] 2 Ch. .525, varied. Held, by the C. A., that field-book entries made by a deceased surveyor for the purpose of a survey on which he was professionally employed were admissible in evidence as being made in the discharge of professional duty within Price V. Farl of Torrinyton, (1703) 1 S.alk, 285. Decision of -Swinfen Eady J., [1904] 2 Ch. 528, reversed. Mbllor v. A\'alMesley C. A. [1905] W. N. 98, 102 ; [1905] 3 Ch. 164 Note. Distinguished by C. A., Mercer v. Denne, [1905] 2 Ch. 538. See Custom. 1. 2. — Foreshore — Crown, Mights of — Encroach- ment — Riparian owner — Disconti7iuance of posset' sion — Adverse possession, Title by — Intention — ■ Protection of adjoining property — -Anivms pos- sidendi — Dispossession — Injunction — Statute of Limitations — Real Property Limitation Act, 1833 (3 <$■ 4 Will. 4, c. 27), ss. 2, 3. In this case the Court said the law was per- fectly well settled, and could not be better expressed than in the two cases of Lancaster v. Krc, (1859) 5 C. B. (N.S.) 715, 723, 725, and Littledale v. Lirerpool Colleye. [1900] 1 Ch. 19, 23 — that, iu order to acquire by the Statute of Limitations a title to land which had a known owner, that owner must have lost his right either by being dispossessed of it or by having discontinued his possession of it. Looking at the facts established by the evidence in this case, no case of discontinuance had been made out, and if the deft, succeeded at all, he must do so by shewing that he had dispossessed the pit. and his predecessors in title. The question was one of intention. What, then, was tlie intention of the persons who deposited on the foreshore in front of the deft.'s premises these boulders which had beeu brouglit from a considerable distance ? Was this done by the deft.'s predecessors in title iu order to claim possession of the foreshore itself, so as to exclude the o.wners of the fore- shore therefrom, or was it done for the protection and convenience of the predecessors iu title of the deft. ? At the moment of the act being done it woulil have been the duty of the Court, in considering such a question, to say, " How has the particular article come into the place in which it is found, and what was the object of that article being placed there ? " It was not ( 2335 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2336 ) SE&SKQ^'E—oontmued. sufficient for the present deft, to say that the article had been placed there a long time. It was necessary to shew whether the article was placed there in order to assert a title of ownership to the soil, or whether it was intended to be merely ancillary to the use by the deft, of his property. In a case of this kind it was always open to inquiry how the article came to be in the place in which it was found, and what the parties intended as to its use ; and their respective rights must be subject to explanation by evidenoe : Lancaster t. Eoe (supra) ; Wood v. Sewett, (1846) 8 Q. B. 913. Here there was nothing binding one to hold that the acts of the deft, or his predecessors in title had indicated any intention to exclude the plt.'s rights, and therefore the decision of Warrington J. must be affirmed. But under the judgment in its present form, it did not appear certain that the pit. would not be entitled to clear away the stones. That ought not to be allowed, for an easement had been acquired by the deft. That being so, the Court thought the only way to give proper effect to the judgment of the Court below was to add these words : " But this order is without prejudice to the right of the deft, to an easement over the plt.'s land for the purpose of protecting and securing the deft.'s building from encroach- ment by the sea by means of rooks, stones, or piles placed on such land." Philpot ii. Bath C. A. [1905] W. N. 114 3. — Foreshore — PaUic right of bathing. The public have no common law right to use the foreshore or to pass and repass thereon for the purpose of bathing in the sea, whether the foreshore is the property of the Crown or of a private owner. Blundell v. Catterall, (1821) 5 B. & A. 268, followed. Brinokman r. Matlby C. A. [1904] W. N. 150 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 313 Note. This case was referred to by Parker J., Lord mtzna,rdinge v. Pureell, [1908] 2 Ch. 139, 163. See Foreshore. 2. — Foreshore — Rights of owners of foreshore included in harbour and precincts — Eemoving sand, &c. See Habbotje. 2. — • Foreshore — Trespass — Title to foreshore under a Crown grant — Construction. See Tasmania. 1. SEAWORTHINESS— Ship. See under INSTJEAHCB (MARINE) — Shipping. — Warranty of — Damage to cargo — " By reason of " fire. See Shipping — Fire. 1. SECKET CHARGE— Account for— Broker and client — Purchase of shares. See Stock Exchange. 1. SECRET COMMISSION— Sub-agent-Privity of contract — Fiduciary relation — Money had and received. See Principal and Agent. 9. SECRET PROFIT— Broker and client^Purchase of shares — " Net " charge. See Stock Exchange. 1. — Promoter — Duty as to extent of disclosure. See Company — Promoters. 2. — Received by agent without fraud — Eight of agent to retain his commission. See Pkincipal and Agent. 11. Right to retain commission. See Principal and Agent. 10. — Sole agent — Right to retain commission. See Principal and Agent. 13. SECRET TRUST— Absolutegift— Charity— Trust for benefit of public, but so that they should acquire no rights. See Will— Absolute gift. 9. SECRETARY- Company. See under COMPANY — Secretary and Company — Winding-up — Secretary. SECRETARY OF STATE— Order of— Validity— C'ondition precedent — Sfotice of making of order. See Statutory Rules and Orders. 1. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COLONIES— Protectorate — " Foreign dominion of the Crown." See Habeas Corpus. 2. SECURED CREDITORS— Bankruptcy. See under BANKRUPTCY. — Creditor. See under Creditor. — Default on Stock Exchange— Mortgage — Deposit of securities — Redemption — Notice of act of bankruptcy. See Bankruptcy— Stock Exchange. 1. — Garnishee order — Application of law of bank- ruptcy. See ■ Company— Winding-up— Secured Creditor. 1. SECURITIES. See under Investments. — Power to transpose and vary — Implied power to resell. See Vendor and Purchaser — Title. 19. — Settled estate — Unauthorized securities — Wasting securities. See Settled Land — Securities. 1. — Stocks and shares in companies — Extrinsic evidence. Admissibility of. See Will — Investments. 3. SECURITY— Bond of limited company — Ultra vires. See Receiver. 14. — Receiving order — Scheme of arrangement — Creditor — Withdrawal of debt. See Bankruptcy— Arrangements. 3. • Costs, Security for. See under Costs. 4 p ( 2337 ) DiaEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2338 ) S^CVRITY— continued. — Decision of Master as to sufficiency of — Appeal from Master — Practice. See Appeal. 25. — Dispensing with — Appeal. &e BAifKKUPTCY — Practice. 13. — Divorce — Wife's costs — Previous order for separation — Eflfect. See Divorce — Costs. 13. — For composition — Sufficiency — Sclieme of arrangement. See Bankedptct — Arrangements. 1. — For damages — Collision — Action in personam — Foreign plaintiffs — Counter-claim. See Shipping— CoUision. 52. — Heritage — Eight in security - at-arms. See Scottish Law. 13. SECURIT-? FOE COSTS. See under Costs. SEDUCTION— Action for— Res judicata- Affilia- tion proceedings — Judgment of quarter sesions. See Estoppel. 3- — Children — Girl under the age of sixteen years — Encouraging seduction, See Infant — Seduction. 1. — Discovery — Interrogatories — Admissibility — — Action for seduction — Disclosure of names — Practice. See DiSCOVKKT. 6. 1. ^- Master and servant — Evidence of service — Employment iy defendant — Weekly leave of absence — Visits tothefather^s home — Assistance in hmtsehold deities. The plt.'s daughter, who was in the service of the deft., was permitted to go out once a wceli for an afternoon and evening. On such occasions she went to her father's house and assisted in household duties. In an action by the pit. for the seduction of his daughter by the deft, while she was in the latter's service : — Held, that there was no evidence of the rela- tion of master and servant between the pit. and his daughter to support the action. Whitbouenb V. Williams - C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 722 -Appeal. SENTENCE— Appeal. See under Ckiminal Law- — Practice — Hard labour — Common law forgery. See Criminal Law — Forgery. 1. — Eight of appellants to shew cause before sentence — Appeal from Hong Kong. See HoNa KoNG. i. SEPARATE PROPERTY— Married woman. Srr under HUSBAND AND WlFB. SEPARATION— Deed of See under Separation Deed. — Deed of — Covenant not to revive suit — Sub- sequent adultery by husband. See Divorce — Practice. 11. — Deed of separation — Bar — Summary Juris- diction (Married Women) Act. See Husband and Wife — Deser- tion. 1. — Divorce — Judicial separation. See under Divorce — Judicial Separa- tion. — Husband and wife. See under HUSBAND ANT) Wife — Separation. — Judicial — After-acquired property — Covenant — " During the marriage." See Settlement. 15. SEPARATION DEED. See also under Separation. — Action by trustees for wife under — Security for costs — " Nominal plaintiff " — Practice. See Trustee— Costa. 2. — Allowance under — Divorce — Husband's peti- tion — Order for costs against respondent. See Divorce— Costs. 15. — Divorce — Separation deed — Alimony — Annuity — Deduction of income tax. See Revenue — Income Tax. 18. 1. — Settlement on children of marriage — Retumption of cohabitation. By a separation deed the husband assigned property belonging to him to a trustee upon trust for the wife for life, and after her death for the benefit of the existing children of the marriage. The husband and wife subsequently resumed cohabitation : — Held by Kekewich J., [1901] W. X. 31 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 451, that the settlement in favour of the children was not affected by the resump- tion of cohabitation. Alston, (1875) L. E. 19 Eq. 539, Ruffles followed. Compromised on appeal. In re Spark's Trusts. Spark r. Massbt C. A. [1904] -W. N. 129 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 121 SEPARATION ORDER— Adultery of wife— Lia- bility of husband for subsequent weekly payments. See Husband and Wife — Separation. 1. — Desertion — Lunatic — Irremovability — Appeal to quarter sessions. Sec Poor Law. 2. — Effect of, under Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895. /S',v- Divorce — Separation Orders. K ( 3339 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 23iO ) SEPARATION ORDER- — Husband and wife. See under Husband and Wife — Separation Order. — Will — Administration — Form oil order. See Probatk — Practice. 6. SEQUESTRATION— Interest, Insufficiency of- Sequestrator during vacancy of bene, fice. See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 4. 1. — Notice of Writ — Effect upon chose in action in hands of third party — Banker and customer. Summons by the pits, asking that the London and County Banking Co. might be ordered to pay into Court the sum of Wil. 7s. 8d., being the balance of cash standing to the credit of the deft. H. E. PoUard in the books of the bank upon May 20, 1902. The action was for administration, and to recover from the deft, a sum of money which was due from him to the testatrix, under whose will he was a legatee and executor. The deft, had been ordered to pay into Court to the credit of the action the sum of 136Z. 3s. which had been found due from him to the estate. He haviii" failed to comply with that order, on May 20, 1902, a writ of sequestration was issued against him. On the same day the sequestrators attended at the office of the bank where the deft, had an account, gave the manager notice of the writ, and demanded payment of the amount standing to the credit of the deft. According to the evidence of the pits., the manager promised the sequestrators that lie would communicate with the solicitor of the pits, and the sequestrators after consulting the banks' solicitors, and that in the meanwhile he would not part with any of the money then standing to the credit of the deft. It was admitted that on May 20, 1902, the amount standing to the credit of the deft, in the books of the b»nk was 204Z. 7s. 8d. Notwithstanding what had taken place between the manager and the sequestrators, the bank subsequently paid over to the deft, a portion of his balance, and this summons was then taken out. The bank were willing to pay into Court the sum of 136Z. 3s., but opposed the making of an order against them in respect of the larger sum. Joyce J. regretted that he could not make an order in respect of the larger sum. It was laid down in text-books that mere notice of a writ of sequestration did not bind a chose in action in the hands of a third party, and the authorities seemed to bear out that proposition. No case had been cited to shew that mere notice of a seques- tration was enough, and certainly it did not create a charge. The bank submitting to pay the 136Z. 3s. into Court, there would be an order against them for that amount ; but, having regard to what had passed between the sequestrators and the bank manager, his Lordship declined to give the bank any costs. In re PoLLAED. Pollabdd. Pollabd Joyce J. [1902] W. N. 144 — Payment of money into Court to " account of sequestrators" — Bankruptcy of defen- dant — Title of trustee. iSe« BANKEUPTCT-^Secured Creditors. 4. SEQUESTRATION— oo/rfireMe^Z. 2. — Practice — Execution — Enforcing order against corjioration — Writ of sequestration — In- junction to restrain sewage nuisance — Undertalt- ing to cleanse stream — Breach of injunction — Non-peiformance of undertaldng — '\ Wilful dis- ohe.dience"—R. S. C, 1883, Order XLII., r. 31— Solicitor and client costs. Where a person or corporation is restrained by injunction from doing a particular act, the person or corporation commits a breach of the injunction, and is liable to process for contempt, if he or it in fact does the act, and it is no answer to say that the act was not contumacious, in the sense that in doing it there , was no direct intention to disobey the order. The expression " wilfully " in Order XLii., r. 31, is intended to exclude only casual or accidental and unintentional disobedience to an order of the Court. Fairclovqh v. Manchester ShljJ Canal Co., [1897] W. N. 7, and Att.-Gen. v. Walthamstow Urlan District Council, (189,5) 11 Times L. B. 533, followed. In the case of a corporation, such as an urban district council, which can only act by its servants or agents, if the act is in fact done, the corpora- tion cannot escape liability for its commission by proving that it was done by its servant or agent through carelessness, neglect, or even in dereliction of his duty. Rantzen v. Rothschild, (18G5) 14 W. E. 96, followed. By an oi'der of Court the defts. were restrained by injunction from sending sewage into a stream, and by the same order they undertook to cleanse the stream. They committed breaches of the injunction and failed to cleanse the stream in accordance with their undertaking. The Court directed a writ of sequestration to issue against the defts., but to lie in the office for six months, and not 1o issue at all if within that period the defts. performed their undertaking to the satisfaction of a person agreed upon by the parties, and ordered the defts. to pay the pits.' costs as between solicitor and client. Stanoomb V. Trowbridge Urban District Council Warrington 3. [1910] W. N. 105 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 190 SERVANT— Civil servant— Additional years of service need not be continuous. See New South Wales. 3. — Male servant — Inland revenue. See under Revenue — Servants. — Master and. See under Master and Sbevant. — Negligence of driver — Liability of proprietor. See Hackney Caeeiage. 2. — Will — Construction — Legacy — Year's wages See Will— Servants. 1. SERVICE— Contract of. See under Contract op Service and Master and Servant — Contract of Service. — Master and servant. See under Master and Servant— Contract of Service. 4 f2 ( 2341 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2342 ) SERVICE— continued. — Police — Pension — " ApproYed service'' Continuity ot service. See Police. 3. — Practice. See under PeA-Ctice — Service. — Solicitor. See under SOLICITOR Service. Contract of SERVITUDE — Construction — Bond to secure amenity — Meaning of the word " un- seemly " in the bond of servitude. See Scottish Law. 22. SET - OFF— Bankruptcy . See under Bankruptcy- Set-off. — Company — Winding-up — Contributory — Call. See Company — "WiNDiNS-trp— Contri- butory. 1. — Costs — Equitable set-off — Debts "en autre droit " See Vendor and Purchaser — Costs. 1. — Exchequer Com-t of Canada (Admiralty) — Extent of ;jurisdictiou — Suit to enforce mortgage of a ship — Plea of set-off. See Canada— Shipping. 3. — Lien on shares — Set-off against debts due from member — Winding-up. See Industrial and Provident SOCIBTY. 5. — Mortgage — -Interest. See Mortgage — Costs. 2. — " Mutual dealings" — Administration action — Insolvent estate — Mortgages by testator. See Administration. 16. 1. — Mutual debts — Practice — Assignment to defendant of deU oiivd by plaintiff to third person — Set-off iy defendant of assigned debt against debt claimed from, him by plain/iff — Practice — Judicature Act, 1873 (36 4'- 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, sub-s. 6. In an action to recover a debt due from the deft, to the pit., the deft, is entitled to set off a debt originally due from the pit. to a third person who has assigned it to the deft. Decision of the Div. Ct., [1910] 2 K. B. 1, reversed. Bennett r. White C. A. [1910] W. N. 167 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 643 SETTING ASIDE— Arbitration— Award— Order, whether final or interlocutory. See Practice— Interlocutory Orders. 1. — Award. See under ARBITRATION. — Compromise — Family solicitor — Common agent — Mistake of law or fact — Will — Beneficiaries. See Compromise. 4. — Deed — Form of Order — Solicitor and client — Fiduciary relation. See Solicitor- Fiduciary Eolation. 2. SETTING ASIDE— continued. — Judgment — Action by bankrupt to set aside judgment on ground of fraud — Jurisdic- tion. See Bankruptcy — Judgment. 1. 1. — Judgment creditor — Garnisliee order absolute — Mistahe — Setting aside. A garnishee order, made upon evidence afterwards proved to be mistaken, may be set aside although it has been made absolute and has been acted upon. Moore v. Peacliey, (1892) 66 L. T. 198, followed. Marshall r. James Joyce J. [1905] W. N. 28 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 432 — Malicious prosecution, Action for — Verdict set aside — New trial. See Queensland. 3. — Solicitor — Bill of costs — Taxation — Agree- ment in writing — Signature — Enforce- ment — Setting aside. See Solicitor — Costs. 2. — Subpcena not issued for purpose of obtaining relevant evidence — Jurisdiction. See Grimixal Law — Evidence. 14. — Writ of extent — Affidavit of debt and danger — Sufficiency of Affidavit — Motion to set aside writ. See Revenue — Writ of Extent. I. SETTLED ESTATE. See under Settled Land. SETTLED LAND. Note. — Settled Estates' Cases, and Tenant for Life and Eemaindermen Cases, are included under this heading, Annuity, col. 2343. Ajipoiiionmeoit , col. 2344. Capital Moneys, col. 2346. Capital or Income, col. 23.55. Company, col. 2357. Conversion, col. 2357. Costi, col. 2357. Dividends, col. 2357. Duties (jPnblic Eivemte'), col. 2357. Easements, col. 2357. Enfranchisement, col. 2358. Estate Duty, col. 2359. Estoppel, col. 2359. Fees and Stamps, col. 2359. Fixtures, col. 2359. Forfeiture, col. 2359. Heirlooms, col. 2360. Highioay, col. 2361. Improvements. See under SETTLED Land— Capital Moneys. Incumbrances, col. 2361. Infants, col. 2361. Imurance, col. 2363. Interest, col. 2363. ( 2343 ) DIGEST OF GASES, 1901—1910. ( 2344 ) SETTLED LA'S'D— continued. Interim Rents, col. 2364. Investments, col. 2364. Jointures, col. 2366. Jointuring, col. 2366. Leaseholds, col. 2366. Leases, col. 2367. Licences, col. 2373. Imnacy, col. 2373. Mafision-Jwuse, col. 2378. Mines, col. 2374. Mining Leases. See under Settled Land — Leases. Mortgages, col. 2375. Outgoings, col. 2377. ■ Payment Out, col. 2377. Payments, col. 2377. Portions, col. 2377. Possession, coi. 2377. Powers, col. 2378. Practice, col. 2381. Repairs, col. 2381. Revenue (JPuhlic Revenue). See under Settled Land— Duties. Sale, col. 2382. Scotch Estate, col. 2389. Securities, col. 2389. Settlements, col. 2389. Succession Duty. See under EBVElfnE — Succession Duty. Tenant for Life, col. 2390. rimier, col. 2391. Title, col. 2392. Trustees, col. 2392. WaterworliS, col. 2395. TFo?/, .Hii/A^ o/, coi. 2393. (FiZZ, col. 2395. Annuity. S3« under Annuity. — Annuitants entitled to rents and profits of land — Settlement. See Settled Land — Tenant for Life. 1. — Apportionment — Capital and income — Simple interest. See Settled Land — Apportionment. 1 . — Life annuities — Capital and income — Apportionment — I'ast and future instal- ments. See Annuity. 13. 1. — Tenant for life and remavnderman — Residuary 2)ersonaUy — Testato/s liabilities — Covenamt to pay life annuities — Capital and income — Apportionment. A testator who had covenanted to pay lite annuities bequeathed the proceeds of sale of his residuary real and personal estate upon succes- sive trusts for a life tenant and remainderman : — Seld, that the successive instalments of the SETTLED LAND (Annuity) — continued. annuities must h-3 borne by income and capital in proportion to the actuarial Yalues of the life estate and reversion at the testator's death. JWes V. Yates, (1860) 28 Beav. 637, followed. In re Bacon, (1893) 62 L. J, (Ch.) 445, not followed. In re Dawson. Abathoon v. Dawson Swinfen Eady J. [1906] W. N. 108 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 311 JVote. Not followed by Kekewich J., In re Henry, [1907] 1 Ch. 30. See Settled Land— Apportion- ment. 4. See In re Thompson, Joyce J., [1908] W. N. 195. See Annuity. 12. Followed by Parker J., In re Poyser, Laiidon V. Poyser, [1910] 2 Ch. 444. See Capital oi- Income. 2. Apportionment. 1. — Annuity — Tenant for life and remain- derman — Residue — Testatoi's liabilities — Cove- nant to pay life annuity — Capital and income — Apportionment — Simple interest. A testator who had covenanted to pay a life annuity gave half his residue to trustees upon trust for his daughter for life, if and when she attained twenty -five, with remainders over. Until the daughter attained twenty-five the income, subject to maintenance up to a specified amount, was to be added to capital. The daughter attained twenty-five on Oct. 8, 1907. The residue was earning 3 per cent, interest : — Held, that each future instalment of the moiety of the annuity payable out of the daughter's share must as it accrued be appor- tioned between capital and income, as follows, viz., calculate what sum with 3 per cent, simple interest from Oct. 8, 1907, to the day of pay- ment would have met tlie particular instal- ment. Charge that sum to capital, the balance to income. Allhusen v. Whittell, (1867) L. E. 4 Eq. 295, and In re Harrison, (1889) 43 Ch. D. 55, 61, followed. In re Bacon. (1893) 62 L. J. (Ch.) 445, and In re Henry, [1907] 1 Ch. 30, not followed. In re Pbbkins. Beown v. Perkins Swinfen Eady J. [1907] W. N. 219 Note. [1907] 2 Ch. 596 Followed by Joyce J., In re Tlwmpson, [1908] W. N. 195. See Annuity. 2. Followed by Parker J., In re Poyser, [1910] 2 Ch. 444. See Capital or Income. 2. 2. — Authorized security — Loss — Period of account — Tenant for life and remainderman — Hotchpot. Where an authorized security becomes insut- ficent and there is a partial loss of capital and income, the account necessary to apportion the amount realized between life tenant and remain- derman must be taken from the date when it was first ascertained that the security was insufScient up to the date of realization, the life tenant bringing all income received during that period into hotchpot. In re PhiLLIMOHB. Philli- MOEB V. HEEBERT Swinfen Eady J. [1903J W. N. 83 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 942 ( 2345 ) t)IGEST Or* CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2346 ) SETTLED LAND (Apportionment)— cowiittMffZ. Note. Overruled by C. A,, In re Atlihison, [1901] 2 Ch. 160. See next Case. — Dividends on shares — Company's articles — Express stipulation against apportion- ment. See Appoetionment. 1. 3. — Mortgage — Defclent apcvrity — Tenant for life and, remainderman — Capital and income — Apportionment — Loss — Settled fund — Autho- rized investment. Where a fund is settled upon tenant for life and remaindermen, and is invested in accordance with the powers of the settlement upon a mort- gage which proves to be insufficient for the payment of principal and interest in full, the sum realized by the security ought to be appor- tioned between the tenant for life and the re- maindermen in the proportion wliich the amount due for arrear.s of interest bears to the amount due in respect of the capital debt. In re Moore, (1885) 54 L. J. (Ch.) 432, and In re Al.^ttvn, [19011 2 Ch. 584, followed. In re .F(Ki'p)',"(1890) 45 Ch. D. 629, and In re Phillimore, [1903] 1 Ch. 942 overruled. Deci- sion of Kekewich J. affirmed. In re AtkinsOiN". Bakbers' Co. r. Gkose-Smith C. A. [1904] W. N. 120 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 160 4. — Settlement — Tenant /or life and re- mainderman — Periodical •paymevts— Compro- mise for lump sum — Apportionment — Vayment out of capital of estate. The estate of a testator was liable for a periodical payment of an uncertain amount, and by a deed oi compromise this payment was commuted for a lump sum of 7000^. and the estate released from the liability. The pit., who was entitled to a settled share of the testator's estate for her life, with remainder to her children, provided 3500/. out of her own moneys to get rid of this liability on the .estate : — Held^ that she was entitled to be- repaid this sum out of the testator's estate ; and the proper mode of apportioning the burden between herself, as tenant for life, and the remaindermen was for the trustees of the will to raise it out of her settled share of the estate. The rule laid down in In re Bacon, (1893) 62 L. J. (Ch.) 445, followed, in preference to that adopted in In re Dawson, [1906] 2 Ch. 211. In re IIexm. Gordon v. Gokdon Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 199 i [igCT] 1 Ch. 30 Note. This case was notfoUowed bySwiufcn E.ady J., In re Perldns, [1907] 2 Ch. 590. See No. 1, aljore. 5. — Unauthorized investment — Loss — Tenant for life and remainderinan. Where a trustee, without the knowledge of the tenant for life or remainderman, sells out an authorized investment and places the pro- ceeds on an unauthorized investment which re- sults in a partial loss of income and capital, SETTLED LAND (Apportionment) — continued. the tenant for life is entitled to such a propor- tion of the amount realized by the unautho- rized investment plus the income he received therefrom during its continuance, as the divi- dends he would have received from the autho- rized investment in the same period bear to the capital value of the authorized investment plus those dividends, the tenant for Ufe being liable to bring into account all income he re- ceived from the unauthorized investment, although not liable to refund. In re Bird. In re Evaks. Dodd v. Evans. Farwell J. [1901] W. N. 53 : [1901] 1 Ch. 916 Capital Moneys. — Absolute gift — Power to use capital if in- come not " sufficient " — Power of ap- pointment. See Will — Absolute Gift. 6. — " Capital money " — Premiums — Change of investment — Ademption. See Power of Appointment. 33. — Charges of estate agent for procuring lease — Application of capital moneys — Leasing powers. See Settled Land — Leases. 1. 1. — Commission ffir obtaining tenant — Additions or alterations icith vieiii to letting — lichnilding^Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 A' 46 Vict. r. 3S), s. 21, sut/.-s. .r. — Settled Zand Act, 1890 (53 <5- 54 Vict. c. 69), s. 13, sub-s. 2. Sect. 13, sub-s. 2, of the Settled Land Act, 1890, which authorizes the application of capi- tal money in " making any additions to or alterations in buildings reasonably necessary or proper to enable the same to be let," does not apply to the erection of a new building in place of an old building. An estate agent's commission for obtaining a iPiiant for a short occupation lease granted liy the life tenant under the Settled Land Act, liS82, is an income charge, and is not thrown on capital by s. 21, sub-s. x. In re Man/on Wilson's Settled Estates, [1901] 1 Ch. 934, distinguished. In re Leve- sox-Gowee's Settled Estate Swinfen Eady J. [1905] W. N. 87 : [1905] 2 Ch. 95 2. — Elcct'ic lighting instillation — Engine- house — Tenant for life and remainderman — Capital money — Additions anil, alteratio-ns with a view to letting— Settled Land Acts, 1882 (45 A' 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 25 ; 1890 (53 ^ 54 Viet', c. 69), s. 13 {ii.). The word " additions " in s. 13, sub-s. 2, of the Settled Land Act, 1890, means structural additions ; and, therefore, an" electric lighting installation for the improvement of the man- sion-house is not an " addition " to buildings within the meaning of that sub-section. In re ClarJie's Settlement, [1902] 2 Ch. 327, and In re Gaskell's Settled Estates, [1894] 1 Ch. 484, approved. Semble, per Romcr and Stirling L.JJ. An engine-house for electric-lighting apparatus erected some little distance from the mansion- house, is not an " addition " or " alteration " ( 2347 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2348 ) SETTLED LAND (Capital moneys)— contiiiiied. within the meaning of this sub-section. In re Blagkave's Settled Estates C. A. [1903] W. N. 45 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 560 3. — Electric lighting installation — Tenant for life and remainderman — Capital money. Application of — Additions and alterations with a vieiu to letting — Settled Land Acts, 1882 (i5 <)|- 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 25 ; 1890 (53 4- 54 Vict. c. 69), s. 13, suh-s. {ii.). The word " additions " in s. 13, sub-s. 2, of the Settled Land Act, 1890, means structural additions ; and, therefore, an electric lighting installation, even if exclusive of fittings such as would be ordinarily supplied by a tenant, is not an addition to a building within the sub- section. In re Gaskell's Settled Estates, [1894] 1 Ch. 485, followed. In re Freake's Settlement, [1902] 1 Ch. 97, not followed. In re Clarke's Settlement Buckley J. [1902] W. N. 110 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 327 Xote. This case was approved of by C. A,, In re Blagrares Settled Estates, [1903] 1 Ch. 5U0. See 2)receding Case. 4. — Electric lighting installation — Tenant for life and remainderman — Capital money, Application of — Leasehold houses — Alterations and additions with a view to letting — Settled Lund Acts, 1882 (45 1^ 46 Vict. 0. 38), s. 25 ; 1890 (53 4- 54 Viet. c. 69), s. 13, sub-s. (ii.). Leasehold houses in a fashionable quarter of London were comprised in a, settlement. They were more than fifty years old, and were lighted by an imperfect service of gas. In order to satisfy the modern requirements of tenants it was necessary to provide a system of electric lighting for the houses : — Held, that the provision of an electric lighting installation, exclusive of fittings such as would be ordinarily supplied by a tenant, was an " addition " within the meaning of s. 13, sub-s. (ii.), of the Settled Land Act, 1890, and might properly be paid out of capital money. In re Fbeakes Settlement. KiNNAIED V. FEEAKB Joyce J. [1901] W. N. 210 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 97. Note. This case was not followed by Buckley J., In re Clarke's Settlement, [1902] 2 Ch. 357. See jjreceding Case. — Engine-house. See Nil. 6, alore. 5. — Farm buildings — Gardener's cottage — Stabling and coach-house for mansion-house — Improvements executed without scheme — Pay- ment by tenant for life — Reimbursement out of capital, moneys to his estate after Ms death Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 25, sub-ss. 10, 11— Settled Land Act, 1890 (53 (^ 54 Vict. c. 69), s. 15. The improvements in question consisted of new farm buildings, a gardener's cottage, and stables, coach-house, harness and saddle rooms for the mansion-house. The Court held that, having regard to what was said by the trustees — which was, in substance. SETTLED LAND (Capital Moneys)— cowiw/wf^Z. that they knew what was going on, and would have approved a scheme if they had had any money to pay for the improvements — it saw no reason why such of the improve-* ments as came within the Acts should not be paid for out of the capital moneys. The expenses of the farm buildings and gardener's cottage could be allowed, but not the expenses of the stabling. With that exception, order made as asked by the summons. In re Bael OF LiSBURNE'S SETTLED ESTATES Kekewioh J. [1901] W. N. 91 — Fine on surrender of lease — Income or capital — Tenant for life and remain- derman. See Settled Land— Leases. 3. — Fire — Hydrants and hose — Bxtinguishmeni of fire. See No. 10, below. 6. — Improvements — " Engine - house " — ■ Tenant for life and remainderman — Settled Lana Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 25, sub-s. {xii.). Summons under the Settled Land Acts on behalf of the tenant for life in possession of settled estates asking that the trustees thereof might be directed to apply certain capital moneys in their hands under the Settled Land Acts in recouping to the applicant a, sum of 4891Z. 12s. Id. in respect of a new system of drainage at Petworth House, the principal mansion-house on the Petworth estate, and 3299Z. 9s. IVyd. expended by him in the erection of an engine-house at Petworth for the engines used for the electric lighting of the said prin- cipal mansion-house. The question as to the engine-house turned upon whether this was an authorized improve- ment within thej meaning of 6. 25 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, which provided that improve- ments authorized by the Act were ■" the making or execution on or in connection with, and for the benefit of settled land " any of the fol- lowing works .... Sub-s. (xii.): "Saw-mills, scutch-mills, and other mills, water-wheels, engine-houses, and kilns, which will increase the value of the settled land for agricultural purposes, or as woodland, or otherwise." The engine-house in question was built on a site occupied by an old brewhouse imme- diately adjoining the mansion-house. The 3299^. 9s. 10^. represented only the cost of the new buildingi and foundations. Kekewich J. said that he would assume for the present purpose that the erection of the engine-house would increase the value of the settled land ; and no doubt the settled land included the mansion-house. But the section said that such increase of value must be for " agricultural purposes or as woodland or otherwise." He was of opinion that the words " or otherwise " must be construed according to the well-established rule as meaning pur- poses ejusdem generis, namely, those men- tioned in the other part of the section, such as for mills, water-wheels and kilns. It was im- possible to say that the engine-house in question ( 2349 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2350 -) SETTLED LAND (Capital Moneya)— continued. increased the value of the settled land for purposes of that kind. Giving to the section its widest possible construction, he was of opinion that the engine-house could not be sanctioned for the purposes of the electric lighting of the mansion-house for which it was intended to be used, and therefore this expen- diture could not be allowed out of the capital moneys. In re Lokd Leconfield's Settled Estates Kekewich, J. [1907] "W. N. 144 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 340 7 . — Improvements — Income or capital chargeable — Leaseholds held on trust to pay rents and perform lessees' covenants amd sub- ject thereto for tCTiant for life — Settled Land Act. 1882 (45 ^ 46 Vict. 0. 38), s. 28— Settled Land Act, 1890 (53 ^ 54 Vict. a. 69), s. 15. Properties, the leases of which contained covenants by the lessees to do works which would be repairs and improvements within the meaning of tie Settled Land Acts, were be- queathed to trustees upon trust out of the rents and profits to pay the rents reserved by the leases and perform the lessee's covenants, and subject thereto upon trusts under which K. was tenant for life, with remainders to other persons. Without any scheme being submitted under s. 26 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, money was expended in making improvements : — Held, that as there was a trust, providing for improvements out of income, and that trust came before the trust for K., the expenses must be borne by income. Clarhe v. Thornton, (1887) 35 Ch. D. 307, and In re Lord Stamford's Settled Estates, (1889) 43 Ch. D. 84, d'istinguished. Held, further, following Countess of Car- digan V. Cv.rzon-B.owe, (1893) 9 Times L. E. 244, that even if the Court had power to direct payment for the improvements out of capital, as no scheme had been submitted the power could only be exercised under s. 15 of the Settled Land Act, 1890, and that under that section there was a discretion which ought not to be exercised in favour of K. In re Pabt- iNQTON. Heigh v. Kane Buckley J. [1902] W. N. 60 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 711 8 . — Imyrovements — Scheme approved by trustees — Order of Court for payment of moneys expended — Discretion of Court — Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 4- 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 26. Where an application is made to the Court under s. 26, sub-s. 2 (iii), of the Settled Land Act; 1882, for an order sanctioning the applica- tion of capital moneys in paying for work done under a scheme of improvements approved by the trustees, the duties of the Court are not merely ministerial ; it has a discretion, and must be satisfied that the scheme is a proper one. It is not sufficient to shew that the trustees have approved the scheme and the work has been done in pursuance of it. In re Keok's Settlement - Farwell J. [1904] 2Ch. 22 9. — Improvements — Scheme — Approval of trustees — Discretion — Tenant for life — Settled SETTLED LAND (Capital Moneys)— continued. Land Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Vict. cl. 38), ss. 25, 26, 53. Where under s. 26 of the Settled Laud Act, 1882, a tenant for life submits for approval to the trustees of the settlement a scheme for the execution of an improvement, the duty of the trustees is confined to -seeing — (1) that the improvement proposed is an improvement authorized by the Act, namely, that it is for the benefit of some land comprised in the settlement ; (2) that the scheme for the exe- cution of the imprbvement is a proper one for carrying out the particular improvement ; and (3) that in submitting the scheme to the trustees the tenant for life is acting bona fide and on competent skilled advice. The trustees are not concerned with the general policy pur- sued by the tenant for life in improving the property, nor, in a case where there is capital money in hiind, with the amount already spent on improvements. In re Earl of Egmont's Settled Estates. Lefboy v. Eael op< Egmont Warrington J. [1906] W. N. 80 ; [1906] 2 Ch 151 — Investments — Capital moneys. See under Settled Laito — Invest- ments. 10. — Irish estates — Capital money — Zm- provements — Principal mansion-Twuse — Water supply — Extinguishment of fire — Fire hy- drants and hose — Rebuilding garden walls — " In^closing " — Laundry — BebuildiTig Tnansion- house— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Vict. 0. 38), s. 25, sub-ss. (i)i.) (xiii.) (xx) — Settled Land Act, 1890 (53 ^ 54 Vict. a. 69), s. 13, sub-s. (iti.); s. 15. Upon the application of the tenant for life of settled land under s. 15 of the Settled Land Act, 1890, the Court authorized the application of capital moneys in payment of the cost. (1.) Of the installation of a new water supply system in the principal mansion-house on the Irish estates, comprising also a com- plete equipment for extinguishing fire, includ- ing fire hydrants, hose, and other necessary fittings and apparatus, as being an improve- ment coming within s. 25, sub-s. (xiii.), of the Settled Land Act, 1882 ; and (2.) Of rebuilding the walls of the garden attached to the same mansion-house, the old ruinous walls have been taken down and new walls inclosing more garden ground have been built in part on the site of the old Walls, as being an improvement coming within the term " inclosing " in s. 25, sub-s. (vi.) . The application for the sanction of the Court under s. 13, sub-s. (iv.), of the Settled Land Act, 1890, to the payment out of capital moneys of the cost of the proposed rebuild- ing of a laundry, 250 yards away from the mansion-house, refused. Sub-s. (xx.) of s. 25 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, in authorizing as an improvement the " reconstruction, enlargement, or improve- ment of any of those works," refers to any of the works previously mentioned in the section, however and whenever made, and does not merely refer to works already constructed ( 23S1 ) DIGEST. OI' CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2362 ) SETTIBD LAND (Capital Moueya)— continued. under powers given by the Act. In re Bakl OP Ddnbaven's Settled Estates Kekewioh J. [1907] W. N. 181 ; [1907] 2 Ch.417 — Lease in consideration of premium — Ademp- tion — " Capital money." See PowEE OF Appointment. 33. ^- Letting. See also JVos 11, 12, below. 11. — Letting — Additions and alteration with a view to letting — House in occupation of tenant — " Beconstruction, enlargement, or im- provement " — " Dwellings available for worli- ing ftlasses " — Settled, Lrnid AotSj 1882 '(45 ^'' 46 Vict. 0. 38), s. 25, suh-ss. x., xx.; 1890 (53 ^ 54 Vict. C|. 69), s. 18, svitt-s. ii. — Uonsing of the Working Classes Act, 1890 (53 l^ 54 Vict. 0. 70), s. 74, sub. 1 (&). Where trustees have approved a scheme of improvements before they have capital moneys in hand available for carrying it out, subject to the opinion of the Court being obtained on the legal question whether the proposed improve- ments are within the Act, the Court will decide the legal question though it would not make a prospective order aproving the scheme. Wheiei a tenant in the occupation of a house has given ^tice to' quit ujiless certain additions are made, and it would be diflEoult or impos- sible to relet the house without making the additions, they may be paid for out of capital as necessary or proper to enable the house to be let within s. 13, sub-s. ii., of the Settle'd Land Act, 1890. The proviso in s. 74, sub-s. 1 (6), of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, which limits the operation of that section to " dwellings available for the working classes, the building of which in the opinion of the Court is not injurious to the estate," applies' only where new buildings are to be erected. Alterations and additions to existing buildings may be within the Act, although the Court has never expressed an opinion that their building was not injurious to the estate. Dwellings of a kind suitable for the work- ing classes, but occupied at the time by persons who are not members of those classes, are not available for the working classes within the meaning of the Housing of the .Working Classes Act, 1890, s. 74, sub-s. 1 (6). In re Calvee- LEY's Settled Estates - Farwell J. [1903] W.N. 193; [1904] 1 Ch. 150 12. — Zetting — IVew floor — Alteration with a "uiew to letting — Property already let — In- tention to let — Capital money — Settled Lamd Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Vict. o. 38), s. 21, sub- s. Hi., 25, 2?,— Settled Land Act, 1890 (53 ^ 54 Vict. a. 69), 13, sub-s. ii., 15. By s. 13, sub-s. ii., of the Settled Land Act, 1890, capital money may be applied in " making any additions to or alterations in buildings reasonably necessary or proper to enable the same to be let : — Held, that the substitution for ordinary floor boards resting on joists of a block floor over concrete in order to keep dry-rot out of SETTLED LAND (Capital Moneys)— cuftiiwMerf. the basement of a large house let in separate ofBces was an " alteration " within the sub- section. That " reasonably necessary and proper " meant something which, although not abso- lutely necessary, a reasonable and prudent owner of property, if he were the absolute owner, would do to make his house habitable ;i and that the new floor was reasonably neces- sary and proper within the sub-section. That the jurisdiction under the sub-section to order the application of capital money in payment for an alteration depended not upon whether there was to be an immediate letting, but upon whether there was a present inten- tion to let the premises as distinguished from an intention to occupy them ; and that the new floor ought to be paid for out of capital, although substantially the whole of the house was already let. Stani?oe.d v. Egberts Buckley J. [1901] W. N. 16 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 440 — ' Mansion-house — Dilapidations — Repairs — Expenditure out of capital — Juris- diction. See Will — Mansion house. 1. — Mansion-house — Settled land. See under Settled Land — Mansion- house. — Mining lease — Payments for purchase of chalk — Capital or income. See Will — Keal Estate. 2. 13 . — Bebuitding principal mansion-house — Dry-rot — Salvage — Generail jurisdiction ofi Court — Incumbrance affecting settled land — ■ Expense of sewering, J^c, new streets — Set- tled Land Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Vict. a. 38), s. 21, sub-s. (ii.) ; s. 25 — Settled Land Act, 1890 (53 ^ 54 Vict. c. 69), s. 13, sub-s. (w.). Where the principal mansion-house on settled laud had become infested with dry-rot, and expense to a large amount had to be in- curred in rebuilding portions of the house in order to save the whole from destruction, the Court allowed the application of capital money in the rebuilding to the extent of one-half of the annual rental of the settled land under s. 13, sub-s. (iv.), of the Settled Land Act, 1890, but declined to exercise its general juris- diction by allowing the balance of the amount as being expenditure in the nature of salvage. Expenses incurred by a local authority in sewering, paving, and flagging new streets on settled land were charged under statutory powers on the land, and made payable, to- gether with interest thereon, by instal- ments : — Held, that the expenses so charged consti- tuted an incumbrance aflfecting settled land payable out of capital moneysj under s. 21, sub- s. (ii.), of the Settled Land Act, 1882 ; and that out of capital moneys the tenant for life was entitled to repayment of such portion of past instalments paid by him as represented capital, and the trustees ought to pay the corresponding portion of the remaining instal- ments. In re Leigh's Settled Estate Kekewich J. [1902] W. N. 114 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 274 ( 2353 ) DIGEST OF CASES, ISOl— 1910. ( 2364 ) SETTLED LAND (Capital Moneys )~CT«i'/«««7. 14. — Sanitary works. Cost of, — Repairs- Tenant for life and remainderman — Capital or income — Public Health {London) Act, 1891 (54 ^- 55 Vict. c. 76), ss. 4, 121, 141. Where a settled tinst fund was invested under the powers of the settlement in the pur- chase of freehold houses in the City and the trustees were required by the corporation under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, to do certain repairs on the property, and the equitable tenant for life, having by arrangement with the trustees done the re- pairs, applied to the Court for a charge on the corpus for the cost of the repairs, but ulti- mately waived his claimexcept as to so much of the expenditure as should be found to have been incurred in respect of repairs in the nature of permanent improvements : — Held, that he was entitled by subrogation to the rights of the trustees to a charge on the corpus for that amount. Decision of Kekewich J. reversed. Semble, where the trustees of -a. settled estate apply to the Court to be indemnified out of the estate for the cost of repairs done by them on the property in answer to a demand by a sanitary authority, it is competent to the Court to determine according to the circum- stances of the case how the cost sliall be borne as between tenant for life and remainderman. In re Eaesham's Sbttlejiext. Law Uxiok AND CeOWN IXSfEiN-CE Cn. V. HAETOrP C. A. [1904] W. N. 138; [1904] 2 Ch. 581 • — Scotch real estate, Improvements on — Eng- list settlement. Scr Settled Laxd — Scotch Estate. 1. 15. — Tenant for life — Capital money — Im- provement — Scheme approved by trustees — Departure from scheme — Xew scheme — Settled Land Act. 1882 (45 cV 46 Vict. e. 38). s. 25— Settled Land Act, 1890 (53 .)• 54 Vict. c. 69), s. 15. In this case Warrington J. said that it was to be observed that the scheme contained no details of what was proposed to be done. It merely stated that it was intended to enlarge the building by the addition of two rooms and to make structural alterations to provide suiBcient accommodation for a library, bil- liard-room, reading-room and usual oiHces, with an estimate of the cost. The trustees approved the scheme, without attaching any condition as to cost. He was therefore of opinion that if in carrying out the scheme substantially the tenant for life had incurred incidentally a cost exceeding 4."iiV., he would, on the principle stated in In re Buhcer Lytton's Will, (1888) 38 Ch. D. 20. be entitled to be allowed that cost out of capital money. The first question therefore was wliether what had been done was within the scheme as sub- mitted to the trustees, putting aside the ques- tion of expense. The object of the scheme was to enlarge the building used as the work- ing men's club in certain particulars by pro- viding further accommodation for a library, &c., desirable for an institute of that nature. On the facts before him his Lordship held SETTLED LAND (Capital THone-js^—coDtiinicd. that it had not been made out that the addi- tion of one room instead of two constituted something which was not within the scheme, regarded from the point of view of the object which he had described. The scheme must be regarded as a general one. Xo designs or plans were furnished. It was impossible for him to say that the deviation from the original detail of two rooms was such as to place what was ultimately done outside the scheme as approved. He was of opinion that what had been done came within the scheme and only departed from it in the matter of cost. The trustees did not impose any limit on the amount of the cost. Assuming therefore that what had been done was within the scheme proposed, it was not now open to the trus- tees to object to the increased expenditure, and on the authority of In re Bulwer Lytton's Will, (1888) 38 Ch. D. 20, he was of opinion that the increased expenditure ought to be allowed. He desired, however, to say some- thing upon the alternative ground on which the application was based, as that point had been argued, although he decided the case upon the ground that the works carried out were within the scheme. But if it were not so, and if the works actually done were outside the scheme so that the expenditure was upon an improvement of a different nature from that which was proposed, and was an expenditure for the construction of an institute of a dif- ferent nature from that suggested, then the case fell within s. 15 of the Act of 1890, and the result was the same. Xoither the trustees nor the tenant in tail disputed that the ex- penditure was a proper one within s. 25 of the Act of 1882 as enlarged by the provision in the settlement. Therefore the tenant for life was entitled to have the expenditure he had incurred made good out of capital money ; but he made the order on the first part of the summons — namely, that the works done came within item 2 of the scheme. In re Eakd of Ecmoxt's Settled Estates - Warrington J. [1908] W. N. 176 16. — Trust for sale — Termnt for life — Improvements — Scheme, submission of — 'Worhs commenced before order giving tenant for life possession a?id poicers Of tenant for life — Pay- ment out of^ capital monei/ — Settled Land Act, 1 SS2 (45 ^- 46 net. c. 38)", «. Gi—SettUd Land Act,., 1890 (53 A- 54 Vict. c. 69), s. 15. In this case Warrington J. said that the only question, if it were one, was whether, according to the true construction of the Set- tled Land ^\.cts, and having regard to the par- ticular facts of the case, the Court had power to make the order asked for. The case was not the ordinary one, but fell within s. 63 pi the Act of 1S82. The question was a purely technical one — nanieh', whether the Court had power under s. 15 of the Act of 1890 to autho- rize the application of capital money in paj'- ment for the improvements in question. That section, read without being astute to find a technical difficulty, seemed clearly to apply to the present case. Improvements had been executed without the previous approval ot a ( 2355 ) biGEST OF CASES, i9oi— isio. ( 2356 ) SETTLED LAUi) (Capital Moneys)— coBftrawcrf. scheme by the trustees. But it was suggested in argument that the words " notwithstanding that a scheme was not before the execution of the improvement submitted for the approval of the trustees of the settlement or to the Coiirt " in s. 15 applied only to cases where it was competent to the tenant for life to sub- mit a scheme, and that in such cases only it was competent to the Court to authorize the payment. He did not think he was called upon to so strain the Words ot the section as to bring about that difficulty. The section was a reme- dial one, and it was not the duty of the Court to be astute to find a technical diiEculty. In his judgment the section was applicable to every case in which a, scheme had not in fact been submitted, and was applicable even to a case in which it was not competent to a tenant for life to submit a, scheme. But, further, he was of opinion on the facts of the present case that the tenant for life could have sub- mitted a scheme. Sect. 63 of the Act of 1882 provided that " the person for the time being beneficially entitled to the income of the land, estate or interest aforesaid until sale, whether absolutely or subject as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be the tenant for life thereof." The Settled Land Act, 188i, did not alter that, and the only effect of sub-ss. (i.) and (ii.) of s. 7 of that Act was that, although the person referred to in s. 63 was to be " deemed to be the tenant for life," he should not exercise the powers without the leave of the Court. Was the submission of a scheme an exercise of the powers of a tenant for life at all ? In his judgment it was not. The submission of a scheme was one of the prelimiuai-ies which had to be gone through by a tenant for life in order that he might be able to give directions as to the application of capital moneys. It seemed therefore that even if there were any substance in the suggested technical dilficulty it did not affect the present case, as it was one in which the tenant for life could have submitted a scheme, although it might be that he could not have given directions as to the application of capital moneys, before the making of the order of Jan. 27. He preferred, however, to base his decision on the view which he took of ». 15 of the Act of 1890. He accordingly made the order asked for. In re Woemai.d's Settled Estate. Wobmald V. Ollivant Warrington J. [1908] W. N. 214 — Water supply — Extinguishment of fiie. See Xo. 10, above. — Working classes — " Reconstruction, enlarge- ment or improvement "or " dwellings available for the working classes " — Tenant for life and remainderman — Capital money — Additions and altera- tions with a view to letting — Premises not vacant. See Ko. 11, above. Capital or Income. Sre also under SETTLED LAIs'D — Capital Moneys ; and under Will — Capital or Income. SETTLED LAND (Capital or lneomsi)—contd. — Settled estate — Capital or income — Tenant for life and remainderman — Company — Return of capital. See COMPANT — Return of Capital. 1. — Tenant for life — Capital or income — " Resi- duary trust funds" — Wasting securities — Enjoyment in specie. See Will — Interest. 2. 1. — 'Tenant for life and remaindjerman — Cuij'dnl or income — Surrender of lease — Con- iideramm paid to tenant for life — Casual profit —Trvstee— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45i-46 Vict, c. 38), ss. 6, 13, 53. Money paid to an equitable tenant for life by a lessee as consideration for accepting a sur- render of a lease, which has been granted by the tenant for life under the powers of the Settled Land Acts, does not belong to him as a casual profit, but must be paid by instalments to him and other persons entitled to the rent. In re Hnnlohe's Settled Estates, [1902] 1 Ch. 941, distinguished. In re RoDBS. Sanders v. Hobson Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. 815 — Tenant for life and remainderman — Real estate — Trust for conversion — Royalties — Settled estate. See Will — Real Estate. 2. 2. — Tenant for life and remainderman — Residue — Testator^ s liabilities — Annuity — Con- tingeiit liability — Capital and income — Ap2>ortionnieni — Past and future instalments — Interest. J. T. Poyser by his will left his residuary real and personal estate to trustees upon trust for sale and conversion and to pay debts and legacies, and then for his eight children, of whom one was to have one fifteenth and the others two fifteenths each, and he settled all the shares wholly, or partially upon trust for the son or daughter for life with remainders over. By a settlement made on the marriage of one of his sons before the date of his will the testator had covenanted to pay to that son an annuity of 2a0l. a year. The testator died in 1901, leaving a very large estate. His widow and all his children were living, and owing to a mistaken view of the construction of the will the son's annuity had not been paid. The trustees had sufficient funds, representing capital, in hand to pay the arrears, but the question was raised whether, as between the tenants for life and remaindermen of the settled shares, part of the burden of paying the past and future instalments of the annuity ought not to be borne by the tenants for life: — Sold (following In re Pevltins, [1907] 2 Ch. 596), that each instalment of the annuity must be apportioned between capital and income by calculating what sum if set aside at the testator's death would, with simple interest at 3^ per cent, to the day of payment, have met tfie particular instalment ; and that the sum so ascertained ought to be chargeable to capital and the balance to income, having regard to the number of shares into which the estate was divisible. In re POYSEE. Landon r. Poyser - - Parker J [1910] W. N. 189 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 444 ( 2357 ) DIGEST OE* CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2358 ) SETTLED LAlSB—co/iti/iueiJ. Company. — Capital returned to shareholders out of profit 1. -Capital or inoome. See C0MPA2srT — Keturn of Capital. Conversion. — Will — Conversion — Personalty into realty — Direction to hold proceeds of personalty upon the trusts and in manner appli- cable if they had arisen from a sale under the Settled LandAct, 1882. See CONVEESION. 1. Costs. ■ Sale — Concurrence of parties ■ brancers. See Settled Land — Sale. £ ■ Incam- Dividends. — Tenant for life to dividends, Eight of — Investment in stock — Dividends declared but not paid. See Settled Land — Sale. 5. Duties. (Public Revenue.) 1. — Settled estate — Tenant for life — Instal- ments, duty payable ly — Interest on unpaid duty — Charge on inheritance — Finance Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict. c. 30), ». 6, sub-s. 8 ; «. 9, sub-s. 5. The general rule that, in the absence of special circumstances, the tenant for life of a settled estate is bound to keep down the interest on charges on the inlieritance, is not affected by the Finance Acts, 1891 and 1896 ; so that, although under the power given to him by s. 9, sub-s. 5, of the Act of 189i he may charge the inheritance with instalments of estate duty payable by him under s. 6, sub-s. 8, he cannot also charge it under s. 9, sub-s. 5, with the interest on the unpaid portion of the duty unless he can shew that such interest has been "properly incurred by him." Decision of Bucldey J., [1903] W. N. 63, affirmed. In re Bael Howe's Settled Estates. Eael Howe r. Kingscotb C. A. [1903] W. N. 76 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 69 — Succession duty — Tenant for life. See under Eevbnue — Succession Duty. Easements. 1. — Exchange of easements — Settled Land Act, 1890 (53 ■5- li Vict. c. 69), s. 5. The Settled Land Act, 1890, s. 5, authorizes an exchange of easements, apart from any exchange or partition of land. In re Bracken's Settle jibnt Swinfen Eady J. [1902] W. N, 233 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 265 Kotc. This case was distinguished by Joyce J., In re BrotkeHon's Entate, [1907] W. N. 230 ; but this case was reversed by C. A. [1908] W. N. 5B. See next Case. 2. — llrlease of easement — Sale or exchange — Tenant for life — Settled Zand Act, 1882 (45 „f SETTLED LAND (Easements) — continued. 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 3, sub-ss. (i.), (iii.); s. 21, sub-s. Qriii.'). The Brotherton and Markham estates ad- joined one another. Each was a settled estate, and had appurtenant to it, or to some part of it, a right of way or easement over some part of the other. It was considered desurable that these appur- tenant rights of way should be released so that each estate might no longer be burdened with any easement in favour of the other. For this purpose an agreement of June 14, 1907, between the trustees of the Brotherton estates (on behalf of the infant tenant for life) and B. A. Markham, the tenant for life of the other estate, was entered into whereby each party was to release and convey to the other the easement over the estate of the other. The question having been raised whether this exchange of easements was within the powers of the respective parties to this agreement under the Settled Land Acts, a summons was taken out by the trustees of the Brotherton estates against the infant tenant for life for the purpose of determining the question with reference to that estate, and a similar summons was taken out by K. A. Markham against his trustees and the tenant in tail in remainder in respect of the Markham estate. Joyce, J., [1907] W. N. p. 230, held that it was not within the powers of a tenant for life of settled land under any of the provisions of the Settled Land Acts to exchange the release of an casement enjoyed by the owners of the settled land over adjoining land for the release of an easement enjoyed by the owners of the adjoining land over the settled land. The C. A. intimated their opinion that the transaction seemed to be authorized by the Settled Land Acts if the transaction was carried out by means of cross sales of the easements, and the appeal was accordingly directed to stand over for the purpose of enabling an amended agreement to be entered into on these lines, with liberty to restore the appeal when that had been done. On Feb. 25, the appeal having been restored, it was stated that cross agreements for a sale of each easement for 1001. had been entered into by a supplementary agreement of Feb. 15, and thereupon, without any further argument or discussion, the Court made a declaration that the agreement of June 14, 1907, as varied by the subsequent agreement of Feb. 15, 1908, was, so far as related to the easements, within the powers of the appellants. The appeal was accordingly allowed, but without any expression of opinion on the point decided by Joyce J. In re Brotherton's Estate. Brothbeton v. Bkothekton. In re Mark- ham's Settlement C. A. [1908] Vf. N. 56 Enfranchisement. 1. — " Enfranchisement " — Mortgage of .settled land for purjjose of enfranchisement — Conversion of leasehold land into freehold — Settled Land Act, 1S82 (45 .5- 40 Vict. <: 38), s. IS. " Enfranchisement " in s. 18 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, which empowers the tenant for life to raise money on mortgage of the settled ( 2359 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2360 ) SETTLED LAND (Enfranchisement)— flo««nBe(?. land, when required " lor enfranchisement or for equality of exchange or partition," includes the conversion of leasehold land into freehold by the purchase of the reversion. In re Bruce. Hal- SEY V. Bbuce Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 120 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 372 Estate Duty. See under Settled Land — Duties (Public Revenue). — Estate duty. See under Revenue — Estate Duty. Will — Testamentary Ex penses. Estoppel. — Will of woman under incapacity to devise — Entry of tenant for life under will and acquisition by him of possessory title — Eights of remainderman. See Estoppel. 6. Fees and Stamps. Order as to Fees and Stamps — Judloatvre Act, 1875 (38 4- 39 Vict. e. 77^— Settled Zand Act, 1882 (45 S- 46 Vict. c. 38). Reprint from W. N 1903 (Feb. 28), p. 71. See Cuebent Index 1903, p. Ixxiv. Fixtures. See also under Fixtures. — Right of removal — Landlord and tenant — Tenant for life and remainderman — Intention to improve inheritance. See Fixtures. 3. Forfeiture. — Life interest — Forfeiture on alienation — Can- cellation of charge before income pay- able. See Will— Forfeiture. 2. 1. — ■ Tenant for life — Forfeiture clause — Non- residence — Validity of condition — Compromise- Sale of tenant for life's interests — Inrestment— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 ^'46 Vict. c. 38), s. 50, sub-s. 1 ; s. 51, sjib-s. 1. The testator gave his wife the use of his resi- dence, Woodville, so long as she should desire to make it her permanent place of residence and should remain his widow, and directed that his estate should pay all rates, taxes, and outgoings in respect of the house and keep it in repair He left his residuary real and personal estate upon trust for sale and conversion, and then for his children and their issue ; the income of the shares of daughters to be paid to them during coverture without anticipation, and the capital of those shares to be divided after the daughters' deaths amongst their children. He directed his trustees to postpone the sale of Woodville, and to develop it as they thought fit. Byrne J. decided that the widow had the powers of a tenant for life under the Settled Land Act, 1882, and would not forfeit the benefits given by the wiU if she sold or leased the property. It was now proposed that she and the trustees should enter into a compromise whereby she should release to them her claims in respect of Wood- SETTLED LAKD (Forfeiture) — continued. ville in oousideratioii of an annual payment of 275Z. during widowhood — a sum less than the estimated value of her interests under the will : — Held, that under s. 51, sub-s. 1, of the Settled Land Act, 1882, tl;" condition as to residence was void only so far as it tended to prevent the exercise of the powers of the tenant for life ; that there was nothing to prevent the widow from releasing her beneficial interests in the manner proposed ; that if she did so she would forfeit those interests by ceasing to reside, but would receive the value of them in the shape of the annuity of 275?. ; that no question of improper investment arose, as the real result of the trans- action would be to relieve the testator's estate from part of the payments to which it was sub- ject ; and that the compromise was for the benefit of all parties, was within the power of the trustees, and ought to be sanctioned. In re Haynes, (1887) 37 Ch. D. 306, followed. In re Trenchaed. Tkenchard v. Trenchakd Buckley J. [1902] W. N. 18; [1902] 1 Ch. 378 — Tenant for life— WiU — Forfeiture of life interest — "Alienate or incumber" — Petition in bankruptcy by tenant for life. See Will — Forfeiture. 1. Heirlooms. 1. — Capital moneys subject to same trusts — Insurance — Power of trustees to insure heirlooms and pay premiums out of income of capital moneys— Trustee Act, 1893 (56 # 57 Vict. c. 53), *. 18. Chattels settled so as to devolve as heirlooms with settled land are " insurable property " within the meaning of sub-s. 1 of s. 18 of the Trustee Act, 1893. Where under a settlement heirlooms are settled so as to devolve with the settled land, and the trustees have in their hands capital moneys subject to the same trusts, the trustees have power under s. 18 of the Trustee Act, 1893, to insure the heirlooms against loss by fire, and to pay the premiums for such insurance out of the income of the capital moneys in their hands. J« re Earl op Egmont's Trusts. LEFBOYr. Eael OP ESMONT - -Warrington J. [1908] W. N. 88 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 821 2. — Sale — Application of proceeds — Dis- charge of incumbrances — Heirlooms vested in tenant in tail — Compound settlement — Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 ^- 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 37, sub-ss. 1, 2; s. 2, sub-s. 9 ; s. 21, clause (ii.) ; *. 53. The Costessey Hall estates were settled by a deed of Jan. 26, 1874, under which Lord Stafford was tenant for life in possession. By the wiU of the late Lord Stafford he bequeathed certain pictures upon trust to permit the same to be used and enjoyed by the person who under the settlement of 1874 should for the time being be entitled to the Costessey Hall estates, to be held as heirlooms for the successive owners of the hall, but not to vest absolutely in any tenant in tail male by purchase who should not attain the age of twenty-one years or die under that age leaving ( 2361 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— I'JIO. ( 2362 ) SETTLED LAND (Heirlooms)— co«fu}«C(/. issae male. The testator died in 188i. One of the pictures bequeathed as heirlooms had been recently sold for a large sum of money. Tlie money was paid to the trustees of the will and invested by them in Consols. Byrne J. held that the settlement was a compound settlement, and he appointed the trustees of the will to be trus- tees for the purposes of the Settled Land Acts of the settlement of the heirlooms and the proceeds of sale thereof created by the deed of 1874 and the will. The heirlooms were now vested in an infant female tenant in tail in remainder. The tenant for life asked that the trustees of the compound settlement should apply 15,0001., part of the proceeds of sale of the picture, in discharge of a mortgage on land settled by the deed of 187-1:— Held, that the effect of the order of Byrne J. was that both the land settled by the deed of 187i and the heirlooms must be treated as if they had been settled by the same document ; that the words "land" in s. 37 and "settled land " in s. 21, clause (ii.), of the Settled Land Act, 1882, meant the land by reference to the limitations of which the heirlooms were settled by the will ; that the slight difference in the limitations of the deed and the will, and the fact that the heirlooms were vested in the tenant in tail, were not sufficient ground for distinguish- ing In re Buke of Marlhorough's Settlemeni, (1885) 30 Ch. D. 127 ; (1886) 32 Ch. D. 1 ; that the investment in Consols by the trustees before they were appointed trustees of tlie compound settlement did not prevent the desired applica- tion of the money ; that the tenant for life, although a trustee under s. 5.S, was not com- mitting a breach of trust ; and that the money ought to be applied in the discharge of the moi-tgage. In re LoBD Stafford's Settle- ment AND "Will. Gbhaed r. Stafford Warrington J. [1904] W. N. 100 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 72 Note. This case was followed by Kekewich .J., In re CuulVs Settled Estates, [1905] 1 Ch. 712. See Settled Land — Trustees. 2. — Trust of chattels as — Construction — To be enjoyed with mansion-house — Tenant in tail — Vesting — Actual possession. See Heirlooms. 3. Highway. — Dedication — Public user — Presumption — C h urch way — Diversion — Limited dedi- cation. See Highway. 3. Improvements. See under SETTLED Moneys. Incumbrances. Land — Capital — Discharges — Expenses of paving street — Payment by tenant for life. See Streets. 19. Infants. 1. — Guardian — Trustee — Infant tetiarvt. for life—Possi'ssiondur'ing minoritij — 12 Car. 2, c. 24, SETTLED LAND {Ir^i&nti)— continued, s. 9 — Conveyancing and law of Property Act 1881 (44 J)' 4.5 Vict. c. 41), s. ii— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 S,- 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 60. Under s. 60 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, the trustees appointed for the purposes of the Act may, in the event of the tenant tor lite being an infant, exercise the powers vested in him by the Act for his benefit during his minority : — Held, that this provision did not constitute the trustees trustees with power of sale of the settled land under s. 42 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, so as to entitle them to possession during the minority of the infant, and afforded no answer to an application by the testamentary guardian under 12 Car. 2, c. 24, for possession. In re Hblyae. Helyar r. Beckett Joyce J. [1901] W. N. 249 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 391 2. — Infant tenant in tail — Maintenance — Directum to accumulate surplus income — Allow- an.ce for up-Ueep of family mansion — Suhscrl})- tions to local charities — Settled estates. A testator devised real estates upon trusts under which, in the events which happened, A. became infant tenant in tail in possession. The will directed that during the minority of any person for the time being tenant in tail in possession of the trustees should apply 500Z. per annum out of the income for the maintenance and education of the minor, and should accumu- late the surplus income for the benefit of the minor on attaining twenty-one. The testator also bequeathed nearly half a million in money to be invested in real estate to be held upon the same trusts as the devised estates. The net income of the settled property exceeded 14,0O0Z. per annum. The Court sanctioned a scheme for allowing i,000l. per annum out of the income for the up- keep of the family mansion and the maintenance there of the infant tenant in tail in a manner befitting the social position he would occupy in life. This allowance included \00l. per annum for subscriptions to local charities. In re Walker. Walker r. Duncombe Farwell J. [1901] 1 Ch. 879 3. — Scheme — Preparation — Approval — Tenant for life— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 4' 46 Yicf. c. 38), ss. 26, 59, 60. The tenant in tail male in possession of settled land being an infant, and certain improvements being necessary, the trustees of the .settlement for the purposes of the Settled Land Acts, acting on behalf of the infant under the Settled Land Act, 1882, ss. 59, 60, prepared, and on their own behalf as trustees approved, a scheme of improvements under the Settled Land Act, 1882, s. 26, sub-s. 1. The infant applied by his next friend under s. 26, sub-s. 2 (iii.), for an order directing the trustees to apply a sum not exceeding 320/. out of capita] moneys in their hands in payment for the works when completed. The Court made the order, and, at the request of ail parties, intimated its opinion that the trustees had power to prepare and approve their own schemes during the minority. In re Greys Court Estate Farwell J. [1901] W N. 60 ( 2363 ) DIGEST OF CASES, I'JOl— 1910. ( 2364 ) SEIILED LAND — continued. Insvirance. — Eebuilding after fire — Title to and application of policy moneys. See INSUKANCB (FlEE). 2. Interest. — Bonds bearing interest out of profits — Defi- ciency in interest — Sale of bonds — Tenant for life and remainderman. See COMPAJS^Y — Interest. 1. 1. — Bate of intei-est — Tenant for life and nmainderman — Capital or income — Will — Cun- lermn — Postponement of conversion — Wasting poverty — Mining royalties — Income of invested mrjilm. Interest at 3, and not at 4, per cent, must at the present day be computed in applying the principle of Brown v. Gellatly, (1867) L. E. 2 Ch. 751, whereby, when wasting securities, forming part of a residuary estate of a testator given upon trust for conversion, are retained under a power to postpone conversion, the tenaiit for life is entitled during the period of postponement to interest on the value of the securities. In re Lynch JBlosse, [1899] W. N. 27 (8), followed. Where, in such a case, the interest at 3 per cent, is paid out of the actual income of the wasting securities to the tenant for life, and the balance is invested as capital of the estate, the tenant for life is entitled to the income of the in- vested fund. In re WOODS. Gabbllini v. Woods - Kekewich J. [1904] W. N. 17 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 4 — " Residuary trust funds " — Unauthorized securities — Enjoyment in specie. See Will — Interest. 2. — Several estates comprised in same devise — Interest on charges. See Settlbjient. 12. — Tenant for life — Proceeds of realization of insufficient security — Apportionment — Remainderman. See Settlbment. 31. 2. — Tenant for life and remainderman — Power to postpone conversion — '• Property not actiially producing income" — Mortgage deferring payment of interest — ConstruHion of mill — Settled estate. Testator by his will devised and bequeathed his residuary real and personal estate to trustees upon trust for sale and conversion and invest- ment, and directed them to pay the income of the investments to his wife for life. The will empowered the trustees to postpone conversion, and provided that the income oE unconverted estate should be applied as if it arose from con- verted estate, and that no property not actually producing income should be treated as producing income or as entitling any person to the receipt of income. The testator died in 1901. Amongst the securities forming part of his estate at his death was a mortgage which recited that the mortgagor was indebted to the testator in a certain sum and that it had been agreed that the payment of his debt should be iidsipoucd, SETTLED LAND (Interest)— co«j!i/me(/. and the mortgagor thereby covenanted to pay the amount of the debt with simple interest at his death, and if the aggregate amount of such sum and interest was not then paid, to pay interest on such aggregate sum by equal half- yearly payments, the first of such payments to become due six months after his death. The mortgagor died in 1906, in the lifetime of the testator's widow, the tenant for life. The widow died shortly afterwards : — Held, that the interest on the mortgage attributable to the period between the death of the testator and the death of the mortgagor belonged to the estate of the widow, and not to that of the testator. In re Huhhuch, [1896] 1 Ch. 754, applied. Ill re Lewis. Davibs v. Haeeison Warrington J. [1907] W. N. 188 ; [1907] 3 Ch. 296 ■Tenant for Unauthorized investment — Loss- life and remainderman. See Settled Land — Apportionment. Interim Bents. .5. 1. — Tenant for life and remainderman — Will — Settlement ty way of trust for sale — Con- version — Real estate — Postponement of sale — Interim rents — Enjoyment in specie. Where by a will real and personal estate are directed to be sold and converted, and the pro- ceeds held in trust for one for life, and then for others, and without any impropriety the sale is postponed, the tenant for life of the proceeds is entitled to the rents and profits of the real estate until sale. In re Searle, [1900] 2 Ch. 829 ; In re Earl of Barnley, [1907J 1 Ch. 159, followed. Genery v. Fitzgerald, (1822) Jac. 468 ; Bellairs v. Bellairs, (1874) L. K. 18 Eq. 510 ; and dictum of Lord Macnaghten in We7itworth v. Wentworth, [1900] A. C. 171, considered. In re Oliver. Wilson v. Olivee Warrington J. [1908] W. N. 117 ; [1908] 8 Ch. 74 Investments. 1. — Capital money — Investment — Direction by tenant for life to invest — Improper investment within letter of power — Control of Court — Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 # 46 Vict. c. 38), ss. 21, 22, sub-s. 2, i. 53. A tenant for life under the Settled Land Act, 1882, directed the trustees of the settlement to invest capital moneys in their hands in the pur- chase of certain leasehold houses. The trustees procured the report of an independent surveyor shewing that the proposed investment, though within the words of the power given by the Act, was undesirable, and they declined to proceed with the purchase. Earwell J. held, [1905] 2 Ch. 418, (1) that, assuming the direction was given bona fide, the trustees were not bound to act upon it ; (2) that it was not given bona fide. Appeal from this decision on the question of fact dismissed. Collins M.R. and Cozens-Hardy L.J. also expressed their concurrence with the observa- tions of the learned judge as to the law. ( 2365 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2366 ) SETTLED LAND (Investments) — continued. Decision of Farwell J., [1906] 2 Oh. 418, affirmed. 2n re Hunt's Settled Estates. Bultebl i'. Lawdeshayne C. a. [1906] W. N. 105, [1906] 2 Oh. 11 — Capital money — Premiums — Settled land — Change of investment — Ademption. See PowEB OP Appointment. 33. 2. — Capital money s^Investment onmortgage — Tenant for life — Trustees for purposes of Settled Land Acts — Inpdry into title and rnhie —Settled Zand Act, 1882 (45 4' 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 21 (i) ; s. 22, sub-s. 1. Upon a, direction under s. 22, sub-s. 2, of the Settled Land Act, 1882, given by the tenant for life to the trustees for d.e purposes of the Settled Land Act to invest capital moneys in their hands upon a specified mortgage of real estate, the Court declared that the trustees were not bound to invest upon the mortgage unless and until they were satisfied that the direction had been given upon a proper investigation as to title, and upon a proper report as to the value of the pro- posed security, and upon proper advice as to the form of the mortgage, and that on being so satisfied the trustees were bound to make the investment. Order of Cozens-Hardy J., [1901] 2 Ch. 790, varied. In re HoTHAM. HoTHAM v. DOUGHTY C. A. [1902] W. N. 148 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 575 Note. See In re Dulie of Cleveland's Settled Estates, Joyce J., [1902] 2 Ch. 350. See next Case. 3. — Capital moneys, Inve-ttment of — Tenant for life —Trustees — Rigid to choose broker — 'Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 ,)■ 46 Vict. c. 38), «. 22, suh-s. 2 ; s. 31. Upon an investment of capital moneys arising under the Settled Land Acts, the tenant for life is not entitled to dictate to the trustees of the settlement as to what broker they shall employ in the matter. The trustees may select their broker as well as their solicitor. In re DUKE 01" Cleveland's Settled Estates Joyce J. [1902] W. N. 110 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 350 — Power to retain investments — Hazardous securities — Trustees — Tenant for life and remainderman. See Will — Investments. 5. — Trustee — Liability — Unauthorized invest- ment — Eestoration of capital and interest — Tenant for life and re- mainderman. See Trustee — Liability. 1. 3a. — Unauthorized securities — Express power to retain — Enjoyment in specie — Life tenant and remainderman. Where a will contains no trust for conver- sion, and the life tenant of residue (or of la legacy) is given the entire income thereof, he is entitled to the income of unauthorized per- manent securities retained (and appropriated) by the trustees under a power of retainer (and appropriation). la re Sheldon, (1888) 39 Ch. D. 50. and In re Bates, [1907] 1 Ch. 22, followed. SETTLED LAND (Investments) — continued. In re Chaytor, [1905] 1 Ch. 233, distin- guished. In re Wilson. Moobe v. Wilson Swinfeu Eady J. [1907] W. N. 48 ; [190'?] 1 Ch. 394 — Will — Investments. See under Will — Investments. Jointures. 1 . — Jointure rent-charge — Arrears — " In- cumbrance affecting the inheritance " — Dis- cftarge out of capital moneys — Discretion of Court — Tenamt for life and remainderman- Incidence — Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 l)i 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 21, sub-s. {ii.)— Settled land in Ireland— Sale — Irish Land Act, 1903 (3 Bdw. 7, c. S7)— Irish Land Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 34). Arrears of a jointure rent-charge, which was limited and secuied by powers of entry and distress and by a term of years and trusts thereof in the usual way, are an " incumbrance affecting the inheritance of the settled land " within the meaning of s. 21, sub-s. (ii.), of the Settled Land Act, 1882, and may in a proper case, where their discharge would be the wisest course for all concerned, be discharged by the trustees of the settlement out of capital moneys in their hands, but conditionally upon the tenant for life agreeing that such payment shall be without prejudice to the question, should it aiise, of the ultimate incidence of the liability for the arrears as between himself and the remainderman. The dicta in In re KnatehTmXVs Settled Estate, (1884) 27 Ch. D. 349, and in In ra Frewen, (1888) 38 Ch. D. 383, relating to the redemption of a jointure rent-charge under s. 21, sub-s. (ii.), considered and distin- guished. In re Duke of Manchester's Set- tlement Eve J. [1909] W. N. 212 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 108 Jointuring. — Execution of power by testamentary instru- ment. See Statute. 1. Leaseholds. 1. — Administration — Will — Settled lease- holds — 'No power of sale — Sale try the Court — TcTiant for life and remainderman — Tenant for life's inoome. The testator died in 1886, and by his will devised and bequeathed all his real and per-, sonal estate to the pit. and another (since deceased) upon trust not to sell or mortgage any real or leasehold estate, and to pay the income of his said estate to his widow for life, and after her death to divide his said estate into three equal shares, and to appro-', priate and hold one of such shares for his daughter, a Mrs. Bartlett, for life, and after her death for all her children equally ; and to appropriate and hold another of such shares in trust for his daughter, the deft., Julia Squir- rell, for life, and after her death for her children equally ; and to appropriate and hold the remaining third share for his son, the ( 2367 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2368 ) SETTLED LAND (LeaBeholiB-)— continued. pit., for life, and after his death for his chUdreu equally. The will contained no trust or power of sale. The testator's estate comprised freeholds and long leaseholds. Mrs. Bartlett died in 1896, leaving infant children. Mrs. Squirrell had children. The testator's widow died in 1906, and this summons was then taken out for administration and to determine (inter alia) whether the estate was to be divided in specie among the beneficiaries. In Oct., 1906, the Court directed an inquiry whether the estate could be divided into three equal, parts, and in answer thereto the Master certi- fied that the property could not in any manner be divided into three parts for the purpose bf being appropriated in the manner directed by the wUl. The Court then directed the pro- perty to be sold. This had been done, the proceeds of sale were in Court, and the ques- tion now was whether the proceeds of sale of the leaseholds were to be applied for the benefit of the tenants for life in the same way as when leaseholds are taken compulsorily under the Lands Clauses Act. Held, that there was no difference in prin- ciple where leaseholds were taken compulsorily under the Lands Clauses Act and where they were sold by the Court when there was no trust or power of sale. The proceeds of Bale of the leaseholds would therefore be dealt with in accordance with the practice laid down in Askew V. Woodhead, (1880) 14 Ch. D. 27. In re Lingaed. Lingaed v. Squieeell Neville J. [1908] W. N. 107 — Transvaal leaseholds — Enjoyment in specie — Roman-Dutch law — English will— Life-tenant and remainderman. See CONPLICT OP Laws. 10. Leases. 1 . — Estate agent, Charges of — Estate agent for procuring lease — AppUeation of capital money — Leasing powers — Settled Za-nd Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 21, sul-s. 10. The commission charged by an estate agent for procuring a lease of settled land for a tenant for life under the Settled Land Act, 1882, is payable out of capital money arising under the Act. In re Maeyon Wilson's Set- tled Estates Note. Joyce J. [1901] W. N. 66; [1901] 1 Ch. 934 This case was distinguished by Swiufen Eady J., In re Zeveson-Goiver's Settled Mstates, [1905] 1 Ch. 560. See Settled Landr— Capital Moneys. 1. 2 . — Fine on surrender of lease — Tenant for life and remainderman — Capital or income. In the absence of mala fides, money paid to a legal life tenant as the consideration for accepting the surrender of a lease, granted without recourse to the powers of the Settled Land Act, belongs to him as a casual profit. H re HtTNLOKE's Settled Estates. Fitzeoy V. HuNLOKE - - - Swinfen Eady J. [1902] W. N. 70; [1902] 1 Ch. 941 D.D. SETTLED LAND (LeaSfes)— fw«iijj«e(?. Note. This case was distinguished by Parker J., In re Modes, [1909] 1 Ch. 815. See Settled Land- Capital or Income. 3 ■ — ' Eine on surrender of Lease — Tenant for life and remainderman — Capital or income. Lands were devised in trust for sale subject to an agreement for a building lease, so thai< the equitable life tenants could only accept a surrender on obtaining the leave of the Court to exercise the powers of the Settled Land Acts. The old tenants having failed to buUd, a conditional contract was entered into by which it was agreed, subject to the approval and leave of the Court being ob- tained under s. 7 pf the Settled Land Act, 1884, that the life tenants should accept a surrender and should grant a similar agree- ment for a building lease to a new tenant for the rest of the term at a peppercorn rent for the first one and a half years, and afterwards at the old rent, the old tenants undertaking to pay the trustees the amount of the one and 'a half year's rent in advance to be applied as income in order to make up the loss of rent during the peppercorn period. North J. having varied the contract by directing the amount of the one and a half years' rent paid in advance to be treated as capital, approved it as so varied, and gave the required leave. In re Gutheie's Settled Estates North J. [1902] 1 Ch. 942, n. i. — General powers of leasing — Settled Estates Act, 1877 (40 ,if 41 Vict. c. 18), ss. 10, 13. Testator, who died in 1903, devised his residuary estate to trustees upon trust for sale and (subject to an annuity .to his widow) to hold the proceeds in trust for his children equally; the shares of daughters being settled upon the usual trusts for them for life without power of anticipation, with remainder to their children and accruer in default of children. The will empowered the trustees to grant leases of the land remaining unsold, but contained no express power to grant either building or mining leases. There were living three sons and four daughters. Two of the latter were married, and one had children, all of whom were infants, and the husbands of both the daughters were living. 'The will contained no powers of laying out or constructing roads, streets or sewers, or raising money by mortgage for any purpose. The estate comprised freehold property at Hazelwell, near Birmingham. A petition was presented by the trustees and all the benefi- ciaries in existence to obtain powers under ss. 20 and 21 of the Settled Estates Act, 1877, to lay out streets and sewers and raise money by jnortgage for that purpose; and it also asked that general powers of granting any such leases as were authorized by the Act might be vested in the trustees. Parker J. held that the Act contained no- thing to limit the power of the Court. It was a matter of discretion, and this being a 40 ( 3369 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2370 ) SETTLED LAND (Leases) — coiititmeA. proper case he ordered general leasing powers to vest in the trustees for the time being of the wUl (not being less than two in number), without requiring the consent of any person. In re Chbsshire's Settled Estates Parker J. [1908] W. N. 76 — Mansion-house — " Park " — " Usually occu- pied therewith " — Easement over mansion-house — Invalidity of agree- ment. See Settled Land — Mansion House. 1. — Mining lease — ' Payments for purchase of chalk — Capital or income. See Will— Eeal Estate. 2. 5 . — Mining lease — Eigjit to make up shorts against future royalties — Coal required for support of reservoir — Lessor's co-mpensation for royalties — Capital or income — Apportio7iment — Royalties covered by shorts — ^Lessee's rights — Reservoir — Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847 (10 ^ 11 Vict. 0. 17), ss. 6, 22, 25. The life tenant of a settled estate was entitled to the whole rent and royalties re- served on mining leases. The working of certain coal was stopped by a water authority under s. 22 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, and the lessee was compensated under B. 25. The lessor's compensation for the acreage royalties that would have been re- ceived in the five years necessary to work the coal was assessed under s. 6, and paid into Court : — Held, as between life-tenant and re- mainderman, that though the coal would pro- bably have been worked out in the life tenant's life, he was not entitled to immediate payment of the compensation, but that it must be divided into half-yearly instalments in pro- portion to the coal that would actually have been worked in each half-year and paid or allocated accordingly. In re Bobinson's Settlement Trusts, [18911 3 Ch. 129, 133, followed. In re Barrington, (1886) 33 Ch. D. 523, not followed. Held, also, that as between lessor and lessee a right to make up shorts against future- royalties to an amount considerably exceerlintr the lessor's compensation for the royalties in question did not entitle the lessee to immediate payment of the compensation, but that if he continued working under the lease he would become entitled to each instalment as it accrued. In re Fni.LEETON's Will Swinfen Eady J. [19061 W. N. 96 : [1906] 2 Ch. 138 6 . — Mining lease — Varying minimum rent — Way-leave — (Tenant for Ufa — Power of leas- ing—Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Vict, c. 38), ss. 6, 7, ■•e9- to grant leases as if tenant for life — LaTid in Scotland — Weu — Jurisdiction — Application to Scottish Courts — Fortn, of m'ller —Settled Lfbnd, Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Vict. o. 38), ss. 6, 10. E. Forrest by his will appointed executors and trustees and devised reaj estate in Scot- land to his trustees upon trust for sale with power to postpone the sale. He gave his trus- tees the same powers of granting occupation building and mining leases of unsold land as were by law conferred on tenants for Uf e of English settled estates. It appeared that in the district in which the land was situated it was customary to create feus and that nobody would accept building leases. The trustees therefore issued a summons asking for " a declaration that it is expedient in the in- terests of the beneficiaries under the said will that the trustee of the said will should have power to deal with the lands of the said tes- tator situate in Scotland devised by the said will by granting feus thereof in accordance with the custom of the locality in which the said lands are respectively situate, and that by the law of England so far as it controls the trusts of the lands devised by the said will such feus might be made of the said lands under the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890, but the said Acts do not extend to property in Scotland, and for an order- that the pits, as trustees of the said wUl or other the trustees or trustee thereof for the time being be em- powered to apply at any time or from time to time to the proper Court or Courts in Scot- land for all necessary reUef to enable them to give effect to this declaration and particularly to obtain power and authority to enable the granting with regard to the lands in Scotland devised by and subject to the trusts of the said will of feus for building purposes." Allan's Trustees, (1897) 24 E. 718, and Pender's Trustees, (1907) Sessions Cases, 207, in which the Scottish Courts had acted on similar declarations and orders made by Stir- ling J. and Swinfen Eady J., were referred to. Parker J., made the declaration and order as prayed. In re Foeeest. Eokeest w. I'OEEEST Parker J. [1910] W. N. 201 — Surrender of lease — Tenant for life and re- mainderman — Capital or income. See Settled Land — Capital or In- come, 1. 10. — 'Trustees — O^wk brichjield — Implied power to let from year to year — Royfdties — Tenant for life and remaindermen — " Bents issues and profits." A testator^ part pf whose property consisted of land with brick earth upon it which was being worked under a lease granted by him at a royalty, gave his real estate to trustees upon trust " to pay the rents issues and profits " to certain persons for their lives, with remainders over. The will contained a trust for sale after the death af the last 9Uivi'ving SETTLED LAITD (JLeaaeSi)— continued. tenant for life, and a direction that until sale the trustees should cause the real estate to be kept "in good and tenantable order and re- pair " : — Held, that the trustees had an implied power to let the brickfield from year to year, and that the whole of the rents and royalties must be paid to the tenants for life for the time being. In re Noeth. Gaeton v. Cum- BEBLAND Swinfen Eady J. [1909] W. N. 68 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 626 11. — Validity — Lease to donee of power and his partners — Statutory requirements — Powers— Settled Estates Act, .1877 (40 ^ 41 Vict. c. iS)— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 <|' 46 Vict. 0. 38) — Covenants — Lease to trustee for donee of power. A lease granted, in exercise -of statutory powers to lease, by a tenant for life to himself and others as lessees containing covenants by the lessees with the lessor is bad, whether the covenants are joint only or joint and several, because the reversioners do not in either case obtain binding legal covenants by all the lessees upon which au action can be brought. Only binding legal covenants will satisfy the requirements of the statutes. Semble, a lease granted by the donee of a power to a trustee for himseli would not now be held valid. Bevan v. Habgood, (1860) 1 J. & H. 222, discussed and questioned. Boycb v. Edbeooke Earwell J. [1903] W. N. 63 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 836 JS^ote. This case was followed by Warrington J., Ellis -v. Kerr, [l^W] 1 Ch. 529. See Covenant. 5. 12. — Void or voidable — " Best rent " — Col- lusive bargain for reduction of 'rent — Purchaser for value without notice — Doubtful title-~ Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 # 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 7, sub-s. 2 ; s. 54. A tenant for life, purporting to act under the powers of the Settled Land Act, 1882, granted a building lease of some vacant land at less than the best rent that could reason- ably be obtained, the rent having been reduced in consideration of the waiver by the lessee of a claim for damages against the lessor, and the lessee covenanted to lay out a certain sum in building. The lessee neglected to build, and the lease was sold by auction to the vendor at a large price. The vendor agreed to sell at an enhanced price to the purchaser, and the purchaser objected that, having regard to the amount of the price, it must be shewn that the rent reserved by the lease was the best that could reasonably be obtained within s. 7, sub-s. 2, of the Settled Land Act. The vendor had no knowledge of the larrangement between the lessor and the lessee as to the reduction of the rent, and he insisted that, as purchaser for value without notice, he could make a good title to the purchaser : — 3eld, by Buckley J., that, inasmuch as the lease did not comply with the statutory re- quirements as to rent, and the lessee did not act in good faith within s. S4, it was bad, and C 2373 ) bIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2374 ) SETTLED liANS (L^&i6!,')— continued. could be set aside as against a purchaser foi value without notice : Held, by the C. A. on the authority of Freer v. Hesse, (1853) 4 De G. M. & G. 495, that assuming that the lease was voidable only and not void, the title was not such as ought to be forced upon the purchaser, since it depended on a doubtful question of fact, namely, whether his predecessor in title, the vendor, purchased without notice of the defect in the title. In re Handman and Wilcox's CONTEAOT C. A. [1908] W. N. 36 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 699 Licences. — Compensation for non-renewal — Public- house — Deductions from rent. See Licensing Acts. 9. Lunacy. — Land vested in lunatic as tenant for life — ■ Committee — Power of sale. See Lunacy. 6. Uansion-house. — Dilapidations — Salvage — Repairs — Ex- penditure out of capital — Jurisdic- tion. &e Will— ManBion-house. 1. — Dry-rot — Rebuildmg mansion-house. See Settled Land— Capital Moneys. 13. — Leasing povi'ers — Occupation lease. See Settled Land — Leases. 8. 1. — " Parlk " — Agreement for lease — Prin- cipal mamion-house — Park — " Usually ocau- pied therewith " — Basement over mansion- house — Invalidity of agreement — Liability of lessor— Settled land Act, 1890 (53 ^ 54 Vict. l: 69), s. 10. Sect. 10 of the Settled Land Act, 1890, which precludes the life tenant (inter alia) from leasing " the principal mansion-house (if any) on any settled land, and the pleasure grounds and park and lauds (if any) usually occupied therewith," without the consent of the trustees or an order of the Court, applies to a park not usually occupied with the prin- cipal mansion-house, the words " usually occu- pied therewith " referring merely to the words " lands (if any) " immediately preceding them. The section also applies to the lease of an easement over the same property. Dowager Duchess of Sutherlamd v. Duke of Sutherland, [1893] 3 Ch. 169, followed. The word " park " as used in the Settled Land Acts is not confined to an ancient legal park, but includes an ordinary private park. A life tenant without the consent of the trustees agreed to let the park, together with an easement over the mansion-house, for a term of years. The lessees entered and held under the agreement, which contained no pro- vision as to title. The lessor died without being required to execute a lease, and the lessees were ejected by the remainderman. It did not appear that the lessor could have ob- tained the trustees' consent : — Held, that the lessees were not entitled to damages against the lessor's estate. SETTLED LAND {TSansioa-'iionBe)— continued. Day V. Singleton, [1899] 2 Ch. 320, distin- guished. Pease v. Couhtney Swinfen Eady J. [1904] W. N. 148 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 603 — Trust to keep up mansion-house and permit A. to reside — " Tenant for life " — " Possession." ;SVc Settled Land — Tenant for Life. 2. 2. — Tmjo settled estates — Principal mcm- sion-house on each — Alteration in chotraater of^ one estate — Development as building estate — Mansion-hcni.se converted into school — Less than twenty-five atcres occupied with man- sion-house — No longer "principal m,ansion- hou^e " — Tenant for life — Bestriotion on powers—Cesser — Settled Land Act, 1890 (63 ^ 54 Vict. c. 69), s. 10. Two estates, the Bickley Park estate, in Kent, and the Copt Hall estate, in Essex, each having its own principal mansion-house, were settled by the same settlement upon the same trusts. The tenant for life had definitely adopted Copt Hall as his residence. The Bickley Park estate was a building estate, and its development as such, which had already commenced at the date of the settlement, was subsequently continued until the character of the surrounding neighbourhood had become altered to such an extent as to render a house of the size and pretensions of Bickley Hall quite out of place and very difficult to let. Ultimatelyj with the sanction of the Court, Bickley Hall and eighteen acres of pleasure grounds and park were let on a twenty-one years' lease to a schoolmaster, ]2000Z. being first expended out of capital moneys in making the hall suitable for the purposes of a school. The remainder of the pleasure grounds and park, which had originally comprised about 100 acres, was cut up and laid out under a building scheme and a considerable portion sold or let on building leases : — Held that, in the circumstances, Bickley Hall had ceased to be the principal mansion- house on any settled land, and that the hall and the pleasure grounds and park and lands usually occupied therewith were no longer sub- ject to the restrictions imposed by s. 10 of the Settled Land Act, 1890. In re Wythes' Settled Estates Eve J. [1908] W. N. 30 ; [1908] ICh. 693 Mines. 1 . — Beservation of mining rights — Sup- port to surface — Tenajit for life — Mining lease — Lease of power to let down surface — Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 # 46 Vict. o. 38), s. 2, sub- s. 10 {iv.) ; s. 6 ; s. 7, sub-ss. 2, 3. A tenant for life of settled land has power under s. 6 of the Settled Land Act, 1682, to grant a lease of a right to let down the sur- face of the land by mining operations. By his marriage settlement Sir G. Sitwell conveyed land of which he was owner in fee to uses under which he was now tenant for life. The deed contained an exception from the conveyance of all mines under the land in question with power to work the same ; any ( 237o ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2376 ) SETTLED LAND (Junes')— eontiniicd. person exercising those reserved rights was to make reasonable compensation to the trustees of the settlement for all damages caused to the inheritance, and also to the persons for the time being entitled to the surface of the land for damage to things upon the surface : — Held, that Sir G. Sitwell had no power under the exception to authorize lessees to work the mines so as to let down the surface of the settled land ; but that as a tenant for life he could under s. 6 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, grant them a lease of a right to do so. SiTvrxL V. Eaei, of LoNDEsnop.onGn Warringtou J. [1905] W. N. 11; [1905] 1 Ch. 460 Mining Leases. See under Settled Land — Leases. Mortgages. — Apportionment — Loss — Authorized invest- ment — Deficient security — Tenant for life and remainderman. See Settled Land— Apportionment. 2. — Costs — Concurrence of parties — Incum- brancers. See Settled Land — Sale. 5. 1 . — Discharge — Incumbrance — Settled land Act. 1890 (53 ,^ 54 Vict. c. 69), s. 11— Expenses of making street — Charge on pre- mises — Payment by owner — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 I 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 4, 150, 257. The tenant for life of an estate paid ex- penses which had been incurred by a local authority, and made a charge upon the estate by s. 257 of the Public Health Act, 1875 : — Held, that this was a charge on the inherit- ance, and that he was entitled to keep it alive as an incumbrance on the settled land, and to raise money under s. 11 of the Settled Land Act, 1890, by mortgage of the estate for the purpose of discharging it. In re Smith's Settled Estates Buckley J. [1901] W. N. 33; [1901] 1 Ch. 689 jVote. This case was referred to by Neville J. See In rePhzi, [1907] 1 Ch. 67. See Streets. 20. — Foreclosure — Successive incumbrances — Tenant for life of equity of redemp- tion. See Mortgage — Foreclosure. 6. — Heirlooms — Sale — Application of proceeds — Discharge of incumbrances. See Settled Laud — Heirlooms. 2. — Investment on mortgage — Tenant for life- Trustees for purposes of Act — Inquiry into title and value. See Settled Land — Investments. 2. 2. — " Required " — Tenant for life — Mort- gage to discharge incumbrances — Settled Land Act, 1890 (53 I" 54 Viet. c. 69), s. 11. Tbe word " required " in s. 11 of the Settled SETTLED LAND (Monga-^ei)— continued. Land Act, 1890, is not confined to cases where a mortgagee has given notice to call in his money ; the section must be read as if " re- quired " meant " where money is reasonably required having regard to the circumstances of the settled land." In re Cliffoed. Scott V. Clifford Buckley J. [1901] W. N, 217 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 87 — Sale by life tenant — Mortgagee of life estate — Consent — Concurrence in convey- ance. See Settled Land— Sale. 10. 3. — Tenant for life and remainderman — Settled mortgage — Settlor taking first life in- terest — Deficient security — Life tenant's death — Subsequent receipts in respect of past and accruing income — Apportionment pending realization — Arrears due at date of settlement. On Dec. 10, 1884, a mortgage of 18,000Z. on farm A was settled on successive trusts for two life tenants and a remainderman without making any provision for some three years' arrears of interest then owing to one settlor who became first life tenant thereunder. The first life tenant died on July 8, 1893, and the second life tenant on Jan. 22, 1903. Prom Oct. 11, 1881, to Oct. 11, 1902, the mortgagor had worked farm A together with farm B under an arrangement, by which he was to pay the net incomes to the mortgagees of farm A and farm B respectively to the extent of the interest due to them. The net incom,es were not nearly sufficient to keep down the interst in either case, but owing to errors in the apportionment of work- ing expenses during the joint working the moiltgagees of! farm B had altogether been paid 1028Z. in excess of the income properly attri- butable to their farm. On Aug. 11, 1905, the trustees recovered the 1028Z., representing income earned from Oct. 11, 1881, to Oct. 11, 1902, from the mort- gagees of farm B. From Oct. 11, 1902, to Oct. 11, 1906, the mortgagor continued to work farm A as manager to the trustees. On Oct. 11, 1906, the trustees let farm A at a rent of 515Z., and on Nov. 29, 1906, they received 2368Z. in respect of the sale of farm stock provided out of and representing in- come earned from Oct. 11, 1881, to Oct. 11, 1906. The interest was now heavily in arrear, and the security was greatly depreciated. Foreclosure proceedings had been com- menced, but no order had yet been made : — Held, that the first life tenant's represen- tative could not as against the other benefi- ciaries claim any arrears of interest owing at the date of the settlement, but subject to this exception the two sums of 1028Z. and 2368^., and every sum of accruing rent received up to the time of foreclosure absolute, must be treated as a payment on account of all arrears of interest owing at the date of payment, and must be apportioned between the estates of the two life tenants and the remainderman in pro- portion to the arnounts owing to them for ( 2377 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—19X0. ( 2378 ) SEITLED LAND mortgages)— continued. arrears of interest at the date when the par- ticular sum was received. In re Beoadwood'S Settlements. Bkoadwood o. Beoadwood Swinfen Eady J. [1907] W. N. 213; [1908] 1 Ch, lis — Tenants for life trustees — Mortgage of life or other interest — Concurrence of mortgagee. tier Vendor and Purchaser — Title. 11. "Outgoings." — Repairs — Costs of compelling tenants to repair — Incidence of burden. See Settled Land — Repairs. 1. Payment Out, 1 . — Payment out to tntstees — Money liable to be invested in land — Capital money — Sum- mons — Petition — Practice — Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 21, sub-s. (ix.'); s. 33— Settled Zand Act Rules, 1882, r. 2— Settled Land Act, 1890 (58 ^ 54 Vict. a. 69), s. 14. An application for payment out of Court to Settled Land Act trustees of a fund exceeding 1000^., which had not arisen under the Settled Land Act, 1882, but has been derived from another source and is liable to be laid out in the purchase of land to be made subject to the settlement, may be made by petition in- stead of by summons in chambers under n. 2 of the Settled Land Act Rules, 1882. In re ToEEY Hill Estate. Pembeeton v. Pember- TON - Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. 468 Payments. — Payment on account by tenant for life — Simple contract debt — Acknowledg- ment — Administration of whole of real estate. See Limitations, Statutes of. 6. Portions. — Tenant for life — Power to appoint portions — Disentailing deed — Mortgage of settled estates — Priority. See Settlement. 38. Possession. 1 . — Letting into possession — Assignee of equitable life estate — Conditions imposed — Costs — Appeal — Discretion of judge. The assignee of an equitable life estate in a freehold farm applied to be let into possession or receipt of the rents and profits of the farm. Stirling J., [1900] W. N. 65, ordered that the applicant should be let into possession or re- ceipt of the rents upon certain conditions, and that he must pay the costs of the trustees and the remainderman. The applicant appealed, on the ground that the conditions imposed were unreasonable, and also that the judge had not exercised any dis- cretion about the costs of the remainderman, but had acted erroneously upon a supposed rule. The Court made a slight variation in the Older, but directed that the appellant should SETTLED LAND (Possession) — continued. pay the costs of the appeal, and held that the conditions imposed were in substance proper, and that Stirling J. had exercised his discre- tion as to the costs, and there was no right of appeal from his decision in that respect. The order as varied directed that, upon his giving the undertakings after mentioned, and giving such security as should be approved by the judge in chambers, the appellant should be let into receipt of the rents of the farm pay- able under the existing lease, during the Itfe of the tenant for life or until further order. The undertakings were to be in substance as follows : — (1.) While in receipt of the rents to keep the farm buildings insured against damage by fire in the names or to the satisfaction of the trustees of the will, other than such buildings as might be insured by the tenant oiT the farm in accordance with his lease. (2.) To keep down the interest on all in- cumbrances (if any) on the property, and to pay punctually a rent-charge already created in favour of a land loan co., and all outgoings (if any) properly payable by an equitable tenant for life in possession. (3.) (Not to part with any policy of insur- ance, or with any receipt for any premium in respect thereof or for the rent-charge, without the written consent of the trustees, and to pro- duce every such policy or receipt to the trus- tees on all reasonable occasions. (4.) To perform all obligations incumbent on the person liable to pay the rent-charge as to upholding, maintaining, and insuring the works created under the land loan co.'s Act. (5.) To see to the performance by the tenant of his obligations under his lease. (6.) To permit some person to be agreed on, or to be nominated by the judge in cham- bers, to inspect the property once a year for the purpose of reporting to the trustees and remaindermen as to the performance by the appellant of his undertakings, and by the tenant of his obligations in respect of repairs, maintenance, and cultivation. (7.) To pay that person, out of the rents for his inspection and report such a sum as should be agreed on or fixed by the judge. (8.) To permit the trustees or their agents at all reasonable times to enter and inspect such part of the estate as might be in the possession of the appellant, and from time to time supply to the trustees all such informa- tion as they might reasonably require with respect to the estate. (9.) Not to use the names of the trustees or trustee in any action or other proceeding without their or his consent. (10.) To produce half-yearly if required by the trustees satisfactory evidence that the tenant for life was still alive, and to repay all rents received by the appellant after the death of the tenant for life. In re Hunt. Pollard V. Geake C. a. [1901] W. N. 144 Powers. 1 . — Conflict of powers — Powers emdroii- able hy^ trustees — Consent of tenant for. life — ( 2379 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2380 ) SETTLED LAND (Powers)— «?».««««?. Compound settlement — Private Act o'/ Parlia- ment coriferring powers Imt not creating limi- tations—Settled land Act, 1882 (i5 J^ 46 Vict. c. 38), Of. 2, sub-s. 1 ; s. 56, sub-ss. 1, 2. Where land is by will vested in trustees in trust for persons by way of succession, a pri- vate Act of Parliament which merely confers upon the trustees powers of developing and managing the land as a building estate, but does not incorporate the will, nor itself create any limitations to or in trust for any persons by way of succession, is not part of " the settlement " within the meaning of s. 56, sub- s. 2, of the Settled Land Act, 1882 ; and no consent by the tenant for life to the exercise of those powers by the trustees is rendered necessary by that sub-section. Talbot v. SOAHISBKIOK Warrington J. [1908] 1 Ch. 812 — Leasing, powers of. See under SETTLED Land — Leases. 3. — Life tenant — Limited oivner with powers of life tenant — Heir-at-lmw — Trustees in possession — Powers of management — Sub- tisting accumulation trust for diseharge of in- cumbrances — Mortgage — Void trust for pur- chase of land — Accumulations Act, 1892 (55 if 66 Vict. c. 58), s. I— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 2, sub-s. 2 ; s. 58, sub-s. 1, els. a., ix. A testatrix devised her freehold heredita- ments to the use of her trustees, giving them large powers of management, and directing them to pay certain annuities and other periodic sums out of rents and profits. During the successive lives of the plaintiff and two other persons, but not for more than twenty years after the testatrix's death, the trustees were to apply the surplus rents in the dis- charge of incumbrances on the estates therein- before devised, or in the purchase of other estates to be held on like trusts. Subject to and after the determination or failure of the several directions thereinbefore contained, the trustees were to stand possessed of the hereditaments in trust for F.'s daugh- ters successively according to seniority in tail male, with a, like remainder to B.'s daughters. No such daughters were yet in esse. After the determination or failure of the directions and trusts thereinbefore contained, the trustees were to settle the hereditaments to successive uses for lives and in tail male for ultimate remaindermen, but without any ulti- mate limitation of the fee. There were ulti- mate remaindermen for lives and in tail male in esse. In In re Baroness Llanover, [1903] 2 Ch. 330, Farwell J. held that the direction to apply the surplus rents in the purchase of other estates must be deemed to be struck out by the Accumulations Act, 1892, and that the accumulation trust must be read as limited to the discharge of incumbrances. On a subsequent motion to vary the minutes he formally declared that when and so soon as the accumulations should be sufficient to dis- charge the incumbrances the accumulation trust would become a trust for the pifroljase SETTLED LAND (Powers)— coraiiMMerf. of laud only and consequently void under the Accumulations Act, 1892, and that from that time, and so long as the surplus rents should by law remain undisposed of, they would belong, and be payable by the trustees as re- ceived, to the pit. as heiress-at-law. The accumulations were not yet sufficient to dis- charge the incumbrances : — Beld, on the construction of the will, that, subject to the accumulation trust for discharge of incumbrances, the surplus rents would bo payable to a daughter of E. or B. as tenant in tail male, but that until the birth of such a daughter, and subject to any such daugliter's interest, the surplus rents subject to the accu- mulation trust were payable by the trustees to the pit. as heiress-iat-law during the lives of i". and E., after whose deaths, subject to any daughter's estate in tail male, the ultimate remainders would come into possession. Held, also, that, having regard to the nature and extent of her interest as heiress- at-law, the pit. had not at the present time the powers of a life tenant either under cl. vi. or cl. ix. of s. 58, sub-s. 1, of the Settled Land Act, 1882. In re Jones, (1884) 26 Ch.- D. 736, 742, followed as to cl. vi. and distinguished as to cl. ix. In re Clitheroe Estate, (1885) 31 Ch. D. 135 ; In re Richardson, [1900] 2 Ch. 778 ; and ' In re Moneij Kyrle's Settlement, [1900] 2 Ch. 889, distinguished. Semble, cl. vi. does not apply to a person merely entitled to receive surplus rents from trustees who are in possession and managing the estates, and cl. ix. does not apply (a) to a terminable life interest, or (6) to any in- terest taken under an intestacy, though com- prised in the subject of the settlement under s. 2, sub-a. 2. Held, also, that a mortgage by the trustees for the purpose of raising estate duty was an inoumbrauoe within the accumulation trust. In re Babonbss Llanovee. Hekeekt v. Ram Swinfen Eady J. [1907] 1 Ch. 635 3 . — Life tenant — Limited oiuners with powers of life tenant — Non-beneficial owners — Trustees with estate, pur autre me — Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 58, sub—s 1 cli 1) Sect.' 58 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, which gives the powers of a life tenant to the nine classes of limited owners therein de- scribed, only applies to beneficial owners, and therefore trustees With an estate pur autre -vie cannot exercise a life tenant's powers under suh-s. 1, cl. V. Vine V. Raleigh, [1896] 1 Ch. 37, not fol- lowed. In re Jemmett and Guest's Conteact Swiufen Eady J. [1907] W. N. 78 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 629 4 . — Tenant for life — Will — Gift to tindow during widovihood for the maintenance of her- self and her children — Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 J^ 46 Vict. a. 38), s. 2, suV-ss. 5, 7 ; «. 58, sub-s. 1 (iii.). A teststpr gave all hjs real and personal ( 2381 ) DIGEST OF GASES, 1901—1910. ( 2382 ) SETTLED LAND (Powers) — continued. estate to trustees upon trust, as to a certain piece of laud and a public-house for his wife during widowhood, for the benefit and main- tenance of herself and her children and the proper bringing up of the latter : — Held, that the widow had the powers of a tenant for life under s. 58, sub-s. 1 (vi.), of the Settled Land Act, 1882, notwithstanding that her interest was charged with the main- tenance of the children. In re Theaker's Settled Estates (Wolsten- holme's Conveyancing and Settled Lands Act, 9th ed. p. 332) followed. In re Pollock. Pollock v. Pollock Swinfen Eady J. [1906] W. N. 9 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 146 Practice. 1. — Tenant for life and remainderman — Possession hy tenant for life — Form of order. In the course of the hearing of this case it was pointed out by counsel that certain words had been omitted by mistake iiom the form of order in In re Money Kyrle's Settle- ment, [1900] 2 Ch. 839, 845, a copy of which is set out in " Seton's Judgments and Orders," 6th ed., vol. 2, p. 1758, line 12. The line should run " without the written consent of the said trustees or trustee, and also to produce every or any such policy and receipt or muni- ment to the said trustees or trustee upon all reasonable occasions," as in the form of order in In re Wythes, [1893] 2 Ch. 369, 376. 7?! re Paddon. Stainoliffe v. Adlam Warrington J. [1909] W. N. 162 Bepairs. See also under the various Sub-head- ings of Settled Land. 1. — " Outgoings " — Tenant for life and re- mainderman — Bepairs — Costs of compelling ten/xnts to repair — Incidence of burden — Settlement — Construction. By a marriage settlement a sum of 10,080Z. was settled upon trust for the benefit of a wife, husband and children, and there was power given to the trustees to invest that sum in free- hold and leasehold ground rents and reversions which, when purchased, were to be held upon trust for sale, and until sale the trustees were " to pay or apply the net rent and profits thereof, or of the part for the time being unsold (after payment of outgoings) " to the persons entitled in case such purchase had not been made. The trustees invested in certain freehold and leasehold ground rents and re- versions at Sydenham ; the ground rents amounted to 449?., and were reserved by leases of twenty houses. The wife having died, the husband became beneficially entitled to the life interest under the settlement, and assigned it to the deft. co. Some of the children of the marriage had also incumbered their rever- sionary interests under the settlement. In 1904 the trustees discovered that fourteen out of the twenty houses constituting the security for the trust property were in need of repair, and they expended a sum of 200?. in having surveys made of the houses and buildings, and SETTLED LAND (Eepaire) — continned. in serving notices upon the tenants requiring them to repair. In consequence of this action the houses were put inta repair by the tenants. The question was now raised by the trustees, upon an originating summons, whether this 200?. should come out of income or out of capital. It was urged on behalf of those in- terested in the capital that these expenses were " outgoings " within the meaning of that term in the settlement, inasmuch as they were expenses incidental to the carrying out of the repairs of the houses, and should come out of the income before it was paid to the tenant for life. In re Thomas, Weatherall v. Thomas, [1900] 1 Ch. 319, was referred to. Kekewich J. said that the principle applic- able to this case was clearly laid down by Cotton L.J. in the case of In re Eotchkys, Freke v. Calmady, (1886) 32 Ch. D. 408, 415, 417, namely, that money for repairs must be raised in such a way as not to throw the burden unfairly either upon the tenant for life or upon the remainderman. That was the key. The expenses incurred here were not " out- goings," but they were incurred for the benefit for the trust property, and must be borne in a fair proportion between the tenant for life and remaindermen. The only way to do that was to direct them to come out of the corpus of the estate, and the order would be that this money was to be raised by mortgage of the property, such mortgage to include the costs of raising the sum required and also the costs of the present application. In re McCluee's Trusts. Caeb v. The Commee- oial Union" Insdeance Co. - Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 200 Revenue. (Public Ke venue.) See under Settled Lahd- Sale. ■Duties. 1. — Best price— Undervalue — Purchaser — " Dealing in good ffiith " — Sale hy tenant for life—Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Yict. c. 38), s. 4, suh-s. 1 ; ss. 53, 54. In the case of a sale by a tenant for life under the Settled Land Act, the mere fact that the purchaser has acquired the property at an undervalue is not, by itself, sufficient to invalidate the sale. If he has acted in good faith he is protected by s. 54 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, and he is not bound to inquire whether the tenant for life of the trustees liave had the property valued. The tenant for life of a freehold public- house which was let to a, firm of brewers at a rent of 63Z. for a term of which there were twelve years to run, sold the property, sub- ject to the lease, for 2000?. Immediately after the sale the purchaser contracted to resell the property for 3000?. to the brewers, to whom it had previously been offered for 2750Z. but in vain. The remainderman brought an action to set the sale aside on the ground that the best price had not been obtained. There was no evidence that the purchaser had acted otherwise than in t^ood faith : — ( 2383 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2384 ) SETTLED LAND CSale)—contmued. Held, that he was protected by s. 54 of the Settled -Land Act, 1882. Hukbell v. Little- JOHN - - Joyce J. [1904] W. N. 32 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 689 2. — Compound settlement — Deed granting annuities — Settlement by will of grantor's interest in land subject to the annuities. By a deed dated Aug. 3, 1886, certain real and leasehold property was assured to trustees upon trust for such persons as P. should by deed appoint. By deed dated Aug. 4, 1886, P. appointed that this property should be held upon trust for himself for life, and subject thereto to pay certain annuities to five persons for their respective lives, and subject thereto in trust for P. absolutely. P. died in Feb., 1887, having by his will given his residuary estate, which included the interest he had re- tained in the property subject to the annuities, upon trusts equivalent to a strict settlement, under which the pit. was tenant for life and his infant son tenant in tail in remainder : — Held, that the deeds of Aug. 8 and 4, 1886, and the will formed a compound settlement under the Settled Land Acts,: and that the pit., as tenant for life under this compound settle- ment, could sell the property discharged from the annuities. In re Phillimohe's Estate. Phillimoee v. Milnes - - Farwell J. [1904] W. N. 153 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 460 Mte. This case was followed by Swinfen Eady J., In re MarshaU's Settlement, [190.5] 2 Ch. 325. Settled Land — Settlements. 1. 3 . — Compound settlement — Trustees for purposes of Settled Land Acts — Poioer of tenant for life to sell — Settlement by will — Tenant fpr life — Jointure deed under power in will — Mortgages by tenant for life — Be- settlcTneni by deed — New life estate " in re- storation of former life estate " under will — Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Vict. c. 38), ss. 2, 20, 38, 40, oO— Settled Land Act, 1890 (53 ^ 64 Vict. c. 69), s. 4. In 1850 lands stood limited under a will to the use of A. for life, with remainder to his first and other sons successively in tail male. In 1872 A., upon his marriage and in exercise of a power given him by the will, by deed charged the lands with a jointure in favour of his wife. He also created mortgages on his life estate. In 1895 A. and his only son by a disentailing assurance conveyed the lands to such uses as A. and his son should by deed jointly appoint ; and by a deed of even date they appointed the lands to the use of A. for life " in restoration and continuation of his former life estate under the will," with re- mainder to the son in fee simple, and by this deed trustees were appointed for the purposes of the Settled Land Acts. A., as tenant fox life under the resettlement of 1895, contracted to sell part of the lands, the jointress and mortgagees being willing to concur and release their interests in the conveyance to the pur- chaser : — Held, that A.'s life estate under the will was still subsisting ; that the will, jointure SETTLED LAND (Sale) — continued. deed, disentailing assurance, and resettlement together constituted one compound settlement of which there were no trustees for the pur- poses of the Settled Land Acts, and therefore that A. could not make a good title. In re Mundy and Roper's Contract, [1899] 1 Ch. 275, followed. In re Gohnwallis-West AND MuNEo's GoNTBAOT - - Farwell J. [1903] W. N. 73 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 160 Xote. This case was distinguished by Swinfen Eady J., In re Lard Wimliorne a7id Browne's Contract, [1904] 1 Ch. 537. See ^'o. 12, ielow. 4 . — Conflict between provisions of will and provisions of Act — Consents necessary to exer- cise of^ power by trustees of will — Undivided shares — Several persons constituting tenamt for life— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 ^- 46 Vict, e. 38), s. 56, sub-s. 2— Settled Land Act, 1884 (47 ij- 48 Vict. e. 18), s. 6, sub-s. 2. Where by a will a power of sale was given to the trustees of the whole estate, but un- divided shares were separately settled : — Held, that there was a conflict within the meaning of s. 56, sub-s. 2, of the Settled Laud Act, 1882, between the provision of the will and the provisions of the Act ; that the tenants for life of undivided shares did not to- gether constitute, within the meaning of s. 6, sub-s. 2, of the Settled Land Act, 1884, a tenant for life for the purposes of the Act of 1882, and that therefore the consents of all the persons who were tenants for life, or persons having the powers of tenants for life, of the undivided shares were necessary to the exer- cise of their power of sale by the trustees of the will. In re Osbobne and Bbight's, Ld. Kekewich J. [1902] W. N. 10 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 335 5. — Concurrence of parties — Incumbran- cers on fee — Incumbrancers on life estate — Sale by tenant for life — Sale by auction in lots — Separate tramsactions — Costs — Taxation — Duties of trustees — Capital money — Investment in stock — Dividends declared but not paid — Bight of tenant for life to dividends — Solici- tors Remuneration Act, 1881 (44 ^ 45 Vict, c. 44) — General Order, August, 1882, clause 6 — Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 ^- 46 Vict. o. 38), ss. 21, 22, 50, sub-s. 3 ; s. 53. In giving a direction under s. 22, sub-s. 2, of the Settled Land Act, 1882, the tenant for life is bound to act as a trustee. The rule laid down in Cardigan v. Curzon- Howe, (1889) 41 Ch. D. 375, that on a sale by a tenant for life under the Settled Land Act the costs of obtaining the consent and concur- rence of the mortgagees on his life estate ought not, as a general rule, to be paid out of capital moneys, applies as well where the capital moneys are in the hands of trustees as where they are in Court. '"Where a tenant for life, who has sold under the Settled Land Act, 1882, directs capital moneys in the hands of the trustees to be ap- plied in payment of the costs, charges, and expenses of his solicitors in relation to the Bale, the trustees are not bound to have such costs, ( 2385 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2386 ) SETTLED LAND (Sale) — aontinued. charges, and expenses taxed, but are entitled to have an opportunity of considering their propriety, and if satisfied may without taxa- tion pay them out of capital moneys. The same rule applies to the payment out of capital moneys of the costs of procuring the concurrence in the sale of the incum- brances on the fee. Where property is offered by a tenant for life for sale in lota the tenant for life is vendor in respect of each contract of sale into which he eventually enters, and in such a case it is competent to the vendor's solicitor, who, before entering upon the business, has given the necessary notice under r. 6 of the General Order under the Solicitors Remuneration Act, 1881, of his intention to charge the ordinary detailed charges and not the scale fee in the case of sales under a certain amount, to treat the sale of each lot as a separate transaction, and to charge his costs accordingly. Where upon a direction by a tenant for life trustees have invested capital moneys in their hands in the purchase of stocks on which at the date of purchase dividends have been earned and declared but not paid, the tenant for life is not entitled to such dividends. Bulkeley v. Stephens, [1896] 2 Ch. 241 ; Seholefield y. Redfern, (1863) 2 Dr. & Sm. 173 ; and Freman v. Whiibread, (1865) L. E. 1 Eq. 266, distinguished. 2n re Sir Robert Peel's Settled Estates - Warrington J. [1910] W. N. 16 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 389 — Consent of tenant for life — " Land " — Mort- main and charitable uses. See Chabity. 34. 6. — Contract by tenant 'for lije to sell — Price to be -fixed by arbitration — Breach of, trust — Confirmation by Act of Parliament — Local and personal Act — Statutory effect — Rights of other persons interested in the estate. The tenant for life of settled land agreed to sell it in fee simple for a price to be fixed by arbitration. The agreement purported to be made by him under the Settled Land Acts as tenant for life. It provided that the award should be binding on all persons interested in the estates, and that the agreement itself should be conditional on the sanction of Par- liament being given to thei vendor and the pur- chasers to carry it into effect. A private Act of Parliament was accordingly obtained by which the agreement was " confirmed and made binding on the parties thereto respec- tively, and the same shall and may be carried into effect accordingly": — Held, that statutory effect must be given to the terms of the agreement ; the vendor must carry out the sale with all its consequences ; and that all the parties interested in the settled land were bound although they were not mentioned in the Act. In re The Earl OP Wilton-'s Estates - - Warrington J. [1906] W. N. 209 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 50 — Easement, Release of — Sale or exchange — Tenant for life. S'v Settled Land — Easement. 2. SETTLED LAND (Sale)— co»«»M«2>ointment of trustees of compound settlement for jmrposes of Settled Land Acts — Definition of such trustees — Settled Land Act, 1882 (+5 ,]■ 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 2, sub-ss. 1, 8 ; «. 45, sub-s. \— Settled Land Act, 1890 (53 S; 54 Vict, c. 69), ss. 11, 16. A testator by his will dated in 1870 devised a residential estate in settlement. In the midst of and surrounded by the estate and near to the mansion-house there was a smaller property which belonged to other persons. The tenant for life under the will purchased this property tor 7800^., and having mortgaged it for 7000Z., himself providing the balance, he by deed in 1904 settled it on the subsisting uses of the will, but subject to the mortgage and to repayment to himself of his costs, charges, and expenses arising out of the transaction. It was proved that the acquisition of this additional property was most desirable and beneficial. Neither in the will nor in the deed of 1904 was any general power of sale conferred on the trustees of those instruments, but the deed contained a proviso that the trustees thereof should have power, by sale or mortgage of the property thereby assured, to raise the amount of the costs, charges, and expenses above referred to. The tenant for life applied to the Court for its sanction to his raising the amount of the incum"brance and ( 2393 ) DIGEST Op cases, 1901— l9l0. ( 2394 ) SETTLED LAND (Tivistees)— continued. costs, charges, and expenses by a mortgage of the entirety of the estate, and that the trustees of the deed of 1904 might be appointed trustees for the purposes of the Settled Land Acts of the settlement created by the will and the deed of 1904 :— Held, following the decision of Byrne J. in In re Lord Stafford' s Settlement and Will, [1904] 2 Ch. 72, that 'the trustees of the deed of 1904 ought to be appointed trustees of the compound settlement for the purposes of the Settled Land Acts, as otherwise there would be no one to whom notice could be properly and adequately given under s. 45, sub-s. 1, of the Settled Land Act, 1882. Held, further, that the proviso contained in the deed of 1904 had not the effect of making the trustees of that instrument trustees for the purposes of the Settled Land Acts, as those Acts contemplated trustees having a general and not a limited power, that is, a power exercisable at any time and for any purpose, and not a power exercisable in a contingency and for a particular purpose. The application was therefore granted. The judgment of Byrne J. (unreported, but referred to, [1904] 2 Ch. at p. 74) in the case above cited more fully referred to by Kekewich J. In re CouLL's Settled Estates Kekewich J. [1905] W. N. 73 : [1905] 1 Ch. 712 — Compound Settlement — Trustees. See Settled Land— Sale. 3. S. — Compound settlement — Trustees of com- pound settlement — Power o/appointing — Ajipoint- ment of trustees — Solicitor of tenant for life — E(i;isting trustees — Affidavit of fitness — Settled ia;«i! Jcf, 1882 (45 4' 46 Vict. u. 38) s. 2, -lub-s.s.l, 8 ; s. 38. In 1863 estates were settled upon A. for life, with remainder, subject to a jointure and portions for younger children, to A.'s first and other sons in tail. In 1898 B., the eldest son of A., joined with his father in barring the entail and resettling the estates upon A. for life, with remainder to B. for life, with remainders over. The resettlement contained a declaration that tlie trustees of that deed should also be the trustees for the purposes of the Settled Lands Acts of the compound settlement created by the settlement of 1863 and the resettlement of 1898. A. died in 1901. The jointure and portions charge we re still subsisting. B. was desirous of selling part of the estates under his statutory power free from the jointure and portions charge, and now applied that the trustees of the resettlement might be appointed trustees of the compound settlement if the Court should be of opinion that they were not already properly appointed. One of these three trustees was the solicitor of the tenant for life, and also a trustee of the settlement of 1863 : — Hell!, that the declaration in the resettlement of 1S98 did not amount to a declaration by " the settlement," as defined by s. 2, sub-s. 1, of the persons to be trustees thereof for the purposes o£ the Settled Land Acts within the meaning of s. 2, sub-s. 8. and consequently that there was no valid appointment of trustees of the compound SETTLED LAND (TraBtees)— continued. settlement, who in this case could only be appointed by the Court : — Held, also, that the fact that the solicitor of tlie tenant for life was already a trustee of the settlement of 1863 and of the resettlement of 1898, and the alleged convenience to the parties of having the same trustees for all the settlements was not sufficient to take the case out of the general rule laid down in In re Kemp''s Settled Estates, (1883) 24 Ch. D. 485, and In re Earl of Stamford, [1896] 1 Ch. 288, and the two remain- ing trustees only were therefore appointed trustees of the compound settlement upon production of affidavits of their fitness in the usual way. In re Hammond Spencer's Settled Estates. Byrne J. [1902] W. N. 200 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 78 — Infants — Guardian — Possession of rents and profits during minority. See Settled Land — Infanta. 1. — Liability — Unauthorized investment — Restoration of capital and interest. See Tkusteb — Liability. 1. 4. — Power of sale — Trustees for purposes of the Settled Lands Acts — Other lands comprised in tlie settlevient — -Lands purchased hy trustees and settled to like uses — Settled Land Act, 1890 (53 Si 54 Vict. c. 69); s. 16. M., who died in 1885, by will devised land to trustees upon trust for S. for life, then for his eldest son for life, and afterwards upon trusts corresponding to a strict settlement. He gave all his personal estate to the same trustees upon trust to invest in land, to be conveyed to them upon the same trust as the land devised. He gave the trustees a power of sale over all the land except his mansion house and lands in the same parish. The trustees had invested part of the personal estate in the purchase of lands which were con- veyed to them upon the trusts of the will. They had afterwards sold all the lands originally com- prised in the will other than those excepted from the power of sale. The equitable tenant for life had entered into a contract for the sale of the mansion house : — Held, that the purchased lands were " com- prised in the settlement, and subject to the same limitations, as the laud agreed to be sold " within the meaidng of the Settled Land Act, 1890, s. 16, sub-s. 1, aud the trustees were trustees for the purposes of the Settled Laud Acts. In re MooEE. Moore v. Bigg Swinfen Eady J. [1906] W. N. 63 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 789 — Power to appoint new trustees — Tenant for life donee of power. See Trustee— Appoinment. 9. — Besettlement — Sale by original life tenant — Compound settlement — Trustees. See Settled Land — Sale. 12. — Sale by — Consent of tenant for life — Lunatic. Sec Settled Land— Sale. 17. — Tenants for life trustees — Mortgage of life or other interest — Concurrence of mort- gagee. See Vendob and PaEOHASEE— Title. ( 2395 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2396 ) SETTLED LAND (TTUStees)— continued. — Trustees for purposes of Settled Land Acts- Tenant for life trustee — Vendor and purchaser — Settled land— Future trust for sale. See Settled Land — Sale. 8. Waterworks. — Mining lease — Lessor's compensation — Appor- tionment. See Settled Laud — Leases. 5. Way, Eight of. — User by public— Possibility of dedication- Acquiescence. See Way, RIsht of. 11. WUl. — Tenant for life— Will— Institution of heirs in specified proportions — Period of distri- bution. See Cape op Good Hope. 15. SETTLED PKOPEETY. See under Settled Land. SETTLEMENT— Accumulations out of income- Marriage contract — Wife's acquirenda — Legitim. See Scottish Law. 16. — Ademption pro tanto of settled portion of legacy. See Will — Ademption. 4. — After-acquired property, Covenant to settle. See Nos. 4 — 22, below. — " Alimentary provision " — Validity of re- striction as against husband's mort- gagees. See Conflict op Laws. 6. 1. — Apjjointinent of specific sums of stoch — Surrender of appointor '« life interest — Immediate possession — Death of appointor — Hotchpot — Date at which ralae of ajipointed stocks should ie ascertained. By the marriage settlement of Mr. and Mrs. Kelly stocks were assigned to trustees upon trust for Mrs. Kelly for life, and after her death (in the events which happened of her surviving her husband and no joint appointment by them having been made) then upon trust for such of the issue of the marriage as the survivor of them should by deed or will appoint, and in default of such appointment in trust for the children of the marriage in equal shares. The settlement con- tained a hotchpot clause in common form. Mrs. Kelly on the occasion of the marriage of one of her daughters appointed that certain sums of stock forming part of the settlement trust fund should immediately after the marriage be held in trust for the daughter for her absolute benefit, and Mrs. KeUy assigned and surrendered her life interest in the appointed stocks to the daughter. The stocks were accordingly trans- ferred to the trustees of the daughter's settle- ment immediately after their marriage. Mrs. Kelly died and the trust funds became divisible : — Held, that the daughter must bring into hotchpot the share appointed to her at its value SETTLE ULSST— continued. at the date of the death of MrS. Kelly. In re Kelly's Settlement TRnsTS. Gxjstaeb r. Bbkkeley Warringon J. [1909] W. N. 203 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 78 — Bankruptcy. See under Bankeuptcy— Settlements. — Bankruptcy — Conveyance by settlor to him- self as trustee — Straits Settlements Bankruptcy Ordinance of 1888 — Con- struction — V oluntary settlement. See Steaits Settlements. 4. — Bankruptcy, Husband's interest determinable on — Post-nuptial settlement — Recital of ante-nuptial settlement. See Feauddlbnt Conveyance. 3. — Bankruptcy of donee of power of appointment — Capacity of trustee to release power. See Powee of Appointment. 1. — " Charitable or religious institutions and societies " — Uncertainty — Trust dis- position and settlement. See Will — TJuoertainty. 4. — ■ Cohabitation, Resumption of — Settlement on children of marriage. See Sepaeation Deed. 1. 2. — Gohalitation, Trust for wife during-^ Validitij — Poliby of the law — Husband and wife — Post-nuptial settlement. By a post-nuptial settlement the husband assigned certain leaseholds to trustees upon trust to pay the rents to his wife for life, or so long as she should continue the cohabiting wife or the widow of the settlor, for her separate use, and upon the determination of the trust in favour of the wife the husband took an interest in the settled property. Some years after the date of the settlement the husband and wife separated by mutual consent, and they had not since cohabited : — Held, that the restriction of the wife's enjoy- ment of the rents to the period of cohabitation was not void as against the policy of the law, and that the trust in her favour determined upon her ceasing to live with her husband. Cartwright v. Cartuyrigkt, (1853) 3 D. M. & G. 982, and H. v. W., (1857) 3 K. & J. 382, distin- guished. In re HOPE JoiLNSTONE. Hope John- stone f. Hope Johnstone • Kekewich J. [1904] W. N. 54 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 470 — Compound settlement — Appointment of trus- tees. See Settled Land — Trustees. 3. — Compound settlement — Sale — Trustees. See Settled Land — Sale. 12. 3. — Condition subsequent requiring assump- tion of naine and arms — Gift ot;er on " refusal or neglect " to assume — Infant — Settlement of real estate. Testator by his will devised and appointed real estate, in strict settlement, and added a proviso directing that every person who should become entitled under" his will to the estate as tenant for life or tenant in tail in possession who should not then bear the name and arms of Edwards should within six calendar months after ( 2397 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2398 ) SSTTLEJU^NT— continued. he should have become so entitled in possession assume the surname and arms of Edwards. And in case any such person should "refuse or neglect " within the six calendar months to take, use, and bear such surname and arms, then and in every such case immediately after the expira- tion of the six months the limitation thereinafter contained to the use of such person should abso- lutely determine, and the testator gave the estate to the person or persons next in remainder under the limitations of his will. On the assumption that a previous tenant for life had forfeited the estate by reason of her non-compliance with the proviso and that the estate had thereupon devolved upon an infant who also had not complied with the proviso : — Held, that the words " refuse or neglect " in the proviso involved an exercise of will, and that inasmuch as in law an infant had no power (except in certain special cases) to exercise a discretion in reference to a legal matter, the testator in using those words must be talien not to include an infant. Held, therefore, that the proviso did not apply to the infant, and that, on the above assumption, he had not forfeited the estate by reason of his " refusal or neglect " to comply with it. Partridge v. Partridge, [1894] 1 Oh. 351, applied. But lield, on the construction of the parti- cular provisions of the will, that the previous tenant for life had never become a " tenant for life in possession " within the meaning of the proviso, and therefore that the period at which it became incumbent upon her to assume the surname and arms had not arrived, and conse- quently that she had not forfeited the estate. In re Edwards. Lloyd v. Boyes Warrington J. [1910] W. N. 60 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 541 — Conflict of laws — English trustees — " Alimen- tary provision " — Bights o£ husband's incumbrancers. See Conflict of Laws. 6. — Conversion. See No. 23 helow. — Covenant by husband to settle — After- acquired farniture — Furniture after- wards bought and used at family residence — Bankruptcy of husband. See Bankruptcy — Settlement. 1. — Covenant to settle — After-acquired property — Father's covenant — Persons deriva- tively entitled — Will — Satisfaction. See Will — Satisfaction, 1. 4. — Covenant to settle wife's nfter-ncqvired propertg — Gift from hv-^liand to ivife — Volunteers — i\'e.ri of kin claiming benefit of coeenant — Trnstees not hound to enforce transfer — Marriage settlement. By a' marriage settlement made in 1878 certain funds coming from the wife's father were settled upon the usual trusts of a wife'.s fund, with an ultimate trust, in the events which happened, for the wife's statutory next of kin. And it was also agreed that all real and personal roperty to which the wife was entitled at the SETTLEMENT— co/(;i/i(S6'^7. date of the marriage, or to which she, or her husband in her right, at any time during the coverture, should be or become entitled, whether in possession, reversion, or otherwise, should be assured and transferred by the husband and wife respectively to the trustees to be held upon the trusts of the settlement. In August, 188i, a sum of 1018Z. 15s. was invested by the husband in the purchase of certain stock in the name of the wife. This was subsequently sold by the wife and reinvested in the purchase of 1125Z. Grand Trunk Railway of Canada 4 per cent, debenture stock, which remained registered in her name down to the date of her death, intestate and without leaving any issue, on Feb. 2, 1909. The stock was now standing in the name of the husband, to whom letters of administration to his wife's estate had been granted : — Held, that the stock in question, which was a gift by the husband to the wife, was caught by the agreement to settle the wife's after-acquired property. Ill re Ellis's Settlement, [1909] 1 Ch. 618, followed. But held, on the authority of Spioliernell v. Hotham, (1854), Kay, 669, that no action could be brought by the trustees to recover damages against the husb.and or the estate of the wife. Held, also, that the next of kin of the wife, being volunteers and strangers to the marriage consideration, could not enforce the contract to settle as against the administrator of the wife, and that therefore the trustees were not bound to take any steps to obtain a transfer of the stock. In re S'Angihau, (1880) 15 Ch. D. 228, followed. Fletcher v. Fletc/ier, (1884) 4 Hare, 67, dis- tinguished. In re Plumptee'b Maeeiage Settlement. Undbkhill v. Plumptee. Eve J. [1910] W. N. 63 ; [1910 J 1 Ch. 609 5. — Covenant to settle after-acquired pro- perty — E.roepition of property settled on loifefor separate use — Contingent rerersinnarg interesti not falling into possession during coverture. A settlement made In 1870, on the marriage of L. (the husband) and D. (the wife), contained a covenant by both of them with the trustees of the settlement that all other, if any, the present and future real and personal estate and effects whatsoever, whether in possession or expectancy, of or to which L. and D., or either of them in her right, or by material right, should at any time or times during the coverture become seised, possessed, or entitled, or of or to which L., or any person claiming through or under him, should by any means whatsoever become, in her right or by marital right, at any time or times after solemnization of the marriage, seised, pos- sessed, or entitled, except only such estate and effects as should be settled on her for her separate use, should from time to time, as soon as might be thereafter, or after they or he should become possessed of or entitled to the same, be conveyed, assigned, transferred, or paid unto the trustees, and be settled and assured upon the trusts of the settlement, or such of them as should be subsist- ing and capable of taking effect. ( 2399 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2400 ) D. in 1871 (during the coTerture) became entitled under her mother's will to a contingent reversionary interest in part of the proceeds o£ sale of realty and personalty which was given for her separate use, and under a codicil to the same will to a contingent reversionary interest in another part of the proceeds, which was not given for her separate use. After L.'s death the interest under the will fell into possession the interest under the codicil was still rever' sionaiy : — Seld, following Kane v. Xane (1880) 16 Ch. D. 207, that the interest under the will was not within the operation of the covenant. Seld also, that the interest under the codicil was within the covenant. Towmhend v. Harrowby, (1858) 4 Jur. (N".S.) 353, and Inre MichelVs Ti'usts, (1878) 9 Ch. D.5, considered. • Semble, that it always has been possible, whether before or after Malius' Act, by a properly framed covenant as to after-acquired property in a marriage settlement, to bind a married woman's reversionary interests, whether contingent or otherwise, acquired during cover- ture, but not falling into possession until after- wards ; and that the Court can and always could, notwithstanding technical difficulties as to getting an actual conveyance, bind the pro- perty in the hands of every one, including the heir or legal personal representative of the husband or wife, as the case may be. Lloyd v. Peichaed Parker J. [1908] 1 Ch. 266 6. — Covenant to settle after-acquired pro- perty — Gift from husband — Marriage settlement. There is no general rule of construction of covenants, in marriage settlements, to settle after-acquired property of the wife that a gift from the husband to the wife during coverture is to be excluded from the covenant. A marriage settlement made in 1882 con- tained several covenants by the husband and ' wife to settle " all the real and personal estate whatsoever and wheresoever (if any) to which the wife or the husband in her right should upon the solemnisation of the intended marriage, or at any time afterwards during the intended coverture, be or become absolutely entitled for any estate or interest whatsoever in possession or reversion." In 1908 the husband transferred into his wife's name, as an absolute gift, stocks and shares of the value of 50,000?. :— Held, that they were bound by the covenant. Colesy. Coles, [1901] 1 Ch. 711, distinguished. In re Ellis's Settlement. Ellis «. Ellis Swinfen Eady J. [1909] W. N. 59 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 618 7. — Covenant to settle after-acquired pro- perty — Land in Ireland — • Post-nuptial and voluntary — Wife's covenant to settle property acquired during existing coverture — Previous marriage settlement — Settled fund — Power of appointment on failure of issue — ■ Meversionary interest in default of appointment — No child — Dissolution of marriage — Appointment to self — Settled land in Ireland — Wife entitled to life estate — Sale of land — Twelve per cent, bonus — D.D. SEITV&WESX— continued. Irish Land Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, o. 37), s. 48— Irish Land Act, 1904 (4 Bdw. 7, c. 3), ss. 3, 4. By a voluntary settlement dated Mar. 26, 1902, the applicant, a married woman, cove- nanted to settle all real and personal property to which she was then, or should at any time during her then present coverture become, entitled for any estate or interest whatsoever in possession, reversion, remainder, contingency, or expectancy. There was no child of the marriage, which was dissolved on the wife's petition as from June 9, 1904, and the property of the wife comprised in her marriage settlement was ordered to be conveyed to her as if the husband had died in her lifetime. In these circumstances questions arose whether the trustees of the voluntary settle- ment were entitled by virtue of the above- mentioned covenant to the following moneys, namely :— (1) A sum of 2800Z., which became payable on April 12, 1905, representing the applicant's fund settled by her marriage settlement, and at the. date thereof neither ascertained nor payable, over which fund, in the event of there being no child of the marriage, the applicant had a general power of appointment exercisable by deed while not under coverture, or by will whether covert or sole, and to which fund in default of any such appointment she was absolutely entitled if she survived her husband. On Dec. 4, 1905, the applicant had appointed the marriage settlement funds to herself absolutely. (2) A sum of 241Z. is. arising upon the sale by the applicant, as tenant for life, of certain land in Ireland comprised in the voluntary settlement, sold by her, after the dissolution of her marriage, under the provisions of the Irish Land Act, 1903. The sum in question repre- sented the 12 per cent, bonus payable to vendors under s. 48, sub-a. 1, of that Act, and by virtue of the provisions of the Irish Land Act, 1904, belonged to the applicant, as tenant for life, as her "own proper moneys for" her "own use and benefit." On the first question : — Held, that the deter- mination of the question of title to the sum of 2800Z. turned upon the distinction between power and property, and that although the exercise of the power after the dissolution of her marriage created property, yet during the coverture all that the applicant had was a power of appointment over the fund, and, a power not being within the scope of the covenant, the sum of 2800?. belonged to her absolutely. lownshend v. Harrowby, (1858) 27 L. J. (Ch.) 553 ; 4 Jur. (N.S.) 353, followed. Bower v. Smith, (1871) L. fi. 11 Eq. 279, and In re Lord Gerard, (1888) 58 L. T. 800, commented upon. Steivard v. Poppleton, [1877] W". N. 29, and In re O'Connell, [1903] 2 Ch. 574, not followed. On the second question : — Held, adopting the view taken of the nature of , the bonus in In re Lady Annaly's Trust, (1904) 92 L. T. 13, and In re Power's Estate, [1907] 1 I. K. 51, that the bonus was not merely a by-product of ( 2401 ) DIGEST OF GASES, 1901—1910. ( 2402 ) SETTLEMENT— po»iire!i<;(Z. the applicant's life estate, but was an interest in the settled hereditaments accruing to her when the Irish Land Act, 1903, interpreted by the Irish Land Act, 1901, came into operation on Nov. 1, 1903, and that the bonus was caught by the covenant and must be retained by the trustees ol: the voluntary settlement. Tbbmayne v. Rashlbigh Eve J. [1908] "W. N. 31, 42 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 681 Followed by Swinfen Eady J., Vetch v. Elder [1908] W. N. 137. See No. 12, below. 8. — Covenant to settle wif^s after-acquired ■pri'iie.rty — Con-Uruction — Land in Jersey — Con- sidoration for transfer necessary — Covenant incapable of being performed — Marriage settle- ment. A marriage settlement, executed in 1897, contained a covenant whereby it was agreed that all real and personal property to which A. M. H., the intended wife, then was or at any time during her coverture should be or become entitled, " except her freehold and leasehold property in Jersey, and any cash, stocks, funds, or other securities, now in the actual possession, or standing in the name of A. M. H. " should be assured and transferred by A. M. H., and all other necessary parties, if any, to the trustees of the settlement upon trust to sell and hold the proceeds upon the trusts relating to the wife's trust fund. At the date of the settlement A. M. H. was absolutely entitled to certain real estate in Jersey. In 1901 she became absolutely entitled to a share in certain other freehold property in Jersey. By the law of that country trusts of this character were not recognized, and all trans- fers of property were required to be made for adequate pecuniary consideration: — Held, that although the words of the excep- tion in the covenant did not exclude the subsequently acquired property of the wife in Jersey, yet, having regard to the law of Jersey which rendered the transfer of such property to the trustees inoperative, it was not caught by the covenant to settle. In re Dunsany's Settlement, [1906] 1 Ch. 578, applied. In re Peaese's Settlkmbnt. Pearse V. Peaese Eve J. [1908] W. N. 244 ; [1909] 1 CI. 34 9. — Covenant to settle after-acquired pro- perty — Assignment of future property — Gift from husband — Marriage .settlement — Construction. An assignment by the intended wife in a marriage settlement of her property and fortune, both present and expectant or future, lield not to comprise a sum of money which the husband made a present of to the wife long afterwards. Coles r. Coles Joyce J. [1901] W. N. 29 ; [1901] 1 Ct. 711 10. — Covenant to settle after-acquired pro- perty — .500Z. or upwards — Legacies — Deduction of duty — Tune and source of payment — Husband and wife. A legacy of nOOl., which by payment of duty at 10 per cent, has been reduced to +50^, is nut within a covenant to settle any after-acquired property of the value of 500Z. or upwards. SETTLEMENT— co«i!iK«e, above. 16. — Covenant to settle after-acquired pro- perty — Construction — Life inter est— Annuity . A covenant in general terms to settle hus- band's or wife's after-acquired property does not include a life interest or an annuity, in the absence of any indication in the settlement of a specific intention to include such interests. Accordingly, where a marriage settlement contained a covenant that all real and personal property to which the wife should during her coverture become entitled, whether in possession, remainder, or otherwise, should be transferred to the trustees of the settlement upon trust for sale and conversion and to hold the proceeds upon the trusts of the settlement : Held, that an annuity acquired by the wife during her coverture was not caught by the covenant. White V. Briggs, (1848) 23 Beav. 176, n., and SETTLEMENT— co«iMjMe(Z. Townsliend v. Harrowby (1858) 4 Jur. (IT.S.) 353, followed. Schofield V. Spooner, (1884) 26 Ch. D. 94, distinguished. In, re Dowdino's Settlement Trusts. Gregory v. Dowdino - Kekewich J. [1904] W. N. 17 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 441 I'?- — Covenant to settle after-acquired pro- perty — Power or property — Property subject to gen,e.ral power of appovntment. A covenant for settlement of after-acquired property extends to property which is limited to such purposes as the covenantor shall appoint, and in default of appointment to him or her absolutely. A marriage settlement contained a covenant that any property exceeding 200^. in value which the wife should become possessed of or entitled to should be brought into settlement. Property, exceeding 200?. in value, was subsequently be- queathed in trust for such purposes as she should appoint, and in default of appointment to her absolutely for her separate use. She executed deeds-poll purporting to appoint out of the pro- perty several sums of 199Z. each to herself absolutely : — Held, that, notwithstanding the general power of appointment, the bequeathed property was bound by the covenant, and the deeds-poll were therefore ineffectual. Steward v. Poppleton, [1877] W. N. 29, followed. Townshendv.Har7-owSy,Q.858') 27 h. J. Ch. 553 ; i Jul-. (N.S.) 353, distinguished. In re O'Connell, Mawlb v. Jagoe Kekewich J. [1903] W, N. 153 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 674 Note. Not followed by Eve J., Tremayne v. Bash- leigh, [1908] 1 Ch. 681. See No. 7, above. 18. — Covenant to settle after-acquired pro- perty — Reversionary interest — Conversion for benefit of person,s entitled in succession. The rule in Howe v. Earl of Dartmouth, (1802) 7 Yes. 137; 6 E. E. 96, does not apply in the case of a settlement by deed, and apparently only applies where there is a disposition by will of residuary personal estate given as one fund to be enjoyed by several persons in succession. In re Van Steatjbenzbe. Boustead v. Cooper Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 181 ■ [1901] 2 Ch. 779 19. — Covenant to settle after-acquired pro- perty—Scots domioil — Scots law — Jus relictie — Spes suecessionis — Covenant of indemnity — " Entitled to any personal property for any estate or iitterest whatsoever" — Husband and wife Marriage settlement. A wife's mere spes suecessionis, such as her hope of succession to a, share of her husband's personal property upon his death, under the Scots law of the jus relictse (which jus vests in the wife only upon the death of the husband), even though coupled with an indemnity by the husband in damages if Che spes should be dis- appointed, is not an " estate or interest in per- sonal property" coming to her "during the coverture," within the meaning of the usual 4h2 ( 2405 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901— 1910. ( 2i06 ) SETTLEMENT— eoreiifflweff. covenant in a marriage settlement for the settle- ment of the wife's after-acquired property. Decision of Buckley J. reversed. In re Simpson. Simpson v. Simpson C. A. [1903] W. N. 191 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 1 20. — Covenant to settle after-acquired pro- perty — Property imrcTiasei with accumulations of income. Property purchased with the savings of a wife's income under settled property is not within a covenant by her in her marriage settlement to settle property .to which she may thereafter become entitled. MnlayY. Barling, [1897] 1 Oh. 719, followed. In. re Bendy, [189.5] 1 Oh. 109, not followed. In re Clutteebuck's Settlement. Bloxam V. Oltttteebuck Buckley J. [1905] 1 Ch. 200 SETTLEMENT— continued. became entitled in remainder during the coverture was not bound by the covenant. mihers V. Parldnson, (1883) 25 Oil. D. 200, followed and approved. In re DnNSANT's Srttlembnt. Nott v. DUNSANY C. A. [1906] W. N. 61 ; [1906] 1 Cli. 578 Note. This case was applied by Eve J., In re Pearse's Settlement, [1909] 1 Ch. 304. See No. 8, aljovr. 23. 21. — Cotienantto settle after-aequired property — " Usual" clauses — Married woman — Agreement for a settlemefit — Beversionary interest in per- sonalty subject to power of appointment — Exercise of power. By the marriage settlement of M., dated in 1854, property was settled upon trust, after the deatlis of himself and his wife, for the children of the marriage as M. and his wife should jointly appoint ; and in default of such appointment, as the survivor should appoint ; and in default of any appointment, in trust for all the children who should attain twenty-one in equal shares. There were only two children who attained twenty-one. One of them, 0., by an ante-nuptial agreement, agreed to settle " all her half or other share and interest whatsoever " in the property subject to the trusts of the original settlement. The agreement provided that the settlement should contain certain specified provisions, and generally such other agreements, clauses, and provisions as were "usually inserted in settle- ments of a like kin4." M. and his wife, who predeceased him, made no joint appointment under the deed of 1854, but by his will, in exer- cise of his power, he appointed the sum of 2000Z. to 0. absolutely : — Held, that a covenant to settle after-acquired property was not a " usual " clause in settlements of a like kind with that to be executed in accord- ance with the agreement for a settlement, and that the 2000Z. was not bound by the agreement. In re MADDY'S ESTATE. Maddt r. Maddy Joyce J. [1901] W. N. 160 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 820 22. — Gireiiaiit to settle iinfe's after-acquired property — Marriage settlement — Construction — Bstate iuil. By a marriage settlement the intended hus- band and wife covenanted with the trustees of the settlement that if during the coverture the wife, or the husband in her right, should become seised or possessed of or entitled to any real or personal property for any estate or interest in possession, remainder or expectancy, the husband and wife and all other necessary parties would, as soon as circumstances would permit, convey, assign, settle, and assure the said real or per- sonal estate to the trustees for the time being of the settlement : — Conversion — Bealestate — Trustfor con- version — Failure of objects of trust — Realty or personality — Estate duty. By a marriage settlement of 1845, real estates were conveyed by a settlor to trustees, subject to the prior life interests of his parents therein, to the use of the settlor for life, and, after his death, to the use of the trustee upon trust to sell and hold the proceeds for certain specified pur- poses for the benefit of the settlor's wife and children, with an ultimate trust for the settlor, his executors, administrators and assigns. The settlor died in 1905, without having had any issue, and all the purposes for which conversion had been directed had at this date failed. By his will the settlor had devised " his interest " these estates to his " successor Lord G. in fee " : — Held (difiering with the decision of Eve J., [1908] W. N. 57 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 666, on this point), that, as the trust for sale arose only after the death of the settlor, there was at that time in the events which had happened no enforce- able trust, and the question of conversion or re- conversion did not arise ; but (affirming the decision of Eve J. in the result, and agreeing with him on this point) that these estates devolved as realty under the testator's will, and the estate duty payable in respect of them was properly payable by Lord G. Att.-Gen. v. Huiluck, (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 275, and Clarke v. Franklin, (1858) 4 K. A; J. 257, distinguished. In re LORD Geimthoepe. Beckett v. Loed Geimthoepe C. A. [1908] W. N. 201 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 675 — Conversion — Realty or personalty. . See under CoNVEBSlON. 24. — Bie " without erer having been married " — ■ Children — Settlement — Construction — Ultimate trust — Wife's next of kin — Weekly Notes — Citation. Where a settlement made on the marriage of a spinster contains trusts for her children attaining twenty-one or marrying, an ultimate trust, in default of such children, and in the event of the wife predeceasing the husband, for her statutory next of kin as if she had died intestate and " without ever having been married " prima facie excludes children. aarke v. Colls, (1861) 9 H. L. 0. 601, 612, followed. No general rule to the contrary is laid down in Wil.wn V. Atkinson, (1864) 4 D. J. & S. 455. Fmmi?is v. Bradford, (1880) 13 Ch. D. 493, followed; In re Ball's Trust, (1879) 11 Oh. D. 270, Uptori^. Brotijn,OS79) 12 Ch. D. 872, Be Held, that an estate tail to which the wife! Watson's Trusts, (1886) 55 L. T. 316, Stoddart v. ( 240^ ) blGESl' OF CASES, l90l— l9i0. ( 24082) SETTLEMENT— co?i trustees. By a post-nuptial settlement made in 1884 between W. C. Irwin of the one part, and trustees " whom and their executors or administrators are intended to be hereafter included in the designa- tion of the said trustees " of the other part, it was recited that Irwin was absolutely entitled to freehold hereditaments, " which said freehold property " he was desirous to settle in favour of his wife and children. It was then witnessed that in pursuance of such desire he assigned the " said freehold hereditaments " to the trustees (without the words " heirs "), upon trust for sale and investment and to pay the income to Mrs. Irvin for life and then to the settlor for life and then for their children. The settlement con- tained a proviso that if any present or future trustee died or wished to retire it should be law- ful for the surviving or continuing trustee or, if there should be no continuing trustee, for the retiring trustee to appoint another trustee in hia place, and that the trust funds and premises should thereupon be vested in the new trustees. Amongst the settlor's freeholds were some in which he only had an equitable estate : — Held, that by reason of the absence of words of limitation there passed to the trustees merely an estate in the settlor's equitable freeholds for the lives of the trustees named in the deed and the survivor of them. In re lEWlN. Irwin V. Paekbs Buckley J. [1904] W. N. 153 ; [1904] 3 Ch. 762 34. — Limitations — Eguitahle estate in fee — No words of inheritance — Real estate. A limitation, in a deed, of a trust of real estate for A., without any words of inheritance, may confer the equitable fee upon him where the intention to do so is ex pressed or sufficiently shewn upon the face of the instrument. By surrender aad a settlement dated in 1831 copyhold hereditaments were limited in trust for ( 2413 ) DIGEST OB* CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2414 ) SETTLEMENT— cow ^i nued. M. for life, and after her death for her husband, and after the death of the surviTor in trust for the children of the marriage equally as tenants in common, and in default of issue then to such uses as M. should declare by her will, with remainder to the right heirs of M. There were three children of the marriage : — Held, that there being upon the face of the instrument sufficient indication of intention on the part of the settlor that absolute interests should be given, the three children, notwith- standing the absence of any limitation to their " heirs," were entitled as tenants in common in equal shares for equitable estates in customary fee simple. Ptigh V. Drew, (1869) 17 W. E. 988, followed. Ill re WIdston's Settlement, [1894] 1 Ch. 661, considered and distinguished. Inre Teingham's Tedst. Teingham c. Gbbenhill Joyce J. [1904] W. N. 153 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 487 Note. Followed by Farwell J., In re Ohrer's Settle- ment, [1905] 1 Ch. 191. See Power of Appoint- ment. 6. Keferred to by C. A., In re Thursly's Settle- ment Trusts, [1910] 2 Ch. 181. See Power of Appointment. 28. — Lunacy — Committee — Power of appointment among children. See Lunacy. 21. — Marriage — Condition — Validity — Restraint of marriage — Forfeiture — Condition subse- quent. See Maeeiage. 4. — Marriage contract — Conquest — Wife's acquir- enda — Accumulations of income — Legitim. See Scottish Law. 16. — Merger — Life tenant. See Settled Land — Settlement. 1. — Nullity of marriage — Variation of settlement — Form of order. See DivOEOB — Nullity. 11. 36. — MistaJie of fact — jUisdeseription — Clerical error — Tail male instead of tail general — Settlement — Construction. By a marriage settlement made in 1886 it was provided that if the eldest son of the settlor should become entitled to W. Montgomery's real estate under his will for an estate in tail male he should bl excluded from all share in the trust funds subject to the settlement. E. M. Alexander was the settlor's eldest son, and under the limitations of the will of W. Montgomery, who died in 1868, he became entitled to the testator's real estate for an estate in tail general. The trustees of the settlement took out a sum- mons to determine whether he had lost his right to a share in the settlement funds ; — Held, that inasmuch as the intention of the settlor was clear and at the date of the settle- mient she must have known that if E. M. Alex- ander came into the testator's real estate it must be for an estate in tail general, not an estate in tail male, the insertion of the word " male " in the settlement must be treated as a misde- scription, and the settlement construed as if the SETTLEMENT — continued. word were omitted ; and that E. M. Alexander was excluded from sharing in the settlement moneys, without prejudice to his claims if the younger son died. In re Alexander's Settle- ment. Jennings v. Alexasdee Parker J. [1910] W. N. 1S4 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 226 — Pauper — Parish of settlement. See under PooE LAW. — Periodical payments— Compromise for lump sum — Apportionment. See Settled Land — Apportionment. 4. — Post-nuptial settlement — Intention to "delay, hinder, or defraud creditors." See Feaudulent Conveyance. 2. — Post-nuptial settlement — Purchaser for valu- able consideration — Eefraining from divorce proceedings. See Bankeuptcy — Settlement. 2. 36. — Power — Appointment — Perpetuity — Elections. Under two settlements made in 1871, and another made in 1882, W. had testamentary powers of appointment over the settled funds amongst her issue, her children taking in default of appointment. She had also unsettled property of her own. All the children were born after 1871 and before 1882. By her will W. gave both the settled and the unsettled properties to trustees upon trusts in favour of her son and her three daughters, part of the son's share being payable to him M the age of twenty-five years, and the share of each daughter being given in trust for her for life with remainder to her children : — Held, that as the gifts to the son at twenty- five and to the grandchildren were, in respect of the property settled in 1871, void as infringing the rule against perpetuities, the children of W. were not bound to elect between what was invalidly appointed to them and the interests validly given to them by the will. In re Oliver's Settlement, [1905] 1 Ch. 191 ; a.nA In re Beales' Settlement, [1905] 1 Ch. 256, followed. In re Bradshaw, [1902] 1 Ch. 436, not fol- lowed. In re Weight. Whitwokth v. Weight Buckley J. [1906] 2 Ch. 288 — Power of appointment. See under Powee op Appointment. 37. — Power of revocation — Person entitled to the " actual possession^' — " Under tlw, limitations of the settlement " — Assignment by tenant in tail of life interest in remainder — Death of tenant for life — Settlement — Construction. Under the P. settlement the P. estates stood limited to B. for life, remainder to his first and other sons successively in tail male, remainder to P. for life, remainder to his first and other sons successively in tail male, with remainders over. During the life of B., P. executed a marriage settlement which provided that in case P. should become entitled to the actual posses- sion or the actual receipt of the rents and profits of the P. estates under the limitations of the P. settlement it should be lawful for him to revoke DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2415 ) SETTLEMENT— co»ii»M«(2. certain trusts declared by his marriage settle- ment. P. subsequently assigned his life interest in the P. estates to B. On the death of B. with- out issue his executors and (jrustees went into possession of the P. estates as assignees of the life estate of P. After the death of B., P. by a deed poll purported to exercise his power of revoking the trusts of his marriage settle- ment : — Held that, notwithstanding the assignment by P., of his life estate to B., P. on the death of B. became entitled to " the actual possession " of the P. estates " under the limitations of " the P. settlement, and that his power of revocation had consequently arisen and was efEeotually exercised. In re Petre's Settlement Trusts. Lbgh v. Petrb. Joyce J. [1910;; 1 Ch. 290 38. — Power to appoint portions — Teiiant for life — Disentailing deed — Mortgage of settled estates — Covenant for quiet enjoyment — Appoint- ment of portions — Priority — Derogation from grant — Implied release of power. Under a marriage settlement made in 1832, estates stood limited in 1854 to the use of A. for life, remainder to the use of trustees for a long term of years to secure 20,000Z. as portions for younger children of the marriage, with remainder to B. (A.'s eldest son) in tail male, with remainders over ; and the settlement contained a power for A. by deed or will to appoint the further sum of 10,0002. as portions for younger children. In 1854 B., with A.'s consent, executed a disentailing assurance by which the estates were assured (subject to the uses and estates created by the settlement anterior to B.'s estate tail and to all powers to such precedent estates annexed) to such uses as A. and B should by deed jointly appoint. Thereupon A. and B., in exercise of their joint power, created a mortgage over the estates ; they also created a further mortgage over the estates partly by the exercise of their joint power and partly by a grant of A.'s life estate. In each case, upon the construc- tion placed by the Court upon the mortgages, the lands were assured by the operative part subject to the power to appoint the further sum of lO.OOOZ. as portions. Each mortgage contained a joint and several covenant by the mortgagors for quiet enjoyment, " and that free and clear and freely and clearly acquitted and exonerated or released" or otherwise indemnified of, from and against (inter alia) former or other gifts, leases, jointures, portions, and all other incum- brances whatsoever. A, died, having by his will charged the estates with the further sura of 10,0002. as portions for younger children. Questions of priority having arisen as between these further portions and the mortgages : — Held, that the covenant for quiet enjoyment did not enlarge the operation of the security, and did not amount to a release by A. of his power to appoint further portions ; and there- fore that the further portions had priority over the mortgages. Sorope V. Offley, (1736) 1 Bro. P. G. 276, distinguished. Decision of Neville J., [1909] 2 Ch. 617, affirmed. NOTTIDGB «. Dbeing. Eaban v. Bering C. A. [1910] W. N. 41 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 297 ( 24l6 ) SETTLEMENT- — Protector of settlement' — Trustees for accumu- lation — Void trust. See Disentailing Assurance. 2. 39. — Rectification — Mistake — Non-execution of a power — Death of donee — Parol evidence — Mar riage settlement — Statute of f rands (29 Car. 2, c. 3), s. 4. In an action to rectify a settlement after the death of the husband, on the ground that it did not exercise a certain power of appointment in favour of the wife, in accordance with the arrangement alleged to have been entered into prior to the marriage, the defendants pleaded the 4th section of , the Statute of Frauds ; they also contended that relief could not be given against a non-execution, as distinct from an imperfect execution, of a power, and particularly after the death of the donee thereof : — Held, that parol evidence was admissible in an action to rectify a mistake in a settlement, notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds, an action, of that kind not being one seeking "to charge any person upon any agreement made upon con- sideration of marriage" within the meaning of s. 4 ; that relief could be given, and that rectifi- cation in the present case did not amount to aiding the non-execution or defective execution of a power ; when once the settlement was made to accord with what the Court found to have been the real bargain and intention of the parties to it, no further deed or relief was necessary. Johnson v. Braoge. Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] 1 Ch. 28. 40. — School — Trust for benefit of national school — Gift over on school board or representa- tive tody wnder tlie Education Acts ieing formed for the parish — Education Act, 1902 (2 Edw. 7, c. 42), ss. 7, 13. In 1892 funds were vested in trustees to be invested by them, and the income to be paid to the trustees of the national schools at Alcester, for the purposes of education at such schools, and the carrying on the same "until a school board or other representative body under the Education Acts shall be formed for the parish of Alcester," in which event the funds were to go to increase the endowment fund, of certain almshouses. On the coming into operation of the Education Act, 1902, further payment of the income was stopped, as doubts.were entertained whether the effect was to cause an event to take place on the happening of which the gift over was to take efEect : — Held that, as the Education Act, 1902, had abolished school boards and all representative educational bodies elected or constituted for educational purposes, and had transferred all the powers which would have resided in an elected body under the Education Acts to the existing county authorities, and made them the educa- tional authorities within their areas, no school board or other representative body under the Education Acts had been formed for the parish of Alcester, that the gift over had not taken effect, and that the income was payable to the nianagers of the schools. In re Smallwood. GoTHAED V. Chapman Parker J. [1910] 1 Ch. 272 ( 2417 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2418 ) SETTIEMENT— comleiider sumvwns — Banli- riqjtci) of judr/meid debtoi' — Pravtive — Banh- luptci Act', 1890 (.53 .f- 54 Vict. c. 71), s. 11— Biuiliruptcy Rules, 1886 atid 1890, v . 119. On Jan. 4, 1910, the sheriff seized goods of the debtor under three writs of fi. fa. issued by three judgment creditors of the debtor. The goods were claimed by a bill of sale holdej', and thereupon the sheriff interpleaded. On the hearing of the interpleader summons on Jan. 10, the validity of the bill of sale was admitted and an order was made that the sheriff should sell enough of the goods to satisfy the expenses, the rent due (if any), the claim of the bill of sale holder, the costs of the execution creditor, and the costs and charges of the sheriff. The sale was advertised for Jan. 19, 20, and 21, but in the meantime a receiving order was made against the debtor, of which notice was at once given to the sheriff. The official receiver allowed the sale to proceed on Jan. 19 and 20, but on the morning of Jau. 21 served the sheriff with the usual notice claiming the goods or the proceeds of sale under s. 11 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890. The proceeds of the two days' sale were more than sufficient to pay the amounts and costs directed by the order of Jan. 10, and the sheriff, in taxing his costs and charges under the order, was allowed the sums paid to the bill of sale holder and the auctioneers, and the judgment creditor's costs of the interpleader (8Z. 18s. 8(^.), and the sheriff's costs of the interpleader (\\l. 18.\,). tiubsequently the official receiver required the sheriff's costs and charges to be taxed under r. 119 of the Bankruptcy Rules, 1886 and 1890, by the bankruptcy taxing Master, and this officer disallowed the items of III. 18.s. and 8^ 18«. 8d., on the ground that they were not '-costs of the execution" wifhin s. 11 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890. The sheriff now applied to review the decision of the bankruptcy taxing Master : — Held, that the sheriff's costs of the inter- pleader summons were " costslof the execution" within the meaning of s. 11 of the Act which the sheriff was entitled to deduct from the pro- ceeds of sale, but that the execution creditor's I SHERIFF- C(>«^?««(v7. costs of the interpleader summons were not part of the sheriff's "costs of the execution," but were payable by the loser in the interpleader proceedings. Such last-mentioned costs, there- tore, were rightly disallowed by the bankruptcy taxing Master. In I'e Rogees. Kx parte Shbeiff op Sdssex Phillimore Z. [1910] W. K. 238 5. — " E.ceoutioii for a sum exceeding 20?." — Contingent expenses — Banliruplcy Act, 1890 (.53 ^'- 54' Vict. c. 71), s. 11, suh-s. 2.' Although a sheriff, or high bailiff of a county court, when levying under a warrant of execution is entitled to seize sufficient goods to cover the contingent expenses of jjossession money, appraisement, and sale, for the purpose of determining whether the execution is " for a sum exceeding 20Z." within the meaning of s. 11 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, and whether con- sequently he is obliged t:j retain the proceeds of execution as therein directed, the judgment debt and poundage only can be taken into considera- tion, and not the expenses of possession money, appraisement, and sale, unless those expenses have been actually incurred. Wili.ey h. Hdoks Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 39 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 760 6. — Fees — Possession money — Several warrants arjiiinst same debtor — Sheriffs Act, 1887 (50^-61 Vict. c. 55), s. 20- Order of Aug. 31, 1888, as to fees. Where a sheriff has put a man in possession of goods under writ of fi. fa. issued by one creditor, and afterwards received othei' writs against the same debtor from other creditors, and has merely kept the same man in possession on behalf of all the creditors, he cannot, upon the executions being withdrawn, recover posses- sion money at 5.'!. a day from more than one creditor. Though called a tec, possession money under the Hheriffis Act, 1887, is only intended to cover the sheriff's out of pocket expenses. Glas- BBOOK V. David & Vaux FarwellJ. [190S] 'W. N.42 ; [1905] 1K.B.616 — High bailiff's fees. See under County Court — BailiiFs. SHIFTING CLAUSE- Successive life estates- Exception of eldest son "entitled" to other estates. &e Will — Shifting Clause. 1. SHINGLE— Justices — Jurisdiction — Ouster — Buna iidc claim of right — I'oreshore — Removal of shingle — Owner. See Justices. 11. SHIPBROKER— CharLerparty — Signature as agent — Rigiit to sue as principal. See Pbincipal and Agent. SHIPPING. Merchant Skipping Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, r. 48), amends tlie Merchaiit Sldnnhm Acts, 1884 to 1900. ^^ " ( 2439 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2440 ) SHIPPING— c««M««efl!. Mei'chant Shipping Aot, 1907 (7 Mdw. 7, e. 52), amends i. 78 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, with res2)ect to the deduction of the space occupied iy propelling power in ascertaining the tonnage of a ship. Merchant Shipping. Exercise of Consular Powers in British Protectorates. 0. in C, July 4, 1901, prodding for the exercise in various British Protectorates of the powers of a British Consular officer under s. 7 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. St. E. & 0. 1906, No. 559. Price Id. Merchant Shipping Mules, 1908. Rules of Court dated June 3, 1908, for appeals under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, Section 68. Reprint, from W. N. 1908 (June 13), p. 167. See Current Index, 1908, p. cxxiii. Mail Ships Rules, 1908. Mail Ships Acts, 1891|a«(Z 1902. Rules of Court dated June 3, 1908, made l>y the Lord Chancellor and: the Judges of the Supreme Court pursuant to tlie Mail Ships Acts, 1891 and 1902 togetlier with file scale of fees fixed with tlie concurrence of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury. Ee- print from W. N. 1908 (June 13), p. 167. See Current Index, 1908, p. ox.xiv. (1908) ShoH Cause Rules. On the Admiralty side of tlie Proiate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division. And form of consent to the application to such Rules. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (Aug . 29), p. 347. See Current Index, 1908, p. cxxix. County Courts {Adtniralty Jurisdiction'), Order in Council, 1908, dated Nov. 21, 1908, and com,ing into operation on .Jan. 1, 1909. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (Nov. 28), p. 335. See Cuebent Index, 1908, p. xoiv. Collisions at Sea. Orders in Council now in force, containing the regulations for ^^reveiiting . 1908 (_^.— Board of Trade). Price 2d. Merchant Shipping. Emigrant ships. Notice, Sept. 2S, 1907 , jJresoribiTig u new scale for com- putation of Voyages, and determining, for the purposes of s. 268 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as amended hy s. 14 of tlie Merchant Sh-ippi,9Uf Aot, 1906, the length of voyages from the Briiish Islands to the east coast of North America and to South Africa. St. R. & 0. 1908. No. 541. Price Id. Merchant Shipping. Passenger and emigrant ships. Forms prescribed by the Board of Trade,. May 21, 1808, under .«.■. 17 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906. St. B. & 0. 1908, No. 443. Price Id. Merchant Shipping. Lighthouse — Light dues. O.in C.,July 4, 1908, altering the exemptions set out in Schedule II. of the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act, 1898. St. E. & 0. 1908, No. 558. Price \d. Shipinng Casualties and Appeals and Re- hea/rings - Rules, 1907, dated Nov. 22, 1907. Reprinted 1910. This reprint contains alterations in tlie statement of qualifications prescribed fm- Nautical Assessors in Part II. of the Appendix. Reprint from W. N. 1910, Aug. 27, p. 273. See OuBBBNT Index, 1910, p. cxv. SHIPPING— co7M!M«ei. Alien, col. 2441, Appeal. See under Shipping— Prac- tice. Arbitration, col. 2441. Average, col. 2442. Banltruptoy, col. 2442. Bill of Exchange, col. 2442. Bill of Lading. See under Shipping — Charterparty. Burial, col. 2443. Capture, col. 2443. Carriage. See under Shipping — Charterparty. Charging Orders, col. 2444. Charterparty, col. 2444. Charts, col. 2476. Collision, col. 2476. Colonial Courts, col. 2517. Company, col. 2.518. Compensation, col. 2.518. Costs, col. 2518. Crew, col. 2518. Crimping, col. 2518. Ciiiiaril Agreement (Money) Act, 1904, vol. 2519. Dech Cargo, col. 2519. Demurrage, col. 2519. Derelict, col. 2519. Deviation, col. 2519. Doch, col. 2519. Employer and Workman, col. 2521. Fmise Acts, col. 2.521. Fire, col. 2.521. Fishing Boats, col. 2521. Force Majeure, col. 2521. Foreign Ship, lol. 2521. Forfeiture, col. 2522. Freight, col. 2522. General Average. See under Shipping — Average. Harbour, col. 2522. Hiring, col. 2522. Income Tax. See Revenue. Imurance Marine. See under In- surance (Marine). Fling's Ship, col. 2523. Lien, col. 2523. Lifeboats, col. 2523, ( 2441 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2442 ) SSlPTlSO—contimwd. L'nmtaihm of Liiihil'ity, col, 2524. 2I,i;i Ships, col. 2527. MuAtimc Lien. See under SHIPPING — Iiien. Master, out 2527. jUedway, col. 2527. Merchant Shipping. See under SHIP- PING. MortgcKjea, col. 2527. Mutnal Rights and Lialilities. col. 25S1. JYece-ixaries, col. 2531. jVegligence, col. 2531. Offences, col. 2533. Pa.isengers, col. 2533. Pilotage, col. 2533. Port of London, col. 2537. Practice, col. 2537. Priiicijiul and Agent, col, 2546. PuhUc Health. See under Public Health. Sale, col. 2547. Salvage, col, 2547. Seamen, col. 2561. Seaworthiness, col. 2566. Shares, col. 2566. Shipowners' Negligence (^Remedies}, col. 2566. Ship's Agent, col. 2566. Short Cause Rules. See under Ship- ping— Practice. Stoioaway, col. 2566. Tonnage, col. 2566. Towage, col. 2567. Voyage, col. 2567. Wages, col. 2568. Wliarfinger, col. 2570. Wireles.i 'Telegraphy, col. 2570. Workmen's Compensation, col. 2570. Wreck, col. 2571. Alien. — Undesirable alien — Expulsion order — Lia- bility of master of ship bringing alien to the United Kingdom. See ALIEN. 1. Appeal. See under Shipping — Practice. Arbitration. — Ship — Bill of lading — Incorporation of con- ditions of charterparty — Demurrage — Arbitration. See Shipping — Charterparty. 14. SHIPPING- (iom«MM?. 46 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, to repay to the local authority the expenses so incurred for the words " carcase . . washed from any vessel," in sub-s. 2 of that section, were widerenough to include the part cargo in question which was washed ashore. The"Sdevic" - Div. Ct. [1908] P. 292 See also THE " SUEVIC " [1908] P. 154 — Shipping- Salvage. 13. Capture. ^- Warranty of freedom from capture, See under Insurance (Maeine). -eo7itinued. Carriage, — Charterparty. See under Shipping— Charterparty. Charging OrderB. 1. — Practice — Charging order for costs on Propm'ty "■recovered or presermd" — Application ex parte— Solicitors Act, 1860 (23 ^' 24 Vict, c. 127), s. 28 — Charge on Ship — Constructive notice — PriorHy. After the termination of an action in rem against the owners of a ship for wages and disbursements in which the pit. was partially successful, and after the release of the ship from arrest and its transfer to a limited co., the solicitors of the original deft, owners applied ex parte and obtained, under s. 28 of the Solicitors Act, 1860, a charging order upon the ship for their costs in the action. For the enforcement of this charge they also obtained, on notice to mortgagees to whom the vessel had been mort- gaged by the limited CO., a further order for the appointment of a receiver of freight, and, conditionally, for the sale of the vessel. Both orders were subsequently set aside, and the solicitors admitting that the charging order must be postponed to the mortgage, appealed as against the limited oo. : — Held by the C. A. (Collins M.K. Cozens- Hardy and Farwell L.JJ.) affirming the decision of Sir Gorell Barnes Pres., that the charging order was wrong in form and bad in substance, and, together with the consequential order, must be set aside, for, at the most, the property, if any, preserved by the exertions of the solicitors was limited to the interest of those who instructed them to oppose the claims cf the master in respect of his lien on the barque, and the vessel had not only ceased to be under the control of the Court, but had changed hands, and become subject to a mortgage, before the charging order was applied for. Further- more, the CO. to whom the vessel was trans- ferred could not be fixed with constructive notice of the possible liability of the vendors for the unpaid costs of their solicitors, even though the actual vendor and the promoter of the CO. were one and the same person. The Court, when sitting in Admiralty, should follow the practice of the Chancery Division in requiring notice to the parties affected, and, unless the circumstances are very exceptional, should not exercise, on an ex parte application, its discretionary power of making charging orders under the Solicitors Act, 1860. The " BIRNAM Wood " C. A. [1906] W. N. 206 ; [1907] P. 1 Charterparty. (Bill of Lading and Charterparty.) 1. — Ariitration clause — Cesser clause — Bill of lading — Incorporation of terms of charterparty — Claim for demurrage at port of loading — ArUtration Act, 1889 (52 ^- 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 4. It was provided by clause 39 of a charter- party, by which the plt.'s vessel was chartered by the defts. for the carriage of a cargo of wheat from Bahia Blanca to a port in the United King' dom, that, if the loading of the cargo were. ( 244^ ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2446 ) SHIPPING (Cha.TX,M^atty)— continued. delayed by reason of certain causes therein specified, the time, so lost should not be counted as part of the lay-days, and that, if any dispute arose under that clause in the loading oil the ship, the same should be settled in the Argentine Republic by arbitration in the manner therein mentioned. The charterparty contained the usual cesser clause providing- that the charterers' liability should cease upon shipment of the cargo, provided the cargo was worth the bill of lading freight, dead freight, and demurrage at the port of shipment, and that the vessel should have a lien on the cargo for recovery of all such bill of lading freight, dead freight, demurrage, and all other charges whatsoever. A full cargo was shipped by the defts. under the charterparty, and bill of lading were given in respect thereof, by which the cargo was made deliverable to the defts.'. or their assigns, they paying freight for the said goods, against delivery, in cash, at a rate of freight in accordance with the charterparty. The bills of lading stated that all the terms and exceptions contained in the charterparty were therewith incorporated, and formed part thereof, and gave the shipowners an absolute lien on the cargo for the recovery of freight and demurj-age and all other charges whatsoever. There was no dead freight, and the cargo shipped was worth the freight and charges. A dispute within the meaning of clause 39 having arisen with regard to delay in the loading of the ship between the pits, and the defts. after the completion of the loading : — Held, that, notwithstanding the cesser clause, and the fact that the defts. were the holders of the bills of lading, the provision for arbitration in clause 39 of the charterparty remained opera- tive as between the pits, and the defts., and there- fore that an action brought by the pits, after the ship's arrival in the United Kingdom, claiming a declaration that they were entitled to a lien on the cargo for demurrage at the port of loading, should be stayed under s. 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1889. Runciman ^- Co. v. Smith ^- Co., (1904) 20 Times L. E. 625, overruled. Teiiperlet Steam Shipping Co. v. Smtth & Co. C. A. [1905] 3K.B. 791 2. — Bill of lading — Breach of shipowners' olligat'ion to shipper — Carriage of goods destined for enemy-^Seizuri' of ship — Delay in delirerg of sldjjper's goods — Damages — Doss of marliet. The oiirriage by a shipowner of goods destined for an alien enemy without the iinowledge and consent of the other shippers is a breach of duty towards them, and the shipowner is liable for damages for delay in delivering their goods at the port of destination if the ship is seized and detained by reason of having enemies' goods on board. There is no rule of law that damages cannot be recovered for loss of market on a contract of carriage by sea, DDNif r. BucKNALL Brothers. BuiifN V. Donald Curhie & Co. C. A. [1902] 2 K. B. 614 3. — Bill of ladiiif] — Cargo — Befi'igeratinii apparatus — Part of ship — .\,.gVigence — Damage — Sliipouner, Ziabilitij if — '■ Funlt- or error.i in SHIPPING (Charterparty)— eonftnaeiZ. management of vessel " — Ship — Carriage liy sea —Barter Act (Act of Congress of U.S.A. 1893), ss. 1, 2, 3. Butter was shipped on board the defts.' ship at New York for carriage to London under bills of lading which incorporated the Act of Congress known as the " Harter Act," by s. 3 of which it is provided that, subject to the conditions therein named, the owner of the ship shall not be " held responsible for damage or loss resulting from faults or errors .... in the management of said vessel." The butter was carried in four out of six insulated chambers forming part of re- frigerating apparatus bolted to the ship and connected with her engines, the other two chambers being used for the ship's provisions diu-ing the voyage. The butter was delivered in London in a damaged condition, resulting from the negligence of one of the ship's engineers in the management of the refrigerating apparatus, whereby in the course of the voyage the tempe- rature of the chambers was allowed to rise loo high : — Held, upon the facts, and ■especially as the refrigerating apparatus was used for the ship's provisions and not exclusively for the butter, that the apparatus must be regarded as being part of the ship, and that therefore the mis- management of the apparatus was mismanage- ment of the ship, so that the neglect to keep the chambers sufBciently cooled during the voyage was a fault or error " in the management of said vessel " within the meaning of the bills of lading, and that the defts. were consequently excused. Decision of Kennedy J., [1902] W. N. 220; [1903] 1 K. B. 114, affirmed. EOWSON r. ATLAN- TIC Transport Co. C. A. [1903] VI. N. 150 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 666 — Bills of lading — Cesser of liability clause — Delivery of goods overside to landing agents. See Straits Settlements. 2. 4. — Bill of lading — Charterparty — Construc- tion — " Inaccessible on account of ice " — " Unsafe in consequence of war, disturbance or any other cause " — Ejusdem generis principle. Goods were shipped on board a steamship for a foreign port under bills of lading providing that if a port should be inaccessible on account of ice, blockade or interdict, or if entry and dis- charge at a port should be deemed by the master unsafe in consequence of war, disturbance or any other cause, it should be competent for the master' to discharge the goods on the ice or at some other safe port or place : — Held that, upon the true construction of the bills of lading, " inaccessible " and " unsafe " must be read reasonably and with a view to all the circumstances ; that the words " or any other cause " must be read as being ejusdem generis with war or disturbance ; and that as a matter of fact the master was not justified under all the circumstances in this case in fail- ing to deliver the goods at the port for which they were shipped merely because that port was at the moment of their arrival inaccessible on account of ice for three daj's only. ( 2U7 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2448 ) SHIPPING (Charterparty)— cmtimied. Decision of the C. A., [1908] 2 K. B. 385, aflSrmed. S.S. " Kndtsfoed," Ld. v. Tillmanns & Co. - - H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 165 ; [1908] A. C. 406 5. — Sills of lading — Conolusive evidence of quantity delirered to sldj> — Timiei' cargo — Dife- rent classes of timber — Niimier and meas^iretiient of each class — Nmnler and measurement of total sliipment — Short delirery of one class — Right to rednction of freight in respect of shortage — jR.igJit to recover value of pieces undelivered — Mode of estimating value. A cargo of timber of different kinds, con- signed to the defts., was shipped on board the plt.'s vessel under a charterparty, of which one clause was, " Bills of lading to be conclusive evidence against the owners as establishing quantity delivered to ship." The bill of lading of the cargo gave the number of pieces of deals and battens and the number of superficial feet and the like particulars of scantlings, deal-ends, and boards respectively. The bill of lading also gave the total number of pieces and of superficial feet. There was a short delivery of deals, but an overdelivery, which ,was taken over by the consignees, of scantlings and boards, the total number of pieces of timber delivered being sligh"tly in excess of the total number given in the bill of lading. In an action by the ship- owners to recover freight, in which the consignees counter-claimed for the value of the deals not delivered : — Held, that the bill of lading was conclusive as to the number of pieces and the number of superficial feet in each class of timber, and that the consignees were entitled to a deduction on freight in the proportion that the number of pieces of deal not delivered bore to the number specified in the biU of lading : Held, also, that the defts. were entitled on their counter-claim to recover the value of the deals not delivered, to be ascertained by taking the proportion that the number undelivered bore to the number specified in the bill of lading. Spaigh v. Farnworth, (1880) 5 Q. B. D. 115, approved. Meditereanban and New York Steamship Co. v. a. P. & D. Mackay C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 397 6. — Bill of lading — Construction — Excep- tions — Warranty of seaworthiness. Frozen meat shipped for carriage from Mel- bourne to London arrived tainted with carbolic acid, with which the ship had been disinfected before shipment. The bill of lading contained two exception clauses. The first exempted the shipowner from liability for damage to goods whether arising from a defect existing at the time of the shipment or not, or from the neglect of the master or crew, or from any other cause whatsoever. The second clause also exempted the shipowner from liability for damage from defects, &c., " if reasonable means have been taken to provide against such defects and unsea- . worthiness " ; — Held, that upon the true construction of the ^IjiU of lading the generality of the first clause was qualified by the second clause, and that SHIPPING (Ch&nm^a.xiy')— continued. reasonable care not having been taken in cleans- ing the ship before shipment, the shipowner was liable for the damage in an action brought by an indorsee of the bill. The decision of the C. A., [1904] 1 K. B. 319, affirmed. Eldbeslie STEAMSHIP Co. v. BoETH- WlCic - - H. L. (E.) [1905] W.N. 34; [1905] A. C. 93 7. — Bill of lading — Description of goods — " Marhed and numbered as in the margin " — Mistake— Bills of Lading Act, 1855 (18 <|- 19 Vict. V. Ill), . 9. 3. By a bill of lading signed by the shipowners' agents goods shipped for carriage from New Zealand to London were described as a certain number of frozen carcases of lamb " marked and numbered as in the margin." The carcases were described in tne margin of the bill of lading as bearing a certain mark and a number consisting of three figures. The mark indicated the quality of the carcase, as being of a particular brand ; one figure of the number indicated approximately its weight ; and the other two figures of the number were private marks of the shippers, which indicated certain particulars with regard to the carcase for their own purposes, but had no bearing on the nature, quality, or commercial value of the goods. The bill of lading contained a clause stating that the ship would not be responsible for correct delivery, unless each package was distinctly, correctly, and perma- nently marked by the merchant before shipment with a mark and number or address. The mark and number mentioned in the margin in the bill of lading were inserted by the shippers. On the discharge of the ship in London it was found that a portion of the carcases in fact shipped under the bill of lading bore a mark and number which corresponded with the description in the margin of the bill of lading as regards the mark, and the figure indicating weight, but which difEered from that description as regards one of the figures forming the private marks of the shippers. An indorsee of the bill of lading for valuable consideration refused to take delivery of these carcases as forming part of his shipment, and sued the shipowners' agents for short delivery, relying on the provisions of the Bills of Lading Act, 1855, s. 3 : — Held, by C. A. (affirming the judgment of Kennedy J., [1900] 1 Q. B. 714), that the action was not maintainable : — By A. L. Smith M.R. : The case came within the clause of the bill of lading which exonerated the ship from responsibility for correct delivery unless the goods were correctly marked and numbered. By Collins L.J. and Eomer L.J., and A. L. Smith, M.R. dissenting : Inasmuch as the figure, in respect of which there was a discrepancy between the marginal description and the number on the carcases, did not affect or denote the nature, quality, or commercial value of the goods, the defts. were not precluded by s. 3 of the Bills of Lading Act, 1855, from shewing that there was a mistake in the marginal description, and that the goods refused by the pit. formed a portion of those in fact shipped under the bill ( 2419 5 DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2450 ) Bill 8. SHIPPING (Charterparty) — coiiiiimed. of lading of wliich the pit. was indorsee. Pahsons t. New Zealand Shipping Co. C. A. [1901] W.N. 42; [1901] 1 K. B. 848 of lading — Debenture-holders — Receiver and manager, Powers of — Shipment of goods by receiver — Lien for previously unsatisfied freight. See Company — Receiver. 12. Bill of lacLinij — Discharge of cargo — " As fast as steamer can deliver or the goods luill he landed " — Deficiency of wagons — Liability of consignee for delay — Ojition of shipowner as to remedy. In an action by shipowner against receivers of cargo for damages for detention of his vessel, a county court judge gave judgment for the defts. on the ground that the stipulation in the bill of lading that the goods were " to be taken from the ship by the consignees at their expense immediately after their arrival, ami as fast as steamer can deliver or the same will be tran- shipped into lighters, or landed, or warehoused at the expense and risk of the proprietors of such goods," divested the shipowner of any other remedy than that of lauding or lightering the goods ; — Held, by the Div. Ct. (Jeune P. and Gorell Barnes J.), reversing the decision of the Court below, that the shipowner had an option, so that he was not deprived of his ordinary remedy by not exercising the power of landing or lightering the goods ; and, further, that the shipowner was entitled to jmlgment, as the receivers of the cargo had failed to shew that they had done their best in the actual circumstances to make the appliances of the port available. Tee "Arne" Div. Ct. [1904] W. N. 41; [1904] P. 154 9. — Bill of lading — Duty of master to sign — Bill of lading at variance with chaHerjyarty — Liability of shipowner to holder of bill of lading — Indemnity by charterer. A oharterparty contained a clause exempting the shipowner from liability for stranding and other accidents of navigation, oven when occa- sioned by the negligence of the master ; the master to sign clean bills of lading without prejudice to the charter. In mistake, and bona fide, the master signed bills of lading presented by the charterers which did not give the ship- owner the exemption given by the oharterparty. Owing to the negligent navigation of the master, there was a total loss of the cargo, and the holders of the bills of lading recovered damages against the shipowner : — Held, that since the contract between the shipowner and the charterers was that the ship- owner was not to be liable for the master's negligence, the charterers were bound to indemnify the shipowner against the claims of the holders of the bills of lading. Decision of the C. A., [1907] 1 K. B. 809, affirmed upon the above ground. Keuger & Co. V. MoEL Tetvan Ship Co. - H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 173 ; [1907] A, C. 272 10. — Bill of lading — Exceptions and condi- tions — Da maije to cargo — Seaa-nrthi'ness — Negli- gence of shipow/ie/'s. SHIPPING (Oharterparty) — continued. The decision of the C. A., [1909] P. 93, reversed upon the ground that the Schwan was as a matter of fact not seaworthy owing to a defect in a three-way oock which allowed the sea to run into the hold, and that the shipowners' engineer had as a matter of fact not exercised reasonable care and diligence in connection with the ship, her tackle, machinery, and appur- tenances. The decision of Bargrave Deane J., [1908] P. 356, restored upon the above ground. Abeam Lyle St, Sons v. Owners op S.S. " Schwan." "The Schwan" - - ■ H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 175; [1909] A, A. 460 11. — Bill of ladittg — Exceptions — Damage to cargo — Marginal clause — "Sweating" " Heat " — " Decay " — Negligence of carrier's servant — Liability of carrier. In an action by indorsees of bills of lading, for damage, through negligent stowage, to a cargo of grain, part of which had become heated during the voyage, and the remainder otherwise deteriorated, the deft, shipowners relied on n series of exceptions, set out in numbered para- graphs, by which they were not to be responsible for (paragraph 2) "loss, damage, or injury arising from sweating . . . decay . . . ex- plosion, heat, fire at sea or on shore ... " ; nor for (paragraph 3) " any loss or injury to the said goods, occurring from any of the causes above mentioned or the loss or injury arising from the perils or accidents of the seas . . . whether any of the perils, causes, or things above mentioned or for any lessor injury arising therefrom be occasioned by or from any act or omission, negligence, default, or error in judg- ment of . . . stevedores ... or other persons in the service of the shipowners." They further relied on a marginal note, stamped on the bill of lading under which a large quantity of maize was carried, stating that " In no case is the s.s. to be held liable for heating or any other damage accruingto the within-mentioned goods . . .": — Held, by Gorell Barnes J., that the defts. were liable, for, following Price S( Co. v. TJnion Lighterage Co., [1904] 1 K. B. 412, a shipowner must indicate iDy express words his intention to relieve himself from liability for the negligence of his servants, and the exemption of negligence in the third paragraph could not be incorporated so as to refer to the matters excepted in the socond paragraph or in the marginal note ; and, further, that the words " sweating " and " decay " were inapplicable to cover the damage to the maize through improper stowage, whilst the coUooation of the words shewed that " heat " referred to heat arising from some extraneous cause, such as heat from the engine-room. The " Pbarlmooe " Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 286 12. — Bill of lading — Exceptions— Penis of the seas occasioned by negligence — Intentional lettitig in of sea-water — Negligent mistaJte. Goods were shipped under a bill of lading which excepted loss or damage arising from perils of the seas or navigation, whether arising from the negligence, default, or error in judgment of the engineers or otherwise howsoever. When, ( 2451 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2452 ) SHIPPING (Chartergaity)— continued. the ship was ofE the port of discharge the engineer, intending to fill the ballast tank with water for boiler use whilst discharging, opened the sea-cock, and then by mistake opened the valve of the tank in which the goods were being carried instead of the valve of the ballast tank, and the goods were damaged by sea- water : — ■ Seld, that the damage was caused by a peril of the seas arising from negligence of the engineer within the exception, and that the shipowner was not liable. Blackbuen v. Livebpool, Brazil akd River Plate Steam Navigation Co. - - Walton J. [1902] 1 K. B. 290 13. — Sill of lading — Exemptions from lia- lility — " Without p7-ejudice to this chaHe^party " — Charterer indorsee of till of lading — Mutual rights and liabilities of chartet'er and shipownei'. A charterparty provided that a ship should proceed to a port of loading, load a cargo of lawful merchandise, andt herewith proceed to a port of discharge for a lump sum freight ; the captain was to sign bills of lading at any rate of freight without prejudice to the charterparty, but not below the charterparty rate ; in certain events, which happened, the charterparty was to constitute the shipowners' authority to the charterers' agent to sign biUs of lading in the captain's name ; in the event of receivers of cargo withholding payment of bill of lading freight, the amount so withheld was to be deemed .to have been deducted from the lump sum freight and not from any portion of the freight belonging to the charterers, and the accounts between shipowners and charterers were to be adjusted accordingly, and the ship- owners were to take any steps necessary to enforce payment by the receivers of cargo of the amount so withheld ; the captain and the shipowners were to have a lieu on cargo by bill of lading for freight ; and the charterers' liability was to cease on shipment of cargo pro- vided the same was worth the lump sum freight. The ship having arrived at the port of load- ing was put up as a general ship. A certain shipper shipped a cargo of dates and received a bill of lading signed in accordance with the terms of the charterparty by the charterers' agents at that port. The bill of lading contained exceptions from liability which were not those contained in the charterparty. While the ship was on her way to the port of discharge the charterers by their agents made an advance to the shipper, and the bill of lading was indorsed to them as security for the advance. At the port of discharge the charterers presented the bill of lading and received the dates, which were found to be damaged. The charterers claimed to deduct from the lump sum freight a sum equal to the depreciation in value of the goods by reason of the damage : — Held that, as the goods were not shipped by the charterers themselves under the charter- party, the bill of lading and not the charterparty contained the terms of carriage ; that in these circumstances the bill of lading did not prejudice the charterparty ; and consequently that, assum- ing the goods to have been damaged by causes for which the bill of lading as distinguished from the charterparty exempted the shipowners SHIPPING (Charterparty) — continued. from liability, the charterers were liable to pay the lump sum freight in full. Steamship Calcutta Co. v. Andrew Weir & Co. Hamilton J. [1910] 1 K. B. 'i'59 14. — Bill of lading — Incorporation of con- ditioiis of charterparty — Demurrage — Arhitra- tion clause. Goods were shipped under a bill of lading by which they were deliverable to the shipper or to his assigns, " he or they paying freight for the said goods with other conditions as per charter- party," and in the margin was written in ink " Deck load at shipper's risk and all other terms and conditions and exceptions of charter to be as per charterparty including negligence clause." The charterparty provided that the cargo should be discharged by the steamer at port of destination, in the usual manner, with customary steamer despatch, according to the custom of the port, " but if, through any fault of the merchant or charterer, the steamer is longer detained, demurrage to be paid at the rate of twenty-fivo pounds per day," and " Any dispute or claim arising out of any of the conditions of this charter- party shall be adjusted at port where it occurs, and same shall be settled by arbitration " : — Held by a Div. Ct. (Samuel Evans, Presi- dent, and Bargrave Deane J.), aiErming an order of a county court judge, that all proceedings must be stayed in an action, commenced in the county court by the shipowner against the holder for value of the bill of lading, for demurrage alleged to have been incurred at the port of discharge, as the arbitration clause in the charterparty was incorporated in thebill of lading. Hamilton v. Maclde, (1889) 5 Times L. K. 677, distinguished. The " Portsmouth " Div. Ct. [1910] P. 293 15. — Bill of lading — Incorporation of condi- tions of cliaiie^party in Mil of lading — Freight made payable as per charterparty — Action fur freight — Bight of master to sue. By a charterparty, containing the usual exceptions, freight was made payable on the unloading and right delivery of the cargo, which was to be provided by the charterers ; the master was to sign bills of lading at the port of loading, and upon the completion of the loading the charterers' liability under the charterparty was to cease. The charterers hav- ing placed the cargo on board at the port of loading, bills of lading were signed by the master, whereby the cargo was made deliverable to the shippers or their assigns at the port of discharge, " they paying freight for the same as per charterparty. " In an action by the master against the charterers for freight : — Held, that the master, in signing the bills of lading, had done so merely as agent for the shipowner, and was therefore not entitled to maintain the action. Repetto i. Millar's Kaeei and Jarbah Forests, Ld. Bigham J. [1901] 2 K. B. 306: — Bill of lading — Indorsement of, by consignee — Execution. See Bill op Lading. 1. 16. — Bill of lading — Limitation of shipowner' & liability —Loss due to shipowner's negligence. ( 2453 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 24B4 ) SHIPPING (Charterparty) — coiitimieil. The pits, shipped two packages of leather goods on board the defts.' ship for carriage from London to Buenos Ayres under a bill of lading- containing a clause which specified a large number of excepted perils for which the defts. Avere not to be responsible, whether the peril, or the loss or damage arising therefrom, was caused by the negligence of- the defts.' servants or agents or not, and a further clause by which the defts. were not to be accountable at all for bullion or other specified valuable or fragile articles " nor for any other goods of whatever description beyond the amount of 21. per cubic foot for any one package " unless shipped under a special declaration of value and extra freight paid. The pits.' goods were not delivered at Buenos Ayres, and their loss was found as a fact to have been due to the negligence of the defts.' servants ; they had not been shipped under a special declaration of value, nor had e.Ktra freight been paid upon them : — Held that, notwithstanding that the loss was due to the negligence of the defts., they were only liable to the limited extent provided hy the bill of lading. Decision of Bigham .J., [1908] 1 K. B. 796, affirmed. Baxter's Leather Co v. Eotal Mail Steam Packet Co. - C. A. [1908] W. N. 105 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 626 17. — £Ul of lading — Seaworthiness — War- ranty of fitness to receive cargo — 3uralion of' ivarranty — Incorporation of liarter Act — Effect of on obligation of s/i ipoiimer. The warranty, which is prima facie ^implied in a contract for the carriage of goods by sea, that the ship is fit for the reception of the cargo, is an absolute warranty ; and the incorporation in the biU of lading of the provisions of the Act of Congress known as the Harter Act does not cut down the obligation of the shipowner in that respect to an obligation to exercise due diligence to make the ship fit for that purpose. The above warranty is a warranty only as to the condition of the ship at the time of loading ; it does not continue in force .after the goods are once on board. The defts. received on board their ship for carriage certain goods of the pit. After the goods were on board the ship's engineer had occasion to open a sluice-door in a watertight bulkhead in the lower part of the ship. He shortly afterwards shut the sluice-door, but failed to screw it down so closely as to make it water- tight. He subsequently proceeded to fill one of the ballast tanks, for which purpose he opened a sea-cock in the ship's side to allow the water to flow in. The water, on its way from the sea-cock to the ballast tank, passed through a valve-chest the joint between the lid and body o£ which had been packed in the ordinary way with cotton to make it watertight. This joint had been remade shortly before the plt.'s goods were put on board, and it had been imperfectly done. When the tank was full the engineer screwed down the sea- cock, but, owing to the accidental presence of some hard substance, the screw-valve was pre- vented from bedding down closely on to its seating and the sea-cock was left partially open, with the result that the continued pressure of SHIPPING (Charterparty) — continued. the water forced out the defective packing of the valve-chest, and the water flowed through the joint down into the lower part of the ship, where it passed through the sluice-door into the cargo hold and damaged the plt.'s goods : — Held, that the defective fitting of the sea- cock and of the sluice-door, being defects which came into existence after the plt.'s goods were loaded, were not breaches of the implied warranty of the fitness of the ship to receive the cargo ; but that the defective packing of the valve-chest, being an.existing defect at the tipie of .the load- ing of the goods, was a breach of the warranty. McFadden v. Blue Stab Line Chaunell J. [1906] 1 K. B. 697 18. — Bill of lading — Tliroughfreigltt — Inland ear7'iage — Sea transit — Portion of consignment lost — Lien of shipowner in respect of railway company's charges. Goods were carried under a through bill of lading at a through rate to include land and sea transit. Some of the goods wore lost during the sea transit, and on delivery of the remainder the shipowner claimed — and was held entitled — to add to the through freight on the quantity delivered the inland charges paid by him to the ry. CO. on the portion not delivered, for the joint effect of the through bill of lading, and of the shipowner's regular form of bill of lading incor- porated therewith, was to subject the goods not only to a lien in favour of the shipowTier in respect of the sea transit, but also to a lien, arising prior to shipment, in favour of the ry. CO. for the land transit of the whole parcel, which lien, on payment by the shipowner of the proper inland charges to the ry. co., was trans- ferred to the shipowner, and could be enforced by him against the goods actually delivered. The " Hibernian " C. A. [1907] P. 277 i 19. — Bill of lading — Untrue statement as to condition of goods — "Shipped in good order and condition" — Master's authority — LiaMlity of sliipovmer — Estoppel — American -Harter Act" — Measure of Damages. Shippers of goods at a foreign port chartered a ship to carry the goods to London. The char- terparty provided that the master should sign bills of lading in the form indorsed on it. That form contained the clauses "shipped in good order and condition, and to be delivered in the like good oi'der and condition," and " quality and measure unknown," and incorporated the Ameri- can " Harter Act," \vhich imposes upon ship- owners and masters the duty of delivering to shippers of merchandise bills of lading stating (inter alia) " the apparent order and condition " of the merchandise delivered for can'iage. The goods in question were damaged before ship- ment, and the damage was apparent. The master, however, took them on board and gave the shippers a bill of lading in the form indorsed on the charter. Before delivery of the goods in London the shippers sold them to purchasers there, who thereupon became indorsees of the bill of lading to whom the property in the goods passed. On presentation of the bill of lading and shipping documents the purchasers paid the contract price of the goods to the shippers, and ( 2455 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2456 ) SHIPPING (Chaitetparty)— continued. the goods having been delivered in their damaged condition in London, the purchasers, in an arbi- tration between themselves and the shippers, obtained an award against the latter for damages representing the difference between the price paid by the purchasers and the value of the goods when delivered. The purchasers did not sue the shippers, who were a foreign firm, on that award, but now sued the owners of the ship for damages for not delivering the goods in good order and condition : — Held, that the words in the bill of lading " shipped in good order and condition '' were not words of contract, and the purchasers were not entitled to sue for any breach of contract in respect of them ; but that the shipowners were bound by the representation of the master in the bill of lading that the goods were shipped in good order and condition ; and that, there being sufficient evidence that the purchasers had altered their position and acted to their own prejudice on the faith of that representation, the ship- owners were estopped from denying the truth of it, and were liable in damages to the purchasers for not delivering the goods in good order and condition, the measure of damages being the difference between the price paid by the pur- chasers and the value of the goods when de- livered, together with the reasonable expenses incuiTed on delivery by reason of their damaged condition. Compania Navibea Vasoonzada V. Churchill & Sim. The Same v. Bukton & Co. ChauneU J. [1906] 1 K. B. 237 20. — Bill of lading incorporating charter- IJaHy — Demurrage — Discharge at average rate per day — Delay in discharging — St r Hie precent- ing or delaying discharge. The deft, was the charterer of the pits.' ship, and the consignee of a cargo of coal shipped under bills of lading incorporating the charter- party, which provided that the charterer should discharge the ship, and that the consignee should take the cargo from alongside at an average rate -ef 500 tons per day and should pay demurrage it the ship was longer detained, but that in case of strikes preventing or delaying the discharge the time lost was not to count unless the ship was already on demuiTage. If the discharge had proceeded at the stipu- lated rate it would have been completed on Jau. 3, 1903. On Dec. 31, 1904, when less than half the cargo had been got out, a strike occurred among the stevedores at the port of discharge, and the discharge was not completed until Jau. 15, 1905 :— Held, that, except as to that portion of the cargo which, if the discharge had proceeded at the stipulated rate, would have remained undis- charged on Dec. 31, the deft, could not rely on the strike as an excuse for delay, since if he had not been dilatory the rest of the cargo would have been discharged before the strike began. Semhle, that, except as to the portion afore- said, the strike did not prevent or delay the dis- charge within the meaning of the charterparty. Elswick Steamship Co. v. Montaldi Bigham J. ri907] W. N. 46 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 636 SHIPPING (Charterparty)— co»ft««erf. 81. — Cancellation-^Non-arrival hy fixed date — Date for exercise of option to cancel charter- party. The pits, chartered to defts. a ship which was to go with all convenient speed to Newcastle, New South Wales, and there load a cargo of coals which the freighters bound themselves to ship. The defts. had the option to cancel the charterparty if the ship had not arrived ready to load at Newcastle by Dec. 15, 1907. The ship was detained and did not arrive at Newcastle till June 15, 1908, whereupon the charterers can- celled the charterparty. Meanwhile the pits, had called upon the defts. to exercise, a;s soon as Dec. 15 had passed, their option to cancel. The defts. refused to do so, and the pits, brought this action for damajjes for breach of contract on the ground that the defts. ought to have exercised their option as soon as Dec. 16, 1907, had passed and they had been called upon to do so ; and that inasmuch as they had declined to elect within a reasonable time from that date the option was gone : — Held, by Bray J. and by the C. A., that the owners were bound to send the ship to New castle ; that there was nothing to show that the charterers were not to have the full benefit of that obligation because the ship could not get there by the named date ; and that the char- terers could not be called upon to exercise their option to cancel the contract until the ship had arrived at Newcastle, Moel Tryvan Ship Co., LC. V. Andrew Weir C. A. [1910] W. N. 179 ; [1910] 2 K. B. 844 — Collision — Limitation of Liability — Charterers by demise — " Owners." See Shipping — Limitation of Liability. 1. 22. — Condition implied — Charter of ship for ijoyage — Implied condition that shipowner will not use .ship i?s manner 2>rejudicial to the charterer — Carriage of hunher coal intended for use on future voyage. The pits, chartered the defts'. ship to load " a full and complete cargo .... not exceeding what she can reasonably stow and carry over her tackle, apparel, provisions and furniture," and proceed therewith to two or three ports of discharge. The charterparty contained an express provision that the ship on arrival at any one of the charterparty ports was to " lighten at receiver's expense as much of the cargo as may be found necessary to allow steamer to enter at all times of high water such port." On arrival of the ship at her first port of discharge the defts. took on board a large quantity of bunker coal intended for use, not upon the existing voyage, bat upon some prospective voyage to be commenced after her final discharge. In conse- quence of the loading of the coal, the ship, on arriving at her next port of discharge, had to be lightened before she could get over the bar, whereby the pits, were put to considerable expense. But for the loading of the coal she would have been able to enter the port without lightening. Held (affirming the decision of Kennedy J., ( 2457 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2458 ) SHIPPING (Charterparty) — co/ttiiiiced. [1906] 1 K. B. 572), that under such a charter- party the shipowner is not entitled to load, to the disadvantage of the charterer, more bunker coal than is reasonably necessary for the seaworthi- ness of the ship upon the chartered voyage and for the due performance of that voyage ; that there is an implied term in the contract that the ship shall, except as aforesaid, be used only for the purposes of the charterers ; and that the defts. had consequently committed a breach of their contract and were bound to recoup the pits, the expense to which they had been put. Darling f. Kabburn - - C. A. [1907] W. N. 61 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 846 23. — Contraot of affreightment — Billofladlnrj — Erception clause — Deviation — Limitation of liahility. Goods were shipped for carriage under a bill of lading, which contained an exception clause exempting the shipowners from liability for loss arising from (inter alia) negligence of stevedores employed by them in discharging the ship. The ship deviated from the voyage as described in the bill of lading. In the process of discharging the ship at the port of destination the goods were damaged through the negligence of the stevedores employed by the shipowners. In an action brought by the owners of the goods to recover the amount of the loss so occasioned to them : — Held (affirming the judgment of Channel! J., [1907] 1 K. B. 243), that the defts., having by reason of the deviation, failed to perform the bill of lading contract, were not entitled to set up by way of defence the exception clause therein con- tained, and therefore the action was main- tainable. Baliany.Johj, Victoria Si Co., (1890) 6 Times L. R. 345, followed. Joseph Thoelby, Ld. r. Orchis Steamship Co. C. A. [1907] W. N. 63 ; [1907] 1 K. B. 660 Xote. Distinguished by Div. Ct., The " Europa," [1908] P. 84. See. next Case. Considered and applied by Pickford J., Internationale Q'liano en Superphosphaatwerlieii V. Robert Macandrew ^- Co., [1909] 2 K. B. 360. Si'e ,Yii. 46, helow. 34. — Contract of affrebjlitment — Ship — Damarje to goods — Unseaworthiness. A shipowner, whose ship is unseawortLy at the commencement of the chartered voyage, though liable in damages to the charterer, the owner of the cargo on board, for injury to the cargo caused directly by that unseaworthiness, is not liable for injury caused to other portions of the cargo, not as the result of that unseaworthi- ness, but by a peril of the sea excepted in the contract of affieightmeut ; that is to say, if unseaworthiness in the carrying ship is relied on by the cargo-owner, he must prove that it was the cause of the damage. Joscjili Thorleg, Ld. v. Orchis Steamship Co., Ld., [1907] 1 K. B. lidU. (See preceding Case), distinguished. The " EUEOPA " Div. Ct. [1907] W. N. 254 ; [1908] P. 84 25. — Contract of carriage — Breach of con- tract — Measure of damMges. SHIPPING (Charterparty)— 6yrtit«Me(Z. The pits., manufacturers of wood-pulp at Stooka, Sweden, entered into a charterparty dated Jan. 20, 1900, with the defts., shipowners of Glasgow, by which the latter agreed to carry 900-1000, tons of wood-pulp from Stocka to Cardiff, the cargo to be lifted iu two shipments — "One in May (F.O.W.). The second in Aug.- Sept. (owner's option)." The ship was to have liberty to call at any port or ports iu order to tow and assist vessels in distress, and to deviate for the purpose of saving life or property ; the owners to wire shippers of the cargo, Stroms Bruks, Stocka, six days' notice of readiness ; also ship's departure from last port. The contract was made by the pits, with the view of enabling them to fulfil a contract, dated Dec. 4, 1899, for the sale and delivery of 900-1000 tons of wood- pulp to T. Owen & Co., Cardiff. The memoran- dum of sale contained a column of printed notes, opposite which were written particulars of the special terms of the contract. Against the note " Mode and place of delivery " were the words " C.i.f., Penarth Dock, Cardiff," and against the note " Time of delivery " the words " In two cargoes, first open water, and Aug.-Sept., 1900." The first cargo, consisting of 500 tons, was duly forwarded and accepted by T. Owen & Co. ; but the defts. wholly failed to fulfil their contract with regard to the second shipment, whereby the pits, were unable to complete their contract with T. Owen & Co., who bought in against them 367 tons in several parcels in Manchester, Liverpool, and London. The pits, having paid T. Owen & Co. the amount of their claim in respect of the goods so bought in, brought their action to recover from the defts. the amount paid by them : — Held, reversing the decision of the First Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1904) 6 F. 486, that the appellants were entitled to recover ; that the proper measure of damages was the cost of replacing the goods at their place of destination at the time when they ought to have arrived, less the value of the goods in Sweden and the amount of the freight and insurance ; and that the pits.' right to damages would not be effected even if it were assumed that the dates of delivery in their contract with the defts. did not exactly coincide with those in their contract with T. Owen & Co. Stroms Bruks Aktie Bolaq r. John & Pbtek Hutchison H. L. (So.) [1905] W. N. 135 ; [1905] A. C. 515 26. — Contract of carriage — Con.t,tructinn — Liahility of shipowner — Unseaworthiness — Exceptions — '• Damage capahle of being cocered or which has been paid for hgin,m7'ance." A shipowner agreed to carry frozen meat by an agreement which was so ill thought out and ill expressed in self-contradictory sentences that it was impossible to feel sure what the parties intended to stipulate. Frozen meat shipped under this agreement arrived damaged owiiii,' to the unseaworthiness of the ship and the negli- gence of the shipowner's agents : — Held, that there being no clear and express exemption, the shipowner was not relieved from his duty to provide a seaworthy ship and to take reasonable care. ( 2459 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2i60 ) SHIPPING (Charterparty)— co»«i?me(Z. Decision of the C. A., [1907] 1 K. B. 769, affirmed on the above ground. Nelson Line ' (Liverpool), Ld. v. Jambs Nelson & Sons, Ld. , (No. 2) H. L. (E.) [1907] W. N. 243 ; [1908] A. C. 16 jVitte. See Janies Nelson Sf Sons, Ld. v. Xelso^i Line iLirerpooV), Ld., H. L. (E.) [1908] A. 0. 108. No. 44, below. 27. — Contract to load " a cargo not less than 6500 tons hut not exceeding 7000 toTis" — Con- struction of charter party. A oharterparty provided that the charterers should load " a cargo of beans not less than 6500 tons but not exceeding 7000 tons .... which the said charterers bind themselves to ship not exceeding what she can reasonably stow and carry over and above her cabin, bunkers, tackle, apparel, provisions, and furni- ture." It also contained the following clause : " Charterers to have the option of underletting the whole or part of the steamer " : — Held, that the charterers were bound to load a full and complete cargo within the limits specified. Jakdine, Matheson & Co. c. Clyde Shipping Co. - Hamilton J. [1910] W. N. 54 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 627 28. — Damage to cargo — Sill of lading — Charterparty- — Negligence clause. The decision of the C. A. (TAe " Sraupner," [1909] V. 219) that the shipowners were liable for the damage to the cargo was reversed by this House without deciding any question of law, on the ground that the C. A. drew a wrong inference from admitted facts. Owners of S.S. Draupner v. Owners of Cargo of S.S. Dbaupnbr. The " Draupner " - H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 161 ; [1910] A. C. 460 29. — Damage to cargo — Unseaworthiness — Bill of lading — '■^ All other conditions as per charterpaHy including negligence clause'' — In- corporation of exceptions hy reference. The pits.' goods were carried under a bill of lading containing the words " all other conditions as per charterparty including negligence clause." A clause in the charterparty stated that " the steamer is in no way liable for the consequences of ... . perils of the sea Neither is the steamer answerable for losses occasioned by . . . unseaworthiness, or latent defect in hull, machinery or appurtenances whether existing or not before or after the commencement of the voyage, not resulting from want of due diligence by the owner of the steamer, or by the ship's husband or manager ...."; and, by a further clause in the charterparty, the above clause was to be embodied in the bill of lading. During the voyage damage was done to the pits.' goods owing to a small crack in a deck plate which let the water through, and the pits, alleged, and established in the Court below, un- seaworthiness not covered by the exceptions incorporated in the bill of lading : — Seld, by the Div. Ct. (Sir Gorell Barnes, Pres., and Bargrave Deane J.) reversing the decision of the Court below, that the evidence shewed that bad weather was met with involving straining of the vessel sufficient to account for the crack in SHIPPING (Charterparty)— coMfi?j?ie(Z. question, and, therefore, a prima facie case of perils of the sea had been made out, which the pits., upon whom the burden of proof rested, had failed to rebut. Secondly, that the bill of lading incorporated by reference the whole of the clause in the charterparty, including the exemption as to unseaworthiness, unless resulting from want of due diligence, of which there was no evidence. The " Northumbria " - Div. Ct. [1906] P. 292 30. — Delay — " Load in regular turn "— Option to select cargo — Detention at port of loading — Custom of port — Unreasonable delay — Delay by reason of charterer's engagements — Charterpaiiy — Constructio7i. The words " in regular turn " in a charter- party prima facie mean the regular turn of the port of loading. But it may be shewn, either from the con- struction of the charterparty itself, or by evi- dence, that the words were intended to have a different meam'ng. The charterparty, dated Feb. 6, 1900, of a sailing ship (then at Hamburg) provided that she should proceed to the port of Newcastle, New South Wales, and there " in the usual and cus- tomary manner load in regular turn from Brown's Duckenfield Colliery, or any of the collieries the freighters may name," a cargo of coal, which the freighters bound themselves to ship. The coal was to be carried to South America. The charterers were themselves the owners of the Duckenfleld Colliery. On April 6, 1 900, they sold to purchasers in South America the cargo of Duckenfield coal to be shipped by this ship. The ship arrived at Newcastle on Aug. 3, 1900, and was not berthed for loading until Oct. 6. Her loading was completed on Oct. 9. By the regulations and custom of the port a loading berth could not be obtained until a loading order from the colliery was lodged. On the arrival of the vessel a large number of other ships, which were entitled to priority over her, were waiting to load coals from the Ducken- field Colliery, and the charterers were unable to give her a loading order until Oct. 5, when it was lodged and application made to the berthing master for a berth. On the evidence the Court held that the charterers had not chartered more vessels to load their coal than in the ordinary course of their business. The purchasers of the coal refused to accept any other kind of coal, though the charterers endeavoured to induce them to do so : — Held, upon the construction of the charter- party and with reference to the rules and custom of the port, that the words " regular turn" must be taken to mean the regular turn of the colliery : Held, also, that the shipowners must be taken to have known that the loading of the ship at this port would probably be long delayed, that the charterers had not caused any unreasonable delay, and that they were not liable for the detention of the ship. Decision of Kennedy J. affirmed. Barque QuiLPU^, Ld. c. Bbown C. a. [1904] 2 K. B. 264 ( 2461 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2163 ) SHIPPING (ChB.rteT-pa.Hj}—co)itiime(l. X,ite. ;, This case was referred to by C. A., Joiies. Ld. v. Green * Co., [1904] 2 K. B. 275, 283. See ne;H Case, 31. — Delay — Obligation of charterer to have cargo reaitij — Time fur loading not fixed — Cargo from specified source — Custom if port — Common knowledge of parties — Ziaiility of charterer for delaij — Charterparty — Construct inn. On Feb. 11, 1900, a charterparty was enliered into between the pits, (shipowners) and the defts. (charterers), which provided that the ship " shall with all possible dispatcli proceed to such loading berth as freighters may name at New- castle, New Soutli Wales, and . . . shall there load in the usual and customary manner a full and complete cargo of coals as ordered by charterers," the name of the coal being left blank. The coal was to be carried to South America, and the defts. sold the cargo as "^^'alls- end " to purchasers there. No time for loading was fixed. On May 25, UIOO, the defts. notified the pits, that the coal was to be " Wallsend," a coal coming from the Wallsehd Colliery at Newcastle, which was in greater demand than the coal from other collieries in the neighbourhood. The output from the collieries was limited. By the custom of the port, which was known to both parties at the time of the contract, a ship could not obtain a loading berth until a coaling order from the particular colliery was lodged with the port authority. The ship arrived at Newcastle on Sept. 1, 1900. She did not obtain a loading berth till Dec. 1.5, 1900, the coaling order having been lodged on the previous day : — Held, that the charterers had fulfilled their obligation when the ship obtained a loading berth in accordance with her proper turn at the colliery, and that they were not liable for the delay : — Held, also, that the defts. had not acted unreasonably in not substituting another coal for Wallsend, their purchasers havingd eclined to accept other coal. Decision of Kenfledy J. affirmed. The law as stated in Carver's Carriage by Sea, .Srd ed. o. 254, p. 288, approved and adopted. Gardiner v. Macfarlanc, (189.S) 20 E. 414, and Arditn Steamship Co. v. Weir, (1904) 41 Sc. L. It. 230, distinguished. Per Vaughan M'illiams L.J. : When the source from which a cargo is to come is expressly defined, no time being fixed for loading, there is no absolute rule that the charterer is bound to have the cargo ready whenever it may be reason- ably expecteil that there will be a berth for the ship if the cargo is ready. Grant, v. Cocerdalc, (1884) 9 App. Cas. 470, distinguished. JoJTBS, Ld. r. Green & Co. C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 276 32. — Demurrage — Bill of lading not put in eciilcHoe — Uypirtltetical case. Action dismissed when it appeared to the House to have been brought to try a hypothetical case. No costs. SHIPPING (Charterparty) — continued. Appeal from a judgment of the Second Divi- sion of the Ct. of Sess., Sc, [1909] S. C. 1414. Glasgow Navigation Co. v. Ikon Oke Co. H, L. (Sc.) [1910] W. N. 84 ; [1910] A. C. 293 33. — Demurrage — Computation of time — ■ Time allowed for di. Claim by bailee against fundi in court — Posses- sory title as agai-nst wrongdoer — Measure of In an action against a stranger for loss of goods caused by his negligence, the bailee in possession can recover the value of the goods, although he would have had a good answer to an action by the bailor for damages for the loss of the thing bailed. Glaridge v. South Staffordshire Tra/mway Co., [1892] 1 Q. B. 422, overruled. The " WiNKHELD " 0. A. [1901] W. N. 824 ; [1902] P. 42 43 . — Manchester Ship Canai — fog — Regu- lations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, arts. 16, 30 — Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (67 ^ 68 Vict. e. 60), s. 418. SemMe : The Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea do not apply to the Man- chester Ship Canal ; but, assuming that they do, the second paragraph of art. 16 of those regulations — by which "a steam vessel hear- ing, apparently forward of her beam, the fog signal of a vessel the position of which is not ascertained, shall, so far as the circumstances of the case admit, stop her engines . . . ." — ' will not be compulsory, for the approaching vessel, of which the fog signal is heard, must be in the canal, and presumably on her right side, so that her position is, in the circum- stances, sufficiently ascertained by those in SHIPPING (CoXlision)— continued. charge of the vessel hearing the whistle, to absolve them from the obligation to " stop hei engines," and they can, therefore, continue to navigate their vessel with caution on her own right side, so as to pass the other vessel. Thb " Haeb " - Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 331 — Negligence. See also under Shipping — Negligence. 44. — Negligence — Contributory negligence —Thames By-laws, 1898, art. 47. The pits.' steam vessel, proceeding down the river Thames against the tide, neglected — in breach of art. 47 of the Thames by-laws — to wait before rounding Blackwall Point " until any other vessels rouudiag the point with the tide (had) passed clear," and came into colli- sion with the defts.' steam vessel which had come up the river, and was, at the material time, in process of turning, preparatory to entering the West India Docks. The defts.' vessel was found to blame for negligently failing to execute the manffiuvre of turning with due regard to the passing traffic, and the pits.' vessel was also found to blame for hampering the manoeuvre of the' other vessel. The pits, appealed : — Eeld, by the 0. A. (Collins M.R., Mathew and Cozens-Hardy L.JJ.), affirming the deci- sion of Sir P. H. Jeune P., [1901] P. 127, that the pits.' vessel was to blame, for, through the breach of art. 47, she had brought herself into a position in which she placed the defts.' vessel in a difficulty, and threw upon those in charge of that vessel the obligation of exercis- ing more than ordinary care. The Margaret ' (Cayzer v. Carron Co.), (1884), 9 App. Gas. 873, distinguished. The " OviNQDENE Geange " C. A. [1902] W. N. 132 ; [1902] P. 208 45. — Negligence — Reversing engines — Ap- peal from, Constantinople. Beld, that the appellant vessel, which was admittedly at fault in taking too sharp a turn across the course of the respondent, was guilty of negligence in not reversing her engines when the respondent gave notice that she would continue her course without alteration. Ownees of S.S. " Chittagong " v. Owners OF S.S. " KosTEOMO " - p. C. [1901] A. C. 597 46. — Negligence of defendants' servant causing original damage — Negligence of plain- tiffs' servant causing subsequent loss — Servant acting in dual capacity — Liability, for conse-f quential damage. A watchman employed by the appellants to take charge of their trawler in dock agreed with the respondents' manager to take the respondents' trawler into the same dock. By pure negligence the watchman so navigated the respondents' trawler as to cause a colli- sion with the appellants' trawler. Instead of examining the damage done to the appellants' trawler, as in duty bound, he entirely neg- lected his duty and consequently the appel- lants' trawler sank in the dock : — Eeld, that though the respondents were liable for the damage caused by the collision they were not liable for the foundering of 4l ( 2497 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2498 ) SHIPPING (Collision)— corainued. the appellants' vessel, it having been proved that the vessel need not have sunk if the watchman had examined the appellants' trawler immediately. Decision of the C. A. (_The Egyptian, [1910] P. 38) affirmed. G-bant v. Ownebs op S.S. " Egyptian." The " Egyptian" H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 109 ; [1910] A. C. 400 47. — " Not under command " — " Aground" ■ — Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, arts. 27, 28. A collision occurred between the steamships Bellanoch and Camning. The Canning was held to be alone to blame. It being alleged that the Bellanoch was also to blame because she had neglected to give three short blasts, as required by art. 28 of the Collision Regula- tions, when going full speed astern : — Held, that the Bellanoch was not to blame, because even if the circumstances had brought her within art. 28 the neglect could not have affected the action of the Canning. Decision of the C. A., [1907] P. 170, affirmed. Owners of S.S. " Canning " v. "Owners of S.S. " Bellanoch." The " Bella- noch " H. I. (E.) [1907] W. N. 166; [1907] A. C. 269 Kote. Discussed by C. A., Tlie " Corinthian,^^ [1909] P. 260. See ^o. 63, lelow. 48. — " Not under command " — Damage — Begulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, art. 4 (a), (c). Two sailing vessels were approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision, the one close-hauled on the starboard tack, shew- ing her green light to the other, the other running free, shewing her red light ; but also exhibiting two red lights as signals that from an accident she was " not under command," and, therefore, could not get out of the way. The close-hauled vessel being unable to luff owing to the presence of the green and mast- head lights of a steam vessel on her starboard bow, put her helm up, and would have crossed the bows of the vessel running free, had pot that vessel defeated the manoeuvre by porting. In an action of damage by collision : — ■ Held, by Gorell Barnes J., that the vessel running free was alone to blame, as she had indicated by her two red lights and side-lights that she was not under command, and was making way through the water. She should, therefore, have kept her course so as to enable the close-hauled vessel — otherwise entitled to keep her course — to get out of the way. Whether a vessel is, in the circumstanceSi " not under command," so as to justify her, under art. 4 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, in exhibiting the appropriate signal, is a nautical question for the assessors. The " Hawthoknbank " Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 120 49. — Pilot, Picking up — " Keep her course and speed " — Regulations for Preventing Col- lisions at Sea, 1897, art. 21. When two steam vessels are crossing, so as to iuTolve risk of collision, the vessel which SHIPPING (CollisLavL)— continued. has the other on her own starboard side shall, under art. 19 of the Regulations for Prevent- ing Collisions at Sea, keep out of the way of the other, and, to enable her effectually to do so, it is provided by art. 21 that the other shall keep her course and speed ; but the obligation, with reference to speed, incum- bent upon the latter vessel, is subject to the qualification that if she is, at the material time, to the knowledge of the giving-way vessel, properly engaged in an ordinary nauti- cal manoeuvre, such as picking up a pilot, she will be entitled to carry it out, although the operation involves a reduction of speed. The " Roanoke " C. A. [1908] P. 231 — Pilotage. See under Shipping — Pilotage. 50. — Pilotage — Compulsory pilotage — Assistance fg-om master. The pilot in charge of a ship is entitled to the active assistance of the master, not by way of interfering with the navigation, except in cases of manifest incapacity, but in pressing upon his attention such a matter as the nature of the lights of another vessel, about which the pilot has apparently formed a mistaken opinion involving possible risk. The " Tactician " C. A. 1907] P. 244 51. — Pilotage, Compulsory — Practice — Evidence of pilot. Where, in an action of damage by collision, the defts. admit that the collision was caused by the negligent navigation of their vessel, but allege that they are not liable as such negli- gence was solely that of the pilot compulsorily in charge, and neither side calls the pilot, the Court will, in its discretion, afford him an opportunity of tendering evidence on his own behalf, if he so desire, subject to cross-exa- mination by both sides. The " Caedifp." Bargrave Deane J. [1909] P. 183 • Practice. See under Shipping- Practice. 62. — Practice — Actum in personam — Foreign Plaintiffs — Counter claim — Security for damages — Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 ,|' 2.5 Vict. c. 10), s. Si^Judiaature Act, 1873 (36 ^ 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 24, sub-ss. 5, 7. The foreign owners of a tug, sunk in colli- sion in the English Channel with -a, British vessel, brought an Admiralty action in per- sonam against the owners of the British vessel, who appeared, counter-claimed, and applied that all proceedings in the action might be ordered to be stayed until the foreign pits, gave security for damages under the counter- claim : — Held, by the C. A. (Collins M. R. and Stir- ling L.J.), affirming the decision of Gorell Barnes J., that there was no jurisdiction to make the order, either under the special powers conferred on the Admiralty Court by s. 34 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, or under the general powers of the Courts of Law and Equity kept alive, and conferred on the High Court and the 0. A., by sub-ss. 5, 7 ( 2499 ) DIGEST OF OASES, :901— 1910. ( 2500 ) SHIPPING (iConisioii)—oonimued. of s. 25 of the Judicature Act, 1873. The " James Westoll " - C. A. [1904] W. N. 198 ; [1908] P. 47 53 . — Practice — Admission by defendants that partly to ilame— Burden of proof — Right to begin. > In an action of damage by collision, the pits., by their statement of claim, alleged that they had suffered damage by reason of a colli- sion between their vessel and the defts.' vessel solely caused by the negligent navigation of the latter, and they charged the defts. with specific acts of negligence and with breaches of certain articles of the Regulations for Pre- venting Collisions at Sea. The defts., by their defence, denied that the collision and damage were so caused, and alleged that they were solely due to the negligent navigation of the pits.' vessel,_and, after charging the pits, with specific acts of negligence and breaches of certain articles of the same regulations, the defts. counterclaimed for the damage they had suffered by reason of the collision. By their reply, the pits., as to the defence, joined issue, and, as to the counterclaim, denied the allega- tions therein contained. Subsequently the defts., by letter, admitted that the collision was contributed to by fault on the part of those in charge of their vessel : — ■ Held that, on the pleadings as they stood, even coupled with the defts. ' admission of con- tributory negligence, it was for the pits, to begin, as the burden of proof was upon them to shew afSrmatively that the defts.' vessel was solely to blame. The " Cadeby " Bigham, Pres. [1909] P. 857 — Practice — Oo-defendants — Costs. See Shipping — Practice. 5. — Practice — Service out of jurisdiction — Foreign co-defendant — " Necessary or proper party." See Shipping— Practice. 12. 54. — Practice — TptaH loss — i Measure oi/ damage — Vessel under three successive chair- ters — Prospective profits. The measure of damage in the case of a vessel totally lost by collision at a time when she is proceeding from a home port with cargo under charter to a foreign port, thence to pro- ceed under charter to another port, and home under charter from that port, is her value at the date when she would have accomplished the homeward voyage, together with such a sum as will represent the profit which would have been realized under the three successive charters, less a reasonable percentage for con- tingencies. The Kate, [1899] P. 165, approved. The " Eacine " C. A. [1906] P. 373 55. — Presumption {Statutory) of fault — Proof to the contrary — Failure to stand by— . Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict, c. 60), s. 422, sub-ss. 2, 3. In an action of damage by collision, in which those in charge of the defts.' steam vessel were found alone to blame, it appeared that the pits.' vessel and the defts.' vessel, SHIPPING- (Collision)— coBiMOTeff. after the first contact, fell alongside, and, whUst clearing, the port propeller of the pits.' vessel struck the starboard side aft of the defts.' vessel, under water^ with the result that the defts.' vessel sank in a couple tif hours ; but it was not known to those in charge of either vessel at the time of the im- pact that the damage was so serious. The pits.' vessel did not stop, but those in charge hoisted flag signals asking if any assistance was required, and, only hearing long blast whistle signals from the defts.' vessel, they steamed away : — Held, that, though those in charge of the pits.' vessel suspected that damage might have been done by the port propeller, and though the blowing of the whistle on the defts.' vessel ought to have conveyed to the minds of those in charge of the pits.' vessel that assistance was needed, still the collision could not be deemed to have been caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of the master of the pits.' vessel, as "proof to the contrary " had been given within the meaning of s. 422, sub- s. 2, of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and the further question whether the master had been guilty of a misdemeanour did not arise, for sub-s. 3 of the same section dealt only with the personal liability of the master, so that the liability of the ship or of her owners was not affected. The " Tbyst " Bigham, Pres. [1909] P. 333 56. — Queeiistown Harbour — Narrom cham- nel — BegulatioTis for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, art. 25. The waterway forming the entrance to Queenstown Harbour is a narrow' channel within the meaning of art. 25 of the Regula- tions for Preventing Collisions at Sea, and, therefore, every steam vessel must, when it is safe and practicable, keep to that side, marked by buoys by the local authorities, of the fair- way or mid-channel which lies on the star- board side of such vessel. The " Glengabifp " Bargrave Deane J. [1905] P. 106 57. — Beffirence — Offer to agree claim— " Tender " — Costs. An action of damage by collision was settled on the terms that the pits, should re- ceive 60 per cent., and the defts. 40 per cent., pf the iamounti of the dlamage {sustained by their respective vessels ; but, before the reference, the pits.' solicitors wrote to the defts.' solici- tors offering to agree the defts.' claim at 40 per cent, of 4500?. with interest. This offer the defts. declined to accept unless made in accordance with the rules as to tender. The investigation into the respective claims re- sulted in a small balance in favour of th^ pits, being found due ; but the registrar, in his report, although he reduced the defts.' claim below 4500Z., gave the defts. their costs of proving their claim on the ground that the pits.' offer had not been followed up by the ordinary procedure in the case of a tender' : — i Held by Bargrave Deane J., that the pits, were entitled to the costs in respect of the proof of the defts.' claim subsequent to the 4l3 ( 2501 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2502 ) SHIPPING (Collision) — coutimi^d. offer by letter, as the word " tender " did not apply to the proposed agreement, which, if accepted, would have saved the expense at- tending the assessment of the defts.' claim. The " Beading " Bargrave Deane J. [1908] P. 162 58. — " Risk of, collUion " — BegulatiOTis for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, prelimin- ary article to Steering ajui Sailing Rales, and art. 29. A steamship going down the river Elbe, and seeing the three lights of a steam-tug ahead or a little on her port bow, ported to give more room, thereby bringing herself well over to her proper starboard side of the chan- nel ; but the tug starboarded and got on to the starboard bow, whereupon the steamship slightly starboarded and steadied, bringing the vessels green to green at half to three-quar- ters of a mile and about a point and a half on the starboard bow. The tug then ported back, and whilst crossing the bows of the steamship, was sunk in collision. The tug was found alone to blame for wrongful manoeuvring with- out helm signals : — Held by the C. A. (Lord Alverstone C.J., Buckley and Kennedy L.JJ.), that the steam- ship was also to blame, for when those in charge saw that, though they had starboarded and steadied the green light of the tug did not broaden, but was, for an appreciable time, getting finer on their starboard bow, they ought to have realized that there was " risk of collision " within the meaning of the pre- liminary article to the steering and sailing rules of the Eegulations for Preventing Col- lisions at Sea, and they should, therefore, as a matter of seamanship under art. 29, have at once stopped and reversed. Per Lord Alverstone C.J. : Observations on the functions of the nautical assessors in an Admiralty action. The " City of Berlin " C. A. [1908] P. 110 — Signal as to alteration of course — No duty to stop if signal unanswered. See China and Cohea. 3. 59. — Singapore Barbour — Inevitable acci- dent — Onus of proof — Compulsory pilotage — Straits Settlements Ordinances (1879), No. 8, ss. 1, 12 ; (1885), No. 5, s. i ; (1905), No. 7, ss. 20, 23 ; (1905), No. 8, ss. 21, 32. The defts.' steamship, whilst proceeding, in daylight, out of the harbour of Singapore, ran into and sank the pits.' vessel at her moorings. The defence set up was inevitable accident due to an abnormal current, and, in the alternative, compulsory pilotage : — Eeld, that the defts. were liable, fe>r they had not succeeded in establishing the existence of the abnormal current relied on, and, there- fore, the onus of proof being on them, they had failed to shew that a competent seaman could not have averted or mitigated the dis- aster by the exercise of ordinary care and skill. Secondly, that the defence of compul- sory pilotage was not available, for the repeal of s. 12 of the Straits Settlement Ordinance SHIPPING (Colliaioa)— continued. No. 8 of 1879 had rendered pilotage at Singa- pore no longer compulsory. The " Polyne- SIEN" - Bigham, Pros. [1910] P. 28 60 . — Single ship and fleet of tcarships — Crossing rule — Special ciroumitances — Begulor- tions fpr Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, arts. 19, 21, 27 — King's BegulatiOTis, oh. xiv., 615 (6.) (II.)— Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict. 0. 60), s. 741. A flotilla of torpedo-boat destroyers, pro- ceeding down the English Channel in two lines of close formation, sighted the masthead and red lights of a merchant steam vessel draw- ing across the head of the starboard, and ap- proaching the port, division. When in the position of a crossing vessel with regard to the second destroyer of the port division, the oiHoer in charge of that destroyer kept his station until danger was imminent, and then, putting his engines full speed ahead, tried by hard-a-porting to throw his starboard quarter clear, but failed to get across the bows of the merchant vessel. In an action of damage by collision : — Beld by Bucknill J., that both ships were to blame, the merchant vessel for bad look-out, whereby she got in between the two lines of the flotilla, without regard to the Board of Trade notice warning single ships to keep out of the way of a squadron of warships, and then persisted in maintaining her course and speed under art. 21 of the Regulations for Prevent- ing Collisions at Sea, when she should have acted under art. 27, and, in the special cir- cumstances, passed down between the two lines of the flotilla. The destroyer was also to blame, for, under the article of the King's Regulations equivalent to art. 19 of the Regu- lations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, it was the duty of the oflScer in charge, having the merchant vessel on his own starboard side, to keep out of the way, and though he was required under the King's Eegulations to keep his station and not change the course, except to avoid immediate danger, and, therefore, was entitled to a reasonable time to see what the merchant vessel would do, he had, in the cir- cumstances, delayed action too long. The " Etna " - Bucknill J. [1908] P. 269 61. — Snjow — In or approaching fdlUng snow — Sound sir/nals — Speed — Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, arts. 15, 16. A cruiser proceeding up, and a New York liner proceeding down, the Solent on nearly opposite courses, and in about mid-channel, sighted one another at a distance of about half a mile, each having the other a little on the port bow. The speed of both vessels was nearly ten knots, and the cruiser when seen was coming out of a snow flurry, whilst the liner was in comparatively clear weather. Those in charge of the cruiser, under the mis- taken impression that the liner was starboard- ing, starboarded their helm, thereby bringing their vessel across the bows of the liner, and, at the last, ported to throw their quarter clear. Those in charge of the liner stopped, then blew one short blast and ported, at the same ( ^503 ) IJiGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 2604 ) SHIPPING (Collision)— eo«im«e(?. time leversing the starboard engine, and sub- sequently also the port engine ; but the two vessels came into collision, the Uner striking .the .cruiser on the Starboard side and amidships and sioking her. In the Court below the cruiser was found alone to blame for improper starboarding. On appeal it was contended that the liner was also to blame for excessive speed in the condition of the weather, and for failure to indicate her position by sound signals : — Held by the C. A., that both charges against the liner failed, for, though good seamanship required that she should be going at a speed which would be moderate when she herself was enveloped in falling snow, her speed at the material time, and in the weather condi- tions then prevailing, was not excessive ; and, secondly, though good seamanship should have suggested to those in charge of the liner the necessity as in the analogous case of fog — The N. Strong, [1892] P. 105 — of giving warning of the presence of their vessel by sounding the signal when approaching falling snow, yet as both vessels saw one another at a distance and in sufficient time to enable them, with reason- able care, to pass each other in safety, the absence of sound signals on the part of the Uner did not contribute to the collision. Quare whether, when the liner was ap- proaching falling snow, the responsibility for giving soung signals rested with the master or with the pilot in charge by compulsion of law. Decision of Gorell Barnes, Pres., [1908] P. 320, affirmed. The " St. Paul " C. A. [1909] P. 43 62. — Solent, Collision in the — Damage — Narrow channel — Begulatiom for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, art. 26 — Compulsory pilotage — Trinity Bouse Outport District — Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict, c. 60), ss. 605, 622. The waterway known as the Solent consti- tutes a narrow channel within the meaning of art. 25 of the Eegulatibns for Preventing Col- lisions at Sea, and, therefore, every steam vessel must, when it is safe and practicable, keep to that side of the fairway or mid- channel which lies on the starboard side of such vessel. Under the statutory jurisdiction exercised by the Trinity House of Deptf ord Strond since 1808 in respect of outport districts, the water- way between the sea and Southampton, by way of the Solent, has always constituted, for the purposes of compulsory pilotage, one district only, although for the convenient examination and control of the pilots licensed by the Trinity House, that corporation, as the pilot- age authority, has from time to time divided the district amongst sub-commissioners at Portsmouth, Cowes, and Southampton, and although the limits of the licences of the pilots in respect of the district have been varied, and exclusive rights given to Southampton pilots in respect of the pilotage of inward- bound vessels when arriving at the seaward end of Southampton Water. The " Assaye " Bargrave Deane J. [1905] P. 289 SHIPPING (Collision) — continued. 63 . — Sound 'signal — Contributing to colli- sion — Regulations fpr Preventing Oollitions at Sea, art. 28. The pits.' and the defts.' steamships, whilst proceeding, the one up, the other down, the south channel of the river St. Lawrence, sighted one another at a distance of something under a mile, and were, at that time, prac- tically end on, Iwithin the meaning of art. 18 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. Those in charge of the defts.' vessel, in breach of the above article, starboarded, and were found alone to blame for the collision which followed. Those in charge of the pits.' vessel ported, in accordance with art. 18, blew a short blast, in accordance with art. 28, and steadied. Shortly afterwards they hard-a- ported, but did not blow another short .blast to indicate the course taken. In the Court below it was found that not blowing the port helm signal, when the hard-a-porting took place, had no effect on the collision : — Held by the G. A., varying the decision of the Court below, that the pits.' vessel was also to blame, for the statutory presumption of fault could not be avoided except by shewing — ^which could not be done in this case — ^that the breach of the rule could not by possibility have contributed to the collision. The case of The Bellanoch, [1907] A. 0. 269, was decided on its own peculiar facts, and does not modify the doctrine laid down in The Fanny M. Carvill, (1888) 13 App. Gas. 455, n., which was followed in Tlie Duhe of Buccleuch, [1891] A. C. 310. The " Coehj- thian" - - C. A. [1909] P. 260 64 . — Sound signals — Statutory presump- tion of fault — Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 S; 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 419, sutt-s. i^Eegula- tions for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, art. 28. A tug which, with a, lighter in tow, was crossing the Humber under a slightly star- board helm on account of the ebb tide, star"- boarded further, and gave a long blast signal to indicate her presence to a steamship, under the stern of which she was passing. The steamship, which was shewing a stern light and lying athwart the river waiting to go into dock, came astern to allow another vessel to pass out of dock, and the tug thereupon hard- a-starboarded her helm to clear the stern of the steamship, but failed to give the appro- priate two-short-blast signal required by art. 28 of the Regulations for Preventing Col- lisions at Sea as applied to the Humber. The steamship had no look-out aft, and, in the Court below, was found alone to blame for a collision with the lighter, whilst the tug was absolved from liability on the ground that the infringement of the rule could not by possi- bility have contributed to the collision : — Held by the G. A. (Lord Alverstone C.J., Buckley and Kennedy L. JJ.), that the tug was also to blame, for, though those in charge of the steamship were so negligently inattentive that they did not notice what was going on astern of them, it could not bie said that, if the two-short-blast signal had not been given ( 2505 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2506 ) SHIPPING (Collision)— co'iitinued. by the tug when further starboarding or hard- a-starboaxding, as an indication that she was manoeuvring for them, the signal might not have been heard and acted upon by those in charge of the steamship in time to have avoided the collision vrith the lighter ; and, therefore, the statutory presumption of fault arose under s. 419, sub-s. i, of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. The " Aeistooeat " C. A. [1908] P. 9 65. Sound signals — Damage. Notwithstanding the alleged unwillingness of the Court to infer negligence from the fact that fog signals proved to have been sounded in the vicinity were not heard, failure to hear such signals may be sufi5cient, by itself, to justify a finding that those in charge of the vessel concerned were not keeping a good look-out . The " Cueean " - - C. A. [1910] P. 184 66 . — Sound signals — Eelm movement ~io counteract ejfeet of, reversing engines — Regu- lations fpr Preventing Collisions at Sem, 1897, art. 28. By art. 28 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, a .steam vessel under way, in taking any course authorized or required by the rules in respect of another vessel in sight, shall indicate that course by the appropriate sound signal : — Held, that a steam vessel having sounded three short blasts to indicate that " my engines are going full speed astern " did not infringe the rule by omitting to sound one short blast on bard-a-porting, as this helm action was to prevent her head canting to starboard under the reverse action of the engines. The " Abeedonian " Bargrave Deane J. [1910] P. 225 67. — Sound signals — " Tailing any course authorized or required by these rules " — Steer- ing rules — Regulations for Preventing Colli- sions at Sea, 1897, art. 28. The pits.' steam vessel, after giving a pro- longed blast on her whistle, left a dock en- trance in the Mersey under easy starboard helm, and — ^whilst continuing to round under that helm in order to bring up alongside a wall a short distance further up — came into colli- sion with the defts.' down-coming steamer. It was alleged on behalf of the defts. that those in charge of the pits.' vessel should have indicated that she was directtug hei course to port by giving two short blasts of her whistle in accordance with art. 28 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, by which, " when vessels are in sight of one another, a steam vessel under way, in taking any course authorized or required by these rules, shall indicate that course by " the appropriate signal : — Held, by Jeune Pres., that the rule was not applicable, as the starboard action of the helm began before leaving the entrance, and, when the other vessel was in sight, the pits.' vessel was not, with reference to that other vessel, taking a course authorized or required by the rules. SHIPPING (Collision) — continued. Cases in which the rule would apply con- sidered. The " MouENB " - Jeuue, Pres. [1901] W. N. 18 ; [1901] P. 68 68 . — Sound signals for vessels in sight of one another — " Course authorized or required by these rules " — Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, art. 28. The direction in art. 28 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, that " when vessels are in sight of one another, a steam vessel under way, in taking any course authorized or required by these rules, shall ra- dicate that course by the (specified) signals on her whistle or syren," is not only imperative, but the word " authorized " includes any course which, for the safety of the vessels, good sea- manship requires to be taken with reference to the other vessel then in sight. The " USKMOGE " Jeune, Pres. [1902] W. N. 150 ; [1902] P. 260 JVote. See The " Minnetonka, Bucknill J., [1904] P. 202, 204 ; C. A. [1905] P. 206. See No. 70, ielow. Approved by C. A., The " Anslem;' [1907] P. 151. See No. 3, above. — Steam trawler. See jYos. 79—83, below. 69 . — Subsequent total loss — Proximate cause — Temporary repairs Consequential damage — Remoteness. The pits.' steamship was so badly damaged in a collision in the English Channel with the defts.' vessel that she had to put into Portland, where she was temporarily repaired, and she then proceeded to complete her voyage to Bristol in order to deliver her cargo and earn the freight ; but she sank off the Lizard. In an action of damage by collision the pits, claimed to recover as for a total loss : — Held, that though the collision was due to the negligence of those in charge of the defts.' vessel, and therefore her owners were liable for the damage sustained by the pits.' steam- ship, they were not liable for her subsequent loss, as that Was not the natural and reasonable result of the wrongful act of the defts.' ser- vants, but was due to the insufficient measures taken by the pits, to repair their vessel in the port of refuge, by reason of which she could not be safely navigated to her port of discharge. The " Beuxellesville " Bucknill J. [1908] P. 312 70. — • " Substituted expense " — Damage — Freight— Abandonment of voyage — Claim by cargo owner. A collier from the Tyne to Cape Town, under charter to the Admiralty, came into collision with a steamship in the English Channel, and put back to the Thames for repairs. The cargo of coals had to be dis- charged, and, by arrangement between the Admiralty, as the owners of the cargo, and the owners of the collier, the voyage was treated as abandoned, the cargo sold, and a sum of WOOL agreed to be paid by the Admir- alty to the owners of the collier as a. "sub^ ( 250? ) DIGEST, OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2608, ) SHIPPING (Collision) — cimtinued:. stituted expense " in Ueu of the larger sum which, it was estimated, would have been in- curred for storage and reshipment it the collier had carried on the coals at the end of the period required for repairs. At the usual ships' reference, after a decree of both to blame, a moiety of the claim by the owners of the colKer for repairs and de- tention was paid by the owners of the steam- ship ; but, at a reference between the Admir-r alty and the owners of the steamship, a claim, made by the Admiralty against the owners of the steamship for a moiety of their adjusted proportion of the lOOOZ., was disallowed by the registrar, and the disallowance aflSrmed on appeal to the judge, [1904] W. N. 68 ; [1904] P. 202 :— Held, by the C. A. (Collins M.E., Mathew and Cozens-Hardy L.J J.), reversing the deci- sion of Bucknill J., that the amount claimed by way of " substituted expense " was the result of a reasonable arrangement to minimize the loss, and was such a consequence of the collision as to render the owners of the steam- ship, as wrong-doers, liable for a moiety of their adjusted proportion. The " Marpensa" [1891] P. 403, considered. The " MuJNETOKKA " C. A. [1905] P. 206 71 . — Suez CaTwX — Belative duties of north and south going vessels — Begulations for the Navigation of the Canal, 1905, arts. 3, 8, su^- ss. 3, 7, 8, 10, and night signal 11. Although it is the recognized practice in part of the Suez Canal for a south-going vessel to tie up in due time to allow a north-going vessel to pass, still, in their exercise of this right of way, those in charge of the north- going vessel have a relative duty cast upon them to act reasonably, and, therefore, they must reduce speed, and keep their vessel so weU in hand as to be able promptly to bring her to a standstill should they find themselves approaching too near whilst the giving-way vessel is completing the manoeuvre of making fast. These precautions are especially neces- sary at night owing to the difficulty of accur- ately estimating the distance of the lights of the south-going vessel before she exhibits the particular lights prescribed by the rules as an indication that the north-going vessel may safely pass. The " Clan Cumming " C. A. [1907] P. 311 72 . — Swansea entramce channel — Applica- tion of art. 25 of the Begulations for Prevent- ing Collisions at Sea, 1897 — Good seamanship. Art. 25 of the Begulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea applies to the entrance chan- nel formed by the east and west pier at Swan- sea, so that it is incumbent on a steam vessel in that narrow channel to keep to that side of mid-chaimel which lies on her starboard hand, but circumstances may prevent the rule operat- ing to its full extent throughout the channel, for when a vessel is coming away from the tidal basin of the Prince of Wales dock on the east side, and is proceeding down the channel, she will, in order to get on her SHIPPING (Collision)— coMiinae^Z. proper west side, have to cross the channel leading up to the Ocean dry dock, or other dock in the west channel, towards which an- other vessel, coming in, may be making. In such a case good seamanship dictates that the vessel which will reach the point of intersec- tion of the channels reasonably in advance of the other should keep on, and that the other should wait, though, if both are approaching the point at about the same time, it will be reasonable for the vessel which has the tide against her to wait until the other has passed. The " Pbinoe Leopoli) de Belgiqde " Gorell Barnes, Pres. [1909 P. 103 73. — Thames, Biver — Bast Stuin channel at mouth of\ Thames — Starboard side — Sailing In support of the charges made by the pits, against the defts., namely, that the P. 0. Petersen improperly starboarded and failed to keep her course under^ art. 21 of the Regula- tions of 1897 for Preventing Collisions at Sea, and that she " was improperly navigated on the east side of the Bast Swin channel, and improperly passed on the east instead of the west side of the Swin Middle J/ightship|,'' reliance was placed on the " note " on the Admiralty chart (corrected to March, 1900) of the river Thames from the Kentish Knock and the Naze to the West Swin, that " vessels proceeding north should pass eastward of Swin Middle L' Ves'. Vessels proceeding south should pass westward of Swin Middle Lt Ves'." Bucknill J. found the pits.' steamship Gottfrid alone to blame for the collision on the ground that, not reversing, but porting to the green light of a sailing vessel close to and nearly ahead was reckless navigation, and that those in charge of the steamer ought to have known that a sailing vessel coming up the East Swin with the wind from the S.E. would have to luff, and pass close to the South West Middle Buoy, in order to make for the next reach. With refer- ence to the note on the chart, the learned judge said that it was very proper advice given to steamships, and, perhaps, to sailing ships which had the wind free so that they could p^s where they liked, but that it was not intended to govern the navigation of sailing ships which might have a foul wind and have to beat up the estuary of the Thames at all times of the tide, otherwise they would never reach their destina- tion. The " P. 0. Petersen " Bucknill J. [1903] W. N. 34 74. — Thames, River — Sea Reach, river lliames — Starboard hand luoys — Narrow chan- nel — Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, art. 25. The pits.' steam vessel proceeding up, and the defts.' steam vessel going down, the river Thames, came into collision on the starboard side, as regards the incoming vessel, of the channel which lies to the southward of the four red conical lighted buoys, placed by the duly con- stituted authority, approximately in the central line of Sea Beach, to mark the northern side of the deepest water. On the question whether ( 2509 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— 19lO. ( 2iSld ) SHIPPING- (Conision)~-conHnued. the pits.' vessel was on the wrong side of the river ; — Held, by GoreU Barnes J., that the effect of the placing of the four red conical lighted buoys was to constitute tlie space of water between them, and the Nore Saml buoys to the soutli of them, a narrow channel within the meaning of art. 25 of the Regulations for Preventing Colli- sions at Sea, for, by the uniform system of buoyage adopted on the coast of England, red conical buoys are " starboard hand buoys " denoting that side which would be on the right hand of the mariner entering the river, and, therefore, the pits.' vessel was justified in being where she was. Qucere, as to the effect of the starboard hand buoys with reference to that portion of the water- way between those buoys and the buoys on the northern side of the river. THE " GrrsTAFSBBEG " GoreU Barnes J. [1905] P. 10 75. — Thames, Biver — Thames By-laws, 1898, aH. 46 — BisJi of collision. Two steam vessels proceeding in opposite directions, the one up and the other down the river Thames, came into collision : — Held, as a question of pure fact upon the evidence, that the vessel proceeding down the river was alone in fault. Decision of C. A., The " Guildhall," [190S] P. 29, reversed ; the decision of Bucknill J. restored. OwNBES OF S.S. " Guildhall " v. General Steam Navigation Co. The " Guildhall " H. L. (E.) [1908] W. N. 104 ; [1908] A. C. 159 76 . — Thames, Biver — Overtaking and over- taken vessels — Keeping to the south of mid- stream going down. The pits.' and defts.' steamships, proceed- ing down the river Thames, came into colli- sion, in the upper part of Galleon's Reach, owing in part to the defts.' vessel, which was leading, and which was to the southward of mid-channel, attemptiDg, by starboarding, to pass to the northward of a dredger, moored in about mid-stream, thereby tending to throw herself across the course of the pits.' vessel, which was coming down on the north 8ide of the river, and also making to pass on the north side of the dredger. Both vessels were found to blame, the defts.' vessel, as the over- taken vessel, for not keeping her course, and the pits.' vessel, as the overtaking vessel, for not stopping so as to keep out of the way of the defts.' vessel when she saw what that vessel was doing. As a matter of seamanship also both vessels were to be deemed in fault for disregarding the under- standing on the river, by which, for the safety of navigation, steamships going down keep to the southward of mid-stream, thereby leav- ing the northern side of the river free for vessels coming up. The " Gere " Bargrave Deane J, [1909] P. 287 — Thames, River — Wreck raised by Thames Conservancy — Arrest by marshal. See Xo. 91, beloic. SHIPPING (Collision) — oontiniied. — Thames, River — "Wreck, Removal of — Thames Conservancy. See No. 92, helow. 77. — Total loss — Payment hy wrong-doer — Insurance, iliirine — Valued policy — Partial in- surance — Division of amount received from wrong- doer letween shijwwner and underwj'iter. The owners of a steamship, which had run down a schooner, paid into Court 1000?., the value of the schooner as assessed in the registry. Underwriters who had paid the owners of the schooner lOOOZ., as being the amount for which she was insured, under a policy stating the value to be 13501, claimed the lOOOZ. :— Held, by the C. A. (Sir GoreU Barnes, Pres., B'letoher Moulton and Kennedy L.JJ.), affirming the decision of Bargi-ave Deane J., that the owners of the schooner were entitled to be treated as their own insurers for 350Z., and, therefore, the lOOOi. must be divided between them and the underwriters in the proportion of their respective intei-ests, namely, 350-1350ths, and 1000-1350th3. The " Common- wealth " C. A. [1907] P. 216 78. — lowage — Damage to cargo — Contract of indemnity — Third-party notice — Ap2>eal iy person not a party — B,. S. C, Order XVI., rr. 48, 52, 53, 55— Costs. Cargo owners instructed barge-owners to lighter their goods, and, as time pressed, to employ a tug. The tug was so negligently navi- gated by the servants of the tug-owuers that the barge containing the goods was brought into collision with another barge, and the goods thereby damaged. In an action by the cargo owners, as pits., against the barge-owners and the tug-owners as co-defts., the barge-owners were dismissed from the suit with costs to be paid by the cargo owners, but the tug-owners were held liable with costs for the damage sustained by the cargo owners, together with the costs to be paid by the cargo owners to the barge-owners. The tug-owners, by a third-party notice, served on the barge-owners, set up a contract of indemnity under which their customers agreed that the tug-owners should " not be answerable for any loss or damage which might happen to, or be accasioned by, any barge, or its cargo, while in tow, however such loss or damage might arise," and undertook to hold them harmless and indemnify them " from any such loss or damage, and against the faults or defaults of their servants or any claim therefor by whomsoever made." Under the issue raised between the co-defts. by the third-party notice, the barge-owners were adjudged responsible for the amount of the damage for which the tug-owners had been held liable together with the two sets of costs. Both defts. served notices of appeal ; but the appeal of the tug-owners was subsequently withdrawn : — Held, by the C.A. (Collins M.R., iWathewand Cozens-Hardy L.JJ.), first, that the barge-owners could not appeal in respect of the decision in favour of the pits, against the tug-owners, for they were not parties to that judgment, and not having paid the amount adjudged to be due by the tug-owners to the jjlts., they were not sub- ( 2S11 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. 2512 ) SHIPPING (Colliiio-ii)— continued. rogated to their rights, and, if subrogated, they could not avail themselves of an appeal which the tug-owners had abandoned, nor could they rely on the third-party procedure under the Judi- cature Act, as no order had been made within the meaning of the R. S. C, Order xvi., r. 53, giving directions as to the mode in, or the extent to, which they were to be bound, or made liable, by the judgment against the tug-owners. Secondly, affirming the judgment o£ the Court below, that there was no privity of contract between the pits., the owners of the damaged cargo, and the tug- owners, which would bind the pits, to the condi- tions attached to the towage, and, therefore, on the construction of the contract of indemnity as between the barge-owners and the tug-owners, the barge-owners not only could not bring an action against the tug-owners for any loss or damage which might happen to, or be occasioned by, any barge or its cargo, while in tow, but the contract assumed an existing liability against which the barge-owners had undertaken to in- demnify the tug-owners, so that the barge- owners were liable for the damages recovered by the pits, in the action brought against the tug- owners, together with the costs reasonably incurred by the tug-owners in defending such action, including the costs which the pits, had been adjudged to pay the barge-owners, and which the tug-owners had been ordered to repay to the pits. The " Millwall " C. A. [1905] W. N. 51 ; [1905] P. 155 79. — Traioler — Sailing vessel — Steam trawler — Duty of steam vessel to keep clear — Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, arts. 9, 20. A steam trawler fishing in the North Sea, with her trawl down over her starboard quar- ter, and exhibiting a black ball to indicate how she was engaged, was making from two and a half to three knots on a N.N.E. course, when she came into collision with a small sail- ing vessel which was making about six knots, and heading S.W. close hauled on the star- board tack. Those in charge of the trawler seeing the sailing vessel heading for them thought that she wished to speak them, and, when they realized that this was not so, it was too late to do anything. The sailing vessel, owing to having no look-out, failed to observe the trawler until close to : — Eeld that, though the sailing vessel was to blame for having no look-out, the steam trawler was also to blame, for she might, by a small alteration of her course, have avoided the collision, and should, therefore, have acted under art. 20 of the Regulations for Prevent- ing Collisions at Sea, by which a steam vessel must keep out of the way of a sailing vessel. The " Tweedsdale," (1889) 14 P. D. 164, held not applicable. The " Ceaigbllachie " Bucknill J. [1909] P. 1 Note. This case was disapproved by C. A., " Tlie Grovelmrst, [1910] P. 316. See No. 81, lelow. 80. — Trawler — Steam tramler and saili\ vessel ^ Lights — Regulations fpr Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, arts. 2, 9, 20. SHIPPING (Co\\\iion)—coivtinued. A British steam trawler of upwards of twenty tons gross register, fishing in the sea off the coast of Europe lying north of Cape Einisterre, and carrying the alternative lights prescribed by art. 9 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, as amended by Orders jn Council, is, after getting in her trawl, so as to be no longer incumbered, but able to mancEuvre, to be treated as a steam vessel under command, and therefore, she is bound at night to exhibit the lights for a steam vessel prescribed by art. 2, and must, under art. 20, keep out of the way of a sailing VGSSftl Tlie " Tweedsdale," (1889) 14 P. D. 164, fol- lowed. The " Upton Castle " Bargrave Deane J. [1906] P. 147 81 . — Traviler — Steam traiwler engaged in trawling — Steamship crossing — Effict of exhi- bition of triplex light — Giving way — Regular tions for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, arts. 9 (1906) {d) (1.), 19, 21, 27. By art. 19 of the Regulations for Prevent- ing Collisions at Sea, 1897, "When two steam vessels are crossing, so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other." By art. 27, "In obeying and construing these rules, due regard shall be had' to ... . any special circumstances which may render a departure from the above rules necessary in order to avoid immediate danger " : — Held by the 0. A., that the exhibition by a steam vessel " engaged in trawling " of the special lights rendered compulsory by art. 9 (1906) {d) (1.) of the above regulations, was an indication that " special circumstances " existed within the meaning of art. 27, render- ing the trawler incapable of obeying art. 19, and, therefore, casting upon the other cross- ing steam vessel the duty of keeping out of the way. The reasoning in The " Tweedsdale" (1889) 14 P. D. 164, so far as applicable, followed. ThB Craigellachie, [1909] P. 1, disap- proved. The " Geovbhdrst " - - C. A. [1910] P. 316 82. — Trawler — Sailint/ vessel attd steam trawler — " Proceedinff " — Regulations for Pre- renting Collisions at Sea, 1897, art. 9 (1906), suhs. (It) ; art. 20. A steam trawler fishing in the daytime in the vicinity of the Dogger Bank, and indicating her occupation to an approaching sailing vessel by the display of a basket, in accordahce with art. 9 (1906), sub-s. (li), of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, was run into and sunk by the sailing vessel owing to the negligence of those in charge of that vessel in not keeping a good look-out. It was contended on behalf of the sailing vessel that, though she was to blame, the trawler was also to blame for not using her steam to keep out of the way of the sailing vessel under art. 20 of the above regulations, by which " When a steam vessel and a sailing vessel are proceeding in such directions as to involve risk of collision, the steam vessel ( 2513 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2514 ) SHIPPING (CoUiaion)— continued. shall keep out of the way of the sailing vessel " : — Held, that the trawler was not to blame, for, at the material time, she was eng-aged in the operation of hauling in her trawl. In such cir- cumstances she was an incumbered vessel unable, until her trawl was up, to move her engines ahead or astern without risk of fouling her propeller. She was, therefore, not a steam vessel " proceeding " so as to involve risk of collision within the meaning of art. 20. The "Jennie S. Barher," (ISIZ) L. R. 4 A. & E. 456, distinguished. The "Tweedsdale," {1889) 14 P. D. lP4,followed. Thb " Gladys " Bigham, Pres. [1910] P. 13 83. — Trawling, Sailing vessel engaged in — SheiL-lng flare-up in sufficient time — B^gulations for Preeenting Collisions at Sea, art. 9 (1906) (d), sui-s. 2. A steamship proceeding about midnight, at a speed of nearly nine knots, through a fleet of vessels fishing off the north coast of Cornwall, ran down and sank one of them, which had her regulation white fishing light up, and was, at the material time, lying hove to, engaged in hauling in her trawl. The lights of the steamship were first observed at some considerable distance, and when it was noticed by those on board the trawler that the steamship was heading for them, a white flare-up light was shewn where it could best be seen, the distance between the two vessels being then about 300 yards. The Court found that the steamship was alone to blame for not keeping out of the way, and also Held that the flare was shewn " in sufficient time to prevent collision " within the meaning of art. 9 (1906) (d), sub-s., 2. of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. The J' Picton" " Bigham, Pres. [1910] P. 46 84. — Tvg and Tow — Fog — Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, art. 16 — Obligation on tug to stop — Control of tug by tow. A steamship proceeding in a dense fog up the English Channel at a moderate speed on a course 0£ E. J N. stopped her engines, in accordance with tbe. second paragraph of art. 16 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, on hearing a fog signal apparently forward of her beam, and on hearing a second signal reversed ; but she came into collision with a sailing vessel in tow of a tug proceeding on a crossing course of ^V..S.\V. at a moderate speed of from two to three knots. The whistle of the steamship had been heard flne on the starboard bow of the sailing vessel ; but the engines of the tug were not stopped in accordance with the above regula- tion, on the ground that as the tug was pro- ceedint' at the minimum speed compatible with keeping the tow under control, it was not the duty of the tug to stop : — Held, by the C. A. (Colhns M.R., Mathew and Cozens-Hardy L..J.J., assisted by nautical assessors), affirming the decision of Goiell Barnes J., [1904] P. 41, that the steamship was not to blame as she had complied with the rule by stopping, and was not bound to reverse before she did so ; but that both tug and tow were to blame, as it was practicable for the tug to have SHIPPING (CoUiBioa)~continued. stopped her engines and let the way run off the tow. The " Challenge " and " Due d'Attmale " C. A. [1905] P. 198 Mte. See The ' Due d'Aumale " {j\^o. 2), GoreU Barnes J., [1904] P. 60. Shipping—Salmge. 29. 85. — Tug and tow — Xegligence of tug — iVo«- Uahiliiy of tow — Damage. Those in charge of a barge, in tow of a tug, are entitled to assume that the tug will be navi- gated with ordinary care, caution, and maritime skill so as to keep the tow clear of danger, and, therefore, where those in charge of a tug, on entering the Mersey with a barge in tow, negli- gently allowed the tug, under the influence of wind and tide, to drift to leeward, so that those in charge of the barge, though making reasonable efforts by porting the helm to get to windward, failed to avoid the danger, and the barge ran into and sank a lightship, the tug was held alone to blame. As against third parties, the legal relation- ship, in respect of master and servant, subsisting by virtue of contract between those in charge of tug and tow, is not material to the inquiry whether either or both tug and tow are to blame for a collision between the tow and a third vessel. The " W. H. No. 1 " and The " Knight EEEA2JT" C. A. [1910] p. 199 Oa Appeal : — The House affirmed the decision of the C. A., [1910] P. 199 {Tlie " W. H. Xo. 1 " and Tlie '■ Knight Errant ") entirely on the facts, holding that the tug was alone to blame for the colUsion. Owners of the Lightship " Comet " ■». Owners op the Hoppee Barge " H. No. 1 " H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 274 86. — Tug and tow — Third vessel — Pilot cutter laslied to tow — Independent duty of tug to avoid dang&i — Identification — Reasonable, care — Joint tortfeasors — Dam age — • Costs. Two tdgs were towing a sailing vessel, in charge of a pilot, down the Bristol Channel, with a pilot cutter made fast to the sailing vessel, when, owing to the negligence of the tow and her tugs, the pilot cutter was sunk by collision with a schooner, which was also damaged. In an action by the owners of the pilot cutter against the owners of the schooner and the owners of the tugs, in which the owners of the schooner counter-claimed against the pilot cutter and the tugs, it was held in the Court below {The Harvest Home, [1904] P. 409), that, on the authority of 'Ihe Altair, [1897] P. 105, the pilot cutter and the schooner were entitled to succeed against the tugs, for, though those in charge of the tow were negligent in not properly directing the tugs, an independent duty was cast upon the tugs to exercise reasonable care and skill in keeping clear of the schooner, and further, fol- lowing 'The Bernina, (1888) 13 App. Cas. 1, that the pilot cutter was not identified with the sailing vessel so as to be unable to recover. On appeal by the owners of the tugs against the owners of the pilot cutter : — Held, by the C. A. (Collins M.R., Mathew and Cozens-Hardy L..J.I., assisted by nautical ( 2515 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2516 ) SHIPPING (Collision)— eoMiiwMerf. assessors), that though the pilot cutter was- lashed alongside the tow, those in charge of her were nevertheless bound to take reasonable care to avoid danger, and, had they kept a good look- out, they would have seen the schooner in time to have slipped the rope and gone clear. The pilot cutter was, therefore, also to blame, and the liability of the owners of the tugs thereby reduced to a moiety of the claim of the owners of the pilot cutter, without reference to the liability of the tugs in respect ef the damage to the schooner, and, in accordance with the Admiralty rule, each party must pay their own costs in the Court below and of the appeal. The " Harvest Home " - C. A. [1905] P. Ill 87. — Tug and tow — Tow in collision with third vessel by fault of tug — Contract of indem- nity — Third-party notice. The barge John, whilst (with five other barges) in tow of the tug Richmond, came into collision with the brigantine Lenore, lying at anchor in the river Thames. The owners of the Lenore brought an action against the owners of the John, in the City of London Court, which was dismissed by the learned judge, on the ground that the coljision was due to the negligence of those in charge of the Bichmond. The owners of the John then brought an action against the Rich- mond, whose owners served a third-party notice on the owners of the John, relying upon the fol- lowing condition in their terms of towage as amounting to a contract of indemnity : " We hereby give notice that we will not be answerable for any loss or damage which may happen to or be occasioned by or to any vessel or barge or their or its cargo while in tow, however such loss or damage may arise, and from whosesoever fault or default it may arise, nor will we be responsible for any loss or damage which may happen or be caused by or through any act done or omitted to be done by any person or persons we employ for or on account of or at the request of the owners or charterers of any craft " : — Seld (affirming the decision of the county court judge), that though it might be that, under the terms of the condition, the owners of the John could not recover over from the owners of the Richmond any sum they might have to pay for damage caused by collision whilst their barge was in tow of the Richmond, the owners of the Richmond could not call upon the owners of the John to indemnify them in respect of any damages which they might have to pay in consequence of the negligence of their own servants, and, there- fore, the claim by the owners of the Richntond to be recouped by the owners of the John, failed. The " Richmond " Div. Ct. [1902] W. N. 204 — Tug and tow to blame for collision with third vessel — Negligence — Salvage. See Shipping— Salvage. 29. 88. — Value of ships questioned iy owners of cargo — Rigid to reojjen question of valu-e—Both ships in fault — Compensation — Merchant Shipping Act, 189i (57 * 58 Vict. c. 60), ss. 503-4. The House reversed, with costs, the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1905) SHIPPING (Co\\wiOTi)—eontimie.d. 7 F. 739, holding that the appellants were preju- dicially ailected by being refused an opportunity in the Scottish Courts of proving the true value of thes.s. Anglia,ii-aA that they not being parties to the collision action were entitled to reinvesti- gate that value. C. A. Van Eijck and Zoon (Owners of Cabgo, S.S. " Anglia ") v. Somee- ville and Gibson (Owners of the S.S. " Anglia ") H. I. (So.) [1906] W. N. 162 ; [1906] A. C. 489 89. — Vessels crossing river — Ty7ie By-taws, 1884:, arts, 21, 22. The meaning of arts. 21 and 22 of the Tyne By-laws — by which a vessel " requiring to pass over a part of the channel which is not within that half reserved for its navigation," and when " cross- ing the river .... shall be navigated so as not to cause obstruction, injury, or damage to any other vessel" — is that those in charge of a, crossing vessel on seeing that there is time and oppor- tunity to cross without causing obstruction may do so, and any other vessel must act reasonably in respect of the crossing vessel, so that, if a little more room is required to assist the crossing vessel, that room must be given. The vessel crossing takes, however, upon herself, at the outset, the responsibility of being able to do so safely with reference to the passing traffic — that is, those in charge of her are put to their election whether they will cross and call upon a passing vessel to take the ordinary precautions to avoid a coUisiou or whether they will stop where they are and allow that other vessel to pass, in either case not hampering or misleading the other vessel, but clearly and unmistakably indicating to that other vessel the course which they intend to pursue. The " Skipsba " Gorell Barnes J. [1905] P. 32 90. — Wai'ship — Loss of use during repairs — Claim in the nature of demurrage — Damage. A Danish warship was just completing a long winter training ' cruise when she came into collision, in the Sound, with a British vessel, and in an action of damage by collision, brought by the Danish Government against the owners of the British vessel, the British vessel was found alone to blame. In ordinary course, the warship would have been docked and overhauled, and not put into commission until three months had elapsed, and would then have been used for a summer training cruise. Before the expiration of the three months the repairs necessitated by the collision were executed, and the vessel ready to be put into commission. At the reference for the assessment of the damage sustained by the warship a, claim of 15001. for the loss of the use of the vessel was disallowed. On objection to the report : — Held, that the principles laid down in T/i^ Mediana, [1900] A. C. 113, with reference to damages for deprivation of the use of a chattel, were applicable to the case o£ a warship, and, therefore, as, by reason of the wrongful act of the defts., the Danish Government had not for a period of twenty-two days — during which the repairs rendered necessary by the collision were being executed — had the vessel under their con- trol for use if they wanted her, the registrar was directed to assess the damages on the basis ( 2517 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— 19iO. ( ^518 ) SHIPPING (CoUiaioii)— continued. of that portion of the three months, thereby re- ducing the amount claimable under the head of deprivation of the use of the vessel to something under iOOl. The " Astrakhan " Bargrave Deane J. [1910] P. 172 91. — Wreck raised by Thames Coiisei'vancy — Arrest hy marshal — Damage lien — Expenses of rats'mg — Priorities — Thanes Comervancy Act, 189i (57 4- 58 Vict. c. clxx.nll.'), s. 77. As the result of a collision in the Thames between a barque and a steamship, the latter sank with her cargo. The Thames Conservators, under their statutory powers, raised the vessel, and, after she was beached, she was arrested by the Admiralty marshal in an action of damage by collision instituted by the owners of the barque. On the question of priority as between the Thames Conservancy in respect of their expenses, and the owners of the barque in respect of their lien attaching to the vessel for the damage sustained by them : — Held by Bargrave Deane J. that, as the res had been preserved through the instrumentality of the Conservators, their claim ranked iirst, and, therefore, they would be at liberty to sell the vessel and her cargo, reimbursing themselves for their expenses and costs, in the first instance, out of the proceeds of the cargo, and then out of the proceeds of the vessel, paying the surplus, if any, of proceeds into Court for the benefit of the parties entitled thereto. The " Sea Speav " Bargrave Deane J. [1907] P. 133 98. — Wrecli, Removal of~Liahtlity for expense — Abandoument — Thames Conservancy Act, 1894 (57 4' 58 Vict. c. clxxxmi.). x. 77—Costx. By s. 77 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1894, it is provided, inter alia, that the conservators shall, in the case of a vessel sunk in the river, cause such vessel to be raised and sold, and, out of the proceeds of such sale, reimburse them- selves for the expenses incui'red, and, in case such proceeds shall be insufficient, " the deficiency shall be paid to the conservators by the owner of such vessel upon demand, and, in default of payment, may be recovered " as a debt : — Held by Bargrave Deane J. that, on the true construction of this section, the conservators were entitled to be paid the deficiency by the owner of the vessel sunk whether that owner had, prior to the expenses being incurred for raising her, abandoned the vessel or not, and therefore, that question being immaterial, the def ts., the owners of the wrong-doing ship which came into collision with and sank the pits.' vessel, must refund to the pits, the amount of the deficiency which the conservators had recovered by action from the pits. ; but, as a matter of discretion, not the costs of defending the action brought by the conservators against the pits., as no one has a right to inflame bis own account against another by incurring additional expense in the unrighteous resistance of an action which he cannot defend. The " Wallsend " Bargrave Deane J. [1907] P. 302 Colonial Courts. ^Admiralty— Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act — Special leave to appeal unnecessary. See Canada— Shipping. 1. SSIFVIS6— continued. Company. — Debenture stock — Covering deed — Specific ships — Specific ancillary mortgages — Substituted security — Registration. See Company — Debentures. 36. Compensation. — " Workman " — Ship's captain — Board and allowance in additiou to cash wages. See Mastbk and Sehvastt — Compensa- tion. 147. Costs. 1. — Damage — Practice — Costs as between solicitor and client — Action against Tyiie Im- provement Commission — Judgment for defendants — Statutory power — Mode of exercise — Demotion — Act done in ^' intended'^ execution of public duty — Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 4' 57 Vict. u. 61), s. 1, sub-s. (J). In an action by the owners of a steamship against the Tyne Improvement Commission for the amount of the damage occasioned to the vessel by a fire which originated on one of the deft.'s coal staiths, judgment was given in fa^om- ot the defts. on the ground that they, as owners of the staith, had not been guilty of negligence. The defts. thereupon claimed under sub-s. (J) of s. 1 of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, to recover from the unsuccessful pits, their costs as between solicitor and client ; — Held, by Sir Gorell Barnes, Pres., that the defts. were a public authority, and as such entitled to have their costs so taxed, for in the erection and working of the staith they must be taken to have acted in " intended " execution ot a public duty within the meaning of the Act, although the staith, and the line of railway connected with it, might not have been con- structed in strict conformity with their statutory powers, the question of deviation from deposited plans being for the parties affected thereby, such as the neighbouring owners, and not for the pits. The " JoHANNBSBUBG " - Gorell Barnes, Pres. [1907] P. 65 Crew. 1. — Agreement wltJi. crew — Stipulations con- trary to law — Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 4'- 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 114. Stipulations in an agreement between the master of a ship and the crew which are incon- sistent with any of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 18!I4 (as for instance where the agreement provides that for absence by a seaman from his ship ^\'ithout leave deductions shall be made from his wages differing in amount, and recoverable in a different manner, from that provided by the Act), are " contrary to law " within the meaning of s. 114 of that Act, and are therefore not permissible. Meroantile Steamship Co. r. Hall Pickford J. [1909] 2 K, B. 423 Crimping. 1. — " Crimping " — Foreign ship — End of eoyaye — Merchant Seamen {I'agment of Wages ( 2519 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2520 ) SHIPPING (Ciim'ging)—cordmuecl. and Eating] Act, 1880 (43 ^ 44 Viet. o. 16), ss. 5, H—Mero/iant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 ^ 58 Vict. c. 60), ss. 218, 219. Notwithstanding the diiference in language, the provisions of s. 219 of the Merchant Shippinf; Act, 1894, are the same as those of s. 6 of the Merchant Seamen (Payment of Wages and Eating) Act, 1880, and therefore, where an 0. in C. under the Act of 1880 declared that the pro- visions of s. 6 of that Act relating to "crimping" should apply to ships of a foreign country, those provisions have efieot as if the ships of that country were British! ships arriving, about to arrive, or which had arrived at the end of their voyage. Solicitor of Board of Trade v. Abrahams. Kbx v. Abrahams - Div. Ct. [1904] W. N. 159 ; [1904] 2 K. B. 859 2. — " Crimping" — Right of accused to le tried ty a jury — Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 4- 58 Vict. c. 60), ss. 218, 680, sul>-s. (i)— Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 lng Act, 1894 (57 4- 58 Viat. o. 60), s. 599. A certificate issued, and annually renewed, by a pilotage authority, under ss. 340, 341 of the SHIPPING (Pilotage)— co«M»i«e(?. Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (now embodied in s. 599 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894), recited that (name) was master of the ship (named) " whereof (name of firm) are the owners," and stated that it was granted " to enable him to pilot the said ship or any other ship or ships belonging to the same owners." The named firm never owned the named ship, or the ship to which the master was subsequently transferred, though the firm managed both ships as belonging to the same line of ocean steamers. Individual members of the named firm held shares, along with other parties, in the named ship, and one of those members was registered as managing owner of the named ship, and of the ship to which the master was transferred, of which latter ship that member was registered as holder of all the shares, though in fact he was only trustee for beneficial owners : — Held, that the certificate was invalid by reason of a mis-statement as to the ownership, for it only enabled the holder to pilot the named ship, or any other ship belonging to the same owners — that is, the named firm ; but the named firm were not owners of the named ship at the date of the original issue of the certificate, or of either vessel at the date of its last renewal, or at the date of a collision between the ship to which the master was transferred and the pits.' vessel. Semble, that to satisfy the words " the ship of which he is master or mate, or any one or more ships belonging to the same owner as that ship " in s. 599 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the same owners must, at the material times, have held the whole of the shares in the vessel in respect of which the certificate was originally granted as well as hold the whole of the shares in the vessel to which the master is transferred. The Earl of AucUand, (1861) Lush. 164, 387, followed. The " Bristol City " Jeune, Pres. [1901] W. N. 232; [1902] P. 10 6. — Compulsory pilotage — Port of Blyth — Foreign vessel — Newcastle Pilot Act (41 Geo. 3, c. locxxvi.'), s. 6. Pilotage is compulsory on a foreign vessel resorting to, or coming into, or departing from the port of Blyth, for that port is one of the creeks or members of the port of Newcastle-upon- Tyne unaffected by legislation subsequent to the Newcastle Pilot Act, 1801 (41 Geo. 3, c. Ixxxvi.), s. 6. The " HoLAK " Gorell Barnes J. [1901] P. 7 7. — Pilot — Appeal from pilotage avihority — • I'lutension of time for appeal — Merchant Shippiiig Art, 1894 (57 4' 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 610, sub-s. 7— Pilotage Appeal Mules {Stipendiary and Metro- politan Police Magistrates), 1890, r. 1. By s. 610, sub-s. 1, of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, a pilot who is aggrieved by the deci- sion of a pilotage authority may appeal to the county court judge or to a metropolitan police magistrate or stipendiary magistrate having jurisdiction within the port for which he is licensed. By s. 610, sub-s. 7, which re-enacts s. 4 of the Merchant Shipping (Pilotage) Act, 1889, power is given to the Secy, of State to make rules of procedure as respects appeals ( 2B37 ) DIOEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2538 ) SHIPPING (Pilotage) — coidimied, to metropolitan police magistrates and stipen- diary magistrates. By r. 1 of the Pilotage Appeal Rules (Stipendiary and Metropolitan Police Magistrates), 1890, notice of appeal to a magis- trate must be given to him or to his clerk and to the pilotage authority within seven days after receipt from the pilotage authority of a notili- caiiou of their decision, " or \yithin such further time as may be allowed by the magistrate " : — Held that, under the above rule, a magistrate lias power to extend the time for giving notice of appeal, although the application for an extension of time is not made lo him until after the expira- tion of the period of seven days within which the notice of appeal ought to have been given. llBX I'. Lewis - Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 307 — Pilotage dues. See Canada — Shipping, 1. — Ship — Collision — Compulsory pilotage — Practice — Evidence of pilot. See Shipping — Collision. 51. — Singapore Harbour — Collision — Inevitable accident — Onus of proof — Compulsory pilotage. See Shipping— Collision. 58. — Vessel employed in coaling ships of navy — King's ship — Pilotage dues — Liability of master. See Shipping — King's Ship. 1. Port of London. Port of Loibdoii Act, 1908 (8 JiiJiv. 7, c. 68), j) rot idea for the improiyment and better adminis- trutiii/i of the Port of London, and for pnrjwse-i incidcntol tliereto. Practice. Payment into Conrt in Adiniraltij actions, R. S.' C. i-Jnlii'), 1901, Order XXl'f., r. la. Iteprint from W. N. 1901 (July 13), p. 835. ,S'ee Current Index, 1901, p. cii. J'Jcclesiasticiil and Maritime Cansex, Proce- dure in.. Order in Connril as to the dixrluiri/e of the dntie-i of the office of Itei/istrai' of Ilix Mujesfij ill, Ecclesia.^icol and Miirilime C'an.se.s. Ilepriii't from W. N. 1904 (July 23), p. 231. Sec Current Inde.x;, 1904, p. cxvii. Merchimt S/iijipiiiff Piilcx, 1908. iZttte of Conrt doted June 3, 1908, for appeals under tlie Jferchaiit Shi/ipinq Act, V.HIC, Section 68. Re- print from W. N.' 1908 (June 13), p. 167. See Current Index, 19I)S, p. cxxiii. Short Causes. {19fi8) Short Cmose Rules. In tlie Ad mi rait ji side of the Prohate, Divorce, and Admiraltij Dicision, and form of coiiseid to the application of such Rules. Reprint from W. N. 1908 (Aug. 29), p. 247. See Current Index, 1908, p. cxxix. Stiippiiui Casualties and Ajijieuls and Rc- hciirinijs Rnle.-i, 1!MI7, dated Xoe. 22, 1907, llcjirinti'd 1910. TJiis reprint contains altera- tions in tlie statement of qnalijieations prescrihed for Xantiral .l.v.ve.s.w,,,? in Pai-t II. of the Appendlr. Reprint from W. N. 1910 (Aug. 27), p. 273. See Current Index, 1910, p. cxv. SHIPPING (^xaxXUfi)— continued. 1. — Action, against master — Necessaries — Bills of exchange — (1908) Short Canxe Rules. Pits., W. & P., coal merchants of Marseilles in the Republic of France, sued the deft., G., master of the s.s. Cairo, now lying under arrest at Marseilles, on two biUs of exchange, dated June 4 and 19, 1908, for 1375?. and llSS'i. ll.s. 6d. respectively, drawn by the deft, as master, on his owners, the Egyptian Bfail Steamship Co., fur the necessary disbursements of the steam- ship, consisting of the supply by the pits, to the ship of 1 100 and 927 tons of coal at Marseilles. The bills were payable to the order of the pits, thirty (.lays after sight, and were duly accepted, but dishonoured by non-payment at maturity. The writ of summons, dated Nov. 3, 1908, was indorsed in the sum of 2549/. 'is. lii/., being the amount of the bills, with interest, noting and protesting, and claimed fm'ther interest until payment or judgment. Upon the pits.' application by summons, dated Nov. 4, the judge in chambers, on Nov. 9, gave directions for the trial of the action on Nov. 13 under the Short Cause Rules, 1908, and on the last-mentioned date the case was heard in Court, the claim being supported by an affidavit sworn by a member of the pit. firm, and the deft, master of the Cairo filing a counter affidavit. Sir Gorell Barnes, Pres., in giving judgment in favour of the pits, for the amount indorsed on the writ, and interest at 5 per cent, on 2510/. lis. Gd. from Nov. 3 to Nov. 13, with costs, observed that the deft., the master of the Cairo, would, by English law, have a lien on the ship, and, with reference to the dispatch with which the case had proceeded and to the economy resulting from following the simple procedure adopted, said : " This is the first case dealt with under the new Short Cause Rules, 1908, which liave been drawn up for the purpose of dealing with cases which might be thus easily disposed of. There is no doubt that these rules afford a means of disposing of cases which are suitable for their application most speedily and most economically. This case is an illustration of ho^v that may be dune, ami I hope it will bo found that they are useful and will be frequently applied. They are only an extension of efforts made in this Division in the year 1893, and 1 may refer to the observations which I made in the case of The Alps ( [1893] P. 109), as to the simple and easy process that might be adopted. The observations 1 made on the utility of the course then suggested are to be found fully set out in the S/iipping O'a^iife, in a report of the case which appeared a day or two after the ease was tried. 1 think it would have been advanta- ;.;eoiis if they had been fully set out in The Lam Reports. They are only briefly condensed there, and I am not sure whether it was at that time fully realized by the reporters what IIkjsc obser- vations might really result in. The consequence was at that time that a very large number of eases were bi'ought in this Division immediately afterwards which were cases of a kind not ordinarily coming within the work allotted to this Division. For a time a large number of I eases of that character — of a character not ( 2539 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2540 ) SHIPPING (Practice)— co;ii;«.)«e(?. ordinai-ily brought in this Division — were taten here. Of course, since 1895 they have been dealt with in the Commercial Court, and I am very glad that this set of rules, which I pub- lished a few months back, have been put in process. I hope they will be extensively used, and I am sure they can, it parties will only use them, be the means of disposing of cases much more promptly and more economically." 'Wat- son & Paekek i\ Geegobt. The " Cairo " Gorell Barnes, Pres. [1908] W. N. 230 — Action in rem — Foreign plaintiffs — Counter- claim — Security for damages. See Shipping — Collision. 52. — Admission by defendants that partly to blame — Burden of proof — Right to begin. See Shipping — Collision. 53. — Appeal. See also under Appeal. — Appeal — Salvage. See under Shipping — Salvage. 2. — Appeal — Sliipping casualty — Loss of life — Suspension of certificate — '• Wronijful act or default" — Dealing ivith certificate — Conduct of case by Board of Trade — Costs of appeal — Merchant Slapping Act, 1894 (57 S; 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 470, siib-s. 1 (a) ; ss. 474, 475 — Shipping Casual- ties Rules, 1895 rr. 11, 12, 13, 20 (i). At the conclusion of the evidence in a formal investigation into the circumstances attending the loss of a British ship whereby loss of life ensued, the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court on (inter alia) the question of whether the loss of the vessel and the loss of life was caused by the wrongful act or default of the master ; but the Board declined to say whether the certificate of the master should be dealt with. The Court found that the loss of life was con- duced to by the wrongful acts and default of the master, and suspended his certificate for twelve months. A Divisional Court, sitting in Admiralty by way of appeal, came to the conclusion that the certificate ought to be returned to the master as the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the loss of life was caused by his wrongful act or default, and the Divisional Court, under the discretionary powers conferred upon it by the Shipping Casualties jEules, 1895, r. 20 (i), ordered the Board of Trade to pay the costs of his success- ful appeal, on the grouud that the Board should have assisted the Court below by intimating whether in their opinion on the evidence the certificate should be dealt with. The " Car- lisle "... Div. Ct. [1906] P. 301 3. — Arbitration — Ship — Berth- note — Arby- tration clause — "Dispute arising at loading port " — Stay of proceedings. By a berth note it was agreed between the pits., .shipowners of Cardiff, and the defts., grain merchants of London and Marioupol, that the plt.'s steamship should proceed to the Sea, of Azov, and there load from the defts.' nominees a cargo of grain and discharge the same in the United Kingdom or on the Continent, the defts. to do the stevedoring at rates as per margin, and SHIPPING (Practice) — continued, " in case of any dispute arising at loading ports under this berth note, it is to be submitted to the Eostof-on-don Bourse Court of Arbitration whose decision is to be final." The vessel loaded a cargo of wheat, barley, and rye at Marioupol, and, for stevedoring, the defts. charged 40 roubles per thousand chetverts in accordance with the tariff in the margin of the berth note and deducted the amount from advance frieght. On tbe accounts being received by their London agents the pits, contended that the defts had overcharged them by not reckoning, in the customary way, the number of poods for barley and rye to the chetvert, and they com- menced a county court action against the defts. to recover the difference : — Held by a Div. Ct. (Sir Samuel Evans, Presi- dent, and Bargrave Deane J.), affirming the decision of the county court judge, that all pro- ceedings in the action must be stayed with a view to arbitration under the clause in the berth note) as the matter in dispute was "What are the proper charges for stevedoring at Marioupol?" and this dispute arose where the stevedoring was done, and where the charges in dispute were made. The " Dawlish "Div. Ct. [1910] P. 339 — Claim for instalment of contract price of ship. See Pkactice — Judgment. 1. — Collision — Action in rem — Damage — Putting out to sea to avoid collision — Loss of anchor and chain. See Shipping — Collision. 2. 4. — Collision in foreign waters — Lis alibi pendens — Service out of Jurisdiction — B. S. C, Order XL, r. 1 (g). A British ship, coming down the Elbe, came into collision with another British ship, which in turn came into collision with a German vessel. The agents at Hamburg of the first British ship and the owners of the German vessel exchanged letters of guarantee ; but the owners of the German vessel did not commence legal proceedings in Germany against the owners of the two British ships until after the owners of the first British ship had commenced an action in personam in this country against the owners of the other British ship and the owners of the German vessel. On an application to discharge an order giving the owners of the first British ship leave — under Order xi., i. 1 (ortionme'nt — Classification of salwrs — Engineer staff. On Nov. 24, 1901, in lat. 10-6 N. and long. 17-9 W., the RiinJc, belonging to the Ocean Steam Navigation Co,, Ld., of 12,482 tons gross register, with engines of 5000 horse-power actual, and 119 hands all told, from Liverpool to Aus- tralia, with a general cargo and 438 passengers, fell in with the Union Castle mail steamship Dunottar Castle, running between the Cape and ( 2549 ) DIGEST OF GASES, 1901— 1910. ( 2550 ) SHIPPING (Salvage) — coiitiumd. this country, disabled by the breaking, of her crank-shaft. The Runic took the Datwttaf Castle in tow, and, the weather being fine, brought her by the following evening to Dakar on the west coast of Africa, the distance towed being 280 miles, and the speed maintained about 9 knots. A sum of 45002. was agreed upon by way of salvage remuneration, and an applica- tion was now made to the Court to apportion that amount amongst the owners, masters, and crew of the Runic : — Held, that, considering the great value of the Runic (the ship, cargo, and freight amounting to S08,3862.), the delay of two and a-half days during which the passengers and crew had to be maintained, and the fact that the service was mainly performed by the steam-power of the vessel, the owners were entitled to 37502. (they paying the costs of the apportionment), the master, upon whom a gi'eat responsibility rested, 3002., and the balance, 4502., to be divided amongst the crew, according to their rating ; but, following 27(6 Minneapolis, [1902] P. 30, the non -navigating portion (surgeon, purser, cooks, stewards, and stewardess) to share as if rated at one-third of their actual rating, whilst the share of the members of the engineers' de- partment, who were all on double watches during the towage, should be increased so as to reckon them as if rated at one-and a-half times their actual rating. The " Dunottae Castle," GoreU Barnes J. [1902] W. N. 70 See next Case. 5. — Appoi'tiotinient — Classification of salvors — Special awards — Non-navlijating portion of the crew — Horsemen. A large steamer crossing the Atlantic with passengers and cargo, and a considerable number of horses and cattle, fell in, during bad weather, with a dismasted barque. After her crew had been taken ofE, and the wreckage cut away, the barque was towed to the Azores. The owners of the barque settled the salvage claim by pay- ment to the owners of the steamer of the sum of 82502. In an action for apportionment ; — Held, that the owners of the salving steamer, which had incurred expenses amounting to 20002., were entitled to 61752. and the master lo 5002., with special awards of 1502., according to rating, to those of the officers and crew who had effected the transfer of the crew of the barque, 3002., according to rating, to those en- gaged In cutting away the wreckage, 252. to the boat's crew employed during that service, and 752., according to rating, to the boat's crew en- gaged in passing ropes, leaving 10252. to be divided amongst the whole crew, but the non- navigating portion (surgeon, purser, cooks, stewards, and stewardess) to share as if rated at one-third of their actual rating, and (distin- guishing The Corlolamis, (1890) 15 P. D. lO.S) the horsemen and their foremen — who were in the employ and pay of the owners of the salving steamer, and, having stations .assigned to them at the boats, were liable to be called upon to perform duties — to share at one-third of the rating of an A.B. The -'MiNxiiAPOLia " Gorell Barnes J. [1902] P. 30 SHIPPING (Salvage) — continued. Note. Followed by Gorell Barnes J., The " Dunottar Castle," [1902] W. N. 70. See preceding Case. 6. — Apportionment — Practice — Navigating officers —Apprentices. On Dec. 26, 1909, the Dunholme — a steel screw steamship of West tiartlepool, of 3313 tons gross register, with engines working up to 1400 horse power effective, a crew of 25 hands all told, and on a voyage from Huelva to Balti- more with 4960 tons of iron ore — sighted in the Atlantic, 230 miles westward of the Straits of Gibraltar, a dismasted vessel, which proved to be the Valkyrie, an iron barque of the port of Iilandal, of 1109 tons gross register, 119 days out from Taltal to Gibraltar for orders, laden with 1650 tons of nitrate. The Dunholme took the Valkyrie in tow, and on Dec. 28 brought her safely into Gibraltar Bay, where she was taken into harbour by a tug engaged for the purpose by the Dunholme. The values were : — Dunholme, 37,5002. ; cargo, 45362. ; freight, 20002. ; total, 44,0362. Valkyrie in her damaged condition, 6802. ; cargo, 13,4002. ; freight (after deducting 4002. paid in advance and 8882. expenses), 3902. ; total, 14,4702. After delivery of the pleadings in an action of salvage brought by the owners, master, and crew of the Dunholme against the owners of the Valkyrie, her cargo and freight, the owners of the Valkyrie, and of her cargo, tendered the sum of 18002., with costs, which was accepted on behalf of the owners, master, and crew of the Dunliolme. A question arose as to the share to be awarded to two apprentices, whose wages were only nominal. The President apportioned the funds as follows : — To the owners of the Dunliolme, 13002., being the usual apportionment under ordinary circumstances of about three-quarters of the total amount. Of the remainder, to the master 1002., to the crew 4002., to be divided according to their rating, the navigating officers (chief and second mate) being treated, in accord- ance with the growing practice, as rated at the higher pay of the chief and second engineer, and the shares of the two apprentices calculatec I as if they were able seamen : see The Raschr, (1873) L. U. 4 A. & E. 127, at p. 129. The "Valkykib" Samuel Evans, Pres. [1910] W. N. 138 7. — Apportionment — Practice — Navigating officer — - Eng ineer officers. Motion for apportionment of 8002. Ijctweeii tlie owners, master, and crew of the steamship Scoresiy, being the agreed sum in respect of salvage services rendered to the steamship Birnam. Per Bargrave Deane .J. The practice is now established in this Court that, for the purpose of the apportionment of a salvage award, the rating of a navigating officer of a salving ship, if less than that of the corresponding grade of engineer officer, shall, unless otherwise ordered, be deemed the same. " THE BiKNAM " Bargprave Deane J. [1907] W. N. 40 ( 2551 ) .DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 2552 ) SHIPPING (Salvage)— 8. — Associated inmrance clubs^ — Agreement hy owners to render mutual assistance — Arbitra- tion— JVotioe to masters — Riglit of orew. An agreement between the associalions in which fishing vessels are insured, that the amount of remuneration payable for salvage services rendered by one of the insured vessels to another shall be settled by the committees of the two associations oonooi'ned, is not binding on the master and crew of the salving vessel, who- are not parties, and have not assented, thereto : — • Quaire, whether such an agreement would not, in respect of the members of the crew, even if assented to by them, be against public policy. The " Margeey " - Div. Ct. [1902] P. 187 9. — Award — Grounds for an Appeal Court reducing tite amount. The defts.' steamship, from Adelaide to London with a cargo of wool, broke down in the Red Sea, owing to damage to her propeller. She was picked up by the pits.' steamship, from Java to Amsterdam with a general cargo, and was towed in six da,y3 about 830 miles to a safe anchorage in Suez Roads. The weather was fine except towards the end of the towage, when the usual northerly wind and some sea were en- countered, and during part of the towage vary- ing currents were met with. -, The salving vessel lost three days and incurred some expense. The values were large, that of the salving vessel, cargo and freight, 88,000^., and that of the salved vessel, cargo and freight, 269,7002. In an action of salvage the sum of 10,0002. was awarded. The defts. appealed on the ground that the amount was excessive : — Held by the C. A. , that the amount awarded could not be supported without doing injustice to those whose property was salved, for, in the Court below, undue weight had been given to the value of the salved property, and the absence of serious danger, either to the salving or to the salved vessel, had not been sufficiently recog- nized. The award was, therefore, reduced to 60002. The " Pobt Hunter " C. A. [1910] P. 348 10. — Commission to examine witnesses. In this case the President (Sir John Bigham), in awarding the sum of 5002. to the pits, in respect of the salvage services rendered to the Augusta, and with reference to an application for an order as to the costs of the commission to Vera Cruz to take evidence said :— The order, as I understand, is that the costs of com- mission should-be costs of the cause. I cannot interfere with that. The registrar will, no doubt, in taxing, see that the costs which arc brought in for this commission are reasonable ; but I want to say this, that in my opinion the order for the commission made in this case ought not to have been made until every effort had been used to avert the calamity — for it is a calamity — of a commission, by trying to obtain from the defts. admissions or statements which they might be glad to make. In the Commercial Court, for a long time, the faces of the judges were set against this kind of evidence, for it destroyed litigation, because it made liti- SHIPPING (Salvage)— fo«2J«««tt Shipping Act, 1894(57 .)'-58 Vict. c. 60),,?. 434, sub-s. 2. By the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, s. 434, sub-s. 2, the improper use or display of the sig- nals of distress, authorized by the Act, renders the master of a vessel liable to pay corhpensation for any labour undertaken, risk incurred, or loss sustained, in consequence of the signal being supposed to be a signal of distress ; but the sub- section does not, by implication, give any right to compensation in favour of those who, in response to signals of distress properly used or displayed, offer services which are not required. The " Blswick Park " - Bucknill J. [1904] P. 76 36. — Standing by — Attempting to tow — &?•- vices rendered at request — Principles upon which awards made. A steamship valued at 27,000Z., from Phila- delphia to Bremen, with a part cargo of petroleum belonging to the owners of the steamship, of the value of 7578Z., the rest naphtha valued at 7000Z., and freight at risk 1743Z., became dis- abled so that she would not steer when about 1000 miles from Falmouth. After making some progress to the eastward, she was fallen in with by steamship No. 1, the master of which agreed to attempt to get her to Fayal ; but, owing to very bad weather, after standing by and steering her for a few miles, he left the dis- abled vessel. She was then picked up by steam- ship No. 2, and towed 265 miles, when, owing to damage to the machinery of the salving vessel and the hawser parting, the disabled steamer was lost sight of. Steamship No. 3 then came up ; but after a difficult towage of about twelve miles left her owing to being short of feed for the horses she was carrying. Steamship No. 4 then established communication with her, and towed her 468 miles to Falmouth being accom- panied by steamship No. 6, which belonged to the same owners as the disabled vessel, and acted as a stand-by in case of emergency. In consoli- dated actions of salvage by the owners, masters, and crews of the five steamships : — Held, by Bucknill J., that steamship No. 1 was entitled to 800Z. by way of payment for work done in standing by and, at request, attempting to tow, within the principle laid down in The Benlarig, (1888) 14 P. D. 3 ; that steam- ship No. 2 was entitled to a salvage award of ( 2S59 ) DIGEST Oi' CASES, 1901— I9l0. ( 2560 ) SHIPPING (Sa,lyB,ge)—co/ttimied. 25001. for having, within the principle laid down in The Atlas, (1862) Lush, 518, and T/u Camellia, (1883) 9 P. D. 27, meritoriously con- tributed to the ultimate safety of the disabled vessel, the award being fixed at a lower standard than that to which the principal salvor was entitled, as the part taken by this salvor by itself would not have produced the successful result ; that steamship No. 3 was, on similar grounds, and as having brought the disabled steamer within sight of the principal salvor, entitled to an award of 800/. ; that steamship No. 4, having towed, the disabled steamer into a port of safety, was entitled, as the principal salvor, to an award of iOOnZ. ; Whilst the owners of steamship No. 5 were entitled, as against the naphtha cargo, to au award of SOOl., and her master and crew, as against ship, cargo and freight, to an award of 1501., making a total of 85501. The " August KoRyF " Bucknill J. [1903] P. 166 27. — TeiuLer — Apportionment — " Runners." On Sept. 30, 1902, in fine weather, the Canada — belonging to the British and North Atlantic Steam Navigation Co., Ld., of 8806 tons gross register, with engines of 6800 indicated horse-power, from Southampton to Belfast to refit after trooping, manned by a crew of eighty- two hands all told, and of the value of 130,000Z. ■ — fell in, about eight miles to the southward of the Shambles, witli the Persia, belonging to the Anchor line, of 3596 tons gross register, from Calcutta, via London and Dunkirk, to Glasgow, with a general cargo, and a crew of seventy hands. She was flying signals of distress, having shortly before broken her after tunnel shaft. The Cariada took the Persia iu tow, and, in about three hours, with the assistance of a tug hired by the Canada, the Persia was safely anchored inside the Portland Breakwater. The value of the Persia was 15,000Z., cargo 10,250/., freight at risk 90/.— total 25,340Z. The Court overruled a tender of 500/. , on the ground of the great value of the salving steamer, and made au award of 700/. With reference to the apportionment of that sum between the owners, master, and crew of the Canada, the learned judge awarded 525/., to the owners on account of the risk to which such a large vessel was exposed in undertaking a salvage service, 75/. to the master in view of the respon- sibility incurred by him, and the balance, 100/., to the crew according to their rating, taking that rating, with regard to such of the crew as were the regular men, according to the articles on the previous outward voyage to the Cape, and treat- ing those engaged only for the run from South- ampton to Belfast " on a footing equivalent to those whose -places they were filling at the time " ■ — that is, a runner put down as an A.B. to take an A.B.'s rating, and a runner put down as a fireman to take a fireman's rating. The " Persia " Gorell Barnes J. [1902] W. N. 210 28. — Tender with denial of Uaiility — Prac- tice— Pleading— H. S. C, 1883, Order XXIL, r. 1. In actions of salvage tried together. A., a ship- builder and owner of lighters of Preston, one of the pits., claimed salvage for services rendered D.D. SHIPPING (Salvage) ~oo«iMJ«e(Z. to the ship Chiltonford, her cargo and freight, off the banks at the mouth of the river Bibble on Dec. 21, 22, and 23, 1900. The alleged services consisted in telephoning to the harbour authorities of Preston as to the position of the Chiltonford, arranging with the dredging master of the Preston Corporation as to despatching tugs, wiring to the Liverpool Salvage Association for their surveyor, sending a salvage lighter belonging to the pit. down to the derelict vessel, and incurring sundry small expenses in telegraphing, in messengers, and in ry. fares. Meld, on the evidence, that the claim of A. must be disallowed, as the information given to the dredging master might have been of some value to the Preston Corporation, but not to the ship, her cargo or freight, and it was not the policy of the Court to encourage the efforts of persons who did not render any material assist- ance. The Court further held that the sura of 20/. paid into Court must be returned to the defts., as the pit. A. was not entitled to take the money out of court, for Order sxil., i. 1, of the K. S. C, 1883, did not apply to salvage actions— The Mona, [1894] P. 265 — and, the case not being one of tender simply — Tli-e Portia, (1845) 9 Jur. 1867 — the pleadings must be treated as amended by leaving the denial of liability stand- ing, and striking out the alternative plea of tender as inserted by mistake as to the practice. The " Chiltonfokd " Jeune Pres. [1901] W. N. 48 — Third vessel— Eight of tug to towage remu- neration though debarred from salvage — Collision. See Shipping — Collision. 87. 29. — Towage contract — Tug and tow to blame for collision with third vessel — Negligence of tug that of her mastet — Services rendered by tug to tow — Claim of crew of tug — Public policy . A sailing vessel, whilst in tow of a steam-tug, under a contract of towage, came into collision with a third vessel, and the tug and tow were found to blame, the negligence of the tug being that of her master. After the collision the tug towed the sailing vessel in her damaged condi- tion to the nearest port of safety, and^ the owners, master, and crew of the tug claimed salvage : — UTeld, by Gorell Barnes J., that the tow having been placed in a difiioulty by the joint negligence of tug and tow, the tug could not claim salvage for services afterwards rendered in extricating the tow from that diflSculty, for the claim of the owners of the tug was barred by reason of the negligence of their agent, the master, having in part caused the mischief from the consequences of which the tow was rescued ; the claim of the master was barred by reason of his being the party actually guilty of the negli- gence in part causing the mischief, and the claim of the crew was also barred in Admiralty on the ground of public policy, which rendered it un- desirable to encourage a crew to hope to recover salvage in respect of services to be rendered to a vessel damaged through the contributory negli- gence of their master. 4n ( 2561 ) DIGEST OF CASES,' ilBOl— 1910. ( 2562"; ) SHIPPING (Salvage) — continned. Ilie Cargo ex CaiMlla, (18H7) L. R. 1 A. & E. 356, followed. The " Due d'Aumale " (No. 2) GoreU Barnes J. [1904] P. 60 30. — Towage oontract between owners of salv- ing and salved vessels — Znd,epe7uient rights of- master and crew of salving vessel. Owners in Liverpool were informed by tele- graph that their vessel was lying disabled off the south coast of Ireland, and agreed with the owners of a tug, known to be in the neighbour- hood of the disabled vessel, that their vessel should be towed to Liverpool on the usual towage terms per tide ; but, before the owners of the tug could instruct their tug master, and before the agreement was made, the tug master had proceeded to the disabled vessel, and had com- menced towing her to Liverpool. In an action of salvage brought by the owners, master, and crew of the tug against the owners of the disabled vessel, her cargo and freight : — Held, by the President (Sir F. H. Jeune), that the owners of the tug were bound by the towage agreement ; but, following The Inch- maree, [1899] P. Ill, that her master and crew had acquired independent rights which must be dealt with on salvage terms. The " Fkiesland " Jeune, Pree. [1904] W. N. 160 ; [1904] P. 845 — Underwriters — Salvage, award. Claim of underwiters to — Suing and labouring clause. See llfSUBANOB (Maeinb). 26. 31. — Value of salved vessel fm- purposes of award, A steam trawler, having fallen in with a disabled steam vessel in the North Sea, towed her to a position off Aberdeen ; but as, in the heavy weather prevailing, the master of the trawler was unwilling to incur the risli, without a pilot, of taking a large disabled vessel into the harbour, signals were made for a pilot and a tug, in repponse to which a tug came out and ofEered to pilot and tow the disabled vessel in. The master of the disabled vessel declined to accept her services, and after some delay, the trawler was told to go ahead. The hawser parted, and the disabled vessel drove ashore, involving an expense of 1150Z. to iioat her, and 5600?. for repairs. In an action for salvage brought by the owners, master, and crew of the trawler, it was contended by the owners of the disabled vessel that the award, if any, must be based, not on 8500Z., the value of the disabled vessel before she stranded, but on the amount she proved to be worth to them, namely, 1750?. :— Meld, by GoreU Barnes J., that the trawler had done all that could reasonably be expected of her, and was entitled to an award of 750?., based on a valuation of 8500Z., and being the value of the disabled vessel at the time that she was brought within reach of the tug. The " Gebmauia '■ GoreU Barnes J. [1904] P. 131 Seamien. Seamen's and Soldier's False Cliaracters Art, 1906 (4 Edw. 7, c. .5). Merchant Shipping, Matters and Seamen — Distressed Seamen, Regulations, April 9, 1908, SHIPPING (Seamen) — continued, under s. 40 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, as to Distressed Seamen. St. E. & 0. 1908, No. 343. Pi-ice Id. 1. — Accommodation for seamen — Lasoars — Mercliant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 c$- 58 Tict. c. 60), a. 210. The provisions of s. 210 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which require that a certain amount of space shall be provided for seamen on board any British ship, ajiply to Lascars serving on board such ships. PENINSULAR AND ORIEN- TAL Steam Navigation Co. v. Bex Mathew J. [1901] 2 K. B. 686 — Alien' — Compensation for death — Negligence of 'British subject — Cause of action arising on high seas. See Negligence. 1. — Collision — Repatriation of seamen — Payment by consul — Norwegian law. See Shipping — Seamen. 8. 2. — Contract of service — Contraband of war — Relusal to proceed— Offence against discipline — Order of Naval Court — Discharge of seaman — Action for wages — 3Ierchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 ^' 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 225, sub-s. 1 (c) ; s. 483. A naval Court summoned under the pro- visions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in dealing with the offence of continued wilful dis- obedience by a seaman to lawful commands, may put in exercise all its statutory powers so far as they are applicable to the case, including the power to discharge the seaman from his ship, and is not limited to the powers of punishment con- ferred by the Act on a Court of summary jurisdiction in respect of the same offence. An order regularly made by a duly constituted naval Court within the scope of its jurisdiction is conclusive in any subsequent legal proceedings of the rights of all the parties interested, whether they are parties to the proceedings before the naval Court or not ; consequently, where by such order a seaman is discharged from his ship, the order is a bar to a civil action by the seaman against the owner for wrongful dismissal, not- withstanding that the owner was not a, party to the criminal proceedings. The pit., who was engaged on a ship for a term of three years, which covered the period of the Russo-Japanese war, on the arrival of the ship at Yokohama, refused to continue the voyage on the ground that the ship was carrying contraband of war. At the instance of the master a naval Court was convened, which found tlie pit., with others of the crew, guilty of continued wilful disobedience to lawful commands and of insub- ordination prejudicial to the owner's interests, and rejected the men's plea with respect to the carriage of contraband ; and the Court discharged the men from the ship and forfeited their wages. In an action by the pit. against the owner for wrongful dismissal and for wages, it appeared that the ship was carrying contraband at the time of the plt.'s refusal to proceed. Held (affirming the decision of the Lord Chief Justice), that the order of the naval Court was a bar to the action. Hutton v. Bas Steam Shipping Co. - C. A. [1907] "W. N. 42 ; [1907] 1 K, B. 884 ( 256;} ) DIOEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2664 ) SHIPPING CBea,men)—conimued. 3. — Contract of set-vice for commercial voyage — Sefu^al to proceed to belligerent poH — Carriage of coiUraband — Wages — Maintenance — Damage for loronqful discharge — Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 # 58 Vict. c. 60), ss. 1:U, 187, 188, 189. British seamen signed an agreement for a voyage from Cardiff to any ports within certain limits, including Hong Kong, knowing that Eussia and Japan were at war, that the ship was to carry coal to Hong Kong, and that coal was treated by both belligerents as contraband of war. At Hong Kong tlie master required the men to proceed with the coal to a naval base in Japan within the limits, and on their refusal illegally procured their imprisonment and left them at Hong Kong and proceeded to Japan without paying them their wages : — Held that, the agreement being for a peace- ful commercial voyage, the men were justified in refusing to go to Japan at the risk of war capture and its consequences ; and that they were entitled to wages until the final settlement, and to the cost of maintenance for the same period under the head of damages for wrongful discharge. Decision of the C. A., [1907] 1 K. B. 670, afiBrmed, Lord Atkinson dissenting as to the amount recoverable. Palace Shipping Co. v. Cainb - H. L. (E.) [19071 W. N. 195 ; [1907] A. C. 386 4. — Contract of service for ordinary royage — Carriage of contraband — Termination of voyage by capture^ — Right to wages — Damages — Mer- chant Shipping Act, 189i (57 Si 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 158. A British seaman signed an agreement to serve on a British ship on an ordinary trading voyage to the East, and between ports in the East, to end at a final port of discharge in the United Kingdom. Whilst the ship was in the East war was declared between Russia and Japan, and the ship whilst carrying a cargo of contra- band of war was captured by one of the belli- gerents and confiscated by a prize court. The master knew, but the crew did not know, that the ship was carrying contraband. The crew were sent back to London, and sufl^ered hardships on the journey : — Held, that, as the shipowners had broken the agreement by altering the character of the voyage, the service of the seamen was not ter- minated "by reason of the loss of the vessel" within the meaning of s. 158 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, when the ship was captured, and that he was entitled to recover his wages up to the date of his arrival in London, and damages for breach of the agreement. Austin Feiaks Steam Shipping Co. v. Steack Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 315 • Costs — Criminal Pi'osecutions. See under Ceiminal Law- -Costs. 6. — Medical attendmice, Expenses of— Sea- wan injured in service of ship — Expenses after seaman's return to home port — Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 ^- 58 Viot. u. 60), s. 207, suh-s. 1, SHIPPINO (Seamen) — continued. A shipowner is not liable under the Merchant Shipping Act, .1894, s. 207, sub-s. 1, for expenses of necessary surgical and medical attendance upon a seaman injured in the service of the ship incurred after the seaman has been brought back to a port of the United Kingdom. Anderson ■('. Kaynbe - C. A. [1903] W. N. 62 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 689 See under SHIPPING — Wages. 6. — Offences — Foreign ship — Persuading seamen to desert from — Merchant Shijjping Act, 1894 (57 S- 58 Vict. c. 60), «. 236, sub-s. 1. By s. 236, sub-s. 1, of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, " If a person by any means whatever persuades or attempts to persuade a seaman or apprentice .... to desert from his ship " he shaU be guilty of an offence. Held, that this section applies only to British ships, and does not make it an offence to per- suade a seaman to desert from a foreign ship lying in a port in this country. Poll v. Dambb Div. CI. [1901] W. N. 132 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 579 7. — Offences — Shi2J — Fishing boat — Seamen — DeseHion or absence without leave — Wilful disobedience — DeseHion which is also wilful disobedience — Punishment — Merchant Shipping Ad, 1894 (57 S,' 58 Vict. (. 60), s. 376, sub-s. 1. A seaman may be convicted of the offence of wilfully disobeying a lawful command of the master, under s. 376, sub-s. 1 (c/), of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, although 'the act of dis- obedience amounts to the offence of desertion or absence .without leave under («) or (J) of s. 376, sub-s. 1. Edgill v. J. & G. Alwaed, Ld. Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 239 8. — Repatriation of seamen — Payment by consul — Jforwegian law. By the Norwegian Maritime Code, if a ship is " lost," the expenses of sending home the master and crew are defrayed by the State, and, therefore, as such expenses do not ultimately faU upon the owners of the ship which is lost, they are not recoverable by them from the owners of the wrong-doing ship which caused the loss. The " Craftsman " Bargrave Deane J. [1906] P. 153 — Seaman — Forfeiture of wages — Deduction by consent. See Shipping — Wages. 3. — " Seaman " — Hand assisting to navigate barge on river — Employers' liability. See Master and Skevant — Com- pensation. 164. — " Seaman " — Workmen's compensation, See Master and Seevant — Com- pensation. 140, 143, 154—164. 9. — Shipim'ecJi — " Distres.sed seamen" — Ex- l)euxes of maintenance and passage home — Mer- chant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 J),- 58 Vict. c. 60), ss.no, 191, W?,— Merchant Shippinq (Mercantile Marine Fund) Art, 1898 (61 ^- 62' Vict. o. 44), s. 4. A seaman was shipwrecked abroad, and vvas there paid his wages up to the time of the ship- wreck. The amount so paid was more than 4n2 ( 2666 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— I9l0. ( 2666 ) SHIPPING (Seamen)— co«_). P. C. [1901] A. C. 362 Shares. — Ship — Priorities — Eegistored owner holding as trustee — Negligence. See Trustee — Shares. 1. Shipowners' Negligence (Bemedies). Shipowners' A"eyliij/e)ice (Hi'medles') Art, 1905 (5 Ji!da\ 7, c. 10), enlarges the rcme.dicx of person injured hy the negligence of shipnaners. Ship's Agent. — Salvage — Agreement — Position of ship's agent — Eatification. See Shipping — Salvage. 1. Short Cause Bules. See under SHIPPING — Practice. Stowaway. — Liability of master of ship bringing — Unde- sirable alien. See Alien. 1. Tonnage. 1. — "Deck cargo" — Coal carried on dechfur iise on voyage — " Timlter, stores, or other goods " ^Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 S,- 58 Vict, c. CD), ... .S5. Coals cnri'icd in an UTicovered space upon llic dedc of a ship, though intended for use in the ship's fires upon the voyage, come within the words " stores or other goods," and are carried " as deck cargo," within the meaning of h. 85 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. ( 2567 ) DTGRRT OF CASES, 1901— TOIO. ( 2568 ) SHIPPING (Tonnage)— oflMiiMMarf. Dicta in Richmond Hill Steamsh'q) Co. v. Corpomtion of Tnnity lionise, [1896] 2 Q. B. 134, not followed. Judgment of Bray J., [1907] 1 K. B. 601. affirmed. Caien Line of Steamships, Ld. v. Tbinity House Coepoeation C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 528 Towage. 1. — Action ill, personam — Practice — Specially indoned ivrit — Judgineiit by default — R. S. C, 1883, Order XUI., r. 3. On Deo. iri, 1902, the Elliott Steam Tug Co. of London, entered into a contract with R. & W. Leyland & Co., of Liverpool, agents of the Sooiete de Navigation du Sud Quest, of No. 8, Cours du Chapeau Eouge, Bordeaux, in the Eepublic of France, to tow the sailing ship Madeleine from Havre Eoads to Antwerp, and, when loaded, down Channel to abreast of Falmouth for the sum of \oQl. On Jan. 16, 1903, the same tug co. entered into a similar contract with the same parties in respect of the sailing ship Andre Theodore. The towage contracts were performed and accounts were duly rendered ; but payment not being made, the Elliott Steam Tug Co., as pits., on Oct. 15, 1903, obtained the leave of Buoknill J. to serve notice out of the jurisdiction of a specially indorsed writ upon the defts., the Societe de Navigation — owners of the Madeleine and of the Andre Theodore — the time for appear- ance being limited to twelve days. The notice was served on Oct. 19, and the time expired on Nov. 1. Gorell Barnes J., in giving judgment for 300L with costs, but without interest, said that the general rule applied in Admiralty as elsewhere, so that the pits, should have been allowed to obtain judgment without a hearing in Court. The "Madeleine" and ''Andre Theodoeb" Gorell Barnes J. [1904] W. N. 14 — Collision. See under Shipping — Collision. — Contract — Independent rights of master and crew of salving vessel. See Shipping— Salvage. 30. Voyage. 1. — Voyage, Agreement fm- — End of 'Doyage — Election by master — Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 4- .58 Via. c. 60), n. 114, 115. A fireman signed an agreement for a voyage, not exceeding one year, from Cardiff to any ports within certain limits, and to end at such port as might be required by the master. The ship left Cardiff, loaded a cargo in the Black Sea, and went to Southampton, where she dis- charged the whole of her cargo. The fireman then claimed his discharge and his wages. The master required him to go on to Cardiff : — Held that, upon the true construction of the agreement, the voyage was the voyage of the ship, not of the cargo ; that as a matter of fact the voyage did not end at Southampton, and that the fireman was bound to go on to Cardiff. Decision of the C. A., The Searsdale [1906] W. N. 24 ; [1906] P. 103, affirmed. Boaed op Teade r. Baxter. The " Soaesdale." H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 373 SHIPPING (Voyage)— oo7itin'u-ed. 2. — Ship — Agreeinetvt for voyage — End of voyage. The respondent signed articles to serve as a seaman on board the steamer Sarstoon, of which the appellant was master, " for a voyage of not exceeding two years' duration .... to end at such [)ort in the United Kingdom or Continent of Europe (within home trade limits) as may be required by the master." The Sarstoon sailed on Jan. 9, 1910, with a cargo to the West Indies and rotui-ned with a general cargo to Havre, where part of the cargo was discharged, thence to London, where a further part of the cargo was discharged, and then to Rotterdam, where the remainder of the cargo was discharged. She then went to the Tj'ne, where she arrived on April 3, 1910. On her arrival there the respon- dent applied to be paid off, but the appellant refused on the ground that the voyage was not terminated, and required the respondent to go on with the ship to Glasgow. At the time of the ship's arrival in the Tyne she had on board between 100 and 200 tons of bunker coal, which amount was sufficient to have taken her to Glasgow. She then took on board 1,300 tons more of bunker coal. The respondent on April 5 took out a summons under s. 164 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, claiming that he was entitled to his discharge, and that the sum of %l. 8n. Hd. was due to him for wages. The justices were of opinion, as a matter of law, that the voyage had under the circumstances terminated in the Tyne, and held that the respondent was entitled to his discharge and to be paid the wages due to him : — Held that, although under such articles as those signed by the respondent, the voyage may come to an end without any express election by the master, and although, if the voyage has in fact so come to an end, the master cannot prolong its continuance by requiring the seaman to go on to a further port, the mere facts that the ship has discharged her cargo, that she has arrived in a home port, and that she has there taken on board coal required for a future voyage, do not conclusively shew that the stipulated voyage has so terminated. Appeal allowed. Haylbtt )'. Thompson - Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 227 1. — Foreign ship — IHsbursements — ^^'ages — Mortgage — Lex loci — Zex fori — '^Privileged debt" — Maritime lien — Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 4- 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 167. In proceedings in rem by the foreign master of an Argentine vessel in an English port, the claim of the master consisted of — (1.) wages as supercargo, and afterwards as master ; (2.) dis- bursements whilst acting as supercargo, and afterwards as master. On the question of priority as against a mortgagee intervening : — Held, by Phillimore J., that, though by the lex loci the master could only claim his wages and disbursements for the last voyage as' a " privileged debt " in priority to the mortgagee, the question was one of remedy, and therefore the lex fori applied, under which, by reason of the maritime lien conferred by s. 167 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Viet. ( 2B69 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2570 ) SHIPPING (yfageB)—coiitmued. c. 6U), he could claim, in priority, the whole of his wages and disbursements whilst master. He was also entitled to add thereto his Avages as a eeamau whilst acting as supercargo, aud such disbursements as he liad then made by way of advances to the crew on account of their wages. T/ic JliJfnnI, (1858) Sw. 362, discussed. The " TAGtts " Phillimore J. [1903] P. 44 2. — Forc'ujii ship — Wages — Victuallimj allowance — Repaiys — Maritime lien — Poasessm-y lien — .Prioriti/ — A'ecessaries. Seamen on board an Italian vessel were engaged to serve at 40 lire per man per month with a further sum of -10 lire per month in lieu of victualling. They remained by the vessel after slie was taken into a shipwright's dry dock for extensive repairs, and, whilst there, the master, on behalf of himself and the crew, arrested the vessel in an action for wages and disbursements. The vessel was sold by order of the Court, and the crew sent back to their country ; but the proceeds proved insufficient to meet the claim of the master and crew for wages, etc., and the claim of the shipvvi'ight for repairs. On the question of priority : — JSeld, by Phillimore .!., that the victualling allowance was equivalent to wages, carrying a maritime lien, and, therefore, the total claim of the master and crew for wages and disbursements up to the date of the vessel entering the dry dock, together with the cost of subsistence from the time of leaving t)ie vessel until leaving the country, and the cost of repatriation ranked first, with costs, including in such costs such sum as the registrar should allow by way of subsistence money fi'om the date of the writ to the time of leaving the vessel ; then — following T/ie Gustaf, (1862) Lush, 506, and 'flie Immacolata Conoexlone, (1883) 9 P. D. 37 — the common law possessory lien of the shipwright, based on his control over the vessel, displaced the maritime lien of the master and crew from the time of entry into the dry dock, and gave the shipwright priority in respect of his claim and costs, altliough the master and crew remained on board, and though the repairs ordered had not been completed. The " Tekgeste " Phillimore J. [1903] P. 26 3. — Forfeiture of wages — Desertion — Deduc- tion hi/ consent — Payment throvgh or in 2>resence of superintendent — Merchant Sliipping Act, 1894 (.-.7 Jf 58 Vict. c. 60), ss. 131, 221, 232. A seaman deserted from a ship at a foreign port, thereby committing an offence under s. 221 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which rendered him liable to forfeit his wages then due and subsequently earned, and to satisfy any excess of wages paid by the owners-to a substitute at a higher rate. The seaman returned to the United Kingdom in another ship of which the appellant was master. In order to escape a pro- .secution for desertion by the owners of the iirst ship, the seaman agi'eed to have deducted from the wages earned on the homeward voyage the extra expense which had been incurrefl by them in jiroviding a substitute after his desertion. The superintendent of mercantile marine before whom the seaman was being discharged refused to be present at the payment of the wages on SHIPPING (yi2L%f!,fr)—cmtvimed. the ground that the deduction was illegally made. The balance due (o the seaman after making the deduction was paid to him by the appellant in the absence of the superinteudent. The appellant was summoned under s. 131 of the Jlei'chaut Sliipping Act, 1894, for having paid the \\'a.gcs uthei'wisc thii,n "througli or in the preseucc of the superintendent," and was con- victed : — Held, tliat the conviction was right ; that there is no power to make a deduction from a seaman's wages on the ground of forfeiture after desertion, although with the consent of a seaman, except under an order of a Court of competent jurisdiction. Kkslakb ii. Board of Tkade Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 453 4. — blaster's " wages " — ISxtra wages — Emoluments — Dishirsements — Ziahilities — Mari- tlm-e lien — Costs of defending action on bill of exchange — Merchant Shipping Act., 1894 (57 S; 58 Vict. o. 60), ss. 167, 742. The costs incurred by a master in unsuooess- fully defending an action on a dishonoured bill of exchange drawn by him on his owners for the price of coals supplied to the ship will not be deemed " liabilities properly incurred by him (as master) on account of the ship" within tlie meaning of s. 167 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, unless the defence was reasonably necessary in the interests of the ship. The term ''wages" in s. 167 will include a bonus of 50Z. promised to a master by his owners during a voyage, in addition to his .agreed wages, on condition that he remained with the vessel, and satisfied his owners that he had done all in his power to promote the interests of the ship. The " Elmville " (Ko. 2) Jeune, Pres. [1900] P. 422 — Seaman — Wages, Right to — Termination of voyage by capture. See Shipping — Seamen. 4. — Seamen — Refusal to proceed to belligerent port — Right to wages. See Shipping — Seamen. 3. — Seamen — Wages — " Loss of ship " — Capture. See Shipping — Seamen. 10. — Ship — Seaman — Contract of service — Contra- band of war — Refusal to proceed — Offence against discipline. See Shipping — Seamen. 2. Wharfinger. — Limits of liability of wharfinger — Carriage of goods by lighter from ship to ware- house. See Whaefingee. Wireless Telegraphy. Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904 (4 Mdir. 7, c. 24), provides fm' tlie regulation of wireless telegraphy. Workmen's Compensation. See under Majstek ano Servant — Compensation. ( 257] ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2572 ) SSirrnUG— continued. Wreck. — Collision — Removal of wreck — Liability for expenses — Abandonment — Thames Con- ' sei'vanoy — Costs. See Shipping — OoUision. 92. . — Collision — Thames Conservancy, Wreck raised by — Expenses of raising. ■ See Shipping — Collision. 91. ■ Insurance, Marine — Value of vsrreck- structive total loss. See Insurance (Masine). 3.5. -Con- SHIPWEECK — " Distressed seamen " — Expenses of maintenance and passage home. See Shipping — Seamen. 9. — Salvage. See under Shipping — Salvage. 9. SHIPWEIGHT — Workmen's compensation — Employment "in or about factory" — Ship in dock. See Mastbb AifD SBBVAifT — Compensa- tion. 166. SHOE — ^Lea.ses of machines for shoe manufacture — Restrictive condition as to user — Restraint of ti-ade. See Canada — Leases. 3. SHOOTING— At dog — Malicious injury to pro- perty. See Criminal Law — Malicious Damage. 1. — Tidal and navigable river— Eight of public to shoot wild fowl — Custom — Birds of warren. See Foreshore. 2. SHOOTING EIGHTS— Game. See under Game. SHOP. Sliop Clubs Act, 1902 (2 Ediv. 7, c. 21), pro- hibits compulsory membership of unregistered, shop clubs or thrift funds, and regulates s/uch as are duly registered. Shop Hours Act, 190i (4 Edw. 7, c. 31), prondes for early closing of shops. Shops Regulations — Closing order's. Rules dated Feb. 13, 1905, made by Secretary of State for the Home Department, under s. 7 of the Shop Hours Act, 1904. St. S. & 0. 1905, No. 96. Sliops Regulation. Closing Orders. Regula- tion, Jume 3, 1908, under s. 7 of the Shop Hours Act, 1904. St. R. & 0. 1908, No. 481. Price Id. — By-law — Ultra vires — Power of magistrates to close shops at 10 P.M. See Scottish Law. 23. — Clubs— Shop Clubs — Friendly Societies. See under Friendly Society. — Covenant by landlord " not to let " adjoining premises for a similar business — Injunc- tion. See Landlord and Tenant. 47. 1. — Temporary neivspaper stall at railway station— Notice of hours of employment of young SHOP — continued. persoTis — Shop Hours Act, 1892 (55 4" 56 Vict. 0. 62), ss. 4, 9. By the Shop Hours Act, 1892, s. 4, " In every shop in which a young person is employed a notice shall be kept exhibited by the employer in a conspicuous place referring to the provisions of this Act and stating the number of hours in the week during which a young person may lawfully be employed in that shop." By s. 9, " In this Act, unless the context otheryise requires, ' shop ' means retail and wholesale shops, markets, stalls, and warehouses in which assistants are employed for hire. . . . ." A iirm of newsagents employed a boy at their bookstall at a ry. station, upon which stall the notice required by s. 4 was duly exhibited. For a portion of the morning the b»y was employed in delivering newspapers in a village about two miles distant, and in selling newspapers on the platform of the village station from a temporary structure put up each morning by himself and consisting of a board lying on trestles ; upon this structure no notice under s. 4 was exhibited : — Held, that the board and trestles were not a shop within the meaning of s. 4 of the Act, and that the employment of the boy was at the book- stall of the principal station, where a notice was exhibited : — Semble, that a stall composed of a board and trestles would be a shop within the meaning of s. 3 of the Act, which limits the hours of employ- ment of young persons in or about shops. W. H. Smith & Son v. Kyle Div. Ct. [1902] 1. K. B. 286 — Unlawful gaming — Containing automatic machine. See Gaming. 19. SHORT CAUSE— Practice. See under PRACTICE — Short cause. SHORTHAND NOTES — Costs — Transcript — Taxing Master — Discretion. See Costs. 63. — Shorthand notes of proceedings — Criminal law — Leave to appeal. See Criminal Law — Appeal. 39. — Supplying judge's notes on 'appeal. See Appeal. 8. — Transcript of — Costs. See Costs. 64. SHORTHAND Vf'RlTE&S— Criminal Appeal Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. n)—Shortha/)id writers appointed under, will continue to act until further order. Dated April 19, 1909. W. N. 1909 (April 24), p. 141. — Appointment of, as commissioner — Commis- sion to examine' witnesses. See Divorce— Practice. 17. SHORT TITLES— /S/tort Titles Act, 1896 (59 ^ 60 Vict. c. li), facilitates the citation of sundry Acts of Parliament. SIAM — Foreign Jurisdition. See under Foreign Jurisdiction. ( 2573 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2r,71 ) SIDINGS— Railway company. See under Railway— Sidings. SIERBA LEONE — Money had and received — Interest not reooverahle — Costs in action to which the Crown is a paHy — Practice. Although interest is recoverable both at law and in equity on money obtained by fraud and retained by fraud, yet in a case where the Crown as pit. intentionally put aside all question of fraud and accepted as repayment as money paid by mistalie, no evidence being ofEered in the civil suit of fraudulent pretences which had been proved against the deft, in a Criminal Court : — Held, that interest was not recoverable ; and that the order appealed from, granting interest on the ground' of special damage, must be reversed without costs. In future the Bd. will adhere to the practice of the House of Lords, and the rule as to costs in cases between the Crown and a subject will be that the Crown neither pays nor receives costs unless the case is governed by some local statute, or there are exceptional circumstances iustifying a departure from the ordinary rule. Johnson v. Rex P. C. [1904] A. C. 817 SIGNAL-BOX — Poor-rate — Assessment — In- directly productive portion of railway. See Rates. SIGNATURE — Necessity for signature by two justices — Nuisance in respect of drains — Order to abate. See Nuisance. 9. — Promissory note — Company — Signature by managing director — Personal liability. See Company — Promissory Note. 1. — Promissory note — Signature in blank — Fraudu- lent negotiation of note by agent — Right of bona fide indorsee for value — Negotiable instrument. See Peomissoey Note. 2. — Shipbroker — Charterparty — Signature as agent — Eight to sue as principal. See Peincipal and Agent. 12. SIGNIFICATION — Transfer of debt — Appeal from Quebec. See Canada — Debts. 1. SINGAPORE, SETTLEMENT OF. See under Steaits Settlements. SINGAPORE HARBOUR— CoUisioii-Inevitable accident — Onus of proof — Compulsory pilotage. See Shipping — Collision, .^g. SINKING FUND— Application of profits to— Income tax — Burgh waterworks. See Revenue — Income Tax. 42. SITE— Charitable trust Trustees— Decision of majority binding minority — Will — Con- struction. See Chaeity. 47. SKYLIGHT — Ancient lights — Enjoyment by " consent or agreement " — " Windows overlooking " — Prescription. See Light and Aie. 17. SLAG — Sale of goods — Interest in land — Slag to be severed and removed by purchaser — Breach of contract — Defect in title — , Damages. See Vendoe and Purchaseb— Sale of Goods. 1. SLANDER. See under DEFAMATION —Slander. SLAUGHTER-HOUSE — Licence — Co7iditioii — Limitation of time — Less than twelve months — Invalidity — Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890 (53 4- 54 Vict.c. 59), s. 29. By s. 29 of the Public Health Acts Amend- ment Act, 1890, licences for the use of places as slaughter-liouses shall be in force for such time, not being less than twelve mouths, as the urban authority shall think &t to specify in such licences. An urban authority granted to the appel- lant a licence, dated Aug. 22, 1906, by which certain premises were licensed to be used as a slaughter-house " until Dec. 31, 1906." Before Dec. 31, 1906, the appellant applied for, but was refused, the renewal of the licence. The appellant was subsequently convicted for having used the premises as a slaughter-house on Feb, 4, 1907, without having a licence in force : — Held, that the conviction was wrong, for, there being no power to impose a condition limiting the duration of the licence to less than twelve months, the licence must be read as extending to Aiig. 22, 1907. Tayloe v. WlNSPOED UEBAN DISTEICT COUNCIL. Div. Ct. [1907] W. N. 162 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 396 8. — Licence — Local Government — Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847 (10 .|' 11 Vict, c. 34), s. 126. A licence for the use and occupation of a place as a slaughter-house granted under s. 126 of the Towns Police Clauses Act, 1847, is a per- sonal licence, and expires at the death of the licensee, and does not enure for the benefit of subsequent occupiers of the place. Goodwin c. SALE Div. ct. [1907] "W. N, 106 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 278 SMALL BANKRUPTCY— Costs— Taxation. See Bankeuptoy — Costs. 10. SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS — Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, 0. 54), is an Act to amend the law with respect to Small Holdings and Allotments. Small Holdings and Allatmsnts Act, 1908 (8 Ediv. 7 c. 36), consolidates the enactments unth respect to Small HoldiTigs and Allotments in England and Wales. Allotments, England, Order, Mar. 20, 1908, under s. 20, sub-s. 3, of Small Holdings and Allotments Act, \'M7 , fixing Appointed Day for Transfer of Property and Liabilities under the Allotments Acts. St. R. & 0., 1908, No. 251. Price Id. ( 2575 ) DIGK.ST OF CARES, 1901—1910. ( 2r,7fi ) SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS— coMff^. Allotments, England. The Small Holditujs and Allotments (Compulsory IHring) Regula- tions, Mar. 24, 1908. St. E. & 0. 1908, No. 309. Price \d. Allotments, England. The Small Holdings and Allotments {Compulsoni Purchase) liegula- tions, Mar. 2i, 1908. St. S. & 0. 1908, No. 310. Price Id. The Small Holdings and Allotments {Coni- jmlsori/ PurcJMse) RegulMtions, 1908 {jVo. 2). Bated Dec. 7, 1908. St. B. & 0. 1908, No. 1178. Small Holdings and AUotment.i — Small Hold- ing.i and Allotments (Costs^ JRvles, 1910, dated Mar. 5, 1910, made ty tlie Board of Agricultwe and Fi.iheries, with the eoncwrence of the Lord Chancellor, pursuant to paragraph (6.) of Part I. of- tlie First Schedule to the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 36), Reprint from W. N. 1910 (April 2), p. 101. See CuEKENT Index, 1910, 'p. oxix. SmaU Holdings Act, 1910 (10 Edw. 7 ^- \ Geo. 5, c. 34), is an Act toproride compensation to tenants on whom, notice to quit is served with a view to the use of tlie land for the provision of small holdings vn^er the SmaU Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908. SMALLPOX HOSPITAL— Quia timet action- Evidence — Admissibility. See Nuisance. 10. SMOK£ — Black smoke —Evidence. See Nuisance. 3. — Chimney of private dwelling house — Club. See NUISAJJCB. 2. — Chimney sending forth black smoke — Funnel of steam tug — London. See Nuisance. 5. — Kailw'ay — iSngines — Consumption of smoke " as far as practicable." See Railway— Engines. 1. SNOW — Collision — In or approaching falling snow — Sound signal — Speed. See Shipping — Collision. 61. — Shipping — Collision — In or approaching fall- ing snow — Sound signals — Speed. See Shipping — Collision. 61. — Street railway — Conditional power to remove snow from railed tracks — Implied obli- gation to remove snow from the streets. See Newfoundland. 3. — Tramway — Removal of snow. See Tramways. 5. SOCIETY OF FRIENDS— Charitable trust. jSfee Charity. 19. SOLDIERS. See under Army and Navy. SOLDIER'S WILL. See under Probate— Soldier's Will. SOLENT — Collision in the Solent — Narrow Channel — Compulsory pilotage. See Shipping— Collision. 62. SOLICITING -Sale of business— Soliciting old customers. See Goodwill. 1. SOLICITOR. B. S. C, Order lii., rr. 25, 1&—X<:w Jiulci. Reprint from W. N. 1901 (July 13), p. 235. See Current Index, 1901, p. cii. Solicitors Act, 1877 — Order under ss. 10 and 13 of the Solicitors Act, 1877. W. N. 1905 (Mar. 18), p. 81. See Current Index, 1906, p. xciv. Solicitors Act, 1906 (G Edw. 7, o. 21), is an Act to amend the Solicitors Acts. Accounts, col. 2576. Advice, col. 2577. Affidarits, col. 2577. Agency, col. 2577. Banhruptcy, col. 2577. Certificate, col. 2577. Charging Orders, col. 2577. Colonial Solicitors, col. 257K. Compromise, col. 2578. Contract of Service, col. 2579. Costs, col. 2580. Fidueiary Relation, col. 2603. Fraud, col. 2606. Justices of the Peace, col. 2606. Lien, col. 2606. Limitatio?is, Statute of, col. 2607. Misappropriation, col. 2608. Miscondtict, col. 2608. Overseer, col. 2608. Partnership, col. 2608. Practice, col. 2609. Privilege, col. 2609. Probate, col. 2609. Representation, eol. 2609. Restraint on Trade, col. 2609. Striking off Roll, col. 2610. Trustee, col. 2610. Undertakings, col. 2610. Unqualified Person, col. 2611. Accounts. 1. — Solicitor-mortgagee — Settled accounts — Overcharges — Opening ,iHcd. charge him nothing for costs if he won his action, and, if he lost it, to charge only the same amount for costs as he would have recovered from the opposite party had the action been successful, is not an agreement which is required by s. -t of the Attorneys and Solicitors Act. 1S70, to be in writing. .Jenniiiijx v. Johnson, (1873) L. K. 8 G. P. 425, approved. Decision of Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. .592, reversed. Clare r. .Joseph C. A. [1907] W. N. 116 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 369 Note. Followed by G. A., Gundry v. Salnshury, [1910] 1 K. B. 645. See No. 40, ielow. 2. — Agreement hi wnting — Bill of costs — Taxation — Contentious mattei-s — Signature — Enforcement — Attorneys and Solicitors Aot, 1870 (33 # 34 Vict. c. 28), s. 4. Adjourned summons in an action of Balm v. French, reported on other points, [1907] 1 Oh. 428. The pit., a solicitor, claimed in an account which was being taken before the Master a sum of 635Z. alleged to be due under a memorandum signed by the defts., in which they agreed the balance due to the pit. for his costs of contentious business previously done by him on their behalf. This memorandum was referred to in a letter signed by the plt.'s firm and written by them to the defts. : — Held, on the facts, that there was an agree- ment in writing signed by both parties ; that even if that were not so there was an agreement signed by the defts., and that was a sufficient agreement in writing within s. 4 of the Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1870 ; and that the agree- ment must be referred to the taxing Master for examination. Pontifex V. Farnham, (1893) 41 W. E. 238, doubted. Bake v. Feench (No. 2) Warrington J. [1907] W. N. 144 : [1907] 2 Ch. 216 — Amended bill. Delivery ot — Action for work done — Verdict for plaintiff — Reference to ascertain amount due. See No. 14 below, — Appeal — Order whether final or interlo- cutory. See Appeal. 10. — Appearance by defendant in person — Subse- quent employment of solicitor — Irregu- larity — Costs — Taxation — Practice. See Costs. 11. — Bankruptcy — Solicitor and client — Cash accounts — Draft bills of costs — Con- tentious business — Delivery of detailed bills waived — Stated and agreed account — Mortgage to secure agreed balance — Proof by solicitor — Trustee's right to go behind mortgage and stated account. See Baxkeuptcy — Trustee. 6. — Bankruptcy — Taxation — Trustee's solicitor's bill of costs — Notice of taxation not given to new trustee. *p Bankeuptcy— Costs. 11. SOLICITOR (Costa)— continued. 3. — Bill of rosf.i — Cross- vlniin hy client — ■ Account stated not in writing. Where, a solicitor having a claim against his client for costs, and the client having a cross- claim against the solicitor, (lie parties agree upon the amounts of their ret-pectivc claims and state an account shewing a balance in the solicitor's favour, ail action may be maintained by the solicitor for the balance, notwithstanding that he had delivered no detailed bill, and that the agreement for the settlement of the cross-claims was not in writing. Tuenee r. Willis Div. Ct. [1905] 1 K. B. 468 — Bill of costs — Part payment — Recovery of moneys due to client — Retainer on account with assent of client. See Limitations, Statute of. 19. 4. — Bill of costs — Petition hy wife for judi- cial separation — Bill for extra costs only — Bill for paiiy and party costs previously delivered to hustand — Insufficiency of bill — Solicitors Aot, 1843 (6 cj- 7 Vict. c. 73), s. 37. The pits, had acted as solicitors for the deft.'s ^ife on a petition by her in the High Court for a judicial separation. The petition w.as dis- missed, but the deft, was ordered to pay the costs as between party and party, and accordingly the pits, delivered to him a bill of party nnd party costs. That bill having been taxed, tlio deft, paid to the pits, the amount allowed upon the taxation. The pits, then delivered to the deft, a bill in respect of the extra costs of the proceedings on the petition as between solicitor and client, which bill did not contain the items allowed in respect of party and party costs. This bill not being paid, the pits, sued the defts. for the amount of it as for necessaries supplied to the wife : — Held (reversing the judgment of Piokford.!. [1908] 1 K. B. 590), that the bill was not a sufficient bill within the meaning of the Solici- tors Act, 1843, s. 37, and therefore the action was not maintainable. (^uare, whether in a ease where the wife's petition liad failed such an action could be maintainable. 'Cobbett ii. Wood. C. A. [1908] "W. N. 128 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 420 5. — Bill of costs — Tasration — Application hy olieiit to taw ivithin one month after delirery of hill — Common order to tax — Submission to pat/ — Items harred by Statute of Limitatioiis — Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 ^' 7 Vict. e. 73), s. 37. On an application within one month of delivery of a bill of costs the client has an absolute right to have the bill taxed without any money being brought into Court and without any submission to pay. After the expiration of one month there is no such absolute right, but a submission to pay is not in any case a necessary part of a common order to tax. If a submission is inserted, it should be a submissitm to pay not what is due, but what is payable having regard (inter alia) to the defence of the Statute of Limitations, and questions arising under that Act should be dealt with by the taxing Master. In any case in which the client seeks an order for delivery of papers the order should ( 2583 ) DIGEST Oh' CASE!^, 1901—1910. ( 2584 ) SOLICITOR (Coatsy-coiiti/iueil. direct taxation also of the statute-barred items, so as to ascertain the amouut for which the solicitor has a lien upon the papers. C!ommon form of order altered accordingly . Decision of Warrington J., [1909] W.N. 17 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 351, reversed. I,t i-e Brock- man C. A. [1909] W. N. 127 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 170 6. — Ceiftid que trn.it — Ta,ration at iiisfrince of— Sill paid bij truxteex more than twelve months preriousli/ — Practice — Solicitors Act, 1813, (6 S- 7 Vict.c.Ti),ss. 37—41. By virtue of the proviso in s. 11 of the Solici- tors Act, 1843, taxation, upon the application of a cestui que trust of a bill of costs paid by his trustees, will not be ordered under s. 39 where the application is not made within twelve calen- dar months after payment ; regard being had to what must now be treated as the settled practice of the Court. Decision of Kekewich J., [1901] 1 Ch. 857, reversed. lit re Wbllborne C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 312 7. — Cliancerij or parliameutarij scale — Costs ofohtaining Light liailwaij Order — Costs — Taxation — Li^jht llailwags Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 48), *s. 2, 7, 10. The costs of obtaining an order under the Light Railways Act, 1896, are taxable on the Chancery and not on the parliamentary scale. In re Morleij, (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 17, applied. In re Peterson C. A. [1909] W. N. 194 : [1909] 2 Ch. 398 8. — Charge on property preserved — Scheme of arramjementofcompani/ — Solicitors Act, 1860 (23 4'- 24 Vict. c. 127), .«. 28. A CO. called -lohn Clayton, Ld., on Dec. 18, 1902, passed aa extraordinary resolution for voluntary windrng-up and appointing a liqui- dator, the liquidator if possible to submit a pro- posal for the reconstruction of the co. At this time the co. was unable to meet its liabilities, executions on its- property had been levied by some of its creditors, and other creditors were threatening actions. The liquidator prepared a scheme which, on Oct. 7, 1903, was sanctioned by the Court under the Joint Stock Companies Arrangement Act, 1870. The scheme provided for the taking over of the co.'s assets and lia- bilities by a new co. (to be incorporated) which was to discharge the unsecured debts of the vendor co. by giviugthe unsecured creditors fully- paid shares in the new co., and to give the share- holders of the vendor co. partly paid shares in the new CO. and to pay the costs of winding-up and of the scheme. In pursuance of the order sanctioning the scheme,, a sale agreement was entered into between the liquidator and a trustee for the new co., and adopted by the new co., under which part of the purchase consideration payable for the liquidator was to be a sum of cash. The cash not having been paid the assets sold were not transferred to the new co., but were retained by the liquidator, who, by arrange- ment with t)ie new co., sold part of the assets consisting of plant and machinery for 200Z. Some time afterwards the liquidator obtained a charging order nisi on the 2001. in respect of J84Z, 16». dd, his taxed costs in the proceedings SOLICITOR (Coats)— coittinued. connected with the winding-up and the scheme. The solicitor applied to make the charging order absolute. Buckley J. saitl that the effect of the scheme when sanctioned was that the creditors of the vendor co. were debarred of their legal rights and were bountl by a statutory contract to take fully-paid shares in the new co. As between the two COS., the vendor co. was entitled to keep the 200?. until the new co. performed its Obligations, including that of paying the costs of the winding- up and scheme. As between the vendor co. and the solicitor, the latter had preserved the pro- perty within the meaning of the Act by keeping creditors out of their rights against it. The order must be made absolute, and the charge woukl extend to the costs of the application. In re .loHN Clayton, Ld. Buckley J. [1905] W. N. 27, 30 — Charging order for costs on property "re- covered or preserved ' ' — Charge on ship — Constructive notice. See Shipping — Charging Orders. 1. 9. — Charging Order — Property '^preserved " —Solicitors Act, 1860 (23 S,- 24 'Vict. c. 127), .V. 28 — Administration action — Trustees defen- dants — Compromise — Costs of all parties — Pro- ■rision for pagment — Result of action — Destruc- tion of trust estate — Property managed and retained — Assets insufficient for pngment of costs — Costs of plaintiff's solicitors — Ccits of trustees — Trustees right of indemnity — Priority. In an action by beneficiaries under a will against the trustees for (inter alia) execution of the trusts of the will, an account of the testator's business, which had been carried on by the trustees under a power in that behalf, and administration, a receiver and manager of the business was appointed on motion, and the action was ultimately compromised at the trial, one of the terms of compromise being that the costs of all parties should be paid out of the estate, including in the costs of the trustees all costs, charges, and expenses incurred by them as executors and trustees of the will. In the result the action proved disastrous to the trust estate, the business, which previously had been profit- able, having to be closed down for want of capital, and the assets of the estate being insuiB- cient to pay the costs of all parties. On an application by the pits.' solicitors for a charging order for their costs under s. 28 of the Solicitors Act, 1860, and by the trustees for a declaration of priority in respect of their costs, charges, and expenses : — Ileld'hj Kekewich J., applying Bailc v. Baile, (1872) L. R. 13 Eq. 497, that, inasmuch as the property had been managed and retained for the rightful owners, it had been " preserved " A\'ithin the meaning of s. 28 ; that it did not matter that in fact the property when it had been preserved for the benefit of the parties entitled yielded little or nothing for them ; ,ind that in the circumstances the pits.' solicitors were entitled to a charging order for their costs : but Held, further, by Kekewich J., that, having regard to the long-established practice of the ( 2585 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2586 ) SOLICITOR (CQBts)—coidiiiiU'd. Ch. Div. indemnifying trustees for all expendi- ture properly incui'red in relation to their trust estate, and also to the express terms of the com- promise, the defendant trustees were entitled to payment of all their costs, charges, and expenses in priority to the charging order obtained by the pits', solicitors. Decision of Kekewich J., [190ti] W. N. 226, affirmed. In re Turner. Wood v. Turner. C. A. [1907] W. N. 124; [1907] 2 Ch. 126 The order in this action (I'cported [1907] 2 (Jh. 126), as idtimately entered, set out. In re Turner. Wood c. Turner C. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 539 — Charging Orders — Properly "preserved" — Trustees costs — Priority. See Solicitor — Costs. 9. 10. — Commission — Surcharge — Sulicitor and client — Disclosure — Diity to advise — Bargain with client — Taj^ation of easts. Solicitors who were retained by 0. to act for him in negotiating the purchase of a patent had previously obtained from the vendor of the patent a commission note under which they were to receive certain payments in the event of a purchaser being found by them ; this note was shown to 0. by the solicitors and remained in his possession some days previously to the contract for sale being entered into. 0. purchased the patent, and the solicitors with his knowledge recovered payment from the vendor of 2Wl. for commission. 0. died, and the solicitors delivered their bill of costs to his executors, who on taxa- tion sought to surcharge the solicitors with the 210Z. so received by them; the taxing master allowed the surcharge. On a summons to review this finding : — Held., affirming the decision of Kekewich J., that O.'s executors were not entitled to treat the 31UZ. paid by the vendor to the solicitors as money received to O.'s use, or in any way to surcharge them ; that the rule applied in ffBrien v. Lewis, (1863) 32 L. J. (Gh.) 569, did not govern the present case, as the commission was paid, not by the client, but by the vendor ; but that the solicitors had made a bargain which was not merely improper, but such as to place them in a position in which it was impossible for them to fulfil the duties which they had under- taken to both vendor and purchaser of the patent. //* re Haslam & HiBR-EVANS C. A. [1902] W. N. 63; [1902] 1 Ch. 766 11. — Comm,ission to agent, Payment of — Pur- rhi/sc and re-sale — Costs — Taxation — Solicitors'' Hemu.iienition Act, 1881 (11 ,<• 45 Vict. v. 44), General Order, Sched. I., Part I, r. 11. F. and D. introduced certain property to L. for purchase by him, and introduced him to X., who shortly aftcrward.s purchased from L. at an incrL'ased price. A commission was paid to F. and D. on each transaction. F. and D. also introduced L. to E., who, acting as the solicitor of L,, concluded the contracts between the original vendor and L. and between L. and X. The property was conveyed direct from the original vendor to X., L, joining in the convey- ance. SOLICITOK {Costs)— continued. The abstract was sent to R., who copied it and forwarded it to the solicitors of X. ; on receiving the requisitions he copied them and sent them to the original vendor's solicitors, and a similar operation took place with reference to observations and further requisitions on title : — Held, that even if R. was employed to nego- tiate at all, he had not in substance entirely negotiated either the purchase or the re-sale, and, moreover, ,that commissions on both the purchase and re-sale had been paid to agents within the sneaning of rule 11 of Sched. I., Part 1., to the Order under the Solicitors' Re- muneration Act, and that therefore the scale fee for negotiating a piurchase or sale was not chargeable : Held, also, that the scale fees («.) for investi- gating the title and preparing and comiileting the conveyance on the purchase, and (i) deduc- ing the title and perusing the conveyance on the re-sale, wei'C not chargeable. In re Read, [1894] 3 Ch. 238, distinguished. In re RoMAiN - Buckley J. [1903] W. N. 32; [1903] 1 Ch. 702 12. — Company — Costs — 'Taxation — Dishurse- inents — Professional charges — Reduction hij one- sixth — Omission of items of costs already taxed —R. S. C, Order LXV., r. 19H, ;■. 27 (38b)— Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 Jj- 7 Viet. c. 73), ss. 37, 38. Summons to review taxation. By an order of May 5, 1906, made on the retirement of the liquidator in the voluntary winding up of the CO., it was directed that his costs, charges, and expenses, as between solicitor and client, properly incurred in the winding-up should be taxed and provided for, and a new liquidator was appointed. The retiring liqui- dator cai'ried in a bill shewing disbursements 239i. 3s. tid., and professional charges 5632. its. In the latter he included and gave credit for two bills of 1621. 13s. id. and 'M. 4.v. 6d. for party costs, which had been taxed some time previously and paid to him by a third party. The registrar struck out these items, on the ground that they had already been paid. The result was to diminish the total amount of the costs to such an extent that on taxation the bill (taking disbursements and professional charges together) was reduced by more than one- sixth. The registrar therefore disallowed items for drawing the bill of costs and attending the taxation. Tlie ilormer liquidator now sought to review the taxation on the grounds that the bills for party and party costs were properly includeil and ought not to have been struck out of the bill, and further that, for the purpose of ascer- taining whether one-sixth had been taxed ofE the bill, the amount of the professional charges only should bo taken into consideration, and that the disbursements ought to be omitted. Warrington J. said that it was the established practice of the taxing office, under such an order as this, to include In the costs and give credit for bills for party and party costs, as had been done by the applicant in this case ; and this practice was sanctioned by authority. On the ( 2587 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2588 ) SOIICITOR QCosUrt—coiitintied. other point it was clear from the rules that, for the purpose of ascertaiuing whether one-sixth had been taxed off the bill, the amount of the professional charges only must be taken into consideration without regarding the disburse- ments, and the alleged practice to the contrary- was wi'ong. The summons mu,st therefore be allowed. In re Meecantilb Lighterage Co. Warrington J. [1906] W. N. 28 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 491 — Company— ^Debenture-holders' action — Costs —Same solicitor appearing for trustee.s and company — Retainer — Joint or separate. See Company — Debentures. 5. — Company — Debentm-e-holders' action — Defi- cient estate — Costs of plaintiff — Solicitor and client — Party and party. See Company— Debentures. 6. — Company — Debenture^holders' action — Plain- tiff's costs — Charging order. See Company — Charging Orders. 1. — Company — Preliminary expenses — Liability of company. See Company — Costs. 1. — ConTeyancing business — Duty of taxing officer — Taxation. See Bankkuptcy — Costs. 6. 13. — Country solicitor and London agent — London agent's bill of costs — Taxation — Order of course — Practice — Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 -i- 7 Vict. c. 73), s. 37 — Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1870 (33 ^ 3i Vi^t. c. 28), ss. 3, 17. A country solicitor is entitled, under s. 37 of the Solicitors Act, 18i3, as "the party charge- able," to an order of course for taxation of his London agent's bill of costs without bringing any sum of money into Court. Smith V. Limes, (1849) 4 Ex. 32, followed. Ward y. Hyre, (1880) 15 Ch. D. 130, dis- tinguished. In re WiLDE Neville J. [1909] W. N. 230 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 100 14. — Delivery of amemded Mil — Action for ■uiorli done — Reference to asceitain amount due — Solicitm-s Act, 1843 (6 .5- 7 Vict. c. 73), s. 37.. In an action by a solicitor for work done the particulai-s were described as having been de- livered to the defts. in a signed bill of costs more than a month before action brought. The defts. denied liability, and also relied upon the fact that the pits, had delivered a prior bill of costs for a less amount. The jury found for the pit. on the question of liability, and a verdict was entered for him, but leave was refused to carry in the second bill for taxation. On appeal : — ■ Held, that the pit. was not bound by the first bill delivered, and that although, by reason of the proviso in ». 37 of the Solicitors Act, 1843, in the absence of special circumstances, there could be no reference to taxation under that Act after verdict, the Court had jurisdic- tion to refer the matter to a taxing Master, who would be entitled to take both bills into his con- sideration in aniving at the amount for which SOLICITOR {Coata)~contlmied. judgment should be entered. Lumsden c. Ship- COTB Land Co. - C. A. [1906] W. N. 112; [1906] 2 K. B. 433 — " Disbursement." See Xo. 12 above, and Xo. 35 below. 15. . — " Li-sl/nrseinent" — Estate duty, includ- ing in hill — Practice — Solicitor and client- Finance Act, 1894 (57 ,f 58 Vict. c. 30), s. G, suh-ss. 1,2; s. 8, suh-s. 16 ; s. 22, suh-s. I (d)— Application by third parties~Costs^Ta.ratioii^~ Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 A- 7 Vict. u. 73), ss. 37, 38,39. ^ A payment for estate duty made by a solicitor on behalf of his client ought not to be included in his bill of costs as a " disbursement " within the meaning of s. 37 of the Solicitors Act, 1843. . Decision of Byrne J., [1902] W. N. 65, re- versed. In re Lamb, (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 5, overruled. Per Byrne J. : There is no general rule that the costs of applications for taxation under ss. 38 and 39 of the Solicitors Act, 1843, must in aU cases follow the result of the taxation. In re KiNGDON V. Wilson - C. A. [1902] W. N. 101; [1902] 2 Ch. 242 Note. See also In re Bacliwell Sf Berlieley, [1902] 2 Ch. 596. See ne.it Cuse. See In re Blair 4'- Girling, C. A. [1906] 2 K. B. 131. See No. 35, below. 16. — Lishursements — Allowances — Deposit as security for costs ofdiscorery — Costs — Taxation —R. S. C, 1883, Order XXXI., rr. 25, 26. Deposits paid by a solicitor on behalf of his client as security for costs of discovery under Order xxxi., rr. 25, 26, and not repaid, are not disbursements within s. 37 of the Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 & 7 Vict. c. 73), and are not properly included iu the solicitor's bill of costs. They should be entered in the solicitor's cash account. Decision of Kekewich J., [1902] W. N. 137, reversed. In re Buokwell i; Berkeley C. A. [1902] W. N. 1S2; [1902] 2 Ch. 696 Note. Principle of, not applicable. In re Grant, hulcraig J,- Co., Farwell J., [1906] 1 Ch. 124. See No. 19, below. See In re Blair S; Girling, C. A. [ 19061 2 K. B. 131. See No. 35, below. 17. — '■'Disbursements" — Cou7txel'' s fees — Fets not paid before delivery of bill of costs— Taivation — Practice — Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 X- 7 Vict c. 73), s. 37. For the purpose of taxation of a solicitor's bill under the Solicitors Act, 1843, "disbm-se- raents " means actual payments before delivery of the bill, and any sums claimed in the bill as disbursements, e.g., fees to counsel, which have not been paid before its delivery, must be dis- allowed. Sadd v. Griffin C. A. [1908] W. N. 151; [1908] 2 K. B. 510 Note. Referred to by Joyce J., In re [1909] W. N. 211. See No. 37, below ( 2589 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2590 ) SOLICirOK (Cost»)~continv^d. — Ecclesiastical oases — Court fees, i>ee Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 21. — Execution — Enforcing order against corpora- tion — Writ of sequestration — Solicitor and client costs. *(■ Sequestration. 2. — Indemnity by third parties — Appeal — Costs as between solicitor and client — Prac- tice. *e Costs. 73. 18. — Iiifarrts — Compromhe — Judgment — Ite- xereiiiff liberty to solicitor to ax>x>lij — Form of order — Lien. A solicitor acting for infants in an action, in consenting to a judgment-compromise whereby a specitio fund brought into court in the action is ordered to be paid out to trustees for the benefit of the infants, is entitled to the ordinary soli- citor's lien for his costs upon the interest of the infants in the fund as fully and effectually as he would have been entitled thereto had his client been persons sui juris ; and it is not necessary though it may be desirable, that his right under such lieu should be expressly reserved by the judgment. In re Weight's Trust. Wright r. Sanderson. In re Sanderson's Trust. Wright c. Sanderson. C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 317 — Insurance, Marine — Open cover slip — Damages — Fraudulent represejitations — Beiusurance — Subrogation — Solicitor and client costs. See Insurance (Marine). 16. 19. — Jurisdiction of taxing Master — Substi- tuting an item — Correcting an error in casting — Costs — Practice — Taxation — Solicitor's Mil of costs — Order XXVIII., r. 11 — 5?. deposit on pre- seivtation of hanltrujitcy petition — Bankriiiptey Bales, 1886, rr. 112 (1), 125, Ml— Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 ,5- 7 Vict. c. 73), s. 37. In taxing a bill of costs under the Solicitors act the taxing Master has no jurisdiction to substitute, for an item admittedly not chargeable, an item properly chargeable but omitted from the bill ; for that in fact is altering the bill, which can only be done on a proper application to the Court : /« re Walters, (1S45) 9 Beav. 299. But he can correct an error in the casting of the bill, although it alters the amount, for that is not taxation, but arithmetic. But the 'jl. deposit paid into Court under r. 147 of the Bankruptcy Rules, 1886, on the presentation of a bankruptcy petition is, by virtue of sub-i-. 1 of r. 112 of the same rules and the scale of costs thereunder, properly entered as a disbursemcut in a solicitor's bill of costs, and does not fall within the princijDle of In re Muckwelland Berkeley, [1902] 2 Ch. 396. In re Grant, Bullceaig Sc Go. Farwell J. [1905] W. N. 174 ; [1906] ICh. 124 20. — Leaxp — Costs of — Taxation — Lessor and lessee — Prelimi/inry ?iegotiations — Third party — Solicitor and client — Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 S- 7 Vict. 0. 73), ... 38. SOLICITOR (CosW)— continued. Lessees having obtained the usual third party order to tax the lessor's solicitor's bill of costs in the preparation of a mining lease, took objection to the allowance by the taxing Master of certain items for charges for negotiations leading up to the lease, and in particular for fees paid to a mining engineer who had been consulted on behalf of the lessor, and for various correspon- dence with him. On a summons to review this taxation : — Held, that the third party order to tax ob- tained by the lessees did not alter the nature or enlarge the scope for their liability, upon the existence of which the order to tax wa-s based ; but that even on a third party taxation the Coiurt was bound to look at the nature of tie items, and to consider whether, apart from the order, the applicant was under any liability to pay them : and that the bill must therefore be referred back to the taxing Master to revise his taxation. Though a solicitor may include in one bill as against his own client a series of items, some of which may go beyond the liability of the third party, the third party does not by obtaining an order to tax thereby render himself liable for the whole bill. In re JVegus, [1895] 1 Ch. 73, considered and applied, hi re Gray Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] 1 Ch. 239 A^ote. Approved and adopted by C. A., In re Lonq- hotham S,- Sons, C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 152. See Xo. 41, helow. 21. — Lease — Corenant for renewal — Costs of investigating lessee's title — Practice — Scale fee — "Business connected with lease " — Solicitor and client — Costs—Taxation — iSolieitors' Remunera- tion Act, 1881 (44 A'' 45 Vwt. c. ii)— General Order under Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881, /■. 2 (V), (c), Sched. I, Part II. A perpetually renewable lease granted by the City Corporation contained a covenant that the lessors would make the renewals " at the request, costs, and charges of the lessee." The lessor.-* incurreil certain costs of investigating the title of applicants for a renewal, and these were dis- allowed on a taxation : — Held, that the words of the covenant meant that the lessors were to be at no cost, and there- fore the lessors were entitled to the costs in ques- tion which were reasonably and necessarily incurred.^ Held, also, that such costs were not covered by the scale fee charge " for preparing settling and completing lease and counterpart" under the General Order maile under the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881. Until it was ascertained that the applicant for a renewal was entitled thereto, the " busi- ness connected with " the lease referred to in r. 2 of the General Order had not been reached. In re Baylis - Kekewich J. [1907] ^W. N. 102 ; [1907] 2Cli. 64 22, — lease, Costs of — Taxation — Lessor and lessee — Concurring 2>arties — Separate solicitors — Collective hill — Costs of taxation. On taking a lease from a lessor and con- curring parties represented by separate solicitors ( 2591 ) DIGEST OF GASES, 1901—1910. ( 2592 ) SOLICITOR (COBtB)--oo>itim(eil. the lessee, in the absence of agreement expveas or implied, is only liable for one set of costs. If the lessor's solicitor includes the costs of the concurring parties' solicitors in his own bill, and more than one-sixth is taxed off the total amount, he must pay the costs of taxation, although less than one-sixth is taxed off his own costs. In re Memnaia, (1819) 11 Beav. 603, dis- tinguished. In re Fletcher & Dyson Swinfen Eady J. [1903] W. N. 156 ; [1903] 3 Ch. 688 23. — leases — Deducing one title on several contracts — -Costs — Vendor and purchaser — Scale fee — Solicitors'' Remuneration Act, 1881 (44 S' 45 Vict. c. 44), s. i— General Order, Sched. I., Part I., r. 8. Five leases of five separate houses were granted by the same lessors on the same day to the same lessee, to whom each lease gave an option of purchasing the fee simple, in which case he was to pay all legal and other expenses of the lessors as vendors, it being stated that the intention of the parties was that the lessors should be put to. no expense in respect of the conveyance. The lessee by one letter exercised, each of the five options, received only one abstract of title, and required only one conveyance of all the five houses. The vendors' solicitors declined to allow all the houses to be conveyed by one deed except on the terms that they should not be deprived of any part of the costs under the leases, and claimed to charge in respect of each house the scale fee for " deducing title and perusing and completing conveyance " : — Seld, that, as there had only been one deduc- ing of title, a scale fee in respect of each house could not be charged. In re Simmons' Con- tract - - Parker J. [1908] 1 Ch. 4S2 — Leaseholds — "Deducing title" — Single docu- ment. See Vendor and Purchaser— Costs. 2. — Lien for costs. See under Solicitor — lien. — Lien, Solicilor's — Set-oS — Independent pro- ceedings — Consolidation order. See Mortgage — Foreclosure. 4. — Lien on client's papers for costs — Acceptance of securities — Duty of solicitor. See Solicitor — lien. 2. — Limitation, Statute of — Solicitor's bill — Part payment. See Limitations, Statute of. 19. 24. — iMnacy — Retainer to conduct defence to an action — Lunacy of client — Determination of solicitor's authority — Steps iji action taken T>y solicitor in ignorance of determination of authority — Implied warranty of existence of authority — Liahility of solicitor personally to pay plaintiff^s costs — Practice — ■ Appeal — '■^Matter of practice and procedure" — Judi- cature Act, 1894 (57 Sf 58 Viet. c. 16), s. 1, sub-s. 4. Where an authority given to an agent has D,D. SOLICITOR (fia%\i)— continued. without his knowledge been determined by the death or lunacy of the principal, and, subse- quently, the agent has, in the belief that he was acting in pursuance thereof, made a con- tract or transacted some business with another person, representing that, in so doing, he was acting on behalf of the principal, the agent is liable, as having impliedly warranted the exist- ence of the authority which he assumed to exercise, to that other person, in respect of damage occasioned to him by reason of the non-existence of that authority. Solicitors were instructed by a client to conduct his defence to an action which was then threatened and was afterwards commenced against him. Before the commencement of the action the client became, and was certified as being, of unsound mind, In ignorance of his unsoundness of mind, and of his having been so certified, the solicitors entered an appearance for him in the action, and delivered a defence, to whicli the pit. replied, and other interlocutory proceedings took place in the action. Subse- quently, the action not having come to trial, the plt.'s solicitor was informed that the deft, had been certified as being of unsound mind ; and an application was made on behalf of the pit. at chambers for an order that the' appear- ance and all subsequent proceedings in the action should be struck out, and that the solicitors who had assumed to act for the deft, should be ordered personally to pay the plt.'s costs of the action up to date, on the ground that they had so acted without authority. The Master made an order that the appearance and subsequent proceedings in the action should be struck out, but refused to make an order for payment of the plt.'s costs by the solicitors personally, which refusal was on appeal affirmed by the judge at chambers. The pit. having appealed to the C. A. :— Held — (1.) (by Buckley L.J. and Swinfen Eady J.), that the appeal was on a matter of practice and procedure within the meaning of the Judicature Act, 1894, s. 1, sub-s. 4, and, therefore, the appeal lay direct to the C. A., and not to the Div. Ct. ; (2.) (by Vaughan Williams L.J., Buckley L.J., and Swinfen Eady J., Vaughan Williams L.J., doubting), that the solicitors who had taken on themselves to act for the deft, in the action had thereby impliedly warranted that they had authority to do so, and therefore were liable personally to pay the plt.'s costs of the action. Smout V. llhery, (1842) 10 M. & W. 1, questioned. Collen V. Wright, (1857) 8 E. &. B. 647, followed, YONGE ■». TOTNBBE - C. A. [1910] W. N. 6 l[1910] 1,K. B. 216 — Mayor's Court. See under Mator'sICourt. 25. — Mortgagee — Costs — Taxation — Solicitor- mortgagee — Negotiation fee — Mortgagees Legal Costs Act, 1895 (58 ^- 59 Vict. c. 25), s. 2— General Order under Solicitors'' Remuneration Act, 1881 (44^45 Vict. cii), Sched. I., Part!., r. 11. Property belonging to D, was in mortgage, 40 ( 2593 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2594 ) SOLICITOR (Coats)— contiiiiied. N., a solicitor, arranged that the mortgage should be paid off, that the property should be recon- veyed to D., and that N. should lend his own money to D. on mortgage of the same propeiliy ; and this was done. N. had not a partner with him in his business as a solicitor : — Held, that N. was entitled to charge the scale fee for negotiating the loan. In re Noebis Swinfen Eady J [1902] W. N. 20; [1902] 1 Oh. 741 — Mortgage — Redemption — Mortgagee's solici- tor's costs o£ negotiating loan and pre- paring mortgage. See MOETGAGB — Costs. 1. 26. — Kon-conteijtious iunness — Jurisdiction — Proper officer — District registrar of Man- ohestet — Practice — Costs — Taxation — SoUciiors Act, 1843 (6 ct 7 Vict. u. 73), s. 37— iJ. S. C, O. XXXV., r. 6a ; 0. LXI., / . iB ; 0. LXV., r. 26A, 0. LXXI. S., a solicitor, was one of his wife's executors and trustees, and by the terms of her will was entitled to be paid his professional charges for work done for her estate. He did a considerable amount of non-contentious work for the trust, and died in 1907. His executors delivered to the surviving trustee of his wife's will a bill of costs for the work thus done, and applied by originat ing summons in the Manchester District Registry for an order referring the bill to the district registrar to be taxed. The surviving trustee asked that the taxation should take place in London. The question was referred to Walton J, in chambers, who dismissed the summons, and the executors appealed. The C. A. dismissed the appeal, holding that, although an originating summons was the proper form in which to make the application and the learned judge had power to refer the bill for taxation, there was nothing to shew that the district registrar of Manchester was a proper ofEcer to whom a bill for non-contentious business could be referred for taxation. In re STEAD C. A. [1910] W. N. 167; [1910] 2 K. B. 713 27. — Official solicitor — Guardian adlitem of infant defendants — R. S. C, Order LXV., r. 13. Action to set aside a post-nuptial settlement executed by a Mr. and Mrs. Jones, in Sept., 1904, whereby they conveyed to themselves certain property upon trusts for the benefit of Mrs. Jones and their infant children. The pit. was the trustee in banlcruptcy of Mr. Jones, who was adjudicated bankrupt in Mar., 1906. The infants had been made defts. to the action, and at the instance of the pit. the official solicitor had been appointed their guardian ad litem. At the trial of the action the Court held that the settlement was void against the pit. under s. 47 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, so far as it com- prised the property of the bankrupt, but valid so far as it comprised the property of Mrs. Jones, and ordered the costs of the official solicitor, as guardian ad litem of the infant defts., to be taxed and paid by the pit., who was to add them to his costs which Mr. and Mrs. Jones were ordered to pay. In drawing up the order the official solicitor raised the point that he was entitled to his costs as between solicitor and SOLICITOR (Costs) — continued. client, but the pit. declined to accede to this. The point was now mentioned to the Court, the order not having been passed and entered. It is the settled practice to tax the costs of the official solicitor, as guardian ad litem, in these cases as between party and pai-ty, unless special directions are given to the contrary : Fraser v. Thompson, (1859) 4 De G. & J. 659. No special direction was given in this case. The pit. is a trustee in bankruptcy, and cannot consent to a solicitor and client costs, nor can he agree to the guardian being allowed his charges and expenses, but he does not object to the order being in the terms of rule 13, i.e., that the guardian ad litem be paid the " costs incurred in the performance of the duties of such office." Neville J. : Let the order be drawn up in that form. GoATLY ^i. Jones - Neville J. [1907] W. N. 161 28.' — Order bi/ consent — Practice — Form of order — Costs of reference — Costs — Taxation. In this case Swinfen Eady J. said that he had seen the taxing master, and was satisfied that he had been completely misunderstood by the applicants. He read, shortly, the form of order made, and said that all the taxing Master was thereby ordered to do with regard to the costs of the reference was to tax them and certify the amount and whether more than one-sixth of the amount of the bills had been taxed ofi. The order left it entirely open how the costs were to be borne. The taxing Master had no jurisdiction to allow costs or order their pay- ment, and he stated that he had not given any ruling or made any statement about them. The applicants wished to vary the form of order, on the ground that in its present form it pre- cluded them from recovering the costs of reference from the solicitors, whatever the result of the taxation might be. The order had no such effect. The notion that it had had probably arisen from a passage which had been cited to him from Scott's Guide to Costs (11th ed., vol. ii., p. 1179), in which, refeiTing to orders obtained in the Ch. Div. by consent for taxa- tion, the author says : " In such cases the costs of reference are taxable in any event whatever the result of the taxation." That passage was literally true, the costs were taxable ; but the inference which had apparently been drawn that the solicitor was to have these costs in any event, whatever the result of the taxation, was erro- neous. In many, perhaps most, cases of taxation by consent, the solicitor acted both for himself and his client and the question would not arise, but there was nothing in the form of the order which would prevent either party from applying for and obtaining an order that the other party should pay the costs of the reference. In the present case the applicant contended that, on the true construction of the correspondence, the solicitors had been instructed to apply for an order for taxation under the Solicitors Act, 1843, and were not justified in taking any other order. There was a good deal to be said for this view, but it would not be fair to make a new order after the trustees had acted under the order and been separately represented on two occasions. No order was made on the motion, except that ( 2595 ) DIGEST ;trp CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2596 ) SOLICITOH (CoaU)—eo7dimted. it should stand over till after the result of tlie taxation was known, when the costs of the motion and of the reference could be dealt with together. In re BuRisr v. Beheidgb, Solicitors Swinfen Eady J. [1908;] W. K. 175 29. — ParUame/danj agent — Costs of ohtaining private Act of Parliaineivt — Practice — Taxation Soliciiors Act, 1843 (6 ^- 7 Vict. c. 73), s. 37— House of Commons Costs Taxation Act, 1847 (10 Sj- 11 Vict. c. (,%')— House of Lords Costs Taxation Act, 1849 (12 ,5- 13 Vict. e. 78). Where a bill of costs delivered by a parlia^ mentary agent, who is likewise a solicitor, relates exclusively to business done by him in the capacity of a parliamentary agent, and not in that of a solicitor, the bill cannot be referred for taxation under the Solicitors Act, 1843. In re Bakeh, Lees & Co. C. A. [1902] W. N. 229; [1903] 1 K. B. 189 Note. See In re Fanshawe, [1905] W. N. 64, No. 36, below. — " Party interested " — Creditor in administra- tion action — Practice — Taxation. See Costs. 44. — Payment — Statute of Limitations — Set-off — Solicitor's bill. See Appeopeiation. 1. 30. — Practice — Clianeery Dicision — Solicitor — Costs — Taxation — Delivery of Mil of costs — Default — Motion for attachment — Order for pay- ment of costs of motion — Enforcement — Action in King's Seneh Dicision — jB. S. C, Order XLII., r. 24. An order was made by a judge in the Chan- cery Division that the deft., a solicitor, should pay to the pit. the costs of a motion by the pit. for the attachment of the deft, for con- tempt of court in not having delivered to the pit. a bill of costs pursuant to an order for taxation of costs. The costs of the motion having been taxed, the pit. sued the deft, in the King's Bench Division to recover the amount thereof : — Held, that the action was maintainable. Skldon v. Wilde - - - Darling J. [1910] 2 K. B. 9 — Public authorities protection — Solicitor and client — Costs. See Costs. 50. — Public authorities protection — client." See Coepoeation. 16. Solicitor and 31. — Public body — Right to elect — Practice — Taxation — Solicitors' Remimeration Act, 1881 (44 ^ 45 Vict. 0. ay— General Order, Avg., 1882, ;•. 6. "The right of a solicitor under r. 6 of the general order under the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881, to elect to charge according to the old system as altered by Sched. II. to the order, instead of by scale, is not taken away by the fact that his clients are a public body or persons in a fiduciary capacity ; nor is it the duty of public SOIICITOR {Oosti)— continued. bodies or persons in a fiduciary capacity to pre- vent their solicitors from so electing. A school board instructed a solicitor to act for them in the matter of a purchase of a school site for 350Z. The solicitor duly signified to the board his election under r. 6 of the general order to charge on the old system as altered by Sched. II, The board consented. The matter was completed, and the solicitor sent in a bill for 50Z. 2s. On taxation the taxing Master reduced the bill to \Zl., the amount of the scale charge and disburse- ments, and stated in answer to objections that the school board, being a public body charged with the administration of public funds, were in a fiduciary position, and it was their duty not to employ a solicitor who insisted on the more expen- sive mode of payment : — Held, that no such duty was cast on a public body or persons in a fiduciary position, and that the bill must be referred back to be taxed accord- ing to the solicitor's election. In re Evans (a SOLIOITOB) Farwell J. [1905] W. N. 11 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 290 32. — Registrar of county court — Defendant in person — Costs as solicitor — Registrar acting as solicitor in his awn Court — Taxation by defen- dant of his own bill of costs — County Courts Act, 1888 (51 S' 52 Vict. c. 43), ss. 41, 43, 118. The deft, was the registrar and high bailiff of the Eedhill County Court. He was also a practising solicitor. The pits, brought an action against the deft, in that court alleging negli- gence by him in his capacity as registrar and high bailiff. The deft, acted as his own solicitor in the action and was represented by counsel at the trial. The county court judge gave judgment for the deft, with costs on the higher scale, column B. The deft, thereupon brought in his bill of costs for taxation, the total being 201. 8s., of which III. Os. 6d. repre- sented payments to counsel and witnesses, and gave notice of a taxation before himself. The pits.' solicitor attended the taxation under protest. On the taxation the deft, disallowed an item of 6s. Sd. for instructions to defend, and an item of 2s. for affidavit of service of notices : he taxed 6*. off an item of one guinea for attend- ing Court when judgment was given for the deft., and taxed 21. Is. 6d. off the costs charged in respect of witnesses. The bill as allowed amounted to 17Z. lis. Wd. The pits, applied to the county court judge to review the taxation, and on the review the judge further taxed off the sum of \l. Is. 8d., being I5s. the balance remaining of the guinea charged for attending the court and 6s. 8d. charged by the deft, for attending the taxation before himself. The pits, appealed from the judge's decision on the review of the taxation. On the argument of the appeal four points were taken — namely, (1.) that under s. 41 of the County Courts Act, 1888, no registrar can act as solicitor in his own court : (2.) that a solicitor- registrar defending in person is not entitled to costs as a solicitor ; (3.) that the registrar could not tax his own bUl ; and (4.) that the judge had taxed on a wrong principle. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding as 4o2 ( 2o97 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2598 ) SOLICITOR (CoBtB)—co)itiiiiir(l. to points (1.) .and (2.) that s. 41 of the County Courts Act, 1888, did not debar a registrar from appearing in his own Court to defend himself, and he was entitled on taxation to the same costs as if he had employed a solicitor, except in respect to items which the fact of his acting for himself rendered unnecessary : see London Scottish Benefit Society v. ClwHey, (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 872. As to (3.) " a judge who has au interest in the result of a suit is dis- qualified from acting except in cases of necessity when no other judge has jurisdiction " : Serjeant V. Dai-e, (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 558. The present case was one of necessity, for although under s. 43 of the Act of 1888 the pits, had a large choice of Courts in which to sue the deft, they elected to sue him in his own Court, and s. 118 provided that all costs should be taxed by the registrar of the Court in which they were incurred. As to (4.) the only remaining items in the bill which were questionable were " in- structions for brief \l. lis. &d." and three charges of 3,«. each for subpoenas. " Instructions for brief" always included items for which a solicitor deft, could charge ; the charge for subpoenas was an inclusive charge (see Costs on Higher Scale, item 5), and the only fraction of the charge which could be objected to was the attendance upon the registrar to procure their issue. The Court was in the circumstances unable to say that the county court judge had taxed on any wrong principle. H. Tolputt & Co., Ld. c. Mole - Div. Ct. [1910] W. N. 262 33. — Rents, Collection of — CommisHion — Taxatio)i. In the absence of a special agreement, solicitors cannot charge a lump sum by way of commission for the collection of rents in their bill of costs, as if the work is professional, items must be delivered, and if non-professional, it cannot be charged in the bill. In re Shilson, COODE & Co. Swinfen Eady J. [1904] W. N. 83 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 837 ^^ote. See In re Funshawe, [1905] W. N. 64, yo. 36, helow. — Repayment of costs of litigation — Solicitor and client costs — Indemnity — Interest, (Se« Vendor AND PuECHASER — Title. 3. — Eetainer — Taxation — Solicitors' retainer. See BANKRUPTCT^Praotice. 5. — Review, Summons to — Refusal — Appeal — Leave — Costs — Taxation — Practice. See Appeal. 17. — Sale nf leaseholds — Abstract of title consist- inj,' of lease only — Scale fee — "Deducing title." See Vendor and Purchaser— Costs. 2. 34. — Separate hills of costs in the same ad- mini!arty to pay costs— Question as to construction of agreement — Jurisdiction of Master — Payment of bill — "Special circumstances''' — Practice— Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 ,(■ 7 Vict. c. 73), s. 38). The parties to an action agreed to a compro- mise upon the terms that the 'defts. should pay the costs of all parties as between solicitor and client in relation to the plt.'s claims against the defts. The pit. paid her solicitors their bill of costs and claimed the amount from the defts., who then took out a summons for a reference to the taxing Master to tax the plt.'s costs in accordance with the agi-ecment of compromise. The plt.'s solicitors opposed the application on the grounds that the bill had been paid and that ( 2tjOl ) DiGJisT 01' CAt^ES, 1901—1910. ( 2602 ) SOLICITOR (Costs)— c««i;« tied. questions \\'Ould arise ou the construction of the agreement which ought to be decided iu an action and not by the taxing lilaster ; — Held, that under the circumstances an order for a reference was~ justified by s. 31 of the Solicitors Act, 184:3. Decision of the C. A., reported as In re- Hirst S,- Capes, [1908] 1 K. B. 982, affirmed with a slight variation. Hirst & Capes v. Fox H. L. (E.) [1908J W. N. 171 ; [1908] A. C. 416 40. — Third jmrtij — Solicitor and client — Agreement as to solicitor's remuneration — Terl/al agreement that client shovld j)ay no costs— Right to recover against a third party — Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1870 (33 S' 31 Vict. c. 28), ss. 4, h. A solicitor, who was acting for a client iu a county court action in which the client was pit., verbally agreed with him that he, the client, should not pay the solicitor any costs. At the trial of the action the jury returned a verdict for the pit. with damages. The county court judge, on the application of the deft., entered judgment for the pit. for tlie amount of the verdict without costs on the ground that under the proviso to s. 5 of the Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1870, the pit. was not entitled to recover from tlie deft, more costs than were payable by the pit. to his solicitor under the agreement : — ■ Held, first, apart from the Act of 1870, that the pit. could not recover from the deft, more costs than he was liable to pay his solicitor, inas- much as party and party costs were awarded as an indemnity only ; secondly, upon the construc- tion of the Act, that for the purpose of applying the proviso to s. 5 it was not necessary that the agreement should be in writing ; consequently that the county court judge had rightly enterpd judgment for the pit. without costs. Decision of the Div. Ct., [1909] W. N. 213 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 99, affirmed. Gundey v. Sains- BUET - - C. A, [1910] W. K. 68 ; [1910] 1 K. B. 646 41. — Third 2>arty — Taxation oj bill of mort- gagees solicitor on application of mortgagor — Solicitor and client — Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 J' 1 Met. c. 73), .!. 38. On the taxation, under the third-party section (s. 38) of the Solicitors Act, 1843, of the bill of a mortgagee's solicitor at the instance of the mort- gagor, items which the mortgagor ^^ ould not be liable to pay as between liimself and the mort- gagee must be disallowed, even though the solicitor would be entitled to charge them as against his client, the mortgagee. //( re Gray, [1901] 1 Ch. 2.39 {see No. 10, ahoi-e), approved and adopted. Decisii.n of Kekewich J., [1901] "\V. N. 78, affirmed. In re XONGBOTHAir li SONS C. A. [1904] W. N. 118 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 162 Note. This case was followed bv 0. A., In re Cohen and Cohen, [190.5] 2 Oh. 137". See ncrt Case. 42. — Third party — Ta.ration — Solicitor and client — Indenniity — I'nvsual costs — Practice — Costs— Taj^ation— Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 S' 7 Vict. c. 73), I. 38. SOLICITOR (CoBta)—contin ucd. On a compromise of litigation E. agreed to pay the costs of Mrs. C. as between solicitor and client relating to the matters in dispute in the litigation, such costs to be agreed or taxed : — Held, that this was not an agTeement that E. would indemnify Mrs. C. against all costs which her sjlicitors could call upon her to pay, but that he would pay her reasonable and proper costs, not including extra costs which the solici- tors could only recover from her by special arrangement. The solicitors delivered a bill which contained items for extra costs of this description, where- upon E. obtained a third-party order for taxation under s. 38 of the Solicitors Act, 1843 : — Held, following In re Lomjliotluim S; Sons, [1904] 2 Ch. 152, that this did not enlarge his liability so as to compel him to pay the extra costs. In re COHBN & CoHEN C. A [1905] W. N. 90 ; [1905] 2 Ch. 137 43. — Third paiiy. Application hy — Arhitra- tion — C'w.rf.? of solicitor of umpire — Order for payment hy party to reference — Right to order for tawutioi— Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 4' ^ Vict. c. 73), ss. 38,41. Upon a reference under the Lands Clauses Acts between a co . and a landowner relative to the value of laud taken compulsorily by the co., the ujnpire directed that the co. should pay the costs of the award, including therein the costs of preparing the award. The co. took up the award and paid the amount fixed by the arbitrator for so doing. This amount included a bill of costs of solicitors employed by the umpire to draw up the award. Tlie co. applied in the K. B. Div. for an order for taxation of the solicitors' bill of costs under s. 38 of the Solicitors Act, 1843 : — Held, tiiat, the umpire being chargeable with the bill and the co. having paid it, the case came within the words of the Act and the bill was taxable, but that the order should be to tax it in the Ch. Div. In re Collyee-Beistow & Co. C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 839 44. — Treasury Solicitor — Direction to appear for subject — Matter in which the Crown has an interest — Right to costs. On a rule for a mandamus to the defts., in a matter in which the Cj'owu liad an interest, the Treasury Solicitor was directed to appear for the deft., and he accoi'dingly became the solicitor on the record. The rule was discharged with costs. Objection was taken on taxation that the deft. was not entitled to recover costs : — Held, tliat the Treasury Solicitor is entitled to act, by direction of the Crown, for a subject, in any matter in whicli the Crown has an interest, and that the deft, was tlierefore represented by a duly qualified solicitor, and was entitled to re- cover his costs from the prosecutor. Hex i'. Aech- BISHOP OF CANTEEBUEY - - - C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 289 45. — Trustees, Bill piiyaile by — Ta.ration by henejiciaries — Incidence of costs — Final Distribu- tion of estate — Prospective costs^Solicitorg Act, 1843 (6 S,- 7 Vict. c. 73), s. 39. Trustees having employed a solicitor in tlic diblribulion of a trust estate, certain beucficiaries ( 2603 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2604 ) SOLICITOE (CoBtB-)—oo)itUued. obtained an order for the taxation of the solici- tor's bill of costs under s. 39 of the Solicitors Act, 1843 :— Held, (1.) The costs must be taxed as between the trustees and their solicitor, and, if properly- chargeable against the trustees as such, must be allowed out of the estate irrespective of their ultimate incidence amongst the beneficiaries, which was a question outside the scope of such a taxation. (2.) The prospective costs of completing a final distribution might properly be included in such a biU. In re MiLEs - Swinfen Eady J [1903] W. N. 122 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 518 • — Trustee's costs — Priority — Property "pre- served." See SOLICITOK — Costs. 9. — Trustee's solicitors' costs— "Costs of petition- ing creditor." See Bankruptcy — Costs. 3. 46. — Will — Trustee — Powerto charge for pro- fesmonal sen-ices — '■ Professional and other charges for his time and trouble" — Non-profes- sional services — Practice — Costs — Taxation. To entitle a solicitor trustee, acting as solicitor to the trust estate under a direction to that effect in a will, to cliarge against the estate for work done by him, which, although not professional work, he could have charged for without any special bargain against a client who was not a trustee, there must be express words in the will shewing that such was the testator's intention. A testator appointed executors and trustees, and directed that one of them should be the solicitor to his trust property and should be allowed " all professional and other charges for his time and trouble," notwithstanding his being an executor and trustee : — Held, that this clause did not authorize the solicitor trustee to charge for work which was not professional work, although it was such work as he might have charged against a client who was not a trustee. In re Ghalindbr and Hehington Warrington J. [1906] W, N. 209 : [1907] 1 Ch. 58 Fiduciary Relation. 1. — Mistake — Rectification of deed — Benefit conferred by client on 7iear relative of solicitor — Duty of solicitor — Independent adrice, A solicitor who was a trustee for a married woman under a settlement and also her husband's family solicitor prepared a deed by which she conferred a benefit on a son of the solicitor and renounced rights she had under the settlement. After hearing the solicitor's explanation of the deed she executed it : — Held, that she was not bound by the deed, on the ground that the real effect of it on her rights and position was not in fact explained to her, and also on the ground that it was the duty of the solicitor to take care that she did not execute the deed without having independent advice. The decision of the C. A., [1900] 2 Ch. 121, affirmed. Wills v. Baeeon - H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 100; [1902] A. C. 271 SOIICITOR (Fiduciary 'Rela.iion)— continued. 2. — Volwntary settlemeint, — 6ift by client to solicitor — Sale by client to solicitor — Uridue in- fluence — Contideration, Inszifficiency of— Separate solicitor, Duties of — Competent independent advice — Gift to children as well as to solicitor — Severable deed — Partial avoidance — Trustee solicitor-donee. Removability of — Limiting avoidance to beneficial interest — Beneficiaries, Consent of — Form of order setting as-ide deed. A gift by a client to his solicitor raises prima facie the presumption that it was unduly in- fluenced by the fiduciary relation subsisting between them ; and the onus is on the solicitor to prove that the gift was uninfluenced by that relation. The presumption is, however, not irrebuttable, but it is not sufficiently rebutted by the mere fact of the client having employed a separate and independent solicitor — even though without any fraud or collusion on the part of the two solicitors — to advise him in the matter of the gift ; for the presumption will continue so long as the relation of solicitor and client con- tinues for other purposes outside the gift, or at all events until it can be clearly inferred that the influence arising from the relation no longer exists. On the other hand, there is no objection to a sale by a client to his solicitor, provicled the solicitor can prove — (1.) that the client was fully informed ; (2.) that he had competent independent advice ; and (3.) that the price given was a fair one. In 1900 the pit., being in pecuniary difficulties, executed a voluntary deed giving part of his property in trust (subject to trusts thereby de- clared in favour of persons not parties) after his own death in certain shares for two of his children, who were sui juris, and for his solicitor, C, whom he expressed a wish to benefit for ser- vices rendered but not yet paid for. C. and one of the two children were the two trustees of the deed, and all three were parties to it. The draft of the deed had been prepared in C.'s office, though not under his supervision, but on his suggestion had been submitted by the pit. to a separate solicitor. A., to advise him in the matter, especially in respect of the gift to C, and the deed was executed by the pit. on A.'s advice. In all other matters G. continued to act for the pit. as before. In 1901 the pit. executed another deed, to which the two children and C. were again parties, whereby the whole of the plt.'s property, both present and future, was conveyed to the same trustees, discharged from the trusts declared by the deed of 1900 in favour of the two children and C, but to be held upon trust for the same three persons in equal shares, in consideration of a covenant by them to pay the pit. a certain annuity during his life. This deed also had been prepared by a separate solicitor, T., who, on C.'s suggestion, had been called in to advise the pit. in the matter. C. continued to act in all other matters for the pit. as before. No fraud or collusion was found as between C, A., and T; in either transaction, but in neither was A. or T. when advising the pit., fully informed of his actual position or property. In an action by the pit, to set aside both deeds : — ■ ( 2fi0.5 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2G06 ) SOLICITOR (Fiduciary 'Relation) —continued. Held, (1.) that the deed of 1900 was void as against 6., but not as against the children, since the benefits it conferred upon them had not been induced by any undue influence on the part of C. ; and Held, (2.) that the deed of 1901 was void altogether as being a transaction of bargain and sale entered into by the pit. without, as the evidence shewed, his having been properly ad- vised as to the sufficiency of the consideration and without the advice of an independent soli- citor fully cognizant of the facts. Match V. Hatch, (1801) 9 Ves. 292 ; 7 R. E. 195, and Holman v. Loijnes, (1854) 4 D. JI. & G. 270, followed. In the absence of some of the beneficiaries under the deed of 1900, the Court refused to remove 0. from being a trustee thereof or to malie a declaration as against him further than that the deed was void so far as related to his bene- ficial interest. The law as stated by Farwell J. in Powell v. Powell, [1900] 1 Ch. 243, 247, as to the duly of a separate solicitor called in to advise a donor in the case of an intended gift to a donee standing in a fiduciary relation to the donor, approved of. Form of declaration setting aside a deed. Weight v. Caktbe - C. A. [1902] W. N. 198 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 27 3. —Voucher — Bill of costs — Taxation — Solicitor and client. In Dec, 1903, A., a ward of Court in Ireland, attained his majority and came into possession of considerable property. From Dec, 1903, to Dec, 1905, E. & E., solicitors, acted for him in the management of his afEairs. During this period they received large sums on his behalf, out of which they paid many of his debts, and also retained the amount of their costs, charges and expenses as his solicitors. In Dec, 1905, they ceased to act for him, and all ti-ansactions between them were then closed. In June, 1907, a receiving order was made against A., and in July, 1907, he was adjudicated bankrupt. Subsequently the trustee in banlcruptcy applied to E. & E. for an account of all the moneys of the bankrupt that had come to their hands from Dec, 1903, to Dec, 1905. In Mar., 1908, E. & B. delivered to the trustee two cash accounts, and shortly afterwards three bills of costs. The trustee did not dispute that the payments appearing in the cash accounts bad in fact been made, but required that the vouchers for these payments should be handed over to him. E. & E. declined to hand over the vouchers except in exchange for a discharge in respect of the payments to which the vouchers related. The trustee there- upon took out a summons for delivery up of the vouchers on the ground that they were the property of the bankrupt, and for taxation of the bills of costs on the ground that they contained overcharges. Neville J. : I think the respondents have misconceived their position. They are not trustees, but agents who have been paid. The vouchers represent payments made on behalf of the bankrupt with his money and are his pro- pert}-, and must be handed over to the trustee ; SOLICITOR (Fiduciary "ReXaXion)— continued. and the bills of costs must be referred to taxa- tion. Ill re Ellis & Ellis Neville J. [1908] "W. N. 215 Fraud. — Fraudulent solicitor — Non-production of title- deeds — Postponement of legal mortgage. See Mortgage — Priority. 8. — Fraudulent statement — Trustee — Breach of trust — Duty to investigate assignee's title — Constructive notice — Belief. See Tkustee— Breach of Trust. 2. — Liability for fraud of co-partner — Novation — ■ Election. See Partnership. 14. — Mortgage by client to solicitor — No money advanced — Fraud of solicitor — Sub- mortgage by solicitor. See Mortgage — Priority. 6. Justices of the Peace. — Provision as to the appointment of solicitors to be justices, see Justices of the Peace Act, 1906 (6 JEdw. 7, t: 16), s. 3. Lien. 1. — Company — IVindinff-uj) — Liqiildator — ■ Doouments in solicitor's hands hefore winding-up order — Solicitor's lien on documents. An action was brought by a co. against its directors for penalties for acting without qualification. N. acted as solicitor for the CO., and documents came into his hands in the course of the action. The co. was ordered to be wound up compulsorily and a liquidator ■v\as appointed. The liquidator continued the action and retained N., but afterwards discharged him and appointed another solicitor, to whom he required N. to hand over all documents relating to the action. N. claimed a lien for costs. This summons was taken out by the liquidator for an order for the delivery of documents ; — Held, that N. had a good lien on, and was entitled to retain, until his costs were paid, all documents which had come into his possession, and on which he had acquired a lien before the order for winding-up, but must deliver those acquired in the course of the winding-up. In re Rapid Egad Transit Co. Neville J. [1908] W. N. 222 ; [1909] I Ch. 96 — Costs, Lieu for — Cross-judgments — Execution. See County Court — Practice. 3. 2. — Costs — Lien on client' s papers for costs — ■ Acceptance of securities — Dutij of solicitor to inform client of intention to retain lien. Wliere secm-ities are given by a client to a solicitor to secure the payment of particular costs, the solicitor's general lien is unaffected. Where a solicitor takes any security for his general costs which is inconsistent with the retention of his general lien, since it gives him some special advantage which the enforcement of the payment of his costs by the exercise of his right of lien would not give, that lien is gone unless he gives the client express notice of his intention to retain the lien. Per Kennedy L.J. : Seinlde, iC a solicitor ( 2607 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2608 ) SOLICITOR (JAm~)— continued . when taking from his client any security for general costs intends to retain his lien, he ought, either by express words or by necessary implica- tion, to make that intention known to his client, hi re Moeeis C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 473 — Costs — Set-off — Independent proceedings — Consolidation order. See MoBTGAGE — Forecloaure. 4. 3. — Country solicitor and town agent — Baiihruptcy of country solicitor — Taxation — Docyjiients in possession of town agent—Produc- ductionfor purposes of taxatimi. The trustee in bankruptcy of a country solicitor delivered to a, client a bill of costs which included agency charges and disburse- ments made by the London agents by whom the business of the client had been transacted. The client, acting through the London agents, ob- tained an order for taxation. Upon a motion by the trustee for an order upon the Loudon agents to produce before the taxing Master all documents in their possession relating to the matters referred for taxation : — ■ Held, that the London agents were entitled to insist upon their lien, not only for their costs included in the particular bill, but for all costs due to them from the country solicitor in respect of agency business and disbursements generally, and that they had not waived their right to lien by acting for the lay client on the application for taxation. In re Jones & Robbets Joyce J. [1905] W. N. 67 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 219 — Documents — Lien ou client's documents — Waiver — Proof of debt — Amendment — " Inadvertence." See COMPAUY — WlNDiM-G-up — Proof. 1. 4. — Partnership action — -Lien for costs — Money in Court and in hands of receiver — " Pro- perty recovered or preserved " — Judgment creditor — Charging order — Priority — Solicitors Act., 1860 (23 .)•■ 24 Vict. c. 127), s. 28. In a partnership action where a receiver had been appointed, a judgment creditor of the partnership firm obtained an order, following Kewney v. Attrill, (1886) 34 Cli. D. 345, giving him a charge for his debt and costs upon the assets in or' to come into the hands of the receiver, the creditor undertaking to deal with the charge according to the order of the Court. Upon an application by the solicitor of the pit. in the action for a charging order for his costs under s. 28 of the Solicitors Act, 1860, in priority to the judgment creditor : — Held, that the solicitor was entitled to succeed. Semhle, an order in the form of Keimiey v. Attrill only operates as a charge as among the creditors of the partnership themselves, or as against the several partners of the firm. Bidd V. Thobnb Joyce J. [1902] W. N. 110 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 344 Limitations, Statute of. — Opening settled accounts — Solicitor — Mort- gagee. See SoLiciTOK — Accounts. 1. SOLICITOB (Limitations, Statute of) — continrnd. — Part payment — Solicitor's bill — Eecovery of moneys due to client — Eetainer ou account with assent of client. See Limitations, Statute of. 19. Misappropriation. — Misappropriation by solicitor — Limitations, Statute of — Acknowledgment — Entry of deceased person against interest. See Trustee — Breach of Trust. 4. Kisconduct. 1. — Administration actions — Agreement to share profit costs between solicitors who represent different conflicting interests. It is an improper practice for solicitors, acting for parties in an administration action, to share the profit costs of other solicitors introduced by them to act for other parties in the action whose interests conflict with those of the introducers' clients, and all the solicitors who engage in such a transaction are s;uilty of misconduct punishable by the Court. In re FouK Solicitors. Mv parte Incoepoeatbd Law Societt Div. Ct. [1901] 1 K. B. 187 — Inquiry — Report of Commiitee of Incorpora- ted Law Society — Eight of complainant to be heard by Court — Necessity of appearing by counsel. See Solioitoe — Practice. 1. — Trustee and cestui que trust — Breach of trust — Solicitor trustee — Fraud — Appropria- tion. See Teustbe— Breach of Trust. 3. Overseer. — Overseer — Exemption — Poor law — Appeal to quarter sessions — Costs — Writ of privi- lege. See PooE Law. 15. Partnership. 1. — Liability for acts of partner — Scope of partnersh ip — Title-deeds — Legal estate in trustee — Duty of solicitor to cestui que trust — Partner- ship Act, 1890 (5,^ ^- 54 Vict. c. 39), s. 11 (J). G., a partner in the firm of J. & G. , solicitors, was secretary to a co. The co. purchased pro- perty, and for their own convenience had it con- veyed to G. in his own name without any decla- ration of trust in the conveyance. The transac- tion was carried through and the conveyance settled by the iirm of J. & G. as the co.'s soli- citors. The conveyance, the only title-deed handed over, was retained by G. G. fraudulently raised money by deposit of the conveyance, and afterwards executed a legal mortgage to the equitable mortgagee. J. had no notice that the conveyance had been made to G. alone, or of any part of the transaction, except such notice as was implied by his firm having acted for the co. The partnership deed made the secretaryship a part of the partnership business : — Held, that G. having a legal right as trustee to the possession of the deed, it was no part of the duty of the firm to see that he did not obtain it without the direction of his cestui que trust, the CO. Assuming that the firm would have ( 2609 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2610 ) SOLICITOR (PtLrtaeiBiii^)— continued. beeu liable for any uegligence of G. iu his duty as secretary, it was no part of such duty to act as trustee of the co.'s property. J. was therefore not liable for his partner's fraud. Tbndeino Hunhked Waterworks Co. v. Jones Farwell J. [1903] 2 Ch. 615 Practice. 1. — Allegation of professional misconduct — Inquiry — Report of Committee of Incorporated Law Society — Bight of complainant to be heard hil Court — Counsel^ JVecessity of appearing by — Solicitors Act, 1888 (51 4' u2 Vict. c. 65), s. 13. Sect. 13 of the Solicitors Act, 1888, by which an application to strike the name of a solicitor oS tlie rolls, or to require hitn to answer allegations contained in an affidavit, is to be heard by a committee of the Incorporated Law Society, who are to embody their findings in the form of a report to tlie High Court of Justice, provides that any person, who but for the Act would have been entitled to apply to the Court to strike a solicitor ofE the rolls, or to require him to answer allega- tions contained iu an affidavit, shall still be entitled so to apply, and " shall be entitled to be heard, if the society brings the report of the committee before the Court " : — Held, affirming the decision of a Div. Ct., [1903] W. N. 71 ; [1903] 1 K. B. 857, that such an applicant could not be heard in person, but must appear by counsel. Kv parte PiU, (1883) 2 Dowl. 439 ; 39 K. E. 731-, followed. In re A SOLICITOR. Etc paHe Incorporated Law Society C. A. [1903] W. N. 117 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 206 Costs. See under Solicitor— Costs. Privilege. — Solicitor — Discovery. Sec under Discovert. Probate. — I'racticc — Defendant lunatic — Position of official solicitor, if appointed guardian ad litem. See Probate— Lunacy. 2. Bepresentation. — Solicitor and client — Adverse title to part of land previously acquired by solicitor. See Estoppel. 2. Restraint on Trade. 1. — Injunction — Solicitor — Coeenant — He- straint on trade — Do tcork as solicitor — Proh ibited ttrea — Letters posted outside tlie area addressed to jiersnns within it. By an agreement made between the pit. and the deft, the latter covenanted that he woidd not within a certain district do for other persons any work or act usually done by solicitors. He wrote and posted letters outside the prohibited area addressed to persons residing within the area. These letters were solicitor's letters written on behalf of clients, and contained demands for an apology and for payment of a debt, and other SOLICITOR (Restraint of TTcaie)— continued. matters. The instructions for the letters were given outside the area : — Held, that the acts were done at the places where the letters were received, and therefoi'e that they were breaches of the covenant. Edmdndson r. Bender Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 121 ; [1906] 2 Cli.320 A'ote. See Woodridge S: Sons v. Bellamy, Eve J., [1910] W. N. 269. Solicitor— Contract of Service. 1. Striking off Roll. 1. — Name — Permitting u/u/ualijied person to use selicitor's name — Punishment — Discretion of Court — Striking off roll — Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 ^- 7 Vict. c. 73), s. 32. Sect. 32 of the Solicitors Act, 1843, which enacts that a solicitor " shall and may be " struck off the roU for certain specified offences, does not give the Court a, discretion to inflict upon the offending solicitor any less punishment than that of striking him oif the rolls. In re Kelly, [1895] 1 Q. B. 180, approved and followed. In re Burton and Blinkhorn Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 300 Trustee. — Breach of trust — Delay in accounting — — Solicitor-trustee — Liability to in- demnify co-trustee. See Trustee— Accounts. 1. — Trustee — Improper investment — lleliance on solicitor. See Trustee— Investments. 0. Undertakings. See also under Practice — Under- takings. — Costs, Security for— Undertaking by solicitor to refund — Practice — Appeal. See Costs. 60. — Enforcing — Solicitor's undertaking to refund money to banlcrupt's estate. See BANKHUPTcr — Undertakings. 1. 1. Undertahing to pay money to person nirt client — Disciplinary jurisdiction of Court — Summary order for payment. AVhere a solicitor in the course of legal pro- ceedings makes a statement to a person, even though not his client, that funds have been put into his hands for the purpose of payment to that person upon a certain event happening, and that upon the happening of the event he will pay the money, the personal undertaking of the solicitor is sufficient to enable the Court to exercise its summary jurisdiction to compel him to carry out the undertaking on the application of the person to whom it is given, although it is not a personal guarantee iu the sense that the solicitor guarantees the payment of the money out of his (the solicitor's) own pocket. Further, the Court wiU exercise its disciplinary jurisdiction to prevent a breach of trust where there has been a declaration of trust by a solicitor in favour of a person even though not his client. ( 2«I1 ) DIGEST 01* CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2612 ) SOLICITOR (^Undertakings)— co/rfi« acd. which induces that person to alter his position. In re A Solicitou. Ex parte HALES Div. Ct. ri907] W. N. 155; [1907] 2 K. B. 539 Sole. This case was not followed by Hamilton J., United Mining and Finance Corporation, Ld. v. Becker, [1910] 2 K. B. 296. See next Case. 2. — Undertaking to pay money to person not client — Ko misconduct on part of solicitor nor legal proceedings pending — Disciplinary jtiris- dictioH of CouH — Summary order for payment. The Court has jmisdictioii, on the application by a person to whom a solicitor gives an under- taking in his capacity as a solicitor, to exercise its summary procedure to compel the solicitor to carry out the undertaking, even though the applicant is not the client of the solicitor and the undertaking was not given in the course of legal proceedings, nor is there any suggestion of dishonourable or discreditable conduct on the part of the solicitor. Peart v. Bushell, (1827) 2 Sim. 38, and dictum of A. T. Lawrence J. iu In re a Solicitor. Bxparte Hales, [1907[ 2 K. B. 539, not followed. United Mining and Finance Coepokation, Ld, r. Becheb - - - Hamilton J. [1910] 2 K. B. 396 Unqualified Person. 1. — Acting as a solicitor — Carrying on pro- ceeding in action — i^'otice of appearance to writ — Solicitors Act, 1843 (G ^- 7 Vict. c. 73), s. 2— II. 8. C, Order Xll., r, 9 ; Ajip. A., Ft. II., Form JVo. 2. , An unqualified person who gives, as agent for the deft, in an action, the notice of appear- ance to the writ required by Order XII., r. 9, to be given by the deft, to the pit. or his solicitor, is thereby acting in contravention of s. 2 of the Solicitors Act, 18i3, which prohibits any un- qualified'pcrson from " acting as a solicitor " or " carrying on any proceeding " in the superior Courts. In re AiNSWOETH. 7fe parte The Law Society - Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 103 SOUND SIGNALS— Shipping— Collision. See Shipping — Collision. 61 — 68. — Collision — In or approaching falling snow — Speed. See Shipping— Collision. 61. — Contributing to collision. See Shipping— Collision. 03. SOUTH AFRICA— Laws of. See under Cape op Good Hope. SOUTH AUSTRALIA— Laws of. See under AUSTEALIA. SOUTHWARK— Bishopric. Sec under EcCLESIAfSTICAL LAW. SOVEREIGN. See under Ceown. SPAIN— B. S. C, Order xi., r. 8, to apply to Sjjain. See under I'BAOTICB. SPANISH LAW-Shipping— Collision— Damage — Both to blame — Life claims. See Shipping— Collision. 10. SPECIAL CASE— Appeal by— Removal of refuse —Hotel— Trade refuse— Public Health (London) Act. See London— Removal of Refuse. 1. 1. — Aji/jlication fur service on justices — Practice — Summary Jurisdiction Rules, 1886, r. 18. Where an application is made under s. 33 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, to a Coui-t of summary jurisdiction to state a special case, it is a sufficient compliance with the rule dated Mar. 20, 1906, made iu substitution of r. 18 of the Summary Jurisdiction Rules, 1886, if the previous practice of serving a copy of the appli- cation on -each justice personally is followed instead of leaving the justices' copies with the clerk of the Court. Rex t. Woodcock Div. Ct. [1907] W. N. 105 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 104 Xote. Discussed by C. 0. A., Rex v. Perry, [1909] 2 K. B. 097. See Criminal Law — Evidence. — Application for service on justices — Summary jurisdiction. See Special Case. 1. — ■ Time for filing special case — Rating appeal — Crown Office Rules. See Ckown Office. 1. SPECIALTY DEBT— Administration of assets- Executor — Preferential payments. See Administration. 28. — Bond — Lost acknowledgment — Parol evidence — Onus of proof. Sec Limitations, Statutes op. 3. SPECIFIC DEVISE— Annuity— Charge on land — Legacy — Will. See Annuity. 18. — Complete general description — Falsa demon- stratio. See Will — Specific Devise. 1. — Estate duty — Direction to pay. Sec under Will — Testamentary Ex- penses. — Partnership realty — Will — Deceased partners- Solvent partnership. See Partneeship. 6. — Residuary devises — Will — Construction. See under Will — Residue. — Settlement estate duty — Directions to pay. See under Will — Testamentry Ex- penses. — Will— Construction. See under AViLL — Specific Devise. SPECIFIC LEGACY— Bequest of shares to A.— Assent of executors — ■ Transfer - Dis- covery of codicil — Shares given to B. — Recovery of shares. See Probate— Revocation. 7. — Demonstrative or — Administration. See Will— Residue. 7. ( 2613 ) DIGEST OF CASES, lOOl-lOlO. ( 2.; 14 ) SPECIFIC LEGACY— (■»«<;/(«(•(?, — Interval between death of testator and assent of executor — Costs of upkeep and pre- servation. See Administration. 29. — Will — Construction. See under Will — Specific Legacy. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE — Agreement for tenancy — Failure as present demise — Operation as agreement for future lease. See Laudloed and Tenant. 1. — Bankruptcy — Mutual debts or dealings — Set- ofE of debt against purchase-money. See Bankeuptcy — Set-oif. ] . 1. — Banliruptcy — Sj>ecijic performance against vendor's trustee in 'bankruptcy — Bank- ruptcy Act, 1883 (46 4- 47 Viii. c. 52), s. ,55— Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 .j- 54 Vict. c. 71), s. 13. Specific performance may be enforced against the trustee in bankruptcy of a vendor of property, and, if the property is leasehold, he cannot dis- claim the contract without disclaiming the lease. IloUoway v. York, (1877) 25 W. K. 627, distinguished. Pbaece v. Bastable's Teustee in Bankeuptcy - • Cozens-Hardy J. [I90I] W. N. 70 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 122 Note. In re BastaMe, Ex parte the Trustee, C. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 518. See Bankruptcy—Dis- claimer. 5. — Building contracts, Exception from general rule as to. See Building Conteact. 5. — Compensation — Conditions of sale — Mislead- ing particulars — Statement by auc- tioneer. See Vendor aud Pueohasek — Condi- tions of Sale. 3. ■ — Company — Director — Contract of service — Restraint on trade — Breach of negative covenant — Interdependent contracts. See COxMPANY — Directors. 5. — Compulsory povi'ers — Purchasers compelled to take conveyance. iS'ee Lands Clauses Acts. 11. ■ — Conditions of sale — Interest on purchase- money — Wilful default. See Vendob and Purchaser — Condi- tions of Sale. 1 . — Contract — Enjoyment of light — Deed of acknowledgment — Non-disclosure — Compensation — Costs. See Vendor and Puechaser — Con- tracts. 1. — Contract to deliver on specified terms all the coal required for use in the plaintiffs' works — Breach of contract — Damages. See Canada — Contracts. 1. — Co>ts — Equitable set-off — Debts " en autre droit." See Ykndor and Purchaser — Costs. 1. — Cuveuant to build — Lease. See Building Contract. 5. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE -^continued. — Default in payment by purchaser — Forfeiture of deposit^Form of order. See Vendoe and Puechaser — Deposit. 3. — ■ Delay — Wilful default of vendor — Interest. See Vendoe and Puechaser — In- terest. 2. 2. — Injunction — Cordract for purchase of timher to he cut and remooed by purchaser — Mutuality — Licence — Eevocation. The pits, entered into a contract with the deft, for the purchase of certain timber growing on his property. By the contract they were t(.i have the right to enter upon the property, cut the timber, and saw it up thereon, to erect saw- mills, and to remove the timber ; and the deft, was to give free exit for all timber to hard roads and free sites for sawmills. The pits, erected a sawmill and commenced to cut timber, saw it up, and remove it. The deft, subsequently repudiated the contract and forcibly ousted the pits, and their men from the estate. The pits, brought this action against the deft., asking for an injunction restraining him from preventing the due execution of the contract and for damages. The deft, contended, inter alia, that the claim for an injunction was equivalent to a claim for specific performance, and that the Court would not gi-ant specific performance of such a contract, but would leave the pits, to their remedy by way of damages : — Held; that although the Court might be unable to compel the pits, to cut the timber if they refused to do so, it had jurisdiction to give them relief by way of specific performance, and that the injunction ought to be granted. James Jones & Sons, Ld. v. Eael of Tankeeville Parker J. [1909] W. N. 171 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 440 ■ — Isle of Man — Agreement to purchase land — Manx Local Government Act, 1886. See Isle or Man. 3. — Judgment for, against purchaser — Forfeiture of deposit — Form of order. See Vendoe and Puechasee — Prac- tice. 2.'. — Lease — Action to purchase landlord's interest — Condition precedent — Mortgage. See Landlord and Tenant. 58. — • Mistake — Sale by auction — Purchaser of wrong lot. See Vendor and Puechaser — Mis- take. 1 . — New Zealand Property Law Act, 1908 — Suit by lessee on it covenant to renew the lease. >%« -NT Ew Zealand. U. — Nomination — Consent or refusal by cnnlinu- ing partners. See Partnership — Power of attorney — Ejectment — Injunction — Jlortgage. See Turks and Caicos Islands. I. — Eailway company — Statutory contract with landowner — Subsequent contract in derogation of same — Damages. See IIAILWAY — Contracts. 2. ( 2fil5 ) DIGKST OF OASES, 1901— 19T0. ( 2616 ) SPECIFIC PEKFORMANCE—co««««ey action — Action in England. An Act of the Legislature of New South Wales authorized the municipal council of the city of Sydney to carry out improvements in a certain street within that city, and imposed upon the owners of property situate within the im- provement area the liability to contribute towards the cost of the improvements. For the purpose of enforcing payment of contributions the council were empowered to dis'rain the goods of the owners liable to contribute and, in addition to the remedy by distress, to recover by action the amount due and payable. Being unable to recover by means of distress the amount of contribution due from an owner of property within the improvement area, the council brought an action in this country to recover the amount : — Held, that the action would not lie in this country, on the grounds (1) that, the liability being imposed by the foreign State solely for its own domestic purposes, the action to enforce it was analogous to an action to recover a penalty or a tax ; (2) that the action was one relating to real property situate abroad. Sydnbx Muni- cipal Council v. Bull Grantham J. [1908] W. N. 205 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 7 — Lauds Clauses Acts — Compensation — Depreciation in value of property by use of tramway. See Lands Clauses Acts. 36. — Liability for damage from non-repair of road — Transfer of liability. See Tbamwats, 7, STREET S— continued. 11. — Maldngup — Power to charge frontagers residing outside limits of local authority — Local government — Puhlio Health Act, 1875 (38 ^' 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 150. A local authority has no jm-isdiction under s. 150 of the Public Health Act, 1875, to charge a proportion of the expenses of making up a street on the owners or occupiers of premises which, though fronting, adjoining, or abutting on the street, are outside the boundary of the local authority. HoENSBr Coepokation v. Birk- BECK Freehold Land Society Div. Ct. [1906] W. N. 59 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 621 — Market — Manorial market — Extent of franchise — New streets — Dedication — Presumption. See Market, i. 12. — IS'ame — Name put up by local authority — Removal l>y owner — Local Government — Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847 (10^" 11 Vict, c. 34), s. 64. A landowner laid out a new street and called it by a certain name, but the local authority shortly afterwards decided that it should be known by a different name and put up that name in the street. The landowner objected and defaced the name so put up, and was convicted under s. 64 of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, which provides that the local autho- rity shall cause to be put up in every street " the name by which such street is to be known,' ' and impose a penalty upon any person who " pulls down or defaces any such name " : — Held, that the landowner had misconceived his remedy, if any, and the conviction was right. Collins v. Hoknsbt Urban Council Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 180 13 . — New street — Local government — Urban authority — By-laws — Special remedy — Fenalty recoverable by summary proceedings — Injunction — Jurisdiction — Attwney- General as co-plaintiff —Public Health Act, 1875 (38 ^- 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 157, 158, 183, 251, 253. Where persons are laying out a new street in such a manner as not to comply with the require- ments of by-laws made by a local authority under the Public Health Act, 1.875, which prescribes a penalty for infringement recoverable by summary proceedings before justices, the High Court of Justice has jurisdiction to enforce the by-laws by injunction in an action brought by the Att.-Gen. at the relation of the local authority and by the local authority. Att.-Gen. uAshborne Recrea- tion Ground Co. Buckley J. [1902] W. N. 208 ; •[1903] 1 Ch. 101 Note. Approved by C. A., Levonport Corporation v. Tozer, [1903] 1 Ch. 759. See Local Governm.ent. 3. Followed by Farwell .1., Att.-Gen. v. Wim- bledon HoHse Estate Co., [1904] 2 Ch. 34. See No. 3, above. 14. — New street — Notice to frontagers to metal and viake good — N'a reference to deposited plan — Sufficiency nf notice. Objection to — When to be talien — Local qovernment — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 ^ 39 Vict. a. 55), ss, 150, 257, 317 ; Sched. IV., Form G, ( 2639 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2640 ) STREETS— careirawA A notice by a local authority under s. 150 of the Public Health Act, 1875, to the frontagers of a new street, not repairable by the inhabitants at large, requiring them to metal and make good the same, should substantially foUow Form G- in Sched. IV. to the Act, and must specifically refer to the deposited plans and sections of the work required to be done and state that such plans and sections are open to their inspection at the office of the local authority. A notice which merely refers in general terms to the provisions of s. 150 is insufficient and bad. Frontagers when served by a local authority with a notice under s. 15 of the Public Health Act, 1875, referring in general terms to the section and requiring them to metal and make good a new street, did nothing. The local authority then executed the required works, and the expenses incurred by them in so doing were apportioned by their surveyor amongst the frontagers in proportion to their respective frontages. The frontagers when served with notice of the apportionment did not dispute it and did not pay the amount of the proportion alleged to be due from them. In proceedings by the local authority under s. 257 of the Act to enforce payment of the alleged proportion : — jBeM, that the frontagers were entitled at the hearing to object that the notice under s. 150 was insufficient and bad. Handsworth District Council v. Derrington, [1897] 2 Ch. 438, 449, distinguished on this point. Stouebeidge Deban Council v. But- iBE AND Geovb NeviUe J. [1908] W. N. 210 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 87 — New street — Paving expenses. See Nos. 17—20, lelow. 15. — OhjectioTis to proposed, worlis — Grounds — Nat a street within the Act — Local Government — Highway repairable by inhabitants at large — Mndence — Admissibility — Private Street Wm-ks Act, 1892 (55 ^ 56 Vict. c. 57), ss. 5, 7. By s. 7 of the Private Street Works Act, 1892, the owner of premises liable to be charged with any part of the cost of executing works under the Act may by written notice to the local authority object to the proposed works on the following, among other, grounds : {a) that an alleged street is not a street within the meaning of the Act ; (*) that a street is a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large. By s. 5 the expression " street " in the Act means a street as defined by the Public Health Act, and not being a high- way repairable by the inhabitants at large : — Held, that where the ground of objection was that the alleged street was not a street within the meaning of the Act, evidence was admissible to prove that the street was a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large. Caebt v. Bexhill COEPOKATIOU Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 142 16. — Offence — Erection of premises in advance of building line — Clumge of ownership — Continuance in same state after written notice — Liability of new owner — Local government — Public Health {Buildings in Streets) Act, 1888 (51 # 52 Vict. c. 52), s. 8, STREETS— , By the Public Health (Buildings in Streets) Act, 1888, s. 3, it is not lawful without the con- sent of the urban authority to erect a house in any street beyond the front main wall of the house on either side thereof ; and " any person offending against this enactment shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding 40s. for every day during which the offence is continued after written notice in this behalf from the urban authority." A house was erected by a builder in contra- vention of s. 3, and subsequently passed into the ownership of the respondent, who maintained the house in the same state after written notice from the urban authority : — Held, that the respondent had not committed an offence under s. 3 of the Act. Blackpool CORPOEATION V. JOHNSON Div. ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 646 — Ownership — Soil of highway — Street in town — Crown — Lease — Rebuttal of pre- sumption. See Highway. 21. — Passage not being a thoroughfare — Require- ment of owner to pave a second time with different material. See London — Paving. 1. 17. — Paving — Malting-up — Landowner — Frontager — Notice to pave and mahe up — Paving expenses, Mecovery of — Summary jurisdiction — Action in High Court — Option of jurisdiction — Sisc Tnonths'' limit for proceedings — Local Act — " Bach roads " — "Cross roads" — Mistake in notice — Validity of notice — Local Government — Bail- ways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 ^ 9 Vict, c. 20), ss. 140, 145 — Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848 (11 # 12 Vict. 0. 43), s. U—BlacUurn Im- provement Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Vict. c. ccxliii.'). Sect. 232 of the Blackburn Improvement Act, 1 882, enacted that expenses incurred by the cor- poration of Blackburn in paving any street under the provisions of the Act should be recoverable by them either by summary proceeding before two justices — which proceeding is, by s. 11 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, required to be commenced within six months from the time of the cause of action arising — " or, if the corpora- tion think fit, in the superior Courts or any Court of competent jurisdiction." Certain frontagers having failed to comply with a notice under the local Act to pave a street in the borough, the corporation, acting under their powers, themselves paved the street, and in July, 1898, served the frontagers with notice of apportionment of the expenses, and demand for payment. The frontagers made default in pay- ment, whereupon the corporation, in Feb., 1900, commenced an action against them in the Q. B. Div. for the recovery of the apportioned expenses. The defts. resisted the pits.' claim on the ground that, upon the construction of s. 232 of the local Act, the claim was too late, inasmuch as the six months' limitationunders.il of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, applied to proceedings whether under the summary jurisdiction or otherwise : Held, that under s, 232 the corporation had ( 2641 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2642 ) STREETS— co/4ii«Me(f. an option to proceed for the recovery of paving expenses either by complaint before justices under the summary jurisdiction or, alterna- tively, by action in the superior Courts or in any Court of competent jurisdiction ; that the six months' limitation applied only to a pro- ceeding under the summary jurisdiction, and not to any of the alternative proceedings, and that the action was therefore not out of time. West Sam Local Board v. Maddams, (1876) 40 J. P. 470, and Tottenham Local Board v. Rowell, (1876) 1 Ex. D. 514, distinguished. Vestry of Hammersmiths. Lowenfeld, [1896 J 2 Q. B. 278, overruled. Decision of Mathew J. reversed. The local Act contained separate and dis- tinctive definitions of a "back road" and a " cross road." The corporation served a paving notice under the Act upon frontagers in a back road and two cross roads by reference to a plan deposited for inspection at the office of the borough surveyor, but the notice by mistake described all the three roads upon which the work was to be done as " back roads " only : — Held, affirming Mathew J. on this point, that the mistake in the description could not have misled the frontagers, and that, therefore, the notice was a good foundation for an action brought by the corporation under the Act for expenses incurred by them in executing the work themselves in the cross roads as well as the back road. Blackbuen Corpoeation v. Sandeeson C. A. [1902] W. N. 63 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 794 18. — Paring, Sfc, expenses — Liability — Crown — Prerogative — Exemption — Property held hy voltrntteer corps for military purposes — Local i^nrerjiment — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 ^ 39 Vict. c. 55), s. \m— Volunteer Act, 1863 (26 I 27 Vict. c. m)— Military Lands Act, 1892 (55 ^- 56 Viet. c. 43). The Crown, not being named in s. 150 of the Public Health Act, 1875, is not bound by its provisions, and is not liable under that section to pay in respect of property owned and occu- pied for the purposes of the Crown any expenses of paving, &c. , a street .on which that property abuts. Land acquired and occupied by a volunteer corps for military purposes, and held under and subject to the provisions of the Volunteer Act, 1863, and the Military Lands Act, 1892, and vested in the commanding officer for the time being of the corps, is land owned and occupied tor tlie purposes of the Crown. The command- ing officer, therefore, is not liable in respect of it for any expenses incurred by a local authority under s. 150. HoEKSEY Deban District Council v. Hennbll Div. Ct. [1902] 2 K. B. 73 — Paving expenses — " Owner." See under LouDON — Streets. — Paving expenses — Payment by occupier. See under London — Streets. — Paving expenses — Bates — Distress. See Distress. 6. STKEETB— continued. 19. — Paving expenses, Liability for — Ou>ner of premises when works are completed — Change of ownership before apportionment and demand of expenses — Local government — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 „5- 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 150, 257. Notice was given by a local authority to the owners of premises in a street, requiring them to execute works, under s. 150 of the Public Health Act, 1875, and, the owners not comply- ing with the notice, the works were executed by the local authority. Subsequently, the ex- penses of the work were duly apportioned, and the proportionate sums due from the owners respectively were demanded. One of the owners to whom the notice had been given sold his premises after the completion of the work, but before the apportionment of the expenses and the demand of the sum apportioned in respect of the premises : — Held, that he was liable to pay that sum under s. 257 of the Public Health Act, 1875, as having been the owner of the premises when the works were completed. Dictum in Reg. v. Swindon Local Board, (1879) 4 Q. B. D. 305, disapproved of. Millakd r. Balby-with-Hexthobpb Ueban Disteict Council C. A. [1904] W. N. 180 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 60 20. — Paving street, E,vpenses of — Charge on. premises — Payment by tenant for life — Private Street Works Act, 1892 (55 ^' 56 Vict. 0. 57), ss. 13, n— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 S' 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 257 — Settled land — Incumbrance — Discharge — Settled Land Act, 1890 (53 ^' 54 Vict. c. 69), s. 11. A person entitled to the interest of a tenant for life in certain property paid the expenses incurred by a local authority in paving a private street, and charged - upon the property under s. 13 of the Private Street Works Act, 1892 :— Held, that he was entitled to a charge for the capital moneys so paid under s. 13, which gives an absolute charge on the fee simple, notwith- standing the fact that s. 17 of the same Act gives limited owners a power to raise moneys so paid by mortgage on the terms that the capital shall be repaid by instalments within twenty years. In re Vizzi. Scrivener t-. Aldsidge Neville J. [1906] W. N. 202 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 67 21. — Posts — Statutory power to Jia; posts "in or under " streets — Trespass — Taking of land — Local government — Local authority — Newport Corporation Act, 1900 (63 ^' 64 Vict. c. xUi.'), s. 51 (Local) — Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8^9 Vict. c. 18), ss. 18, 68. The corporation of a, borough, being em- powered by a local Act, which incorporated the Lands Clauses Acts, to erect and maintain " on, in, over, or under" any street in which their tramways were laid poles and posts for the purpose of working the tramways by mechani- cal power, erected a post for that purpose in the pavement forming part of a street, the post being sunk to a depth of six feet. The pave- ment at that point, and the soil beneath it, were the property of the pit., subject to a right which had been acquired by the public to use C 2643 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901^1910. ( 2644 ) STREETS — continued. the pavement as a public footpath. The post was erected without the plt.'s consent, and he brought an action for trespass to his land against the corporation : — iZeM, that the placing of the post in the plt.'s soil was not a taking of his land so as to make s. 18 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, apply, and that, as the defts. had erected the post under their statutory powers, the action could not be maintained. Escott r. Newport Coepobation Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 369 22. — Private street — Execution of works ly local authority — Liaiility of owner — Notice of provisional apportionment — Streets (^streets and buildings') — Private Street Works Act, 1892 C56 ^' 56 Vict. 0. 57), ss. 6, 12 ; Schedule, Fart 1. — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 ^- 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 267. Where works are executed by a local autho- rity under the provisions of the Private Streets Works Act, 1892, it is a condition precedent to the right of the local authority to recover from an owner of premises in the street his appor- tioned share of the expenses that notice of the provisional apportionment of the estimated ex- penses, as well as notice of the final apportion- ment of the ascertained expenses, shall have been served upon him. WlBRAL EuEAL Dis- TEicT Council v. Cartbe Div. Ct. [1903] 1 K. B. 646 23. — Private street works — Apportioned ex- penses — Charge on premises — Sale — Action — Pnvate Street Works Act, 1892 (55 ^ 56 Viet, u. 57), s. 13. An action will lie at the suit of an urban authority for a declaration that the pits, are entitled under s. 13 of the Private Street Works Act, 1892, to a charge on premises for the apportioned expenses incurred by the pits, in executing works under the Act, and payable by the deft, in respect of the premises, and for an order that the premises may be sold and for the appointment of a receiver. West Ham Coe- PORATION V. Sharp - Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K. B. 445 24. — Private street works — Objections — De- termination by court of summary jurisdiction — Right of appeal to quarter sessions — Local government — Private Street Works Act, 1892 (55 ^- 56 Vict. V. 57), ss. 7, 8. An appeal lies to quarter sessions from the decision of a court of summary jurisdiction under s. 8 of the Private Street Works Act, 1892, determining the matter of objections to proposed works under the Act. Peaecb v. Maidenhead COEPOEATION Div. Ct. [1907] W. N. 89 ; [1907"] 2 K. B. 96 25. — Private street works — Provisional apportionment — Premises fronting, adjoining, or abutting on street — Lands extra commercium — Local qovernment — Public Health Acts — Pi-ivate Street M^m-ks Act, 1902 (55 ^ 56 Vict, c. 57). s. 6—" Owner." A provisional apportionment of the estimated expenses of private street works made under s. 6 of the Private Street Works.Act, 1892, is defec- tive and may be successfully objected to under ^TSXEt^— continued. s. 7 of the Act if it does not include all the premises fronting, adjoining, or abutting on the street the subject of the private street works, irrespective of the question how much, if any- thing, is ultimately charged upon some of the premises. Lands acquired by an urban authority under s. 164 of the Public Health Act, 1875, to be used as public walks or pleasure grounds are not extra commercium. The urban authority is the "owner" of such lands within the meaning of the Public Health Acts. Heene Bay Uebak District Council v. Payne and Wood Div. Ct. [1907] W. N. 104 ; [1907] 2 K. B. 130 — Bailway, streets — New lines — Laws of Ontario. See Canada — Street. 2. — Railway, street — Conditional power to remove snow from railed tracks — Implied obligation to remove snow from the streets. See Newfoundland. 3. — Rates, Owners for the time being liable for the. See New South Wales. 33. — Res judicata — Decision that street is a highway. See No. 6, above. — Sanitary conveniences — Power to provide — Subsoil of road — Misuse of statutory powers — Injunction. &e London — Conveniences. 1. 26. — Sewer — New street — Intended new seioer — Deposited plans — Unused new line of pipes — Whetlier a "sewer" — Vesting in local authority — Local government — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 S' 39 Vict. 0. 55), ss. 4, 13, 16. When a landowner pursuant to the by-laws of a local authority gives notice of his intention to lay out a new street and to construct therein a line of pipes as a sewer, and his deposited plans are passed, and the line of pipes or sewer is constructed under the supervision of the local authority and is on completion approved and duly authorized to be covered in, such line of pipes (though unused) immediately thereupon becomes a "sewer" which vests in the local authority under s. 13 of the Public Health Act, 1875, and they have power under s. 16 of the Act to connect it with their sewerage system. TUENEK V. HANDSWORTH TJEBAN DISTRICT Council Neville J. [1909] W. N. 7 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 381 27. — Sewers — Satisfaction of urban authority — Evidence — Local government — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 <|- 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 150. In a road which was a street within s. 150 of the Public Health Act, 1875, but which was not a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large, an urban authority in 1881, at the cost of the rates, constructed a sewer for soil only, the surface-water from the road and the adjoining houses, both before and after 1881, being carried away by channels at the side of the road. In 1904, there having begn no change since 1881, ( 2645 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2646 ) STREETS — continued. in the number or character of the adjoining houses, the urban authority gave notice under s. 150 to the frontagers in the road to construct a sewer in the road for the purpose of carrying away the surface-water. The frontagers, con- tending that the road was not a street not sewered to the satisfaction of the urban authority within s. 150, did not comply with the notice, and on their default the urban authority themselves con- structed the sewer and sought to charge the expenses on the frontagers : — Held-, that it was a question of fact for the justices whether the road was a street not sewered to the satisfaction of the urban autho- rity, and that the fact that the urban authority had themselves constructed a sewer in the road in 1881, and had done nothing further with regard to the drainage of the road until 1904, did not as a matter of law preclude the justices from finding as a fact on the evidence that in 1904 the road was not sewered to the satisfac- tion of the urban authority. Blooe -c. Beckbn- HAM Urban Disteict Couicoil Div. Ct. [1908] 2 K. B. 671 — Tenant for life — Expenses of making street — Charge on premises — Payment by owner. See Settled Land — Mortgages. 1. 28. — Widening — Compulsory powers — Adjudication — Notice to treat for entire house — Prior agreement to resell part not wanted for widening — Owner^s rigid to retain — Local gorern- mewt — Michael Angela Taylor's Act, 1817 (57 Geo. 3, c. xxix.), ss. 80, 96. A. local authority entrusted by Michael Angelo Taylor's Act, 1817, with statutory powers to take land compulsorily for the purpose of widening streets must use them bona fide for the statutory pm-pose, and for none other. They have no right to seek to reduce the expense to the ratepayers by straining their powers in the interest of persons who desire to acquire the adjacent land from the owners of it. They are bound, under s. 80, to adjudicate whether any houses, and what part of any houses, are neces- sary to be taken for the improvement, and for this purpose they must form an honest judgment after consideration of all the facts of the case ; otherwise their decision will not be binding. Where a landowner desires to retain part of a house, the local authority cannot insist on taking the whole unless the remainder will be useless as a house. Whether that which is left will be a house or not is a question of fact to be determined in each case, and the fact that the part left will require some reconstruction is not conclusive evidence that it will not be a house. Whether or not the power of a local authority to take the whole of a house ought to be measured by the wishes of the owner, the attitude which he takes up ought not to be disregarded ; and if he desires to do upon his own land such work that that which is left will be a house, regard ought to be had to that fact. J. L. Den- man & Co. c. Westminster Cokpobation. J. C. Cording & Co. v. VVestminstbh Cor- POEATION . Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 31 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 464 STB.'EWIS— continued. — Widening — Power to take part of house. See London — Streets. 14. — Widening street — Notice to treat for " part of" a factory — Invalid notice — Injunction. See London — Streets. 15. — Widening streets — Compulsory powers — House — Separate ownership of separate floors. See London — Streets. 13. — Width of street — Itestrictions — New street — Gabled building. See London — Buildings. 9. — Width of streets — Glasgow building regula- tions. See Scottish Law. 24, 25. STKIKE — Action against trade union — Action- able conspiracy — Misdirection — Resolu- tions of union calling a strike. See Canada — Trade Union. 1. — Charterparty — Delay — Stiike preventing or delaying discharge. See Shipping — Charterparty. 20. — Trade union. See under Trade Union. STKIKE CLAUSE— Effect on construction of charterparty — Discharge of cargo. See Shipping— Charterparty. 20. STRIKING OFF ROLL— Punishment— Discre- tion of Court. See under Solicitor — Striking off Roll. STRIKING OUT PLEADINGS, &c.— Practice. See under Practice — Striking out. STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS— Factory Acts — Undergi'ound bakehouse — Lease — " Impositions and outgoings." See Factory. 8. -^ Licensing Act — Direction to keep door locked. See Licen.sing Acts. 58. — Licensing Justices, Order of, for — Jiirisdic- tion — Licence — Renewal. See Licensing Acts. 37. SUB-AGENT— Secret commission — Privity of contract — Fiduciary relation. See Principal and Agent. 9. SUB-CONTRACTOR— Workmen's compensation. See under Master and Servant- - Compensation. SUB-FREIGHT — Lien on — Charterparty — Freight. See Shipping— Charterparty. 48. SUB-LESSEE— Act by, thi'ough which renewal of licence refused — Lease of public- house. See Landlord and Tenant. 29. SUB-LETTING— Lease— Forfeiture. See Landlord and Tenant. 36. ( 2647 ) DIGEST OF CASES, l90l— l9lO. ( 2648 ) SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH. See under Tblegkaph. SUBMISSION TO ARBITRATION. See under Aebitbation. SUBPCENA— Setting aside^Bvidence. See Criminal Law — Practice. 1. — Setting aside — Jurisdiction — Subpoena not issued for purpose of obtaining relevant evidence. See Criminal Law — Practice. 1. SUBPCENA DUCES t'F.CM'SL— Sealed packet oon- taining recipe — Deposit in ianli — Oiligation of ianier to produce and deliver up — £!xtraditio7i Act, 1873 (36 4- 37 Vict. c. 60), .s. 5. A sealed packet may be a " document," and therefore liable to production upon a subpoena duces tecum. The fact that a banker has received a docu- ment upon the terms that it shall not be delivered up except with the consent of the depositors is no answer to a subpoena duces tecum requiring the banker to produce the document. Where there is disobedience to a subpoena duces tecum, the Court has jurisdiction to enforce obedience by attachment, even though the dis- obedience is not wilful. Reg. V. Lord John Russell, (1839) 7 Dowl. 693, explained. Rex ». Date Div. Ct. [1908] W. N. H2 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 333 SUBROGATION— Collision— Settlement of loss by underwriters with buyers — Eight of underwriters to recover in name of sellers. See Shippin-g- Collision. 23. — Discovery — Production of documents — Re- port made to underwriters — Nominal plaintiffs. See Discovery. 17. — Insurance, Marine — Open cover slip — Damages — Fraudulent representations — Re-insurance — Costs. See Insurance (Marine). 16. — Mortgage — Merger — Payment off by stranger — Equitable transfer — Presumption that security is kept alive — Ignorance of mortgagor. See Mortgage — Merger. 1. — Notice to treat for insured property — Loss by iire after notice to treat. See Insurance (Fire). 3. SUBSCRIPTION — Club — Raising subscription — Expulsion of member — Injunction. See Clubs. 1. SUBSIDENCE— Highway. See under HIGHWAY. — Mines. See under MINE. — Mining lease — Compensation for subsidence — Covenants running with the land. See Covenant. 1. — Risk of future subsidence — Remoteness. See Damage and Damages. 3. SUBSIDENCE— coreii«tterf. — "Water company — Liability to reinstate pave- ment — Omission of road authority to rectify. See under Water. SUBSOIIi — Land tax, Liability to — Public underground lavatory — Vesting of sub- soil of road in sanitary authority — Revenue. See Land Tax. 2. — Property in— Payment of rent— Mistake — Estoppel. See Conveyance. 3. SUBSTITUTED ROADS— Right for foot passen- gers — Prescriptive use — Accumulated use attributable to two roads. See Highway — Two Roads. 41. — Sanitary conveniences — Subway — Vesting in sanitary authority. See London — Conveniences. 1. SUBSTITUTED SERVICE. See under PRACTICE — Service. SUBSTITUTION— Parties — Adding or substi- tuting plaintiff. See Practice — Parties. 2. — Will. See under Will — Substitution. SUBSTITUTIONAL GIFT— Will— Construction. See under Will— Substitution. SUBSTITUTIONAL OR SUBSTANTIVE GIFT- Class — Issue of parent dead at date of will. See Will— Class. 8. SUBSTITUTIONARY — Cumulative or— Succes- sive appointments. See Power of Appointment. 38. SUBWAY. See under Way, Right of. — Subsoil of road— Vesting in sanitary authority. See London — Conveniences. 1. SUCCESSION— Right of— English fund belonging to Austrian who has died without heirs — " Mobilia sequuntur personam." See Bona Vacantia. 1. — WiU. See under Will — Succession. — Will — Residue of estate to heir entitled to succeed to entail — Lands disentailed — Intestacy. See Scottish Law. 26. SUCCESSION DUTY— Public revenue. See under Revenue — SuccesBion Duty. SUCCESSION (INDIAN) ACT— Title of executors. See Administration. 15. " SUCCESSOR " — Pawnbroker — Licence — Certi- ficate. See Pawnbroker. 3. ( 2649 ) DIGEST 0^ CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2650 ) SUEZ CAUAL — Collision — Relative duties of north and south going vessels. See Shipping — Collision. 71. SUICIDE — Warranty against — C^onditiou prece- dent — Policy for benefit of third party. See Insubance (Life). 17. SUMMAEY — Decision of Judge — Leave to appeal — Practice. See INTEEPLEADEE. 1. SUMMAEY CONVICTION. (See under Criminal Law — Convictions. SUMMARY JUD&MENT. See under Judgment. SUMMAEY JUEISDICTION. See under Jueisdiction. ■ Criminal Law. See under Criminal Law- Jurisdictiou. - Summary SUMMAEY JUEISDICTION (MAEEIED WOMEN). See under Jurisdiction. SUMMAEY PEOCEEDINGS. Musical (^Summary Proceedings) Cupyriylit Act, 1903 (2 Edw. 7, c. 15). SUMMONS — Originating summons. See under Practice — Originating Sum- mons. — Practice. See under PRACTICE — Summons. SUMMONS FOE DIEECTIONS— Practice. See under Practice — Summons for Directions. SUMMONS TO EEVIEW— Costs— Taxation- Practice. See Costs. 66. SUNDAY — Bread — Sunday observation prosecu- tion — Consent in writing. See Justices. 19. — Charterparty — "Sundays and holidays ex- cepted " — Loading on holidays. See Shipping — Charterparty. 39, 10, a. — Cinematograph — Licence — Condition as to closing on Sunday — Ultra vires. See Cinematograph. 1. — Distress for rent — Kent due on Sunday — Legality of distress levied on following Monday. See LANDLORD AND TENANT. 30. — Gas — " Daily " tests — Sundays included. See Gas. 2. — Licensing Acts — Christmas Day and Good Friday. See Licensing Acts. 47. — Licensing Acts — Oiiences — Delivery on Sun- day of goods purchased on Saturday — Appropriation of goods sold. See Licensing Acts. .51. SUNDAY — continued. — Mayor's Court — Practice — Notice of appeal — Service on Sunday. See London— Mayor's Court. 2. — Ontario Act to prevent the profanation of the Lord's Day ultra vires. See Canada — Sunday. 1. — Shipping — Charterparty — Lay days — Work done on Sunday and holidays. See Shipping— Charterparty. 39, 10, 44. — Sunday observance — Sunday observ.ition prosecution — Institution of prosecu- tion — Consent. See .Justices. 19. — Sunday trading at railway refreshment rooms — Actual or intending passengers. See New South Wales. 34. SUPEEANNUATION — Abolition of office — Emoluments — Period for calculation. See Compensation. 1. — Civil Service — Superannuation allowance — Construction — " Officer." See New South Wales. 4. SUPERFLUOUS LAND— Tunnel— Space above usque ad coelum — Telegraph wires — Statute of Limitations. See Railway — Tunnel. 1. SUPEEVISION OEDEES— Company— Winding up. See Company — Winding-up- vision Orders. 1. -Super- " SUPPLY "-Electric lighting— Municipal cor- poration — Statutory powers — " Supply" of electricity. See Electric Light. 6. SUPPOET — Easement of necessity — Riff ht of support — Implied reservation — Severance of two tenements held ly common owner — Prescription — Enjoyment clam — Right to support of side of dock. In 1860 a dock and a wharf to the west of it, and divided from it by a fence, belonged to the same owner. In order to secure the side of the dock, he in that year carried a number of tie-rods under the ground beneath the fence and beneath the surface of the wharf for a distance of about 15 J feet to the west of the fence, the rods being there fastened by nuts to piles which were diiven into the soil of the wharf. The tie-rods were not visible ; but two nuts on piles were visible on the western side of the camp-sheathing which held up the side of the wharf. In 1877 the then owners of both properties conveyed the wharf to the pits., without any express reservation of a right of support for the dock. In 1886 the same owners conveyed the dock to the defts.' predecessors in title. In 1900 the pits, in making some excavations in the wharf, became for the first time aware of the existence of the tie-rods : — Held, by Romer and Stirling L.JJ., Vaughan Williams L.J. dissenting, (1) that, when the wharf was conveyed to the pits., there was no implied reservation of a. right of support to the ( 2651 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2652 ) SVVVOB,j:~continued. dock, and that the tie-rods did not remain vested in the grantors as part of or appurtenant to the dock ; (2) that the owners of the dock had not acquired an easement of support by length of enjoyment, the enjoyment having been clam, and that consequently the pits, were entitled to remove the tie-rods from their land. Decision of Cozeus-Hardy J., [1901] W. N. 92 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 300, affirmed. Per Vaughau Williams L.J. : The tie-rods formed a corporeal part of the dock, and were reserved with it as appurtenant thereto. Moreover, the enjoyment of the support was not clam, because the pits, had the means of knowledge. Per Eomer L.J. : The easement of support was not one of necessity, and therefore a reserva- tion of it could not be implied. A prescriptive right to an easement over another man's land can be acquired only when the enjoyment has been open — that is, of such a character that an ordinary owner of the land, diligent in the protection of his interests, would have, or must be taken to have, a reasonable opportunity of becoming aware of the enjoyment. Per Stirling L.J. : An easement of necessity is one without which the property retained upon a severance cannot be used at all ; not one which is merely necessary to the reasonable enjoyment of that property. It is established by Dalton v. Angus, (1881) 6 App. Cas. 740, that in order that an easement may be gained by prescription, it must be proved that the person against whom it is claimed had some knowledge or means of knowledge. Union Lighterage Co. r. London Geaving Dock Co C. A. [1902] W. N. 147; [1902] 2 Ch. 557 Note. Principle of, applied by Kekewich J., Ray v. Hazeldine, [1904] 2 Ch. 17. See Light and Air. 12. — Enjoyment clam — Eight to support of dock sides by rods fastened in adjoining owner's land. See preoedijig Case. — Mine — Subsidence. See under Mines. Railway — Mines. Settled Land — Mines. — Mines — Inclosure Act, Construction of — Com- pensation. See iNCLOStTBE Act. 2. — Mines — Reservation of manorial rights — Damage to surface — Compensation. See INCLOSDKE Act. 3. — Sewer and sewage works — Eight to support of — Mines and minerals — Adjacent lands. See Sbwebs. 19. — Waterworks. See under Watbe. SUPPRESSION — Divorce — Material fact — Refusal of decree. See DivoEOB — Practice. 30. STJECHARGE-^Abolition of ofEce— Compensa- tion — Emoluments — Jurisdiction to fix amount. See Compensation. 1. — Auditor— Certiorari— Right of Court to review surchai'ge. See Local Government. 1. — Commission — Taxation — Disclosure — Duty to advise — Bargain with client. See Solicitor — Costs. 10. SURETY — Lunatic — Committee and receiver — Default — Accounts — Death of lunatic — Subsequent receipts — Surety — Lia- bility. See Lunacy. 1. — Married woman — Surety for husband — Im- movables in Transvaal. See Conflict of Laws. 13. — Principal and surety. • See under PRINCIPAL AND Surety. — Probate. See under Probate — Sureties. SURF SATS — Ship — Charterparty — Demurrage — Custom of port — Delay caused by surf. See Shipping — Charterparty. 41. SURFACE — Conveyance of — Railway — Eeserva- tion of minerals — Costs. See Lands Clauses Acts. 35. — Damage to surface — Compensation — Mines — Reservation of manorial rights — Sup- port. See Inclosure Act. 3. — Mines — Support to surface. See under Mines. Railway — Mines. Settled Land — Mines. SURFACE DRAIN — Nuisance by sewage — Drainage of houses — Notice to local authority. See Sewers. 20. SURFACE WATER — Separate drains for sewage and — New house — Discretion of urban council. See Sewers. 12. SURGEON- Veterinary. See under Veterinary Surgeon. — Workmen's compensation — Seamen — Indus- trial diseases — Certifying surgeon. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 157. SURGICAL OPERATION— Workmen's compen- sation. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 170-178. SURNAME. See under Name. See under Will ■ Clause, Name and Arms ( 2653 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2654 ) SURPLUS— Unapplied— Kesulting trust— Fund subscribed for children of a deceased individual — Growing up of children. See Teust. 1. SUEPLUS ASSETS — Attachment of debts — Garnishee order — " Companies Liquida- tion Account." See Attachment. 7. ■ — Company — Winding-up. See under COMPAIfT — WlNDING-UP — Assets. SUEPLUS LANDS— Power to charge — Existing debt. See COEPOBATION. 15. SUEPLUS PEOFITS— Dividend, making up defi- ciency of previous. See under Watee. SUEEENDEE — Acceptance of surrender under mistake u£ fact induced by tenant — Liability of tenant for rent. See Landloed aito Tenant. 84. — Appointor's life interest — Immediate posses- sion — Death of appointor — Hotchpot. See Settlement. 1. — Copyholds — Title — Conditional surrender by way of mortgage — Principal and interestf statute-barred — Vacating con- ditional surrender. See Vbndoe and Puechasee — Copy- holds. 1. — Fine on, of lease — Tenant for life and remain- derman — Capital or income. See Settled Land — Leases. 3. — Fixtures — Tenant's covenant to deliver up demised premises with fixtures — Sur- render and creation of new tenancy. See Landloed and Tenant. 34. — Lands Clauses Act — Notice to treat — Agree- ment for tenancy — Surrender — New agreement — Compensation. See Lands Clauses Acts. 25. — Lease. See under Landlobd and Tenant. — Lease — Tenant for lite and remainderman — Capital or income. See Settled Land — Capital or In- come. 1. — Lease — Title-deed — Custody. See Deeds, &c. 7. — Lease by mortgagor in possession — Surrender of lease to mortgagee — Rights of mortgagee. See Landloed and Tenant. 85, 86. — Eiver— " Tolls "' — Presumption of lost sur- render. See Watee Highway. 1. — Shares — Invalidity — Release of shareholder's liability. See Company — Shares. 19. — Surrender of peerage to Sovereign — Grant by Sovereign of surrendered peerage. See Peeeage. 1. SUEVEYOE — Contract by surveyor of highways for payment of money by his successors. See Highway. 1. — Covenant not to practise as an architect or — Fixed salary. See Eesteaint op TeADB. 6. — Fees of district surveyor — Liability — Period of limitation. See London — Buildings. 5. — Fees — Transfer of powers to borough councils. See London — Buildings. 8. — Field-book entries — Evidence — ^Admissibility — Professional duty — Deceased sur- veyor. See Seashoee. 1. — Highway — Licence to surveyor to take materials from enclosed lands for repair of highways — Jurisdiction of justices. See Highway. 11. — Jurisdiction of — London Building Act — Com- pensation for damage to trade. See London — Buildings. 21. — London — Party wall — Jurisdiction of sur- veyors — Compensation for damage to trade. See London — Buildings. 21. — Master and servant — Burgh surveyor — Extra work — Delay. See Scottish Law. 17. " SUEVIVE " — Trust for wife if she shall " survive " her " coverture " — Deter- mination of coverture by decree for dissolution of marriage. See Settlement. 43. SUEVIVING— Will— Construction— ' ' Surviving children and their respective issue." See Will — Alternative Gifts. 1. " SUEVIVOES "—Settlement by deed— " Sur- vivors " read "others." See Settlement. 44. SUEVIVOESHIP— Will— Construction. See under Will — Survivor. SUSPENSION — Constitution of New South Wales — Power to suspend an accused member until verdict. See New South Wales. 6. SWAMP LANDS— Crown Lauds— Transfer of proprietary right — Canadian Act. See Canada — Swamp Lands. 1. SWANSEA ENTEANCE CHANNEL— Collision- Good seamanship. See Shipping — Collision. 72. SWANSEA NEW CUT— Collision — Fairway- Lights. See Shipping— Collision. 30. SWEAEING — Clergy discipline — Occasional swearing and ribaldry. See Ecclesiastical Law — Discipline. 2. ( 265S ) DIGEST OF CASlSS, l90i— 19ici. ( 2656 ) SV^KASimCr— continued. — Tramcar — Offences — By-law — Validity. See Teamwatb. i. " SWEATING "—Bill of lading — Damage to cargo — Negligence of carrier's servants — Liability of carrier. See Shipping— Charterparty. 11. SWEEPSTAKES — On horse-race— Lottery. See Gaming. 15. SWIMMING BATH— Water supply— School- Charity — Domestic purposes. See under Watee. SYDNEY CORPORATION ACT OF 1879. See under New South Wales. — YDNEY HARBOUR- Wharfage rates. Eight to levy, on all wharves vested in the Com- missioners. See New South Wales. 36. D.D. 4Q ( 2657 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. C 2658 ) T. TACKING— Mortgages. See under Moetgagb— Tacking. TAPESTRIES— Bight of removal— Devise of house — Question between devisee and legatee — General scheme of decoration — Bequest of chattels. See FlXTUEBS. 7. — Right of removal — Tenant for life and remainderman. See FiXTUBBS. 8, 9. TASMANIA — Privy Council Appeals. See under Peivt Council. 1. — Seashore — T>-espass, Action of — Title to foreshore under a Crown grant — Construction — Improper rejection of evidence — Acts of user iefore the grant admiss'Me — Chant of lands already in possession of grantee. In an action against the respondents for a trespass by their agents on the foreshore, the appellants claimed that they were entitled thereto under a Crown grant in 1848 conveying to them the lands of which prior to the grant thfy had taken possession and on which they had expended money ; and the judge directed the jury that evidence of acts of user antecedent to the grant was inadmissible : — Held that the appellants were entitled to a new trial. Acts of user before the grant led up to and explained what was afterwards granted and were cogent evidence of what was intended to pass thereby. Held, further, that a direction to the effect that a lease by the appellants of part of a jetty extending over the foreshore was only evidence of an easement, not of the lessor's title to the land over which the structure was erected, was also calculated to mislead. It ought to have been to the effect that it was clearly evidence of seisin in the locus in quo. Van Dibmbn's Land Co. v. Maeinb Boaed of Tabt.b Cape P. C. [1906] A. C. 92 2. — Will — Issiie — Gift over — Construction. In a gift over on failure of the line of one child to " other of my children and their issue," the word issue must receive its plain and ordinary meaning, and not be restricted to the issue of children dying in the lifetime of the testatrix unless the rest of the will plainly requires it. The gift over in this case was subject to the con- dition that those only took under it who were also beneficiaries under the original gift, in which original gift issue was restricted as above by the immediate context : — Held, that that was insuiScient by itself to control the meaning of the word used in a new connection. Accordingly the appellants were entitled to share in the said gift over as issue of TASMANIA— continued. a child other than the child whose line had failed ; and this notwithstanding thut under the original gift they had taken in substitution for their mother. Edyvban v. Aechbe. In re Brooke P. C. [1903] A. C. 379 TAXATION— Costs. See under COSTS. SOLIOITOB — Costs. TAXES. See under Revenue. — Land tax. See under LAND TAX. — Lease of land — Covenant to pay taxes — Usual covenant by lessee. See Canada — Leases. 1. TAXI-CAB DRIVER— Workmen's compensation — " Workmen " — " Contract of service." See Mastee and Servant — Com- pensation. 174. TAXIMETER — Falsification of accounts — Machine. See Ceiminal Law — Ealsifloation of Accounts. 4. TEA COMPANY— Trading and life insurance com bined — Pensions. See iNSUEANOB (Life). 2. TEACHER. See under Schools. TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION— School Board- Power to provide out of rate. See Schools. 20. TELEGRAPH. Telegraph (Money) Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7,c.3), is an Act toprutidefor raising further money for the purpose of the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1899. Wireless Telegraphy Act, 19 04 (4 Edw. 7, 0. 24), provides for the regulation of wireless telegraphy. Wireless Telegrajihy Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 13), is an Act to continue t/ie Wireless Tele- graphy Act, 1904. Telegraph {Money) Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 6), is an Act to 'provide for raising further money for the purpose of the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1906. The Telegraph {Foreign Written Press Tele- gram^ Amendment {No. 1) Megns., 1907. Dated Dec. 16, 1907. St. R. & 0. 1907, No. 1068. Price \d. ( 2659 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2660 ) T'ELEG^APK— continued. Telegraph. iComtructioTi) Act, 1908 (8 Ildtv. 7, c. 33), amends the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1907, with respect to the construction and maintenance of telegraph lines for telephonic and other tele- graphic purposes. Telegraph. 0. in C, Fei. 29, 1908. TIlc Wireless Telegraphy Order, 1908. St. R. & 0. 1908, No. 208. Price Id. Telegraph. The Wireless Telegraphy (Foreign Ships) Regns., Jitne 20, 1908. St. B. & 0. 1908, No. 496. Price Id. 1. — Actio7i, against Postmaster - General in official capacity — Immunity from action — Telegraph depaHnient — Wrongful act of subor- dinate official— Telegraph Act, 1863 (26 ^- 27 Vict. c. 112), ss. 18, i2— Telegraph Act, 1868 (31 S- 32 Vict. c. 110), ss. 2, i—lelegraph Act, 1878 (41 # 42 Vict. c. 76), s. 11. The Postmaster-General is not liable in his official capacity, as head of the telegraph depart- ment of the Post Office, for wrongful acts done by his subordinates in carrying on the business of the department. Bainbkidge v. Post- mastee-Geneeal C. a. [1906] 1 K. B. 178 — Cheque — Countermand by telegram — Notice to bank manager. See Banker. 2. — Negligence — Telegraph Acts — Compensation —Damage. See Negligence. 8. 2. — Submarine telegraphs convention — Pro- tection of cables — Fouliiig of cable by anchor — Sacrifice of anchor — Compensation — Measure of damages — Submarine Telegraph Act, 1885 (48 cf 49 Vict. c. 49), Soiled., att. mi. The Submarine Telegraph Act, 1885, Sched., art. vii., provides that shipowners who can prove that they have sacrificed (inter alia) an anchor in order to avoid injuring a submarine cable shall receive compensation from the owner of the cable : — Seld, that the liability of the owner of the cable under this article was to make compensa- tion for the sacrifice of the anchor, but not further to pay the damages resulting from such sacrifice. Senible, the amount of compensation is not necessarily limited to the cost of replacing the material sacrificed, but depends on the circum- stances of each case. Aginoouet Steamship Co. 0. Eastern Extension, Australasia and China Tblbgeaph Co. - - C. A. [1907] W. N. 110 ; [1907] 8 K. B. 305 — Telegraph wires — Superfluous land — Tunnel — Space above usque ad coelum — Statute of Limitations. See Bail WAY— Tunnel. 1. 3. — Telephone — Bridge carrying public road over railway — Power to lay cable along bridge — Consent of railway company — Telegraph Act, 1868 (26 <5- 27 Viot. e. 112), ss. 3, 6, sub-ss. 1, 4, s. ^-2— Telegraph Act, 1892 (55 .j- 56 Vict. c. 59), «. 5. By an agreement entered into between the pits, and the defts. in Nov., 1906, the defts. agreed to pay to the pits. 30Z. a year for TELEGRAPH— cy«i!(««ea!. permission to lay and maintain a telephone cable over a bridge crossing the pits.' railway, and in pursuance of this agreement they laid the cable under the footway across the bridge. They subsequently repudiated the agreement on the ground of want of consideration, inasmuch as they had power to lay the cable over the bridge without permission from the pits. Thereupon this action was brought for a declaration that the defts. were not entitled to use or maintain any cable over the bridge except upon payment of 30i. a year and with the consent of the pits. Warrington J., [1908] W. N. 106 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 50, upon the construction of the Telegraph Acts, 1863 and 1892, decided that the defts. were not authorised to construct or maintain the works in question without the consent of the pits., and that the pits, were entitled to the declaration they claimed. The C. A. dismissed tlie appeal, without expressing any opinion on the construction of the Telegraph Acts, and held that, inasmuch as the defts. had taken the benefit of the agreement with the pits, and had not counterclaimed to have it set aside, it must be treated as good, and so long as that agreement stood the defts. could not repudiate their obligations thereunder. South-Eastern Et. Co. v. National Tele- phone Co. C. A. [1908] W. N. 172 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 614 4, — Telephone — Postmaster - General — Monopoly — Pnvate lines — Telegraph Act, 1869 (32 4- 33 Vict. c. 73), s. 5. Private telegraph or telephone lines of the A to A class, such as lines from a merchant's office to his private bouse, or from a head to a branch office, fall within s. 5 of the Telegraph Act, 1869, and are therefore excepted from the Postmaster- General's monopoly, but private lines of the A to B class, namel)-, lines connecting two or more separate and independent persons or business, are not within the exception. Unhcensed electric signals (where no tele- phone is used) of the kind described in the second schedule to the special case are not excepted from the Postmaster - General's monopoly. Decision of the C. A., [1908] 2 Ch. 172, reversed, and decision of Swinfen Eady J., [1907] 1 Ch. 621, restored. Postmaster-Gbnkral v. National Telephone Co. - - H. I. (E.) [1909] W. N. 91 ; [1909] A. C. 269 — Telephone company — Alteration of roadway by — Workmen's compensation — "En- gineering work." See Master and Servant — Compenaa- tion. 79. TELEPHONE. See under Telegraph. TEMPERANCE — Canada Temperance Act — Issue of search warrant before prosecu- tion. See Canada — Temperance Act. 1. TENANCY — Notice by — Adverse title— Con- structive notice. See Vendor AND PURCHASBE— Title, 2, 4q2 ( 2661 ) DIG£fecial and distinctive word" — Word distinctive of manufacturer — Exclunve user — Patented invention — KrpiraVwn of patent — Rectification of register — Jfotlvn to e.rpunge trade mark — User hefore 1875 — Omis of proof — Appeal — Further evidence — Trade Dlarks Re- giMration Act, 1875 ( 38 S' 39 Vict. u. 91), .<. 10. In 1877 a chemical manufacturer registei'ed, under the Trade Marks Registration Act, 1875, tlie word " Vaseline," which had been invented by him to denote a product of his manufacture, the word being registered as an old mark used by him for six years before 1877. TJpon an application made in 1900 by a rival manufacturer for the removal of the mark from the register : — Held, by Vaughan Williams and Stirling L.JJ., Oozeus-Hai'dy L.J. dissenting, that the word had been properly j'egistered as a "special and distinctive word " within s. 10 of the Act of 1875, since the applicant failed to show that the word had not been used by itself as a trade mark before the Act, whereas the evidence showed that the word had always been used before and since the passing of the Act to denote, not an article manufactured by a particular process, but an article identified with the name of the particular manufaotui'er. Whether, when an inventor Invents a new article, and at the same time invents a word to designate it, he can claim the exclusive use of that word to denote his own manufacture, iiuirre. Where a i^erson is seeking to remove a trade mark fi-om the register, the onus is upon him to pi'ove that it ought to be taken off, not upon the party registered to make out his right to retaifi it on the register ; and especially so where the mark has been on the register for many years. Linoleum Manufacturing Co. i'. Nairn, (1878) 7 Ch. D. 834, distinguished. Decision of Buckley J. reversed upon furthe:- evidence adduced, by leave, on the appeal. In re Chesbbeough's Teade-mahk " Vaseline " C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 1 9. — Old mark — Registration — Lapse — Re- registration — Action for infringement — Passing off goods — Advertisements and circulars — Motions to e-rpwnge trade mark — Delay — Costs — Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1888 (46 <|- 47 Vict, c. 57), ss. 54, 64, 77 (a), 79, and 90— Patents, De- signs and Trade Marks Act, 1888 (51 ^ 52 Vict, c. 50), s. 18. A trade mark may be infringed by being used in the advertisements and circulars of a rival irader, if it is used in them in relation to or connection with the same class of goods, and in such a manner as to be calculated to deceive. Delay in moving to rectify the register by expunging therefrom a trade mark will as a general rule deprive a successful applicant of his costs ; but he may be refused relief altogether if TRADE MASK- TO?ii»i his delay has placed the respondent at an unfair disadvantage, e.g., if material evidence has been lost to the respondent by reason of the delay. A. wiis the .owner of two trade marks. One was the figure of a " Swan," with adjuncts, and the other was the woi'd " Swanbill." Both marks were registered as old marks in 1876 in respect of the same class of goods, and for many years were used together. In 1890 A. per iucm-iam allowed the registration of the woj'd " Swanbill " to lapse, but in 1892 registered it again as an old mark. In 1901 he brought an action against B. & Co. for infringing his trade mark of a " Swan " iu their advertisements and circulars ; and thereupon they moved to expunge both of A.'s marks from the register. They had become aware in 1896 of the registration iu 1892 of the word " Swanbill." The action and motion were tried together, and at the trial B. & Co. aban- doned their motion so far as it sought to expunge A.'s trade mark of a " Swan," but succeeded in expunging the word " Swanbill." The action was dismissed. Under the circumstances, and having regard to B. & Co.'s delay in moving to rectify the register, A. was ordered to pay only two-fifths of the taxed costs of the action and motion. In re Talhot's Trade Mark, (1894) 11 Kep. Pat. Cas. 77, followed. An application by A. for a certificate under 3. 77 (a), on the ground that the validity of his trade mark of a " Swan " had come in question, was refused. Observations on the distinction between a passing-off action and a common law action for deceit. London General Omnibus Co. v. Lavell, [1901] 1 Ch. 135, commented on. BOUBNB r. Swan & Edoae, Ld. In re Bouene's Tbade Makks Farwell J. [1902] W.lN. 214 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 211 Note. Referred to by Farwell J., Todd v. North Eastern Rg. Co., [1903] W. N. 9 ; C. A. [1903] W. N. 30. See Costs. 13. 10. — Passing off — " Chartreuse '' — French Law of Associations — Vesting of M'ench business under French judgment — Effect of French law vpon property in English trade marks— Rectifi- cation of register. Where a foreign manufacture has acquired a reputation In England it is beyond the power of a foreign Court or foreign Legislature to prevent the manufacturers from availing them- selves in England of the benefit of that reputa- tion or to extend or communicate the benefit to any rival or competitor in the; English market. Decision of the C. A., [1908] 2 Ch. 715, affirmed. LECOUTUElERr. Retand ANOTHBll. LECOUTtrKlBE r. Key and Othbes H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 79 ; [1910] A. C. 262 — Passing off — Trade description. See under Tkade Dbsckiption. — Practice — County Court — Jurisdiction — In- fringement of registered trade mark. See County Coubt — Jurisdiction. 9. 11. — Proprietor — Salesman on commission — Nitural product — Selection — Certification — ( 2681 ) "DIGEST OI' CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2682 ) TRADE MAKK — continued. Dealing with — Offering for sale — Infringement —Trade Marks Act, 1905 (5 Mdto. 7, c. 15), s. 3. A salesman on commission may be the pro- prietor of a trade mark in respect of the goods which he sells on commission. A trade mark may be registered in connec- tion with vegetables and other natural products of the earth. The pits, were salesmen of vegetables on commission in Coveut Garden Market. They dealt largely in the vegetables of a grower named AVebb, ou whose care and skill in selecting, grading, and packing they knew they could rely. They registered a trade mark under classes 42 and 50 in Sched. III. to the Trade JIarks Rules, 1890, and painted the same upon the baskets in which they sold the vegetables. Their practice was to send baskets with their trade mark upon them to Webb, who filled the baskets and forwarded them by rail to the pits. The pits.' trade mark was well known, and goods sold by them under that mark had a high reputation in the market. Owing to a dispute between them and the ry. CO. the pits, refused to take delivery of nine baskets ' forwarded by Webb as aforesaid. The ry. CO. then procured the defts. under an indemnity to sell in the market the contents of the nine baskets. The defts. sold the contents in or from the baskets themselves : — Held, that the vegetables so sold by the defts. were the goods of the pits, by virtue of selection, certification, dealing with, or offering for sale within the meaning of s. 3 of the Trade Marks .\ct, 1905 ; that there was nothing to prevent the pits, from registering a trade mark in con- nection with those goods ; and that the defts. had committed an infringement of that trade mark. Majoe Beothbes v. Feanklin & Son Jelf J. [1908] 1 K. B. 712 12. — Hegiitration — Ajtplication to register — Similar niarh on register — "Same goods or deseription of goods " — Calculated to deceive — Trade Marks Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, r. 15), ss. 11, 19. The opponents were manufacturers of all sorts of indiarubber goods, except boots and shoes. They had registered in 1899 a trade mark, of which the distinctive part was a Maltese cross, in class 40, for " goods manufactured from india- I'ubber or gutta-percha, not including dress shields or gussette webs." The applicants applied to register in class 38 two trade marks of which the distinctive fcatiu'c was a Maltese cross, one for " boots and shoes made wholly or partly of indiarubber," the other for "india- rubber footwear included in this class but not including gaiters or leggings or any goods of a like kind." The applicants had used the marks in Canada on all kinds of indiarubber goods. They had done some business in England, but only in boots and shoes : — Held, that the opponents' trade mark was for '■the same description of goods" as the applicants' proposed marks, and they were " calculated to deceive," and registration ought to be refused under s. 19 and also under s. 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1905. In re Tkadb Maekb Act, 1905, asd In re Gutta Percha TRADE MARK — continued. AND India Eubbbe Co. of Toeonto's Appli- cations C. A. [1909] W. N. 100 ; [1909J a Ch. 10 13. — Registration — Distinctive mark — '^ Laivson Ta'it" — Adapted to distinguish— User —Trade Marks Aot, 1905 (5 Hdw. 7, c. 15), s. 9, sub-s. 5. By a written agreement made in 1898 between the predecessors of the applicants and L. T., it was agreed that L. T. should permit them to manufacture and sell a certain pattern of bed- stead under the name of the L. T. bedstead, ou payment of a royalty. The pattern of bed- stead referred to was a bedstead constructed in three parts, and had been approved by L. T. in 1881, when he gave verbal permission for the use of his name upon these bedsteads. There was evidence that since 1881 the name of L. T. had been continuously applied to bed- steads constructed on the above principle by the applicants and their predecessors, and to nothing else, and that the bedsteads had become well known to the trade generally as the L. T. bedsteads. Upon an application referred to the Court by the Board of Trade, for the registration of the words " Lawson Tait " as a trade mark in class 41 for bedsteads : — Held, that the name " Lawson Tait " must be deemed to be a distinctive mark in respect of bedsteads of the pattern referred to in the agree- ment of 1898, within the meaning of s. 9, par. (5), of the Trade Marks Act, 1905, and the registrar must be directed to proceed with the registration of it in respect of those bedsteads. In rr Whiti'iblds Bedsteads, Ld., Application FOE EEGISTKATION OP A TeADE MAEK Eve J. [1909] W. N. 144 [1909] 2 Ch. 373 14. — Registration-^Distinctiremark — Segix- trable trade mark — Adapted to distinguish — Confusion with, other goods — Trade Marks Ai1, 1905 (5 Edip. 7, c. 15), s. 8 ; s. 9, sul-s. 5 ; .s. 39— Trade Marks Rules, 1906, r. 39. Application under s. 9, sub-s. 5, of the Trade Marks Act, 1905, for the registration of the word " Oswego " alone in class 42 in respect of corn flour. The applicants were an American com- pany with factories at Oswego, in New York State. There was evidence to show that they had sold Oswego corn flour for many yciirs in this country, that there was no other corn flour known by the name " Oswego," that tlieir corn flour was known to the public as " Oswego " without the use of their name, and that the name " Oswego " was known in this country through its association with their goods rather than as a geogi'aphical name. There were on the register five other trade marks in class 42 containing the word "Oswego." Three of these belonged to the applicants and two to biscuit manufacturers who did not oppose the present application : — Held,, that the only question now before the Court was whether " Oswego " was atlapted to distinguish the corn flour of the applicants from the corn flour of other persons ; that the Court had not to consider wliether registration of " Oswego " might lead to confusion between the ( 2683 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2684 ) TRADE JUARK—omtinued. applicants' corn flour and similar goods, such as oatmeal, of other persons ; that the Court had power to take into con-iideration evidence of actual user of the trade mark ; and that on the evid :nce in the present case there must be a declaration that " Oswego " ought to be deemed a distinctive mark in respect of corn flour. In re National Starch Co.'s Applica- tion FOE THE RBGISTEATION OF A I'BADE Maek - Warrington J. [1908] W. N. 203 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 698 Note. Distinguished by Warrington J., In re Cali- fornia Fig Synp Company's Applioation for a Trade Mzrk, [1909] 2 Oh. 99 ; 0. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 130. -See JVo. 32, below. 15. — Registration — " DlstinHive mark " — Trade Marks Act, 1905 (.5 Fdw. 7, c. 15), s. 9, suh-ss. 4, 5. A (ierman co. who were the owners of the Apoliinaris mineral water spring at Neuenahr, in Khenirth Prussia, applied to register the word "Apoliinaris" in England in class 44 in respect of mineral waters. There was evidence of very extensive user of the word "Apoliinaris," and that it meant the water from the applicants' spring and no other water. The Board of Tr-ide having required the application to be made to the Ch. Div. : — Meld, that, on the applicants undertaking " not to use the mark except in respect of water from their property at Neuenahr or the neigh- bom-hood thereof ," the word "Apoliinaris" ought to be deemfd a "distinctive mark" within the meaning of s. 9, sub-s. 5, of the Trade Marks Act, 1905, and might fairly be registered xinder the Act. When the evidence shews that the words sought to be registered distinguishes the goods of the propriei or of the mark, it is not the less "distinctive" of the goods of the proprietor because it also distinguishes the goods irrespective of the proprietor. In re " Apollinaeis" Teadb Maek - Kekewich J. [1907] 2 Ch. 178 Jfote. See ne,vt Case. 16. — Registration — "Distinctive mark" — " Wora<" — Trade Marks Act, 1905 (5 Mdw. 7, c. 15), s. 9, sub-ss. (4), (5). Motion on behalf of the applicants, the owners of the Apoliinaris spring at Neuenahr, in Rhenish Prussia, for an order directing the Registrar ot Trade Marks to treat the word "Apoliinaris" as a distinctive mark within s. 9, sub-s. (5), of the Trade Marks Act, 1905, and to proceed with the registration. On May 16, 1906, the application was made to the Registrar of Trade Marks for the registration of the word " Apoliinaris " in class 44 in respect of mineral waters. The Board of Trade required that the application should be made to the Court, and that the applicants should prove their claim. There were a number of affidavits from presi- dents of Chambers of Commerce and others con- nected with trade from many centres to the effect that the name "Apoliinaris" as applied to mineral waters meant the waters coming from the spring at Neuenahr and no other water. It XEADE MARK — continued. appeared that the name " Apoliinaris " was given to the spring by its discoverer, George Kreuzberg, in 1852, after the name of an early saint, and there was a church of the same name on a hill seven miles from the spring. It was suggested by the applicants that the word might also come under sub-s. (4) of s. 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1905. Kekewich J. said that he did not think the word " Apoliinaris " came within sub-s. (4) of s. 9. In his view the word had a direct reference to the character and quality of the water which the trade mark was intended to protect, and whether that was so or not, it was clear that, according to its ordinary signification, the word was a geo- graphical name. His lordship, however, came to the conclusion that the word was a, " distinctive mark " within sub-s. (5). On. the evidence the word distinguished the goods of the proprietor of the trade mark, and not the less so because it also distinguished the goods from other goods irrespec- tive of the proprietor. A difficulty might arise if the applicants ceased to be owners of the spring, but as they were willing to give an under- taking "not to use the mark except in respect of water from their property at Neuenahr, or the neighbourhood thereof, he would make a declaration that the word " Apoliinaris " ought to be deemed a " distinctive mark " within the mean- ing of s. 9, sub-s. (5), of the Trade Marks Act, 1905. The applicants must pay the costs of the Registrar of Trade Marks. In re Actien- gesellschapt Apollinaeis Bbunnen Voe- MALS, GBOEG KREUZBEEG'S APPLICATION Kekewich J. [1907] W. N. 128 Note. See preceding Case. 17. — Registration — " Distinctive word " — Registration — "Addition" to trade mark — Ad- dition registered as part of trade mark — " Dis- entitled to protection " — Disclaimer — Disclaimer subsequent to application for registration — Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883 (46 S,- 47 Vict. 0. 57), ss. 64, 73, 74. In 1887 the F. Co. registered, in connection with jams, a trade mark consisting of the word "Silverpan" in large type with their signature underneath, and subsequently the word by itself became identified in the market with their goods. In 1900 the 11. Co., rival jam manufac- turers, applied that the entire trade mark might be removed from the register as "being calcu- lated to deceive or otherwise disentitled to pro- tection," within o. 73 of the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Acts, 1883, or, in the alter- native, that the word " Silverpan " might be disclaimed under s. 74 as being a " distinctive word " : — Held, by the C. A. (reversing Kekewich J.), that the word " Silverpan " was to be regarded as an " addition " to, and not part of, the trade mark, and that at the date of registration it was a word "distinctive " of the F. Co.'s goods, that is " prima facie distinctive " : Burland v. Brox- bwrn Oil Co., (1889) 42 Ch. D. 274 ; and, there- fore, ought to have been disclaimed under s. 74 ; but, the F. Co. submitting, an order was made to remove the entire trade mark from the register. In re Clement S; Cie.'s Trade Mark, [1900J ( 268J ) DIGEST 01'^ CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2C86 ) TEADE J/LAZTS.— continued. 1 Ch. 114, aud In re Smolieless Powder Cb.'s Trade Mark, [1892] 1 Ch. 090, approved of and distinguished. Per Romer L.J. : The word " distinctive " in .«. 74 means something which, at the time of registration, is chosen by the applicant and is prima facie suitable, when used, for the purpose of distinguishing his goods from the goods of others. Whether a disclaimer under s. 74 can be made or ordered subsequently to the applica- tion for registration of the trade mark, ([luere, III re Fatjldbe & Co.'s Trade Mark C. A. [1901] W. N. 835 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 13 18. — Registration — Douhle regutration — \on-esse7duil particulars — Disclaim-er — Tivie — Patents, ^-c, Acts, 1883—1888 (46 4' 47 Vict. c. 57 ; 61 ^- 02 Viet. c. 50), s. 62. Registration vrill not be allowed of a trade mark identical in essential particulars with, but differing in non-essential particulars from, a registered mark of the applicant himself. The exclusive use of non-essential particulars on a trade mark must be disclaimed in the ap- plication for registration. Subsequent amend- ment will not be allowed. In re Plater & Sons' Trade Mark, No. 225,035 Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] 1 Ch. 382 Note. Distinguished by Swinfen Eady J., In re A. A. Crompton 4' Cfl.'« Trade Marli, [1902] 1 Ch. 758. See No. 6, above. 19. ■ — Begistration — Identical mark for dif- ferent descriptions of goods — Discretion of regis- trar — Associated trade marhs — Assignmemt — Costs of registrar — Trade Marlis Act, 1905 (5 Mio. 7, c. 15), s. 12, sub-ss. 2, 3 ; ss. 22, 24, 27, 48. A CO. which carried on several separate and distinct businesses registered the trade mark " B.S.A." in class 19 in respect of arms, ammu- nition, and stores. They subsequently applied to register the same trade mark in class 22 in respect of cycles, motor cycles, and automobiles. The registrar required them, as a condition of registration, to agree that the marks should be associated in accordance with the provisions of B. 24 of the Trade Marks Act, 1905. On the applicants declining this condition, the registrar, in the exercise of his discretion under s. 12, sub-s. 2, of the Act, declined to register the mark. On appeal from this decision : — Held, that the discretion vested in the regis- trar was not an absolute discretion, but one to be exercised subject to the provisions of the Act. Sect. 24 was one of such provisions, and had nothing to do with the registration of identical trade marks, but of marks " so closely resem- bling a trade mark of the applicant already on Ihp register for the same goods or description of goods as to be calculated to deceive or cause confusion if used by a person other than the applicant." The two classes of goods in question were also not the "same goods or description of goods," and the registrar must be directed to TEADE "ULtLBiK.— continued. proceed with the registration of the mark in class 22 without the condition of association. Held, further, that the applicant, although successful, must pay the costs of the registrar, who was a public official occupying a fiduciary position, and had done nothing to disentitle him- self to costs. In re Birminoham Small Arms Co.'s Application Kekewioh J. [1907] W. N. 168 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 396 Note. See In re United States Playing Card Go's Application, Swinfen Eady J., [1907] W. N. 251 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 197, No. S, above. 20. — Registration — Invented word — " jdi- sorbine " — Patents, Designs, and Trade Marlis Acts, 1883 (46 # 47 Vict. c. 57), s. 64, a7id 1888 (51 S- 52 Vict. c. 50), s. 10, sub-s. 1. The word " Absorbine " as applied to a veterinary preparation for absorbing and re- moving swellings. Held (affirming Joyce J., [1904] 1 Ch. 696) to be a mere variation of an existing English word, and therefore not an " invent«i word " capable of registration. Christy v. Tipper C. A, [1904] W. N. 188 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 1 21. — Registration — Invented word — Fancy word — Reference to character and quality of goods — Descriptive name — Patented article — Patents, Designs and Trade Marlti Act, 1883 (46 S- 47 Vict. c. 57), s. U— Trade. Marlis Act, 1905 (0 Mw. 7, c. 15), ,M. 3, 9, 36, 36. Ill 1881 G. obtained letters patent for a, pen which he called the " Cyclostyle." From 1882 onwards the pen, with its accessories, paper, ink, &o., were sold under the name of " Cyclostyle." In 1884 the word " Cyclostyle " was registered under the Patents. Designs and Trade Marks Act, 1883, in respect of stationery and apparatus for producing facsimile copies of writings and designs, including the pen and its accessories. In 1895 the patent expired. By that time the word had become well known to the public as the name of the patented article and its accessories. On an application under s. 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1905, to expunge the word from the Register of Trade Marks : — Held, that the word, being at the date of its registration the name of the pen, was not a fancy word not in common use within the meaning of s. 64, sub-s. 1 (c), of the Act of 1883. Held, also, that it was not an invented word, nor a word having no direct reference to the character or quality of the goods, within the meaning of s. 9 of the Act of 1905. Where an article is made imder a patent, the manufacturer cannot after the patent has expired claim a monopoly in the name by which the article has become exclusively known to the public. In re Magnolia Metal Coh Irade Marlis, [1897] 2 Ch. 371, followed. Per Buckley L.J. : In construing s. 36 of the Trade Marks Act, 1905, the facts and the law at the date of the motion to expunge are to be considered. If on those facts and in that state of the law a trade mark, having been removed from the register, would be entitled to be ( 2687 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2688 ) TEADE MARK— continued. replaced, the entry is not to be expunged on the ground that the maik was not registrable under the Acts in force at the date of its registration. That section does not mean that the Act of 1905 is to be applied to the facts at the date of the registration. Decision of NeviUe J., [1907] W. N. 182 ; [1907] 2 Oh. 478, afBrmed. 2n re Ekgistbked Tkade Mark, No. 37,760 of David Gbstbtnbe C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 513 32. — Registration — " Inmrded word " — Non- descriptioe word — Patents, Designs, and Trade Harks Act, 1888 (51 ^ 52 Vict. c. 50), s. 10. The word " Uneeda," being a mere misspelt combination of the English words " You need a," is not an " invented word " within the meaning of s. 10 of the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1888. Moreover, it is descriptive of the character or quaUty of the goods ; and on both these grounds it is not the proper subject of registration as a trade-mark. Decision of Cozens-Haxdy J., [1901] 1 Oh. 550, affirmed, hi re " Uitbeda " Teade-maek C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 783 3S. — Registration — Invented word — Reference to character and quality of goods — Descriptive name — Trade Marks Act, 1905 (5 Edio. 7, c. 15), ss. 8, 9, 35, 36, 37. In May, 1905, P. registered, as a trade mark, under the Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Acts, 1883 and 1888, the word " Diabolo " in respect of tops. The word was not then a word current in the English language, but was to be found in some Italian dictionaries as a variant for "diavolo." The top in respect of which the mark was registered and used was a double-coned one which was adapted to be rotated by a cord attached to two flexible rods, the top and the rotatory apparatus forming the means of playing a game which with some improvements was a revival of a game played about the beginning of the nineteenth century, iu France called "le diable " or " le jeu au diable " and in England " the devil on two sticks " : — Held, that as the word " Diabolo " was such as to suggest to ordinary minds (and selected so to suggest) the devil or something in which the devil played a part, it was not an invented word or a word having no reference to the quality or character of the goods, and was not a registrable trade mark and must be removed from the register of trade marks. Observations as to the meaning of s. 36 (removal of marks already on the register at the commencement of the Trade Marks Act, 1905) and s. 37 (as to removal of marks for want of bona fide intention of user in connection with goods). Qucere, whether the word was not also open to objection because it was not at the date of registration used or proposed to be used to indi- cate that the goods to which it applied were the foods of the person asking for registration. HILIPPAET v. William Whitelet, Ld. In re PHILIPPAKT'S TEADE MAEK -'DIABOLO" Parker J. [1908] 2 Ch. 274 84. — Registration — " Motriame " — Similar Word already on register — " Same TRADE MAR'S.— cunfinued. description of goods" — " Calculated to deceive " — Onus of proof — Rectification of register -^ " Motorine" — Descriptive word — Invented word — " Word having no direct reference to character or guality of goods "—Trade Marks Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 15), s. 9, sub-s. 4 ; ss. 11, 19, 21. In 1901 the opponents registered the word " motorine " as a traide mark for lubricating oil, with a disclaimer of the right to the exclusive use of the word " motor." Since registration they had sold large quantities of a lubricating oil suitable for, but not confined to, motors under that name. In 1906 the applicants applied to register the word " motorine " as a trade mark for a spirit for motive power pur- poses derived from petroleum. The opponents opposed the application, and the registrar refused to register the mark. On an applica- tion by the applicants that the registrar might be directed to proceed with the registration of their mark, and that the opponents' mark might be expunged from the register : — • Held, that under s. 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1905, the onus of showing that the pro- posed trade mark was not calculated to deceive rested on the applicants ; that they had failed to discharge that onus ; that that being so the Oourt would decline to exercise its discretion under s. 21 of the Act of allowing conditional registration ; and that the application to register must therefore be refused. Eno V. Dunn, (1890) 15 App. Oas. 252, followed. Held, also, that the word " motorine " had " no direct reference to the character or quality of the goods," and was therefore a good trade mark under s. 9, sub-s. 4, of the Act, and that the application to expunge it from the register must consequently be refused. In re COM- PAGNIE INDDSTBIELLB DBS PETEOLEB' APPLI« CATION. In re Peice's Patent Candle Co.'s Teadb Maek - - - . Warrington 3. [1907] W. N. 176 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 485 35. — Registration — Motion to rectify — Fancy word — ^'Tabloid" — Presumjition arising from long user — Patents, Desigm, and Trade Marhs Act, 1883 (46 Si 47 Vict..c. 57), s. 64. Where a trade-mark is impeached after it has been on the register for a great many years, and has been openly and largely used, and there is a doubt as to its validity, the registered pro- prietor is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Prior to 1884 B. & W. manufactured and sold compressed drugs made up into small bi- convex discs under the name of " Tablets," and they registered that word as a trade-mark. In 1884 they registered the newly coined word " Tabloid " as a trade-mark, under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883, for sub- stances used in pharmacy, and they had since manufactured and sold compressed drugs of the same shape and size under the name of " Tabloids " ;— Held, by Byrne J. and by the C. A., dubi- tante Stirling L.J., that at the date of its regis- tration the word "Tabloid" was a distinctive fancy word. Wblloomb (teading as Bue- EOUGHS, WELLOOMIS & Go.) Vt THOMPSON & 4e ( 2689 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 19U1— 1910. ( 2690 ) TKADE MARK—coiainrnd. Cappbe. I7i re BuEEODGHS, Wellcome & Co.'s Teabe-maeks C. A. [1904] W. N. 87 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 736 26. — Registration — Registrable marl; — Dis- tinctive tiiarJi — " Word or words" — Use of word ^^ Royal'''' — Practice as to serriee of ajiplication to the Court that a proposed mark may he " deemed a distinctive mark " — Trade Maries Act, 1906 (5 Edw. 7, c. 15), s. 9, sub-s. 5 ; ss. 11, fiO, 68— Trade Mrtrlis Rules, 1906, 7-r. 12, 39. The Royal Worcester Corset Co., of Wor- cester, Massachusetts (a oo. incorporated in the United States of America), applied for regis- tration in class 38 of the words " Eoyal Worcester " alone as a trade mark for corsets generally. The words had been used for about five years upon, and in connection with adver- tisements of, corsets manufactured by the applicant co. at Worcester, Massachusetts, and sold in the United Kingdom by the Boyal Worcester Trading Co. (an English firm) as sole agent or licensee of the applicant co., but never without additional words indicating that the corsets were made in America. The Board of Trade, pursuant to r. 39 of the Trade Marks Eules, 1906, directed the applicant CO. to apply to the Court for an order under sub-s. 5 of s. 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1905, that the words should be " deemed a distinctive mark." The Board of Trade also directed that the application should be served on the Corap- troUer-General (in the Act referred to as " the registrar "), on the Boyal Worcester Trading Co. (which had already applied for registration of the same words as a trade mark in connection with corsets and certain articles of clothing), and on the Worcester Boyal Porcelain Co., Ld. (which was the registered owner of the words " Eoyal Worcester " as a, trade mark for china and pottery, the words being not only distinctive of those ihings of their manufacture, but connoting the place of their manufacture and the fact that they were supplied to the Eoyal Family) : — Held — (1.) that before the Court can make an order under sub-s. 5 of s. 9 it must be satis- fied that the proposed mark is adapted to distinguish the goods of the applicant from similar goods of other persons ; (2.) that even if so satisfied, an order ought not to be made if the mark ought not to bo registered for some other reason, e.g., because the registration would con- travene s. 11 ; (3.) that the proposed words were not so adapted to distinguish the corsets from those of other persons, and therefore were nut in themselves " distinctive words " within the meaning of s. 9 ; (4.) that the words had not Ijecomc by user "distinctive," apart from the use of other words not sought to be registered, and were not, therefore, "distinctive'' within the meaning of s. 9 ; (5.) that registration ought also to be refused because of the suggestion in the use of the word " Eoyal " that the appUcant CO. enjoyed royal patronage (which it was not suggested that it enjoyed) and would be calcu- lated to deceive within the meaning of s. 11 ; (6.) that the practice of the Board of Trade of incdcating upon whom an application to the Court should be served was a convenient practice, TKADE ^ARK— continued. and that the two cos. served in this case were properly served and entitled to be heard ; and (7.) that if an applicant does not serve any person so indicated the Court can either proceed without any service or direct service to be made according to its own view of what the circum- stances require. Semble, that the word " Eoyal " may be used in such a way as to negative any suggestion of the enjoyment of royal patronage. Tn re Eoyal WOEOESTEE COESET Co.'S APPLICATION TO Eegistek a Trade Mark Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. 459 Distinguished by Warrington J., In re Cali- fornia Fig Syrup L '«.'« Application for a 'Trade Mark [1909]'2 Ch. 99 ; C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 130. See No. 32, helow. 37. — Registration — Removal from register — Mark ^^ calculated to deceive" — Word 'Hrade- ■marh " printed on part of label registered as a wlwle. The fact that upon a part of a label, the whole of which is registered as a trade mark, there is printed the word " trade-mark," is not necessarily calculated to deceive as suggesting that that part alone constitutes the trade mark. The Court must decide from the circum- stances of the particular case before it whether the position of the word "trade-mark" is calcu- lated to deceive, and whether, if it is, there is a reasonable probability of any one being injured by it. Per Romer L.J. : The decision of the C. A. upon this point in In re Apollinaris Co.'s Trade marks, [1891] 2 Ch. 186, was upon a question of fact, and does not therefore bind the Court except in a case in which the facts are identical. In 1876 a label was registered as a trade mark by a firm of brewers as an " old mark," i.e., one which they had used for some years before Dec. 31, 1875. In the centre of the label was a diamond or four-sided figure, and the label was surrounded by an ornamental border. Upon the diamond was printed the word " trade-mark." The firm also in 1876 registered the diamond alone as a trade mark. In 1900 a rival firm of bre^^■ers applied to have the label removed from the register, on the ground that the printing of the word "trade- mark " upon the diamond was calculated to deceive, as suggesting that it alone constituted the trade mark, and that the remainder of the label might be imitated : — Held, by the C. A., that under the circum- stances the position of the word " trade-mark " upon the label was not calculated to deceive ; that there was no reasonable probability of any one being injured by it ; and that thei-e was no ground for removing the label from the register. Decision of Kekewich J. (founded upon In re JpolUiiaris Co.'s Trade-marks, [1891] 2 Ch. 186) reversed. In re Eeoisteeed Teade- maekb of Bass, Eatclifpe & Gbetton, Ld, (No. 2) C. A. [1902] W. N. 153 j [1902] 2 Ch. 579 28. — Registration — Sam,e goods or description of goods — Nearly identical trade marks -^ ( ygsl ) DIOJIBT OF ClASaS, i901~i9lOi ( 2492 ) TRADE UHHK—continued. " A. B. C." — Hatter common to trade — Honed concurrent user — Matter c/ilculated to deceive — jDUolainier — Discretion of Court — Trade Marhs Acs, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 15), ss. 11, 14, 15, 20, 21 — Limited comjjany's trade marh^Kame or signatwe — Advertisements — Companies Act, 1862 (25 4' 26 Viot. c. 89), s. 41. In 1906 the Aerated Bread Co. applied to register as a trade mark in class -15, in respect oi' cigars, cigarettes, and tobacco, a device which was a reproduction of the co.'s common seal having the letters A. B. C. in the centre, and which was already registered as their trade mark in class 12 in respect of bread, biscuits, cakes, and flour. Shortly afterwards A. Baker & Co., who carried on business as tobacconists, applied to register a series of four labels as trade marks in class 45 in respect of cigarettes. One of the distinguishing features in the series was a circular band or garter in the centre of which appeared the letters A. B. C, and round the edge of which were contained the words " A. Baker & Co., Ld." A. Baker & Co. had for the last eleven years used the mark they sought to register and with perfect good faith claimed the right to the exclusive user of the letters "A. B. C." The Aerated Bread Co. opposed A. Baker & Co.'s application on the ground that there had been concm'rent user of the letters A. B. C. by them- selves and others, and that A. Baker & Co.'s labels should only be registered on a disclaimer by them of any right to the exclusive use of that part of the label. A. Baker & Co. opposed the Aerated Bread Co.'s application on the gi'ound that their mark contained matter the use of which would, by reason of its being calculated to deceive, be disentitled to protection in a Court of justice. The registrar refused to register either mark, and thereupon each co. applied to the Court for a direction to the registrar to proceed with the registration of their respective marks. At the hearing A. Baker & Co. failed to establish that the letters A. B. C. exclusively indicated their goods. The evidence also shewed that in the past the concurrent user of the letters A. B. C. for the same goods by the Aerated Bread Co., A. Baker & Co., and others had not led to any mistake, confusion, or com- plaint. On A. Baker & Co. 's application : — Held, that in the circumstances the Court, in the exercise of its discretion under s. 15 of the Trade Marks Act, 1905, would not impose upon the applicants a condition requiring them to disclaim any part of their combination although containing matter common to the trade, and that they were entitled to have their trade marks registered. The condition of disclaimer is one for the imposition of which some good reason ought to be established rather than one which ought to be imposed unless some good reason to the contrary is made out. The failure of a claim to a monopoly, put forward and asserted with good faith, does not necessarily involve the imposition of a disclaimer as a condition of registration. Held, also, that the applicants' trade marks were not " advertisements " within the meaning TRADE KABK— < of B. 41 of the Companies Act, 1862, necessitating the mention thereon of the applicant co.'s name in legible characters ; and that there is nothing in the Trade Marks Act, 1905, confining the name or signature appearing in a trade mark to the name or signature of the applicant. On the Aerated Bread Co.'s application :-^ Held, that the applicants had discharged the burden which lay upon them of shewing that their trade mark was not calculated to deceive, and that they were entitled to have their mark registered in class 45. In re Albbbt Bakee & Co.'s Application. In re Aerated Bread Co.'s Application - Eve S. [1908] 2 Ch. 86 29. — Registration — Special application — Distincti'ce icm'd — Direction to proceed — Form, of order — Practice — Trade J/arks Act, 1905 (5 JEdw. 7, c. Ifj), s. 9, sui-s. 5 — 'Trade MarU Rxdes, 1906, rr. 39, 41. Motion by the Itala Fabbrica di Automobili^ for an order authorizing the Registrar of Trade Marks to treat the trade mark " Itala " as a dis- tinctive mark within s. 9, sub-s. 5, of the Trade Marks Act, 1905, and to proceed with their application for registration thereof. The appU- cauts were an Italian co., and the application was opposed by the Itala Automobiles, Ld., an English CO., formed for the purpose of selling the applicants' cars in England, and holding the exclusive licence for so doing, who alleged that if the trade mark were registered at all it ought to be in their name. There was evidence that the mark " Itala " had been considerably used on and denoted the applicants' cars. Parker J. held on fhe evidence that " Itala " was adapted to distinguish the applicants' goods, and made an order decliiring tliat for the pur- poses of the application before the registrar the trade mark " Itala " should be deemed to be dis- tinctive within s. 9, sub-s. 5, of the Trade Marks Act, 1905, and ordering that the registrar should accept and proceed with such application. In re Itala Fabrioa di Automobili's Application Parker J. [1910] W. N. 170 30. — Registration — Special application — Distinctive word — User — Foreign language — Irade Marlis Act, 1905 (5 Fdw. 7. c. 15), s. 9, sui-s. 5 — Practice — For7n of order. A Latin word will not necessarily be refused registration as a trade mark because its English equivalent could not be registered. It niay be registered if it has not become a part of the English language and has become distinctive of the applicants' goods by long user and there is no danger of confusion or inconvenience to other traders. When an application is referred by the Board of Trade to the Court under s. 9, sub-s. 5, of the Act of 1905, the Com-t will not make any declaration that the proposed mark is or may be distinctive, but will only direct the registrar to accept the application in order that it may be proceeded with in, the ordinary way. In re AKTIEBOLAftET B.A. F. HjOETH &, CO.'S TRADE Mark " Primus " - Swinfen Eady J. [1910] W. N. 123 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 64 31. — Registration — Special application — Liberty to proceed^-^^ Distinctive " word — Long iB,2 ( 269S ) blOESt OP CASES, 1901— I9l0. ( 2W4 ) TBADD MASK — contimied. user — Deceptive use of descriptive word — Trade JIurlis Jet, 1905 (5 JUdw. 7, c. 15), s. 9, siib-s. 5. Upon a special application under s. 9, sub-s. 5, to register the word " diamine " for dyes, it was proved that the word, which had been used by the applicants as a trade mark for twenty years, had become extensively known to the trade in the United' Kingdom as indicating the goods of the applicants. The word was a known cliemical term whicli indicated that the substance to which the word was applied contained two amine groups, but it was used by the applicants for their dyes, whether they contained one, two, or more amine groups or nu amine group at all :— Held, that the word was not distinctive within the meaning of the sub-section, first, because it was descriptive, and, secondly, because it was used deceptively, and that the application ought not to be allowed to proceed. Per Buckley L.J. : SeiiMe "adapted to dis- tinguish " contemplates that the word which it is sought to register is one which as a word is adapted to distinguish the goods and not a word which may by user acquire the capacity of dis- tinguishing the goods. In re LEOPOLD Cassblla A: Co. Geskllschaft M. B. H. - C. A. [1910] W. N. 129 ; [1910] 3 Ch. 240 38. — Registration, — Special application — Distinctive word — User — Laudatory epithet — Geoc/raphical name — Misspelling of descriptive word — Trade Marks Act, 1905 (9 Mw. 7, c. 15), s, 9, sui-s. 5 ; ss. 11, il. A mere laudatory epithet cannot acquire by user the quality of distinctiveness within s. 9, sub-s. 5, of the Trade Marks Act, 1905, so as to render it capable of registration as a trade mark. A word not being an invented word ought not to be put on the register if the spelling is phonetic and resembles in sound a word which in its proper spelling could not be put on the register. Per Fletcher Moulton L.J. : The Court has jurisdiction under s. 9, sub-s. 5, to permit regis- tration of words having a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods, as well as geographical terms, but it is for the applicant to prove that words prima facie unsuitable for registration have acquired distinctiveness, and the extent to which the Court will require the proof o£ this acquired distinctiveness to go will depend upon the character of the word. In iletermining whether a word prima facie descrip- tive ought to be admitted to registration as a trade mark the Court ought to consider whether the registration will cause substantial difficulty or confusion in view of the provision in s. 4-1 that no registration shall interfere with the use by any person of any bona fide description of the char- acter or quality of his goods. Upon a special application to register the word " Perfection " as a trade mark for common soap it was proved that for many years past the applicants bad advertised their soap under that name, and had also used the name upon the cakes of soap sold by them, but always iu conjunction with their own name, and that in many parts of TBADE MABE— ci England the applicants' soap had become known to a large extent as " Perfection " soap : — JHeld, that the word ought not to be admitted to registration. Decision of Swinfen Eady J., [1910] 1 Ch. 118, affirmed. See ne.rt Case. A special application to register the words " Californian Syrup of Figs " for an aperient medicine was referred by the Board of Trade to the Court. The evidence established a prima facie case of the words having become identified by long user with the goods of the applicant : — Held, that the application ought to be allowed to proceed. Decision of Warrington J., [1909] 2 Ch. 99, reversed. An application was made to expunge from the register several trade marks consisting of the word " Orlwoola " registered under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Acts, 1883 and 1888, for (amongst other things) woollen goods, with a disclaimer in each case of the words " all wool. " These marks had been extensively used for many years in connection with unshrinkable woollen goods : — Held, that " Orlwoola " was merely a mis- spelling of " all wool " ; that if the goods to which the word was applied were entirely com- posed of wool the word was descriptive, and, if not, was deceptive ; and that the trade marks were not registrable either under the Act of 1905 or under the previous Acta and ought to be expunged. Decision of Eve J. reversed. In re 3 osbph Crospibld & Sons, Ld. In re Calii'DENiA Fig Syktjp Company. In re H. N. Brock & Co. - - C. A. [1909] W. N. 233; [1910] 1 Ch. 130 Xote. Observations in, applied by G. A., In re Leopold Cassella .j" Co. Gesellschaft M. B. H. [1910] 2 Ch. 240. See No. 31, ahove. 33. — Megistration for an entire class — User for part of class — Bona fide intention to use — Dormant mark — Rectification, of registei' — lAvii- tation to x)art of class — Patents, Designs, and Trade Marls Act, 1883 (46 ■$• 47 Vict. c. 57), s. 90. Where a trader has registered a mark for an entire class, and, many years after registration, it is proved that he has never used the mark in connection with a particular article in that class, though his business included the sale of that article under other trade marks, the register may be rectified, upon the application of another trader desiring to register a similar mark for the particular article, by excluding that article from the specification of goods in respect of which the mark was originally registered, on the ground that at the date of registration there had been no actual user of the mark, and no bona fide intention of using it for that particular article of the class for which the mark had been registered. Principle of Eduoards v. Dennis (1885) 30 Ch. D. 451, applied. In re REGISTERED Teadb- iiAEK No. 22,206 OF Madeice John Haet Byrne J. [1902] W. N. 163 i [1902] a Ch. 621 ( 269.'! ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2696 ) TRADE TaARK—oontinued. 34. — Word dweothj referring to character of goods — IKstwwtive 7oord — Name of article as trade ■mark for it — ^'Gramophone" — Eei/ist ration — Protection to other traders — Trades Marlis Act, 1905 (5 EduK 7, o. 15), ss. 9, 44. The Gramophone Co., Ld., and its predeces- sors in title had before and after the incorpora- tion of the 00. manufactured and sold talking machines, and for many years had sold and adyertised the machines as "gramophones" and the CO. claimed monopoly rights in the word, as distinguishing goods of the oo.'s manufacture, by warning circulars, legal proceedings, and tlireats of legal proceedings. To the general public the word " gramophone " denoted a talking machine operating a disc record without any connotation of the source of manufacture ; but to the trade generally the word denoted a talking machine of a particular type and con- noted the source of manufacture. The co. applied for registration under s. 9, sub-s. 5, of the Trade Marks Act, 1905, of " gramophone " as the co.'s trade mark in respect of gramophones and sound recording and reproducing instruments, records, parts and accessories : — Held, that, " gramophone " being the name of the article sold, even assuming the word had by user become distinctive of the co.'s goods, the application for registra'tion ought not to proceed. An application under s. 9, sub-s. 5, of the Act in effect admits that the word sought to be regis- tered (not being a geographical name or a sur- name) has some direct reference to the character or quality of the goods in respect of which it is proposed to be registered. In the case of a trade mark in actual use, the tribunal, when taking into consideration the extent to which user has rendered the mark in fact distinctive of the applicant's goods, can only have regard to user upon or in connection with goods for the pm-pose of indicating that such goods are the goods of the person so using the mark, and the acquired distinctiveness must be due to such user. If a word which has once been the name of an article ought ever to be registered as a trade mark for that article, it can only be when the word has lost, or practically lost, its original meaning ; and so long as the word appropriately describes the article registration ought to be refused. Observations on s. 44 of the Act. In re Gramophone Co.'s Application Parker J. [1910] 2 Ch. 423 TRADE NAME— Company — name. See under Company — Name, and under Company — Winding-up— Name. 1. — Deception — Rital traders — Person trad- ing under his own name — Form of injunction. The Court : Kow that the form of injunction has been agreed upon, we wish to say a few words upon the case. It may be that a trade is of such a nature that the products of that trade, associated with a particular trade name, have become almost indissoUibly connected with the business carried on by the particular manufac- turer who has created that particular btfsiness. But still, evenjthough that may be so, and even TRADE NAME— coHfMae(f. though the nature of the trade has to be taken into consideration in an action for an injunction, there never has been a case yet where an order has been made I'cstraining a man altogether from carrying on in his own name a particular trade. Every decision up to the present time has been limited to restraining him from carrying on a trade which has become identified under the same name with the business of another person, without taking the steps which any honest man would wish to take to prevent his goods being confounded with the other person's goods which have become so identified with the name. Under the circumstances the order of Kekewich, .1., [1901] W. N. 46, went too far, and the order which we now make goes as far as it ought to go. J. & J. Cash, Ld. r. Cash C. A. [1902] W. N. 32 2. — Passing-off action — Parties — Practice — Injunction. For many years the pits, manufactured and sold tyres for cycles and motor cycles under the name of "Warwick," and by the year 1905 that name was distinctive and meant to the trade and to the public tyres of their manufacture. In 1905 they transferred their business with the exclusive right to manufacture and sell Warwick tyres to the Dunlop Co. for a term of years, but did not assign the goodwill in their trade name of " Warwick " to that company. The pits, never manufactured or sold tyres for motor cars, nor did the Dunlop Co. sell such tyres under the name of " Warwick." The defts. manufactured and sold only tyres for motor cars, and in 1908, the name of their managing director being War- wick, commenced to sell their motor tyres under the name of "Warwick motor tyres." In an action by the pits, to restrain the defts. from using the name "Warwick" in connection with the sale of the defts.' motor tyres on the ground that such user was calculated to lead the public to believe that the defts.' motor tyres were tyres of the pits.' manufacture : — Held, on the evidence, that the pits, were entitled to an injunction. Held, also, that the pits., although they were not themselves manufacturing or selling their Warwick tyres, were the proper parties to sue, as they had not parted with the goodwill in their trade name " Warwick," and that the Dunlop Co. were not necessary parties to the action. Wakwick Tyre Co. " v. New Motor and General Rtjbber Co. - - Neville J. [1910] W. N. 8; [1910] 1 Ch. 248 3. — Professional designation — " Incorporated accountant" — Descriptive or fancy name — Use of name appropriated to 2>articular society — JTnauthorized use hy another society and by in- dividuals — Legal injury — Injunction. The pit. society was incorporated in 1885, under the Companies Act, 1867, as a co. not for gain without the use of the word " limited " under licence of the Board of Trade. In 1886 the pit. society recommended its members to adopt as their professional designation the use after their names of the term "Incorporated Accountant." By 1905 that designation had come to mean to that section of the public who ( 2697 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2698 ) TRADE ^AME—cnnf! lined. had dealinfts with acooiintants a member of the society, which, by its system of tests and exam- inations, had conferred upon its members the vahiable privilege of a recognised status for ability and inte.ffrity. In that year the deft, association was incorporated under the Com- panies Acts as a co. limited by jjuarantee. Shortly after its incorporation its council recom- mended its members to adopt the designation " Incorporated Accountant " with the addition of the abbreviation "Lon. Asson." In an action by the pit. society against the deft, association and G., one of its members, claiming (1.) an injunction to rcstr.nin G. from using in connection with his business of account- ant the designation " incorporated accountant," and (2.) an injunction to restrain the deft, society from holding out, by ad vertisements or otherwise, that its members were entitled to use such designation : Seld, that the designation " incorporated accountant " was a fancy and not a descriptive term, and had come to denote membership of the society, and, therefore, that the unauthorized use of it inflicted an injury on the pit. society, in respect of which it was entitled to maintain an action. Held, also, that the pit. society had a pecuni- ary interest in preventing the deft, association fi-om attempting, by representations and induce- ments held out to members of the professions, to reduce the status of the pit. society by con- ferring improperly an indication of that status. Held, therefore, that the pit. society was entitled to the injunctions which it claimed. Society of Accountants in Edinhurqh v. Cor- poration of Accountants, Zd., (1S93) 20 R. 7.50, followed. SociETT OF Accountants and AUDITOBS V. GOODWAT AND LONDON ASSOCIA- TION OP ACCODNTANTS, Ld. Warrington J. [1907] W. N. 46 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 489 4. — Professional desi(/natio7t — Name appro- priated to pa,?'tic7dar society — Unauthori::ed use — "■ Memher of the Societ.y of Architects" — Injunction. Action by the pit. society for an injunction to restrain the deft, from using as a professional designation the letters "M.S.A." or any other letters or words or abbrevintions of letters or words in such a way as to represent or lead to the belief that he was a member of the society. The pit. society was incorporated in 1893 under the Companies Acts as a oo. limited by guarantee anil not having a capital divided into .shares. Its objects as stated in the memorandum of association were (inter alia) : " The promotion and advancement of architectural art and prac- tice in its allied arts, sciences, and crafts and the maintenance of the honour and the interests of the profession of architecture." The pits, alleged that from the foundation of the society its members had been accustomed to designate themselves for professional purposes and had adopted an< I used as their professional designation the term "MembCT-s of the Society of Architects," and wore also accustomed tfj use the abbreviated form '■ Jl.S.A." The society published in each year a book called " The Year- TEADE SAM'S— continued. Book of the Society of Architects." They furtlier alleged that the high standard of pro- ficiency and conduct which the society had laid down for its members aiid which the members had to the knowledge of the public consistently maintained had given to the said letters " M.S.A." a definite meaning and value in the minds of the public ; and the said letters repre- sented to the public that the person using them was a member of the society. If the said letters were used by persons who were not members of the society the society and its members would, as it was alleged, be brought into discredit, and the value of the said letters would bo destroyed and the object of the society fi-ustrated. The deft., who was an architect but not a member of the society, had used the letters " M.S.A." in the course of his professional business ; and it was contended that what he did was calculated to injure the society. No appearance was entered in the action. R. Nevill, for the pits., now moved for judgment in default of appearance and relied upon Society of Accountants and Auditors v. Goodivay, [1907] 1 Ch. 489. Joyce .1. said that in the authority cited the facts were very different. If the decision in that case was I'ight it was not to V)e extended. He declined to grant an injunction and dismissed the action. Society of Architects i;. Ken- DMCK - - . Joyce J. [1910] W. N. 113 — Restraint of trade. See under Restraint op Trade. — Sale of good.s — Warranty — Patent or trade name — Evidence. See Sale of Goods. 20, 21. — Similarity of name — Deception. See under COMPANY — Name. 5. — Similarity of name — Injunction. Previously to the year 1904 two brothers had carried on a, small business at Kilmamook, Scotland, under the style of R. & .1. P. Dunlop, the principal business of this firm being that of selling and repairing bicycles, tricycles, and motors. In 1904 the two brothers registered a CO. called the Duidop Motor Co. with a capital of 5001. The CO. took over from R. & J. F. Dunlop the motor business, and the purposes of the CO. were the sale on commissioii and the repairing of motors, motor cycles, and the parts thereof, the actual business consisting princi- pally in executing repairs and selling petrol. The pur.suers, the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co., of Regent Street, London, who deal in tyres, pumps, and other adjuncts of motors and other vehicles, sought an injunction tn restrain the Dunlop Motor Co. from carrying on its business under the name of the " Dunlop Motor Co." :— Held (affirming the decision rpf the Second Division of the Ct. of Scss,, (190(i) 8 F. 1146), that on the evidence there was no proof that any (me would be misled into thinking tliat the two cos. were the same ; and, secondly, that the pursuers li:id no exclusive use of the name of "Uunlcjp." DuNi.op Pneumatic Tyre Co. r. DiTxr.DP Motor Co. . H, L. fSc.) [19071 W. N. 187; [1907] A, C. 430 ( 2699 ) DIGEST OF CARES, 1901—1910. ( 2700 ) TRADE PREMISES -Water rate— Sanitary con- venieuoes — " Domestic purposes." See London — Water. 3. TRADE REFUSE— House or trade refuse— Restaurant — Kemoval of refuse — Public Health (London). See London — Removal of Refuse. 3. — Removal of refuse — Hotel — Dispute between occupier and sanitary authority — Appeal by special case. See London — Removal of Refuse. 1. TRADE UNION. Trades Disputes Act, 1906 (6 Edio. 7, o. 47), jnwides fm' the regulation of trades unions and trades disputes. Trade Vn ions ( Unregistered) Power to emempt frmn provisions of Act. See Assurance Companies Act, 1909 (9 Ediv. 7, c. 49), ss. 1, 3."). Trade Unions (jRegistered), Extension of ex- et/iptionfrom income tax for provident funds of. See Finanoe (1909-10) Act, 1910 (10 Edw. 7 ^ 1 Oeo. 5, c. 8), s. 70. Use of huildings of local authorities for meetings of trade unions and other hodies. — Circular, Mar. 23, 1908, to co^mcils of boroughs, Ji-o. 1908 (R. — Local Government Board). Price Id. — Action against trade union — Actionable con- spiracy — Misdirection — Resolutions of union calling a strike. See Canada — Trade Union. 3. 1. — Application of funds contrary to rules — Action for mjunction by individual member — " Directly enforcing agreement " — Trade UniO'n Act, 1871 (34 3,- 35 Vict. c. 31), s. 4. A trade union was established for objects which included payment to members locked out or on strike. The whole of the funds were to be applied in carrying out the speciiied objects according to the rules. The union misapplied part of the funds by payments of strike money in cas.es not authorized by the rules. An in- dividual member having brought an action against the union, its trustees and some of its oflSciaLs, for an injunction restraining them from making the payments : — Held, by the Earl of Halsbury L.C. and Lords Macnaghten, Robert.50n, and Lindley, Lords Davey and James of Hereford dissenting, that the action was not instituted with the object of " directly enforcing " an agreement for the ap- plication of the funds to provide benefits to members within the meaning of the Trade Union Act, 1871, s. 4, the object being not to administer but to prevent misapplication of the funds, and that the injunction must be granted. The decision of the C. A., [1903] 1 K. B. 308, affirmed. TOEKSHIEB MINERS' ASSOCIATION ('. HOWDEN . - H. L. (E.) [19061 W.N. 72; [1905] A. C. 266 2. — Boohs and accounts — Inspection — Sight to employ agent to inspect — Accountant — Trade Union Act, 1871 (34 ^' 35 Vict. c. 31), s. 14 ; Sched. I., clause 6. By the Trade Union Act, 1871, s. 14, and Sched. I., clause 6, the rules of a registered trade TRADE VmO^—continued. union must contain provisions in respect of " the inspection of the books and names of members of the trade union by every person having an interest in the funds of the trade union." The rules of a, registered trade union pro- vided that its books and accounts and list of members should be "open to the inspection of :ill the members thereof, and of all the persons having an interest in the funds, in accordance with the Trade Union Acts " : — Held, that members of the society wore entitled to inspect the books and accounts by means of an accountant employed by them for the purpose, the accountant undertaking that the information obtained would only be used for informing his clients of the result of his inspection. Bevan v. Webb, [1901] 2 Ch. 59, followed. NOEET u. KEI3P Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. B61 3. — Branch secession — Threatened distribu- tion of funds — Ultra vires — Action by head trustees for injunction and payment over of branch funds — " Dij-ectly enforcing agreement" —Trade Union Act, 1871 (34 ^ 35 Vict. c. 81), .!. 4, sub-s. 3 (a) ; s. 8. A resolution was passed by the members of a branch of a registered trade union that they would secede from the parent society and dis- tribute the funds amongst the members of the branch. The rules of the society contained no provision as to the secession of branches. The trustees of the branch having declined to pay over the funds under their control to the head trustees, when required so to do, according to the rules, the head tru.5tees brought an action against the trustees of the branch for a declara- tion that the resolution was' ultra vires, an injunction, and payment to them of the funds of the branch : — Held (Cozens-Hardy M.R. doubting), (1.) that the action, apart from the claim for payment, was not instituted with the object of directly enforcing an agreement for the application of the funds to provide benefits to members within the meaning of the Ti'ade Union Act, 1871, s. 4, the object being to preserve the fund by pre- venting it from being misapplied without in any way administering it, and (2.), upon the con- struction of the rules, that the society had a sufficient interest in the property of the branch to maintain the action. But held, that the Court had no jurisdiction to make any order for payment. Decision of Eve J., [1908] W. N. 184 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 624, affirmed. Cope v. Ceossingham C. A. [1909] W. N. 125 ; [1909] 2 Ch. 148 — Conspiracy — Cause of action — Trade dispute between employers and workmen. See Action. 1. 4. — Definition — Objects of union — Bules — Parliamentary representation — liltra vires — Alteration of rules — Public policy — Trade Union Act, 1871 (34 ^- 35 Vict. c. 31), s. 4, sub-s. 3(a) ; ss. 13, 23 — Trade Z/nion Amendment Act, 1876 (39 ^ 40 Vict. c. 22), s. 16. There is nothing in the Trade Union Acts from which it can reasonably be inferred that trade unions as defined by Parliament were ( 2701 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2702 ) TRADE VSKiS—contlnued. meant to have the power of collecting and administering funds for political purposes. A rule wliich purports to confer on any trade unions registered under the Act of 1871 a power to levy contributions from members for the pur- pose of securing parliamentary representation, whether it be an original rule of the union or a rule subsequently introduced by amendment, is ultra vires and illegal. Decision of the C. A., [1909] 1 Ch. 163, affirmed on the above ground by the Earl of Halsbm-y and Lords Maonaghten and Atkinson ; by Lord James of Hereford because one of the rules in question would bind a member of Parhament to answer the whip of the Labour party ; and by Lord Shaw of Dunfermline on the constitutional ground that certain rules of the appellants were fundamentally illegal, being in violation of that sound public policy which is essential to the working of representative government. AMALGAMATED Society op Railway Seevants i\ Osbokne - H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 3 ; [1910] A. 0. 87 ~ Discovery — Privilege between solicitor and client — Production of documents between member of trade union and union authorities — Practice. See DISCOVEBY. 18. 5. — Indueinc/ worlimen to Ireacli of oontraots with employers — Strilte — Principal aixd ageitt — Trade union, — Authority of hranch officials to Hnd union — Ratification. Where workmen strike in breach of their contracts those who help to maintain the strike by money and counsel are not liable to pay damages to the employers merely because losses are thereby caused to the employers. A trade union having been sued for damages on the ground that workmen had been induced to break their contracts with their employers by officials of the union, and that the union had ratified and adopted the acts of their officials : — Held, that the union was not liable, those who procured the strike not having been autho- rized by the rules or by the action of the union. DBNABY AlilTI OADBBY W-KTS Collibeies, Ld. V. TOEPSHIEE MiNBES' ASSOCIATION H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 384 6. — Memier of union — Benefits during sickness — Insanity of memier — Alteratio?i during member's insanity of rule as to benefits — Alteration binding on memiei — Jurisdiction of Courts— Trade Union Aot,\il\iU ^ 35 Vict, c. 31), ^. 4, sul-s. 3. The alteration by a trade union, during the insanity of a member, of a rule as to sick benefits, to the prejudioe of that member, is binding upon him if made in accordance with the rule authorizing and regulating the alteration of the rules of the union. Semble, spa. action is not maintainable by a member or his representatives against a regis- tered trade union to recover sick pay under the rules relating to sick benefits for members. Swaine v. Wtlson, (1889) 24 Q. B. D. 252, considered. BtrEKE v. AMALGfAMATBD SOCIETY OF Dtehs - Div. Ct, [1906] 2 K. B. 583 XBASE UNION — continued. 7. — 3fember of union — Debt due to union — Interference ivith employment — Threats and coercion — Trade dispute — Trade Disputes Act, 1906 (6 Mic. 7, 0. 47), s. 8. The House reversed the decision of the C. A.. [1908] 2 K. B. 844, holding that at the time of action brought there was no dispute within the meaning of the Trades Disputes Act, 1906. Conway v. Wade H. L. (E.) [1909] W. N. 186 ; [1909] A. C. 506 8. — Member of union — Workman — Debt due to union. Recovery of — Unlawful means for lawful object — Molestation — Interference with employment — Threatening employers — Trade union officers. Liability of — Combination to injure workman — Illegal conspiracy — Threats by single indifidual — Damage — Principal and agent — Liability of trade union for ivrongful acts of agents. Two or more persons, such as the officers of a trade union, who, by virtue of their position, have special power to carry out their design, are not justified in combining to prevent, and in fact preventing, a workman who is or has been a member of the union from obtaining any employ- ment in his trade or calling, to his injury, merely with the object of enforcing payment of a debt due from him to the union. Not only are such persons themselves liable to the workman for the injury so caused by them, but the union is also itself liable for the wrongful acts committed by them as its agents : Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank, (1867) L. E. 2 Ex. 259 ; Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co., (1862) 1 H. & C. 526. A combination of two or more persons, without justification, to injure any workman by inducing employers not to employ him or continue to employ him, is, if it results in damage to him, actionable: Quinn v. Leathem, [1901] A. C. 495. What is a justification must depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. Per Komer L.J. : Even if a single individual who, by virtue of his position or influence, has power to carry out his design, sets himself to the task of preventing, and succeeds in preventing, a man from obtaining or holding employment in his calling, to his injury, by reason of threats to or special influence upon the man's employers, or would-be employers, and the design was to carry out some spite against the man, or had for its object the compelling him to pay a debt, or any similar object not justifying tlie acts against the man, then that individual is liable to the man for the damage consequently sufiered : Quinn v. Leatliem,. Decision of Walton J., [1903] W. N. 172, reversed. Mogul Steamship Co. v. Mo Crreqor, Oow^ Co., [1892] A. C. 2.5, Allen v. Mood, [1898] A. C. 1, and Quinn v. Leathem, considered. Giblan v. National Amalgamated Laboueees' Union OP Geeat Beitain and Ieeland C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 600 9. — Officer — Wilfully withholding money of tlis union — Absence of fraud — Liability to penalties — Irade Union Act, 1871 (34 ^ 35 net. 0. 31), ss. 9, 12. ( 2703 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2704 ) TKADE UNION—, If fin officer of a trade union wilfully with- holds money of the trade union, he is not, in the absence of fraud, liable to the penalties imposed by s. 12 of the Trades Unions Act, 1871, but under s. 9 of the Act an action may be brought against him for the recovery of the money. Barrett v. Mark/tarn, (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 405, applied. Madden r. Rhodes - Div. Ct. [1906] W. N. 60 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 834 ■ Procuring breach of contract- See CONTKACT. 26. -Malice. 10. — Procuring Tireach of contract — Trade dispute— Strike — Breach of contract l>y workmen — Strike pay — Procuring continuance of ireach — Statute, whether retrosjjectire — Trade Disputes Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, o. 47), s. 4. The Trade Disputes Act, 1906, s. 4, is not retrospective so as to prevent th e further main- tenance of an action against a trade union which was commenced before the passing of the Act. Two workmen, members of a trade union, who had respectively entered into contracts with an employer to serve him for a term of years, broke their contracts before the passing of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, by strildng, together with others in the same employ, and continuing on strike, during the currency of the periods for which they had respectively con- tracted to serve. The trade union had originally sanctioned the strike in ignorance of the exist- ence of the before-mentioned contracts, but sub- sequently gave the workmen strike pay, after they became aware of those contracts, in order to keep the workmen out on strike : — Held, that the trade union, by procuring a continuing breach of contract by the workmen, had rendered themselves liable in damages to the employer. Benabij and Cadeby Main Collieries, Ld. v. Yorkshire Miners' Association, [1906] A. C. 384, distinguished. Where an agreement was made between a trade union and a federation of employers for the reference of disputes between employers and employed to arbitration, and a dispute had arisen between a particular employer, a member of the employers' federation, and his workmen : — ffeld, that a bona fide belief on the part of the union that the employers were intending to evade a settlement of the dispute in accordance with the agreement, or even an actual intention on the part of the employers so to do, did not con- stitute a cause or excuse which would justify the trade union in procuring the breach by work- men of their contracts of service with the before- mentioned employer. Question, whether knowledge of matters known to a branch of a trade union applying to the union to sanction a strike could be imputed to the union itself, discussed. Smithies v. National Association op Opebative Plas- terers C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 310 11. — Baising of funds for purposes within objects of union — Mules of union — Absence of pro- vision in rules for levying contributions — Injunc- tion to restrain levy — Jurisdiction of Cowrt. TRADE VS\y reason of enstence of tramway — lAaKlity of tramway company — InterrujAi-on of tramway traffic by work executed hy gag company — Laying down, repairing, altering, or removing new service pipe — Repairing, altering, or removing service pipe or main laid before construction of tramway — Connecting new service pipe with old main — Tramways Act, 1870 (33 ^ 34 Vwt. 0. 78), s. 32, sui-ss. 2, 5. By s. 32 of the Tramways Act, 1870, "Nothing in this Act shall take away or abridge any power to open or break up any road along or across which any tramway is laid, or any other power vested in any local authority or road authority for any of the purposes for which such authority is respectively constituted, or in any company, body, or person for the purpose of laying down, repairing, altering, or removing any pipe for the supply of gas or water, or any tubes, wires, or apparatus for telegraphic or other purposes, but in the exercise of such power every such local authority, road authority, company, body, or person shall be subject to the following restric- tions ; ... " 2. Before they commence any work whereby the traffic on the tramway will be interrupted they shall (except in cases of urgency, in which cases no notice shall be necessary) give to the promoters .... notice of their intention to commence such work, specifying the time at which they will begin to do so, such notice to be given eighteen hours at least before the com- mencement of the work ; . . . . " 5. Any company, body, or person .shall not execute such work so far as it immediately affects the tramway except under the super- intendence of the promoters, unless they refuse or neglect to give such superintendence at the time specified in the notice for the commence- ment of the work, or discontinue the same during the progress of the work ; and they shall execute such work at their own expense and to the reasonable satisfaction of the promoters ; pro- vided that any additional expense imposed upon TB.A'MWnS—oontimied. them by reason of the existence of the tramway in any road or place where any such mains, pipes, tubes, wires, or apparatus shall have been laid before the construction of such tramway shall be borne by the promoters." A gas CO. executed work in roads along which a tramway ran, part of which work consisted in laying down new service pipes (so laid for the first time since the construction of the tramway) and oonnpcting the same with their mains, which had been laid down before the construction of tlie tramway. In one instance during the execution of the work, where there was a double tram line, the oars of one line were diverted to the other line, and the up and down cars were both carried over the same line for a whole day, such diver- sion being made at the request of the gas co. for the purpose of enabling them to repair a fractured main which was causing a serious escape of gas. In other instances the tramcars were either slowed down or only brought to a standstill for a sufficient time to enable the workmen of the gas co. to get out of the trenches under or near the tram lines where they were at work on the pipes of the gas oo. By reason of the existence of the tramway additional expense was imposed upon the gas co. in connecting the new service pipes with their mains : — ITeld (affirming in part the decision of Phillimore J., reported [1909] 2 K. B. 297), that the gas CO. were entitled to recover such addi- tional expense from the tramway co. under sub-s. 5 of the before-mentioned section, inasmuch as there had been an interruption of the trafiic on the tram%vay within the meaning of sub-s. 2 of that section, and the connection of a new service pipe with the main as aforesaid involved an alteration of the main ; but Seld (dissenting in that respect from the decision of Phillimore J.), that the proviso in sub-s. 5 of the above-mentioned section does not apply in the case of work which is not such as to interrupt the traffic on the tramway. In re Beistol Gas Company and Beistol Team- WATS and CAEEIAeE COMPANY C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 114 3. — Arbitration clause in statute — Jurisdic- tion of High Court ousted — Objection to jurisdic- tion first talien on appeal — Tramways Act, 1870 (33 I 34 Vict. c. 78), s. 33. The provision for arbitration contained in s. 33 of the Tramways Act, 1870, ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court with regard to differences coming within the terms of the section. Where such a provision applies, objection to the jurisdiction of the High Court may be taken on appeal in the C. A., although it has not been taken at the trial. It was provided by the special Act of a tram- way CO., with which, by s. 22 of the Tramways Act, 1870, Parts II. and III. of that Act were to be incorporated, that, if the co. failed to maintain and keep in good condition to the satisfaction of the corporation the junction of the paving laid and maintained by the co. with the ( 2709 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— ] 910. ( 2710 ) TRAMWAYS— cra. 100, distinguished. NORWICH Coepoeatios' r. NOEWICH Electeio Teamways C. A. [1906] W. N. Ill ; [1906] 2 K. B. 119 4. — Sy-lau) — Validity — Use of offensive lanr/uage in tramcars — Sy-laics for prevention of nuisances — Tiamways Act, 1870 (33 ^ 34 Yict. c. 78), s. 46. The Tramways Act, 1870, s. 46, enables the promoters of any tramway to make by-laws for the prevention of nuisances in any carriage belonging to them. The promoters of a tramway made a by-law providing : " No person shall swear or use offensive or obscene language whilst in or upon any carriage " : — Held, that the by-law was valid although it did not contain any such additional words as " so as to be a nuisance or annoyance to others." GEifTEL V. Rapes Div. Ct. [1901] W. N. 230 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 160 — Common carrier of passengers — Negligence — Liability for personal injuries — Tram- way company. See Carrier. 1. — County council — General powers — Statutory powers — Tramway business. Sec Corporation. 17. — County council — Omnibus business — Ancillary business — Ultra Vires. See Corporation. 17. 5. — Duty of tramway company to maintain road in good repair — Rcmornl of snow — 'Iram- ways Act, 1870 (33 ^' 34 Vict. c. 78), s. 28. The removal of snnw from the portion of a road lying between the rails of a tramway is not part of the " maintenance " of that portion within the meaning of s. 28 of the Tramways Act, 1870, so as to cast upon the tramway co. the duty of removing it, unless the fall of snow is of such a depth as to render the road imijassable. The mere fact that the removal of the snow will render the passage over the road more convenient is not enough to bring the case within the meaning TViKWfTkYi— continued. of the section. Acton District Council r. London United Tramways Div. Ct. [1908] W. N. 316 ; [1909] 1 K. B. 68 — ■ Electric current, Escape of — Electric leak. See Cape of Good Hope. 3. 6. — Krpress or implied grant — Merger of agreement in conveyance — Easement. The Court dismissed the appeal, [1901] W. N. 237, on the ground, not relied upon in the Court below, that the right to use the tramway, and the benefit of haulage, agreed to bo given to the pit. by the letters of April, 1898 were not merged in the subsequent conveyance of Dec, 1888, and without expressing any opinion on the questions of construction decided by Byrne J., which in the view taken by the C. A. did not arise and were not argued. Beazibe v Glass- pool - C. A. [1902] "W. N. 162 — Highway — Dedication — Presumption — Strip of land running alongside highway — Disused tramway — Railway company. See Highway. " 37. — Lands Clauses Acts — Compensation — Depre- ciation in value of property by use of tramway. See Lands Clauses Acts. 36. 7. — LlaKlity for damage from non-repair of road — Cmttractioithroad authoo'ity — Transfer of liatility — Tramiudys Act, 1870 (33 4' 34 Vict, c. 78), ss. 28, 29. Where a tramway co. has entered into a con- tract with the road authority under s. 29 of the Tramways Act, 1870, whereby that authority has undertaken the repair of the portion of the road which, under s. 28, the tramway co. were bound to repair, the liability for injuries occasioned through non-repair of such portion of the road to persons using the same is transferred to the road authority. Baenett v. PoplAe Coeporation Div. Ct.[ 1901] 2K.B. 319 — Limitation of time for bringing action — Tramway worked by municipal autho- rity — Injury to passenger — Action fur damages. Sec Public Authorities Protec- tion. 4. 8. — Local authority — Sale of Tramirays irit/iina district — Payment hy local avtiiority fur Imildings ontside the district — Tramioa,ys Act 1870 (33 S,-M Vict. c. 78), s. 43. Where in pursuance of s. 43, of the Tramways Act, 1870, the local authority require the pro- moters of a tramway in any district to sell so much of the tramway works and undertaking as is within the district, the payment by the local authority to the promoters must include the value of buildings of the promoters, which, though situated outside the. district, are suitable to .and used by the promoters for the purposes of tlieir undertaking witliin the district. Man- chester Caeriarb and Teamways Co. v. SWINTON AND PeNDLEBUEY UeBAN DISTRICT Council - H. I. (E.) [1906] A. C. 277 ( 2»ii ) t)lG«ST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2712 ) TSAMWATS- — Manchester Corporation. See under Manchester. — Motor car passing tramcar — Duty to pass on ofE side — " Carriage." See Motor car. 10. 9. — Negligence — Lease of tramway — Lessor to execute repairs at cost of lessee — Contract for repairs hy lessor with Contractor — Lessee not party to coTctract — Negligence ly contractor in executing repairs — Accident to tramcar — LiaiiUtji of contractor to lessee ■ — Damages — Compematio7i paid, to passengers — Right of lessee to recover from coTitractor. The corporation of a borough were the owners of a tramway in the borough, and they granted a lease of the tramways, of which lease the pits, were the assignees. Under the lease the repairs necessary to keep the tramway in working order were to be executed by the corporation at .the cost of the pits. During the currency of the lease the tramway required to be relaid at a certain place, and an agreement was entered into between the corporation and the pits, which, after reciting that the corporation at the request and with the consent of the pits, had agreed to relay the tramway, provided that the corpora- tion would relay the tramway, and would during the execution of the work provide where neces- sary a temporary track for the purpose of enabling the pits., as far as possible, to maintain their service of trams, and the agreement further provided that nothing therein contained should render the corporation liable in the event of any accident, injury, or damage being occa- sioned to or sustained by the pits., their servants or passengers or their rolling stock through or arising out of the execution by the corporation of the work, but that the corporation would insert in the contract to be entered into by them a provision imposing upon the contractor full responsibility for all claims and demands i-esulting from any such accident, injury or damage. The corporation thereupon made a contract with the deft., to which the pits, were not parties, which recited the lease and that the corporation had at the request and with the con- sent of the pits., subject to certain conditions, agreed to relay the tramway, and by which the deft, agreed to execute the work of relaying the tramway and to indemnify the corporation against all actions and claims for compensation to workmen and passengers carried on the tram- way arising out of the execution of the work, and that the deft, should, during the execution of the work, be responsible for all accidents. During the execution of the work the tramcars continued to run and a car which was carrying passengers was derailed and overturned owing to the. negligent manner in which certain of the work was being carried out at the place where the accident hajjpened, and the passengers and driver were injured and the tramcar was damaged. The pits, paid compensation to the passengers and driver, and claimed to recover from the deft, the amounts so paid and the cost of repairing the tramcar : — Held, that though the pits, were not parties TRAMWAYS— to the contract between the coporation and the deft, inasmuch as the pits.' proprietary right as lessees of the tramway and their right of passage on the highway had been injuriously affected by the act of the deft, and the latter was liable in damages to the pits. ; and that, as the work of relaying the tramway while the tramcars were running involved risk of danger to the passengers in the tramcars, the pits, were liable to their passengers, and were entitled to recover from the deft, the sum properly paid as compensation to the passengers who were injured, as well as the sum paid as compensation to the driver and the cost of repairing the tramcar. City of Birmingham Tkamwats Co. o. Law. A. T. Lawrence J. [1910] S K. B. 965 10. — Nuisance ■ — Creosote used in pacing road — Tramway company — Damage to plants in adjoining land — Knowledge — Statutory authority — Hxceptional use of land. , The defts., a tramway CO., who were by their special Act under an obligation to pave certain parts of a road, on which their tramway was laid, with wood paving, used for that purpose wood blocks coated with creosote. The fumes given ofE by the creosote injured plants and shrubs belonging to the pit., a market gardener, whose premises were near the road. There was another kind of wood paving in use which the defts. might have used, and which could not have caused injury to the plt.'s plants and shrubs. In an action by the pits, in respect of the damage caused as above mentioned, the jury found that it was reasonably necessary for the defts. to pave the road as they did according to their knowledge at the time, but that in the light of the evidence given at the trial it was not reasonably necessary: — Held, affirming the decision of a Div. Ct. that the defts. were not authorized by their special Act to use the particular kind of wood paving which they had used, and that, although they did not know that the use of creosoted wood might cause damage and were not guilty of negligence, they were, upon the principle laid down in Fletcher v. Rylands, (1886) L. R. 1 Ex. 295 ; (1868) L. B. 3 H. L. 330, liable to the pit. in respect of the damage sustained by him. West v. Bristol Tramways oo. C. A. [1908] W. N. 96 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 14 — Obstruction-Raised tramlines — Contractor- London County Tramways (Electrical Power Act). See Highway. 22. 11. — Passengers, Carriage of — lliyht of passenger to h'eai journey. A passenger on a tramcar took and paid for a ticket entitling him to travel for a certain dis- tance ; he alighted at an intermediate stopping place, walked a quarter of a mile in the direction of his destination, and got on to another tram- car, which was performing the same journey, in order to get to the point to which he might have travelled by the first car. He refused to pay the fare demanded of him on the second car, contending that he was entitled to complete his journey with his original ticket. ( ■ 2713 ) DIGEST Olf CASBiS, 1901—1910. ( 2n4;j TRkUVfAYS^coittiitued. Held, that the contract o£ carriage had beeu Jetcnnmed by the passenger's act, and that he was liable to be convicted for travelling on the second tramcar without paying his fare. Bas- TAPLE V. MBTCALFE - - - Div. Ct. 1 1906] 2 K. B. 288 12. — Protection of maim — Notice inj promoters to omner of mains of intention to votistnict tram- way — Counter-notice iij ownrr of mains requiring jjromoters to alter jjosition of mains — Limit of time for ijiving counter-notice — Iramiriiijs Act, 1870 (33 4- 31 Vict. c. 78), s. 30, siih-s. 1. By s. 30, sub-s. 1, of the Tramways Act, 1870, the promoters are empowered for the purpose of making any tramway to alter the position of any gas or water mains, but they must first give seven days' notice to the co. or person to whom the mains may belong of their intention to lay down the tramway, and the notice must be accompanied by a plan of the proposed work, and " if it should appear to any sucli co. or person that the construction of tlie tramway as proposed would endanger any such mains, such CO. or person may give notice to the promoters to lower or otherwise alter the position .uf the said mains " so far as necessary : — • Held, that the counter-notice to be given by the owner of the mains might be given at any time until the tramway was constructed. Hastings Teamways Co. r. Hastings and St. Leonards Gas Co. C. A. [1906] W. N. 186 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 578 13. ^ Purchase of undertaking ig local autho- rity — Valuation of tramway — " The then value" —Tramways Act, 1870 (33 * 3i Vict. u. 78), s. '13. By s. 13 of the Tramways Act, 1870, the local authority of the district in which a tramway is situate may require the promoters of the tramway to sell to them their undertaking " upon terms of paying the then value .... of tlie tramway." A tramway co. were required by the local autho- rity to sell their undertaking under the above section. At the date of the requisition it was the practice, upon an application for parliamentary powers by the promoters of a tramway, to require, as a condition of their obtaining such powers, that the streets in which the tramway was to be laid should be widened, and that the promoters sliould contribute a certain proportion of the cost of the widening. But at the date when the co. obtained their parliamentary powers that practice had not come into existence, and the streets in which their tramway was laid were in fact never ^\•idened : — Held, that, for the purpose of assessing " the then value " of the tramway under the above section, the fact that the local authority would, it they had to make the tramway themselves at the date of their requisition to sell, have to con- tribute to the cost of widening the streets ought not to be taken into consideration. London, Depti'oed and Ghbenwich Tramways Co. v. London County Council Bray J. [1905] 1 K. B. 316 14. — Rateahility — Rateable value — Local Ooceriiment Act, 1890 (51 Viat. ^o. 1112), s. 246 T'B.i.'iS.Vt K'YS— continued. — Separate assessment of the tramway engine- houses — Jurisdiction of Supreme Court — Man- damns to county court to state case — justices Act, 1890 (51 I'lct. Ml. 1105), s. Vi^— Practice (M to security for costs — Law of ]'iotm'ia. The county court having in appeal materially reduced the respondents' assessment of the appel- lants' tramway : — Held, that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to issue a mandamus directing it to state the facts for their determination. A decision of the county court in a rate appeal is not final under ss. 60, 61 of Act No. 1213 of 1891. Those sections must be read with and are qualified by s. 139 of No. 1105 uf 1890, which in eifect enacts that the Court may be required to state a case in " all appeals " : an expression wliich on its true construction includes rating appeals. Held, also, that the land of the appellants' tramways, though its ownership is vested in the Crown, is occupied by the co. and used for the profit of its members, and is rateable property, not falling within the exception in s. 216 of Act No. 1112. The rateable value of its occupation is the gross profit of the concern, from which 10 per cent, on the capital outlay is rightly deducted. That value cannot be afEected by the amount of consideration paid to acquire occupa- tion whether in the shape of rent or instalments of purchase-money. Pimlico, ^'0., Tramioays Co. v. Greenwich Onion, (1873) L. R. 9 Q. B. 9, approved. Where a tramway runs through several muni • cipalities, but has its engine houses in one of them : — Held, that the separate rating value of the engine-houses taken at 5 per cent, on the fee simple value should be deducted from the rating value of the whole concern and allotted to the municipality in which they stand, and that the remainder of the rating value should be shared among the different municipalities according to the length of the tramway in each. MELBOURNE Tramway and Omnibus Co. v. Mayor, kc, 0¥ THE City of B'itzkoy P. C. [1901] A. C. 1S3 — Kates — Land " used only as a railway con- structed under any Act of Parliament " — Tramroad. ^See Eailway — Bates. 9. 16. — Road authority— Construction of tram- way — Ohligation to heep surface of tramway in good condition — Neglect of duty — Liability in damur/es to individual — Traino:uys Act, 1870 (33 4 31 Vict. r. 78), s. 28. Under s. 28 of the Tramways Act, 1870, a tramway co. is bound to keep that part of the highway which lies between the rails in a fit and safe condition for the passing traiiic to the satis- faction of the road authority ; and failure to perform this duty renders the tramway co. liable in damages to a person injured thereby. Dublin United Tramways Co. v. Fitzgerald H. L. (I.) [1903] A. C. 99 — Stamp duty — " Lease " — " Bond or covenant " — Purchase of electrical energy from lessors. See Bjsvinue — Stomps. 30, ( 2715 ) DiGSST OF CASiiS, 1901—1910. C 271S ) TRAMWAYS —continued. . 16. — Statutory powers — Uitra vires- Mstriots — Working a^reemeni — Agreement for lease to adjacent oivner — Delegation of powers iy lessee —Licence to work — Co>ise7it of Board of Trade— Tramways Act, 1870 (33 .j- 34 Vict. c. 78), 6'.s. 85, 36, 64. The pits., a local authority, were authorized by a special Act which incorporated Parts II. and III. of the Tramways Act, 1870, to construct and maintain certain tramways in their district, and to enter into agreements, subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, with tramway owners of adjacent districts with respect to the construction, sale, lease, working, use, and management by the contracting parties of aU or any of their respective tramways. The pro- posed tramways were adjacent to tramways outside the pits.' district of the deft. co. on the west and of the deft, corporation on the east. Both the deft. co. and the deft, corporation had under their special Acts similar powers of entering into working agreements with the tramway owners of adjacent districts, except that the consent of the Board of Trade thereto was not required. The tramways authorized by the pits.' special Act were constructed by the deft, corporation under the terms of an agree- ment entered into between the pits, and the deft, corporation with the approval of the Board of Trade, and the deft, corporation were entitled thereunder to a lease for a term of years of the exclusive' use of such tramways, but subject to a proviso that they should not assign or sub-let or part with the benefit of the agreement without the leave of the pits. During the continuance of the agreement the deft, corporation, without the leave of the pits, and without the sanction of the Board of Trade, granted to the deft. co. a revocable licence to run over a small portion of the pits.' tramways which adjoined the deft, co.'s tramways : — Held, that neither under the Tramways Act, 1870, nor under their special Act had the pits. any power to authorize the deft. co. to run cars over their tramways without the consent of the Board of Trade, and that their agreement with the deft, corporation did not purport to confer on the latter any greater right than that which the pits, had authority to grant ; held, therefore, that the licence granted to the deft. co. was ultra vires, and an injunction was granted to restrain the deft. co. from using the pits.' tramways. ECCLE3 Cobpoeation r. South Lancashire Tramwats Co. C. A. [1910] W. N. 141 ; [1910] 2 CTi. 263 17. — Statutory undertaking — Tramway com- pany — Pa/rliamentary deposit — Sale of -under- taking hefore completion of worlis and within tlis time limited for completion — JVon-completion — Abandonment — Application of deposit fund — Parlidme-iitary Deposits and Bonds Act, 1892 (55 3; 56 Vict. c. 27), s. 1. By a special Act of 1885 a tramway oo. was authorized to construct a tramway and a deposit was ordered to be paid. The Parliamentary Deposits and Bonds Act, 1892, s. 1, provided that where in pxirsuance of any genei'al or special Act of Parliament moneys had been deposited " to secure the completion TEAMWAYS— co'«ii«Me(i. by any company " of any undertaking authorized by Parliament, and the undertaking had " not been completed " within the time limited in that behalf, the deposit fund should be applied towards compensating landowners and, in the case of a tramway co., the road authorities, and subject thereto, if (among other things) a receiver had been appointed, or the undertaking had been abandoned, for the benefit of the creditors of the co. The special Act of 1885 contained a substantially similar provision as to the application of the deposit fund if the co. did not complete the tramway within the time limit. In 1904, when the tramway had not been completed and before the expiration of the period for completion, a receiver of the under- taking of the CO. was appointed and the uncom- pleted tramway was acquired by the London County Council under the powers of a special Act : — Held, that both under the special Act of 1885 and under the general Act the deposit was paid to secure the completion of the undertaking by the CO. and that, inasmuch as that event could never happen by reason of the transfer, of the undertaking, the time had passed within which the CO. could complete ; and, fui-ther, that there had been an abandonment of the undertaking by the CO. ; consequently that the deposit moneys paid under the Act of 1885 were applicable for the benefit of the creditors of the co. subject to the prior claims (if any) of the landowners and road authorities. Decision of Neville J., [1909] 2 Ch. 540, affirmed. In re Peokham, Dulwich and Cbystal Palace Tkamwa-sts Bill • C. A. [1910] W. N. Ill ; [1910] 2 Ch. 1 — Streets— Footway — Dedication to public — Road authority — Powers. See London — Tramways. 1. 18. — Substantial commencement of " works " — Cesser of -powers — Evidence — Tramways Act, 1870 (33 S,- 34 Vict. c. 78), s. 18. In s. 18 of the Tramways Act, 1870, which provides that the powers of promoters under a provisional order shall cease " if within one year from the date of the order the works are not sub- stantially commenced," the term " works " means physical works actually executed. A corporation, who had obtained a provisional order for the construction of electric tramways, had done no work within the year on the tram- way itself, but had purchased land for offices and generating station, and had entered into binding contracts for the supply of electric cars and for the supply and installation of dynamos and electric machinery : — ■ Held, by the C. A., that the works had not been substantially commenced within the mean- ing of the section. Decision of Swinfen Eady J., [1902] W. N. 126, reversed. Sect. 18 also provides that " a notice, purport- ing to be published by the Board of Trade, in the Gazette to the eSeot .... that the work has not been substantially commenced .... shall be conclusive evidence for the purposes of this section of such .... non-oommenoemeat," ( 2717 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2718 ) TRASCWAYS—coiain-ueJ. Held, by the C. A., that, in the absence of such a notice, other evidence of the non-com- mencement of the works was not excluded. Decision of Kekewich J. in In re Dudley and Klngswinford Iramways Co., (1893) 63 L. J. (Ch.) 108 ; 69 L. T. (N. S.) 711, disapproved. ATT.-GEN. t. BonSNEMOUTH COKPOEATION C. A. [1902] W. N. 142 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 714 — Workmen's compensation — " Factory." See Mastbb AND Servant — Compensa- tion. 9. 19. — Tramway company — Common carrier of passengers — -Yeglige/ice — Liability for personal injuries — Sjjecial condition limiting liability. A municipal corporation owned a tramway constructed under statutory powers. In accord- ance with a statutory requirement they exhibited in a conspicuous place in their tramcars a list of the fares to be exacted, and they appended thereto a special notice to passengers stating, as the fact was, that the fares charged were less than the maximum authorized charges, and that in consideration thereof a passenger was only carried on the terms that the maximum amount recoverable iirom the corporation on account of any injury suffered by a passenger and for which the corporation were legally liable was 2ol. :— JETeld, affirming the decision of Lord Cole- ridge J. (by Gozens-Hardy M.K. upon the con- struction of the statutes regulating the tramway, by Farwell L.J. upon the ground that the cor- poration were common carriers of passengers at common law in the sense that they were bound to carry according to their profession, and by Kennedy L.J. upon both grounds), that, so long as the tramway was open for public traffic, the corporation were bound to carry any passenger, not being an objectionable person, who oilBrcd himself and was willing to pay the published fare, provided they had accommodation for him. and were not entitled to impose a, condition limiting their liability for negligence without giving the passenger the option of travelling at a higher fare without any such condition. Semble per Cozens-Hardy M.E. and Far- well L.J. . If the corporation published alterna- tive lists of fares, one containing the maximum rates, and the other containing reduced rates, and gave an option to the passenger to pay cither the full rate without any condition limiting their liability or the reduced rate with such a condition, a pa.S!ienger electing to pay the smaller rate would be bouuil by the condition. Claeke (,'. West Ham Cokporation - - C. A [1909] W. N. 194 ; [1909] 2 K. B. 858 TRANSFER— Action— Transfer from inferior Court. See Shipping— Practice, l.j. — Action from inferior Court — Cross-action in High Court — Conduct of action. See Shippino— Practice. 16. TRASSTEB.— continued. Bank of England — Personation of holder— Identification of transferor by stock- broker — Liability. See India. 1. • Burial board, Transfer of powers of — Ex- penses — Kates. See Bueial. 7. ■ Certification of — Company — Secretary — Representations — Estoppel — Principal and agent. See CoMPANT — Secretary. 2. ■ Companies (Winding-up) — Transfer of actions — Kegistrar — Proceedings in chambers. See Company — Winding-up — Prac- tice. 23. - Company — Debentures. See under Company — Debentures. • Company — Shares. See under Company — Shares. - Company — Winding-up — Contributory — Transfer of shares to escape liability — Validity— Test. See Company — Winding-up — Contri- butory. 7. ■ Conveyance or transfer — Stamp duty^Devise of real estate — Assent in writing of executor. See Revenue — Stamps. 12. - County Court — Jurisdiction — Mortgage re- duced from over to under 5001. See County Coukt — Practice. 6. -Cross-action in High Court — Conduct of action — Transfer of action from inferior Court. See Shipping— Practice. 16. - Crown — Prerogative of — Selection of Court — Action by Attorney-General at in- stance of a relator. See Ceoivn. 6. - Deceased debtor — Administration of his sol- vent estate. See Bankeuptcy — Death. 1. - Electric lighting — Transfer of powers — Con" sent of Board of Trade. See Electeic Light. 9. - Forged transfer — Company. See under Company — Forgery. - Injunction — Transfer of stock — Restraining order. See Peactice — Motions. 1. - Insolvent ti'ador — Fraudulent assignment — Act of bankruptcy. See Bankruptcy — Fraud. 1. - Insurance — Life. See under iNSUUAUdE (LiB'E). ( 2719 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2720 ) — Land transfer.' See under Land Teansfee. — Licence — Jurisdiction of justices. See under LICENSING ACTS. — Lunacy — Practice. See under Lunacy. — Married woman mortgagee — Separate ac- knowledgment. See Vendor and Purchasbb —Mort- gages. 1. — ■ Mortgages. See under Moetoage — Transfer. — Powers from London County Council — Build- ing — Wooden structure. See London — Buildings. 27. — Pi-oprietary right — Canadian Act — Swamp lands — Crown lands. &e Canada — Swamplands. 1. — School district — Transfer of Consols — ^Vesting order. See PoOE Law. — Signification to debtor of transfer of debt — Appeal from Quebec. See Canada — Debts. 1. — Stamp duty — Transfer of personal property. See Rbyenub — Stamps. 22. — Stock — Indemnity of Bank — Form of order. See Bank of England. 1. — Stock — Personation of holder — Identification of transferor by stockbroker — Efilect of transfer — Estoppel. See India. 4. — Stock — Principal and agent. See under Pbincipal and Agent. ^ Trustee — Reasonable precautions — Inscribed stock — Accepting transfer — Fraud. See Teustee— Fraud. 1. — Trustees settlement. See under Settlement. — Voluntary settlement — Assignment — Ex- pectancy — Power of trustees to call for transfer. See Settlement. 48. TRANSVAAL. Transvaal Loan {Quaiantee') Act, 1907 (7 Hdw. 7, c. 37), u an Act to autlwrlze the Treasury to guarantee the payme-ni. of a loan to be raised hy the Colony of the Iransvaal. Appellate junsdiotlon. See Appellate Juris- diction Act, 1908 (8 £dw. 7, c. 51), s. 3 (2). ne South Africa Act, 1909 (9 Mw. 7, c. 9), is an Act to constitute the Union of South Africa. inASaYAAL—eontmued. 1. — Contract of sale of land — Cmistruction — Specific performance refused — Uncertainty as to consideration. Held, that specific performance could not be decreed of a contract between the pit. and deft, by which the latter agreed to transfer to the former a farm in the Transvaal on which deposits of tin ore had been found in consideration of 3700 shares of 51. each in a syndicate to be formed for the " purpose of developing " the same as a mining property, the 3700 shares to represent the appellant's holding in a syndicate of 12,000 shares. The price to be paid by the pit. was wholly uncertain. It was to consist of shares in a syndicate whose purpose of development there was no evidence to define, either as to the nature and extent of the operations contemplated or as to what the parties meant by it, the value of the .shares depending upon the adequacy of working capital which was neither ascertained nor ascer- tainable. Douglas v. Baynes - P. C. [1908] A. C. 477 — Immovables — Contract relating to foreign land — Capacity to contracts — Lex situs — Law of the Transvaal. See Conflict of Laws. 13. 2. — Lease of laud foi' agricultural purposes — Covenant not to sell a lease for building pur- poses — Breach — Forfeiture — Law of tlie 'Ira/nsvaal. Where land was leased exclusively for agri- cultural purposes, with liberty to the lessee to erect the necessary buildings for residence, but not to sub-divide in order to sell or lease stands for building purposes : — Held, that the lessor was entitled to treat the lease as null and void and eject the assignees thereon on its being shewn that they had adver- tised the land for sale in acre plots, and had issued plans shewing a proposed sub-division into acre plots. The breach of condition was complete without actual transfer of the plots to purchasers. Short v. Tukpfontein Es- tates, Ld. - - P. C. [1905] A. C. 684 3. — Partnership — Purchase by two partner's without the hn^wledge of the third— Suits for an account — Scope of the partnership — Rights of partners. The respondent and the two appellants under a partnership arrangement in 1902, bought with a view to resale the properties of H., consisting of stands or plots of land laid off for building, and of shares in a co. entitled to other stands in the same locality. The appellants, apart from the respondent, purchased some other of the co.'s stands and made profits. In a suit by the respondent for an account thereof the Court below held that, though the stands so purchased were not within the scope of the partnership of 1902, they were connected with it indirectly ; that the purchase thereof by the appellants was secret and injurious to the common interest, and that the respondent was entitled to share in the benefit thereof : — Held (reversing this decree), that it could not be supported on authority or on any recognized equity. Is ( 2721 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2722 ) TRA'SSYAAL— continued. The purchase, not being within the scope of the partnership, was not shewn to have been in rivalry or any other connection therewith, nor in any way injurious thereto. Trimble i: Goldberg P. C. [1906] A. C. 494 4. — Practice — Appeal — Law of the Ti'ans- vaal^Proclaniation No. 14 of 1902, s. 16 — Final decree of High Court of the RepiMic — .Jurisdic- tion in appeal — Transvaal Patent Act, No. 6 of 1887, ss. 29-Sl— Construction. The Supreme Court of the Transvaal, consti- tuted by the Transvaal Proclamation No. U of 1902, has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a decision of the High Court of the Trans- vaal Republic which before the war was final ; for s. 16 of the proclamation gives no right of appeal where none existed before : — Held, also, that the High Court had power under the Transvaal Patent Act, No. 6 of 1887, ss. 29-81, to cancel a patent in an action to which the Att.-Gen. was not a party. Africast Gold Eecoveet Co. v. Hay P. C. [1904] A. C. 438 5. — Roman-Dutch law — Mutual will — Com- munitij of jiroperty between spouses — Community of property not continued after death — Boedel- houdei'schaj} — LialnUty of surviving spouse as executor to deceased — Institution of survivor as sole and universal heir — Construction — Children's rights of inheritance. According to Eoman-Dutch law as it prevails in the Transvaal, in the case of a mutual will by spouses with community of property the dispositions of each spouse are treated as applicable to his or her half of the joint property. Denyssen v. Mostert, (1872) L. B. 4 P. C. 236, followed. Where the surviving spouse is under the terms of the mutual will executor and adminis- trator of the estate of the deceased, charged with the duty of holding the separate estate as part of the joint estate until the majority or marriage of the children, held, that in the absence of express direction in the will the community of property known as boedelhoudersohap is not con- tinued between the children and the surviving spouse. Accordingly the rights of those entitled to the estate of the deceased must be adjusted by the familiar rules of accounting applicable to executory estates, and any profits made by the executor out of transactions with the joint estate form part of the trust estate and must be dis- tributed as such according to the terms of the will. Held, further, that by the established practice in South Africa as well as by judicial interpreta- tion the effect of instituting the surviving spouse as sole and universal heir or heiress in all the common estate is that the survivor and children are to be treated as joint heirs, the survivor being entitled to possession during the children's minority, in order to support and educate them, and thereafter to be entitled to his own half of the joint estate together with a share in the estate of the deceased equal to that of a child, paying over to the children their portions as ascertained n an honest valuation. TBANSVAAL- Oosthuizen v. Moe'ke, (1866) 1 Koscoe, 230, approved. NATAL BANK, Ld. v. Rood P. C. [1910] A. C. 670 — Transvaal leaseholds — English will — Enjoy- ment in specie — Roman-Dutch law. See Conflict op Laws. 10. TRAPS — Ground game — Occupier with sporting rights — Prohibition against setting spring traps except in rabbit holes. See Game. 2. — Setting of traps likely to cause injury to wild birds an offence. See Wild Birds Protection Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 4). TEAVELLEK — Bona fide traveller — Closing hours — Guest of bona fide traveller — Using licensed premises. See Licensing Acts. 3. — Innkeeper, Customary liability of — Quest — Cost of accommodation defi'ayed by another person — Law of property. See Innkeeper. 2. — Obligation to lodge — Shelter and accommoda- tion for the night. Se-e Innkeeper. 2. TRAVELLING EXPENSES— Director's remune- ration — Directors acting ultra vires. See Company — Directors. 21. TRAWLER AND TRAWLING— Shipping. See under Shipping. TREASON — High treason — Resident alien's duty of allegiance — Special leave to appeal. See Natal. 5. — Practice — Motion to quash indictment — Ex- patriation in time of war — Naturaliza- tion. See Criminal Law — Treason. 1. TREASURE TROVE—' ' Franchises "—Title Crown — Jus tertii. See Crown. 4. of TREASURY— Bankruptcy, Trustee in — Penal interest — ^Whether payable to bank- rupt's estate or to the Treasury. See Bankruptcy — Penal Interest. 1, TREASURY NOTE— Of foreign Government- Stamp — Promissory note — Marketable security — Debenture, See Revenue— Stamps. 4. TREASURY SOLICITOR — Direction to appear for subject — Right to costs. See Solicitoe — Costs. 44. TREASURY (TEMPORARY BORROWING) ACT, 1910 (10 Edw. 7,'c. 1). ( 2723 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2724 ) TBEATY— Canada, Law of— Treaty of Oct. 3, 1873, extinguishing the Indian interest in lands. See Canada— Lands. 4. — Extradition. See under Extradition. IBSES. See also under Timber. — Lopping of trees which obstruct a telegraphic line on a street or road. See Telegraph (Construction) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, u. 33), s. 5. — Overhanging trees — Damage — Injunction. See Nuisance. 12. — Right to remove fruit trees — Compensation — Agricultural holdings — Market gardeners' compensation. See Landlord and Tenant. 1.5. TRESPASS —Action for— Injunction— Arbitra- tion clause — Failure of company to proceed under their Act — Law of Canada. See Canada — Arbitration, i. — Bridge — Liability to repair — Right to repair — ^Highway — Right to abate nuisance. See Bridges. 2. — Costs — •' Action founded on tort " — Judgment for nominal damages and injunction. See Costs. 76. 1. — Damages — Semoteness — Fowls straying on highway — Damage to passenger — Liability of owner. The pit. was riding a bicycle on a, highway upon the footpath of which were some fowls belonging to the deft. As the pit. got abreast of the fowls a dog belonging to a third person frightened the fowls, one of which flew into the spokes of the machine, causing it to upset, whereby the pit. suffered personal injury and the bicycle was damaged : — Held that, even if the fowl was not lawfully on the highway, the circumstances under which the accident happened prevented the damage from being the natural consequence of its presence there, and that the pit. could not recover. Qucere whether the occupiers of land adjoin- ing the highway are not entitled to allow their poultry to stray about the highway? Had well 1). RiGHTON - Div. Ct. [1907] W.N. 130; [1Q07] 2 K. B. 345 — Distress — Trespass ab initio — Second distress for same rent — Landlord and tenant. See Distress. 12. — Execution creditor — ^Wrongful seizure — Debt paid before issue of writ — Absence of malice. See Sheriff. 3. 2. — Justification — Act done in preservation of property — Extinguishing fire. If a fire breaks out on land, the tenant of the sporting rights is entitled to adopt such means on the land for extinguishing the fire as TRESPASS— co»M«M<'d. may in the circumstances be necessary for the preservation of his sporting rights. Cope r. Sharpe - - Div. Ct. [1910] W.N. 10; [1910] 1 K. B. 168 — Landlord and tenant — Distress — Trespass ab initio — Second distress for same rent. See Distress. 12. — Lands surrendered to the Crown subject to subsisting contracts — Rights of Crown against trespasser. See New Zealand. 10. — Light — Derogation from grant — Party wall — Landlord and tenant. See London — Buildings. 18. — Newfoundland, Laws of — Effect of grant of licence — Trespass on licensee's land before licence granted — Damages. See Newfoundland. ">. — Railway company — Infant — Defective fence — Negligence — Turntable — Invitation to danger. See Railway — Fences. 1. — Right of entry of mortgagee — Relation back of right of possession — Trespass ante- cedent to entry — Right of action. See Mortgage- Entry. 1. 3. — Riglvt of way — Landowner uninjured — Discretion, to refuse injunction. The Court may refuse to grant an injunction to restrain persons from trespassing on land if the landlord is not injured thereby. The pit. bought land on an unfrequented part of the coast, and stopped up several paths which the defts. asserted were public highways. The defts. removed the obstructions placed by the pit., and he brought an action against them for an injunction to restrain them from tres- passing on his land. The Att.-Gen. was not a party to the action : — Held, as between the pit. and the defts. that there were no public rights of way ; that the pit. was entitled to a declaration to that effect, and the defts. must pay nominal damages ; but that inasmuch as the pit. was not, in the present estate of the neighbourhood, injured by the public use of the ways in question, no injunction ought to be granted. Behrens v. Richards Buckley J. [1905] 2 Ch. 614 4. — Right to sue — PuVlic footway — Inclosure award — User of footway as caH road — Presump- tion of dedication — Local government — Vrhan district council. By an award made in 1811 under the Shering- ham Inclosure Act, 1809, a strip of land six feet wide was set out and appointed as a public foot- path, and was thenceforth adopted and so used by the public at large. Since the date of the award buildings had been erected on either side of the path which reduced its width in places to four or five feet. For forty years past fishermen and others had driven carts or barrows over the path. This use of the path having caused obstruction to foot-passengers, the pits., in whom the path was now vested, erected a post to prevent 4b2 ( 272r. ) DIGEST OF CAPES, 1901—1910. ( 2726 ) TRESFASS—continiied. wheeled traffic being used. The deft"., in alleged assertion of the right of the public to use the path for all purposes, removed the post. This was an action claiming a declaration that the path was not a carriage way ; an injunc- tion ; and damages for trespass. Joyce J. said that the way had originated from the award. It was set out as a footway, and any user of it for wheeled traffic was in its inception and had been all along a public nuisance, which no length of time could legalize. There was no power in any one to dedicate the footpath as a public highway for all purposes. It coidd not be done even if the local authority consented to it: Jieg. v. Train, (1862) 31 L. J. (M. C.) 169 ; JReij. v. United Kingdom Telegraph Co., (1862) 2 B. & S. 647. There must be an injunction to restrain the deft, from further interference with the post, and judgment against him for 20*. damages and costs. Sheringham TJbban District Council v, Holsbt Joyce J. [1904] W. N. 83 — Savage animal — Liability of owner to tres- passers — Negligence. See Savage Animal. 1. — Seashore — Title to foreshore under a Crown grant — Construction . See Tasmania. 1. — Storm-water overflow — Nuisance — Injunction — Sewers — Discharge into tidal navig- able creek. See London — Sewers. 4. ■ Streets, Statutory power to fix posts ' under " — Taking of land. See Streets. 21. m or — Trespasser — Title against lessee — Surrender of lease — Lessor's right of re-entry. See Limitations, Statute of. 10. — Trustee in bankruptcy. Property passing to — Action for trespass and conversion — Claim for personal annoyance. See Bankruptcy — Trustee. 8. — Water company — Unauthorized new water- works — Ancillary main under public footpath — Ultra vires. See Water. 24. — Watercourse — Artificial channel — Mill stream — Right to flow of water. See Stream. 3. TEIAI — County Courts— Practice. See under County Court. — Practice. See under Peactice- -Trial. TEIBTJTAEY- What is— MUl dam— Stream. See Fishery. 2. TRINIDAD AND TO'SKGO— Deed of concession- Construction of covenant — Lands in possession of the Crown — Law of Trinidad and Tobago. A restrictive covenant by the Crown con tained in its deed of concession affected certain I TRINIDAD AND TGiKQO— continued. lands situated within three miles of the subject of concession " which now are, or at any time during the said term or terms shall come into, the possession of Her Majesty." In an action by the appellants for injunction and damages in respect of a breach of the said covenant by the Government : — Held, that on its true construction it related onlj' to lands in the actual possession, and did not include lands which were merely subject to the control, of the Crown, irrespective of the Crown having done anything with respect to the use or occupation of them. New Trinidad liAKE Asphalt Co. v. Att.-Gen. P. C. [1904] A. C. 416 TRINITY HOUSE OTJTPOBT DISTRICT— Col- lision in the Solent — Narrow channel — Compulsory pilotage. See Shipping— Collision. 62. TROVER — Partridge eggs, Seizure and detention by police ofiicer of — Liability of police officer in trover. See Game. 5. TRUCK ACTS— Master and servant. See under Master and Servant — Truck Acts. TRUCKS — Railway company. See under Railway. TRUST— See also under Trustee, — Administration of assets — Trust de hors the will of specified part of residue. See Administration. 1. — Charity. See under Charity. — Church — Identity — Fundamental doctrine — Limits to power of union. See Ecclesiastical Law— Church. 1. — Condition or trust — Fetter on power of sale — Condition of residing and providing a home for third party. See Settled Land— Sale. 16. — Confiscation — Construction of regrant of native lands. See New Zealand. 5. — Corporation sole — Rector — Power to hold personalty — Mortmain — Irregular in- vestment in land. See Corporation. 14. — Discretionary trust for maintenance or accumulation — Validity. See Will — Remoteness. 3. — Express trust — Infant legatee — Duty of executor to give notice of legacy. See Limitations, Statute op. 4, ( 2727 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2728 ) TRVST—ao/aiamod — For sale— Title— Leaseholds— Sale by way o£ I underlease. See Vendok and Puechaseb— Title. 16. — Husbaud and wife — Purchase of house — Pui'chase-mouey paid by husbaud — Eesultiug trust — Advancement — Rebuttal — Decree of nullity of marriage. See HnsBAND and Wife — Purchase. 1. — Practice — Originating summons — -Resulting trust — Application to enforce — No question of construction. See Pkactice — Originating Summons. — Precatory trusts. See under Will — Precatory Trusts. — Resulting trust — Dedication by deed of land for charitable objects. See Chaeity. 14. — Resulting trust — Friendly Society — Objects exhausted — Charity — Cypres — Crown — Bona vacantia. See Fkiendlt Society. 8. 1. — Uesultiiig trust — Fund suhscfihed for " educOttlon" of children of a deceased inditidaal — Oroxing up of children — Unapplied sur /^lus. A fund was subscribed by the fi-iends of a deceased clergyman for the education of his children, all of whom were then infants, and the letter declaring the trusts of the fund stated that the money was not intended for the exclusive use of any one of them in particular, nor for equal division among them, but as deemed neces- sary to defray the expenses of all, and that solely in the matter of education. The education of the children was paid for partly out of the trust fund and partly out of moneys respectively coming to them under their father's wiU. When all the children had grown up there remained a portion of the trust fund unapplied : — Held, (1) that there was no resulting trust of the balance for the subscribers ; (2) that the balance ought to be divided equally amongst the children. In re Andbbw's Teust. Caktbe r. Andebw - Kekewich J. [1905] W. N. 86 ; [190S] 2 Ch. 48 — Resulting trust — Purchase in name of stranger — Insurance policy. jSee INSUEANCE (Life). 11. — Sale by order of Court — Conditions of sale — Notice of trust. See Vendor and Pubchasee — Condi- tions of Sale, 7. • — Secret trust — Absolute gift — Charity — Trust for benefit of public, but so that they should acquire no rights. See Will— Absolute Gift. 9. — Settled land. See under Settled Land. — Settlement. See under Settlement. — Uncertainty — " Charitable or religious insti- tutions and societies " — Trust disposi- tion and settlement. See Will— Uncertainty, i I r&ViT—cmtinued. 2. — Will — Denuding — Vesting. A testator directed that the income of his property (consisting of movable and real estate) be divided between his children ; that in the event of any child dying leaving issue his or her share of income should be paid to the issue ; and if a child left no issue the deceased child's share should be divided among the survivors ; and he finally directed that " on the death of all " his children his estate should " be winded up and converted into money " . . . . and divided among tlie children of his sons and daughter per stirpes. The testator was survived by four children — Andrew, who died unmarried, George, who died in 1880, survived by the appellant (wlio became of age in 1898), Mary and Jane ; the two latter were still alive and liad families. The appellant claimed payment of one-third of the corpus of the testator's estate : — • Held, affirming the decision of the Second Division of the Ct. of Sess., (1900) 2 F. 749, that the appellant was not entitled to immediate payment on the ground that the third of the income of the corpus was not by any means the same as the income of a severed portion of the estate ; and it did not foUow tliat if the estate was not divided that the remaining portion of the estate left undivided would represent in the future the present value. Miller's Trustees v. Miller, (1890) 18 R. 301, and Yuill's Trustees v. Thomson, (1902) 4 F. 815, affirmed. Macculloch v. Andeeson. H. L. (Sc.) [1904] A. C. 66 — Will — Legacy to charitable institution — School — Trust deed — No lapse. See ChAkity. 45. — Will — Real estate — Trust for conversion — Mining lease — Payments in nature of royalties —Capital or income — Settled estate. See Will — Eeal Estate. 2. — Will — Uncertainty — Trust — " Such charitable or public purposes as my trustee thinks proper." See Will — Uncertainty. 4. — Resulting trust — Presumption — Evidence — Capital or income. See Husband and Wipe — Property. 2. — Resulting trust — Real estate — Copyholds Descent — Customary or common law heir. See Will— Intestacy. 1. TRUSTEE. See also under Exeoutoe. Teust. Stamp duty — Provisimi for limiting stamp duty on retirement of trustees to ten shillings See Finance Act, 1902 (2 Fdw. 7, c. 7), ;,. 9. ( 2729 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2730 ) TRUSTEE — continued. Invest me?it — Jinlargement of powers of trudees as to inivstment. Sec Irish Land Act, 1903 (3 L\ta: 7, c. 37), 5. 51. Trustee saviiitjs hanks — Sec Sa rings Hanks Act, 1901 (4 Ma: 7, *. 8). Public Trustee Actt, 1906 (G Mw. 7, c. 55), provides for t/ie appointment of a public trustee and amends the law relating to the administration of trusts. The Public Trustee Pules, 1907, dated Koo. 29, 1907. Kcprint from W. N. 1907 (Dec. 7), p. 339, See CuKRENT Index, 1907, p. Ixxxii. The Public Trustee {Fees') Order, 1907. Keprint from W. N. 1907, (Deo. 21), p. 339. See CUEKENT Index, 1907, p. Ixxxii. Married women, dis]}Osition of trust estates bij — See Married Women's Propertij Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 18), s. 1. Post Office Samngs Bank {Public Trustee) Act, 190S {S Hdw. 7, c. 52), amends the Post Office Saoings Bank Acts, 1861 to 1908, icith respect to deposits by the Public Trustee. Public Trustee {Fees) Order, 1909, which came into operation on Mar. 1, 1909. Reprint from W. N. 1909 (Mar. 13), p. 101. See CUEHBNT Index, 1909, p. clxi. Accounts, col. 2730. Administration. See under Adminis- TEATION. Appointment, col. 2732. Assignment, col. 2737. Attachment, col. 2737. Breach of Trust, col. 2737. Business, col. 2745. Charitg. See under Chakity. ChurcJi, col. 2745. Company, col. 2745. Compromise, col. 2745. Conditions of Sale, col. 2746. Conversion, col. 2746. Coists, cj-c, col. 2746. Decision of Majoritg, col. 2747. Pceastavit, col. 2747. Director, col. 2747. Discharge, col. 2747. Discretion, col. 2747. Disentailing Assurance, col. 2748. Duty, col. 2748. Frecution of Trust, col. 2748. Frecutor. See under EXECUTOR. Frecutorg Trust, col. 2749. Foreign Tru.dees, col. 2749. TRUSTEE— co«ii'«?«YZ. Fraud, col. 2749. Income 'J'a.r, col. 2749. Indemuitg, col. 2750. Industrial and Protident Societies, col. 2751. Infants, col. 2751. Insurance, col. 2752. Interest, col. 2752. Incc-itments, col. 2752. Leases, col. 2761. Liability, col. 2761. Limitations, Statute of, col. 2762. Lunacy, col. 2762. Management, col. 2762. Mortgages, col. 2762. Negligence, col. 2763. Notices, col. 2763. O'Oerpa/yments, col. 2763. Partnership, col. 2763. Powers, col. 2763. Practice, col. 2764. Public Trustee, col. 2765. Purchase, col. 2766. Release, col. 2766. Memooabilitg, col. 2766. Ilesulting Trust. See under TausT. Retainer, col. 2766. Retirement, col. 2767. Revenue Duties, col. 2767. &Ze, coL 2767. . Eowlet 0. A. [1809] 1 Oh. 409, n. See next Case. 4t2 ( 2737 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2758 ) TRTTSTEE (InveBtmenta^—co/ithmeil. , 10. — Mortgage — Breach of trust — Hazardous securifi/ — Depreciation — Valuation — Xcylifience — '■ Two-thirds " limit — Method of rnhiation — Hepairs^-Lcases— Trustee Act, 1888 (51 ,y- 52 Vict. c. 59), s. i— Trustee Art, 1893 (56 S- 57 Vict. c. 53"), ss. R, 9 — Judicial Trustees Act, 1896 (59 cf 60 Vict. c. 35) s. 3. The pits, brought an action for a declaration that an investment of 4440^. trust moneys on mortgage of freehold house property was a breach of trust, and that the mode in which the property was subsequently neglected was a further breach of trust, on the ground that the property was not a proper security for any part of the trust funds ; that the trustees did not have a valuation made by a properly instructed and independent valuer ; that the valuation which was in fact made was unsatisfactory ; that the mortgagor ought to have covenanted to keep the property in repair, and ought not to have been empowered to grant leases. The property depre- ciated in value, and two of the mortgaged houses ceased to be let and fell into despair, and the beneficiaries contended that the trustees ought to have taken steps from time to time to ascertain the condition of the jaroperty : — Held, that it was not proved that the property was of such a nature as to be whoUy improper for the investment of trust moneys, but that the valuation obtained by the trustees was not such a valuation as is contemplated by s. 8 of the Trustee Act, 1893. The duties of trustees acting without such a valuation considered, and the trustees held not to have acted as prudent men nor to be entitled to the benefit of s. 3 of the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896. In applying s. 9 of the Trustee Act, 1893, the Court will be guided by the principles which obtained before the passing of the Trustee Act, 1888, as to the margin of value to be required. Applying these principles, the Court held that the property was a good security for at most 3400Z., and that the trustees must make good the balance. Held, that the trustees were not hable under the circumstances of this case for not insisting on a covenant to repair, or a clause precluding the mortgagor from granting occupation leases or for neglect to inspect the mortgaged property from time to time. Methods of valuation and the duties of valuers discussed. Shaw j>. Cates Parker J, 11909] W. N. 7 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 389 11. — Komina.l debentures issued under Local Liians Art, 1875 (38 S,- 39 Viet. c. SH}— Trustee Act, 1893 (56 cj' 57 Vict. c. 53), s. 1 Qy); s. 5, suh-s. 3 ; s. 'A) — Jlaihcfnj ruuijMuics. The general statutory power of a trustee to invest in the debenture stock of a certain class of rys. under s. 1 (g) of the Trustee Act, 1893, is not enlarged by s. 5, sub-s. 3, so as to enable him to invest in nominal debentures issued under the Local Loans Act, 1875, as the latter sub-section is impliedly confined to the enlargement of express powers of investment. In re Tatter- SALL. TOPHAM r. AEMITAGE Swinfen Eady J. [1906] W. N 148 : [1906] 2 Ch. 399 TETTSTEE (Investments) — continued. 12. — Partnersliip — Conversion into company — Will — Exchange of testator's interest in the business for sliaresin the company — Agveemeiit by executors — Jurisdiction to sanction. The Court has no jurisdiction to sanction an agreement by which executors and trustees pro- pose to concur in converting into a limited co. a business in which their testator was a partner, where, by the terms of the agreement, the testa- tor's share in the business will be exchanged for shares and debentures which the executors and trustees are not authorized by the will to hold. In re Morrison. Morrison r. Morrison Buckley J. [1901] W. N. 60; [1901] 1 Ch. 701 Xote. Considered by C. A., In rcNew, [1901] 2 Ch. 534. See No. 3, above. 13. — Power to retain " in the present state of investment " — Settlement — Construction — Shares company — Power to retain " in the present state of investment thereof '" — Substitution of shares in different companies — Retainer of shares — Unauthorized investments — Accretion — Capital or income. By a marriage settlement made in 1902 it was declared that the trustees thereof should hold certain investments (which had been trans- ferred by the husband into their joint names) upon trust either to allow the same " to remain in the present state of investment thereof " or, with specified consent, to sell the same, and invest the proceeds in investments therein men- tioned and pay the annual income thereof to the husband for life, and after his death to his wife for life, and after the death of both, to hold the investments upon the usual trusts for the children of the marriage, with an ultimate trust, in the event of thei-e being no children, In favour of the husband absolutely. By cl. 11 of the settlement the trustees were authorized to exercise any preferential right that might be offered to them to subscribe for new or other shares in any co. in which they held shares or stock, and to dispose of the same, and every premium or profit arising therefrom was to be applied by them as if the same were income. One of the investments so transferred to the trustees consisted of 109 shares in an American financial co. called the Northern Securities Co., which was formed to acquire and hold shares in other corporations, and held a large number of shares in, and controlled the policy of, two American ry. cos., the Great Northern Ey. Co. and the Northern Pacific By. Co. In 1904 the capital stock of the Northern Securities Co. was cancelled to the extent of 99 per cent., and in lieu of their 109 shares in that CO. the trustees of the settlement received thirty-two fully paid-up shares and a fractional share in the capital stock of the Great Northern Ey. Co., forty-two fully paid-up shares and a fractional share in the capital stock of the Northern Pacific Ey. Co., and one fully paid-up share and a fractional share in the Northern Securities Co. In 1905 and 1906 the trustees received three options to take up new stock in respect of the ( 2759 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 2760 ) TRUSTEE (In-veatmenta)— continued. thirty-two shares in the Great Northern Ry Co. and of the forty-two shares in the Northern Pacific Ky. Co., and in exercise of these options they paid certain instalments, and in one instance sold the right of option. The husband having died and there being no children of the marriage, the wife claimed the proceeds of the options as income under cl. 11 of the settle- ment, subject to repaying the trustees what had been paid in respect of the new shares : — Held, that the shares in the two ry. cos. were not the same shares which were transferred to tlie trustees at the date of the settlement, and therefore the trustees were not authorized by the terms of the settlement to retain them. 1)1. re Smith, [1902] 2 Ch. 667, distinguished and discussed. Held, accordingly, that the accretions to the shares, by reason of the exercise of the options, belonged to the capital of the trust estate, and could not be treated as income under cl. 11 of the settlement. In re Anson's Settlement. Eael of Lovelace is. Anson Kekewich J. [1907] W. N. 196 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 424 — Power to trustees to retain investments — Hazardous securities. See Will — Investments. 5. — " Securities" — Power to transpose and vary — Implied power to resell. See Vendoe -iSTD PUHCHASEE — Title. 19. — Settled land. See under Settled Land — Invest- ments. 14. — Time — JDiseretioii as to the time for con- verting into money the personal estate of testator invested in stoclis, shares, and other inxestinents — Trust estate — Manayement — Costs. The Court recommended the applicants, the trustees of the wiU and codicils of the testator, to sell gradually, and under the advice of such stockbrolsers or stockbroker as they may think fit to employ, the whole of the sums of ry. stock, together with any other stocks of those rys. not being debenture stocks, which have been allotted to and taken up by the trustees for the time being of the will and codicils. But the Court being of opinion that, according to the true con- struction of the will and codicils, the trustees for the time being thereof have an absolute dis- cretion as to the time for converting into money the personal estate of the testator invested in stocks, shares, and other investments at the time of his decease, doth not think fit to interfere with such discretion by giving any directions. Costs of all parties to be taxed as between solicitor and client and to beraised and retained by the trustees out of the testator's residuary personal estate. In re Haegebaves. Hick r. Haegebaves Kay J. [1901] 2 Ch. 647, n. — ■ Trust — Investment — Railway or other " public company " — American company. See Will — Investments, i. 15. — Unauthorized investment — Breach of trust — Partly paid shares — Death of co-trustee — Call on shares — Contribution. TRUSTEE (Investments) — continued. Two trustees in breach of trust invested trust funds in partly paid shares of a co. Some years after the death of one trustee, the survivor, who had made every reasonable effort to dispose of the shares, but without success, paid a call of 800Z. as a contributory in the liquidation of the oo : — Held, that the deceased trustee's representa- tives, though not liable to the co. for the call, were liable to the surviving trustee for contribu- tion. Ashkurd v. Mason, (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 225, explained and applied. Jaokson ■». DICKINSON Swinfen Eady J. [1903] W. N. 74 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 947 16. — Unauthorized investment. Change of — Emergencji — Sanction of Court — Jurisdiction — Trust — Admi nis-tration — Management. The rule laid down in In re New, [1901] 2 Ch. 534, as to the exercise by the Court of its extraordinary jurisdiction in relation to the administration of trust, in sanctioning acts by trustees going beyond the express provisions of the trust iusti-ument, is limited to cases of emergency, and do^s not cover every case in which a particular act is desired to be done merely because it appears beneficial to the estate. For instance, the Court will not sanction an miauthorized change of investment proposed on the mere ground that it will be to the advantage of the beneficiaries. Decision of Kekewich J., [1903] W. N. 18 ; ri903] 1 Ch. 457, affirmed. In, ve TOLLBMACHE C. A. [1903] W. N. 98 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 955 17. — XJnauthorized investment — Contributory mortgage — Breach of trust — Banhruptcy of trus- tee — Proof against the banhrupfs e/tate — Valu- ing security — Measure of damages — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 '(46 S- 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 168, and Sched. II., rr. 9—16. L., a trustee, advanced trust funds on a con- tributory mortgage, which was an unauthorized investment. He afterwards became bankrupt. The mortgagor commenced an action against L., and all others claiming through or under him, to set aside the mortgage on the ground of fraud. L.'s oestuis que trust compromised their claims in the action without the concurrence of L.'s trustee in banlcruptcy : — Held, that, as L.'s cestuis que trust had adopted the improper investment, they could not under the circumstances prove in L.'s bankruptcy for the whole amount of the trust fund, but that their remedy was a proof for the damages the trust estate had sustained by reason of the improper investment, antl that the measure of damages was t'ne difference between the total sum invested and the assessed value of the com- promise. The dictum of Kekewich J. in In re Salmon, (1889) 42 Ch. D. 356—8, as to the relative rights of trustee and cestuis que trust, where the trustee makes an improper investment, applied. In re Lake. Ex parte Howe Trustees - Wright J. [1903] -W. N. 9; [1903] 1 K. B. 439 — Unauthorized securities — Express power to retain. See Settled Land — Investments. 3. ( 2761 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2762 ) TRUSTEE (Investments) — oontinued. — ■ffill. See under Will— Investments. Leases. — Club, Liability of trustees of, in respect of leases — Liability of memljers of club. See Clubs. 1. — Lease — Settled estates. See under Settled Land — leases. 1. — Power of trustees to grant mining leases — Unopened mines. A testatrix by her will devised to her trustees her undivided share in certain lands upon trust for sale, conversion, and investment and gave them povi^er to postpone such sale and conversion, and declared that whilst any part thereof should remain unsold it should be lawful for her trustees to let and manage and to join with any other person or persons in letting and managing all such part thereof as for the time being should remain unsold, and also gave them power to grant any building or other leases for such term at such rents and upon such conditions as they might think fit. There were mines of coal and other minerals existing under the lands, some of the mines being open and others unopened : — Held, that the trustees had power to join with the persons entitled to the other undivided shares in the lands in granting mining leases, but that the power did not extend to unopened mines. Opinion of Kindersley, V.-C. in Clegg v. Jlowland, (1866) L. E. 2 Eq. 160, 165, followed. In re Baskbeville. Baskekville v. Baskee- viLLE - - Joyce J. [1910] W. N. 175 ; [1910] 3 Ch. 329 Liability. — Investments. See under Tetjsteb — Investments. 1. — Misajipropriation — lAalility — Settled fund — Unauthorized investment — Restoration of capital with interest at 5 per cent. — Capital and income — Claim of capital to ewcess of interest beyond amount oitainaile from authorized investments. The sole trustee of a marriage settlement realized a sum of Consols which had fallen into possession and formed part of the settled funds, and in breach of trust applied the proceeds in paying ofE a private debt which bore interest at .5 per cent. Subsequently he restored the capital in full to the trust estate, and it was assumed that he had paid interest thereon at the rate of 5 per cent, to the tenant for life under the settle- ment, who made no claim against him : — Held, that the persons entitled under the settlement to the fund in remainder were not entitled, as against the tenant for life, to attri- bute to capital the excess of interest over the amount which would have been produced if the fund had been invested in authorized securities, and that the trustee had completely discharged himself. ^roud V. Gwyer, [1860] 28 Beav. 130, fol- lowed and approved. Slade r. Chaine C. A. [1908] -W. N. 36 ; [1908] 1 Ch, 523 TKT7STEE — continued. Limitations, Statute of. — Express trust — Fiduciary relation. See Limitations, Statute of. 4. Lunacy. — ■ Criminal lunatic— Form of vesting order- Stock — Repealing Act — Saving clause. Effect of. See Lunacy. 7. — Lunatic — Committee — Power of appointment vested in lunatic "in the character of trustee " — Power of appointment. See Lunacy. 21. Management. — Investments. See under Trustee — Investments. Mortgages. — Mortgage — Payment into Court by trustees under Trustee Act, 1893 — Payment out — Application by mortgagors— -Terms imposed by Court. See Mortgage — Payment, &o. 1. — Report of surveyor as to value — Sur- veyor's fees — Aiortive negotiatioyi — Practice — Trustee Act, 1893 (56 .5- 57 Vict. c. 53). Action by trustees to recover the costs of an abortive negotiation for a loan to the deft, on mortgage. In support of the pits.' case the surveyor who had been employed to report on the property on behalf of the pits, was called and was asked in cross-examination whether it was not the usual practice of surveyors, when valuing on behalf of trustees property submitted to them for mortgage,' to charge either a per- liminary fee or no fee at all in the event of the mortgage not going through. Before the hearing was concluded the parties came to a settlement of the questions in dispute, and the only matter calling for a note is with reference to the state- ment of Warrington J. on the practice above suggested. Warrington J. said he wished to make a statement of general interest. The surveyor had been called as a witness and had been asked if it was not usual where the transaction fell through to take either no fee or a preliminary fee — at any rate, no fee for making his report. If that were the practice it seemed a most reprehensible one, and one which might get trustees into difficulties. For it was obvious that in such a case it was to the surveyor's interest to make such a report as would enable the transaction to go through, Avhereas it was his duty to advise the trustees independently and without reference to his fees. It was well that surveyors and trustees should know that the practice was one which ought not to be coun- tenanced, and that a certificate by a surveyor in such circumstances might not be one which could be accepted by the Court under the Trus- tee Act, 1893. It was the more desirable to make this statement, because in a recent case before himself there was evidence that the practice existed. Mahquis op Salisbury v. Kbymbe Warrington J. [1909] W. N. 31 (2763 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2764 ) title-deeds. See MOKTGAGB- TBTTSTEE— cownrcliased ly trustee — Ownership of the fee — Trust — Partiicr. The doctrine that wherever the reversion on a lease which forms part of a trust estate is pur- chased by the trustees of the lease the purchase is for the benefit of the trust estate applies only to leaseholds which are renewable by custom or contract. Therefore if a trustee of a lease which is not thus renewable buys the reversion on the lease, he may, in the absence of fraud, hold it for his own benefit. Longton v. Wilshrj, (1897) 76 L. T. 770, explained and followed. Bevan i). Webb Warrington J. [1906] W. N. 68 ; [1906] lCli.620 — Vendor's lien — Unpaid purchase-money — Eeversionary interest. Sale of — Trustee purchaser. See Vendor and Purchaser — Lien. 1 Kelease. 1. — Breach of trust — Joint and several lia- bility — Compromise with one trustee — Iteleiisr 2)'>'0 tanto of the otliers — Right to prove in the bank- ruptcy of another trustee for full amount of delit. Where in an action against trustees for breach of trust a sum is certified to be due from the defts. to the pit., the acceptance by the pit. of a payment by one trustee by way of compromise in discharge of his liability does not operate as a release pro tanto of the others ; consequently the pit. may prove in the bankruptcy of another trustee for the full amount of the certified debt without giving credit for the compromise. Ed- wards X. Hood-Baehs - Kekewich J. [1904] W. N. 204 ; [1905] 1 Oh. 20 BemovabiUty. — Trustee solicitor-donee. Removability of — Fiduciary relation. See Solicitor — Fiduciary Relation. 2. Besulting Trust. See under Trust. Retainer. — Debt due from legatee to estate — Liability to account — Bankruptcy — Acceptance of dividend — Assent to composition. See Will— Trustee. 1. 1. — Trustee and cestui que trust — Sole sur- viving trustee — Legal personal representative — Breach of trusi — Dehtdue to trust estate — Insol- vent estate — Right of retainer — Obligation to retain — New trustees, Appointment of^Cestuis que trust. Rights of. The legal personal representative of a sole surviving trustee who has died insolvent and indebted to his trust estate cannot unless he has elected to act as trustee or is otherwise in the position of trustee, be ordered to exercise, in favour of the cestuis que trust, his right of retainer in respect of the debt. H. appointed two trustees of her will, and ( 2767 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2768 ) TRUSTEE (Retainer)— I . declared that all the trusts and powers thereby- reposed in them might be exercised by the sur- vivor or his heirs, executors or administrators, or other the trustee or trustees for the time being. B., one of the trustees, survived his co-trustee and died insolvent, intestate, and having com- mitted a, breach of trust in respect of which his estate was indebted to the H. estate. B.'s widow took out administration to his estate, and then appointed new trustees of H.'s will under a power therein contained ; and from time to time, as portions of the H. estate came to her hands, she transferred them to the new trustees. Judgment for the administration of B.'s estate having been pronounced in an action brought by a creditor, the new trustees applied by summons in the action for an order on the administratrix to exercise her right of retainer in their favour as trustees of H.'s will, she having declined to do so or to act in any way in the trusts : — Held, that, as the administratrix was neither a trustee of the will nor had in any way accepted the trusts, she was not under any obligation to exercise her right of retainer in favour of the trustees or beneficiary under H.'s will. "Whether in any case, after the appointment of new trustees, the riglit of retainer continued to be exercisable, ciucere. Fox V. Garrett, (1860) 28 Beav. 16 ; and In re Owen, (1889) 23 L. R. Ir. 328, disapproved. Sander v. HeathfieU, (1874) L. R. 19 Eq. 21 ; and i?« FaUhfull, (1887) 57 L. T. 14, distin- guished. In re Ridley, [1904] 2 Ch. 774 approved. Decision of Buckley J. reversed. In. re Benett. Waed v. Benett - - C. A. [1908] W. N. 173 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 216 Retirement. Stamp on conveyance or transfer for effectuat- ing the retirement of a trustee, althouj/h no new trustee is appointed. See Finance Act, 1902 (2 Edw. 7, c. 7), s. 9. — Trustee for sale — Sale to ex-trustee twelve years after his retirement — Vendor and purchaser. See Trustee — Sale. 2. Revenue Duties. — Annuity payable to trustee of settlement — - Succession duty — Estate duty. See Revenue — Succession Duty. 2. Sale. — No power of sale— Vendor selling as trustee — Written request of beneficiaries before contract. See Vendob and Pukchaser— Con- tract. 3. — Power of sale— Power given to " my trustees " — Power exercisable by survivor. See Will— Power of Sale. 1. — Repurchase by one trustee — Sale by trustees See Vendor and Puechaser— Specific Ferformance. 3. TRUSTEE (Sa\e)— continued. — ■ Sale by trustees of will — Conflict between two sets of trustees — Outstanding legal estate — Deduction of title. See Vendor and Purchaser — Title. 1.5. Settled Land Acts. See under Settled Land- Sale. — Title — Purchase of land in breach of trust — Power of trustee to sell. See Vendok and Purchaser — Title. 18. 1. — Ti'ust — Purchase ofieneficiary's interest hy trustee — Xon-diichisure of valuation ly trustee. The defender, who was one of the trustees and also a beneficiary under his parents' mar- riage contract, purchased the interest in the trust estate of his brother, who was not a trustee. At the date of the purchase the interest of the beneficiaries had vested absolutely, but the trust estate had not been realized, and its ultimate value was uncertain ; but it was capable of being realized in the ordinary course of adminis- tration. Before.purfchasing his brother's share the trustee had in his possession a valuation of the trust estate made for the purchase of a loan on his own share. If the valuation turned out to be anywhere near correct, the trustee would make a profit of some hundred pounds on the purchase. The trustee never informed his brother oi the valuation. On the brother being made bankrupt, the trustee in bankruptcy brought this action for reduction of the sale : — Ileld, affirming the decision of the Court of Session, (1901) 3 F. 553, that the non-disclosure of the valuation rendered the sale null and void. Lord Cairns' dictum in Thomson v. Eastwood, (1877) 2 App Cas. 236, approved. DoUGAN r. MACPHEESON H. L. (So.) [1902] W. ». 36 ; [1902] A. C. 197 — Trust for sale. See under Vendor and Purchaser. 2. — Trustee for sale — Retirement — Purchase of trust propeiiy — Sale to ex-trustee twelve years after his retirement. Apart from any circumstances of doubt or suspicion, there is no rule of the Court that a person who has ceased for twelve years to be a trustee of an instrument which contains a trust for sale, cannot become a, purchaser of property subject to the trust. In re BoLES AND British Land Co.'s Contract. Buckley J. [1901] W. N. 243 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 244 Secret Trust. See under Trust. Securities. — Tenant for life and remainderman — Un- authorized securities — Wasting securi- ties — No trust for conversion — Power to trustees to retain — Construction. See Settled Land— Securities. 1. ( 2769 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2770 ) TRXrSTEE— ( Service. — Payment out — Petition — Service on trustees. See Peacticb — Payment, &o. Settled Land. See under Settled Land — Trustees. ■ — Powers exercisable by trustees — Conflict of powers — Consent of tenant for life. See Settled Land— Powers. 1. Shares. 1. — Trustee and eestui que trust — Principal and agerit — Conflicting equities — Contract by trustee to charge trust prope'i'ty in lireach of trust — Priorities — Skip — Segistered owner holding as trustee — Beneficial owner allowing legal owner- ship to remain vested in trustee — Negligence — Estoppel — Merchant Shipping Act, 1894: (57 ^ 58 Vict. c. 60), ss. 2i, 26, 31, 56, hi— Mortgage of shares. In furtherance of a project for the formation of a CO . to purchase a ship, the pits, who were owners of shares in the ship, executed transfers of their respective shares to one H., the senior partner in a firm of H. & Co., which managed the ship's business, as trustee for them, with power to sell the shares to the co. if formed ; and H. was registered as owner of the shares in the register of shipping at the port to which the ship belonged. The project for formation of the CO. proved abortive, but the above-mentioned shares were not reconveyed to the pits. Subse- quently a son of E., who acted as the manager of H. & Co.'s financial business, obtained for the purposes of the firm from the deft., through an agent for the deft., without the knowledge or authority of the pits., an advance of money, which was intended to be secured by a mortgage by H. of the above-mentioned shares. A docu- ment, which purported to be and was registered as such a mortgage, turned out to be a nullity, never having been duly executed by H., the afore- said manager having obtained H.'s signature to a printed form with blank spaces, which he sub- sequently handed to the deft.'s agent for the purpose of his filling in the blank spaces with the material particulars of the proposed mortgage, which he did. The money advanced by the deft was used for the purposes of the firm. The deft, had no notice of the pits.' interest in the shares. In an action brought by the pits., claiming that the mortgage deed should be declared void, and the entry of it expunged from the register, Bigham J. granted the relief claimed ; but thinking the effect of the evidence to be that H. had agreed with the deft, to give such a mortgage, he held that, inasmuch as the pits, had entrusted H. with authority to deal with their shares in the ship, although he had not dealt with them in accordance with the authority given, the deft, was entitled in equity to a charge on the shares: — Held (reversing the decision of the learned judge), that the fact that the pits, had con- stituted H. the legal owner of the shares and allowed him to appear as such on the register, TRUSTEE (Shares)— coMiiMMef?. did not, under the above-mentioned circum- stances, give rise to an equity entitling the deft, as against the pits, to a charge upon the shares as security for the money advanced by him. Pimmer v. Webster, [1902] 2 Ch. 163, dis- cussed. BUEGIS V. CONSTANTINB C. A. [1908] 3 K. B. 484 Solicitor. — Trustees. See under Solicitor — Costs. Title-deeds. 1. — Custody — Trustee — ■ Title-deeds — Kon- negotiahle securities. In the absence of special circumstances, a trustee is not entitled to have title-deeds and non-negotiable securities removed from the cus- tody of a co-trustee and placed at a bank, in a box accessible only to the trustees jointly. In re SissoN's Settlement. Jones v. Trappks Swinfen Eady J. [1902] W. N. 233 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 262 — Solicitor — Partner, Liability for acts of — Duty of solicitor to cestui que trust. See under SOLIOITOE— Partnership. 1. Vesting Orders. • Company. See under Company — Vesting Orders. — Criminal lunatic — Stock in name of trustee of unsound mind. See Lunacy. 27. Will. — Trustee making profit out of trust — Dis- cretionary trust to carry on business — Sale of goods to business by trustees at a profit — Ketention of profit. See Will— Trustee. 2. TBtrSTEE IN BANKEUPTCY. See under Bankexjptcy— Trustee. TUG— Collision. See under Shipping — Collision. TUITION— Value of — Apprentice— Workmen's compensation. See Master and Servant — Compen- sation. 65. TUNNEL — Mines — Subjacent and adjacent support. See Railway— Mines. 8. ( 2771 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2772 ) TVTS'S'EL—ooTitinued. — Eailway — Severed lands — Grant of right to make ' ' a tunnel ' ' — Uncertainty — Perpetuity — Assignability. See Kailway — Accommodation Works. 2. — Superfluous land — Space above usque ad coelum — Telegraph wires — Statute of Limi- tations, See Bailway — Tunnel. 1. TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS — Power of attorney to possess and mamage — Power not coupled with an interest — Power held to 'be revo- calle — Contract for personal services — Specific peifwvmnce — Mjectment — Injunction — il/or£- gat/e. In an action of ejectment the jury found that the appellant was in possession under a po%ver of attorney for which he had given con- sideration other than and additional to that mentioned therein, viz., a personal guarantee to a mortgagee of the estate in suit that he would pay the mortgage debt on the day of redemp- tion : — Held — (1.) that parol evidence of this addi- tional consideration was admissible, for such evidence did not contradict the power ; TUSKS AND CAICOS ISLATSJiS— continued. (2.) That the power was nevertheless revo- cable, inasmuch as it merely appointed the appellant manager at a salary and contained no reference to any special interest created by his guarantee, and was not intended to subserve or to be dependent on the continuance of such interest ; (3) That, assuming it to be irrevocable, he had not a good equitable defence to ejectment, since the contract with him was entire, and an inseparable part of it related to personal service. The appellant accordingly could not obtain specific performance thereof, and therefore could not obtain an injunction against an action of ejectment. Feith v. Fbith P. C, [1906] A. C. 284 TURNPIKE. See under Steeets. TURNPIKE ROAD, See under HIGHWAY. TURNTABLE —Railway Company — Defective fence — Negligence — Infant trespasser — Invitation to danger. See Railway — Fences. 1. ( 2773) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2774 ) u. ULTRA VIRES. See under Specific Titles. UMPIRE — Arbitration — Witness called by umpire — Misconduct — evidence — Removal. &e Arbitkation — Umpire. 1. UNCERTAINTY— Charitable gifts. See under Chahity. — Consideration, Uncertainty as to — Contract of sale of land — Specilic performance refused. See Teassvaal. 1. — Railway — Severed lands — Grant of right to make "a tunnel" — Perpetuity — Assignability. See Railway — Accommodation Works. 2. — Real estate — Conveyance — G rant — Exception — Election. — See Conveyance. 2. — Remoteness — Illegality — Statutory confirma- tion. See Contract. 17. — WiU — Construction. See under Will — Uncertainty. UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS ACCOUNT. See under Revenue — Unclaimed Divi- dends Account. UNDERGRADUATE— Infant— Betting circular. See Betting Cieculak. 1. UNDERGROUND BAKEHOUSE— Factory Acts — Lease — '■ Impositions and outgoings." See Factoey. 8. UNDERGROUND LAVATORIES— Land Tax- Liability to — Vesting of subsoil of road in sanitary authority —Revenue. See Land Tax. 2. -London. See under London- -Conveniences. UNDERGROUND ROAD— Carriage of foreign minerals — Property in sub-soil — Pay- ment of rent — Mistake — Estoppel. See Conveyance. 3. UNDERGROUND SEWERS value of surface. See Rates. 43. Diminution in UNDERGROUND STREAM— Channel defined but not known. (S're Watee. 21. UNDERLEASE— Conditions of sale— Title- Trust for sale — Leaseholds — Trustees — Sale by way of underlease. &«Vkndor and Pdkchasee— Con- ditions of Sale. 8. Covenant for quiet enjoyment — Implication arising from the word " let." See Landloed and Tenant. 05. ■ Covenant for renewal — Personal covenant — Perpetuity — Assignee of reversion. See Landloed and Tenant. 88. Covenant running with the land— Covenant by underlessor with undevlessce to perform covenants of head lease — Collateral covenant. See Landlord and Tenant. 2C. Distress — Interesse termini — Underlease ex- ceeding original term — Lessee's right to distrain. See DiSTEESS. 13. ■ Forfeiture — Relief granted to lessee — Effect on underlease. See Landlord and Tenant. 37. - Interesse termini — Underlease exceeding original term — Lessee's right to dis- train. See Distress. 13. - Landlord and tenant. See under LANDLOED AND Tenant. - Lease — Forfeiture — Relief — Writ claimin g possession — Election to determine tenancy — Effect on underlease. See LANDLOED AND TENANT. 36. - Licensed premises, Lease of — Covenant — Refusal to renew licence — Liability of lessee. See LANDLOED AND TENANT, i'6. - Mortgage by underlease — Merger — Lease — Subsequent purchase by lessee of free- hold reversion. See Meegee. 3. - Mortgage of — Forfeiture — Ejectment — Relief parties — Costs. See Landloed and Tenant. 35. - Re-entry for breaches of covenant, Proviso for — Breach of covenant not to underlet — Surrender of lease. See Landloed and Tenant, 73. ( 2775 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2776 ) VSOY.'RLS&SE— continued. — Title — Trust for sale — Leaseholds — Sale by way of underlease. See Vekdoe and Puechaser — Title. IG. — Trustee — Investment — Breach of trust — Con- tributory mortgage. ,Sfe Tkdsxee — Investments. 17. - UnJerlessce not an " assign Privity of contract. See LANDLOK0 AND TENANT Vesting order — Disclaimer by trustee to be imposed on ,underlessee. See Bankeuptcy— Vesting Orders Covenant— 11. -Terms 1. UNDERWRITER— co«iittMci. — Prospectus — Omission of material contract — Waiver clause. See CoMPAfTT — Prospectus. 7. — Shares, Issue of — Payment of commission for placing shares — Underwriting agree- ment. See Company — Shares. 8. Ship ~ Mortgage. See under Shippino- -Mortgages. UNDERLESSEE — Distress for rent due from head lessee — Exemptions—Proprietary club — Pictures sent by members of club for exhibition and sale on commis- sion. See Distress. 4. — Lease — Forfeiture for non-payment of rent — " Tenant — Belief against forfeiture. See Landlord and "Tenant. 38 — 39. UNDERLET — Covenant not to assign or underlet without licence — " Unreasonably with- held." See Landlord and Tenant. 9. " UNDERTAKERS " — Workmen's Compensation Act. See under Master .4JID Servant — Compensation. UNDERTAKINGS— Practice. See under Bankruptcy — Undertakings. Practice — Undertakings. Solicitor — Undertakings. UNDERVALUE — Partially secured creditor — Estimate of security. See Bankruptcy— Secured Creditor. 2. UNDERWRITER — Business carried on by underwriter on behalf of himself and "names" — Bight of trustee to book of account. See Bankruptcy— Books. 2. — Shipping — Collision. See under Sh IPPING— Collision. UNDERWRITING AGREEMENT— Company— Eeconstructiou — Commission — Ultra vires. See Company — Reconstruction. UNDISCHARGED BANKRUPT- Bankruptcy. See under Bankruptcy— Undischarged Bankrupt. UNDUE INFLUENCE— Influence of husband- Absence of independent advicc-^Lia- bility of wife. See Husband and Wipe — Liability. 3. — Solicitor and client — Fiduciary relation — Setting aside deed. See under SOLICITOR— Fiduciary Rela- tion. — Will — Costs out of the estate — Undue influ- ence and fraud unsuccessfully pleaded. See Probate — Costs. 1, ■ Will, Validity of - iiiadmissible- See Jersey. - Evidence of executors -Laws of Jersey. 3. Collision. See under Shipping- -CoUision. — Discovery— Production of documents— Report made to underwriter— Nominal plain- tiff.s. See Discovery. 17. — Discovery— Ship's papers— Insurance, Marine — Eecovei'y of money overpaid — Practice. See Discovery. 20. — Marine, Insurance. See under INSURANCE (Marine). UNDUE PREFERENCE— Railway traflic. See under RAILWAY — Rates. UNEMPLOTED WORKMEN ACT, 1905— Paid office under the council — Distress com- mittee — Councillor — Disqualifloatiou. See Local Government. 23. UNFURNISHED HOUSE— Defective premises- Accident — Personal injury to tenant's wife — Landlord not liable. See Landlord and Tenant. 89. UNION — Parish — Transfer of land from one parish to another — Alteration of boun- daries of union. See Local Government. 30. — Poor law. See under Poor Law. — Trade union. See under Trade Union. UNION OF BENEFICES. See under ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. ( 2777 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2778 ) TJNION OF BENEFICES— coniifme*?. — Compensation — Site of a church — Possibility of future sale. iSce Lands Clauses. Acts. 8. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. See under Amekica. — Divorce by New York Court, Decree of — Validity of divorce in England. See INTEENATIONAL LAW. 1. UNITY OF POSSESSION— AVay— User— Inter- ruption — Acquisition of right against reversioner. See Way, Eight or. 14. UNIVEKSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889. See Scottish Law. 19. TTNIVEESITIES ELECTIONS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1881. See Scottish Law — Parliament. 19. UNIVERSITY. See under COLLEGE and under specific title of Univbksitz. ■ Betting circular — Infant. See Betting Cieculae. 1. UNLIftUIDATED DAMAGES. See under Damage and Damages. — Claim for — Jurisdiction — Remitted action — Amendment. See County Gouet — Jurisdiction. 7. — Due to defendant from cestui que trust-^ PlaintifE suing as trustee — Equitable. defence. See TeUstee — Practice. 3. " UNMARRIED " — Will — Construction ■ quest on conditions — Forfeiture. See Will — Conditions. 6. -Re- UNQUALIFIED PERSON— Acting as a solicitor — Carrying on proceeding in action — Notice of appearance to writ. See Solicitoe — Unqualified Person. 1 UNSEAWORTHINESS— Shipping. See under SHIPPING. URINALS. See under London- -Conveniences. USAGE — Debenture payable to bearer — Conver- sion — Holder for value. See Negotiable Insteument. 1. — Stock Exchange. See under Stock Exchange. USER. See also under specific Titles. — Alteration oE user — Level crossing — Agricul- tural land — Change of condition — Tennis club. See Railway — Level Crossings. 2. USER — continued. — Cul-de-sac — Dedication to public — User — Plan — Implied representation — Block- ing up road. See Building Scheme. 1. — Custom to dry fishing nets— Validity — Changes in user — Recession of sea. See Custom. 1. — Easement — Prescription — Enjoyment as between tenants — Unity of ownership — Forty years' user. See Way, Right of. 12. — Footway. See under Highway. — Foreshore. See under Foeeshobe. — Foreshore under a Crown grant. Title to — Improper rejection of evidence — Acts of user before the grant admissible. See Tasmania. 1. — Highway. See under HIGHWAY. — Immemorial use by inhabitants of ground for recreation — Encroachment. See Scottish Law. 5. ■ Light. ! under Light and Aie. — National monument— Public right of access — Public road — rDedication. See Way, Eight of. 9. — Oyster ponds on foreshore — Ancient user — Public health — Nuisance from sewage. See FISHEEY. 5. — Patent. See under Patent. — Right of — "Accommodation works" — Grant of easement — Level crossing. See Railway — Accommodation Works. 1. — Statutory navigation company, Prescriptive claim against — Prescriptive claim to take surplus water only — User un- limited. See Peesceiption. — Trade mark. See Teade Mark. — Way — Prescription. See under Way. USES, STATUTE OF— Real estate— Conveyance — Grant — Exception — Uncertainty — Election. See Conveyance. 2. USURY— Money lenders. See under Money-lendee. ( 2779 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2780 ) V. VACATING OFFICE— Director— Absence— Time — Eemuneration. See Company— Directors. 6, 10, 17, 22. — Director — ^Withdrawal. See CoMPAinr— Directors. 10. VACCINATION— 7acci?wi!io» Act, 1907, (7 Edw 7 e. 31), is an Act to substitute a statutory declaration for the certificate required under s. 2 of the Vaccination . Act, 1898, of conscientious objection. DNGLAITD.] Order of Local Govt. Board, dated June 8, 1905, amending tlie Vaccination Order, 1898. St. E. & 0. 1905, No. 642. The Vaccination Order (iVb. II.'), 1907, dated Dec. 21, 1907. Price Id, St. R. & 0. 1907, No. 1002. Circular to Guardians, Deo. 23, 1907, Price Id. St. E. & 0. 1907, No. 1002. The Vaccination Order, Jan. 27, 1910. St. E. & 0. 1910. No. 91. Price \d. 1. — Neglectto procure — Information — Period at which offence complete — I/imitation, of tims — Vaccination Acts, 1867, 1871, 1898 (30 ^ 31 Vict. c. 84, s. 29 ; 34 ^ 35 Vict. c. 98, s. 11 ; 61 ^ 62 Vict c. 42, s. 1). The appellant was convicted on an informa- tion, laid on July 12, 1900, under the Vaccination Act, 1867, s. 29, charging him that, being the parent having the custody of a child born on Dec. 30, 1898, he did unlawfully neglect to cause the child to be vaccinated within six months after birth, not rendering a reasonable excuse for his neglect. On May 1, 1899, the public vaccinator visited the appellant's house, pursuant to notice, and offered to vaccinate the child, and vaccination was refused. On July 7, 1899, the vaccination officer serve4 a notice, under the Vaccination Order, 1898, on the appellent, requiring him to have the child vaccinated within fourteen days. No certificate of postponement or successful vaccination was received in respect of the child. The appeUent objected that the information was out of time, having been laid more than twelve months after the offence was committed. The justices disaDowed the objection, on the ground that the ofience was complete, and the time began to run, on .July 21, the date of the expiration of the notice served on the appellant by the vaccination officer. Held, that the offence was complete, and the time began to run, six months after the birth of the child, and the information was out of time. Lajstgkidoe ■». HOBBS Div. Ct. [1901] W. N. 30 ; [1901] 1 ft. B. 497 '7 KWIS kilo's— continued. Note. Polley V. Fm-dha^n, Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K.B. 345. See PuhUc Authorities Protection. 2. 2. — Proceed'mgs to enforce law — Power of ■vaccinat'ton officer to take proceedings without authority of and against the desire of quardians — Vaccination Acts, 1867 to 1898 (30 ^- 31 Vict, c. 84 ; 34 ^- 35 Viet. c. 98 ; 37 4- 38 Vict. c. 75 ; 61 4- 62 Vict. c. i9')— General Order nf Local Government Board, October 18, 1898, arts. 26, 27. A vaccination officer by virtue of his appoint., ment, without directions, general or special, from the guardians, and notwithstanding the guar- dians' directions not to prosecute, may institute proceedings for the enforcement of the law against a parent who is in default in respect to the vaccination of his child. In such proceedings, it is - not a condition precident that proof should be given by the vaccination officer of the visit .of the public vaccinator tu the home of the child after twenty- four hours' notice to the parent, as required by s. 1, sub-s. 3, of the Vaccination Act, 1898. MOOEE V. Kbyte Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 768 '3. — Proceedings to obtain iiaceination order — Condition precedcnt^Public eaccinator — Offer to vaccinate child — Vaccination Acts, 1867 (30 4- 31 Vict. c. 84), s. 31 ; 1898 (61 ^ 62 Vict, c. 49) s. 1, sub-s. 3. Sect. 31 of the Vaccination Act, 1867, enables summary proceedings to be taken against parent who, after notice, neglect to have their children vaccinated. The Vaccination Act, 1898, incor- porates the Act of 1867, and provides, by s. 1, sub s. 3, that if a child is not vaccinated within four months after its birth, the public vaccinator of the district, after notice, shall visit the home of the child and offer to vaccinate it in the prescribed manner : — Held, that the compliance by the vaccination officer with the provisions of s. 1, sub-s. 3, of the Act of 189S was not a condition precedent to the right to take proceedings under s. 31 of the Act of 1867. Pym v. Wilshee Div. Ct. [1901] W. N. 136 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 806 VAGEANCY — Incorrigible rogue— Sentence by quarter sessions — ^Appeal. See Oeiminal Law — Appeal. 13. VALUATION — Non-disclosure — Purchase beneficiary's interest; by trustep. See Tbustee— Sale. 1. of ( 3781 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2782 ) VALVATIO'S—contmued. — Partnership — Provision for purchase by sur- vivor of share of deceased partner — Surviving partner sole executor of deceased. See New South Wales. 24. — Poor-rate. See under RATES. — Sufficiency of valuation of surveyor. See Lands Clauses Acts. 12. — Tramway — Purchase of undertaking by local authority — " The then value." See Tramways. 13. — Trustee — Investment. See under Teustee — Investments. VALUATION (METROPOIIS) ACT, 1869. See Rates. VALUATION LIST— Poor-rate— Appeal. See under RATES. VANCOUVER. See under Canada. VARIATION — Contract — Rescission — Parol evidence — Statute of Frauds. See Contract. 13. — Settlements — Divorce. See under DlvORCiE — Settlements. VENDOR and PURCHASER. Banliruptctj , col. 2782. Charity, col. 2782. Company, col. 27S2. Conditional Purchase, col. 2783. Conditions of Sale, col. 2783. Contracts, col. 2787. Conveyance, col. 2789, Copyholds, col. 2789. Corporate Lands, col. 2790. Corporation, col. 2790. Costs, col. 2790. Covenants, col. 2792. Deeds, col. 2795. Deposit, col, 2796. Fraud, col. 2797. Jndeiimity, col. 2797, Interest, col. 2798. iMnd Transfer. See under LAND Transfer. Lands Clauses Acts. See under Lands Clauses Acts. Lea.^e, col. 2801. Zien, col. 2801. Minerals, col. 2802. Misdescription, col. 2803. Mistake, col. 2804. VENDOR AND rVRCKAS^'R— continued. Mortgages, col. 2804. Notice, col. 2805. Outgoings, col. 2805. Partners, col. 2805. Payment out, col. 2805. Plan, col. 2805. Practice, col. 2806. Priority, col. 2807. Railways, col. 2808. Beceiver, col. 2808. Recitals, col. 2809. Rents, col. 2809. Rescission, col. 2809. Sale. See under Sale. Sale of Goods, col. 2812. Scottish Law. See under Scottish Law. Settled La/nd,. See tinder Settled Land. Specific Performance, col. 2813. Title, col. 2814. Title-Deeds. See VENDOR AND Pur- chaser — Deeds. Will, col. 2827. Bankruptcy. — Sale of goods — Fraud of debtor — Vendor's right to disaffirm sale and retake goods after notice of act of bankruptcy. See Bankruptcy — Trustee. 10. — Undischarged bankrupts —After-acquired pro- perty — Purchase of real estate as partners — Sale to a company — Inter- vention of trustees in bankruptcy. See Bankruptcy — Undischarged Bank- rupt. 4. Charity. — " Endowment " — Sale of charity land — Con- sent of Board of Education. See Charity. 17. Company. — Debentures— Trust deed — Purchase by com- pany — Purchase-money to remain on mortgage — Vendor's Lien — Legal mort- gage — Priority. See Company — Debentures, 17. — Power to acquire land — No express power of sale — Constitution of company — Im- plied power. See Company— Power of Sale. 1. — Winding up of company — Contract to sell assets — Leaseholds — Omission to assign. See Company— Vesting Orders, i. ( 2783 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2784 ) VENDOE AKD VVRCSASEVi— continued. Conditional Purchase. ■ — New South "Wales — Crown Lands Alienation Act, 1861 — Contract of sale of condi- tional purchases — Subject to the pro- visions of local laws and regulations. See New South Wales. 9, Conditions of Sale. — Copyholds — Conditional surrender by way of mortgage. See Vendor and Puechaser — Copyholds. 1. — Incumbrances, General inquiry as to — Lia- bility of vendor to answer — Purchaser mortgagee. See Trustee — Breach of Trust. 1. 1. — Interest ■ — Belay — Damages — Loss of empected profits. A purchaser cannot be compelled to pay interest for delay under a condition that " the purchaser in default "shall pay interest on the remainder of his purchase-money, where the delay has been occasioned by the default of the vendor. Damages can be recovered by a purchaser from his vendor for delay in completing the pur- chase, where the delay has been occasioned by default of the vendor, not in consequence of want of, or defect in, title, or in consequence of conveyancing difficulties, but by reason of the vendor not having used reasonable diligence to perform his contract. Jones v. Gardiner. Byrne J. [1901] W-N. 837 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 191 — Interest on purchase-money — Wilful default of vendor. See Vendor and Purchaser — Interest. 2. 2. — Law Society's conditions — Contract in writing — Incorporation of other documents — Statute of Frauds. This was an action for the specific per- formance of a contract for the sale of Igjid. The contract was in writing and contained the clause, " The land is sold subject to the conditions of the HaUfax Incorporated Law Society." The objection was taken that there was not a sufficient memorandum of the contract to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. Farwell J. said that there was no substance in the objection. Obviously, unless something was said to the contrary, the conditions re- ferred to were the conditions sanctioned by the Law Society at the time of making the contract. It would of course be necessary for the pit. to prove what those conditions were. The judge could not take judicial cog- nizance, without further evidence, of a mere printed copy of rules produced in Court. When, however, that copy was once identified by evidence, it became an illustration of the maxim, " Id certum est, quod certum reddi potest." Pickles i>. Sutoliffe Farwell J. [1902] W. N. 200 3. — Misleading particulars — Statement by auctioneer — Compensation — Specific per- formance. D.d. VENDOR AND PUECHASEE (Conditions of Sale) — continued. - A clear and distinct statement by an auc- tioneer at the time of sale verbally correcting a material misdescription in the particulars disentitles the purchaser to specific perform- ance with compensation for that misdescrip- tion, even if he does not hear the statement. Manser v. Bach, (1848) 6 Hare, 443, fol- lowed. In re Hare and O'More's Contract Joyce J. [1901] 1 Ch. 93 4 . — Mistake — Sale hy the Court — Misde- scription — Compensation — Defect of title — Be- scission after conveyance. On a sale by the Court of property described in the particulars as freehold stabling with dwelling rooms over, one of the conditions provided that if any error or mis- statements should appear to have been made in the particulars of sale or conditions, it should not annul the sale, but compensation, to be settled by the judge in chambers, should be made in respect thereof ; the property was conveyed to the plaintiff, the purchaser, in Oct., 1897, and the purchase-money was paid into Court, and the bulk of it distributed among the beneficiaries. A year after comple- tion it was discovered that some of the dwell- ing rooms over and a cellar underneath a por- tion of the property belonged to third persons, and the plaintiif eventually had to pay 300Z. to acquire a title to these dwelling rooms. In Feb., 1900, the present action was commenced against the vendor trustee and the benefi- ciaries, claiming compensation for the errors and misstatements in the particulars and con- ditions of sale, or, in the alternative, to set aside the sale on the ground of common mis- take, and obtain repayment of the purchase- money : — Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation under the above condition of sale, which did not, and was not intended to, apply to the case of a defect of title, but only to error or misstatement in the subject-matter of the sale ; that, even assuming there had been a common mistake, and assuming that there need not be a total failure of considera- tion to justify rescission after conveyance, the error made in the present case was not suffi- cient to justify rescission, and that the plt.'s action therefore failed and must be dismissed. Debenham v. Sawbridge - - Byrne J. [1901] W. N. 86 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 98 — Particulars — Misrepresentation — Property described as freehold. See Vendor asd Purchaser — Title. 10. S. — Requisition on title — Vendor " unwill- ling to remove or comply with " — Arbitrary exercise pf power to rescind contract — Specific, performance. Freeholds were put up for sale by auction subject to conditions which stated that the vendor was a trustee for sale, and that if any purchaser should make any objection or re- quisition which the vendor should be " un- willing to remove or comply with," the vendor might annul the sale. The abstract of title 4u ( 2785 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2786 ) VENDOR AND PURCHASER (Conditions of Sale) — continued. supplied to a purchaser shewed that the pro- perty was devised by the will of a testator, who died in 1858, upon trust for A. for Ufe, and after her death upon trust for sale and division amongst her childien, but if A. died without leaving a child, the property was to be conveyed to B. and C. as tenants in common. In answer to the purchaser's requisitions, the vendor gave the date and place of A.'s mar- riage and the names, but not the addresses, of her children. The purchaser pressed for the date of birth of any one child of A. living at her death in order to obtain a certificate of birth to prove that the trust for sale had arisen. The vendor not having this infor- mation in his possession, although he knew the address of one child and the address of the soUoitors who acted for the other children, declined for reasons stated to comply with the requisition, and rescinded the contract. In an action by the purchaser for specific perform- ance : — Held, that the requisition was reasonable, that under the circumstances the vendor's re- scission was arbitrary and unreasonable, and therefore the purchaser was entitled to specific perfbrmance. QniNioN v. Hoene Farwell J. [1906] W. N. 44 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 696 6. — Bescind, Right to, if objection insisted on — Misdescription — Absence of title to mines ■ — Compensation. A condition giving the vendor the right to rescind in the event of his unwillingness to comply with an objection to the title must not be considered as giving him an arbitrary power to annul the contract ; some reasonable ground for his unwillingness must be shewn. Before a vendor will be allowed to rescind, he must satisfy the Court that he entered into the con- tract in ignorance of some material fact or document, or under some mistaken notion that he was entitled to sell and could make a title ; there must be no failure of duty on his part, no element of shortcoming, and he must have omitted nothing which the ordinarily prudent man, having regard to his contractual rela- tions with other persons, is bound to do. J. and others contracted to sell to H. a villa residence by a description wide enough to include the mines and minerals under it. The contract provided (clause 13) that if the purchaser should " insist on any objection or requisition as to title " which the vendors should " be unable .... or decline " to com- ply with, the vendors might rescind the con- tract ; and (clause 14) that any error or mis- statement should form the subject of compen- sation. The vendors believed that it was well known in the district that the minerals were reserved. The purchaser having insisted on a requisition that the vendors' title to the minerals should be furnished, the vendors gave a notice purporting to rescind the contract under clause 13 : — Eeld Taffirming the decision of Buckley J., [1905] I f Ch. 603,1 though on a difEercnt VENDOR AND PURCHASER (Conditions of Sale) — continued. ground), that though the purchaser's objec- tion was " an objection to the title " within the terms of clause 18, it was not an objection that the vendors could avail themselves of as a ground for rescinding the contract, having regard to the facts and their own conduct ; and that the purchaser was entitled, under clause 14, to a conveyance of the property with compensation in respect of the mines and minerals. Bowman v. Byland, (1878) 8 Ch. D. 588, discussed and explained. In re Jackson and Haden's Contract C. A. [1906] W. N. 25 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 412 — Rescission — Pending litigation — Costs — Jurisdiction. See Vendoe ajsd Purchasee — Rescis- sion. 2. 7 . — Sale by order of Court — Notice of trust — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 i^ 45 Vict. 0. 41), i. 70. The applicant in this summons purchased a portion of the property under conditions of which the following was one : — " All facts or matters appearing to be proved or to be certi- fied by a chief clerk or master attached to the chambers of the said judge, or to be stated or implied in any judgment or order in the action in which this sale is made, are to be deemed thereby sufficiently and conclusively evidenced, and the purchaser is to assume that all neces- sary and proper covenants preliminary to a sale have been obtained, and is not to require the concurrence in her conveyance of any person beneficially interested whose rights appear to be bound by the judgment or order under which the sale is made." An abstract was delivered deducing the legal title from the date specified by contract down to Messrs. B. & Co., mortgagees, who were willing to convey the legal estate. One link in the title abstracted was a conveyance to D. & S., who, it was recited, had become entitled in equity, as joint tenants to the premises conveyed. The purchaser required an abstract of the equitable title of D. and S. The vendors refused to comply with the requisition, and this summons was taken out to determine whether a good title had been shewn, having regard to the conditions : — Eeldf that, having regard to s. 70 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, and the condition above set out, a good title had been shewn. In re Whitham. Whitham v. Da vies Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 86 8 . — Title — Trust for sale — Leaseholds — Sale by way of underlease — Trzistee Act, 1893 (56 ^ 57 Vict. c. 53), s. IS. Trustees for sale put up for auction five leasehold houses, held under one lease, in five separate lots, subject to a condition that if all the lots were sold at the present sale, the pur- chaser of the largest lot in value should execute an underlease for the whole of the term, lees one day, to the respective purchasers of the other lots at an apportioned rent ; but that ( 2787 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2788 ) VENDOR AND PURCHASER (Conditions of Sale) — continued. if any of the lots remained unsold (which happened), " the vendors will grant to the purchaser or respective purchasers of the lot or lots sold such an underlease as aforesaid of each of the lots sold " : — Held (reversing the decision! of Warring- ton, J.), a valid exercise of the trust for sale. In re Walker and Oakshott's Contract, [1901] 2 Ch. 383, overruled on tliis point. In re JuDD AND Poland and Skelohee's Con- TEAOT - - C. A. [1906] W. N. 72 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 684 Contracts. — Leaseholds — Sale by way of underlease — Trust for sale. See Vendor and Puechasee — Title. 16. 1 . — Light, Enjoyment of — Deed of ac- hnowledgment — Kon-disclosure — Specific per- formance — Compensation — Costs. A contract for the sale of a house with win- dows looking over the land of a third person implies no representation or warranty that the windows are entitled to the access of light' over that land, or even that the prescriptive period is running, and consequently the non- disclosure of a deed acknowledging that the vendor is not entitled to that light is no ground for refusing the vendor specific performance, or allowing the purchaser compensation, though it may be a ground for depriving the vendor of his costs. There is no such thing known to the law as inchoate easement. Bonner v. Great Western By. Co., (1883) 2i Ch. D. 1, followed. Geeenhalgh v. Beindley Farwell J. [1901] W. N. 125 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 324 2. — Repudiation — Specific performance — Defect in title — Repudiation after decree for specific performance — Evidence — Scottish document registered in Scotland — Production in England impossible — Secondary evidence of contents — Interest on purchase-money — Costs. A purchaser's right to repudiate the con- tract is an equitable right arising from want of mutuality, and may be a defence to an action for specific performance ; but in order to avail himself of that defence he must re- pudiate the contract as soon as he finds that the vendor cannot make a good title. After a decree for specific performance has been made the purchaser cannot repudiate the contract without the leave of the Court. A vendor is not bound to produce or pro- cure a covenant for the production of a docu- ment which is of record in Scotland, but must furnish sufl3cient secondary evidence of its contents. Where an order is made for specific per- formance, interest on purchase-money is pay- able from the time when the Master certifies that a good title is first shewn, not from the time when such a title is first shewn as would enable the purchaser safely to take possession. Halkeit v. Eael of Dudley Parker J. [1907] W. N. 57 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 590 VENDOR AND PURCHASER {ConUa.cta)—contd. — ■ Eescission. See under Vendoe and Puechasee — Rescission. — Eescission — Return of deposit — Jurisdiction — Vendor's summons. See Vendoe and Puechasee — Title. IC. — Eeversiouary interest. Contract to sell — " Legal chose in action." See Assignment. 6, 10. — Title — Leasehold house — Open contract — Breach of. covenant to repair — Pro- duction of receipt for rent. See Vendoe and Puechasee — Title. 7. 3 . — Title — Vendor selling as trustee — Legal estate in vendor — No power of sale-— Written request of beneficiaries before con- tract. A contract for sale of a freehold house — lot 1 — provided that " The vendor of lotS' 1 and 2 who is the trustee under the will of the said James Baker deceased is selling the said properties under the trusts and powers vested in him thereunder and shall not be required to enter into any covenant other than that implied by his conveying in such capacity as aforesaid." It also provided that " The tenant for life of lot 1 will join in the conveyance to the pur- chaser for the purpose of releasing her life interest therein." On the examination of title it appeared that the vendor had the entire legal estate as trustee of the will, but had no power or trust for sale thereunder. Ho had, however, en- tered into the contract at the written request of the life tenant and all the other benefi- ciaries, including himself, so that he could compel them to join : — Held, that the vendor had shewn a good title in accordance with the contract. In re Bryant and Barningham's Contract, (1890) 44 Ch. D. 218, and In re Head's Trus- tees and Macdonald, (1890) 45 Ch. D. 310, distinguished. In re Bakee and Sei.mon's CONTEACT Swinfen Eady J. [1907] W. N. 22 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 238 — Vendor's motion to rescind contract — Form of order — Costs. See Vendor and Pueohasek — Practice. 1. 4. — Voidable contract — Assignment of contract — Privity of contract — Money had and received. Action for. A vendor having assigned the benefit of his contract for sale, payments were made, as under the contract, by the purchaser to the vendor's assignee. Subsequently to those pay- ments the purchaser refused to complete the contract on the ground of misrepresentation by the vendor, and the assignee then brought an action for specific performance, making the vendor and the purchaser defts., which action was dismissed. A counter-claim by the purchaser to re- cover the payments made by him to the pit. 4tj2 ( 2789 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2790 ) VENDOR AND PURCHASER (Contracts)— co«ifZ. was, upon the facts, dismissed with costs, the decision of Cozeus-Hardy J., [1901] 2 Ch. 594, being reversed. Fleming v. Loe C. A. [1902] W. N. 143 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 359 The House aflErmed the decision of the C. A., reported as Fleming v. Loe, [1902] 2 Ch. 359, and dismissed the appeal with costs, holding that the question was entirely one of fact, and that no question of law or equity or principle arose. M.iOKUSiCK v. Fleming H. L. (E.) [1904] W. N. 44 Conveyance. Sei' also under CONVEYANCE. — Dispute as to wording of conveyance — Delay. See Vexdor and Puechasee — Interest, 2. 1. — Title, Covenant for — Breach — Measure of damages — Conveyancing and Law of Pro- perty Act, 1881 (44 <5- 45 Yict. c. 41), s. 7. By an indenture of conveyance, dated in 1898, the deft, as beneficial owner granted to the pit., his heirs and assigns, certain land subject to specified rights of way over a road forming part of the property which had been previously granted by the deft, to other per- sons. The land was bought and sold for build- ing purposes, and the pit. having built a house thereon discovered that, in addition to the rights of way specified in the conveyance, there existed a further right of way over the road, which had been granted by the deft, in 1891 to another person and was innocently undisclosed by him. In an action for damages for breach of the covenant for title implied by s. 7 of the Con- vej'ancing Act, 1881 : — Held, that the breach was single, entire, and complete upon the execution of the con- veyance ; and that the proper mea."!ijre of damages was the difference between the value of the property as it purported to be conveyed, and its value as the vendor had power to con- vey it. TuuNEB V. Moon Joyce J. [1901] W. N. 174 : [1901] 2 Ch, 825 JSvte. Followed by Buckley .J., Great Western Bi/. Cii. y. Fisher, [iao,J]'l Ch. 31(i. See Vendor and Purchaser — Title. 3. Copyholds. — Copyholds — Equitable interest — Devolution — Person to convey. See Copyholds. 2. 1. — Title — Conditional surrender by way of mortgage — Principal and interest s'tatute- harred — Conditions of sale — Vacating condi- tional surrender. Copyholds were sold with a condition that " no evidence shall be required of the payment or discharge of any legacy or sum of money charged on the property which became pay- able twelve years or upwards prior to the day of sale." The court rolls contained an entry of a conditional surrender by way of mortgage VENDOR AND PURCHASER (Copyholds)— cojiirf. made in 1865 by the predecessor in title of the vendors. The mortgagee had not been ad- mitted, and no payment or acknowledgment in respect of either principal or interest had been made for more than twelve years prior to the day of sale : — Held, that the condition precluded the pur- chaser from requiring the conditional surren- der to be vacated by satisfaction being en- tered on the court rolls in the usual way. HorKiNSON », Ch.\mbeelain Neville J. [1908] W N. 108 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 863 Corporate lands. — Corporate lands — Power to sell — Considera- tion — Perpetual rent-charge. See CoEi'OB ITION. 8. Corporation. 1. — Ultra vires — Purchase hy agreement^ Public Health Act, 1875 (38 if 39 Vict. u. 55), s. 164 — Special Act — Covenant not -to erect buildings — Validity of covenant — Restriction of powers given for benefit of public. When a corporation purchases land by agreement for any of the purposes for which it is authorized to acquire land by the Public Health or other public Acts, or by its special local Acts, it is not ultra vires for the cor- poration to enter into covenants with the vendor restricting the erection of buildings upon the laud purchased which it might erect under other powers given to it for the benefit ol the public, provided that such restrictions do not prevent the user of the land for the particular purposes for which it was acquired. Ayr Harbour Trustees v. Oswald, (1883) 8 App. Cas. 623, distinguished. In re Sovth Eastern Eii. Co. and Wifjin's Contract, [1907] 2 Ch. 366, discussed. Stodkoliffe Estates Co. v. Bodbnemouth COEPOEATION - C. A. [1910] W. N. 120 ; [1910] 2 Ch. 12 Costs. 1. — Equitable set-off — Eebts "en autre droit " — SjH'ciJic performance. The -pit., as purchaser »f leasehold property, obtained judgment for specific performance against the deft., as administratrix of an intes- tate, with costs to be paid by her personally. The deft, had u, beneficial interest, to the extent of one-fourth, in the intestate's estate, and it was alleged that except a mortgage there were no unpaid debts of the intestate, and that the purchase-money payable by the pit. represented the whole of the intestates estate. The judgment not having been passed and entered, the pit. moved for the addition of a direction enabling him to deduct the costs due to him from the deft, from so much of the purchase-money as represented her beneficial interest in the intestate's estate : — Held, that without some form of adminis- tration order, which the Court had no power to make in this action, it was impossible to ascertain what the amount representing the beneficial interest of the deft, was, so as tc ( 27911) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2792 ) VENDOR AND PURCHASER (Costa)— co/tUnued. bind other persons interested in the intestate's estate ; and, distinguishing Green v. Sevin, (1879) 13 Oh. D. 589, that, though a set-off of costs against purchase-money might be allowed in a case where the debt due to and the debt due from the vendor were so due in the same capacity, the pit. here could not be allowed to bring into account all or any part of an unascertained sum to which the deft, might be beneficially entitled in the administration of her intestate's estate, as against the pui- chase-money which was due to her in her re- presentative capacity. Phillips v. Howell Byrne J. [1901] W. N, 202 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 773 — Lands Clauses Act — Death of vendor before completion — ^Vendor's will — Costs of probate — Taxation of costs. See Lands Clauses Acts. 19. 2. — Leaseholds — Sale — Abstract df^ title — " Deducing title " — Single document — iea.se — Solicitor aTid client — Costs — Scale charge — Solicitors' Bemuneration Act, 1881 (44 ^ 45 Vict. c. 44), General Order under, Sched.. I., Part I. — Practice — Tmeation — Vendor and pur- chaser summOTis, Raising question of taxation on — Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874 (37 J^ 38 Vict. c. 78). On a sale of leaseholds, the delivery of an abstract of the vendor's title consisting of the lease only is not " deducing title " so as to entitle the vendor's solicitor to the scale charge under Sched. I., Part I., of the General Order under the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881. Wellby V. Still, [1894] 3 Ch. 641, followed. Semble, per Eomer L.J. : A question as to the amount of the vendor's costs on a sale is not properly raised upon an ordinary sum- mons under the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, the solicitor not being a party to and therefore not bound by the proceedings. Such a question should be raised on taxation. In re Webstee and Jones' Contkact C. A. [1902] W. N. 146, 152 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 551 — • Leases — Deducing one title on several con- tracts — Scale fee. See SOLICITOE— Costs. 23. — Rescission of contract. See Vendor and Pueohasbh— Rescis- sion. 1, 2. — Sale of leaseholds— Death of vendor before completion — Vendor's will — Costs of probate. See Lands Clauses Acts. 19. — Sheriff's costs— "Deduction" from purchase- money — Lands Clauses Act — Practice. See Costs. 18. 3. — Summons — ' No title shewn — Pur- chaser's cost of, investigating title — Lien. Purchaser's summons under the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, asking (inter alia) for (i.) a declaration that a good title to grant a right of way to certain hereditaments had not been shewn ; (iii.) that the costs in- curred by the applicant in investigating the VENDOR AND PURCHASER (Costa)— continued. title might be paid ; and (iv.) that it might be declared that the said costs and expenses, including the costs of the present application, were (until payment thereof) a charge upon the said hereditaments. The contract between the parties was for the sale to the purchaser of certain freehold hereditaments, and for the grant of a right of way leading thereto. The vendor failed to shew any title to the right of way, and subsequently repaid the deposit, but had not paid the costs. Kekewich J. said the question was whether he could properly make the declaration as to the lien in the absence of the vendor and without argument. There were some autho- rities upon the subject. In Seton's Judgments, Vol. III., p. 2269, there was a note to the effect that the Court had jurisdiction, on de- claring that the vendor had not shewn a good title, to order him to pay the purchaser's costs of investigating the title and to charge them on the vendor's interest in the property. This was done in the Irish case of In re Priestley and Davidson's Contract, (1892) 31 L. R. Ir. 122. In the case of Re Teilding and Wesibrook, (1886) 31 Ch. D. 344, Pearson J. purported to follow a decision of Hall V.-C. of In re Biggins and Hitchman's Contraict, (1882) 21 Ch. D. 95, 99, and said that if it was an innovation he thought it was a good one. But Hall V.-C. in fact made no order of the kind suggested, he dealt merely with the costs of investigating title, similarly in the case of In re Hargreaves and Thompson's Contract, (1886) 32 Ch. D. 454, in which the two last- named cases were approved. The question of a lien was not discussed at all. However, in Turner v. Marriott, (1867) L. E. 3 Eq. 744, Malins V.-G. went the whole length and de- clared that the purchaser was entitled to a lien on the vendor's interest in the estate for his deposit and costs. The result was that such orders had been made, and he agreed with the remark of Pearson J., that if it was an innovation it was a good one. He therefore made the order asked for. In re Furneaux AND Aied's Contract - Kekewich J [1906] W. N. 215 Covenants. 1. — Freelwlds subject to rcstrictire cove- nants — Covenants to be entered into by pur- chaser. In an agreement for the sal© of freehold land it was stated that the property was sub- ject to restrictive covenants. The vendor had covenanted with his vendor to observe and perform those covenants and to indemnify his vendor : — Held, that the purchaser ought to enter into a similar covenant with the vendor, but that the covenant should be prefaced with the words " with the object and intention of affording to [the vendor], his heirs, executors, and administrators, a full and sufficient in- demnity in respect of [the restrictive cove- nants], but not further or otherwise." In re Poole and Claeke's Conteaci C. A. [1904] W. N. 138 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 173 ( 2793 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2794 ) VENDOR AND PDECHASER (Covenants)— co«i!erty Limitation Act, 1874 (37 4' 38 Vict. c. 57), s. \— Purchase by rajlicay company after expiration of S^iecial Act — General .statutory powers — Ultra xires — Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 ^ 9 Vict.c.''M), ss. 6, 16, 77-79. The presumption that, where a highway is a boundary, the sub-soil of the highway ad medium iilum viiE passes to the grantee of the land adjoining the highway, does not apply to a ry. that is a boundary. Under a grant, therefore, of the land and minerals lying on each side of and adjoining a ry., the minerals underlying the ry., which had not been acquu'ed by the ry. co., will not pass to the grantee. In 1875 A. by a written agreement gave B. a six months' option to purchase land and minerals on each side of and adjoining a ry. The option was duly exercised, and the land and minerals as described in the option agreement were con- veyed to B. In 1884 B. had become the owner o£ collieries adjoining the land so acquired from A., and from that time worked parts of the ( 2808 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2804 ) TENDOE AND PURCHASER (Minerals)— corait?. minerals underlying the ry. in tlie honest belief that he had a title thereto. In 1906 A. brought an action against B, claiming the minerals under the ry. B. counter-claimed for rectification of the conveyance and option agreement so as to include these minerals, alleging mutual mistake, and tendered evidence to shew that the parties at the date when the option was exercised in- tended to include these minerals in the pur- Held, on the authority of Mayy. Piatt, [1900] 1 Gh. 616, and Da^-ws v, Mtton, (1842) 2 D. & "War. 225, that the evidence was not admissible. Quare, as to the principle of those decisions. Meld, also (following Asliion v. Stoclt,, (1877), 6 Ch. D. 719), that B. had not by possession or otherwise acquired a title to the minerals under- lying the ry., and that the Statute of Limitations afforded him no defence to the action. A ry. CO. at anytime after the due completion of the ry. authorized by their special Act can, under their general statutory powers, purchase any lands within the limits of deviation of their deposited plans which are necessary for or inci- dental to the business they are carrying on, e.g., the maintenance of the line. In 1863 ary. co. under the powers of a special Act, which incorporated the Lands Clauses Con- solidation Act, 1845, and the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, acquired land, without the underlying minerals, and constructed their ry. across it, within the four years for that pur- pose limited bythe specialAct. In 1904 the CO., to prevent injury to the ry. by subsidence, entered into an informal agreement to purchase the minerals from A., the owner, and subsequently by a contract under seal assigned the benefit of the agreement to B., who, claiming the minerals adversely to A., disputed its validity : — Ileld, that the co., by assigning the agree- ment to B., had ratified it ; and that it was not in other respects ultra vires the co., notwith- standing that their powers under their special Act had expired. Thompson r. Hickman Neville J. [1907] W. N. 85 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 550 Note. Referred to by Eve J., Glyn v. Uovoell, [1909] 1 Gh. 666. See Mines. 14. Misdescription. — Conditions of sale. See under Vendob and Pukchasee— Conditions of Sale. 1. — Miideicription of purchaser — jVame — Partnershij) — Evidence of ideritity — Legal estate. William Wray carried on business under his own name at Laurel House, North Hill, Highgate, in partnership with his sons, and another person. He died in 1885, and his widow was admitted as a partner in his place. The business was carried on as before and under the same name. In 1890 the partners bought a house and paid for it out of the partnership assets. The conveyance was made between the vendor of the one part and " William Wray of Laurel House, Highgate," of the other part, and the property was conveyed to William Wray in fee simple : — VENDOR AND PURCHASER (Misdescription)— continued. Held, that the legal estate passed by the con- veyance to the four partners as joint tenants. Maugham Y. Sharjie, (1864) 17 C. B. (N.S.) 443, followed. Weay v. Weay Warrington J. [1905] W. N. Ill ; [1906] 2 Ch. 349 Mistake. 1. — Auction, Sale iij — Purchase of wrong lot — Consensus ad idem — Contract — Wrong date — Memorandum in writing — Specific performance —Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3). At a sale by auction of landed property on Nov. 18, 1901, the deft, bid for one lot by mistake for another, and it was knocked down to him. On discovering his mistake he refused to sign the contract, whereupon the auctioneer signed it as his "agent." The printed particulars, conditions, and an annexed form of contract had been prepared for a sale on " Oct. 17, 1901," which was post- poned till Nov. 18, .but by inadvertence the original date, though altered in the particulars, remained in the conditions and form of con- tract : — Held, that there was no contract within the Statute of Frauds, nor, semhle, any consensus ad idem, to support an action by the vendor for specific performance. Decision of Kekewieh J., [1902] W. N. 103 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 266, reversed. Van Praagh r. EVEEIDGB C. A. [1903] W. N. 25 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 434 — Life policy, Sale of — Death of assured before contract. See Insurance (Life). 16. 2. — Written contract — Conveyance — Error in 2Jarcels — Common mistalie — Rectification of conveyance — Laches. In 1900 A. sold and conveyed land to B. In 1906 A. brought au action against B. for rectifi- cation of the conveyance, alleging that by common mistake the parcels in the conveyance included more land than was comprised in the written contract in pursuance of which the conveyance was executed. A. commenced the action as soon as he became aware of the error. B. denied any mistake, and further contended that A. came too late for rectification : — Held, on the evidence, that there had been a common mistake, and that A. was entitled to rectification, for that he had not been guilty of any laches. Bloomer v. Spittle, (1872) L. E. 13 Eq. 427, questionen.ithiiiri!. intending to use their ry. station as traveilers by the ry. or otherwise to pass either to or trom West Street along the passage ; but this order is not to preclude the defts. from using the passage for the purpose of passing into or from their station by their officers, clerks or servants, or by any person (not being a passenger or intending passenger) reasonably using the same for the purpose of delivering or removing with carts or otherwise goods or materials not intended for transit by the ry., provided that the defts. ensure that the access to and from their station to the passage shall be kept closed to travellers by the ry. MiLNEE's S.\rE Co., Ld. v. Geeat Noetheen AND City Ry. Co. C. A. [1906] W. N. 213 — Guernsey — Title to right of way by the public — Law of the Channel Islands. See GUEENSEY. 1. — Highway — Eight for foot passengers^ Prescriptive use • — Accumulated use attributable to two roads —Substi- tuted roads. See Highway. 41. 8 . — Local government — District council — Public right of way — Removal of obstruction by -private individual — Action by landoivner — Power of district council to contribute to costs of dejcTbce — Local Government Act, 1894 (56 ij 57 Vict. c. 73), s. 26. By s. 26, sub-s. 1, of the Local Govern- ment Act, 1894, it is the duty of every district council to protect all public rights of way, and to prevent as far as possible the stopping or obstruction of any such right of way ; and by sub-s. 3 a district council may, for the purpose of carrying the section into effect, institute or defend any legal proceedings, and generally take such steps as they deem ex- pedient : — Held, that a district council might, under the powers conferred by the section, contri- bute to the costs of the defence of an action brought against a, private individual who had removed an obstruction in the assertion of an alleged public right of wav. Bex v. Nobfolk County Council Div. Ct. [19011 2 K. B. 268 9. — Natioiuil monument — Public right of access — Public road — Dedication — Terminm ad quern — Cul-de-sac. The general public cannot acquire by user a right to visit a public monument or other object of interest upon private property, and ■-- trust to permit access for that purpose will not be presumed against persons who show a clear documentary title. There can be no public right of way to such a monument or object acquired by mere user. A public high- way must prima facie lead from one public place to another. A cul-de-sac may be a public highway, but the dedication of a cul-de- sac as a highway will not be presumed from mere public user without evidence of expendi- ture on the place in dispute for repairs, lighting, or other matters, by the pubUc authority. Att.-Gen v. Anteobus Farwell J. [1906] W. N. 78 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 188 WAY, RIGHT OT— continued. 10 . — Permissive enjoyment ■ — General words — Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (44 ^ 45 Vict. o. 41), s. 6, sub-s. 2 — Ways enjoyed with the lan/i sold — Ease- ment. The general words incorporated by the Con- veyancing Act, 1881, in every conveyance not expressing a contrary intention, will pass to the purchaser all ways actually used by him at the date of the conveyance, though used only by permission of the vendor. The deft, in this action was the owner of two houses adjoining each other, one in his own occupation, the other held by the pit. co. under a lease from the deft., and occupied by their managers and servants carrying on their business. The houses were separated by a roadway leading to and forming part of the deft.'s yard. By permission of the deft., renewed from time to time to successive managers, the plt.'s servants and their prede- cessors in title had used in business hours a way across the yard to a door opening thereon in the back part of their premises for all purposes of their business. The entrance to the yard was closed by wooden doors, which were always locked by the deft, at night, and he kept sole control of the key. The deft, sold to the pit. CO. the house leased to them, and conveyed it by a deed containing no general words or reference to any right of way : — Held, that such a right of way as the pits, had actually enjoyed at the date of the deed passed to them by virtue of the general words inserted in the deed by the Conveyancing Act, , 1881, though the enjoyment was wholly per- missive and precarious. Inteenational Tea Stores Co. v. Hobbs - Farwell J. [1903] W. N. 82 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 165 — Pleading — Lost grant — Date and parties. See Practice — Pleadings. 11 . — Prescription — Inference from jacts — Payment for user — Enjoyment as of right — Lost grant — Easement — Prescription Act, 1832 (2^3 Will. 4, s. 71), s. 2. For more than forty years without inter- ruption the owner of a house used a cart way from his stables through the yard of an adjoin- ing inn to the public road, paying each year 15«. to the owners of the inn yard. There was no agreement in writing, and no conclusive evidence as to the origin of or .the consideration for the payment : — Held, that the inference of fact this House drew from the evidence was that the payment was made for leave to use the way ; that there had therefore been no enjoyment of right within the Prescription Act, 1832, s. 2 ; and that there was no ground for presuming a lost grant. The decision of the C. A. [1901] W. N. 69 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 198, affirmed. Gaednee r. Hodgson's Kingston Beeweey Co. H. L. (E.) [1903] W. N. 92 ; [1903] A. C. 229 12. — Prescription — Right oj way — Enjoy- ment as between tenants — Dominant and ( 2869 ) DIGEST OF 0A8ES, 1901—1910. C 28?0 ) WAY, EIGHT OT—continued. ■■H'l'rie/it ffiiementx — Unity of ownership — Forty years' user — Easement— Presoription Act, 1832 (2 J^^.Will. 4, c. 71), s. 2. An easement, such as a right of way, cannot, under s. 2 of the Prescription Act, 1832, be acquired by a tenant by user over land occupied by another tenant under the same landlord, even if that user has existed for the period of forty years mentioned in the section. Dictum in Harris v. De Pinna, (1885-6) 33 Ch. D. 268, overruled. KiLGOUE v. Gaddes C. A. [1904] W. N. 36 ; [1904] 1 K. B. 457 13 . — Reservation — Basement — Contract for sale of land reserving " rights of way hitherto exercised " — Subsegttent conveyance with similar reservation, but not executed by purchaser. Prom 1867 to 1902 farms called " White Lodge " and " Coxhill " had been owned by the same person, and during all this time the tenants of Coxhill had by leave (either asked for or not) used a way over White Lodge. In 1902 the owner of the farms agreed to sell White Lodge, the agreement stating that there were reserved " to the vendor, his heirs and assigns, the owners and occupiers for the time being of " Coxhill, " and their servants and others authorized by them, all rights of way hitherto exercised by them in respect of " Coxhill " over any portion of " WTiite Lodge. The conveyance contained a similar reservation, but was not executed by the purchaser, who, however, took possession of White Lodge : — Held, that the purchaser and his successors in title (taking with notice) were bound to give effe.ct to the reservation. May v. Belle- VILLB Buckley J. [1905] 8 Ch. 605 — Subway — Subsoil of road — Vesting in sanitary authority. See London— Conveniences. 1. — Trespass — Injunotiou — Landowner uninjured — Discretion to refuse injunction. See Tbespass. 3. 14. — Unity of possessiott — Interruption — Acquisition of right against reversioner — Ease- ment—Prescription Act, 1832 (2 ..If- 3 Will, i, c. 71), ss. 2, i. The pits., being respectively the owner in fee and the tenant of Whiteacre, brought an action of trespass against the owner and occupier of the adjoining farm Blackacre, in driving a horse and cart from Blackacre across certain fields belonging to Whiteacre. The deft, set up a private right of way under the Prescription Act, 1832, and alleged an uninterrupted user for forty years. It appeared that A. was tenant of Whiteacre from 1860, and of Blackacre from 1877 till 1898 ;— Held, (1) following Onley v. Gardiner, (1838) 4 M. & W. 496 ; 51 E. E. 704, and JIattisMU v. Reed, (18.56) 18 C. B. 696, that the unity of possession of the alleged servient and dominant tenements for the greater part of the forty years preceding the action was fatal to deft.'s claim under the Act ; (2) following Baxter v. Taylor, WAY, RIGHT OY— continued. (1832) 4 B. & Ad. 472 ; 38 E. B. 227, that in the circumstances the user of the right of way for the last forty years would be no evidence of right as against the pits. Dempbr v. BASSETT Joyce J. [1901] W. N. 119 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 360 — " Weirs " — Adverse acts of ownership — In- corporeal right. See Fishery. 13. WEARING APPAREI— Married woman— Judg- ment debt — Wife's separate estate — Paraphernalia. See Husband and Wife — Wearing Apparel, &c. 1. WEEK -Average weekly earnings — Workmen's Compensation Act. See under Master and Servant — Compensation. WEEKLY NOTES— Citation. See Settlement. WEIGHT— Sale otherwise than by weight. See Bread. 1, 2. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. Weights and Measures Act, 1904 (4 JSdw. 7, c. 28), amends the law relating to weights and measures. Cran Measures Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 17). See under Gran Measures. 1. — Coal — By-lam — Sufficiency of weighim/ Instrument — Weights and Measures Act, 1889 (.'52 S,' .53 Vict. c. 21), s. 28, sub-s. 1 ; s. 35. A by-law made under s. 28 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, provided that every person carrying coal for sale in a vehicle should carry therewith " a correct weighing instrument . . . for the purpose of weighing any quantity of coal not exceeding two hundredweight." The respondent, a coal dealer, was carrying bags of coal in his cart for sale, some of which bags purported to contain one hundredweight, and others half a hundredweight. He had with him a correct set of scales, but only one weight weighing half a hundredweight : — Held; that the by-law and statute contem- plated that the weighing instrument should be capable of weighing any bag of coal in the cart by a single operation, and that as a hundred- weight bag of coal could not be weighed with a half-hundredweight weight in less than two operations, a breach of the law had been committed. CRICK v. NiCHOLLS Div. Ct. [1906] W. N. 32 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 601 2. — Coal — By-law — Sufficiency of weighing in.^trmnent — Weights and Measures Act, 1889 (52 <5- 53 Vict. 0.21), s. 28. The respondent was summoned for breach of a by-law, made under s, 28 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, which provided that "The person in charge of every vehicle carrying coal for sale or delivery to a purchaser shall carry therewith a weighing instrument of a form approved by the county council, together with correct weights or counterpoises of the deno mination of a Board of Trade standard." The respondent on Nov. 16, 1894, was delivering to a purchaser one ton of coal in twenty sacks ( 2871 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2872 ) WEIGHTS AND MEASURES supposed to contain one hundredweight each. He had in his cart a correct weighing instrument and two half-hundredweight weights. The appel- lant contended that the respondent should have had some smaller weights to counterbalance the weight of the sack itself. There was a conflict of evidence as to whether it was customary to carry such smaller weights. The justices refused to convict : — Held, that the by-law had been infringed. Appeal allowed. Houghton v. Andrews (1895) —Unreported Div. Ct. [1905] I K. B. 503, n 3. — Coal — Sy-laivs regulating sale of coal — Validity of by-laws — Weights and Measures Act, 1889 (52 ^- 53 Vict. c. 21), s. 28. The County Council of Middlesex, purporting to act under s. 28 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, which provides that "any local authority may from time to time make, revoke and alter by-laws, (a) regulating for the pur- poses of this Act the sale of coal in quantities not exceeding two hundredweight," made the following by-law : — " Every person selling or exposing for sale coal in quantities not exceed- ing two hundredweight shall cause his name and place of business, if such place of business is situated within the county of Middlesex, to be registered in the books of the inspector of weights and measures in whose district such person carries on business." The respondent, who was a seller of coal in quantities not exceeding two hundredweight, was summoned for not registering his name and place of business in accordance with the by-law. The justices dismissed the summons upon the ground that the by-law was not a by-law " regu- lating the sale of coal " within the meaning of s. 28, but a regulation creating a condition pre- cedent to the sale of coal, and was consequently ultra vires : — Held, that the by-law was a by-law regulating the sale of coal for the purposes of the Act and was valid. Appeal allowed. Wabd v. Feanklin Div. Ct. [1909] W. N. 200 4. — Coal — Delivery in a vehicle — Several deliveries under one order — One ticket — Weights and Measures Act, 1889 (52 |- 53 Vict. c. 21), s. 21. The respondents, having sold to a purchaser twelve tons of coal, delivered a portion of the coal in sacks in a vehicle to the purchaser on Sept. 23, 1907, and at the same time, before any part of the coal was unloaded, gave to the pur- chaser a ticket according to the form in the Third Schedule to the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, for the delivery of twelve tons of coal in 240 sacks, each sack containing 1 cwt. On Oct. 2, 1907, thirty sacks of coal, each sack con taining 1 cwt., being the remaining portion of the twelve tons, were sent by the respondents in a vehicle for delivery to the purchaser, and were delivered to him. No separate ticket was de- livered or sent to the purchaser in respect of the thirty sacks of coal : — Held, that the coal having been delivered in sacks and a ticket for the entire quantity having been delivered to the purchaser on Sept. 23, the failure of the respondents to give a separate WEIGHTS AND MEASURES— e ticket in respect of the coal delivered on Oct. 2 did not constitute a breach of the provisions of s. 21 of the Weights and Measm'es Act, 1889. Kyle v. Dunsdon Div. Ct. [1908] W. N. 108 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 293 5. — Coal — Vehicle carrying coal for delivery — Person in charge of vehicle — False representa- tion of weight—Representation by employer — Innocent delivery by servant — Mens rea — Weights and Measures Act, 1889 (52 4> 53 Viet. v. 21), s. 29. By s. 29 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, an inspector may enter any building where coal is sold or kept or exposed for sale, and may stop any vehicle carrying coal for sale or delivery to a purchaser, and may weigh any quantity of coal found in any such place or vehicle or which is in course of delivery to any purchaser ; and if it appears to a Court of sum- mary jm-isdiction that any quantity so weighed is of less weight than that represented by the seller, the person selling or keeping or exposing the coal for sale, or the person in charge of the vehicle, as the case may be, is liable to a fine : — Held, that to constitute an offence under this section on the part of a person in charge of a vehicle carrying coal for delivery a mens rea is necessary, and, consequently, that a servant in charge of a vehicle who was innocently deliver- ing therefrom to customers coal of less weight than that represented by his employers, and who had himself no knowledge of any short weight, was not guilty of an offence under the section. Paul v. Haegbeavbs Div. Ct. [1908] W. N. 109 ; [1908] 2 K. B. 289 6. — False or unjust measures — Possession for use for trade — Master and servant — Possession by servant for own fraudulent purpose — Weights and Measures Act, 1878 (41^-42 Vict, c. 49), *. 25. The appellants owned oil depots, from which a number of tank-waggons were sent out in charge of drivers, each driver being supplied with two five-gallon measures for the purpose of measuring oil sold and delivered to the appellants' customers from the tank-waggon. At all the depots an engineer was employed to examine all measures used by the tauk- waggon drivers, and if a measure was found in any way faulty or unjust, its use was at once discontinued, it was put into a separate part of the appellants' premises, and a, new measure without any defects issued in its place. In the ordinary course of business measures withdrawn from use were attended to and their faults or defects rectified. On March 15, 1907, two measm-es were sup- plied to one of the appellants' di-ivers for use during that day. Each measure was examined by the appellants' engineer and found to be absolutely correct. Measures set aside for repair were accessible to the driver. The respondent, an inspector of weights and measures, found the driver in Bermondsey on that day in charge of a tank-waggon belonging to the appellants containing oil, and having in his possession two five-gallon measures, one of which was correct, but the other was found to ( 2873 ) DiaEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 3871 ) WEIOHTS AND MEASURES— coniiMaei. have in the angle formed by the side and bottom thereof, and at the bottom of the measure itself, a quantity of soap, the effect of which was to render it false and unjust to the extent of three and a half pints. The unjust measure belonged to the appellants. One of the correct measures supplied by the appellants to the driver on the morning of March 15, 1907, could not be traced. The quantity of oil contained in the tank- waggon was measured and booked out against the driver every morning, and similarly checked on his return in the evening of the same day ; and the driver did not, either on March 15, 1907, or any previous day, bring back in his tank- waggon more oil than his deliveries during the day accounted for. It was not proved that the appellants were cognizant of the driver's conduct, or that they gave their sanction or approval to the use by him of the unjust measure. On an information preferred by the respon- dent against the appellants for that they on March 15, 1907, did, whilst hawking oil from a van in Bermondsey, unlawfully have in their possession for use for trade a false or unjust measure contrary to s. 25 of the "Weights and Measures Act, 1878 : — Held, that the Court was at liberty so far to apply the principle which is well settled in reference to civil liability for torts (that an employer is not liable for fraudulent acts of his servant when committed not in the interest of the employer, but for the individual purposes of profit of the fraudulent servant) as to say that, as the fraudulent driver had the fraudulent measure in his own physical possession for his own fraudulent purposes as distinguished from the interests of his employers, his possession must be deemed to be his own possession, and not the possession of his employers, and that, therefore, the offence with which the appellants were charged had not been made out. Anqlo- Ambeican Oil Co., Ld. t. Makning Div. Ct. [1908] 1 K. B. 536 7. — Prosecution by inspector — " With the consent of t/ie local autlwi'ity " — General consent — Weights and Measures Act, 1904 (4 JUdw. 7, C-. 28), s. 14. It is not necessary under s. 14 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1904, which provides that an inspector of weights and measures may, with the consent of the local authority, prosecute before a Court of summary jurisdiction any information arising under the Weights and Measures Acts, that a separate consent shall be given by the local authority in each particular case ; a general consent that a named inspector shall prosecute is sufficient. Ttlee c. Fberis - Div. Ct. [1906J W. N. 8 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 94 7a. — Verification and stamping — Fees — Insjiector — Butt/ of, to tajte fees — Weights and Measures Act, 1889 (52 .J- 53 Vict. c. 21), s. 13. By s. 13 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, " an inspector of weights and measures may take in respect of the verification and stamping of weights, measures, and weighing instruments, the fees specified in the First Schedule to this Act, and no others : — , Held, that this enactment was obligatory, WEIGHTS AND MEASURES— co/rfmMe;^. imposing upon the inspector a duty to take the fees in all cases. Bex c. Robbkts Div. Ct. [1901] W. N. 87 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 117 8. — Weighing machine — " False or unjvst " — Scales — Weight indicated by machine e.fceecling weight of article sold — Sale of tea with paper bags — WeigMs and Measures Act, 1878 (41 ^- 42 V'ict. c. 49), s. 25. The respondents, who were wholesale tea merchants, received orders from some of their customers for quantities of tea to be weighed out in packets of a particular weight, and in those cases the tea was weighed out at the respon- dents' warehouse in the following way : A beam weighing machine was used, and a girl in their employment placed a paper bag, supplied by the customer, under the goods scoop of the machine, where it remained whilst the tea was being weighed, the effect being that the tea put into the scoop weighed less, by the weight of the paper bag, than the weight on the opposite side of the machine. This mode of weighing was adopted at the request of the customer. The machine weighed justly and truly when the bag was not under the scoop. When the weighing was finished the girl put the machine, with the bag still under the scoop, aside on a shelf, and reported that the weighing was finished to the respondents' forewoman, who shortly afterwards came round and took away the paper bag, and other precautions were taken to ensure that the bag should not be used for any other weighing. An inspector of weights and measures, on visiting the warehouse when one of those weighing opera- tions had just been completed, found the machine on the shelf with the paper bag still under the scoop : — Held, that the respondents had committed the offence of " using " for trade a weighing machine which was " false or unjust," contrary to the provisions of s. 25 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1878. London County Council «. Payne & Co. (No. 2) Div. Ct. [1908] 1 K. B. 410 9. — Weighing machine — " False or unjust " — Weight indicated exceeding weight of article sold — Acquiescence of pwchaser — Weights and Measures Act, 1878 (41 ^ 42 Vict. c. 49), s. 25. The respondents, who were wholesale tea mer- chants, were charged under s. 25 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1878, witli using for trade two scales which were false and unjust. One of the scales (which were used for weighing tea) had a small metal disc affixed by wire to the arm of the scale on which the scoop for weighing the tea was placed, the disc being approximately equivalent in weight to the paper bag in which each quantity of tea was to be put ; the eiiect was to make the quantity of tea required to turn the scale less by the weight of the metal disc than the weight on the opposite side of the scale. The second machine liad, instead of a metal disc, a paper bag placed under the scoop in which the tea was placed for weighing ; the effect was the same. After being weighed the tea was placed in paper bags. Tea was so weighed out only for retail dealers who requested to be supplied with it so packed, and ( 2875 ) DIGEST OF CASES, ] 001— 191 d. ( 2876 ) WEIGHTS AND MEASURES— coMffe^erf. who supplied the paper bags in which it was to be packed to the respondents ; each of the bags had printed on it an intimation that the weight of the paper was included. Directions were given by the respondents to their servants not to use scales with a metal disc or paper bag attached for any customers other than such "retail dealers : — Held, that the scales, being kept in a condition in which they could not weigh accurately that which was put in them to be weighed, were " false and unjust " within the meaning of the section, notwithstanding the acquiescence of the pur- chastrs in the mode of weighing. LoNDOU CoOTTTT Council <.. Patmte & Co. Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 194 10. — Weighing machine — Fraudulent me of machine — Weighing article sold vith paper im-apper — Weights and Measures Act, 1878 (41 4- 42 Vict. 0. 49), s. 26. Sect. 26 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1878, enacts that " Where any fraud is wilfully com- mitted in the using of any weight, measure, scale," &c., the person committing such fraud shall be liable to a fine. The appellant, a grocer, made up a number of packages of sugar wrapped in paper, each package being weighed by him, or his servants, on his scales and weighing exactly one pound weight of combined sugar and paper. The scales were just and accurate, and gave the weight of each package correctly. Subsequently the appellant supplied one of those packages to a purchaser who had asked for one pound of sugar. The sugar without the paper wrapper weighed three- quarters of an ounce less than one pound ; — Held, that, as there had been no fraudulent using or manipulation of the scales in the act of weighing, s. 26 did not apply, and the appellant could not be convicted of the offence specified therein. Stone v. Tylee Div. Ct. [1904] W. N. 186 ; [1906] 1 K. B. 290 " WEIBS " — Ownership of soil — Presumption. See Fishery. 13. WELL. See under Watee. WESLEYAN METHODIST CHAPEL. See Land Eboistry. 2. WEST GLOUCESTEESHIEE WATEE ACTS. See Water. 25. WEST INDIA DOCK ACT— Ship— Dock company — Exemption from dock rates — Lighter. See Shipping — Docks. 2. WESTERN AUSTRALIA— Laws of. See under Australia. WHALING INDUSTEY— Licences. See Newfoundland. 6. WHARF — Ship — Damage — Defective berth — Duty of harbour authority — Duty of wharf owner. See Harbour. 5, WHARF— coffl*i«MtYZ. — Sydney Harbour— Right to levy wharfage rates on aU wharves vested in the Com- missioners. See New South Wales. 36. — Workmen's compensation. See under Master and Servant — Compensation. WHARFINGER — Carriage of goods by lighter from ship to warehouse — Limits of liability of wharjifiger. Wharfingers who, as incidental to their busi- ness as wharfingers, transport goods for their customers by lighter from the importing ships to their warehouse, but do not hold themselves out as ready to carry goods for any other persons, are not in respect of that transport subject to the common law liability of common carriers but are liable only for negligence. Consoli DATED Tea and Lands Co. ». Olivers Wharf - Hamilton J. [1910] W. N. 97 , [1910] 2 K. B. 398 WHITE PHOSPHOEUS MATCHES PEOHIBI- TION ACT, 1908 (8 Bdw. 7, c. 42). See under Matches. WHITEWASHING — Lodging-houses — Lime- washing. See London — Lodging-houses. 2. WIDENING STREETS. See under London — Streets. Streets. WIDOW — Intestacy of husband — Contingent reversionary interest — Keal and personal estate — Husband and wife. See Intestacy. 2. — Tenant for life — Will — Gift to widow during widowhood for the maintenance of her- self and her children. See Settled Land — Powers. 4. — " Widow " — Will — Construction — Bigamous marriage — Secondary meaning of " widow " — Administration. See Will— Words. 10. WIDOWER— Charity— Gift for relief of indigent bachelors and widowers — Uncertainty. See Charity. 22. WIDTH— Streets— Glasgow Building Kegula- lations. See Scottish Law. 24. WIFE— Husband and. See under Husband and Wipe. — " Wife " — Named legatee misdescribed as wife, See Will — Misdescription. 1. WILD BIRDS. See under Birds, 2S7 ) DIGEST OB^ (\4SES, 1901—1910. ( 2878 ) WILD BIEDS PEOTECTION (ADMINIS- TRATIVE COUNTY OF LONDON) OEDEa, 1909, Art. 4. See Birds. WILFUL DEFAULT— Conditions of sale— In- terest on purchase-money. See Vendor and Purchaser — In- terest. 1 . — " Wilful default " — Dispute as to form of conveyance. See Vendor and Pheohasbr — In- terest. 2. WILFUL MISCONDUCT. See also under Misconduct. — Railway company — Owner's risk note — Mode of packing likely to cause injury — Notice to company — Carrier. See Railway — Carriage. WILL. Abatement, col. 2880. Absolute Gift, col. 2880. Accumulations, col. 2884. Additional Gift, col. 2884. Ademption, col. 2884. AdminiMration. See under Adminis- tration. Advances, col. 2886. Alteration, col. 2892. Alternative Gifts, col. 2892. Atnbit/u.ity, col. 2893. Annuity. See under ANNUITY. Ajijjointment. See under PoWKR OF Appointment. Attestation, col. 2894. BanTtniptcji, col. 289.'i. Blanks, col. 289.5. " Brothers and Sisters,'" col. 289.>. Capital or Income, col. 289.5. Charges, col. 2896. Chjiritij. See under Charity. Chattels Real, col. 2898. Children, col. 2898. riass, col. 2899. Codicil, col. 2907. Colonial Duties, col. 2907. Company, col. 2907. Compromise, col. 2908. Conditional, col. 2908. Conditions, col. 2908. Conflict of Laws. See under Conflict OF Laws. Consent, col. 2912. Contingency, col. 2912. WILL — continued. Contingent Interest, col. 2912. Contingent Remainder; col. 2912. Contribution, col. 2913. Conversion. See under Convkesion, Costs, col. 2914. Cij-pris. See under Ct-prbs. BeUs, col. 2914. Destruction, col. 2914. Distribution, Period of, col. 2914. Donddl, col. 2915. Donatio Mortis Causa, col. 291.5. Election, col. 2915. Estate Duty. See under Rbvenujj — Estate Duty ; and under Will — Testamentary Expenses. Estate Tail, col. 2915. Estoppel, col. 2916. Execution, col. 2917. Executor, col. 2917. Executory Bequest or Limitation, col. 2917. Exoneration, col. 2919. Forfeiture, col. 2920. Euturity (Words of Futurity'), coi. 2925. Heirlooms, col. 2927. Holograph Will, col. 2928. Hotchpot. See under Will— Advances. Hotchpot Clause, col. 2928. Illegitimacy, col. 2929. Imperfect Gift, col. 2932. Income or Capital. See under Will — Capital or Income. Indian assets, col. 2932. Interest, col. 2933. Intesiaoy, col. 2934. Investments, col. 2935. Issue, col. 2937. Joint Tenancy or Tenaiwij in Common, col. 2938. Jointures, col. 2938. Lapse, col. 2938. Leaseholds, col. 2940. Legacy, col. 2941. Limitations, col. 2943. Maintenance, eol. 2943. Mans'ion-hause, col. 2943. Marriage, col. 2944. Misdeso'iption, col. 2944. Mistake, col. 2945. '^ Money inve>-ted in,'' col. 2945. " Monies," eol. 2946. ( 2879 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2880 ) "WILL — continued. Mortgages, col. 2946. Miitual Wills, col. 2946. Mime, col. 2946. Name and Arms Clause, col. 2947. X'epliews and Nieces, col. 2949. Next of Kin, col. 2949. Nomination, col. 2951. Partnership, col. 2951. col. 2951. Plate (" Plate and Plated Articles "), col. 2953. Postponement, col. 2954. Power of Appoiyiiment. See under Power of Appoin'tmbnt. Power of Disposition, col. 2954. Power of Sale, col. 2955. Precatory Trust, col. 2955. Prohate. See under Pkobate. Probate, Effect of, eol. 2957. Ratification, col. 2957. " Ready money," col. 2957. Real Estate, col. 2957. Real or Personal Estate, 2959. Realty, col. 2959. Renrwteness, eol. 2959. Rent-charges, col. 2963. Republication, col. 2963. Repugnancy, col. 2963. ResettleineM, col. 2963. " Residuary Legatee," col. 2964. Residue, col. 2965. Revocation, col. 2971. &?e, coZ. 2973. Satisfaction, col. 2973. Scottish Law, col. 2J74. Securities, col. 2974. Servants, col. 2974. Settled Land. See under Settled Land. Settlement. See under Settlement. Shelley's Case, col. 2975. Shiftliig Clause, col. 2976. Solicitor, col. 2977. Speaking from Death, eol. 2977. Specific Dense, col. 2978. Specific Legacy, col. 2979. Substitution (^Substitutionary Gifts'), col. 2979. Succession, col. 2982. Succession Duty. See under Eevenue Succession Duty. WILL — continued. Suppression, col. 2983. Survlcor, col. 2983. \ Tapestries, col. 2985. Territorial and Reserve Forces, col. 2985. Testamentary Expenses, col. 2986. Trustees, col. 2997. Uncertainty, col. 2998. Validity, col. 2999. Vendor and Purchaser, col. 2999. Fesieii Interest, col. 2999. Vesting, col. 3000. irasijmi? Securities, col. 3002. TFu;*, ctf?. 3002. Abatement. — Legacies — Legacy in satisfaction of a debt — ■ Forgiveness of debts — Legacies — ■ General or specific — Insufficiency of assets. &e Will — Legacy. 1. — Legacies given "free from duty" — Deficient estate — Abatement of legacies. See Will — Testamentary Expenses. 12. Absolute Gift. 1. — Absolute gift cut down, by later words, to life Interest — Administration (with will annexed) to residuary legatee — Will — Construction. A will made upon a printed form with holo- graph additions purported to leave all property both real and personal belonging to the testator to the testator's wife "for her own absolute use and benefit .... subject only to the payment of " debts and funeral and testamentary ex- penses, the wife being appointed sole executrix . . . . " and after her death to come absolutely to " M. A. H. " to her and her heirs for ever " after payment of 20?. to two sisters (named) of M. A. H. :— Held, that, looking at the terms of the whole will, the widow toolc only a life estate, and that M. A. H., as residuary legatee, was entitled to a grant of administration with the will annexed, in preference to the executor of the widow, who had died without taking probate of the will in question. In the Estate of Lupton Gorell Barnes, Pres. [1905] P. 821 2. — Absolute gift of estate for life with power of appointment — Construction of will. Testator, by his will, dated in 1894, devised certain real estate to his two sons in strict settle- ment, and also gave them certain personal estate. He gave the residue of his real and personal estate to his wife absolutely, and appointed her executrix during her life and his sons executors on her death. By a codicil, dated in 1898, he revoked his will and gave all his property to his wife, " so that she may have full possession of it and entire power and control over it, to deal with it or act with regard to it as she may think proper." In the event, however, of her not sur- viving him, or dying " without having devised or 4z ( 2881 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2882 ) WILL (Absolute Gift) — continued. appointed " the whole or any part of the said pro- perty, then he declared that his said will should take effect as if his codicil had not been made ; and he appointed his wife executrix of his codicil during her life : — Held, that the wife took an estate for life only with a general power of appointment. In re Sasford. Sanpoed 0. Sanfokd Joyce J. [1901] 1 Ch. 939 3. — Compound ei-ent, Gift over on a — Execu- tory rierise — Perpetuity — Remoteness — Splitting gift orei — Cutting down absolute gift — Settlement — Intestiicy — Construction of ii ill. A will made in 1850 gave residuary personal estate to trustees in trust for the testator's wife for life and after her death (which happened) to be divided into iive portions which the testator allotted thus : " To iS. D. (a married woman) I give two of such portions " and directed that the two-flfths allotted to S. D. should remain in trust for her life for her separate use, and from and after her decease in trust for her children upon attaining twenty-five if sons, or upon attaining twenty-one or marriage if daughters ; " but in default of any such issue " the two-fifths to be divided among the children of C, payable to sons at twenty-five or to daughters at twenty-one or marriage. S. D. died without having had a child. At her death there were childi-en of C, daughters, who had all attained twenty-one or married : — Seld, (1) that the whole gift over on the death of S. D. was void for remoteness, and could not be split up into separate contingencies, so as to be construed as a gift over on one contingency, that of S. D. having no child ; and (2) that upon the death of K. D. there was no intestacy as to the two-fifths, lait that by reason of the invalidity of the gift over on her death, the original abso- lute gift remained, and upon her death passed to her representatives. Where there is an absolute gift to a legatee In the first instance, and trusts are engrafted or imposed on that absolute interest which fail, either from lapse or invalidity or any other reason, then the absolute gift takes efliect, so far as the trusts have failed, to the exclusion of the residuary legatee or next of kin as the case maj' be. The decision of the C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 482. affirmed. Hancock v. Watson H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 14 Note.— See In re Wood, C. A., [1902] 2 Ch. .542. Will — Illegitimacy. 8. — " Confidence, in " — Absolute gift subject to executory gift over. See Will — Precatory Trusts. 3. 4. — CuHtiiigeiit diresting clause — Gift over — Partial happening of contingency — Will — Construction. H. S. by liis wiU dated Feb. 10, 1882, gave the house in P. St. in which he lived to his wife for life, and after her death to his grandson H. S. S. By a codicil dated April 8, 1882, he declared that if his grandson H. S. S. " should get married and die leaving no legitimate chil- dren," then the house in P. St. aforesaid should become the property of his son W. S. The WILL (Absolute Gift) — continued. testator died in 1885, and his widow in 1895. On her death H. S. S. entered into receipt of the rents and profits of the house, and he continued in the same until 1900, when he died a bachelor, having by his will, dated in 1888, devised and bequeathed all his estate to his mother, the deft., absolutely. This was a summons taken out by the pit. W. S. asking for a declaration that, upon the true construction of the will and codicil of H. S., the gift over of the house in question had, upon the death of H. S. S. unmarried, taken effect in the plt.'s favour. Joyce J. said that the clause in the codicil was purely a divesting clause purporting to take away from H. S. S. property which was given to him in fee. Where there was a divesting clause upon a contingency it could not take effect unless the exact contingency happened. If he were to say that the divesting clause in this case ought to operate upon the happening of a part only of the contingency, he would be making a new will for the testator, which he was not entitled to do. He held, therefore, that the divesting clause had no operation upon the estate of H. S. S., which remained absolute. The summons must be dis- missed with costs. In re Seaele. Seaele r. Searle Joyce J. [1905] W. N. 86 5. — Farming stock — Gift for life — Things quce ipso usu conswmuntur — Construction of will. Farming stock and implements of husbandry are not things quaj ipso usu consumuntur, and a bequest of them for life does not confer upon the legatee an absolute interest in them, even though the legatee takes no interest under the will in the farm itself in connection with which they were used. Myees v. Washbrook Div. Ct. [1901] 1 H. L. 360 6. — Income, Gift of— Property or poimr — ■ Life tenant — Power to use capital if income not " sufficient " — Poirer of appointment. Bequest of the income of an estate to testator's wife for life with a direction that " in case such income shall not be sufficient she is to use such portion of" the capital "as she may deem expedient." On wife's decease " what is left " of the capital to be divided among certain residuary legatees : — Held, that the wife has a general power of appointment over the ca|iital during her life. Be Pedrotti's Will, (1859) 27 Beav. 583, distinguished. Whetlier the wife can appoint by will, quaire. In re RiCHAEDS. Dglow r. Richards Farwell J. [1901] W. N. 216; [1902] 1 Ch. 76 7. — Personalty — Trust for person " entitled to the possession or receipt of the rents" of settled estates — Actual possession — Intention. A testator bequeathed certain chattels to trustees upon trust to permit the same to be enjoyed by the person for the time being "in the actual possession or entitled to the receipt of the rents and profits" of real estates settled by his will. He also bequeathed the proceeds of sale and conversion of his residuary real and personal estate to the trustees on trust to pay the income to the person for the time being " entitled to the ( 2883 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— 1910.' ( 2884 ) WILL (Absolute fiUt)—continuei. possession or receipt of the rents " of the settled estates. The words " entitled to the possession or receipt of the rents" or their equivalents were used in numerous other clauses of the will, in all of which they necessarily referred to actual possession, though not so expressed : — Held, that a tenant in tail, who predeceased the life tenant, had, subject to her interest, become absolutely entitled to the residuary estate, but not to the chattels. Foley V. Bnrnell, (1783) 1 Bro. G. 0. 271 ; (1785) 4 Bro. P. C. 319, MartelH v. SoUowau, ,(1872) L. R. 5 H. L. 532, Zm'd Soarsdale v. Ourzon, (1860) 1 J. & H, 40, and In re Aiigersteiii [1895] 2 Ch. 883, applied. l)i re Fothebgill's Estate. Pbice-Fotheegill «. Peice Swiufen Eady J. [1902] W. N. 218 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 149 8. — Repii^Tiancy — Gift ocer on death "with- out a mil and childless.'" An executory gift over in the event of the donee of an absolute interest dying " without a will and childless " is void for repugnancy. In re Dixon. Dixon v. Chaeleswoeth Swinfen Eady J. [1903] W. N. 122 ; [1903] 3 Ch. 458 9. — Secret trust — Charity — Trust for ienejitof puilic, but so that they should acquire no rights. The testator established a museum, and laid out a portion of his estate as a pleasure ground, and maintained the same for the benefit of the public, whom he admitted thereto under certain restrictions, while reserving to himself his private rights. By his will he devised and bequeathed the museum and pleasure grounds and an annuity of 300Z. for the maintenance of the same to his son. It was alleged that these gifts were really subject to a secret trust in favour of the public : — Meld, on the evidence, that it was proved that the testator intended his son to maintain the museum and grounds and allow the public access thereto as before, and that the son accepted the gifts with the assurance that this should be done, but that the testatur intended that the public Should acquire no rights, and therefore that no charitable trust had been created. Decision of Kekewich J., [I9Ul] 1 Ch. 352, reversed. In re Pitt Rivbks. Scott i>. Put ElVEES C. A. [1902] W. N. 23 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 403 10. — Sliare of residue — Gift ocer of part to which legatee disentitles himself prior to " actual payment " — Validity. A gift over of such part of a share of residue as the legatee, at any time prior to " actual payment," disentitles himself to receive, is valid. Jolmson V. Crooh, (1879) 12 Ch. U. 639, In re Chaston, (1881) 18 Ch. D. 218, and In re Willdns, 1881) 18 Oh. D. 634, followed. MaHin v. Martin, (1866) L. li. 2 Eq. 404, BuU V. PadwioJi, (1880) 13 Ch. D. 517, and observa- tions in Minors v. Battison, (1876) 1 App. Cas. 428, 437, 443, 446, 452, not followed. In re GOULDBE. GOULDBB V. GOULDEE Swinfen Eady J. [1905] W. N. 82 ; [190S] 2 Ch. 100 WILL (Absolute Gift) — continued. — Substitutional gift— Death " before becoming entitled " to a share — Entitled in " pos- session " or in " interest." See Will — Substitution. 3. Accumulations. See under ACG0MnLATlONS. — Accumulations of income during minority of donee — Testator's children to take equal shares in the residue at majoritv. See Canada— Will. i. — Contingent interest — Accumulation. See Will — Contingent Interest. 1. Additional Gift. 1. — Gift " in addition to " previous gift — Intention to viahe up stated sum—Mlsculculatiun — Constructwn of will. Testator, after appointing executors and giving various specific and pecuniary legacies, disposed of his res-idue. By a first codicil he gave a legacy of lOOOZ. to be equally divided between certain of his godchildren therein de- scribed. By a subsequent codicil he gave " 501. additional to each of my godchildren as named in my will so that each receives lOoZ. each." On the death of the testator there were nine god- children answering the description in the first codicil, and they received their shares of the Ingacy of lOOOZ., amounting to more than lOOZ, each : — Held, that the bequest in the subsequent codicil was a clear gift of 501. additional to each of the godchildren followed by words of doubtful import, which could not be construed so as to cut it down, and consequently that the additional legacies were payable. In re Segelckb, Zibg- LEE r. NicoL Joyce J. [1906] W. N. 107 ; [1906] 8 Ch. 301 Ademption. — Bequest — Will speaking from death — " Money invested in" Lambeth Waterworks Co. — Transfer of undertaking to Water Board. See Will— "Money Invested in." 1. 1. — ChnrUahle leganj—Gift to endowment fund — Hospital — Particular purpose. A legacy to the trustees of the endowment fund of a ho-pital is a legacy for a pariicular purpose, and is therefore adeemed by a gilit of the same amount to the same trustees in the testator's lifetime. In re Coebett. Corbett r. Lord Cobham Farwell J. [1903] W. N. 89 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 326 — Double portions — Parent and child — "Ad- vances." S<7i9 Will — Advances. 1. 2. — Infant — General legacy — Particular purpose. A legacy to a trustee for the benefit of an infant, to whom the testator is not in loco parentis, is not given for a particular purpose within Panhhur.ft v. Howell, (1870) L. R. 6 Ch 136, and In re Pollock, (1885) 28 Ch. D. 552, 556 4z2 ( 288o ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2886 ) WILL (Ademption) — continued. so as to be adeemed by a subsequent gift of the same sum to the same trustee for the same purpose. hi re Sjiythies. Weyman v. Kmtthies Swinfen Eady J. [1902] W. N. 232 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 259 3. — Infant — Legacy to child — Besidue to child and stranger — Advancement to child. A testator bequeathed a legacy to an adopted child to whom he stood in loco parentis and divided his residue between that child and a stranger. He made a subsequent advance to the child : — Hold, that even if the advance had been a portion, which on the evidence was not the case, the doctrine of ademption by subsequent portion would not have been applied in favour of a stranger against a child taking a share of residue as well as a legacy, and that neither the legacy nor the share of residue would have been adeemed. Muntcjiore v. Oucdalla, (1859) 1 D. F. & J. 93, 100 ; Meinertzagen v. Walters, (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. 070 ; and Fowlies v. Pascoe, (1875) L. E. 10 Ch. 343, 351, applied. /« re Hbathee. Pum- PREY V. Fryek - - . Swinfen Eady J. [1906] W, N. 113 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 230 4. — Satisfaction or ademption — Gift by will to testator's daughter — Direction to settle part of legacy — Siibsequent settlement upon daughter by testator during his lifetime — Different amount — Different limitations. Testator by his will, dated in 1885, gave to his daughter on attaining twenty-five or marriage the sum of 20,000Z., and directed that 15,000Z., part thereof, should be settled upon her and her children. In 1893 the daughter married, and the testator then settled upon her and her children, by deed, 73001. Consols upon trusts difiering from those declared by the will in respect of the 15,OO0Z. Uppn the death of the testator in 1900 :— Held, that the 7300Z. Consols must be taken as an ademption pro tanto of the 15,0002. In re FUENESS. FUENESS r. StALKAETT Joyce J. [1901] W. N. 107 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 346 5. — Special testamentary potoer of appoint- ment — Mrercise of power — Sub.^equent compulsory sale of property .subject to power — Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26)', s. 23. For the purposes of the question whether an appointment under a testamentary power has been adeemed by subsequent dealings with the appointed property, no distinction is to be drawn between general and special powers. Gale V. Gale, (1856) 21 Beav. 349 ; Blahe v. JBlahe, (1880) 15 Ch. D. 481 ; Collinson v. Collin- son, (1857) 24 Beav. 269, and In re Johnstone's Settlement, (1880) 14 Ch. D, 1IJ2, coDsidered and explained. In re Dowsbtt. Dowsett v. Deakin Farwell J. [1901] 1 Ch. 398 l^ote. Approved of by H. L. (E.), Deddington, v. Baumann, [1903] A. C. 13. See Power of Ap- pointment. 17. WILL (Ademption) — continued. — Specific bequest — Misdescription — Shares in a bank. See Will — Specific legfacy. 1. Administration. See under Bxbodtoe — Adminietration, Advances. (Advancements and Advances.) — Ademption — Legacy to child — Residue to child and stranger. See Will — Ademption. 3. 1. — Double portions — Legacy — Satisfaction — Parent and child — Gift by parent to child after date of will. A father by his will made in 1891 gave the residue of his estate on trust for his children living at his death in specified proportions. And he declared that if any child should die in his lifetime, leaving a child or children who being a son or sons should attain twenty-one, or being a daughter or daughters should attain that age or marry under that age, such child or children should take (and if more than one equally between them) the share which his or their parent would have taken in the testator's residuary estate if the parent had survived him. The testator also declared that the sum of 5000Z. which he had already given to each of his daughters was not to be brought into account in ascertaining the share of a daughter in his residuary estate. The testator carried on business in partnership with his eldest son John. The partnership deed provided that the son should not withdraw any part of his capital without his father's consent. In 1892 the testator voluntarily gave hia second son Alfred a sum of 5000Z. In 1894 the testator made a codicil slightly altering his will, and in all other respects con- firming it. In 1897, at the request of the son John, who had overdrawn his capital and was in pecuniary difficulties, the testator transferred tOOOl. from his own capital account in the books of the firm to the capital account of the son, and also gave him 1500Z. to enable him to pay off in part a mortgage debt. In January, 1899, the son John died, leaving an only daughter, who afterwards married. In May, 1899, the father died, leaving the son Alfred and six daughters surviving him. Two of the daughters deposed to conversations with their father in which he spoke of the pay- ment of the 5000Z. to his son Alfred, and led them to believe that he never intended that that sum should be taken into account on his own death, but should be treated in the same manner as the two sums of 5000Z. given to themselves were to be treated : — Held, that the legal presumption that the gifts made by the testator to his two sons were intended as portions was under the circumstances rebutted, and that those sums ought not to be brought into account in the distribution of the testator's estate. Decision of Kekewich J. affirmed. But lield (difEering in this respect from Keke- wich J.), that the daughter of the son John stood ( 2387 ) DIGEST 01* CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2888 ) WIIL (Advances) — eontmued. in the same position as her father, so that, if he would have had to account for the sums given to him by his father in his lifetime, she vrould have been equally liable to account for them. The view taken by Jessel M.R. in Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 155— that a sum expended by a father in paying his son's debts is not necessarily an advance to the son by way of portion, but may be regarded as a temporary assistance — preferred to the view taken by Wood V.-C. in Boyd y. Boyd, (1867) L. E. 4 Eq'. 305, and by Pearson J. in In re Blockley, (1885) 29 Oh. D. 250. Ill re Scott. Lan&ton v. Scott - - C. A. [1902] W. IT. 206 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 1 2. — Double portions — Parent and child — " Advaneet^' — Legacy — Personal estate, Gift of — Share of residue — Ileal estate, Subsequent pur- chase of — Satisfaction — Ejusdem generis — Ademption — Construction of will, A testamentary direction that the testator's married daughter should not take the benefit of a specific devise to her of real estate or her share of his residuary personal estate " without first bringing into hotchpot as part of my residuary personal estate the total amount of any advances or moneys lent by me to my said daughter and her husband, or either of them " : — Held, upon the construction, affirming Buck- ley J., not to include real estate subsequently purchased by the testator for the benefit of his daughter and her husband, and by his direction conveyed, as to part, to the daughter, and, as to the rest, to the husband ; or any moneys expended, also for their benefit, upon the real estate so purchased. The rule established by Holmes v. Holmes, (1783) 1 Bro. G. C. 555 — that the presumption against double portions will not prevail where the testamentary portion and subsequent advance- ment are not ejusdem generis — has been left untouched by modern decisions. The observations of North J. in In re Vicars, (J 888) 37 Ch. D. 525, 534, upon In re Lawes, (1881) 20 Ch. D. 81, dissented from. In re Jaques. Hodgson v. Beaisby C.A. [1902] W. N. 228 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 267 8. — Executors — Gift of . residue — Express trust — Advancements to children by testator — Paitial intestacy — Next of Mn — Hotchpot — Statute of Distribution, 1670 (22 ^ 23 Car. 2, c. 10), s. 0— Executors Act, 1830 (11 Geo. i ^- 1 Will, i, c. iO), s.l. In applying the analogy of the Statute of Distribution to the case of a partial intestacy of the beneficial interest in undisposed-of residue, the rule of equity still is that advances made by the testator in his lifetime need not be brought into hotchpot. Vachell v. Jeffereys, (1701) Prec. Oh. 170 ; Wheeler v. Slieer, (1730) Mos. 301 ; and Cowper v. Scott, (1731) 3 P. Wms. 119, examined and followed. The Executors Act, 1830, only applies in cases where there is a bare appointment of executors, so that the implication of law has to be resorted to in order to see whether the estate WILI (Advances) — continued. of the testator not otherwise disposed of vests in them beneficially virtute officii. Williams v. ArhleiiWlS) L.E. 7 H. L. 606, applied. Decision of Neville J., [1907] W. N. Ill; [1907] 2 Ch. 84, affirmed. In re ROBY. Howlbtt c. Newington - C.A. [1907] W. W,228 ; [1908] Ch. 7. — Hotchpot — Annuities immediate and rever- sionary — Deficient estate — Apportion- ment. See Annuity. 1. 4. — Hotchpot — Interest — Gift of income of residue to childrenfor life in equal shares subject to annuity to widow — Advances to some of chil- dren — Adjustment of account between advanced and unadranced children — Equality. In opening the appeal in this case counsel for the appellants were proceeding to discuss the question what, under the present practice, was the proper rate of interest to be allowed, con- tending that the rate of interest should be 3 and not 4 per cent., as formerly ; but Eomer L.J. said : To my mind, upon this will, the real poiut is a very simple one. There is no law whatever in the case : all that is wanted is a little arithmetic arid common sense. The question is simply one of account, not of interest at all. Talie the case of George, one of the advanced children. The unadvanced children say, " You must bear' one-sixth of the 2000Z. annuity." That is a mere question of account, not of interest. Ultimately the Court made an order in the following form, counsel for the unadvanced children expressing their consent thereto inas- much as it would work out at almost precisely the same figures as if interest at 4 per cent, were charged on the advances as directed by Joyce J. : — Discharge order of Joyce J., [1902] W. N. IS except as to costs. Declare that, for the purpose of ascertaining the proportions of the settled shares of tbe six children of the testator, the value of the net residuary estate of the testator at the day of his death ought to be ascertained, and there should, be added thereto the several advances of 28,0002. 22,0002., and 15,0002, made to George, Percy and Mrs. Mackenzie. Declare that the actual income received from the testator's death ought to be divided in the respective proportions so ascertained, and that the share of each child in such income ought to be debited with one-sixth part of the widow's annuity. Liberty to apply. In re Habgukaves. Haegkeavbs v. Haegrbaves C. A. [1903] W. N. 84 (Corrigendum), 28 6. — Hotchpot — Interest — Period of Distribu- tion — Gift of residue subject to annuity for life — Advancement of parts of residue. W. had three sons, H., S., and B. On the marriage of H. in 186S W. conveyed upon the trusts of H.'s marriage settlement real estate of the value of 4000Z., and by the settlement cove- nanted to pay 60002. to the settlement trustees ( 2889 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2890 ) WILL (Advances) — continued. within six calendar mouths after the death of the covenantor. He died before W. AV. died In June, 1893, having by his will, after giving certain legacies, and, to his wife, an annuity, given his residuary estate to trustees upon trust, as to one-third for S., and as to another one-third for B. The remaining one- third was directed to be transferred to the trustees of H.'s settlement to be held upon the trusts thereof, but subject to the proviso that after payment of the 6000Z. the sum of 10,0002. (the 6000Z. plus the 4000Z.) should be considered to have been received and advanced out of re5idue in respect of H.'s portion, and should for the pur- pose only of ascertaining the amount of that portion, be considered as part thereof, and should be accounted for in the way of hotchpot accordingly. On Dec. 6, 1893, the trustees of the will paid the 60002. to the settlement trustees. B. died in Aug., 1893, and under his will his widow was tenant for life. The trustees of W.'s will made payments of equal amounts from time to time (I) to S. and (2) to B. and the trustees of his will. Pait of each sum was treated as capital, and the rest (of which half was paid to B.'s widow) as income. On the death of W.'s widow in 1902 the sum set apart to answer her annuity fell into residue : — Ilcifl, on the authority of In. re Bees, (1881) 17 Ch. D. 701, In re Oallmeyer, [1896] 1 Ch. 372, and In re ZambeH, [1897] 2 Ch. 169, (1) that the date of distribution (notwithstanding the existence of the annuity) was the death of W., and that interest was chargeable on the advance made in his lifetime as from the date of his death and on advances made after his death, as fiom the date of those advances ; (2) that no distinc- tion was to he made between the advances made on account of capital and those made on account of income in respect of the shares of S. and B. ; (3) that the rate of interest to be charged was 3 per cent. only. In In re Lamhert Stirling J. laid down a general rule as to the rate of interest chargeable. The opinion to the contrary of Joyce J. in l)t re Haffirearcs, (1902) 86 L. T. 43, dissented from. The report of Hilton y. Hilton, (1872) L. K. 14 Eq. 40S,corrected. In re Whitefoed. Inglis c. Whitbfokd Buckley J. [1903] 1 Ch. 889 Xote. See In re I)ai;y, [1908] 1 Ch. 61. Sec M). 7, below. — Hotchpot — Intestacy. Sec DiSTEIBUTIONS, STATUTE OF. 1. G. — Hotchpot — Will — Appohitment. The testator by his v/ill left his residuary estate upon trust for his wife for life, and gave her power to appoint the funds amongst tlieir four children. In default of appointment the children were to take equally. Any child who had received any part of the funds under any appointment was, in default of appointment to the contrary, to bring the appointed funds into hotchpot. Ihe will also contained an advance- ment clause. After the testator's death 70.52. WILL (Advances) — c'orithmed. was advanced to R., one of the children. The widow subsequently by her will appointed one equal fourth part to each of two of her children absolutely, and one equal fourth pait upon trust for each of her other children (of whom E. was one) respectively for life, with remainder to their respective children. The testatrix did not in her will make any reference to the advance to K. : — Held, that R. was not liable to bring into hotchpot or account for the 7052. advanced to him out of his expectant share. Tn re Fox. WODBHOUSE V. Fox Bymc J. [1904] W N. 27 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 480 Infant— Legacy to child — Residue to child and stranger. See Will— Ademption. 3. 7. — Interest— Rate of interest— IIotdqM— Share of residue — Advances in testator's lifetime. The general rule of the Court that interest must be calculated at 4 per cent, has not been altered. Interest on advances which have to be brought into hotchpot must still be paid at that rate. SeinMe, the same rule does not apply to calculations of interest in cases between tenant for life and remaindermen, such as arose in In re Earl of Cke^tertieUVs Trusts, (1883) 23 Ch. D. 643. or TJrown v. Gellatlij, (1866) L. R. 2 Ch. 751 In re Davy. HoLLiNawonTH r. Davy C. A. [1S07] W. N. 210 ; [1908] ICh. 61 Note. See In re eiaiert, Neville J., [1908] W. N.63, next Case. 8. — Interest — Shares of residue— Advances in lifetime of textalrix—Hotclijiot. In this case the testatrix by her wiU, alter making certain specific devises and bequests, gave the residue of her real and personal estate to trustees upon trusts for sale and conversion and to divide the net residuary trust moneys equally between her five children. And the testatrix, after settling the shares of her dausrhters, declared that her trustees in divid- ing the said residuary trust moneys should treat the shares of any of her children to whom any moneys should have been advanced by her as reduced by the amount of such advances. The testatrix "in her lifetime had made advances in varying amounts to all her children, such ailv:;nces carrying interest. In some cases the interest had been paid, in others it had not been paid. The summons was taken out by the trustees to determine (inter alia) whether upon the true construction of the will unpaid interest upon the advances made by the testatrix to her children ought to be taken into account and brought into hotchpot (together with the capital of the said advances) in the division of the residuary trust moneys directed by the will ; and, if so, at what rate such interest should bo computed. Neville J. : I think the principle laid down by Romer L.J. in the case of In re Hargreares, (1903) 88 L. T. (N.S.) 100, is the right one, and I wiU follow it. Tlnere will be a declaration that unpaid interest upon the several advances ( 2891 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— l9l0. ( 2892 ) WILL (Advances) — cautintied. made by the testatrix to her children respectively ought not to be taken into account or brought into hotchpot in the division of the residuary trust moneys ; that for the purpose of ascertain- ing the propertions of the shares in the residuary trust moneys there, shall be added thereto the capital of the several advances, and the share of each child shall be an equal share in the aggregate of the said residuary trust moneys after deducting from such equal share the advances to such child ; and that the income of the residuary trust moneys after the testatrix's death ought to be ascertained and divided in the same proportions. In re GiliBBRT. Gilbert v. GiLBKBT Neville J. [1908] W. N. 63 Aote. See In re Davy, C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 61, preceding Case. 9. — Intestacy — AdminMration — Will he- coming inoperative — Death of sole legatee and execictrix — Hotchpot — Statute of Distributions, 1671 (22 cf 23 Car. 2, <.:. 10), s. 5. The provisions of s. 5 of the Statute of Dis- tributions, directing advancements made by an intestate in his lifetime by portions to his children to be brought into account in the ad- ministration of his estate, apply to an intestacy occasioned by a will becoming wholly inoperative in consequence of the deatlr of the sole executrix and legatee in the lifetime of the testator, as well as to an intestacy occasioned by the non-existence of any will. Decision of Buckley J., [1901] "W. N. 218 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 218, affirmed. In re FoED. FoED V. FOKD C. A. [1903] W. N. 162 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 605 — J\Iistake — Erroneous recital — Legatee — Alleged advance — Hotchpot clause — Classification of cases. &e Will — Mistake. 1. 10. — Personal estate — Intestacy — Lunatic — Advances to brothers and sisters — Stipulation as to hotchpot — Deceased sister''s children taking by representation — Statute of Distributions (22 ^' 2:1 Car. 2, c. 10), ss. 6, 7. A iDachelor lunatic died intestate, leaving a brother, a sister, and the children of a deceased sister his sole next of kin. The deceased sister had received an advance from the lunatic's property under an order of the Lunacy Court, which order, with her consent, directed that the advance should be taken and considered as part of any share to which she might become entitled in the lunatic's estate at the time of his decease in the event of her surviving him : — Held by Swinfen Eady J., that the deceased sister's children, though only taking a share as legally representing their mother, under ss. 6 and 7 of the Statute of Distributions, were not bound to bring the advance into hotchpot. Proud V. Turner, (1729) 2 P. Wms. 560, distinguished ; Zloyd v. Tench, (1751) 2 Ves. Sen. 213, 215, explained. Held by C. A. (affirming the decision of Swinfen Eady J., [1906] 1 Ch. 58), that the deceased's sister's children were not bound to WILL (Advances) — continued. bring the advance into hotchpot. In re Gist. Gist v. Timbeill - - C. A. [1906] W. N. 136 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 280 II. — Residue, Shares of^Adramces in life- time of testator — Subsequent avihorized adtiances by trustees — Hotchpot — Power to postpone con- version — Principle foi' ascertaining income pending — Distribution — Will— Construction. A testator by his will gave his residuary real and personal estate to trustees upon trust to sell and convert and to divide the proceeds into fifteen equal shares, and to distribute them among his eight children as therein mentioned, the daughters' shares and portions of the sons' shares being settled. And the testator declared that for the purpose of ascertaining the shares certain advances of varying amounts which he had made to some oE his children and certain payments which he authorized his trustees to make after his death should (with interest at 4 per cent, in certain cases from the date of his death or from the date of payment, as the case may be) be debited against the shares of the children so advanced. And he gave wide powers to his trustees to postpone the conversion of his estate, and directed that the actual intermediate income should be paid to the tenants for life. The estate of the testator at his death in 1901 consisted largely of shares in companies, the dividends on which, as also the capital value, had been subject to great fluctuations : — Held, that for the purpose of dividing the income pending the division of the capital of the estate interest at 4 per cent, ought, in cases where the testator had directed that such interest sliould be debited, to be added to the actual income for the time being, and the aggregate so arrived at ought to be divided into fifteen shares and distributed among the children, subject in the case of each advanced child to a deduction of the interest on his advance or on the payment made to him. In re Hargreams, (1903) 88 L. T. 100, explained and distinguished. In re PoTSEE. Landon v. Potsbe Warrington J. [1908] 1 Ch. 828 Alteration. See also under Alteeation. 1. — Unattested — Alteration — Confirmation by codicil— Wills Act, 1837 (1 Viet.c. 26), s. 21. A testatrix by her will, dated Feb. 1, 1901, gave many legacies, including legacies (») 2001. to C, (J) 5001. to M., and (c) SOOOl. to S. On Oct. 19 her servant by her direction, struck out the three legacies. On Oct. 21, 1901, testatrix executed a codicil referring to her will as of Feb. 1, 1901, and thereby revoked legacy (b) but did not refer to the other two legacies, and concluded by ratifying and confirming the will in other respects. Held, that only legacy (J) was revoked. In re Hat. Keee v. Stinnbae Buckley J. [1904] I Ch. ill Alternative Gifts. — Alternative absolute gifts — Construction. See Canada— Will. 3. ( 2893 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2894 ) 'WILL (Alternative Gifts) — coiitviued. 1. — " Surviving children and their respective issue " — Alternative original gift of personalty ■ — Issue competitig with -parents — Will — Construc- tion. Although in a gift of real estate to A. and his issue the word " issue " is prima facie a word of limitation, there is no like rule of construction as regards gifts of personal property, in which case it is a question of construction on each particular instrument. Such words as " and their issue "^or " and their respective issue " may be read as meaning either an alternative substi- tutional gift or an alternative original gift. A testator died in 1884, having then seven children. By his will he directed the income of his real and personal estate to be divided into seven equal parts, and each one-seventh to be paid to a child. The testator appointed two of his sons executors and trustees, and directed that on the. death of either executor the survivor should " sell the whole of my real and personal estate and cause the same to be equally divided amongst my then surviving children and their respective issue." One son and executor died in 1907 without leaving issue. Two children of the testator died between 1884 and 1907, leaving children who sur- vided the deceased executor. Other children survived the deceased executor and had children living : — Held, that the estate was divisible into as many shares as there were children of the testator who either survived the deceased executor or died before him leaving issue who so survived ; that each surviving child of the testator took one share (his own issue not being allowed to compete with him) ; and that the surviving children of each child of the testator who pre- deceased the deceased executor took the share which their deceased parent would have taken had he survived that executor. In re CouLDBN. CoULDBN V. CoiiLDBN Parker J. [1908] 1 Ch. 320 Ambiguity. 1. — Explanation by reference to recital in codicil — Grft to a class — Lapse. In construing a will containing an ambiguity the Clourt may, for the purpose of explanation, refer to a recital in a codicil, unless it be obviously erroneous. DaHey v. Martin, (1853) 13 C. B. 683, and Grover v. Raper, (1856) 5 W. R. 134. Testatrix by her will gave all her property upon trust for her niece for life, and after her death to divide the same equally between the brothers and sisters of the said niece living at her decease, and A., B., and C. in equal shares, and should either be dead leaving children, such children are to take the share their deceased parent would have been entitled to if living. By a codicil the testatrix recited that by her will she had directed her estate to be divided between the persons therein named, and declared that she desired a certain gi'eat-niece to have a share equally with the others named in the will, and bequeathed the same to her accordingly. A. and B. stood in the same degree of rela- tionship to the testatrix, but C. was a stranger in blood. WILI (Ambiguity) — continued. A. predeceased both the testatrix and the tenant for life. B. survived the testatrix, but predeceased the tenant f or^life : — Held, (1.) interpreting the will by the recital in the codicil, that the estates went, not in moieties between the brothers and sisters of the tenant for life on the one hand, and the named persons on the other, but equally between them all ; (2.) that the gift to A., B., and G. was not contingent upon their surviving the tenant for life, and that consequently B.'s representatives were entitled to his share ; and (3.) that the gift was not to a class, and that therefore A.'s share lapsed to the next of kin of the testatrix. In re Vbkn. Linbon r. Ingram - Joyce 1. [1904] W. N. 94 ; [1904] 8 Oh. 52 2. — Latent ambiguity — Gift to " my grand- daughter" — Partial blanJi — Parol evide7tce — Grant of probate. Although a complete blank in a will cannot be filled up, a partial blank may be explained by extrinsic evidence. Thus, where a testatrix appointed as executrix and legatee a persondescribed in the will as " my grand-daughter ," evidence was admitted for the purpose of explaining the latent ambiguity which arose from the fact that, at the date of the will and at the date of the death, the testatrix had three grand-daughters, and the will was thereupon pronounced for, and probate was granted to the one whom the Court found, from the extrinsic evidence to be the person intended by the testatrix. Ik" the Estate or Hubbtjck Gorell Barnes, Pres. [1908] P. 129 Annuity. See also under Annuity. Appointment. Sec under PowEE OF APPOINTMENT. Attestation, Sec also under ATTESTATION. 1. — Attesting imtness — Devise to daughter or her children — Attestation by husband — Intestacy —Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 15. Sect. 15 of the WiUs Act, though avoiding (inter alia) a devise to the wife of an attesting witness, quoad her interest, does not strike the devise out of the will. The will must therefore be construed before s. 15 is applied. General devise after the death of testator's wife to his daughter or her children. The daughter, whose husband attested the will, sur- vived the wife and had children. Held, anintestacy. In re Townsend's Estate, (1886) 34 Ch. D. 357, followed. lull v. Jacobs, (1876) 3 Ch. D. 703, and In re Clarh, (1885) 31 Ch. D. 72, explained and distin- guished. Aplin t: Stone Swinfeu Eady J. [1904] W. N. 34 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 843 — Unattested will — Extrinsic evidence of inten- tion — Power of appointment — Per- sonalty — Execution — Foreign domicil. See Conflict op Laws. 16. ( 2895 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2896 ) WILL — continued. Bankruptcy. — Appointment by bankrupt's will— Property divisible among creditors. See Baijkeuptct— Power of Appoint- ment. 1. Blanks. See also under Blanks. — Ambiguity— Latent — Gift to "my grand- daughter "—Partial blank— Parol evi- dence — Grant of probate. See Will — Ambiguity. 2. " Brothers and Sisters." l. — "My own brothers and sisters''— Half Hood — Will — Construction. Testator by his will dated in 1873 gave certain property to his wife for her life, "and at her death all the said property to be equally diYided among my own brothers and sisters at her death." At the date of his death the testator had brothers and sisters both of the whole and half blood. At the death of the widow aU the brothers and sisters were dead, except Diana Beadle, a sister of the half blood. Joyce J. said there was no suggestion that the testator had any brothers or sisters-in-law, but he had brothers and sisters of the half blood. By using the words " my own " the testator intended to refer to his brothers and his sisters of the whole blood. The words " at her death " used the second time must mean " living at her death." There was therefore an intestacy. In re DowsoJT. DowsoN V. Beadle - Joyce J. [1909] W. N. 245 Capital or Income. — Annuity — Charge on income or capital — Absolute gift of corpus "subject to the aforesaid annuities." See Annuity. 3. — Settled land. See under Settled Land. nature of royalties — Settled — Payments i estate, See Will — Beal Estate. 2. 1. — Tenant for life and remainderman — Trust for immediate conversion of a business — A'o power to postpone — Direction as to "all the income arising from my estate " until conversion — Profits of business — Cajiital or income — Will — Construction. A testator devised and bequeathed the residue of his property, wh,ether real or personal, to trustees, upon trust for sale and conversion at such times and in such manner as they should think fit, but as to his business carried on in Sicily that they should wind up and dispose of the same as soon as practicable after his death, and if possible within twelve months thereof. There was express power to postpone the con- version of any part of his property other than the business. He then gave his wife a life interest in the income of his estate, and, subject thereto, his infant daughter was entitled to tlie whole estate contingently on attaining twenty- one or being married. The will contained a WILL (Capital or Ineome)- subsequent declaration by the testator that " all the income arising from my estate " should, until conversion, be applied as if it were income arising from the proceeds of the conversion, no part thereof being liable to be retained as capital. Upon a summons to determine whether the profits of the business earned since the testator's death should be treated as income or be divided between capital and income : — Held, that the expression " all the income arising from my estate" included the profits arising from the business. Held, further, that there was no sufficient ground for limiting the application of the clause giving to the tenant for life the income of unconverted property to that part of the estate which was subject to the discretionary power to postpone ; and the widow was therefore entitled' to the profits of the business. In re Chancellor, (1884) 26 Ch. D. 42, and In re Crowther, [1895] 2 Ch.- 56, followed. In re Elfoed. Elfohd v. Elford Eve J. [1910] W. N. 96 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 481 Charges. — Annuities. See under ANNUITY. 1. — Debts and legacies, Charge of — Implied power to sell or mortgage — Seneficial devise in fee to one executor — Mortgage by deiiisee to raise legacies — Liability of mortgagee to see to applica- tion of money. A beneficial devise of land in fee to a devisee who is also an executor, subject to a general charge of debts and legacies, empowers that executor-devisee to sell or mortgage the land and to give a good receipt to the purchaser or mort- gagee, who is not bound to see to the application of the purchase or mortgage money even if it is expressed to be raised for the payment of legacies only. Johnson v. Eennett (1835) 3 My. & K. 624, 630 ; Forbes v. Peacock, (1846) 1 Ph. 717, 721 ; Stroughill v. Anstey, (1852) 1 D. M. & G. 635, 653 ; and Corser v. CaHwright, (1875) L. K. 7 H. L. 731, 736, applied. In re Rehbeck, [1894] W. N. 68 ; 42 W. R. 473, distinguished. It is not necessary that the executor-devisee should expressly purport to execute the con- veyance or mortgage in his capacity of executor. In re Venn and Furze's Contract, [1894] 2 Ch. 101, 114, applied. In re Henson. Chbstek ». Henson - Swinfen Eady J. [1908] W. N. 138 ;3[1908] 2 Ch. 368 2. — Mixed fund — Implied charge of legacies — Express charge of debts — Period of limitation — Limitation Act, 1623 (21 Jac. 1, c. 16), s. 3 — Bsal Property Limitation Act, 1874 (37 ^f 38 Vict, c. 57), s. 8— Land Tramfer Act, 1897 (60 ^- 61 Vict. c. 65), s. 2, sub-s. 3. A testator devised and bequeathed " all the real and personal estate to _whioh at my death 1 shall be entitled " to his trustees upon trust for sale and conversion and out of the proceeds to pay "my debts and funerall^and testamentary expenses" and to hold the residue thereof in ( 2897 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2898 ) WILL (Charges) — continued. trust for certain residuary legatees. He then bequeathed certain pecuniary legacies. The testator died in 1901, His only asset was a reversionary shi "e of real estate which fell into possession in 1905 and was sold in 1908. The legacies and certain simple contract debts incurred more than six but less than twelve years ago being still unpaid : — Held, that notwithstanding the Land Transfer Act, 1897, s. 2,sub-s, 3, the charge of debts on the real estate was not nugatory, but had the effect of bringing the debts within the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874, s. 8, so that as against the real estate the period of limitation was twelve years, and they were still recoverable. In re Stephens, (1889) 43 Ch. D. 39, and In re Kemp4e,; [1906] 1 Ch. 446, 449, applied. Held, also, that notwithstanding the absence of the words " rest and residue " the general devise and bequest of the real and personal estate as a m ixed fund in one mass was cleaily residuary, so that the legacies were charged upon and pay- able out of the real estate. Gh-ei-Ule v. Browne, (18.59) 7 H. L. C. 689 ; Ellkitt V. Dearslei), (1880) 16 Ch. D. 322 ; and In re Grainger, [1900] 2 Ch. 7r,l>, 767 ; [1902] A. C. 1, applied. In re BALLS. Tkewbt r. Balls • Swinfen Eady J. [1909] W. N. 86 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 791 — Mortgage debt — Exoneration — Contrary or other intention. See "Will — Exoneration. 3, 4. 3. — Power to charge limited sum. on real estate — General gift of ^^ersonrtltg — J'JJf'ect f/s to exercising jwn-er to chavqe rraltg — With Act, 1837 (7 'Will. 4 S,- 1 ViH.'c. 26), .s. 27. Sect. 27 of the Wills Act presupposes the existence of some realty or personalty, as the case maj' be, which is subject to a general power of appointment, and at the testator's uncontrolled disposition although not his property ; and the section does not extend to the imposition of an otherwise non-existent charge, upon the property of another person, which if and when created would be personal estate which the testator would have power to appoint by a general bequest The reasoning of FitzGibbon L.J. in In re M'allinger's Estate, [1898] 1 I. K. 139, adopted and followed. Wbere, therefore, testator had under a settle- ment power by deed or will to charge real estate, of which he was only tenant for life, with pav- ment to himself or any other person or persons of any sum or suras not exceeding in the whcile 6u00Z., with interest at a rate not exceeding 5 per cent., and to appoint tlie premises charged to any person for any term of years upon trusts for raising the sums charged, and by his wiU he gave all his real property to one person and all his personal property (except some pecuniary legacies) to the children of his sisters : — Hiid, that the gift of peisonalty did not operate as a charge, in favour of the donees, on the real estute which he had power to ch'^rge. Inre Jones, Greene. Gordon, (1886) 34 Ch. D. 6.5, di.stinguished. In re Salvix. Makshall V. WOLSELEY Buckley J. [1906] W. N. 146 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 459 WILL (Charges) — continued. A'ote. Distinguished by Parker J., In re Wiildnsoti, [1910] 2 Ch. 216. See Poiccr of Aj)}>olntment. 13. Charity. See under Chaeitt. Chattels Beal. 1. — " Chattel real " — General heqnest — Ex- ception— Sjiecific bequest of eiwepted proj/eHij— Failure hi/ death of .specif c legatee — Itent-charge issuing out of leaseholds — Vetidor's lien for unpaid purchase-money — Intestaci/— Liability of ne.rt of hin to discharge lien — U'iW — Construction — Real Estate Charges Act, 1854 (iLoclte King's Act, 17 S,- 18 Vict. c. 113), «. 1 ; 1867 (30 S,- 31 Vict. c. 69), s. 2 ; 1877 (40 S,- 41 Firf. c. 34), s. 1. A testator by his will, made in 1886, be- queathed all his personal estate, except whi;t he otherwise disposed of by his will or any codicil thereto, and except chattels real, to trustees, upon the trusts therein mentioned. And he devised and bequeathed " all real estate and chattels real in England to which I may be entitled at my death, except what I have other- wise disposed of by this my will," to his brother absolutely for all his estate and interest therein. The testator made seven codicils to his will, the last of which was made in .July, 1898. In that codicil he stated that his brother was dead, but he did not revoke the bequest to him, or the general bequest of personalty, though he made some alterations in his will and the previous codicils. In other respects the testator confirmed his will as altered by the prior codicils. In April, 1898, the testator entered into a, contract for the purchase of a rent-charge issuing out of leasehold property in England. The tes- tator died in Aug. 1898. At that time the con- tract had not been completed : — Held, that, inasmuch as the will and codicils must be read together, and the will treated as if made at the date of the last codicil, it could not be taken that the testator had accepted chattels real from the general bequest merely for the |)urpose of giving them tu his brother, but that they were excepted for all purposes, and that consequently there was an intestacy as to the chattels real, and they did not fall into the general bequest : Held, also, that the rent-charge was a chattel real, and that the testator's next of kin were liable under the Real Estate Charges Acts, 1-154, 1867, and 1877, to discliarge the vendor's lien for unpaid purchase-money. Decision of Byrne J., [1904] 1 Ch. Ill, affirmed. la re Feasee. Lowthbe r. Frasee C. A. [1904] W. N. 82 ; [1904] 1 Ch.. 726 Children. See also under Infant. — Annuity — Equally among children who should attain twenty-one — Minors at time of enjoyment — Children entitled. See An.nuity. 14. — Construction — " Born '' — '• Infants" — "En ventre sa mere." See Will— Class. 15. Will — Words. 2. ( 2899 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 2980 ) "WILL (iChadacen)— continued. — Illegitimate children. See under Will — Illegitimacy. — Issue— Class— Gift over on death coupled with a contingency — " Die leaving, issue " — Divesting — Period of defeasiuility. See Will — Class. 5. — " Issue " — Eslate in special tail. See Will— Shelley's Case. 1. 1. — Maintotiance and education — Annuity to widow for benefit of infants — Trustee — Death of widow — Annuity continued-^Construction of will. A "furtlier annuity" of 300Z. given by a testator to his widow, for the maintenance and education of his infant daughter, does not cease to be payable by reason of the death of the widow during the minority of the daughter. In re Yates. Yates v. Wtatt Byrne J. [1901] W. N. 147 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 433 Class. See also under Class. — Accumulation of income — Kemoteness — " Portions" — Gift to children as a class — Period of ascertainment. See AOCUMDLATIOKS. 8. — Advances — ^Will — Constnaction. See under Will — Advances. — Ambiguity — Explanation by reference to re- cital in codicil — Gift to a class — Lapse. See Will — Ambiguity. 1. — Annuity — Gift in remainder — Artificial class ■ — Time of ascertainment. See Will— Next of Kin. 1. 1. — Appointment — Real estate — Gift to class after life interest — Period for ascertaining class — liule of conrenience — WUl — Construction. By her will, made in 1885, in exercise of a general power of appointment contained in her marriage settlement, a testatrix appointed certain real estate, after her decease, to the use of trustees in fee simple, upon trust for her husband for life, and after his decease upon trust for E., the wife of her nephew J., for her life, and after the decease of E. upon trust for all and every the children or child of J. who, being sons or a son, should attain the age of twenty-one years, or being daughters or a daughter, should attain that age or marry, and if more than one in equal shares in fee simple. The testatrix died in 1893, and her husband in 1899. E. died in 1909, leaving her husband, J., and four children surviving, all of whom had attained twenty-one, and were defts. to the action. The pits, were the trustees of the settlement created by the will for the purposes of the Settled Land Acts, 1882—1890, so far as related to this land. Part of this land had been sold in the lifetime of the tenant for life and the proceeds invested. The question was raised whether the four existing children of J. were now absolutely entitled in equal shares to the land and the capital moneys, or whether the children of J. by any future wife could take any interest therein. Eve J. said that the rule in question was WILL (Class) — continued. stated in Hawkins on Wills, p. 71, as follows : — " A devise or bequest of a corpus or aggregate fund to children as a class, where the gift is not immediate, vests in all the children in existence at the death of the testator, but so as to open and let in children subsequently coming into existence before the period of distribution." Then two illustrations were given of the appli- cation of the rule. It was also stated in Browne V. Hammond, (1858) Johns. 210, 212, note, and referred to in In re Emmefs Estate, Emmet v. Enunet, (1880) 13 Ch. D. 484, as a rule of con- venience. It was a rule of general application extending both to real as well as to personal estate, and whether the limitations of the realty were legal or equitable. He therefore held that the four children of J. took absolutely, to the exclusion of any after-born children, and the case of Blachnan v. Fysh, [1892] 3 Ch. 209, when closely examined, was no exception to the well-settled rule. The statement in Mr. Theo- bald's book (7th ed., p. 313) did not contain the whole effect of the decision in that case, and afforded no authority for suggesting that in the present case the well-settled rule should be dis- regarded. There would be a declaration that the four children were entitled absolutely to equal one-fourths of the property appointed by the will and the proceeds of sale of part of such property now in the hands of the pits. In re Canney's Teusts. Mayers v. Steovee Eve J. [1910] W. N. 45 2. — Cla.ss gift — Relocation by codicil — Intestacy — Will — Construction. D. by his will directed his trustees to divide his residuary estate into as many equal shares as he should have daughters who should survive him, or should have died in his lifetime leaving issue him surviving, and to appropriate one sucli share to each such daughter. He then directed each daughter's share to be settled on herselC and her children. By a codicil he revoked the gift of a share to his daughter L. All his daughters, including L., survived him. Held, that the gift was to a class, and there- fore there was no Upse as to the revoked share, but the residue was divisible among the daughters other than L. in equal shares. Ramsay v. Shelmerdine, (1865) L. E. 1 Eq. 129, not followed. In re D0NSTEE. Beown r. Heywood Neville J. [1908] W. N. 223 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 103 — " Die leaving issue " — Gift over on death coupled with a contingency — Divesting — Period of defeasibility. See Xo. 5, leloio. — En ventre sa mtre, Child — gift to children " born " previously to date of will. See No. 15, beloio. — Futurity, Words of— Will. See under Will — Futurity, Words of. 3. — Gift of residue to members of a class living at period of distribution — Direction for settlement of " the share " of one of the class — ( 2901 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2902 ) WILL (Class) — continued. Death of legatee before period of distriiution — Construction of will. A testatrix, who died in 1854, by her will, made in 1849, directed the income o£ her residuary estate to be paid to her sisters, S. and C, in equal shares, during their joint lives, or until one of them should marry or die, and after the death or marriage of either, then to the other during her life, or until she should marry, and after the death or marriage of such surviving or last marrying sister the testatrix directed that, subject to trusts which she declared of a sum of 1,0002., her residuary estate should be held in trust for all or such one or more of her brothers and sisters (except her sister E. but including S. and C, if they or either of them should marry) who should be living at the death or marriage of such surviving or last marrying sister, in equal shares, if more thnn one, as tenants in common. And (after providing for the event of her brothers, or either of them, being dead, .or either of her sisters S. and C. having previously married, being dead at the death or marriage of such her surviving or last marrying sister) the testatrix directed that with respect to "the share " of her sister H. " the same share " should be held in trust to pay the income thereof to her during her life, for her separate use, and after her death the capital of " the same share " should be held in trust for her child or children, as she should by deed or will appoint, and in default of appointment in trust for and to vest in her child or all her children, if more than one, being sons at twenty-one, and being daughers at twenty-one or marriage, and if more than one, in equal shares. At the date of the will the testatrix had living three brothers and four sisters, two of whom S. and C, wore unmarried, and the other two, E. and H., were married. S. and G. never married. C. died in 1900, having survived all her brothers and sisters. H. died in 1884. She had had four children all of whom attained twenty-one ; but they all died before C. Neither the brothers nor the sister E. left issue : — Held, upon the construction of the above clauses, coupled with other parts of the will, that by the expression "the share " of H. was meant an aliquot part of the estate of the testatrix, and not merely the share which H. would have taken if she had survived her sister C, and that, consequently, the representatives of the deceased children of H. were entitled to the residue. Decision of Byrne J. [1901] W. N. 146, reversed. In re Moherfs, (1885) 30 Ch. D. 234, In re Pinhornc, [1894] i Ch. 276, and In re Powell, [1900] 2 Ch. 525, considered. i» re Whitmoee, Walters v. Harbison C. A. [1902] W. N. 107 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 66 4. — Gift to "A. and the children of B." — Death of A. in testator's lifetime — Intention of testator — Will — Construction — Gift to a class. A testator appointed "his wife and his niece A." executrixes, and gave them property in trust for his wife (who survived him) for life, and after her death for " A." and the children of his sister B. who should attain the age of twenty- WILL (Class) — continued. one years equally to be divided among them as tenants in common." At the date of the will A. was nearly twenty-one ; she died in the testator's lifetime. At the death of the tenant for life B.'s children had attained twenty-one : — Held, that the bequest to A. did not lapse, since upon the true construction of this particular will the testator's intention appeared to be to make one class of nephews and nieces, so that if any of them died in his lifetime the survivors should take. The construction of gifts to a class discussed. The decision of the G. A., [1899] 2 Ch. 314, affirmed. KiNGSBUKT v. WALTER H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 90 ; [1901] A. C. 18'? 5. — Gift to a class — Gift over on death coiqjled with a contingency — " Die leaving issue " — Death at any time — Divesting — Defeasiiility, Period of — Construction of Will. A testator gave his residuary estate upon trust for his widow for life or widowhood, and after her decease or second marriage to apply the income for the maintenance and education of his children until the youngest who should be living being a son should attain twenty-one, or being a daughter should attain that age or marry. Subject thereto he directed that the trust fund and the income thereof, and any accumulations not vested or applied under his will, should be held in trust for all his childi'en who being sons should attain twenty-one, or being daughters should attain that age or marry, to whom he gave his residuary estate in equal shares. And he directed that if any of his children should die leaving issue, such issue should take hisi or her deceased parent's share equally as tenants in common : — Held, affirming Joyce J. [1901] 2 Ch. 338, that children who survived the testator only took vested indefeasible interests if and when they should die — that is, die at any time — without leaving issue. In re SCHNADHOEST. Sandkuhl v. Schnadhobst C. A. [1902] W. N. 76 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 234 6. — Gift to a class — Inquiry — Ascertainment of persons entitled to legacy — Costs — Residue — " Otherwise direct " — Construction of will — Rules of tJie Supreme Court, Order TxP'., r. 14b. By his will the testator gave his residuary real and personal estate to trustees upon trust for sale and conversion and to invest the pro- ceeds after payment thereout of his funeral and testamentary expenses, debts, and legacies and to pay the income to his wife, and after her death to raise certain legacies, and upon further trust to raise 6000Z. for the benefit of a class of persons therein described, and to pay the ultimate residue to his brother and sisters in equal shares. The testator died in 1891, and his widow in 1905. In Nov. of that year an order was made directing an inquiry who were the beneficiaries composing the cla.sB entitled to the 60002. The inquiry was completed, and the trustees now asked for taxation of costs and a declaration that the costs down to the order of Nov. 1905, .should be paid out of the ultimate residue, and that the subsequent costs should be paid out of the funds representing the 60002. : — ( 2903 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2904 ) Win (CltiBB)— continued. Held, that the costs of the inquiry were testamentary expenses and ought to be paid out of residue ; that R. S. C, Order Lxv., r. 14b, had not put an end to the power of the Court to malce an order carrying out the intention of the testator ; and that all the costs of ascertaining tho members of the class, except so far as they had been increased by incumbrances on the shares, must be paid out of the residue and not out'of the 6000Z. In re Vincent. Kohdb v. PALIN - - Parker J. [1909] W. N. 94 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 810 7. — Gift to a class who attain twenty-one — Contingent or vested — Gift over on death " loithout leaving any children"- — Child survimng and dying under twenty-one — Intestacy — Will — Construction. A testatrix gave all her real and personal estate to trui?tees in trust for her children who attained twenty-one or married, and if more than one in equal shares, with a gift over to other persons in the event of her death "without leaving any children surviving me." There was one child who survived the testatrix and died an infant : — Meld (reversing the decision of Bucldey J.), that the child did not take a vested interest at birth ; and, secondly, that the gift over did not take effect, and that there was an intestacy. Per Eomer L.J. : The observations of Malins V.-C. in Kidman v. Kidman, (1871) 40 L. J. (Ch.) 359, 360, that in a case like the above, words referring to death "without any children " are equivalent to " without any such children,'' are founded on a, misapprehension of the decision in In re Wrangham's Trust, (1860) 1 Dr. & Sm. 358, and cannot be supported. Walher v. Mower, (1852) 16 Beav. 365, approved. In re Edwahds. Jones v. Jones C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 870 8. — Gift to children as a class — Children of deceased ehild — Substitutional or substantive gift — Issue of parent dead at date of will — "Shall die" — Words of futurity — Construction of will. A testator gave legacies to the children of A., one of his sons, referring to him as " my deceased son " ; he gave a legacy and annuity to another son K., as to whose whereabouts he was ignorant ; he then gave the residue of his estate " In trust for all or any my children or child (other than the said E.) who shall be living at my death" and attain twenty-one or marry, "provided that in case any one or more of my children or child (other than the said R.) shall predecease me, leaving any child or children living at my death, then such child or children of my deceased child (other than the said R.) shall take " the share which his or their " parent would have taken if such parent were living at my decease " ; — Held, (reversing the decision of Joyce J., [1906] W. N. 6 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 319, and dissen- tiente Romer L.J.), that the children of the son A. were entitled to share in the residue, though A. was dead at the date of the will. • - Loring v. Thomas, (1861) 1 Dr. & Sm. 497, discussed; and held, ^e?' Vaughan "Williams L.J., that the principle of that decision applied, and Win (Class) — continued. per Eomer and Fletcher Moulton L.JJ., that it did not. In re Gokeinge. Goekinge v. GOERINGB - C. A. [1906] W. N. 182 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 341 But this case was reversed by H. L. (E.) ««i nom.. Gorringe v. MaliUtedt, [1907] A. C. 235. See Will. Futurity, Words of. 1. — Illegitimate children. See under Will — Illegitimacy. 9. — Inaccurate enujneration — ■ Gift of residue to A., S, and "the six children now living " of C. — ■ All but one of C.'s children dead at date of will — Mistalte — Rejection of specified number — Residue divisible amongst A., B., and surmving child — Class — Construction of will. Where, on construction the Court finds a dominant intention by the testator to benefit persons who answer a particular description or class, coupled with a mistake in the enumeration of the persons answering the description or com- posing the class, the Court will reject the inaccurate enumeration, whether the actual number in existence at the date of the death is less or more than that specified in the will. Principle of Garvey v. Iliibert, (1812) 19 Ves. 125, applied to the case where the number of childi'en was less thai, that specified in the will. Decision of Joyge J., [1908] W. N. 10 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 372, affirmed. In re Shaep. Maddison V. Gill - - - C. A. [1908] W. N. 146 ; [1908 2 Ch. 190 10. — Joint tenancy or tenancy in common — Gift to persons who would under the Statute of Distributions he the next of hin of testator's daughter if she had died unmarried — Class — ■ Will — Construction. The rule of construction established by Bulloch V. Downes, (1860) 9 H. L. C. 1, is that, where there is a gift to a class to be ascertained by reference to the Statute of Distributions, not only the objects of the gift, but the shares and manner in which those objects take, are prima facie to be ascertained according to the statute. Such a rule of construction ought not to be frittered away by nice distinctions as to the particular words used. The members of a class to be so ascertained will therefore, unless the will shews clear evidence of a contrary inten- tion, take as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. In re Niohtinoale. Bowden v. Griffiths - - Heville J. [1909] W. N. 17 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 388 — Lapse — Death of legatee. See Will — Lapse. 1. 11. — ■" My own nephew and nieces" Half -blood — Husband's nephew described as "my nephew " — 6freat-niece described as " my niece." The question whether a husband's nephew described in a will as " my nephew " and a great- niece described as ' ' my niece " are entitled to share in a gift to " my own nephew and nieces *? depends in every case on the particular will and the evidence, no hard and fast rule in the affirma- tive being laid down by In re Jodrell, (1890) ( 2905 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2906 ) WILL (Class) — continued. 44 Ch. D. 590 ; [1891] A. C. 304, or in the nega- tive by Smith v. Lidiard, (1857) 3 K. & J. 252, Wells V. Wells, (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 504, or Merrill v. Morton, (1881) 17 Ch. D. 382. Nephews and nieces of the half-blood are prima facie entitled to share in such a gift. Grieves v. Raivley, (1852) 10 Hare, 63, fol- lowed. In re Cozens. Miles v. Wilson Swinfen Eady J. [1902] W. N. 203 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 138 — Next of kin. See also under WILL — Next of Kin. 12. — Next of Jiin according to the Statute of Bistrilution — Time for ascertaining class — Will — Construction. A testator, who died in 1884, gave a, life interest in a fund to his nephew S., and certain contingent interests to the children and issue of his said nephew, and declared that if no child or issue of his said nephew attained a vested interest, the fund was to be held " for such person or persons as on the death of my said nephew S. will be entitled to [sic'] as my next of kin under the statute." At the date of the death of the testator, the nephew S. was his sole next of kin. S. died without issue in July, 1906, having made a will and appointed executors : — Held, that the persons entitled were to be ascertained at the death of the testator, and that the executors of S. were therefore entitled to the fund ; that even the words " at the death of my nephew S." were equivalent to "then," they referred only to the time when the persons entitled would come into possession of what had been bequeathed to them, as laid down by Mullock V. Docnes. (1860) 9 H. L. C. 1. Decision of Parker J,, [1907] 1 Ch. 450, affirmed. In re Wilson. Wilson v. Batche- LOE - - C. A. [1907] W. N. 206; [1907] 2 Ch. 872 13. — " Next of Jiin whoever t/iey miiij he " — Will — Construction. A testator directed the trustees of his will to raise and set apart six sums of 15,000Z. each, and to hold each of the same upon trust to pay the income to a niece (or nephew) for life, and after her (or his) death to her (or his) hui^band (or wife), such husband (or wife) to take only half the income if there were issue, and. after trusts in favour of the issue, declared that "in the event oi the death of the said niece" (or "nephew") "without issue, or in the event of her " (or "his") "having issue and of such issue happening to die before becoming entitled to the whole of the said trust fund of 15,000^.," the trustees should stand possessed of the same " subject to the aforesaid provisions in favour of my said niece " (or '• nephew ") " and her " (or "his") "said husband" (or "wife") "Upon trust for my next of kin, whoever they may be, living at the time of the trusts failing as afore- said, except the children or other descendants of my nephew T. W. deceased." The residue was given to the six nephews and nieces, each of whom was tenant for life of one of the sums of 15,000Z. The testator was seventy-three years old WILL (Class) — continued. when he made his will (in 1854), and he died in 1855. The six nephews and nieces were his sole next of kin at the time of his death, and would have been his sole next of kin if he had died immediately after making his will. S., who was the last of them, died in 1902, without issue, leaving a widow, who died in 1909 : — Held, that, although the class of next of kin was to be ascertained at the time of the testator's death, only those took who survived the time when the previous trusts failed, and that on the death of the widow of S. his 15,00OZ. fell into residue. In re Nash, (1894) 71 L. T. 5, followed. In re Winn. Beook v. Whitton - Parker J. [1910] 1 Ch. 278 14. — Residue — Aliquot shares — Class gifts^ Forfeiture clause — Forfeited interest to lapse and form 2) art of residue — Mode of dimsion. A testator directed his trustees to stand possessed of the proceeds of sale and conversion of his residuary real and personal estate, "As to three equal seventh parts thereof " in trust for a class of persons living at his death (hereinafter called class A) as tenants in common ; and "As to the remaining four equal seventh parts thereof " in trust for another class of persons living at his death (hereinafter called class B) as tenants in common. He provided that if a certain event should happen in his lifetime the share of a certain member of class A "shall lapse and form part of my residuary personal estate." The event happened and the share lapsed : — Held, that three-sevenths of the lapsed share went to the effective members of class A and four-sevenths to class B. In re WAND. Esoeitt i: Wand Swinfen Eady J. [1907] W. N. 38 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 391 IS. — Will — Legacy — Class — Bequest to a class of children " hoini " 2>rexiously to date of will — Child en ventre sa mere — Will — Construc- tion. There is a general rule of construction that, in the absence of a contrary intention, a gift by will to children "living" or "born " at a given period includes a child en ventie sa mere at that date, and born afterwards, in any case where the application of the rule is for the benefit of the child. A testator, by his will, gave to each of his great-nephews and trreat-nieces ' born pre- vioubly to the date of this my will," to whom no other pecuniary bequest was given by his will or any codicil thereto, the sum of 500Z., and he iTiade two codicils to his will : — Huld, that a great-niece en ventre sa mfire at the date of the will and of the codicils and born afterwards was entitled to a legacy. Decision of Kekewich J., [1907] 2 Ch. 46, reversed on this point. In re Salaman. De Pass v. Sonnenthal C. A. [1907] W. N. 218; [1908] 1 Ch. 4 — Substitution and substitutionary gifts — Will. See under Will — Substitution. — Words of futurity — Gift to nephews and nieces — Substitutionary gift — Will — Construction. See Will— Futurity, Words of. 2. ( 2907 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2908 ) WILL — continued. Codicil. — Absolute gift — Codicil directing use of legacy for charitable purposes — Precatory trust — " I wish." See Will— Precatory Trust. 1. — Appointment — Donee domiciled in Scotland — Power duly exercised by will — Holo- graph codicil— Defective execution aided. See Power of Appointment. — Class gift — Revocation by codicil — Intestacy. See Will- Class. 2. — Execution by one person of codicil of the other person — Mistake — Intention — Effect — Refusal of probate. See Probate — Execution. 4. — Legacy — Forfeiture clause — Codicil — Substi- tuted settled legacy. See Will — Conditions. 3. — Republication — Alterations — G eneral prin- ciple. See Will — Kepublication. 1. — Revocation — Gift to testator's son and his children — Revocation by codicil of benefit to son — EHeot on children's interests. See Will — Ee vocation. 1. Colonial Duties. 1. — Directum to pay debts out of residue — Specific dense of Colonial property — Colonial death duty — '^Seemed to be a debt" — Incidence of duty — Victoria Administration and Probate Act, 1890 (51 Vict. No. 1060), s. 102. A testatrix domiciled in England made an English will appointing English executors and trustees and Colonial executors and trustees. She devised certain land in Melbourne. Victoria, to her Colonial trustees upon trust to sell the same and to pay or remit the proceeds of sale to her English trustees to be held upon certain specific trusts. She devised and bequeathed the residue of her real and personal estate to her English trustees upon trust to sell and convert the same into money and thereout to pay (inter alia) her "debts" and to stand possessed of the residue thereof upon certain residuary trusts : — Held, on the construction of the will, that (») the direction to pay debts out of residue referred to actual debts and did not include local death duty on the Melbourne property, though " deemed to be a debt of the testatrix" by the local law ; (*) the local death duty and other expenses of realizing the Melbourne property fell on that property and not on residue. Peter y Stirling, (1878) 10 Ch. D. 279, and In re Maurice, (1896) 75 L.T.415, distinguished. In re Brewster. Butlee r. Soittham Swinfen Eady J. [1908] W. N. 139; [1908] 2 Ch. 365 Company. — Debentures — Will — Bequest of "all my debentures " in a company--Testator holding debentures and debenture stock. See Will— Words. 4. 1 _ Generallegacy— Gift of shares— Change In value of shares— Vm sptaUng fr\)m death — WILL (Company) — continued. Contrary intention — Will — Construction — Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 24. By his will the testator gave twenty-five shares in a co. to W. At the date of the will these shares were of the value of 501. each with hi. credited as paid up. After the date of the will the shares were divided into Wl. shares , with \l. paid up, and remained in that form at the testator's death. After the date of bis, will he sold several 501. shares and, subsequently, • several lOZ. shares. On a summons to ascertain whether the legacy was a gift of shares as they existed at the date of the will or at the date of the testator's death ; — Held, that this was a general legacy in language appropriate to describe the state of things which existed at the death and did not shew a contrary intention within s. 24 of the Wills Act, 1837, and therefore that W. only took 101. shares as they existed at the death. In re Portal and Lamb (1885) 30 Ch. D. 50, explained. In re Gillins. Inglis r. Gillinb Warrington J. [1909] 1 Ch. 346 Compromise. See also under Compromise. — Will — Beneficiaries — Agreement — Family solicitor — Common agent' — Mistake of law and fact — Setting aside compromise. See Compromise. 4. Conditional. 1. — JVot conditional — Dispositions not depen- dent on a specific event — Document pronounced for. Where a will is made in terms subject to the happening of a certain event, that event must occur to render the will operative ; whereas, if the possibility of an event happening is stated merely as the reason for making the will, it becomes operative whether the event happen or not. For instance, if a man vfrite in his will " If I die to-morrow my will is " so and so, his death must occur on the morrow to make the will operative ; but if the words be, " Lest I die to- morrow "... the document will be operative whether he die or not on the morrow. The question whether a testamentary docu- ment is conditional or not depends on the wording of the document itseH, and, if it can be said that the language used therein is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence is admissible to assist the Court in clearing up the ambiguity. The Court admitted evidence of declarations by the testator, made down 'to within a short time before he died, to the effect that the will in question was all right, and that his wife would take all he had to leave. In t he Estate of Vines. Vines v. Vines - Bigham, Pres. [1910] P. 147 — Successive limitations — Gift conditional or • subject to prior limitations. See Will — Limitations. 2. Conditions. See also under Cohditions. Forfeiture. Will— ■ Alienation, Conditions in restraint of — En- joyment of usufruct— Grandchildren ( 2909 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2910 ) WILL (Conditions) — continued. conditionally substituted — Ko right of accretion. See Canada— Will. 2. 1. — Charitable bequest — Legacy on condition of acceptance of oMigation,s which are iiot binding ■ — Absence of reference to age or 2J0verty of intended recipients. An originating summons for the 'determina- tion of the question whether the following be- quest was to any, and if so to what extent, good ; " I bequeath to the Vintners' Co. of the City of London the portrait of my late friend and partner, Don Sebastian Gonzalez Martinez, to be hung up by them in a conspicuous part of their common hall and always retained in that posi- tion, and, upon condition that they accept the said bequest of the said portrait with the obliga- tion aforesaid, I bequeath to the said co. the sum of 4000?., free from legacy duty thereon, to be paid out of such part of my persona) estate as may by law be bequeathed for charitable pur- poses, enjoining the said co. out of the income of the said sum of 4000Z. to keep in due and proper repair the said portrait, cleaning and regilding its frame not less than once in every four years, the surplus of the said income to be applied by the master and wardens for the time being of the said 00, to the best of their discretion for the benefit of individuals who have been engaged in the wine trade, giving the preference to those who may have been engaged in the Oporto red or Port St. Mary's white sherry wine trade, and, if applied by way of annuity, no single annuity to exceed 50Z. per annum, to be held only during the pleasure of the master and wardens fol the time being of the said co." It was contended by the residuary legatees that the bequest of the picture was bad because the con- dition sought to be imposed on the co. was one which the law could not recognize or enforce : — Held, that the condition was a condition sub- sequent, and not a condition precedent, and the gift of the picture was valid. With reference to the 4000Z., the first part of the trust was ad- mittedly bad ; the second part was bad unless it could be supported as a charitable gift. There was no reference to the age or poverty of the recipients of the bounty, and there was no suffi- cient indicatidu of a charitable intent to support the gift. The Court could' not limit the trust to retired wine merchants who were aged or in poverty, and the gift of the ifiOOl. therefore failed. In re Gassiot. Fladoate v. Vint- ners' Co. Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. H. 33 — Forfeiture by reason of conditions. See generally under this sub-heading. 2. — Marriage — Condition as to C07tse7it to marriage — Marriage with consent in testator's life- time — Codicil oonfirmi/ig will after the marriage. A testator by his will gave real and personal property in trust for his sou for life, and on his death, in case he should marry " with the consent in writing of my said wife and my said trustees," in trust for the son's children in equal shares ; but if he should maiTy without such consent, or if he should marry with such consent and should have no child who should live to attain twenty-one years of age, on trust as to WILL (Conditions) — continued. the realty for the person or persons wlio at the time of the son's death would be entitled thereto as the testator's heir or co-heirs at law if he hadi then died seised thereof intestate, and as to the personalty for the testator's wife. The son married in the testator's lifetime with his consent and approbation, and after the marriage the testator made a codicil altering his will, but not the gift above stated, and in all other respects confirming the will. The son's wife died in the testator's lifetime, and the sou survived him and died without having married again or had any issue. Held, (1.) that the son's marriage fulfilled the condition of the will ; (2.) that the codicil had not the effect of requiring the marriage to take place after the testator's death ; and (3.) that the gift over in case of marriage witli consent but death without children took effect. Presumption as to testator's intention in cases of conditions involving consents to marriages of their sons or daughters. In re Paek. Bott v. Chester - - Parker J. [1910] 2 Oh. 382 — • Marriage — Condition — Forfeiture — Words of futurity. See Will — Forfeiture. 7. 3. — Marriage — Forfeiture clause — Legacy — Substituted settled legacy — Codicil — Will — Con- struction. By his will, made in 1883, the testator bequeathed to each of his three grandchildren, of whom the pit. was one, the sum of lOOOZ. At the end of the will was a declaration that if any child or grandchild, or issue of such grandchild, should marry a person not professing the Jewish faith, such child, grandchild, or other issue should "for the purposes of this my will be deemed to have died in my lifetime under twenty- one and unmarried." By a second codicil of April, 1886, the testator revoked the said legacies of lOOOL, and in lieu thereof gave a sum of 1500J. to each of the three grandchildren " upon the trusts hereinafter declared concerning a legacy of 10,000?.," which he subsequently directed to be settled on the legatee for life, with remainder to his children and issue. On the death of the testator in 1889, the settled legacy of 1500?. so given in trust for the pit. and her issue was set aside and invested, and the income paid to her down to Deo. 28, 1898, when she intermarried with a member of the Church of England. Eve J., [1908] W. N. 38 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 599, decided that the pit. by her marriage had for- feited her life interest in this 1500?. legacy. The C. A. allowed the appeal. Cozens-Hardy M.E. said there was no doubt that in the simple ease of a mere substitutional gift the rule was that it was subject to the same incidents and conditions as the original gift, but this rule was never applied except on a question of quantum, and it was not applicable to a case where the gift in the codicil was not the same in character as the gift in the wiU, and where, too, the beneficiaries in the codicil were not the same as those in the will. On the language of this particular will and codicil his Lordship came to t 2911 ) blCJESl^ Of CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2912 ) WILL (Conditions)— coniJaaeiZ. the conclusion, as a question of construction, that the gift in the codicil was not a mere substi- tutional gift, and that there was nothing in the language to justify the Court in holding that this particular clause o£ forfeiture applied to anything but what was in the wiU itself, and there must accordingly be a declaration that the pit. by her marriage had not forfeited her life interest in the 150W. legacy settled upon her by the codicil. In re .JOSEPH. PAIN r. Joseph C. A. [1908] W. N. 159 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 507 — Name and Arms Clause. See under WILL- — Name and Arms Clause. 4. — Naiidl or military services, Entei-wg — Iiualidity — Puhlic policy — Forfeiture. A condition divesting the interest of a devisee or legatee if he enters into the naval or military services of the country is void as against public policy. In re Beabd. Reversionary and General Securities Co. ii. Hall. In re Beabd. Beabd v. Hall - Swinfen Eady J. [1908] W. N. 18 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 383 5. — "Residence — " Utimarried" — Bepieston conditions — Forfeiture — Will — Construction. By his will a testator gave his leasehold house. No. 33, Turner Eoad, Lee, to his trustees, upon trust to permit his niece C. to hold and occupy the same free of rent, but subject to a proviso thereinafter mentioned, " and to her residing npon the said premises during her life- time." In - a subsequent part of the will the testator directed that the use and occupation of the house aforesaid were given by him upon the express condition that after his decease C. should " remain single and unmarried," and in the event of her marrying she was to forfeit the bequest, and it was to fall into the residue. • C. resided in the house until her marriage and for some ten years afterwards, and then her husband took another house in the neighbour- hood, and she moved into it with him. She let all the rooms but one at No. 33, Turner Eoad, to a weekly tenant, and in this reserved room she kept a bed always ready for use, her books, some clothes, writing materials, &c., and she retained the key of this room and also one of the outside door of the house. She went there two or three times a week, and occasionally had meals and slept there : — , Held, that "residing" meant "personally residing," and that what C. had done at No. 33, Turner 'Road did not amount to residing within the meaning of the will : — But Iield, also, that, reading the subsequent void condition in restralint of marriage into the condition as to residence for the purpose of con- struing the will, the words " resident during her lifetime," must mean during her lifetime while she was capable of residing, namely, as a spin- ster ; and, therefore, upon her marriage, the con- dition as to residence did not apply, and there was no forfeiture. In re Wright. Mott v. ISSOTT Kekewioh J. [1906] W. N. 201 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 331 — Precatory trust. See under Will— Precatory Trust, D.D, WILL — continued. Conflict of Laws. See under Conflict of Laws. Consent. See also under Consent, and under Marriage. — Will— Consent. See Will — Conditions. 2, 3, Contingency. See also under Contingency. — Contingency of either son dying before his brother — Clause of substitution. See Natal. 11. — Contingent legacy without interest — Appro- priation of investment. /See Executor — Investments. 1.- — Issue — Gift over on death coupled with ; a contingency. See Will— Class. 4. — Perpetuity — Executory limitation — Remote- ness. See Will — Executory Bequest or Limitation. 3. Contingent Interest. See also under Contingkncy. 1. — Accumulation — Income. The proceeds of a trust for sale and conver- sion were given by will to such of the children of a married woman as should attain twenty-one, or being daughters attain that a,ge . qr , marry, with a gift over. There was, in the event which had happened, no express disposition of fhe' income. The married woman was forty-six years old and childless. The Court directed the income to be accumulated for twenty-one years from the testator's death, or until the gift over took effect. Green v. Tribe, (1878) 47 L. J. (Ch.) 783,; 27 W. E. 39, not followed. In re Taylob. Smart ii. Taylor - - Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] W. N. 91 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 134 Contingent Remainder. — Coniingent remainder or executory devise — BemoteuesB- /See Will — Remoteness. 1. 1. — Contingent remainder or executory, devise — Will — Construction. A testator who died in 1847 devised real estate to B. for life and after his death to his sons successively in tail male, and in default of such issue to the eldest or other son of J. S. who should first attain or have attained the age of twenty-one years- successively in tail male, and in default of such issue to Jane S., the daughter of J. S., for life, and after her death to her first and other sons successively in tail made. B. died in 1859. At that date no son of J. S. had attained twenty-one. J. S. entered into possession as guardian of his infant son, who entered into possession on attaining twenty- one, and was on his death in 1879 succeeded by his son, who retained possession until the com- mencement of this action. Jane S. lived until ( 2913 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2914 ) WILL (Contingent Bemainder) — continued. Mar. 1, 1906, and on her death her eldest sur- viving son brought this action claiming the estate : — Held, that the limitation to the first son of J. S., vfho attained tvfenty-one was a contingent remainder, and failed because no such son had attained twenty-one before the determination of the particular estate which supported the re- mainder, and that the words " in default of such issue," were merely equivalent to "in remainder," and did not make the limitations subsequent to the devise to the sons of J. S. con- tingent upon J. S. having no sons who attained twenty-one. The pit., therefore, was entitled to the estate. The question whether a devise is to be con- strued as a contingent remainder or an executory devise is one of strict law, and cannot be affected by the intention of the testator unless his words can be construed as expressing an intention to mate alternative gifts, one as a contingent remainder, and the other by way of executory devise. In re Wrightson, [1904] 2 Ch. 95, explained. White v. Summers - - Parker J. [1908] W. N. :08 ; [1908] 3 Ch. 256 — Estate tail — Contingent remainder. See Will— Estate^tail. 1. — Legal contingent remainder — Remoteness. See Will — Remoteness. 4. Contribution. See also under CoNTEIBtTTlON. 1. T- Devise of real estate — Separate bequest of personalty to same devisee — Death of devisee in lifetime of testator — Heir-at-law — Legal personal representative ■ — Insolvent estate — Contribution.— Wills Act, 1837 (7 Will. 4^-1 Viet. c. 26), s. 33. In this case the master certified that 370U. was to be contributed rateably in the proportions set forth in the acheilule to his certificate by the specific devisees and legatees, and in the schedule 315Z. was set against the name of H. P., 1614Z. against E. P. as administratrix, and 124i. against her name " in respect of her right to dower." The contributories other than H. P. claimed that E. P. being unable to pay the sums found due from her aud the personal estate talien by her as administratrix having been sold, all the three sums must be raised out of the real estate taken by H. P., inasmuch as J. G. P., if living, would have been liable to contribute in respect of the whole of the property given him by the will. The Court, folluwing Conolly v. Farrell (1846) 10 Beav. 142, directed an additional con- tribution to be made amongst the solvent devisees and legatees, the amount which ought to have been contributed by E. P. being apportioned amongst them, including H. P., according to the value of their devises and bequests. In re PfiBULESS. PEKELBSS C. SMITH Byrne J. [1901] W.N. 161 Conversion. See under Conveesion. WILL — continued. Costs. See under COSTS. — Will — Construction — Practice — Uniformity. See Will — Shelley's Case. 3. Cy-pres. See under Cy-Pebs. Debts. See also under Debts. — Married woman — Will — Appointment — Separate estate — " Liable for her debts or other liabilities." See HusBAi?D AND Wife — Separate Property. 2. 1. ~- Simple direction to pay debts— Executor according to the tenor. A simple direction to a certain person to pay debts of the testatrix, without any bequest to him and without specifically appointing him as trustee, may be enough to constitute him executor according to the tenor. A testatrix, after bequeathing certain pecu- niary legacies, desired J. G. to pay- all her just debts, and then bequeathed to her niece, P. M., all her furniture and eSeots and all money she possessed : — Held, that J. G. was thereby constituted executor according to the tenor. In the goods OF Cook - - Jeune, Pros. [1902] P. 114 Destruction. \. ^ Intention — Executors according to the tenor — Universal legatee in trust — Form of grant. A testatrix by her will left all she possessed to two persons, P. aud L., or the survivor of them, in trust to pay the whole income arising from her estate to her husband during his life, and at his death to realize the estate and divide the proceeds equally amongst her four children. The will was retained in the possession of the testatrix, who on several occasions referred to it as if it were in force, and indicated where it would be found when wanted. After her death the will was found in the place indicated, but it was in a number of fragments, all enclosed in a sealed envelope. The fragments, when pieced together, made up the complete document : — Held (all parties consenting), that the will might be pronounced for ; that, in the absence of a direction to pay debts, the trustees were not executors according to the tenor ; but that, as, in their capacity of universal legatees and devisees in trust, their interest was paramount to that of the husband, the proper form of order to make would be to grant administration, with the will annexed, to them (P. and L.) as universal legatees and devisees in trust. In THE Estate op Mackenzie - Bargrave Deane J. [1909] P. 306 Diatribution, Period of. ■ Codicil — Construction. See New South Waleb. 37, ( 2915 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— I9l0. ( 2916 ) WILL (Distribution, Period oi)— continued. — Institution of heirs in specified proportions — Tenant for life — Otiier proportions in certain assets sold during the life tenancy. See Cape op Good Hope. 15. Somicil. See also under^DoMlciL. — Foreign domicil, will, and marriage — English domicil subsequently acquired.^ See Probate — Foreign Domicil. 2. Donatio Mortis Causa. See also under Donatio Causa. Mortis — Estate duty on donatio — Charge on property — Residue — Incidence. See Will — Testamentary Expenses. 3. Election. See also under Election. — Bequest by married woman of husband's pro- perty to a third person. See Election. 1. — Bleetion^Several persons electing to take against will and taking other benefits under it — Compensation inter so. &e Election. 4. — ■' Eight of election — Estates in Scotland and Australia— Two separate wills. See New South Wales. 38. — Settlement — Trust for conversion — Eeal or personal, estate — Will — Election • — Estate duty — Liability. See Settlement. 23. Estate Duty. See under Revenue — Estate Duty. Will — Testamentary Ex- penses. Estate Tail. See also under Estate Tail. — Born in my lifetime — Divesting clause — Child en ventre sa mSre — ^Will — Construction. See Will— Words. 2. — Estate tail to last survivor of class — Legal contingent remainder — Kemoteness — Rule against perpetuities. See Will — Remoteness, i. 1. — Oiftof realty to " .rt. aiuL Ms heirs'^ — Gift over if A. die loithoutan heir" -Estate tail — Ultimate gift to ^' survivor's heir or heirs" — Contingent remainder — Construction of will. A testator gave his two cottages, Nos. 9 and 12, Chapel Street, Sheerness, to his daughter C. G. for life, " after her death No. 12 to go to her youngest daughter E. G. and her heirs and No. 9 to go to her son W. G. and his heirs, if either the said E. G. or W. G. should die without an heir their share is to go to the survivor's heir or heirs. " E. G. died in 1891, a spinster ; and W. G. died in 1897, a bachelor. C. G. died in 1902 :— WILL (Estate ta,i\')-^oontinued. Held, that E. G. and W. G. took estates tail in the cottages devised to them respectively : But held, that the gift over to " the survivor's heir or heirs " was a gift to the heirs general of the survivor and a contingent remainder, which took effect as to the cottage devised to E. G. in tail. In re Waugh. Waugh v. Ceipps. Farwell J. [19031 W. N. 32 (Corrigendum") 36 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 744. ' Issue " — Estate in special tail. See Will— Shelley's Case. 1. 2. — Successive limitations — Life estates — Tenants in tail — Construction of will. A testator who died in 1859 devised his real estate to P. C. Honywood for life, with remainder to his first and other sous in tail, " with remainder to the eldest and every other son of Sir Courtney Honywood for life, with remainder to the first and other sons of such sons of Sir Courtney Honywood in tail," with remainder to the testator's own right heirs. Sir C. Honywood had several sons, of whom P. C. was the second, and Sir J. W. Honywood the eldest. P. C. Honywood died in July, 1902, without ever having been married, and his brother, Sir J. W. Honywood, thereupon became entitled to the estates for his life. C. J. Hony- wood, the eldest son of Sir J. W. Honywood having joined with his uncle in barring the entail, and having purchased his father's life interest, now claimed to be absolutely entitled in fee simple, in possession, to the exclusion of the life estates limited by the will in favour of his uncles, the other sons of Sir C. Honywood : — Held, by BymeJ., that the gift in remainder to the eldest and every other son of Sir C. Hony- wood for life, being expressed to be to the eldest and other sons, imported a succession, and that the eldest and other sons accordingly took successive life estates ; that the remainder to the first and other sons of such sons of Sir C. Hony- wood in tail also imported succession, and that such first and other sons took successive estates tail iu remainder one after the other ; but his Lordship did not think that he could read into these limitations words which would enable the first and other sons of the eldest son of Sir C. Honywood to take until after the death of all the tenants for life. The claim, therefore, of C. J. Honywood failed : — Held, that the will, as construed by Byrne J., could not be considered irrational, and that under the circumstances the Court had no choice but to give effect to the words as they stood. In fact, the words were insuperable. Decision of Byrne J. [1903] W. N. 72, aflErmed. Honywood v. Honywood C. A. [1903] W. N. 188, 190 Estoppel. See also under Estoppel. — Will of woman under incapacity to devise — ■ Entry of tenant for life under will and requisition by him of possessory title- Eights of remaindermen. See Estoppel. 6. A2 ( 291? ) iDiGfiST 0¥' CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2918 ) Will — continued. \ Execation. See also under Execution. 1. — "In the presence" of witnesses — Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 9. The expression " in the presence " in s. 9 of the Wills Act must be taken to mean actual visual presence. Where a testatrix signed her will in a shop, and one witness, who saw her sign, attested it, but the other witness, being at the time when the testatrix and first witness signed engaged at the other side of the shop with a person who stood between him and the testatrix, did not see them sign and did not know nor have the oppor- tunity of knowing anything about what they had been engaged upon until after they had signed, when he was asked to be a witness : — Held, that the testatrix did not sign "in the presence " of the second witness. Brown ■;;. Skieeow - - Gorell Barnes J. [1903] P. 3 — Power — Execution — "Writing or Writings" — "Appointment made by will"' — Validity See Power of Appointment. — Probate. See under Probate — Execution. — Revocation. See under Pbobate — Revocation. -Domiciled foreigner — Lease- TJnattested will- holds. Se-e Conflict of Laws. Executor. 17. See also under Executoe. Tkustee. 1. — '•Administer " — Executor according to the terwi — Construction of will. A testator, by his will, appointed H. E. " to hold and administer in trust all my estate well known to the said H. E." : — Held, that as this person had duties to per- form, the word " administer " was, without any express instruction to pay debts, sufficient to constitute him executor according to the tenor. In the goods of Wat Gorell Barnes J. [1901] P. 345 Xote. See In the goods of Kirhy, Jeune Pres, [1902] P. 188. Prohatc — Trustees. 1. — Executors — Ko next of kin— Beneficial title to residue. See ExecutoE' — Residue. 1. Executory Bequest or Limitation. 1. — Executory gift over in default ofoldldren who nttahi ticenty-o'ne—One child of twenty -one- Gift over toid — Conreyancing Act, 1882 (45 4' 46 fict. c. 39), s. 10. J. L. Shrubb, who died in 1884, by his will dated May 24, 1882, after certain specific devises and bequests, gave all his real and personal estate upon trust to raise certain sums therein mentioned, and as to certain named parts of his trust estate upon tlic trusts therein mentioned, and proceeded : " And as to all the WILL (Executory Bequest or Limitation) — cont. residue of the said trust estate in trust for my said son, J. P. C. Shrubb, but should he die without leaving a child who shall attain the age of twenty-one years, then in trust for my second son, H. A. B. Shrubb. " J. P. C. Shrubb survived the testator, and had issue a daughter who attained the age of twenty-one years on August 15, 1908, and was still living. This summons was taken out 4jy J. C. P. Shrubb, who was one of the trustees of the will, as well as a beneficiary, against the other trustees and H. A. B. Shrubb, as defts., asking to have declared that in the events which had happened, namelj', that there was then living issue of the pit. who had attained the age of twenty -one years, the executory limitation over in the said will of the testator contained in favour of the deft., H. A. B. Shrubb, of and concerning the real estate comprised in the residuary gift contained in the said will was and had become void and incapable of taking effect, and that the plt.'s estate and interest in the said residuary estate was then indefeasible. The only question argued was whether the case came within s. 10 of the Conveyancing Act, 1882. Swinfen Eady J. said the section merely said " entitled to," there were no words to confine the meaning to " legally entitled to, " and he was of opinion that the pit. was " entitled to land for an estate in fee " within the meaning of the Act, and the executory g'if t over had become void. Jm re Sheubb. Sheubb v. Sheubb Swinfen Eady J. [19110] W. N. 143 2. — Gift to A^; B., C, and their children — Gift over on death of A., B., or C. leaving no issue — Realty — Chattels real — Gift in succession — Executory bequest or limitation over on death of parent — Rule in Wild's Case — Will — Con- struction. By his will the testator gave his leasehold and real estate to his wife for her life, and on and immediately after her death he gave " what- ever may be left" after the discharge of all claims against his estate to his children, namely, as to two fifths to his son and as to the other three fifths to his two daughters in two equal shares, share and share alike, " and to the child or children of the three said children. In case any of my children dying and leaving no legal issue, the share or shares of those dying to be given to the surviving child or children of such as will be dead. My daughters and grand- daughters' shares to be independent and free from all husbands." His wife survived the testator. Only one of the grandchildren was born during her life. On a summons by the three children for the determination of their interests ; — Held, that no child of the testator was at present entitled to his or her share absolutely, but that such share was subject upon the death of the child to an executory bequest or limita- tion over to his or her children, and also subject to the gift over in case of any of the children dying and leaving no legal issue, the meaning of which would have to be decided when, i£ ever, the event happened. The rule in Wild's Case, [1699] 6 Eep. 16b, ( 2919 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2920 ) WILL (Executory Bequest or Limitation) — cmt. had no application wliere the gift or devise to the children would without reference to the rule be a gift in succession to, and not concurrently with, their parent. In re Jones. Lewis v. Lewis - Joyce J, [1909] W. N. 228 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 167 3. — PerpetuUij — Exeoutorij limitation — Contingency — Remoteness — Construction of will. A testator by will devised realty to his two sons as tenants in common in fee simple with a direction in a codicil to his sons and their heirs to make to each o£ his daughters for life " and afterwards to and amongst the children of each and their heirs" certain payments out of the royalties or out of the dead rent payable out of the coal under a specified farm and any other coal under any other laud of the testators' when worked or let :— Meld, that upon the true construction of the codicil the testator intended to create executory limitations in land to arise at some future and indefinite period on a contingency which might or might not happen, and that the direction was void for remoteness so far as related to the testator's grandchildren. Decision of C. A. (not reported) affirmed. London and South Western Rij. Co. v. Gomm, (1882) 20 Ch. D. 562, 580, approved upon this point. Edwardes v. Edwardes H. L. (E.) [1909] A. C. 275 — Administration — Real and Personal Estate. See ADMINISTEATIOlf. 9, 10. Exoneration. — Administration — Real and personal estate. See Administration. 9, 10. 1. — Charge of debts and funeral and testa- mentarij expenses on realty — Gifts of all per- sonalty to another donee — Non-exoneration of personalty. The personal estate being the primary fund for payment of a testator's debt and funeral a.nd testamentary expenses, and exonerated therefrom only where the intention to exon- erate is shewn by express words or necessary implication from the whole will, it is insufficient, in order to establish exoneration, to find that the real estate is merely charged with the payment. A testator gave all his personalty to K., and devised certain real estate to his trustees " sub- ject to the payment of" his "just debts and funeral and testamentary expenses " to K. and other persons. The testator also in his will ex- pressed the wish that none of his real estate should be sold whilst there was any male decendant of his own surname : — Held, that the personalty was not exonerated from the payment of the debts and funeral and testamentary expenses. Greene v. Greene, (1819) 4 Madd. U8 ; 20 K K 284:; MUchell v. Mitchell, (1820) 5 Madd. 69 ; 21 E. E. 280 ; Mount v. Hipkins (1834) 7 Sim. 43 ; 40 R. E. 74 ; Zance v. Aglionly, (1859) 27 Beav. 65 ; Gilbertson v. Gilbertson, (1865) 34 Beav. 354 ; and Kilford v. Blaney, (1885) 31 Ch. D. 56, distinguished. In re Basks. Banks v. Busbridge. Buckley J. [1905] 1 Ch. 647 WILL (Exoneration) — continued. 2. — Collective devise of real estate — Aggre- gation of charges — Mxonevation of personal estate — Construction of will — Liicke ICint/'s Acts {Real Estate Charges Acts'), 1854, 1867, 1877 (17 4' 18 Vict. c. 113 ; 30 .j- 31 Vict c. 69; 40 4- 41 Vict, c. 34). Since Locke King's Acts a collective devise of lands of any tenure to the same set of persons prima facie throws the aggregate charges on to the aggregate lands in exoneration of the tes- tator's personal estate. Ratio decidendi of Talbot v. Eai'l Radnor, (1834) 3 lay. ic K. 252 ; 41 E. E. 64 ; Fairtlough V. Johnstone, (1865) 16 Ir. Ch. Rep. 442 ; Sger v. Gladstone, (1885) 30 Ch. D. 014 ; Inre Hotohhys, (1886) 32 Ch. D. 408 ; and Fremen v. Law Life Assurance Society, [1896] 2 Ch. 511, explained and applied. In re Baeon KENSINGTON. EARL OP Longford /•. Baron Kensington Earwell J. [1901] W. N. 229 [1902] 1 Ch. 203 3. — Contrary intention — Direction to pay debts, "except mortgage on Rlackacre" — Other mortgages — Locke King's Acts — Real Estate Charges Act, 1867 (30 'S;UVict. u. 69), *. 1. A direction to pay debts, " except the mort- gage debts, if any, on Blackacre," out of residue, implies that other mortgage debts are to be paid out of residue, and is a sufficient contrary inten- tion within the Real Estate Charges Act, 1867, s. 1, to take the case out of the Real Estate Charges Acts (Locke King's Acts). In re Valpy. Valpy v. Valpy - ■ - Swinfen Eady J. [1906] W. N. 32 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 531 4. — Contrary or other intention — Mortgage debt on Whiteacre — Direction to pay out of Blaohacre — Insufficiency of Blacltacre — Loche King's Acts — Real Estate Charges Act, 1854 (17 # 18 Vict. c. 113), s. 1. A direction that a mortgage debt on White- acre shall be paid out of the proceeds of sale of Blackacre exonerates Whiteacre to the extent of those proceeds, but does not indicate a general "contrary or other intention" within the Real .Estate Charges Act, 1854, s. 1, so as to enable the devisees of Whiteacre to come on the general personal estate for any deficiency. Allen V. Allen, (1862) 30 Beav. 395, 403, explained. Ja re Birch. Hunt r. Thorn Swinfen Eady J. [1909] W. N. 85 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 787 Forfeiture. See also under Forfeiture. 1. — " Alienate on incumber " — Petition in bankruptcy by tenant for life — Will — Construc- tion—Forfeiture of life interest— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 |- 47 Vict. c. 52). Under a will property was given to one for life with a gift over in the event of his " alienat- ing or incumbering, or agreeing to alienate or incumber," his interest. He presented a peti- tion in bankruptcy, and on the same day was adjudicated a bankrupt on his own applica- tion : — ■ Held, that the petition in bankruptcy and adjudication consequent thereon constituted an alienation within the meaning of the gift over. ( 2921 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2922 ) WII/L (Forfeiture) — contiii uciL In re Amherst's Trusts, (1872) L. R. 13 Eq. 461, followed. Ex parte Locdl, [1901] 2 K. B. IG, distin- guished. In re Gotghave Mynoes v. Cot- GEAVE - Kekewich J. [1903] W. N. 153 ; [1903] 2 Ch. 705 — Alienation, Conditions in restraint of — Eiijoj'- ment of usufruct. See Canada— Will. 2. 3. — Alienation, Forfeiture on — Life interest — Charge — Cancellation of charge ief ore property charged becomes payahle. Under the will of his father, Henry Baker was entitled to a life interest in a share of residue. The will contained a proviso that he should not have power to dispose of his interest by way of anticipation and that in the event of his beeomin,!? bankrupt or doing anything whereby his share or some part thereof would become payable to or vested in some other per- son it should go over to his children. The testator died in 1896, and an order for the administration of his estate was made in 1899. In 1903 Henry borrowed two sums of money, and signed in favour of the lenders charges upon his interest in Iris father's estate. Both charges were cancelled and given up to him in July before any order on further con- sideration had been made in the action or any- thing had become payable to him in respect of his life estate : — Held, that a forfeiture had been incurred, and the fact that the mortgagees released the charges before the estate was distributed was immaterial. In re BAKER. Baker r. Bakee Buckley J. [1903] W. N. 210 : [1904] 1 Ch. 1S7 3. — Alienation, Restraint on — Charge on future income — life interest — Forfeiture — Moneys in hand of receiver — AniMguous instru- ment. T. D., deceased, by his will, gave his residu- ary estate to trustees in trust for his daughters in equal shares, the share of each daughter being settled. By a codicil he directed his trustees, " from and after the decease of any daughter of mine by my present wife who shall have been once married, to pay to the husband of such daughter one-third part of the interest, income, and annual produce of the share in my real personal estate given by my said will to such daughter so dying, during his life or until he shall become bankrupt or assign, charge, or in- cumber, or attempt or affect to assign, charge, or incumber the said one-third part of such interest, income, and annual produce, or any part thereof." One G. married one of the testator's daughters, and upon her death in 1902 one-third of the income of her share became payable to him. subject to the above restrictions. The action was brought for the administra- tion of the testator's estate, and a decree was made directing the usual accounts and inquiries. In 189.5 an order was made appointing a receiver. On Nov. G, 1902, G. wrote to the receiver a letter informing him that he was indebted to a certain co. in the sum of bl. payable in the WILL (Porfeiture) —continued. following Jan., and requesting him to " deduct this sum from any moneys that may be found due to me on the passing of your accounts by the Court of Chancery on that date, and pay the same to them." The question was whether this letter operated as a charge by G. on his life interest so as to create a forfeiture under the terms of the codicil. It was admitted that at the date of the letter the receiver had in his hands a sum representing income exceeding hi. to which G. was entitled. Joyce J. held that G. had not incurred a forfeiture. The Court said it was common ground that no document which dealt with income actually accrued would constitute such a charge as would amount to a forfeiture within the terms of this codicil. Where it was doubtful whether a docu- ment of this kind was intended only to deal with income already accrued due, or -whether it was intended to deal with future income, the Court ought to favour a construction which would prevent the document creating a forfeiture. Now taking into consideration the ambiguity there was in the document here, and the fact that at the moment it was written there was a sufficient sum in hand of income accrued due to pay the 51. the document ought to be construed as referring to the moneys in hand, and not to income subsequently coming to the hands of the receiver. When one remembered the position of a receiver and the terms of his appointment, it was quite reasonable to suppose that G. was referring to the money actually in the hands of the receiver, and that he did not wish the receiver to trench upon any moneys that might come to his hands in the future. Appeal dis- missed. UUKHAN f. DUEHAN C. A. [1904] W. N. 185 — Class gifts — Forfeiture clause — Aliquot shares. See Will— Class. 14. ■ Condition — Consent. See Will— Conditions. 2, 3. — Condition — Entering naval or military ser- vices — Invalidity — Public policy. See Will — Conditions. .5. — Conditions — Will — Construction. See under Will — Conditions. 4. — " Depriced of the personal enjoyment of Income or any part thereof" — Construction. M. by will gave a fund to trustees upon trust to pay the income to F. " unless and until some event shall happen ivhereby i£ the same income belonged absolutely to her she would be deprived of the personal enjoyment thereof or of any part thereof." F. wrote to the acting trustee of the will, " I owe P. 2C0Z. ■ I have arranged to find her lOOZ. this week and I want you to pay direct to her the balance out of the next dividend due to me from the B. tea shares," part of the estate. Before the dividend became due F. paid ofE P. and withdrew the letter: — Held, that there had been no forfeiture of her life interest. In re Mair. Williamson r. French - NevUle J. [1909] W. W. 148 ; [1909] a Ch. 28 ( 2923 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2924 ) WILL (Forfeiture) — oontirmed. 5. — Oarnishee order — WUl — Forfeiture clause — Gift of moome to A. for life or until alienation — B. S. C. 1883, Order JCLV., r. 2. By will personalty wa? bequeathed in trust to pay the income to A. for life "or until he attempts to alien, charge or anticipate the same .... or until any other event happens whereby if the same were payable to him absolutely for his life, he would be deprived of the right to receive the same or any part thereof," and then over. A judgment creditor of A. served the trustees, who had accrued income in their hands, with a garnishee order : — Held, that the garnishee order did not operate as a forfeiture of A.'s life interest. Bates v. Bates, (1884) W. IST. 129, dissented from. Sutton, C'ardsn S; Co. v. Ooodrich, (1899) 80 L. T. 765, followed. la re Gbbbnwood. SUTCLIFFB V. GLEDHILL rarwell J. [1901] W. N. 60 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 887 6. — Judgnie-itt eredUor — Equitable execution — Appointment of receiver of debtor's interest in residuary estate under a will — Forfeiture. Under the will of the testator, W. B., G. L. B. was entitled to the income Of the residuary estate for life. The testator declared that in case the said G. L. B. should at any time " alienate or charge or effect or attempt to alienate or charge his life or other terminable interest or any part thereof, or in case by reason of his bankruptcy or any other event . . . . whereby or by reason or means whereof such life or other terminable interest or any part thereof shall or but for this provision would belong to or become vested in any other person or persons," tlaenthe interest of the said G. L. B. should immediately cease and become void. By an order dated April 25, 1910, made in an action in the K. B. D., the pit. in that action was appointed receiver to receive the rents, profits, and moneys receivable in respect of the said G. L. B.'s interest under the will in or towards satisfaction of a debt due under the judgment in the action, and the order directed that the receiver should pass his accounts at periods to be fixed by the master and pay the balances appearing due, " such sums to be paid in or towards satisfaction of what should be due in respect of the judgment debt." Nothing had yet been done or received under the order. Originating summons to determine the question whether the interest of G. L. B. under the will had ceased and become void by reason of the appointment of the pit. as receiver by way of equitable execution :— Held, that at present no forfeiture had been created. Having regard to In re Potts, [1893] 1 Q. B. 648, the order appointing the receiver did not give any property or estate to the receiver or the execution creditor. It merely gave an inchoate right to the creditor to require payment from the receiver of anything received under the order. The order had not operated to cause the life interest of G. L. B. " to belong to or become vested in any other person." In re Beaumont. Woods v. Beaumont Joyce J. [1910] W. N. 181 WILL (Forfeiture) — continued. — Legacy — Forfeiture clause — Codicil — Substi- tuted settled legacy. See Will — Conditions. 3. — Marriage. See also under Mareiaqe. 7. — • Marriage — Words of futurity — ■ lAmita- tion to events after testator's death — Will — Con- struatioji — Intention — Forfeiture clause. A testator by will left property in trust for his children, and declared that if any son or daughter should alienate his or her share or become bankrupt, or marry a person of any degree of kindred unless more remote than third cousin, or if a daughter marry without the pre- vious v/ritten consent of the trustees, his or her share and interest should " thenceforth cease and determine." A daughter married a first cousin between the date of the will and the testator's death : — Held, that upon the true construction of this particular will, the testator intended that as to marriage the forfeiture should take effect only in the case of a marriage after the testator's death, and that the daughter had not forfeited her interest. Decision of the C. A., In re Chapman, Perkins V. Chapman, [1904] 1 Ch. 431, affirmed. Chap- man V. Perkins - H. I. (E.) [1905] W. N. 43 ; [1905] A. C. 106 — Name clause — Condition precedent or subse- quent — Vesting. See Will — Conditions. 4. — " Residence." See Will — Conditions. 6. 8. — School — Endowment — Trust deed — Will — Construction — Cluiritable legacy — Forfeiture — (rift over , to residue — Perpetuities — Education Act, 1902 (2 Edw. 7, c. 42), ss. 11, 13. By her will made in 1891 Mrs. Blunt gave to trustees such a sum as would produce 20Z. a year, and directed them to pay that income to the treasurer for the time being of the Bictnor National Schools for the support of the schools so long as they should be carried on under the conditions contained in the trust deed of the schools, and the funds necessary for carrying them on should be supplied by voluntary con- tributions. The testatrix declared that this gift should be void if any of the three following events should happen in her lifetime, namely : (1) if a school board for the parish should be formed ; (2) if the funds necessary for carrying on the schools should be raised under powers contained in any Act of Parliament ; (3) if a trust should be created and a sufficient fund set apart for carrying on the schools under the deed of trust. She further declared that if either of the two first-mentioned events should happen after her death, then that the payment of the annuity was to cease and the fund purchased to produce the same was to fall into her residuary estate. The testatrix died in 1900. None of the events mentioned happened in her lifetime. On Jan. 8, 1904, the Board of Education issued a final order under s. 11 of the Education Act, 1902, for the appointment of foundation ( 2925 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2926 ) WILL (Forfeiture) — oontinued. managers of the school. The result was that the school could no longer be carried on under the provisions o£ the trust deed. Held, that the school was no longer carried on under the conditions contained in the trust deed, and, therefore, that the annuity had come to an end ; the second condition had been satis- fied, so the annuity had ceased under that also ; the annuity fund, therefore, fell into the residue by operation of law, and it was unnecessary to consider whether the gift over to the residue was void as an infringement of the rule against per- petuities. In re Bluht's Tetjsts. Wigak v. Clinch - Buckley J. [1904] TV. N. 174; [1904] 2 Oh. 767 9. — School, National — Trust for endowment — Control of school hoard — Non-proxided school ■ — Education authonty — Education Act, 1902, (2 Edio. 7, V. 42), ss. 1, 5, 6, siib-s. 2, 7, sub-s. 1 (A 13. A testator who died in 1891 bequeathed invest- ments to trustees upon trust to apply the income towards the annual expenses of a National School so long as it was " supported by voluntary sub- scriptions as now and heretofore in addition to the Government grant," with a gift over in the event of the said school " ceasing to be so sup- ported or becoming subject to the control of a school board." Since the death of the testator the necessity for subscriptions had practically ceased owing to the bequest, but the managers were in debt to a small extent. In consequence of the passing of the Education Act, 1902, the school, as a public elementary school, came under the control of the county council as the education authority : — Held, that there had been no forfeiture on either of the grounds mentioned by the testator, and that the gift over did not tak-e effect. In re Beaed's Trusts. Bdtmn ■». Haeeis > Byrne J. [1904] W. N. 18 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 270 Futurity, Words of. — Gift to children as a class — " Shall die." See Will— Class. 8. 1. — Gift to grandchildren in case any child "shall predecease me" — C/iild dead at date of will leaiiini/ children — Will — Construction. A testator by his will gave legacies to the childi-en of one of his sons, whom he described as " my deceased son." He gave the residue of his estate in trust for all or any of his childi-en who should be living at his death and attain twenty-one or marry, "provided that in case any one or more of my chilvtmued. duni of association, and possessed a considerable reserve fuud. At the time of his death the testator was possessed of 336 fully paid up shares of SOL each in the coal co., and in pursuance of their power under the codicil the trustees retained them : — Held, that the shares were hazardous, but not wasting securities, and the po^^■er to retain investments was sufficient to exclude the opera- tion of the rule in Howe v. Earl of Dartmouth, (1802) 7 Ves. 137a. The tenant for life was, therefore, entitled to the income of the shares so long as the trustees thought fit to retain them. In re Bates. Hodg-son v. Bates Kekewioh J. [1906] W. N. 191, 306 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 22 Note. Followed by Swinfeu Eady J., In re Wilson, [1907] 1 Ch. 394. See Settled Land— Invest- ments. 3. — Trustees. See under Teustees— Investments. 6. — Will — Absolute trust for conversmi — Power to retain investments made hy testator — Trustees unaile to agree — Investment clause — Companies "in the United Eiiigdom" — Com- panies registered in ISnfjland,iut ojierating abroad — Will — Construction. Where a will contains a trust for conversion with a power to retain investments esisting at the date of the will, and the trustees are not unanimous as to ^ the retention of some of the, investments njade by the testator, the trust for sale prevails and the. investments must be • sold, although such investments are within the investment clause in the will. A testator authorized his trustees to invest in the stocks, shares, or securities of " any company in the United Kingdom " : — Held, that a limited co. registered in England and having its head office in England, where its directors met to manage the affairs of the co., was a " company in the United Kingdom " within the meaning of the investment clause, although its property was situate abroad and its operations were abroad. In re Hilton. Gibbes v. Hale- HlNTON Neville J. [1909] W. N. 180 ; [1909] 2 Ch, 648 Issue. See also under Issue. — ■ " Die leaving issue" — Gift to a class. See Will— Class. 5. 1. — Issue "according to t)ie parent stock,'" Gift to — Per stirpes — Children not taking concur- rently with thsir parents — Will — Construction. The testator gave his residuary estate to trustees upon trust on the death of the survivor of his wife and four daughters to divide the same unto, between, and amongst the issue then living of his said daughters in equal shares according to the parent stock and not the number of the individual objects, to the intent that the issue then living of any one of his said daughters might be entitled to a share equal to that which the issue (if any) of any other of them should be entitled to, and in case there should be issue then living of only one of them his said daugh- WILL (Issue) — continued. ters, then the whole to be paid to or equally divided amongst such issue. At the death of the survivor of the testator's wife and daughters there w-ere living children or issue of all the daughters : — Held, that according to the plain and unam- biguous words of the original gift there was a gift to the issue of the daughters per stirpes and not per capita, children not taking concurrently with their parents, and that the ambiguous words of the gift over in the particular event of there being issue living of only one of the daughters ought not to be allowed to affect the construction of the clear original gift. In re Eawlinson. Hill v. Withall - Joyce J. [1909] 2 Ch. 36 — " Issue " — Shelley's Case, Rule in — Estate in special tail. See Will — Shelley's Case. 1. — Original or substitutional gift — Const^ruction of will. i&eWiLL — Substitution. 1. - Will — Construction. See under WlLL- -Cllildreil. — Will — Construction-^Gif t over — Appeal from Tasmania. See Tasmania. 2. — Will — Substitutional or substantive gift^- Words of futurity. See Will— Class. 8. Joint Tenancy or Tenancy in Common. — Class — Joint tenancy or tenancy in common — Will — Construction. See Will— Class. 10. Jointures. See also under Jointuee. — Jointuring — Execution of power by testa- mentary instrument. See Statute. 1. Lapse. — Ambiguity — Explanation by reference to recital in codicil — Gift to a class — Lapse. See Will — Ambiguity. 1. — " Charitable institution." See Chaeitt. 40. — Charitable institution — Trust deed — Discon- tinuance of week-day school during testatrix's lifetime. See Chaeity. 45. 1. Death of legatee — Gift with intention of discharging obligation. Where on the true construction of a will the Court finds that the testator's intention in giving a legacy was not merely bounty to the legatee, but to discharge a moral obligation recognized by the testator, whether legally enforceable or not, the legacy will not lapse by the legatee's death in the testator's lifetime. Stevens v. Kino . Farwell J. [1904] W. N. 93 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 30 ( 2939 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2940 ) WILL (La,yse)~continued. — " Eldest son of my sister " — Lapsed gift — Will— Construction. See Jamaica. 2. 2. — Exoe;ption fo'om residue — Disposal at dis- cretion of trustees. Bj his will dated Oct. 13, 1873, James Sinclair, tlie owner of a copyhold honse in Sunderland, gave and bequeathed, " with the exception of my said house in Sunderland, the disposal of which 1 leave to the discretion of my trustees herein- after mentioned," his real and personal estate to his wife, Margaret Sinclair, and James Park, who predeceased him, upon trust that they and the survivor of them, and the executors and adminis- trators of the survivor, thereinafter called trustees and trustee, should sell the same and stand pos- sessed of the net proceeds upon trust for certain beneficiaries. The usual power of appointing new trustees was given to the trustees for the time being, and it was provided that every future trustee should have the same powers, authorities, and " discretions " as if originally appointed. The testator died on May 29, 1899, and on Jane 28, 1899, the wife appointed the pit. a co- trustee. By her will dated Deo. 6, 1899, the wife devised the house to the pit. and the customary heir of her husband upon trust for certain beneficiaries. The wife died on Mar. 18, 1903. This summons was issued to determine whether the house had passed under the wife's will, and, if not, whether it fell into the husband's residue, or devolved on the customary heir as undisposed of :— Seld, distinguishing Gilibs v, iZwnsey, (1813) 2 V. & B. 294 ; 13 K. B. 88 ; that the discretion as to the disposal of the house was given to the trustees of the husband's will for the time being, and not merely to the original trustees, whose names were not mentioned in the clause confer- ring that discretion. Vide Teaj) Cheah Neo v. Ong Cheng Mo, (1875) L. B. 6 P. C. 381, 392. The wife, therefore, took neither a beneficial interest nor a beneficial power of appointment. He also held, distinguishing Blight v. Hartnoll, (1883) 23 Ch. D. 218, that as the house was excepted from the husband's residue, and there was no attempt on the face of the will to dispose of the beneficial interest, it devolved on his customary heir. In re Sinclaie. Young v. Sinclair Swinfen Eady J. [1903] V}. N. 113 3. — " Intestate " — Death of all lienejiciaries and executor before testator — Administration cum^ testamento annexe — Intestates'' Estates Act, 1S90 (53 ^ 54 Vict. c. 29). When there was a complete failure by lapse of all the beneficial interests under a will, and the person named as executor had predeceased the testator, who died leaving a widow, but no issue : — Seld, that the testator had died " intestate " within the meaning of the Intestates' Estates Act, 1890, and that his widow was entitled to 5002. out of his estate absolutely and exclusively. In re Cuffb. Fooks v. Cuffe Joyce J. [1908] W. N. 167 ; [1908] 2 Ch. 600 4. — Lapse of legacy— Two residuary gifts- Will — Construction, WILL (Lapse) — continued. Testator by his will appointed H. his execu* tor, then gave pecuniary legacies to sixteen persons, including H., bequeathed his watch to a nephew, and then directed that " the remainder of " his " property '' should " pass as follows, viz., to be divided amongst " certain named persons in defined shares. The will concluded as follows : " And I appoint my executor my residuary legatee." Two of the legacies lapsed by death of legatees in tlie testator's lifetime : — Held, that the lapsed legacies fell into the first residue, and did not go to H. In re Isaac. Habeison v. Isaac - Buckley J. [1905] 1 Ch. 427 — Share of residue — Gift over — Legacy out of share. See Will— Residua. 10. Leaeeholds. See also under LeaseHOLBS. 1. — British subject's holograph will in accord- ance with law of foreign country in which made — Effect on English leaseholds — " Personal estate " —Lord Kingsdown's Act (_Wills Act, 1861) (24 4' 25 Vict. c. il4), ss. 1, 4. Sect. 1 of Lord Kingsdown'a Act provides that every will made out of the United Kingdom by a British subject (whatever may be his domicil) " shall as regards personal estate be held to be well executed for the purpose of being admitted in England and Ireland to probate " if made according to the forms required by the law of the place where the same was luade : — Seld, that " personal estate " includes lease- holds, and that when the will of a British subject made abroad in the form required by the law of the place has been proved in England, the bene- ficial interest in the leaseholds passes to the per- son pointed out in the will as the donee of that interest, provided the bequest does not infringe the law of England, e.g., that relating to accu- mulations or perpetuity. In re Gkassi. Stub- BEEFIBLD I'. Geassi - Buckley J. [1905] W. N. 56 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 684 2. — Leasehold house, gift of, the legatee performing the conditions of the lease — Indepen- dent gift to same legatee of dividends 07i stock — Acceptance of legacies — Mortgage of house and dicidends in one moHgage — Foreclosure — Dis- claimer by mortgagee of all interest in house — Liability for re2>airs to house — Ownership of The testator devised a leasehold house to Marian Boss for life, she paying the rent and performing the covenants of the lease ; he also left her the dividends of certain stocks for life. By the lease the testator had covenanted to keep the house in repair. Marian Boss accepted the legacies and mortgaged her interests under the will to the defendant society in one mortgage. The society obtained an order for foreclosure, but did not take possession of the house. Marian Boss was now a pauper lunatic. The trustees paid the fire insurance premiums on the house and the rent out of the dividends on the stock and handed over the balance to the society. The lessor claimed possession of the house on the ( 2911 ) DIGEST OF CASES, l90l— 19i0. ( 2942 ) WILL (Leaseholds) — continued. ground of breach of covenants to repair it. The society disclaimed all interest in the house and declined to do the repairs, although they claimed to be entitled to the dividends on the stock. On a summons to determine whether they were liable to do the repairs : — Held, that on accepting the legacies Marian Eoss became personally liable to perform tlie covenants of the lease ; that the society had done nothing to make themselves liable to do the repairs ; that the gifts in the will were indepen- dent ; and that the society were entitled to retain the dividends on the stocks without being liable under the lease. In re Loom. Fulford c. EEVEESIONAEY iNTBEBST SOCIETY, LD. Parker 3. [1910] 2 Ch. 230 Legacy. 1. — Abatement — Administration — Legacies — General or specific — Insufficiency of assets— Abatement — Legacy in satisfaction of a debt — Forgiveness of debts. A testator gave to the trustees of his daughters' marriage settlement 3000Z. in satisfaction of his covenant to pay them lOOOZ. He also forgave his children respectively all debts and sums of money which might be due from them to him at his death, and secured by bond, bill, note, or other security. At the date of his death two of his sons owed him sums not secured as^bove mentioned. The estate proved to be insufficient for the payment of all the legacies in full. The question having arisen whether the legacy of 3000Z. which the legatee had elected to take, and the unsecured debts forgiven to the sons were liable to abate with the other general legacies : — Held, that the principle by which a legacy given in satisfaction of dower was entitled to priority and did not abate was inapplicable to the case of a legacy given in satisfaction of an ascertained debt, and therefore the legacy of 3000Z., being a mere bounty, was liable to abatement. But lield, that the forgiveness of their debts to the sons amounted to specific legacies which were not liable to abatement. In re Wedmore. Wedmoee v. Wedmoeb Kekewich J. [1907] W. N. 134 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 277 — Action to recover legacy — Duty of executor to give notice of legacy. See Limitations, Statute op. 4. 2. — Direction to set apart and pay by instal- ments on legatees attaining specified ages — Instal- ments — No gift over — Postponement of payment — Vesting — Intermediate Income. Testatrix desired and directed to set apart the sum of 200L for her grandson J. W. L. S., the sum of 150Z. for her grandson J. V. S., and the sum of 150Z. for her grandson F. D. S., the said sums to be free of duty and to be paid respectively as to hOl., part thereof, on their attaining the age of twenty-one years, and as to oOl., part thereof, on their attaining the age of twenty-five years, and she directed that the balance 1002. for her grandson J. W. L. S. be paid him on his attaining the age of thirty years, and the balances 50Z. for J. V. S. and F. D. S. be paid WILL (Legacy) — continued. them on their respectively attaining the age of thirty years. There was no disposition of the intermediate income, or gift over of the principal. J. W. L. S. survived the testatrix, and on attaining twenty-one the first-mentioned sum of 501. was paid to him, but he died before attaining twenty-five : — Held, that each bequest was equivalent to a gift of a legacy to the particular legatee, payable as to part at twenty-one, further part at twenty- five, and the balance at thirty ; and that each legatee upon attaining twenty-one was entitled to the payment of his legacy and the intermediate interest or income, and that the legal personal representative of any legatee who survived the testatrix and died before actual payment was entitled to the legacy or balance unpaid of both principal and income. Gosling v. Gosling (1859) Joh. 265, applied. In re Goutukibr. Goutueiee r. Shea Joyce J. [1907] W. N. 69 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 470 — Duty of executor to give notice of. See ExBOUTOE — Disclosure. 1, — Forfeiture conditions — Legacy, See under Will — Conditions, 3. — Interest — Gift by appointment under a power. A testatrix, having under her marriage settle- ment a general power of appointment over a sum of 5000Z. and certain funds comprised in the 1st schedule thereto, appointed that the trustees should stand possessed of the sura of 5000Z., and " of such portion of the stocks and securities com- prised in the 1st schedule of the said indenture as shall, with the sum of 5000Z. or the securities representing the same, make up the sum of 9000Z," in favour of certain appointees : — Held, that the appointment was a specific gift of a portion of the stocks and securities, and that the appointees were entitled to the interest on the whole 9000Z, from the death of the testa- trix. In re Maetbn. ShAw v. Marten Byrne J. [1901] W. N. 6 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 370 Kote. See In re Marten. Slmw v. Marten, C. A. [1902] 1 Gh. ■Hi— Power of Ai)pointment. 20. — Lapse of legacy. See under Will — Lapse, — " Kusiduary legatee"' — Intestacy — Extrinsic evidence. See Will — " Residuary Legatee." 1, 4. — ^^ Residue and remainder''' of specific mortgage debts, Bequest of — lioidence dehors the will — Construction of will. The House reversed the decision of the C, A, In re Grainger. Dawson v. Iliggins, [1900] 2 Gh. 756, and restored the decision of Stirling J. for the reasons given by liigby L.J. Higgins v. DAWSON - H.L. (E.) [1901] W. W. 234 ; [1902] A. C. 1 Xote. Referred to by Joyce J,, In re Glassington, [1906] 2 Ch. 305. See Will—RealMtate. 1, ( 2943 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2941 ) WILL — oontinued, Limltationa. See also under Limitation. — Entirety, Devise of — No words of limitation — Intestacy of devisee — Devolution. See Estate Pue Autre Vie. 1. 1. — Heirs " ajid assigns" of siirtiwr. A testator, who was seised in fee of a farm, devised it to the use of his nephew for the term of ninety-nine years if he should so long live, and from and after the determination of sueh term and estate to the use (in succession) of the nephew's four sons for a term of ninety-nine years if they should so long live, with an ulti- mate devise on the death of the survivor upon trust to and for the use of the heirs and assigns of the survivor of the four sons : — Held; that the words " assigns " could not be construed as giving a power of appointment to the survivor ; that the limitation to the heirs and assigns of the survivor must be construed as a limitation to the heirs of the survivor and theu' assigns, and that upon the death of the survivor his heir-at-law was entitled to recover possession of the property from a purchaser to whom the survivor had conveyed it in his lifetime. MlL- MAN r. LAME ■ C. A. [1901] a K. B. 745 — Successive life estates — Exception of eldest son entitled to other estates. See Will— Shifting Clause. 1, 2. 2. — Suocessive limitations — Gift conditional or subject to prior limitations — Will — Canst nic- tion. A testator devised an estate to J., for life, and after his decease, " in the event of his having a son or sons, or any male issue shall be born in due time after his decease," who should live to attain twenty-one, " to such son or issue male on his attaining the age of twenty-one years, but in case he shall die under that age," then over. J. died without ever having had any issue : — ■ Held, that the principle recognized in Maddison v. Chapman, (1858) 4 K. & J. 709 and Edgeworth v. Mgeworth (1869) L. E. 4 H. L. 35, and stated in Theobald on Wills, 5th edit. p. 498, applied, and that the gift over took effect, although in the present case it was rather a con- dition essential to the coming into existence of the interest previously limited than one essential to its determination. In re Sanfoeth's Will Byrne J. [1901] W. N. 152 Nate. See In re SkucUurglCs Settlement, Far- well J., [1901] 2 Ch. 794. Power of Appoint- ment. 12. — Successive limitations — Life estates — Tenants in tail. See Will— Estate Tail. 2. Maintenance. — Discretionary trust for maintenance or accu- mulations. See Will- Bemoteness. 3. mansion-house. 1. — Betise to trustees — Bare legal estate — Powers of management, Absence of— Tenant for life and remainderman— Equitable estates — WILL (Mansion-house) — continued. Dilapidations — Saloage — Repairs — Expernditure out of capital — Jurisdiction. A testator devised a freehold mansion-house to the use of trustees in trust for his sister for life, " subject to the condition that she shall keep the said premises in the state of repair in which she finds them at my death," with remainder in trust for his nephews successively for life subject to the same condition, with remainders over. And he bequeathed personal estate upon trusts corresponding to those of the mansion-house. The will did not impose on the trustees any trusts whatever for the management, mainten- ance, or repairs of the mansion-house. At the testator's death the house was in general dis- repair. Upon the application by the trustees as to whether they could apply capital moneys in their hands in putting the house into good repair : — ■ Held, affirming Kekewich J., that as the evidence did not show the case to be one of " salvage," the Court could not, either under the Settled Land Acts (which admittedly did not applj) or its general jurisdiction, authorize the proposed expenditure. The rule laid down by Chitty J. in In re Be Teissier's Settled Estates, [1893] 1 Ch. 153, 165, approved of and applied. J« re Willis. Willis v. Willis C. A. [1901] W. N. 208 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 15 Note. See In re Legh's Settled Estate, Kekewich J., [1902] 2 Ch. 274. Settled Land— Capital Monetjs. 13. — Settled Land Acts. See under Settled Land— Mansion- house. Marriage. See also under IWaeeiagb. — Words of futurity — Forbidden marriages — Forfeiture clause. See Will — Forfeiture. 7. — Will— Consent. See under Will — Conditions. Misdescription. — " Freehold " — Customary freeholds — Mistake. See Will — Words. 5. 1. — " Wife'' — Named legatee misdescribed as wife — Construction of will. A testator bequeathed a fund upon trust, after a trust to pay the income to his son, to pay the income " to my son's wife L. if she shall survive him." The son, who lived in the colonies, had written to his father that he had married a lady named L. 0. L. G. lived with the son as his wife till his death and was reputed to be his wife, but she was not married to him. The testator never had any direct communication with L. C. :— • Held, upon the construction of the will, that inasmuch as the identity of the legatee was established by her name, the annexed misde- scription of her as the son's wife did not vitiate the gift, the Court not being at liberty to specu- late as to the motive of the testator in making the gift. Andbeson t. Bbeklby Joyce J. [1902] W. N. 81 ; [1902] 1 Ch, 936 ( 2945 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2946 ) WIH-i Mistake, See also under Mistake. 1. — Erroneous recital — Legatee — Alleged advance — Hotchjjot clause — Classification of cases. Where a testator erroneously recites that a legatee owes him a particular sum or advance, and (class 1) directs the legatee to bring that sum or the sum " hereinbefore recited to have been advanced " into hotchpot, or otherwise shews an intention to charge the legatee with the sum mentioned, that sum, whether due or not, must be brought into hotchpot. But if (class 2) the testator merely directs the alleged advance " or so much thereof as shall remaiu unpaid " at his death or at the time of distribution to be brought into hotchpot, he prima facie intends the amount actually due, and not the alleged advance less repayments, to be brought into hotchpot. A testator after erroneously reciting that a legatee of a rsversionary share of residue owed him 5000?., forgave him 2000Z., and directed the 3000Z. balance, or so much thereof as should remain unpaid at the time of distribution, to be brought into hotchpot. The alleged balance was not to bear interest, and was only to be sued on in the event of the legatee's bankruptcy or liquidation. The legatee in fact only owed the testator 80i., which was still unpaid : — Held, that the above provisions were clearly intended for the legatee's benefit, and the testator only meant to charge him with actual advances, to an extent not exceeding 3000?., less any payments. The legatee was therefore only chargeable with 802. In. re laylor's Estate, (1881) 22 Ch. D. 495, 500 (class 2), followed. In re Aird's Estate, (1879) 12 Ch. D. 291 (class 2), rot followed. In re Wood, (1886) 32 Ch. D. 517 (class 1), distinguished. In re Kelsey. Woollet ii. Kelsey. Kelsey r. Kelsey SwinfenEady J. [19061 W.N. 136 : [1905] 8 Ch. 465 Tnai curate enumeration — Class. See Will— Class. 9. " Money Invested In." 1. — Bequest — Will spealdng from death — Adi-mption — " Money invested in " Lambetli Waterworks Company — Transfer of undertaldng to Water B"ard — Compenwtion — 3Ietropolitan Water Board S^oeh — Metropolitan Water Act, 1902 (2 Edw. 7, c. 41). .?. 2 ; Sched. IV.— Wills Act 1837(1 Fjci. c. 26), s. 24 — Will — Construc- tio->. A festitor bequeathed "the interest arising '-■■■\ 'oiiey inve-iied iu (inter alia) the Lambeth ei'vvoikh Co." to a legatee for life and I 'iver. Be ween the dates of his will and I'.' I I be undertaking nf the Lambeth Water- >o .s f'Q ^vns Mcquired by the Metropolitan W te Boa (1 undei' the provi-ions of the Metrn- '•lis Water Act, 1902. and a sum of Jletropohtan Water Bua d Srockhad been issued to the testator as compensation in respect of the ordinaiy stock WILL (" Money Invested in ") — continued. which at the date of his will he held in the Lambeth Waterworks Co. : — Held, that the Metropolitan Water Board Stock did not pass under the bequest. Decision of Joyce J., [1906] 2 Ch. 480, affirmed. In re Slatee. Slatbb v. Slater C. A. [1907] W. N. 99 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 666 Note. Referred to by Eve J., In re Jameson, [1908] 2 Ch. 111. See Will— Specific Legacy. 1. " Monies." 1. — " Monies ouiing to me at the time of my decease " — Gift of sums on deposit at banhs — Will — Cotistruction. Moneys on deposit at a testator's bank, whether notice of withdi-awal is or is not re- quired in respect of the same, will pass under a bequest of " monies owing to me at the time of my decease." In re Derbyshire. Webb r. Dehbyshiee . Buckley J. [1906] 1 Ch. 136 Mortgages. See also under Mortgage. 1. — Land si/bject to incumbrances — Option to purchase — Interest of donee of right of pre- emption ■ — Eevisee ^- Person claiming through the deceased person — Vendor and purchaser — Ueal Estate Charges Act, 1854 {Loche King's Act), 17 S' 18 T'tci'. c. 113, s. 1. The testator devised and bequeathed his residuary real and personal estate to trustees upon trust for sale and conversion, and directed that they should allow his son the option of pur- chasing two houses forming part of his real estate for 450/!. The two houses were subject to a mortgage for 300?. The son gave notice to the trustees of his intention to exercise the option, and took out a summons to determine uhether the option gave him the right to a, conveyance free from incumbrances : — Held (following Given v. Massey, (1892) 31 L. B. Ir. 126), that the son was not an heir or devisee, and therefore s. 1 of the Real Estate Charges Act, 1854 (Locke King's Act), did not apply, and he was entitled to have the property conveyed to him free from the mortgage. In re Wilson. Wilson v. Wilson - Warrington J. [1908] W. N. 106; [1908] 1 Ch. 839 Mutual Wills. — Fresh will made by party who predeceases the other — Notice on death — No relief to survivor. See Probate— Mutual Wills. 1. — Roman -Dutch law — Mutual will — Community of property between spouses — Children's rights of inheritance. See Transvaal. 5. Name. 1. — Latent ambiguity — Name — JJisdescrip- Ho'i — E.rt rinsie eridence — Instructions — Admissi- bility — Will — Const rvclion. A testator appointed one Dr. Alfred Ofnerone of his executors, and pave him a legacy of 200?., and, among other legacies to various nieces and ( 2947 ) BIGfEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 2948 ) WILL (STame) — eontinwd, a nephew nominatim, he gave "to my grand- nephew Robert Ofner" lOOZ., and to another " grandnephew Curt Ofnor'' 1001. The testator had no grandnephew or other relative of the name of "Robert" Ofner, but he had four grandnephews, Alfred Ofner and Curt Ofner, who werS correetly so deseribed in the will, Richard Ofner, a brother of Alfred Ofner, and Botho Ofner. It was proposed to put in evidence a memorandum in the testator's handwriting that had been given by him to his solicitors as instruc- tions for his will, in which the following words occurred ; " to my grandnephew Dr. Alfred Ofner .... 200? to his brother Robert Ofner lOOZ." :— Meld (reversing the decision of Swiiifen Eady J.), that this document was admissible, not as evidence of intention, but to find out who the " grandnephew " was whom the testator had wrongfully described by the name "Robert," and if that were done it was clear that the brother of Dr, Alfred Ofner was intended to be the legatee, and that " Robert " was a mistake for " Richard." The fact that this document also happened to be instructions for the will did not make it ipso facto any the less admissible, not as instruc- tions, but as a contemporaneous and serious document explanatory of the meaning the testator had wrongly attributed to the name " Robert '' when describing this legatee. In re Ofner. Samuel v. Ofnek - C. A. [1908] W. N. 808 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 60 Name and Arms Clause. 1. — '• Lawfully assume " — Impossible condi- tion — Condition subsequent — Construction of loill. A testator, who had assumed the name and arms of X). without any colour of right thereto, devised an estate to persons in succession, and directed that every person who should become entitled, and who should not bear "his" (the testator's) surname of 0. and " his " coat of arms, should, within twelve months after so becoming entitled, " lawfully assume " such name and arms, and that in default of compliance the estate should go over. The devisee first iu succession who was a son of the testator, took the naane of 0., but did not, within the time limited, assume the arms of C, because it appeared that it was impossible for him, under the circumstances, to obtain a grant of the arms of C. from the College of Arms or by Royal licence : — Held, that the testator, using the words " lawfully assume," must have meant something more than a mere voluntary assumption ; that In order to comply with the condition it was necessary for the devisee to obtain a proper grant of arms from the College of Arms or by Royal licence ; and that as this could not be done, the condition was impossible, and, being a condition subsequent, was not binding on the devisee. In re Ceoxon. Ceoxon v. Ferebrs Kekewich J. [1904] W. N. 17 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 252 2. — Name clause — Preceding life estate — Condition precedent or subsequent — Non-j)erform- WILL (Name and Arms Clanse) — continued, ance of condition — Memainder in fee — Forfeiture- — Vesting — Dcrise of real estate — Lunaoy and death of devisee. A testator, who died in 1853, devised his real estate upon trust for his daughter for life, and after her death for her children ; and if she should have no child he devised hia real estate to N. in foe, on condition that in case the testator's wife should be then living she should have the use for the then remainder of her life of the testator's residence, and on further condition that N. should " take and use " the testator's name only, but subject to the payment of certain legacies which the testator bequeathed only if his daughter should have no child, and should be payable at her death exclusively out of the estates devised to N. The testator's daughter and N. both survived the testator, but his wife was dead. The daughter, who was now in her fifty-ninth year was married, but had had no children. N. died in her lifetime intestate, without having taken the testator's name : — Held, upon the construction of the will, that the condition requiring N. to take and use the testator's name was a condition subsequent, that is, a condition to operate only upon N. becoming entitled to the possession of the estate by the death of the daughter without children, and not before ; and that as he had been prevented from performing it by the act of God, the estate would, on the death of the daughter without children, vest absolutely in his legal personal representa- tive freed from the condition. Decision of Joyce J. [1902] W. N. 83 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 198, reversed. If a condition attached to a devise is capable of being construed either as a condition precedent or as a condition subsequent, the Court will prefer the latter construction. In re Green- wood. GOODHART V. WOODHEAD C. A. [1903] W. N. 12 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 749 3. — Use of surname — Title — Use on all occasions. The testatrix in this action, who died in 1885, devised real estate to her father for life, with remainder to her sister for life, with remainder to her sons successively in tail, with remainder to her daughters successively in tail, with re- mainders over. The will contained a provision that every person who should under the will become entitled to possession of the settled estate, should within one year after he or she should so become entitled in possession "take upon himself or herself, and use in all deeds and writings to which he or she shall be a party, or which he or she shall sign, and upon all other occasions, the surnames of Erie and Drax, either alone or in addition to and after his or her original surname, and also take, use and bear the arms of Erie and Drax, either alone or quartered with his or her original arms," and should within the time aforesaid apply for a licence from the Crown to take, use, and bear the surnames and arms aforesaid. And the will contained a further direction that if any such person should refuse or neglect to take or use such surnames and arms as aforesaid within the time hereinbefore men- tioned, then from and after the expiration of 5b2 ( 2949 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2950 ) WILL (Name and Ai'ms Clause) — coirtimird. such time the limitations in his or her favour should absolutely cease and determine. The testatrix's father died in 1887, her sister died in 1905, having had only one child, a daughter, who was the widow of Baron Dunsany, and whose name was Ernie Elizabeth Louisa M.aria Grosvenor Plunkett Ernie, Baroness Dun- sany. Within the prescribed j'car she obtained a royal licence to use the surnames of Erie and Drax after those of Plunkett and Ernie, and to bear the arms of Erie and Drax. Her eldest son was married, and she was therefore properly de- scribed as Ernie, Lady Dunsany. This summons was taken out by Lady Dunsany for the deter- mination of the questions whether, having regard to the words of the forfeiture clause, her non- compliance after Mar. 19, 1906, with the pro- visions of the name and arms clause would work a forfeiture, and whether her signing herself in ordinary correspondence as Ernie Dunsany, or using visiting cards inscribed " Ernie, Lady Dunsany " only, would be a non-compliance with the clause. The deft, was the person entitled in remainder after the estate tail of Lady Dunsany. Swinfen Eady J. said that with regard to the first point the words " take and use " within one year must be construed to mean take within that limit of time and use afterwards. The first question must therefore be answered in the affirmative. As to the second question, he was of opinion that the word "writings," in the direction to use the surname in all '• deeds and writings " must be construed to mean legal in- struments or documents of a formal character not being deeds, and the following words " on all other occasions" must mean on occasions on which it was right and proper to use a surname. It was not necessary or usual for a peer or peeress to use a surname as well as his or her title in ordinary correspondence or on visiting cards, and the second question must be answered in the negative. In re MISS Deax's Will. Baeoness DONSANT r. SAWBEIDGB Swinfen Eady J. [1906] W. N. 83 Nephews and Nieces, — Futurity, Words of — Will— Construction. See Will— Futurity, Words of. 2-4. — Next of kin — Sister of the half-blood. See Will— Next of Kin. 3. — Testator illegitimate — Bequest to " all my nephews and nieces." iScf Will — lUegitimaoy. 9. Next of Kin. See also under NEXT OP Kin. 1. — Ammity — Gift in remainder — " My ihrn ne.rt of Tiin aocording to t/w xtatiites " of dixirihvtkm — Artificial class — Time of ascertain- ment — Will — Comt ruction. Testator, by his will dated in 1887, gave all his property to trustees upon trust to pay to his brother, D. McFee, during his life, an annuity and to accumulate the remainder of the income of his estate during the life of his said brother, and upon his death to hold his estate and the accumulations of income thereof in trust for WILL (Next of Kin)— Pom«««?(f. such person or persons as should, upon the death of his said brother, be '■ my tlien next of kin according to the stal utes for the distribution of the estates of intestates." The testator died in 1887, leaving his brother, D. McFee, his heir-at-law and sole next of kin. D. McFee died on Mar. 2-t, 1910, and the question now arose, in an action originally commenced by D. McFee and revived by his executors, whether the next of kin of the testator ought to be ascertained as at the date of his death or at the date of the death of D. McFee : — Held, following Stvrge v. Great ]t^cstern My. Co., (1881) 19 Ch. D. 444, that, according to the true construction of the will, the person or persons entitled to the residuary estate after the death of D. McFee were such person or persons as would have been the next of kin of the testator according to the statutes for the distri- bution of the estates of intestates if he had died immediately after tlie death of D. McFee. In re McFee. McFee r. Toner Joyce J. [1910] W. N. 186 — Class — "Next of kin whoever they may be." See Will— Class. 13. — Class — Statute of Distributions — Joint tenancy or tenancy in common. See Will— Class. 10. — Next of kin according to the statute — Time for ascertaining class. See Will— Class. 12. 2. — Next of Tan, when to le ascertained — Administration — Legacy to child — Child dying intestate in lifetime of testator leaving issue — Wills Act, 1837 (7 Will, i S' i Vict. c. 26), s. 33. R. Allen, by his will dated Dec. 31, 1871, devised three freehold houses upon trust for his wife, Sarah, for life, and after her death upon trust for sale and to divide the net proceeds (in the events which happened) equally between his two sons, Richard and George, and his daughter, Harriet Iffinger, the wife of P. Iffinger, and gave the residue of his estate to his wife Sarah. The testator died in 1902, and his wife Sarah died in 1903. The surviving trustee of the will sold the freeholds in 1904 and paid into Court 279Z. Is. 9(7., being the sum that represented the third share of Harriet Iffinger, who in 1870 was living in America and had not since been heard of for many years. On a summons for payment out of the fund in Court by the legal personal repre- sentative of Sarah Allen, the residuary legatee, it appeared that Harriet Iffinger died in 1876, intestate, leaving her husband and two children her surviving, that her husband died in 1899, and that her two children were still living. The question was whether, having regard to s. 33 of the Wills Act, 1837, the next of kin of Harriet Iffinger were to be ascertained at the date of her actual death in 1876, or at the date of her notional death, i.e., immediately after the death of her father in 1902. Held, that the decision in In the Goods of Conncell, (1871) L. E, 2 P. & D. 314, covered the point. Having regard to the language of ci. 33 of the Wills Act, 1837, Harriet Iffinger must be deemed to have died immediately after the death ( 2951 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2952 ) WILL (Next of Kin)— oontmued. of the testator for the purposes of the becxuest, and her next of kin must be ascertained at that date. Her two children were her next of kin at that date and were the proper persons to take out representation to her estate. I/i re Allen's Trusts - Neville J. [1909] W. N. 181 — Next of kin — Will, Construction of — Destina- tion of the subject of void gifts — Eesiduary legatees — Res judicata. See Straits Settlements. 3. — Residue, Bequest of — ''Equally between" statutory next of kin — Per stirpes or per capita. See Will— Residue. I. 3. — Sister of the lialf-Mood — Xeplicws and nieces — Domicil — Foreign law — Will — Construc- tion. A bequest of personalty in the will of a domiciled Englishman to the " next of kin " of a foreigner must be construed to mean the nearest in blood according to English law, sub- ject to any question of status should it arise. Accordingly, where a domiciled Englishman bequeathed a legacy to a German, with a direc- tion that in the event of the death of the legatee in his lifetime, which happened, the legacy should not lapse, but be divided among the ' ' next of kin " of the legatee : — Held, that the next of kin must be ascer- tained according to English law, and that a sister of the half-blood was therefore entitled, to the exclusion of nephews and nieces who by German law would have had priority. In, re Fergusson's Will - Byrne J. [1902] W. N. 25 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 483 Nomination. 1. — Nbnmuition paper — Industrial Societies Act, 1893 (56 ^- 57 Vict. c. 89), s. 25, sul-ss. 1, 2. A nomination paper, executed by the nomi- nator under s. 25 of the Industrial Societies Act, 1893, in the presence of two witnesses, who signed it in his presence, invalid as a nomina- tion by reason of the amount it purported to dispose of being in fact over 100?. : — Held, to be testamentary and admitted as a will. In the goods of Baxter Gorell Barnes J. [1903] P. 12 Partnership. __\ViH — Deceased partner — Specific devise of partnership realty — Solvent partner- ship. See Partnership. 6. Perpetuity. See also under Perpetuity. — Absolute gift — Gift over on a compound event — Remoteness — Settlement — In- testacy. See Will — Absolute Gift. 3. 1. — Corps of Commissionaires, Bequest to committee of—VolUTitanj Association — Charitij. Bequest " to the committee for the time being of the Corps of Commissionaires in London to aid in the purchase of their barracks, or in any other way beneficial to that corps." WILL (Perpetuity) — continued. The corps was founded shortly after the Crimean War in order to find employment for discharged and disabled soldiers and sailors, and was entirely self-supporting. As the corps increased, buildings were from time to time acquired for the purpose of providing quarters for the men and for carrying on the business of the corps. It became necessary to employ a staff, and an endowment fund was started being designed for the payment of officers, staff, and such other objects connected with the in- stitution as might at the discretion of the com- mittee require assistance. The management and property of the corps were vested in a board of governors composed of two permanent trustees, an administrative board of eighteen officers, and an executive committee of seven : — Held, that, if and so far as the objects of the institution were charitable, the gift was good ; and if and so far as they were not charitable, still it was a good gift, and did not tend to create a perpetuity. In re Dutton, (1878) i Ex. D. S'l ; In re Amos, [1891] 3 Ch. 159 ; In re Clark's Trust, (1875) 1 Ch. D. 497 ; Thomson v. Shahespear, (I860) 1 D. F. & J. 399 ; and Carne v. Long, (I860) 2 D. F. & J. 75, distinguished. CooliS V. Manners, (1871) L. R. 12 Eq., 574 ; Morrow v. M'Conmlle, (1883) 11 L. E. Ir. 236 ; III re Willdnson's Trusts, (1887) 19 L. R. Ir. 531 ; and Bradshaw v. Jackman, (1887) 21 Jj. R. Ir. 12, discussed, and the principle laid down in those cases followed. In re Clarke. Clarke v. Clarke Byrne J. [1901] W. N. 99 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 110 3. — Minority of tenaiit in tail — Mniry by trustees — Surplus rents to ie expended on other estates — Perpetuities — DestructiMlity — Legal estate — Will — Construction. The testator devised to trustees four estates upon trusts under which the present Earl of Stamford, an infant, was tenant in tail of the C. estate, and the rents and profits of the L. estate were to be applied in discharging incumbrances on the other three estates. The will contained a proviso that if any person who, if this proviso had not been inserted, would for the time being be entitled to the possession or the receipt of the rents and profits of the C. estate as tenant for life or tenant in tail should be under the age of twenty-one years, then and in such case and as often as the same should happen the trustees were to enter into the possession or the receipt of the rents and profits of the estate, and during the minority of such person keep up the house and manage the property, with power (inter alia) to hold manorial courts and accept sur- render of leases, and should maintain the infant, and apply the surplus rents and profits in the same way as the rents of the L. estate. Questions arose as to the validity of this clause, and the trustees took out the present summons. Warrington J. said the question was whether the provision in the will that during the minority of any tenant for life or tenant in tail the trustees were to enter into possession of the rents and profits of the Cheshire estate was void as infringing the rule against perpetuities by ( 2953 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2954 ) ^IhZ (Perpetuity) — continued. .'eason of the fact that it was not limited to the rainority of tenants in tail by purchase. The point was covered by Browne v. Stoiightoii, ;1846) 14 Sim. 369, and 'iurtiii v. Newcome, 1856) 3 K. & J. 16, which had never been over- ruled and were binding on a judge of first instance unless they were manifestly contrary Lo some well-known rule of law ; and according 'jO those decisions the clause was void. The jiticisms of text-book writers did not aiicct the law as thus laid down or make the cases less binding. On the construction of the will it was :lear that the trustees had the legal estate. That ; state was anterior to that of tenants in tail, and therefore could not be barred by the latter. It would last during the whole of the limitations contained in the will, and would take an active form when any tenant in tail who but for that .estate would be entitled to possession was an infant. The trustees' estate took precedence of all the others and was not destructible by the jenants in tail. In both the cases cited the egal estate was similarly in trustees, and the fact that the clause in question in them was a iirection to accumulate was no ground of dis- tinction, for what was declared to be void was the whole trust. Here there was vested in the trustees an estate limited to continue for an indefinite time, taking precedence of all the estates limited by the will and not capable of being destroyed by the tenant in tail, and there- fore not protected by the rule that destructible estates were not obnoxious to the rule against perpetuities. Their estate was not in defeasance of, but antecedent to the estates for life and in tail. The trusts of the rents received by the trustees were not for the benefit of the owner and could not be put an end to by him, so the clause was not saved by the decisions in cases referring to payment of debts. The whole provision, creating as it did an estate of un- limited duration, was void, but the subsequent limitations o£ the settled estates under the will were not affected. In re Earl of Stam- ford AND "Wakkington, Payne i\ Grey ■Warrington J. [1910] W. N. 114 ; [19101 2 Ch. 83 ; [1910] W. N. 277 — Uncertainty — Will — Construction. See under Will — Uncertainty. Plate. (" Plate and Plated Articles.") See also under I'LATE. 1. — ^^ Plate and plated articles" — " £lac}i JacJis " — Articles made of leather and mounted with silver rims — Will — Constr notion. Testator by his will gave all his " plate and plated articles " to the pit. The question raised upon this summons was whether four silver- mounted mugs known as " Black Jacks " passed under the above-mentioned bequest. The " Black Jacks " in question were estimated to be of the value of from lOOOZ. to 1500?. They were very old drinking vessels made of leather and having their rims mounted with a narrow band of silver. The two larger of them were about 11 inches, and the two smaller about 7 inches in height. WILL (Plate) — continued. Evidence, consisting of the opinion of experts, as to whether the "Black Jacks" could be properly described and classified as either plate or plated articles was tendered on either side, but it was entirely conflicting. Joyce J. said that the question was not one of law, but of the English language. According to his understanding plated articles did not pass under a bequest of plate, and to his mind there was a broad distinction between articles of plate and such as were merely mounted with silver or other precious metal. Articles which were merely mounted with silver could not be classified as plate or plated articles. He held therefore that the four " Bl.ick Jacks " in ques- tion did not pass under the bequest. In re Lewis. Prothero v. Lewis - Joyce J. [1910] W. N. 6 Postponement. — Trust for sale of land — Power to postpone — Settlement of proceeds — Share vested in possession. See Will— Sale. 1. Power of Appointment. See also under Power of Appoint- ment. — Execution — " Writing or writings " — " Ap- pointment made by will " — Validity. See PttWBR pF Appointment. 11. Power of Disposition. 1. — Gift to wife for We — Power to dispose of estate ^'in accordance imth my wishes verhally expressed by me to her " — Validity — Parol ecidence — Adonssibility. Testator by his will gave to his wife, whom lie appointed to be his sole executrix, a life in- terest in the whole of his real and personal estate. His will then proceeded as follows : " I desire and empower her by her will or in her life- time to dispose of my estate in accordance with my wishes verbally expressed by me to her." Testator died in 1902, having before the exe- cution of his will verbally expressed to his wife his wishes with regard to the final disposition of his estate ; and she had made a memorandum of his wishes and promised to give effect to them. The question was whether the power of dis- position given to the widow by the will was valid ; and the question arose whether parol evidence was admissible to shew what the testator's verbally expressed wishes were : — Held, that parol evidence was not admissible to shew what the testator's wishes, expressed prior to the execution of his will, were. To define or supply by parol evidence that which on the face of the will was left indefinite or unexpressed would be to make a material addition to the written will. In support of the validity of the power the decision In re Fleetwood, (1880) 1.5 Ch. D. 594, was relied upon ; and that case had recently been followed, somewhat reluctantly, by Farwell J. in In re Huxtahle, [1902] 1 Ch. 214, which, however, was under appeal. But this case materially differed from In re Fleetwood. , it was an attempt to create a power, and not the ( 2955 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2956 ) WILL (Power of Disposition)— cowiireMif. case of a definite trust for particular individuals attaching upon a gift of the subject-matter to a named legatee or devisee. To hold that this power was ralid would be going beyond In re Fleetwood, and introducing an innovation in the law relating to testamentary instruments : lln re Buxtalle, [1902] 1 Ch. 2U, on appeal C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 793. See Chaeity. 6.] Held, therefore, that a clause purporting to create the power of disposition in question was void for uncertainty. In re Hbtlby. Hbtlby (. Hbtlby - Joyce J. [1902] W. N. 154 ; [1903[ 3 Ch. 866 — Power of appointment. See under PowEE of Appointment. Fowar of Sale. — Executor — Charge of debts and legacies — Power to sell real estate. See ExECOTOE— Powers. 1. 1. — Power given to "'my trustees" — Power exercisable by survivor — Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 ^ 46 Viot. c. 75), s. 6 — Reversionary interest in land of woman married before the Act — Conversion into money before coming into possession — Accruer of title — Will — Construction. In a will executed before any of the Acts giving statutory power to trustees, when a power of sale is given to trustees by name or under the description " my trustees," to whom the legal estate is devised, the power can be exercised by the surviving trustees or the sole surviving trustee. The contrary rule only ap- plied to a bare power. If a woman married before the commence- ment of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, has before the commencement of the Act acquired a title in reversion to land, and the land is converted into money after the com- mencement of the Act but before the property falls into possession, the conversion gives no new title to the married woina.n, and the pro- perty is not made her separate estate by B. 5, Bub-s. 1, of the Act. In re Bacon. Toovey v. TuBNEE Swinfen Eady J. [1907] W. N. 44 ; [1907] W. N. 475 Precatory Trust. 1. — Absolute gift — Codicil directing use of legacy for charitable pv/rposes — Precatory trust — " / wish " — Will — Construction. A testatrix by her will gave to B. a legacy of 2300Z. By a codicil dated the same day as the will she declared as follows : " I wish E. to use lOOOZ., part of the legacy given to him by my above will, for the endowment in his own name of a cot in the I. Hospital, and to retain the balance of the said legacy for his own use and benefit." By a second codicil in 1905 she declared : " I wish E., after endow- ing a cot as provided by the first codicil, to use the balance of the legacy given to him by my will for such charitable purposes as he shall in his absolute discretion think fit." E. dis- claimed the legacy : — Held, that a trust was created for the WILL (Precatory Trust) — contiimed. charitable purposes mentioned in the codicils. In re Buelby. Alexandee v. Bueley Joyce J. [1909j W. N. 253 ; [1910 J 1 Ch. 215 2 . — Absolute gift— Gift on condition — Pre- catory trust for charity — " / specially desire " — Will — Construction . Testator gave to his brother W. his share in a leasehold house " and to my sisters A. and L. equally the rest of my stocks and shares, subject to n. legacy, duty free, provided by the above three legatees of 1000^. to my cousin E. E. C, the said E. E. C. to be, with my brother W., my co-executor and my trus- tee for my sisters A. and L." Then, after making a further specific bequest, the will concluded as follows : " 1 specially desire that the sums herewith bequeathed shall, with the exception of the lOOOZ. to E. E. 0., be specifi- cally left by the legatees to such charitable institutions of a distinct and undoubted Pro- testant nature as my sisters may select, and in such proportions as they may determine " : — Held, that the sisters took their legacies absolutely. In re Oonolly. Conoixy v. CONOLLY Joyce J. [1909] W. N. 259 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 219 3. — Absolute gift "in confidence" — Bsne- cutory gift over in default of disposition by will of absolute donee — Absolute gift subject to executory gift over — Construction of will. A testator gave, devised and bequeathed to his wife " the whole of my real and personal estate and property absolutely in full confi- dence that she will make such use of it as 1 should have made myself, and that at her death she will devise it to such one or more of my nieces as she may think fit, and in default of any disposition by her thereof by her will or testament I hereby direct that all my estate and property acquired by her under this my will shall at her death be equally divided among the surviving said nieces " : — Held (by the Earl of Halsbury L.C. and Lords Macnaghten, Davey, James, and Eobert- son. Lord Lindsay dissenting), that upon the true construction of the will there was an absolute gift, of the testator's real and per- sonal estate to his wife subject to an execu- tory gift of the same at her death to such of his nieces as should survive her, equally if more than one, so far as his wife should not dispose by will of the estate in favour of such surviving nieces, or any one or more of them. The decisions of Kekewich J. and the C. A., In re Hanbury, Banbury v. Fisher, [1904] W. K. 27 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 415, reversed. CoMls- KBY V. Boweing-Hanbttey - H. L. (E.) [1905] W. N. 24 ; [1905] A. C. 84 4. — "7 'desire " — Will— Construction. A testatrix gave all her property equally amongst her two daughters " as tenants in common for their own absolute use and benefit," and appointed them her executrixes. She then added, " My desire is that each of my said two daughters shall during the life- c ) DIGE^>T OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2958 ) WILL (Precatory Trust) — continued. time of my son pay to him one-third of the respective incomes of my said two daughters .iccruing from the moneys and investments under this my will " : — Held, that no trust was created in favour of the son. The principles stated in In re Williams, [1S97] 2 Ch. 12, 18, 29, upon which equitable obligations by way of trusts or conditions are or are not to be inferred from the language of a will, appliejl;. In re Oldfield. OldfIeld r. Oldfield C. A. [1904 ] W. N. 63 ; [1904] 1 Ch. 549 Probate. See under PEOB.iiE. Probate, Effect of. 1. — Codicil consisting of list of names and 2)ecuniarii amounts — Gift of legacies—Effect oj probate. A document containing no words of sitt, but giving a list of the names of eight persons, and after each name stating a sum of money, was admitted to probate as a codicil : — Held, that (the Court being bound to assume that all documents admitted to pro- bate are testamentary documents, and it being its duty to construe them in order to ascertain the testator's intention as to the disposition of his property and within the limits allowed by law to give effect to that intention) the codicil must be construed as giving to each person named a, legacy of the amount set after his name. In re Campsill, (1910) 128 L. T. Jour. 518, not followed. In re Bakranob. Baer.ancb v. Ellis Parker J. [1910] 2 Ch. 419 Satification. — Will torn np in testator's presence without his authority — Subsequent ratification inadmissible — Words missing from will when pieced together — Oral evi- dence. See Probate— Lunacy. 2. "Eeady Money." 1, — " recunhiry investments " — Banker's deposit note — Wilt — Construction. Money on deposit with a testator's bankers, and sub.iect to more than twenty-four hours notice of withdrawal, will not pass under a bequest of " ready money," nor, in the absence of special indication, under a bequest of "pecuniary Investments." In re Price. Pkioe v. Nbwton Parwell J. [190S] W. N. 74 ; [1905] 8 Ch. 55 Real Estate. 1 . — General devise of real estate — No real estate — Testatrix entitled .foi proceeds Pf\ sale of realty subject to trust for sale — Intention — Extrinsic evidence — AdmissiMlity — Construc- tion of will. A testatrix devised all her real estate to trustees upon trust to pay the net rent and WILL (Seal 'Eata\,t:')—eonilnued. profits (subject to the payment thereout of a life annuity of 200^. to her husband) to her sister during her Ufe, and after the sister's death upon trust as to the said real estate, and the income thereof for the sister's children, and the testatrix conferred upon her trustees power to demise and other powers incident to the management of real estate. The testatrbi was not beneficially entitled to any real estate either at the date of her will or at her death, but at both those dates she was entitled, sub- ject to certain subsisting annuities, to a moiety of the income and capital of the proceeds pf sale of certain freehold property devised by her father's will upon trust for sale and vested in her as trustee of his will. There had been no election by the beneficiaries to take the freehold property uuconverted : — Held, that the devise in the testatrix's will passed all the beneficiary interest to which she was entitled in the real estate held upon trust for sale under her father's will. The admissibility of extrinsic evidence in aid of the interpretation of \^'ills, discussed. In re Glassington. Glassinotox v. Follett Joyce J. [1906] W. N. 128 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 305 — Power to charge limited sum on real estate — General gift of personalty — Effect as to exercising power to charge realty. See Will— Charges. 3. 2. — Settled estate — Tenant for Ufe and remainderman — Will — Real estate — Trust for conversion — Mining lease — Payments in nature of royalties — Capital or income. By his will a testator gave his residuary real and personal estate to a trustee upon trust for conversion, and to invest and pay the proceeds to his wife for life, and after her death to his children. There was no power given by the will to postpone conver- sion, nor any express gift of the income before conversion. Part of the testator's real estate consisted of laud comprised in a mining lease which empowered the lessee to dig chalk on certain portions of the land demised, and to take additional chalk land, provided that he paid, by way of consideration for the pur- chase of the same, at the rate of 900Z. per acre. The estate was being administered by the Court, new trustees had been appointed, and a sale of the real estate directed, but no sale had yet taken place : — Held, that the moneys received and to be received by the trustees of the will from the lessee in respect of the purchase of the addi- tional chalk land must be treated by them as income and not capital. In re Searle, [1900] 2 Ch. 829, foUowed. In re Earl of Daenley. Clifton v. Darnley Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 216 ; [190'r] 1 Ch. 169 Note. Followed by A^'arriugton J., In re Oliver, [1908] 2 Ch. 71. See Settled Land— Interim Ileitis. 1. ( 2959 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2960 ) WILL (Real Eata.te)—coHt>mied. — Specific disposition of entirety at date of «-ill— Subsequent acquisition of fur- ther real estate — Intestacy. See Will— "Residuary Legatee." 1. Real or Personal Estate. 1. — Trusts of real estate — Poiver of sale — Partial failure oj trusts— Intestacy— Conver- sion after death of heir-at-law — Beal or per- sonal estate. A testator devised real estate upon trust for A. for life with a gift over upon trusts that faUed in A.'s lifetime, so that the equit- able remainder in fee became vested in the testator's heir-at-law ; and the testator gave his trustees an absolute power of sale over the real estate. The heir-at-law died intestate before the real estate was converted by the exercise of the power : — Held, that the real estate was not con- verted until the power of sale was exercised, and that the person entitled to the real estate of the heir at the date of the sale, and not his legal personal representative, was entitled to the proceeds of sale. In re Dyso. Chal- LINOR r. Sykes Neville J. [1910] W. N. 80 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 750 — Administration — Annuities and legacies charged on property — Continuing liability of residue — Vendor and pur- chaser — Order discharging property. See Will— Vendor and Purchaser. 1. — Annuity — Contingent liability — Capital and income — Apportionment — Past and future instalments. See Settled Laud — Capital or Income. 2. Realty. — Gift after last survivor of tenant for life to a class, necessarily ascertainable within due limits, as tenants for life — Estate tail to last survivor of class. See Will— Remoteness, i. — " What is left " — Life estate by implication — Intestacy. See Will— Intestacy. 2. Remoteness. See also under Pbrpetdity. Remoteness. Will— Perpetuity. — Accumulations. See under Accumulations. — Charity, Gift to — Condition precedent — Perpetuity — Postponement of enjoy- ment — WUl — ^Construction. See Chaeitt. 11. 1. — Contingent remainder or executory de- vise — Construction of tvill. A testator devised freehold estates to uses in strict settlement. By a codicil the testator directed and de- clared that no devisee pf any pf his real WILL (Remoteness) — continued. estates devised under or by virtue of his will should have a vested interest therein or in any part thereof, or be entitled to the possession of the same or any part thereof until the attainment of the age of twenty-four years, anything contained in his will or any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding : — Held, that the effect of the codicil was to make the limitations of the will executory devises, and consequently that they were void for remoteness and there was an intestacy. Decision of Earwell J. affirmed. In re Lechmere and Lloyd, (1881) 18 Ch. D. 534, Miles v. Jarvis, (1883) 21 Ch. D. 633, and Dean v. Dean [1891] 3 Ch. 150, approved and followed. Ilussel V. Buchanan, (1836) 7 Sim. 628 ; 3 Cr. & M. 561 ; 40 K. R. 193, distinguished. In re Wbiohtson. BATiiE-WEionTSON v. Thomas - C. A. [1904] W. N. 116 ; [1904] 2 Ch. 95 yvte. Examined by Parker J., White v. Summers, [1908] 2 Ch. 256. See Will— Contingent Re- mainder. 1. 2. ■ — Invalid trust for sate of realty — Validity of gift — Conversion — Share of pro- ceeds, whether real or personal estate. A testator who died in 1854 devised his real estate, in certain pvents, upon trust for sale, and gave the proceeds among classes of persons who were all ascertainable without infringing the rule against perpetuity. The trust for sale was admitted to be bad as not being limited to take effect within the pre- scribed period ; the will contained no direct gift of the income of the property until sale in favour of the persons entitled to the pro- ceeds of sale if the trust for sale had been good : — Held, affirming the decision of Byrne J., that, as the persons who were intended, by the testator to take the beneficial interest in his property were persons who could be ascer- tained within the rule against perpetuities, the gift to them was good ; that though the trust for sale was bad, it was mere machinery for the purpose of division, and could be dis- regarded, and that the beneficiaries took the property as real estate. Dictum of Stirling J. in Goodier v. Ed- munds, [1893] 3 Ch. 455, adopted. In re Daveron, [1893] 3 Ch. 421, approved. In re Appleby. lWalkeb v. Levke. Walkee V. NiSBKT - - C. A. [1903] W. N. 45 : [1903] I Ch. 565 Note. Followed by C. A., Slade v. Ckalne, [1908] 1 Ch. 522. See Trustee— LiaUlit if. 1. 3. — Maintenance — Discretionary trust for maintenance — YjiUdity^ — liemofeness — Will — Construction. A testator by his will devised and be- queathed certain real and personal estate to trustees upon, trust to apply the income thereof ( 2961 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2962 ) WILL (Kemoteuess) — continued. in such propoitions and generally in such manner as to them in their absolute discretion should seem best for the support of his " son VV. and his wife and children, or any of them," or to accumulate the same or any part thereof at their like discretion for the benefit of the children of his son who should become entitled to the corpus of the property under the trust thereinafter contained ; and subject to such discretionary trust he directed his trustees to pay the income to his son during his life and after his decease to his widow during her life or widowhood, and after the death of the survivor to ptand possessed of as well the corpus as the income upon trust for the chil- dren of his son who should attain twenty- one : — Held, that the discretionary trust for main- tenance was limited to the life of W., but if not so limited, was void for remoteness. Head-note to Gooding v. Bead, (1853) 4 D. M. & G. 510, corrected. In re Wise, [1896] 1 Oh. 281, and In re Watson, [1892] W. N. 192, not followed. In re Blew. Blew v. Gunneb - Warrington J. [1906] W. N. 47 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 624 — Officers' mess — Gift for old officers — Gift to officers' regimental mess to maintain a library. See Ghaeity. 41. 4. — Bealty — Gift ajter last survivor of tenants for life to a class, necessarily ascertain- able within due limits, as tenants for life — Estate tail to last survivor of class — Legal contingent remainder — Bemoteness — Bule against perpetuities — Construction of will. iThe rule against perpetuities applies to legal contingent remainders as well as to equit- able llmitatious. A testatrix devised her real estate to trustees and their heirs upon trust to receive rents. and profits and divide the same as soon as they 'conveniently could after Lady Day and Michaelmas Day in each year into three equal parts, and pay the same as therein mentioned to A., B. and 0., and the survivors and sur- vivor of them during their lives and the life of the survivor ; and, after the decease of such survivor, upon trust to pay and divide the said rents and profits, as soon as conveniently could be after the said days thereinbefore appointed, equally amongst all such of the children, born in her lifetime or within twenty-one years of her death, of the said A., B., and 0. as should be living on the Lady Day or Michaelmas Day preceding such pay- ment and division; and after the death of all such children, except one, the testatrix devised the said real estate to such surviving child in tail, with remainder over. 0. sur- vived A. and B. and died leaving no issue. B. also left no issue ; but A. left children who were born vidthin due limits and who survived C.:— Held, that the estate tail limited to the survivor of the children of A., whether re- garded as an. equitable limitation or as a legal contingent remainder, infringed the rule. WILL (Remoteness) — continued. against perpetuities and was void for remote- ness. In re Ashfokth. Silbey v. Ashfoeth Farwell J. [1905] W. N. 52 ; [1905] 1 Ch. 536 5. — Special power of appointment — Exer- cise — Bule against perpetuity. A testator gave his residuary estate upon trust for his wife for life, and after her decease upon trusts for the benefit of his brother 0. T. and his present and future issue as his said wife should appoint. The wife appointed the property in trust for 0. T. for life, and after his death for all his children who had attained or should attain the age of twenty- five years if born in her lifetime, or twenty- one years if born after her decease. C. T. had nine children only, all of whom were born in the lifetime of the original testator, and all ot whom had attained twenty-five before the death of the appointor : — Held,, that upon the appointment taking effect, it was certain that within the limits of perpetuity, not only would the persons to take be ascertained, but their interests would be vested, and the amount of their shares fixed ; and, consequently, that the appoint- ment was valid. Von Brockdorff v. Malcolm, (1885) 30 Ch. D. 171, approved. In re Thompson. Thomp- son V. Thompson Joyce J. [1906] W. N. 181 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 199 6. — Unascertained class — Devise of real estate — Trust to apply rents in discliarge oj mortgages and then sell — Gift of proceeds to unascertained class — BeTnoieness. The testator devised his real estate to his executors and trustees upon trust to receive the rents and income thereof, and after paying all rates, taxes and outgoings thereon, and keeping the same in repair, to pay off all mortgage charges existing on his real estate and held by the Blaydon Co-operative Society or others, and upon further trust after his real estate should be clear of all charges thereon, to sell the same and divide the pro- ceeds thereof equally amongst all his children then living and the issue then living of such of his children as should be then dead in manner therein mentioned. All the residue of his estate the testator gave to his children equally. The testator died on July 8, 1909, leaving six children, the pits., surviving him. At the time of his death his real estate, which con- sisted entirely of house property, was subject to two mortgages to the building society above- named, one dated Mar. 18, 1907, to secure payment of lOOOZ. and interest by monthly instalments, and the other, dated April 9, 1903, to secure 225Z. and interest, also repayable by instalments. The evidence showed that if all instalments were punctually paid and the terms of the mortgages strictly complied with, the larger debt would be fully discharged in 1927, and the smaller in 1921. Summons by the children against the infant grandchildren for (inter aUa) a declaration that the trusts of the devised real estate were ( 2963 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2964 ) WILL iB,emoteae»B)—co/di'imed. void as infringing the rule against perpetuities, and that the real estate passed under the residuary devise. Eve J. said that it had been urged on behalf ol the defts. that he ought to assume that the testator's legal personal representa- tives would discharge the obligation by which the testator was bound to pay the instalments regularly, and that on that assumption he ought to hold that the trust for sale must necessarily arise within the period prescribed by law. But he did not think he could so hold. Only the surplus rents, after providing for outgoings and repairs, were applicable for the purpose of discharging the mortgages. It might well be that such surplus rents would suffice to pay all the instalments within the period, but he was not at liberty to speculate about probabilities (see per Davey L.J. in In re Wood, [1894] 3 Ch. 381, 387), and unless he was satisfied that the mortgages must be paid off within the prescribed period, he did not see how he could hold the gift to be good. He thought it was too remote. The real estate therefore passed under the gi£t of residue. In re Bewick. Kyle v. Kyle. Eve J. [1910] W. N. 261 Bent-Charges. — " Chattel-real " — ^Rent-charge issuing out of leaseholds ■ — Administration — Unpaid purchase-money — Intestacy — Next of kin — Construction of will. See Will — Chattels Real. 1. Bepublication. 1 . — Codicil — Alterations — Eifect on con- struction of will — General principle. The republication of a will by a codicil which confirms it with alterations, brings the will down to the date of the codicil, and effects the same disposition of the testator's- estate as if he had at that date made a new will containing the same dispositions as the original will, but with the alterations intro- duced by the codicil, and the will and codicil must be construed together on that footing. In re Fraser, [1904] 1 Ch. 726, 734, applied. In re Tayloe. Dale v. Dale Swinfen Eady J. [1909] W. N. 59 — Bepublication of will by codicil after passing of an Act — Estate duty. See Will— Testamentary Expenses. 2. Bepugnancy. — Gift over on death " without a wUl tad childless." See Will— Absolute Gift. 8. Besettlement. 1. — Condition requiring resettlement — Hereditaments— Money held on trust for in- vestment in land — Will — Construction. G., the testator in this matter, by his will devised all his real estate to his eldest son A. ifior Ufe, with remainder to his first and other eons successively in tail male, with remainders over in strict settlement : and he WILL (Besettlement) — continued. declared that the estate for life thereby given to his son A. was limited upon condition that within one year after the testator's death, or the sou's attaining twenty-one, he should en- large the estate in tail male or in tail to which he was entitled under the will of his late grandfather in all the hereditaments de- vised by that will or then subject to the limitations thereof, and should resettle those hereditaments to the uses by the testator's will limited of the hereditaments thereby devised. The property to wnioh the testator's said son was entitled under his grandfather's will for an estate in tail male included certain moneys which had arisen from the sale of lands and were in the hands of the trustees of that wUl subject to a trust lor reinvestment in land to be settled to the same uses. JFarwell J. said that the word heredita- ments naturally included anything which could be inherited. Money subject to a trust for investment could, so long as an estate tail therein remained unbarred, be inherited ; and, therefore, on the construction of the words he was of opinion that the son must resettle the moneys. He was assisted in coming to that conclusion by the judgment of the C. A. in In re Duke of Cleveland's Settled Estates, [1893] 3 Ch. 249, and the case could not in his opinion be distinguished from Basset v. St. Leven, (1894) 43 W. E. 165. In re GosSB- LiN. Gosselin v. Gosselin - Earwell J. [1906] W. N. 170 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 120 "Residuary Legatee." 1 . — Heal estate — Specific disposition of entirety at date of will — Subsequent acquisi- tion of further real estate — Intestacy — ■ Extrinsic evidence — Will — Construction. Testatrix, by her will dated in 1891, after giving a pecuniary legacy " free of income tax," and specifically disposing of certain real estate " free of legacy duty," " bequeathed " a freehold cottage to E. J. H. She then directed that all her household furniture and other chattels should be sold, reserving the right to E. J. H. toretain any special articles she might wish for, "all else to be sold." Then, after disposing of her jewellery, she concluded, "1 leave the aforesaid B. J. H. my residuary legatee." All the real estate which she possessed at the date of her will was thereby specifically disposed of. She died in 1903, having in the meantime purchased other real pstate : — Held, that in considering whether the naming of a " residuary legatee " constituted a residuary devise, the fact that at the date of the will the testatrix possessed no real estate other than that specifically and completely disposed of must be borne in mind ; but that there was not sufficient context in this will to modify the prima facie meaning of the term " residuary legatee " ; and, consequently, that the subsequently acquired real estate did not pass to B. J. H., but was undisposed of by the will. In re Gibbs. Maetin v. Hakdino Joyce J. [1907] W. N. 54 ; [1907] I Ch. 466 ( 2965 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2966 ) WILL — continued. Besidue. — Ademption — Legacy to child — Residue to child and stranger — Advancement to chUd. See Will— Ademption. 3. — Administration bond — Duration oE sureties' liability — Title of beneficiaries to the residue. See AUSTEALIA. 1. — Advances — Eate of interest — Hotchpot — Share of residue. See Will— Advances. 7. — Aliquot shares — Class gifts — Forfeiture clause — Mode of division. See Will— Class. 14. — Annuities — Liability of legatee of particular. residue. See Will — Testamentary Expenses. 2. 1. — Bequest of residue — "Equally be- tween " statutory, next of liin — Per stirpes or per capita. A testator directed his trustees to stand possessed of one moiety of his residuary estate " for and equally between " the persons " who at my death shall be my next of kin according to the statutes for the distribution of the estates of intestates " : — Held, that as there was no reference to the statutory mode of distribution as in Hollo- waii T. Eadoliffe, (1857) 23 Beav. 163, and Fiolden v. Ashworth, (1875) L. E. 20 Bq. ilO, but the statutes were only referred to for the purpose of defining the class, the word " equally " must have its full effect, and the statutory next of kin would take per capita. Observations in Mattison v. Tanfiehi, (1840) 3 Beav. 131, and Fielden v. Ashworth, L. E. 20 Bq. 410, followed. In re Biohabds. Davies V. Edwards - Swinfen Eady J. [1910] W. N. 131; [1910] 2Ch. 74 — Charitable legacy — General or limited charitable purposes — Admissibility ol evidence. Sec Chaeity. 8. — Charity, Gift to — Invalid bequest followed iDy gift of residue to charity. See Charity. 49. — Charity — Trust — Uncertainty — WUl. See Chaeity. 19. — Costs — " Otherwise direct " — Gift to class — Inquiry. See Will— Class. 6. — Direction to pay debts out of residue — Colonial death duty. See Will — Colonial Duties. 1. — Double portions — Parent and child — " Ad- vances " — Satisfaction — Ademption. See Will — Advances. 1, 2. — Estate duty — Incidence — Appointment of specified amounts — Eesidue of fund — .WUl. See Eevbnub — Estate Duty. 29. — Estate duty — Incidence — Direction to pay testamentary expenses. See under Will — Testamentary Ex- penses. WILL (Kesidue) — continued. — Executors — Gift of residue — Express trust — Advancements to children by testator. See Will — Advances. 3. — Executors — ISTo next of kin — Beneficial title to residue — Eesidue undisposed of. See Executor- Kesidue. 1. 2. — " Fall into residue " — Direction that on failure of trusts of any share it should " fall into residue " — Survivorship — Accruer ■ — In- testacy — Construction of 'twill. A testator gave his residuary estate to trustees in trust for sale and investment of the proceeds, and to hold the investments, as to one-fourth part thereof, in trust for one of his four daughters for life with remainder to her children living at her death, or the issue of any child dying in her lifetime; and as to the other three-fourths upon similar trusts for his other three daughters, their children or issue ; and he declared that, if any one or more of his said daughters should die without leaving issue, their share or shares " shall fall into and become part of my resi- duary estate, and be held and disposed of on the same trusts as are hereinbefore declared thereof " : — Held, following In re Palmer, [1893] 3 Ch. 369, which overruled Humble v. Shore, (1847) 7 Hare, 247 ; 1 H. & M. 550, n., that upon the death of any daughter without issue her share, both original and accrued, went over to the surviving daughters respectively upon the same trusts as their original shares. In re Allan. Dow v. Cassaigne e. A. [1903] W. N. 2 ; [1903] 1 Ch. 276 — Gift for old ofiicers — Eemoteuess — Per- petuity — Will — Construction . See Charity. 41. 3. — Gift of income to daughter until marriage — Gift over on marriage — Death of daughter unmarried — Indefinite gift of income — Absolute gift — Determinxible life interest — Will — Construction. A testatrix directed the trustees of her wUl to pay the income of her residuary estate to her daughter untU she should marry and after her marriage to pay to her thereout a legacy of 3O00J. and divide the balance be- tween all her (the testatrix's) sons surviving her : — Held, (1.) that the interest of the daughter in the residue under the direction to pay her the income was for her life or until her mar- riage ; (2.) that the gift over to the sons took effect on the death of the daughter unmarried. Rishton v. Cobb, (1839) 5 My. & Cr. 145, distinguished. In re Mason. Mason v. Mason C. A. [1910] W. N. 93 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 695 — Gift of residue to A., B., and the "six children now living " of C. — All but one of C.'s children dead at date of will — Presumption. See Will— Class. 9. — Immediate gift of share of residue — Eight of executors to retain sliare to answer debt. See Administkaiion. 32. ( 2967 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 2968 ) WILL (Hesidne)— flo»i;«»/r'rt! — Lapse — Exception ft-om residue — Disposal at discretion of trustees. Sec Will— Lapse. 2. — Lapse of legacy — Two residuary gifts. See Will — Lapse. 4. 4. — Legacy — Specific or residuary — Resi- due dfj specific 'fund — Legacy — Will — Construc- tion. Adjourned summons. John Margetts, by Ms will dated July, 1881, gave the sum of 20,000Z. sterling to his trustee, upon trust to continue any exist- ing investment thereof or to invest the same in any real or Government securities, with power to vary, and to pay the income of the trust fund to his wife during widowhood, and after the determination of the aforesaid trust he directed his trustees to retain thereout two sums of 7000Z. upon the trusts thereinafter declared thereof and to pay or transfer the residue thereof to his son, J. W. Margetts. As to one of the said sums of 7000Z., the testator directed his trustees upon tlie decease or second marriage of his wife to pay the in- come thereof to his eldest daughter, Eliza Jane Bloore, for her life for her separate use, with- out power of anticipation, and after her de- cease to stand possessed of the same upon trust for her children attaining twenty-one, and in default of such children he directed his trustees to pay or transfer one moiety of this fund to his son, J. W. Margetts, and to stand possessed of the other moiety upon the trusts thereinafter declared in favour of his youngest daughter, Mary Louisa Margetts, and her chil- dren ; and as to the other of the said sums of 7000^., he declared corresponding trusts in favour of his youngest daughter, Mary Louisa Margetts. The testator gave his residuary estate to his son. The testator died in June, 1885. Mary Louisa Margetts died without issue in Mar., 1891 ; J. W. Margetts died in May, 1905 ; and the testator's widow died without having been remarried in Aug., 1905. On the testator's death certain mortgage securities of the testator were set aside by the trustees to represent the 20,000?., but in 1902 and 1904 two of these securities were sold at a loss of 2600Z. of capital to the trust fund in addition to a loss to the tenant for life through the interest having fallen into arrear. The substantial question upon this summons was whether the deficiency ought to be borne exclusively by the residue bequeathed to the son, or rateably by the residue and the two sums of 7000Z. bequeathed to the testator's two daughters. Kekewioh J. said that this case fell within the rule stated in Theobald on Wills (sixth edition) at p. 155, and that the effect of the gift of the residue of the 20,000/. was exactly the same as if the testator had in terms given 7000Z. each to his two daughters, and 6000Z. to his son. If the testator had contemplated some deduction being made from the total, as, for example, if he had directed his funeral expenses to be paid out of the fund, the rule would not have applied ; but there was WILL (Eesldue) — contimml. nothing of the kind here. Ko doubt he con- templated the fund being invested, but he contemplated that the Investments would realize at least 20,000?., although, unfortu- nately, they had resulted in a loss. In his Lordship's opinion this loss ought to be borne rateably by the residue and the two sums of 7000?. In re Margetts. Smith v. Makgf.tts Kekewioh J. [1903] W. K. 44 — Maintenance — Gift of residue to individuals in shares — Gift of income for main- tenance of all — 'Vested or contingent. See Will — Vesting. 4. 5. — "Residuary devise" — Specific devise —Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 25. A devise which does not include all the testator's real estate may be a good " resi- duary devise " within the meaning of the Wills Act, 1837, s. 25. Decision of 0. A., [1901] 1 C^. 619, aiErmed. Mason ii. Ogden H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N, 206 ; [1903] A. C. 1 6 . — Residuary gift of " estate and: effects " to trustees, " their executors, administrators and assigns " — Trusts pointing to personalty — Realty — Resulting trust — Construction of icill. A will contained the following gift : " As to all my ready money, securities for money, stock in any of the public stocks of Great Britain, and all the rest, residue, and re- mainder of my estate and effects whatsoever and wheresoever,.! give and bequeath the same and every part thereof to the said K. and S." — whom the testator had already appointed his executors — " their executors, administrators and assigns," upon trusts which related to the income, described as " income " or " interest dividends and annual proceeds " (in some places " produce "), and to corpus described sometimes as " the said trust moneys, stocks, funds, and securities," and in other places as "the said trust moneys." The will em- powered the trustees to vary the securities of the trust money and invest the same : — • Held, that the testator's real estate passed by the gift of residue, and that, notwithstand- ing the suggested inapplicability of the trusts to anything but personalty, those trusts ap- plied also to the real estate — of which there was, therefore, no resulting trust. The principles of D'Almaine v. Moseley, (1853) 1 Drew. 629, Fullerton v. Martin, (1855) 22 L. J. (Oh.) 893, and Saumarez v. Saumarex, (1839) 4 My. & Or. 331 ; 48 E. R. 116, held to be applicable. Dunnage v. White, (1820) 1 Jac. & W. 583 ; 21 R. R. 239, Coard v. Bolderness, (1855) 20 Beav. 147, and Longley v. Longle.y, (1871) L. R. 13 Eq. 133, distinguished. Kieby-Smith v. Paeneij, Buckley J. [1903] 1 Ch. 483 — " Residuary legatee "■ — Intestacy — ^Extrinsic evidence. See Will—" Residuary Legatee." 1. — Residuary legatees — Destination of the sub- ject of void gifts — Next of kin — Res judicata. See Steaits' Settlements. 3. ( 2969 ) DIG^EST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2970 ) WILL (Eesidue) — contiinii>d. — Residuary legatee also residuary legatee of debtor's estate — Statute-barred debt owing to estate. iSrr ADMINISTBATION. .SO. — " Residue and remainder " of .specific mort- gage debts, Bequest of. Scr Will — Legacy. 4. 7. — " Residue and remainder'' Bequest of — Bequest of pecuniary legacies ■ — Specific mortgage debts — Intestficy — V ndisposed-pf personal estate acquired between dates of will and death — Administration — Legacies, specific or demonstrative — Fund applicable for pay- ment — Ambiguity ■ — Intention — Extrinsic evidence. Admissibility of — Evidence dehors the will — Construction of will. A testator, after directing payment of his debts and funeral and testamentary expenses, bequeathed a number of pecuniary legacies, and then gave " all the residue and re- mainder " of two specified mortgage debts then due to him, after payment of his debts and funeral and testamentary expenses (but not adding " and legacies "), to three persons named. At the date of the will the testator's personal estate consisted of the two mortgage debts, which were just sufficient for payment of the legacies (if payable thereout), debts, and funeral and testamentary expenses. Sub- sequently to the date of his will the testator became possessed of further personal estate, but as the will contained no general residuary gift this remained undisposed of. The total personal estate, exclusive of the two mortgage debts, was not sufficient for payment of the debts, funeral and testamentary, expenses and legacies. On an originating summons to ascertain in what order the assets should be applied : — Held, that " the residue and remainder " of the two mortgage debts meant what was left after payment thereout of the debts, funeral and testamentary expenses only, and that the undisposed-of personalty could alone be re- sorted to for the general pecuniary legacies. The decision of the C. A., [1900] 2 Ch. 756, reversed for the reasons there given by Rigby L.J. HioQiNS V. Dawson - H. L. (E.) [1901] W. N. 234 ; [1902] A. C. 1 8 . — ■ Revocation ■ — Will and codicil — Construction — Implied revocation — Appoint- ment of B, N. as executor — Legacy as executor — Share of residue — Codicil — Revocation of appointment and legacy — Substitution of U. F. as executor — Will to take effect as if H. F. were inserted throughout instead of B. N. A testator appointed B. N. to be one of the executors and trustees of his will and be- queathed to him, if he should prove the will, and in addition to any other benefit to which he might be entitled under the will, a legacy of lOOOZ., and ultimately gave a share of residue to B. N. By a codicil the testator, after referring to the appointment of B. N". as an executor and to the legacy of lOOOZ., revoked the appointment and legacy and appointed H. F. to be an executor, in the place of B. N., WILL (Besidue) — continued. and gave H. F. a legacy of 200Z. for his trouble in acting as such executor, and declared that his will should be construed .and take effect as if the name of H. F. were inserted in his will throughout instead of the name of B. N. : — Held, that the general direction at the end of the codicil did not operate as an implied revocation of the gift of the share of residue to B. N. In re Freeman. Hors v. Freeman [1910] W. N. 6 ; C. A. [1910] W. N. 93 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 681 — Settlement estate duty — Property settled by will — Amount set apart to pay an- nuities. See RBVBNnE — Estate Duty. 24. 9 . — • Share of residue — Absolute gift- Subsequent provision for settlement of married daughter's share — Trusts by reference to marriage settlement — " Subsisting and capable of taliing effect " — Default of issue — Vltimaie trust of testator, " his executors administrators and assigns " — Daughter absolutely entitled— Will — Construction. The testator gave his residuary estate to trustees upon trust for his children living at his decease as tenants in common, and then directed that the share which " would belong to " any daughter who at his death should be or have been married should " go and be paid to " the trustees of her marriage settlement, to be held upon the same trusts as were thereby declared of the moneys thereby settled by him upon such daughter or such of them as should be then subsisting and capable of taking effect. The ultimate trust of the moneys settled by the testator upon the marriage of his daughter, Mrs. C, who sucvived him and her husband, was a trust in default of issue of Mrs. C. (as happened) for the testator, his executors, administrators, and assigns : — Held, that in the events which had hap- pened there was no valid effective trust declared by the testator's will of Mrs. C.'a aliquot share of residue upon her death without having issue, and that the share devolved upon her legal personal representative. The rule In Lassence v. Tierney, (1849) 1 Mac. & G. 551, applied. In re Cubrie's Settlement. In re Roopeb. Roopeb v. Wil- liams - Joyce J. [1910] W. N. 16 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 329 10. — Share of residue — 6ift over — Legacy out df. shares — Lapse. A testator gave a, share of residue to trustees upon the following trusts, namely, as to the sum of 4500Z. part thereof, the sum of 2250Z. to be held in trust for each of two per- sons A. and B. who should attain the age of twenty-one, and, as to the remaining part of the share, in trust for such of four persons, A., B., C, and D., who should attain the age of twenty-one, with a gift over of the share in default of such persons. The residuary legacy to A. having lapsed by his death under twenty-one, and the re- maining beneficiaries having attained that age : — ( 2971 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2972 ) WILL (Residue)— co«iiKMe(?. Eeld, that having regard to the gift over, which being intended to operate on the share as a whole was inconsistent with any partial failure of the trusts thereof, the gift of the remaining part of the share carried the lapsed residuary legacy to the remaining beneficiaries. Skrymsher v. Northcote, (1818) 1 Swans. 566 ; 18 E. E. 142, doubted. In re Paekbe. Stephenson r. Paekes - Farwell J. [1901] W.N. 16; [1901] ICh. 408 — Share of residue — Gift over of part to which legatee disentitles himself prior to " actual payment " — ^^alidity. See Will— Absolute Gift. 10. — Succession — Eesidue of estate " to heir en- titled to succeed under a deed of entail " — Lands disentailed. See Scottish Law. 26. — Tenant for life — Birection to accumulate in- come beyond twenty-one years — ^Wjll. See ACCDMULATIONS. 4. — Tenant for life and remainderman — Annuity — Apportionment — Capital and in- come. iSe« Settled Land — Apportionment. 1. — Trust dehors the will of specified part of. See Administration. 1. — Unascertained residue — Equitable execution —Effect of order — ^Notice to executor — Charging order — Priority. See Eeceiveb. 6. — Vested or contingent — Maintenance clause. See Will — Vesting, i. — Will — Construction — " The rest of my money " — Other property. See Will— Words. 9. — Will, Construction of — Testator's children to take equal shares in the residue at majority — Accumulations of income during minority of donee. See Canada— Will. 1- Hesulting Trust. — Copyholds — Equitable interest — Resulting trust — ^Descent — Common law heir or customary heirs. See Will — Intestacy. 1. Bevocation. — Class gift — Eevocation by codicil — Intes- tacy. See Will— Class. 2. 1 . — Gifts to testator's son and his chil- dren — Revocation hy codicil of benefit to son — Effect on children's interests. Testator by his will gave his business to trustees upon trust to carry it on for the benefit of his four sons, including G., until the youngest attained twenty-one, with power to employ any of them, for reward, as manager or otherwise, and subject as aforesaid in trust for the sons equally when the yovmgest WILL (Revocation) — continued. attained twenty-one, and he declared that if, on the determination of the trusts as to the business, any son should be dead or unwilling to carry it on, any of the other sons were to be entitled to purchafie his share. By paragraph 6 of the will the trustees and the sons, while respectively carrying on the business, were to be entitled to use the pro- perty on which it was carried on for that purpose at a specified rent ; and G. was to be entitled to occupy a house, 133, W. Eoad, at a fixed rent. These rents were payable to the testator's widow for life, and after her death to two of his daughters during spinster- hood. Subject as aforesaid both properties were devised to the trustees to be held upon trust as to one-fourth share for G. for life, and after his death for his children in fee simple. By a codicil reciting that testator had reasons for dissatisfaction with G., that he had ceased to employ him in his business, and that G. had at testator's desire ceased to occupy 138, W. Eoad, testator revoked the trust for permitting G. to occupy that house, and pro- ceeded to revoke " each and every devise, bequest, gift and legacy contained in my said will to or for the benefit of my same son," and to revoke and annul " every provision and benefit thereby given made or intended to or for him," and to direct that " every clause of my said will purporting to entitle him to share any part or parts of my estate, or of the proceeds, income or profits thereof with any other person or persons shall be construed, and the directions and trusts thereof shall be carried out, as if the name of my said son G. had never appeared therein." Testator also by the codicil directed that G. should not be appointed manager of or employed in the busi- ness, and left a legacy of 500Z. in trust for the children of G. at twenty-one or marriage, and for their maintenance in the meantiijie, but directed that the trustees should not pay any income of the legacy to G. pursuant to s. 43 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 : — Meld, that the revocation extended only to the benefits given by the will to G. ; that the interests thereby given to G.'s children were not revoked ; but that the children's interests •^'■Xi, accelerated and that the children were in addition entitled to the legacy of 500Z. Green v. Tribe, (1878) 27 W. E. 39, and Alt Y. Gregory, (1856) 8 D. M. & G. 221, followed. Tabor v. Prentice, (1884) 32 W. E. 872, distinguished. In re Whitehoene. White- HOENB c. Best Buckley J. [1906] 8 Ch. 121 — Will — Class gift — Eevocation by codicil- Intestacy. See Will— Class. 2. 2. — Will — Contract — Bevocation by agree- ment. The testator, John Grieve, died in 1903, leaving a will, and the main question in the appeal was whether an agreement, dated 1901, between the testator and his son, the appellant, had not revoked in part the testator's will. ( 2973 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2974 ) WILL (Eevocation)- -conttmird. The House, holding that the agreement had revoked the will in part, reveised the inter- locutorg appealed from, dated June 22 and Nov. 16, 1904, and allowed the appeal ; costs here and below to come out of the estate. GbIEVE «. HUNTEE. Febodson v. Huntek {Ex parte as to certain respondents.) H. L. (Sc.) [1906] W. N. 117 — Will — Executors in England — Indian assets — Fraud in India — Eevocation of Indian letters of administration — Title of executors. Sec Administration. 15. — Will — Revocation. See under Probate — Revocation. — Will and codicil — Implied revocation — Eevocation of appointment and legacy. See Will— Residue. 8. Sale. 1. — Trust for sale of land — Power to post- pone — Settlement of proceeds — Share vested in possession — Right of beneficiary, to insist on immediate sale. Where land is devised to trustees in trust for sale with a discretionary power of post- ponement, and the proceeds are settled in trust for various beneficiaries, the vesting in posses- sion of the share of one of the beneficiaries does not put an end to the power of postpone- ment, or entitle that beneficiary to call either for an immediate sale of the entirety or for a conveyance of an undivided share in the land. Trower v. Knightley, (1831) 6 Madd. 134 ; Lantsbery v. Collier, (1856) 3 K. & J. 709 ; Taite v. Swinstead, (1859) 36 Beav. 535 ; In re Cotton's Trustees and London School Board, (1882) 19 Gh. D. 631 ; In re Lord Sudeley and Baines ij; Co., [1894] 1 Oh. 334 ; and In re Tweedie and Miles, (1881) 27 Oh. D. 315, discussed and applied. In re Hobsnaill. WoMERSLEY V. HoBSNAiLL - Swlufeu Eady J. [1909] W. N. 74 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 631 Satisfaction. 1. — Daughter's settlement — Father's cove- nant — Absolute bequest to daughter- — After- acquired property clause — Persons derivatively entitled — Election. By a marriage settlement of 1898 a sum of 10,OOOZ. (which included a sum of 5539Z. secured to the trustees by the covenant of the wife's father) was settled on certain trusts for the wife, husband and children, the wife taking the first life interest, and covenanting to settle after-acquired property, to which she became entitled during the coverture, on sub- stantially the same trusts. By his will of 1905 the father gave one- third of his residuary real and personal estate to the wife for her separate use absolutely. The father died during the coverture. His clear residuary estate, subject only to the covenant, was 80,000/., all personalty : — Held, that the bequest was a satisfaction as to the wife's life interest in the 5539?. secured WILL (Satisfaction) — eontliiwed. by the covenant, but not as to the interest of other cestuis que trustent not mentioned in the will, taking no direct interest in the bequest, and only in fact taking derivatively under the after-acquired property clause, because the bequest happened to take effect during the coverture. The wife was therefore the only person put to election. Lord Chichester Y. Coventry, (1867) L. R. 2 H. L. 71, 93, 95, applied. In re Blundell. Blundell v. BLnNDBT.r, - Swinfen Eady J. [1906] W. N. 113 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 283 2 . — Debt due from testator at death — Legacy to creditor of larger amount — Noi time fixed for payment — Debt carrying interest — Creditor appointed executrix. A testatrix gave to her sister R. a legacy of 400Z., and appointed her executrix. At the time of her death the testatrix was indebted to E. in the sum of 160A, which carried in- terest, and on which interest had been paid up to her death : — Held, that neither the fact that the legacy was not payable until one year after the death, nor the appointment of R. as executrix, took the case out of the general rule, and the legacy was a satisfaction of the debt. In re Rattendebby. Ray v. Grant Swinfen Eady J. [1906] W. N. 27 ; i-[1906] 1 Ch. 667 — Double portions — Hotchpot — "Advances or moneys lent." See Will — Advances. 2. — Double portions — Parent and child. See Will — Advances. 1. — Legacies — Will — General or specific — ■ In- suSiciency of assets — Abatement — Legacy in satisfaction of a debt — • Administration. See Will— Legacy. 1. Scottish Law. — Will — Reduction — Agent alleged to benefit under will prepared by him — ■ Suspicion — Defect in attestation. See Scottish Law. 30. Securities. — Power to transpose and vary " securities " — Implied power to resell purchased land. Sec Vendor and Purchaser— Title. 19. — Settled land. See under Settled Land. — Unauthorized securities — Wasting securities — No trust for conversion — Power to trustees to retain — Enjoyment of in- come in specie. See Settled Land — Securities. 1. Servants. 1. — Will — Construction—Legacy — Ser- vants—" Tear's wages." A bequest to servants of a year's wages does not extend to servants employed at wages calculated by the week or month. ( 2975 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2976 ) WIIL (Servants)— co/i/ ; « ued. So held upon the authority of Blaohwdl v. Pennant, (1852) 9 Hare, 531. In re Eavens- WOBIH. EaVENSWOETH V. TiNDALB C. A. [1905] W. N. GO ; [1903] 2 Ch. 1 Settled Land. See under Settled Land. Settlement. See under Settlement. Shelley's Case. 1. — "Issue " — Estate in special tail— Rule in Shelley's Case — Will — Construction. A devise to " Charles if he marries a fit and worthy gentlewoman and his issue male to such issue male and their male descendants, in failure of which " then over : — Held, upon the true construction of this will to be equivalent to a devise to " Charles and such issue male as he may have by mar- riage with a fit and worthy gentlewoman and their male descendants, in failure of which " then over, and thus to create an estate in special tail male in Charles. The decisions of Buckley J. and C. A. [1901] W. N. 207 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 31, affirmed for the reasons given by Buckley J. and Eomer L.J. Pelham Glikton v. Doke of New- castle H. L. (E.) [1903] W. H. 36 ; [1903] A. C. Ill 2. — Real Estate — Bule in Shelley's case — Construction py will. Testator gave certain freehold estates to trustees upon trust for management and to receive the rents and profits thereof, and after payment of necessary repairs and outgoings to pay thereout t6 each of his eight first cousins therein named the sum of 60J. per annum for their lives and then to pay the residue of such net rents and profits half-yearly to W. D. for his life, and from and after the respective deceases of the aimuitants and W. D. upon trust to convey the said freehold estates, to- gether with any accumulations of rents in the hands of the trustees, unto the right heirs of W. D. : — Held, that the rule in Shelley's Case, (1581) 1 Eep. 93 b, applied, and that W. D. was en- titled to the property in fee simple subject to the annuities. In re Yo Oman's Will Joyce J. [1901] W. N. 48 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 720 3. — -Tenant in tail — Gijt to a person for life and then " to his sons and their sons in succession " — Tenant in tail — Bule in Shelley's 'case — Costs — Practice — Uniformity ■ — Will — Construction — Adjourned summonses. By his will G. B. devised a mansion-house and copyhold property to trustees upon trust to the use of his eldest son G. B. B., to permit him during his life to occupy the isame or receive the rents arising therefrom, find after his decease to permit the eldest son of G. B. B. to occupy or receive the rents of the said estate during his life, " and then to his sjns and their sons in succession," and in default thereof to the second son of G. B. B. WILI (Shelley's Case) — continued. and his sons in succession, and in default to the third and other sons of G. B. B. and theii sons in succession, according to the priority of their birth, and in case his eldest son G. B. B. should die without leaving any sou or male descendant, then upon trust to hold the same estate to the use of the testator's second sou W. M. B. for life, with remainder to his eldest and other sons and their issue in succession, with remainders over. The copyhold property was subsequently enfranchised and disentailed. The pit. W. W. B., as the eldest sou of G. G. B., took out a summons to which W. M. B. and the trustees of the wills of G. B. and G. B. B. were made respondents, asking for a declaration of his title to an estate in tail male in possession in the mansion-house and property, and that the costs of and incidental to the applica- tion might be provided for ;^ Held, that upon the true construction of the will, and having regard to the rule in Shelley's case, (1579) 1 Eep. 93b, W. W. B. was entitled to an estate in tail male in posses- sion of the property in question ; and that, although in form it was a case of adverse litigation, yet in substance it was an amicable proceeding for the determination of a question for the benefit of all concerned, and therefore the costs of all parties must be taxed as be- tween solicitor and client, and come out of the estate. Statement of the practice with regard to costs in cases arising on adjourned summonses. In re Buokion. Buckion v. Buokton Kekewich J. [1907] W. N. 180 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 406 Shifting Clause. 1. — Limitation of real estates — Successive life estates — Exception of eldest son entitled to other estates — Construction of will. A shifting clause, or an exception in the nature of a shifting clause, in limitations of real estate must be strictly construed, and not according to the rule of construction which has been adopted in the case of provisions for children made by a parent or a person in loco parentis. A testator in 1855 devised his real estates to the use of all and every the sons of his nephew Eichard successively, for their respec- tive lives, " other than and except an eldest or only son for the time being entitled to the possession or to the receipt of the rents, issues, and profits " of the C. estates " after the decease of Eichard as tenant for life or any greater estate or interest whatsoever." In Jan., 1869, Eichard and his eldest son, being then respectively tenant for life in pos- session and tenant in tail in remainder of the C. estates, disentailed those estates, and appointed them to trustees on trust for sale, and to hold the proceeds of sale on trusts under which the son took a beneficial interest, and the estates were accordingly sold by the trustees. In 1875 the testator died. In 1899 the nephew Eichard died : — 50 ( 2977 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2978 ) WILL (Shifting C\a,ViSB)—coiitiiiufd. Held, that the eldest son of Richard was not by virtue of the exception contained in the will excluded from a life interest in the devised estates. Decision of Cozens-Hardy J., [1900] 1 Ch. 795, reversed. ColUngiDOod v. Stanhope, (1869) L. E. i H. L. 43, explained. Bhuttlewoeth i\ MuR- KAT C. A. [1901] W. N, 69 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 819 ; H. L. (E.) [1902] A. C. 263 This case was affirmed by H. L. (E.) See Law Union and Crown Insur- ance Co. ■,.. Hill [1902] A. C. 263, next case. 8. — Successive life estates — Limitntlons of ■ eal estates — Exception of eldest son " en- titled " to other estates — Coiistructioii of will. A testator in 1855 devised his real estates to the use of all and every the sons of his lephew Richard successively, for their respec- Ive lives, " other than and except an eldest )T only son for the time being entitled to the possession or to the receipt of the rents, issues, and profits " of the C. estates " after the decease of Richard as tenant for life or any greater estate or interest whatsoever." In 1869 Richard and his eldest son, being 'jhen respectively tenant for life and tenant in Sail in remainder of the C. estates, executed deeds under which those estates were disen- tailed and sold and the proceeds invested by trustees upon trusts under which the son took a beneficial interest. In 1875 the testator died. In 1899 Richard died : — Held, that Richard's eldest son was not at his father's death " entitled " to the rents, &c., of the C. estates within the meaning of the exception clause, and was therefore not excluded from the succession to the testator's estates. The decision of the C. A., Shiittleuwrth v. Murray, [1901] 1 Ch. 819, affirmed. Laav Union and Ckown Insurance Co. i'. Hill H. L. (E.) [1902] W. N. 80 ; [1903] A. C. 263 See preceding Case. Solicitor. — Solicitor — Costs — Taxation — Power to charge for professional services — Kon-professional services. See Solicitor— Costs. 46. Speaking from Death. 1. — Bequest — Will speaking from death- Co ntr a nf intention — Will — Const r/'ction — lI'/Z/.v Act, 1837 (1 Vict. f. 26), ;,■. 21. In this case an originating summons was taken out by the trustee of the will for the di-'termination of the question whether a gift to 11. G. for life passed all the stock and shares' in two cos. and all the ground rents to which Ihe testator was entitled at his death or only such as he was entitled to at t)ie date of his will. Jovce J., after referring to the authorilics of Goodlad v. Burnett, (1855) 1 Iv. & J. 341; ■WILL (Speaking from Death) — continued. In re Slater, [1907] 1 Ch. 665 ; Everett v. Everett, (1877) 7 Ch. D. 428 ; In re Midland Ry. Co., (1865) 34 Beav. 525 ; In re Ord, (1878) 9 Ch. D. 667 ; (1879) 12 Ch. D. 22, C. A.; and In re Portal and Lamb, (1885) 30 Ch. D. 50, came to the conclusion that he could not in the last clause of the will find with reasonable certainty the contrary intention sufficient to take the case out of the operation of s. 24 of the Wills Act, and that consequently the gift to H. G. for life included all the stock in the two cos. and all the ground rents of which the testator died possessed. In re Alexander. Bathurst v. Greenwood Joyce J. [1910] W. W. 36 On Appeal : — The C. A. allowed the appeal, being of opinion upon the construction of the Will that there was a sufficient contrary intention to take the case out of the operation of s. 24 of the Wills Act. In re Alexander. Bat- HUEST V. Greenwood - C. A. [1910] W. N. 94 Specific Devise. — Colonial property — Colonial death duty — Will — Direction to pay debts out of residue. Sec Will— Colonial Duties. 1. 1. — Complete general description — Sub- sequent in]ierfevt ej'umi nation — Falsa de- monstratio — Will — Construction. The testatrix, by her will dated in 1888, devised the real estate to which slie became entitled under a codicil to her father's will, " namely, the residence known as Orford House, in the parish of Oakley, in the county of Essex, and lands and hereditaments " (in certain parishes) " in the same county," to her sister for life, with remainder over, and she then disposed of her residue. In addition to the real estate sijecilically uamed by the testa- trix as passing to her under the father's codicil, there was, in fact, a freehold in London, to which she was also thus entitled. There was no evidence whether she knew that it formed part of the property passing under the codicil : — Beld, that the specification by name and locality introduced by the word " namely " was not merely an imperfect enumeration of the properties intended to be devised, but formed the leading description, and conse- quently that the freehold in London did not pass by the specific devise, but fell into residue. West V. lairdai/, (1865) 11 H. L. C. 375, considered. /)( re Brocket. Dawes u. SIiller Joyce J. [1907] Vf. N. 237 ; [1908] 1 Ch. 185 — House and bequest of chattels free of all duties, Specific device of — Added pe- cuniary legacy — Legacy duty. /SayaMe out of particuhir fund — ZialAlity of leqalee of pmiicular rexidne — Fiuiiiice Act, ls'94 (57 ,?■ .OS Vict. c. 30), s. 5— Finance Act, 18!I6 (59 .5- 60 Met. c. 28), •■.■. 19. A testator, who died in 1895, by his will bequeathed " all his moneys invested in or upon any stocks or funds, whether in or out of the United Kingdom, and all his ry. stocks, shares, debentures, and bonds, and generally all and every his securities for money," to trustees upon trust to pay Uie dividends, interest, and annual pioduce of sucli stocks, funds, shares, and securities as follows, namely, lOODl. annually to his sistiT B. during her life, .500/. annually to each of his two brothers C. and P. during their respective lives, and the residue and remainder thereof to his brother \\^ during his life. After the death of E. the trustees were to hold the trust fund, as to 21,000Z. upon certain trusts in favour of C. and his children, and as to 18,000Z. upon certain trusts in favour of P. and his ehililren, and were to stand possessed of the residue upon certain trusts for W. for life, with WILL (Xestamcntary Expenses) — coniinved. remainders over. The testator bequeathed all the residue of his personal estate of whatever kind to W., subject to the payment of the testa- tor's funeral and testamentary expenses and debts. The general personal estate being insuf- ficient, the question arose how the estate duty and the interest thereon, and the settlement estate duty and the interest thereon, were respectively to be borne as between the annui- tants of 1000^, 50tlZ., and 500Z. on the one hand, and W. on the other hand. In the administra- tion action, a summons was taken out by the trustees for the determination of this question. It was agreed that the duties must be paid out of capital, but as to the interest it was contended on the part of VV. (who was the pit. in the action) that the principle of In re Parker-Jerris, [1898] 2 Ch. 643, was applicable as to both duties, and that the amount ought to bo borne by E., C, P., and W. rateably according to the capitalized values of their respective interests. On behalf of E., C, and P. It was contended that, as W. was in the position of a legatee of the residue of the trust fund, any loss or gain by diminution or increase of the fund must be borne by or accrue to him, in conformity with the cases decided as to particular (as distinguished fi'om general) residues cited in Theobald on Wills, 2nd ed. 232. Kekewich .J. referred to Cltanipneij v. Daey^ (1879) 11 Ch. D. 949, to the FinanccAet, 1894, s. 5, and to Berry v. GnnJiroger, [1903] 2 Ch. 116, and held that both as to the estate duty and the settlement estate duty the loss occa- sioned by the inefficiency of the general residuary estate must fall on W., as residuary legatee of the trust fund specially beciueathcd. De Qoette- VILLE V. De Quetteville Kekewich J. [1906] W. N. 85 The C. A. dismissed the appeal. They said that no question under the Finance Acts was involved in the ease, but that it turned solely on the construction of the will. The interest given to W. was a true residue after payment of the annuities in full, not a specific share of the par- ticular fund ; and the burden of paying both the estate duty and the settlement duty must fall upon him. De Quetteville /•. De Quetteville - C. A. [1905] W. N. 130 15. — Estate dvty — Will exercixiny 2>ow^r of appointment — Appointed fund — Itesiduc — Asset x — Order of aduiiuixtrittion — Inxnflfcieuey of general 'personalty — Residuary hn/vest — Triist affecting conscience oflryatee axto part — General or specif c. A testatrix by her will gave her residuary estate to A., who was also an executor of the will, and by a subsequent memorandum, acknow- ledged by A. to be a valid trust, directed that a portion of the residue should be held in trust for certain other persons. Apart from the portion bound by the memorandum, the residuaiy per- sonalty was insufficient for payment of the debts of the testatrix : — Held, that, although the trust was specific, it was not a specific bequest, Inasmuch as the title of the cestuis que trust was dehors the will : Held, therefore, that the debts were payable ( 2995 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 2996 ) WILL (Testamentary Expenses) — cmit'miird. rateably out of the portion affected by the memorandum and the portion not so affected. The testatrix, having a geneial testamentary power of appointment over a fund, appointed the fund by her will : — Held, following In re Treasure, [1900] 2 Ch. 648, and dissenting from In re Moore, [1901] 1 Ch. 691, that the estate duty in respect of the fund was payable out of the fund itself, In re Maddock. Lleweltst v. Washington Kekewich J. [1901] W. N.118; [1901]2Ch.372 ; C. A. [1902] W. N. 102 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 220 Note. Followed by Byi-ne J., J« re Power, {1901] 2 Ch. 659. See No. 7, alove. 16. — Estate duty payaMe in respect of real estate — " Testametitarij e.vpen.se.eriod of distribution — Construction of will. Testator gave a share of his residuary estate to each of his two daughters for their respective lives, and after their deaths their respective shares " to be equally divided between their respective chililreu or legal representatives " : — Held, that " representatives " meant the re- presentatives of the tenants for life and not those of the chililren ; that the addition to the gift to the childi-on of the words " or legal representa- tives " did not operate as a divesting clause, but constituted an alternative gift to arise only in the event of there being no child that took a vested interest ; and consequently that all children of the daughters who survived the testator, or were born after his death, took vested interests not- withstanding that they might not have survived ( 3001 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 3002 ) WILL (Vesting) — coiiti n iicd. their respective mothers. Li re Roberts. Pbrcival i: Roberts - Joyce J. [1903] 2 Ch. 200 2. — Gift to soil at thirty-five — Discretionary triixt for maintenance oitt of income — Vesting — ]Vill — Construction. A testator gave all his residuary estate to trustees upon trust as to one-third part thereof to pay the income, or such part thereof as his trustees should thinli fit, to his son W. for his advancement, preferment, or benefit by eijual weekly instalments until he should attain thirty- five, and then to pay him the corpus : — Held, that the son took a vested interest at the testator's death and ^vas entitled to immediate payment. The rule laid down by Jessel M.R. iainrc Pe7:wnal effects'' — Cift of — Hff'ect as reyardx fixtures and trade furniture — Construction of xiyill. Testator was an innkeeper carrying on busi- ness at, and the yearly tenant of, the Koebuck Hotel, where there were furniture and effects, some part of which was used by him personally and the rest for the purposes of the hotel busi- ness ; also trade and tenant's fixtures. By his will he bequeathed " aU furniture and other personal effects belonging to me, and which at the date of my death are at the Koebuck Hotel," to W., and he gave the residue of his personal estate to other persons : — Held, that W. was entitled to the furniture, linen, plate, glass, china, and other effects at the hotel, whether used for domestic purposes or for the purposes of the hotel business ; but not to the trade or tenant's fixtures. In re Seton- Smith. Buenand r. Waite Buckley J. [1902] W. N. 68 ; [1902] 1 Ch. 717 7. — Oift "to be equally dioidcd hetiucen the children of A. and H." — Will — Construction. Testatrix directed one moiety of the proceeds of sale of her real estate " to be equally divided between the children of P. W. and J. W. or their heirs." F. W. and J. W. were nciihows of the testatrix. F. W. had six children living at the death of the testatrix. I'or five years previous to the date of the will he had not lived with his family. J. W. had two children living at the death of the testatrix : — Held, that the gift was to J. W, and the children of F. W., and that the division must be into moieties, one going to J. W. and the other to the children of F. W. In re WalbeAN. MiLNEE V. WALBEAN Joycc J. [1905] W. N. 165 ; [1906] 1 Ch. 64 ( 3005 ) DIGEST OP CASES, 1901—1910. ( 3006 WILL (Vforis^—co/ituiUi;!. — '■ Give, devise, bequeatli, and appoint " — Power of appointment^Xo reference to. &e PoAVEE OP Appointment. 8. — '• Houselwld furniture and effedi " — 2/otor cars — Will — Construction — Bequest. By liis will dated Dec. 4, 1907, the testator, who died on Dec. 15, 1907, appointed thedefts. executors and trustees, and gave " my house Thornleigh and its appurtenances and surround- ing laud and all my household furniture and effects in Thornleigh (just as it now [stands)" to the pit., to whom he also gave an annuity of h'lul. a year during her life ; he gave the residue of his estate to one of the deft, executors. The testator had in use before and at the iinie of his death three motor ears kept in a motor house built by him in the yard of Thornleigh. He had used the cars in the ordinary way as private carriages in connection with his oecupa- tiou of Thornleigh, and had been in the habit of taking the pit . out in them for drives and for the purposes of shopping and touring. The annual cost of the upkeep of the cars and the ehaufleur's wages had a\craged 1800^. Summons by the pit. for the determination of the question whether the motor cars passed to her under the gifts above-mentioned. Eve J. said that it was a question of intention and that he had i o determine whether the words " my household furniture and efEects in Thorn- leigh (just as it now stands)" were sufficiently wide — qualified as they were by the word "household" — to include the motor ears in question. He thought that it was clear on the will that the testator wanted the pit. to have the house just as they were living in it at that time, and having regard to the evidence, he could not say that the motor cars did not form a very important part of the house as they were living in it down to and at the time of the testator's death. He was bound to hold on the authorities that " household effects " would include carriages and horses, n,m 1 as a matter of construction of this will and following the authorities on the word " household efEects " he had no doubt that the testator meant the motor ears to pass to the pit., and he must so determine. In re HowE. Fekniehough v. Wilkinson. (Liverpool District Registry.) Eve J. [1908] W. N. 223 — " Issue.'' See Will— Shelley's Case. 1. 9. — ^^ Money" — '^The rrst of my money"— Other property — Jlnidiie — C'onstruction of lo'ill. Tlie meaning to be attached to tlie word " money " in construing a testamentary document is not absoluLe and technical, but must depend upon the context and surrounding circumstance. A\'here a testator, by his will, left a specific legacy to his brother, and gave " the rest of my money" among six other persons, whom he named : — Held, that the latter bequest covered all the residue of his estate. IN the goods of BbAm- LiiY - Jeune, Pres. [1902] P. 106 — " Honey invented in.' &'(;WiLL — " Money Invested in." 1. • ■WILL (yt axis)— continued . — "Nephew," See Will— Class. 11. — "Niece.'' See AViLL— Class. 11. — " Other." See Will — Survivor. 2. — "entitled to the I'u.ssession or fieceipt of the rents." See Will— Absolute Gift. 7. — " in the Presence (jt witnesses." (See Will — Execution. 1. — " Kcsiduary devise." See Will — Residue. .3. — "fall into Residue." See AV'ill — Eesiduo. 2. ■ " Residue and remainder." See Will — Residue. Y. — " Sucurities." See Vbsdob and Purchaser — Title Will — Investments. iJ. — "Share." See Will— Class. 3. — "Sufficient." See Will— Absolute Gift. 6. — " Sm'viving." See Will — Survivor. 2, 1. — " Survivor." See "Will— Survivor. 3. — " Survivor's heir or heirs." See Will— Estate Tail. — " Testamentary expenses." See under Will —Testamentary Ex- penses. — " Think fit " — Charitable legacy. See CllAKlTY. 18. — "What is left." See Will— Intestacy. 2. 10. — " ^\'idolO " — Adiiiuiislrnlion. — Lifeinte- rest to wife " if she shall so lony continue mij widow " — Bii/amons marriaye — Secondary mean- iny of "widoic " — ^Vill — Construction, A testator gave all his furniture, household goods and effects to his "dear wife D. J. Wagstaffi " ; and after various pecuniary legacies devised and bctiueathed the residue of his real and personal estate to his " said wife " and two other persons upon trust for sale and to invest and pay the interest and annual produce thereof to " my said wife during her life if she shall so long continue my widow," and after her decease or second marriage, upon trust, in the events which Ijappened, for the ]ilt. Tlic lady whom the testator thus deseriljcd as his "wife," and with wliom he went through the ceremony of raarria:.;e in 1893, was at that time the wife of A. G. .Jalland, to whnm she had been married in 1884, and who was still living : — Held, on the evidence, that the testator knew at the time he went through the ceremony of marriage that the lady was then the wife of A. G. Jalland, and, consequently, that upon the true construction of this will she was entitled to ( 3007 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901— :910. ( 8008 ) ^'^nx (Words)— . Newbold C. A. [1905] 1 Ch. 260 BOKNARD V. DOTT Kekewich J. [1905] W. N. 84 Samuel v. Newbold H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 461 — " Having had." In. re CoBBOLD C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 299 — "Heat." The "Peaelmooh" Gorell Barnes J. [1904] F. 286 'WOUHS— continued. — " Height." Att.-Gen. v. Mbtcalf k Geeig C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 327 — " Heir." Owen c. Gibbons C. A. [1902] 1 Ch. 636 J«reWAUGH ParwellJ. [1903] 1 Ch.744 — "Heirs or assigns." In re Mastbeson C. A. [1902] W. N. 192 In re GRANGE C. A. [1907] 2 Ch. 20 — " Held covered." Gebbnock Steamship Co. v. Mari- time Insurance Co. C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 667 — " Hereditament." Ystradtfodwg and Pontypridd Main Sewerage Board «. Bensted H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 264 In re GOSSELIN Farwell J. [1906] 1 Ch. 120 — " Holding " office. Rex ». Beer Div. Ct. [1903] 2 K. B. 693 — " Home trustees." Inre Claek Farwell J. [1904] 1 Ch. 29 — " Hospital." Oemskiek Union v. Choelton Union C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 498 — " House." Wbathbeitt v. Cantlay Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 286 Lewin v. End H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 299 — " House porter." Maechant v. London County Council Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 379 — " Household furniture and effects." In re HowE Eve J. [1908] W. N. 223 — "I specially Desire." In, re Conolly Joyce J. [1910] 1 Ch. 210 — " Illusory " contract. In, re INITES & Co. 0. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 264 — " Impediment or notable crime." Kensit v. St. Paul's (Dean and Chapter) Div. Ct. [1806] 2 K. B. 249 — " Impositions and outgoings." FOULGEE V. ARDINO C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 700 Goldstein r. Hollingsworth Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 678 In re Waerinee Swinfen Eady J. [1903] 2 Ch. 367 Morris v. Bbal Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 686 — " Inaccessible." S.S. " KNUTsrOED," Ld. v. Tillmaitns & Co - H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 406 — " In Addition to previous gift." In re Segelckb Joyce J. [1006] 2 Oh. 801 ( 3023 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 3024 ) "WORLDS— continued. — " Inadvertence." In re Sapbtt Explosives, Ld. C. A. [1904 J 1 Ch. 326 — " Inclosing." In re Eael OF Duneaven's Settled Estates - - Kfikewich J. [1907] 2 Cb. 417 — "Income." Att.-Gen. op British Columbia v. OsTEUM - P. C. [1904] A. C. 144 — " Incorporated Accountant." Society op AoconNTANTS akd Audi- toes V. GOODWAT AND LONDON ASSO- CIATION OP ACCOUNTANTS, LD. Warrington J. [1901] 1 Ch. 489 — " Inhabitant." . Lewis v. End H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 299 — " Inhabitant occupier." Kent v. Fittall C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 60 — " Inhabitant occupier." Douqlas v. Smith C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 668 — " Injury by accident." Bbintons, Ld. r. Tubvbt H. 1. (E.) [1905] A. C. 280 — " Intended" execution of public duty. The " Johannesbueo " Oorell Barnes Pres. [1907] P. 66 — " Interest." Bond v. Baeeow Hematite Steel Co. - FarweU J. [1902] 1 Ch. 368 In re Maundee C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 451 — " excessive Interest." In re A DEB TOE C. A. [1903] 1 E. B. 705 — " Interested." GoPHiE Diamond Co. v. Wood Swinfen Eady J. [1902] 1 Ch. 960 — " party Interested." In re Jones and Everett Buckley J. [1904] 2 Ch. 363 Makdoep i\ Accident Insurance Co. Wright J. [1903] 1 K. B. 684 — " Intestate." In re Cuppb Joyce J. [1908] 2 Ch. 800 — " Into and out of." The "Ole Bull" eorell Barnes J. [1905] P. 52 — " Issue." Att.-Gen. v. Livbepool COepobation Phillimore J. [1902] 1 K. B.411 Pelham Clinton v. Duke op New- castle - H. L. (E.) [1903] A. C. Ill In re Woollet Joyce J. [1903] 2 Ch. 206 — '• Judge." Law v. Llewellyn C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 487 — " Just and equitable." In re Alfeed Nelson & Co. Bnokley J. [1906] 1 Ch. 841 'VQS.'Di— continued,. In re Crigglbstone Coal Co. C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 327 In re Bulawayo Maeket and Opfices Co. Warrington J. [1907] 2 Ch. 458 " Keeping possession." Scott v. Denton J ■•■ Div. Ct. [1907 K. B. 456 " King's ship." Symons fl. Bakee Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 723 " Knowingly issuing." Become v. Speak H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 342 Watts v. Bucknall C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 766 Tait v. MacLbay C. A. [1904] 2 Ch. 631 HooLB V. Speak Kekewich J. [1904] 2 Ch. 732 " Land." In re Clutteebuck Byrne J. [1901] 2 Ch. 285 In re Wilkinson Eekewioh J. [1902] 1 Ch. 341 In re Rtland Byrne J. [1903] 1 Ch. 467 Brooks v. Muckleston Joyce J. [1909] 2 Ch. 619 ElNOH V. Bannistbe C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 441 " interest in Land." Taylor i: London and County Banking Co. - C.A. [1901] 2Ch.231 " Landlord." Cox d. Haepbb C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 480 " Last and only will." Simpson •». Foxon eorell Bfirnes Pres. [1907] P. 64 ■ " Lawfully assume." In re Ceoxon Kekewioh J. [1904] 1 Ch. 262 ■ " all my Leasehold estate." In re Guyton and Eosenbero's Contract Cozens-Hardy J. [1901] 2 Ch. 691 ■ " die without Leaving children." In re Cobbold C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 299 ■ " Leaving" issue. Barkwoeth v. Babkwoeth Joyce J. [1906] W. N. 171 ■ " what is Left." In re Willatts rarwell J. [1906] 1 Ch. 378 ■ " Legal representatives." In re Eobebts Joyce J. [1903] 2 Ch. 200 ■ " Let." Jones v. Lavington a. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 258 Maekelam v. Paget Swinfen Eady J. [1908] 1 Ch. 607 ( 3025 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 3026 ) VfOILBS—Cffiit'mueif. — "Lodger." Kent v. Fittall C. A. [1906] 1 E. B. 60 Douglas v. Smith C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 868 — "Loss of ship.'' SiVEWEIGHT «. ALLBK Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 81 — " Lying therein.'' MCDOUGALL & BONTHEON, Ld. v. London and India Docks Co. C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 176 — " Maintain.'' Att.-Gen. I'. West Riding op Toek- SHIEB COUNTT COUNCIL H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 29 MoEEis V. Caenaevon County Council. Div. Ct. [1910] 1 K. B. 159 — " Male servant." HOEAN V. Hathoe Div. Ct. [1904] 1 K. B. 288 — "Managed " in the way of trade. Challonbe v. Robinson C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 49 — " principal Mansion house." GiLBEY r. Rusk Kekewicli J. [1906] 1 Ch. 11 — " during the Marriage." Davenpoet v. Marshall Buckley J. [1902] 1 Ch. 82 — " die without having been Married." In re Beydonb's Settlement C. A. [1903] a Ch. 8 — ■ " Marketable security." Mount Ltbll Mining and Kt. Co. i;. Inland Revenue Commes. C. A. [1906] 1 K. B. 161 Speyee Beothbbs 0. Inland Revenue Commes. H. L. (E.) [1908] A. C. 92 — " Material " contract. Become v. Speak C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 586 — " Material facts." HUNTEE V. HUNTEE Gorell Barnes Pres. [1905] P. 217 — " Medical assistance.'' KlEKHOUSB r. BLAKEWAY Div. Ct. [1902] 1 K. B. 306 — " Member." Gwendolen Feeehold Land So- ciety D. Wicks Div. Ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 622 — " Mercantile agent." Oppenheimee v. Attenboeouoh & Son C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 510 Oppenheimee v. Feazee & Wyatt Channell J. [1907] 1 K. B. 510 — "in actual Military service." In the Goods of Hiscock Jeune Pres. [1901] P. 78 — " Mine." Thokpe ■». Davies Sutton J. [1908] 2 K. B. 760 \fO'B.'D&— continued. — " Mineral." Geeat Western Rt. Co. r. Blades Buckley J. [1901] 2 Ch. 634 Geeat Western Ry. Co. v. Carpalla United China Clay Co. H. L. (E.) [1910] A. C. 83 North British Ry. Co. ». Bddhill Coal and Sandstone Co. H. I. (Sc.) [1910] A. C. 116 — " Misbehaviour." Mile End Guardians «. Sims Div. Ct. [1905] 2K. B. 200 — " serious and wilful Mi.=conduct." Johnson «. Maeshall, Sons & Co. H. L. (E.) [1906] A.C. 409 — " Moderate speed." The " Campania" C. A. [1901] P. 289 Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Wateefoed Steamship Co. H. 1. (E.) [1903] W. N. 66 — " ready Money." In re Wheelee Warrington J. [1904] W. N. 100 — " the rest of my Money." In the Goods of Beamlbt Jeune Pres. [1902] P. 106 — " Money invested in." In re Slatbe C. A. [1907] 1 Ch. 66S — " Monies owing to me at the time of my decease." In re Dbebyshiee Buckley J. [1906] 1 K. B. 136 — " Month." Beunbe r. MOOEE Farvirell J. [1904] 1 Ch. 306 — " Mooring." LiVEEPOOL and NOETH WALES Steamship Co. v. M eesby Teadino Co. C. A. [1909] 1 Ch. 209 — " once a Mortgage always a mortgage." Noakes & Co. I'. Rice H. L. (E.) [1902] A, C. 24 — " Motrioino." In re COMPAGNIE Industeiblle Des Peteolbs' Application Warrington J. [1907] 2 Ch. 436 — " Mutual dealings." In re Gbdnby Warrington J. [1908] 1 Ch. 804 — " Name " of seller. Edwaedsd.PharmaceUtical Society of Great Britain Div. Ct. [1910] 2 K. B. 766 See Phaemacy Acts. — " Names." In re BuRNAND C. A. [ 1904] 2 K. B. 68 — " Narrow channel." ScEBW Colliery Co. «. Wibster or Kerb H. L. (Sc.) [1910] A. C. 166 — " Navigable river.'' Stevens «. General Steam Naviga- tion Co. C. a. [1903] 1 K. B. 890 ( 3027 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 3028 ) WORDS— cu?M!t/med. — " Navigated." GrARDNER, LOCKKT AND HiNTON, LD. V. Doe Div. Ct. [1906] 2 K. B. 171 — • " Necessary or proper party." The " Due d'Aumale " C. A. [1903] P. 183 — " Nephew." In re COZENS Swinfen Eady J. [1903] 1 Ch. 138 — " Nephews and nieces." In re Corsellis Swinfen Eady J. [1906] 2 Ch. 316 , " j^et " rate. Stubbs v. Slater. C. A. [1910] 1 Ch. 632 — " New building." Hanrahan v. Leigh-on-Sea Urban Council - C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 257 — " Next of kin." In re Fergusson's Will Byrne J. [1902] 1 Ch. 483 — " Niece." In re Cozens Swinfen Eady J. [1903] 1 Ch. 138 — " Nominal plaintiff." White v. Butt C. A. [1909] 1 K. B. 50 — '■ Not under command." The " Hawthornbank " Gorell Barnes J. [1904] P. 120 The " Bellanoch " H. I. (E.) [1907] A. C. 269 — " Notice." In re MILLER 0. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 61 — " Occupation." ystradtpodwg and pontypridd Main Sewerage Board v. Bensted H. L. (E.) [1907] A. C. 264 — " Occupier." Douglas v. Smith C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 568 Rex v. Somers Div. Ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 326 Lbwin !■. End H. L. (E.) [1906] A. C. 299 — " Ofi." Ill re Datrell Joyce J. [1904] 2 Ch. 496 — " Offensive trade or business." NnssBT c. Provincial Billposting Co. and Eddison C. A. [1909J 1 Ch. 734 — " Office." In re Carpenter and Bristol Corporation C. A. [1907] 2 K. B. 617 — " Officer." Williams v. Machaeg P. C. [1910] A. C. 476 — " Officer " of company. In re Tomkins & Co. C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 476 — " Omnibus." Yorkshire (Woollen District) Electric Tramways, I^d. ■». Ellis Div. Ct. [1905] 1 K. B, 396 — " On" licence, ^,„ Rex c. Shann C. A. [1910] 2 K. B, 418 WOEDS— 00Mii«Me7iiwmerf. — " Precinots." Mdsbblbtjhgh Real Estate Co. v. Provost, &c., op Musselburgh H. L. (Sc.) [1905] A. C. 491 — " without Prejudice.'' Oliver v. Nautilus Steam Shippino Co. - C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 639 — '' Premises.'' Metropolitan Water Board v. Paynb - Div. Ct. [1907] 1 K. B. 285 — " Principal mansion-house." In re Wythbs' Settled Estates Eve J. [1908] 1 Gh. 593 — " Privileged debt." The "Tagus" PhUlimore J. [1903] P. 44 — " no reasonable Probability of complying with terms." In re John Kobeets k Co. C. A. [1904] 2 K. B. 299 — " Proceeding.'' Oliver v. Nautilus Steam Shipping Co. - - C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 639 Page v. Burtwell C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 768 The " Gladys " Bigham Pres. [1910] P. 13 — " Proceeding instituted." Criokett r. Crickbtt C. A. [1902] P. 177 Gordon v. Gordon C. A. [1904] P. 163 — " Prodigal." In re Selot's Trust Farwell J. [1902] 1 Ch. 488 — " Professional misconduct." Clifford «. Timms H. 1. (E.) [1908] A. C. 12 — " Profit." Bond k. Barrow H.aEMATiTB Steel Co. - FarweU J. [1902] 1 Ch. 353 — " Projection." London County Council ». Schewzik Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 695 — " Promissory note." Speyer Brothers v. Inland Revenue COMMRS. - C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 246 — " Property.'' Bex v. Humphris C. C. B. [1904] 2 K. B. 89 — " Prospectus." EOUSSELL V. BURNHAM Parker J. [1909] 1 Ch. 127 — " Purchase-moneys." In re Bentley's Yorkshire Brew- eries, Ld. Warrington J. [1909] 2 Ch. 609 — " Purchaser." In re POPE - C. A. [1008] 2 K. B. 169 — " Purchasers for value." In re PARRY Wright J. [1904] 1 K. B. 129 WOEDS— eoraH»M«. Motor Traction Co. Buckley J. [1905] 1 Ch. 419 — " Sheet of letterpress." Davis v. Benjamin Swinfen Eady J. [1908] 2 Ch. 491 — " Sledge, drag, or such like carriage." Smith r. Kynnbrslby C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 788 ( 3035 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 3036 ) WORDS— eo-«ifotte^. — " Son." In re Kiddle Kekewioh J. [1905] W. N. 81 — " Special oircumstauces." In the Goods op Chapmajt Jeun* Pres. [1903] P. 192 In re HiEST & CAPES C. A. [1908] 1 S. B. 982 In re TwEBDiB, Solicitors Eve J. [1909] W. H. 110 The " PiTGAVENBT " Samuel Evans Pres. [1910] P. 215 — " Special reasons." In re Solomons C. A. [1904] 1 K .B. 106 — " Specialist." Att.-Gbn. v. Churchill's Vbteei- NABT SANATOEIUM, LD. Neville J. [1910] 2 Ch. 401 — " moderate Speed." Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. u. Wateepoed Steamship Co. H. L. (E.) [1910] W. N. 66 — " Stanch." Att.-Gen. v. Simpson H. L. (E.) [1904] A. C. 476 — " as fast as the Steamer can deliver." Hulthen v. Stewaet & Co. H. L. (E.) [1903] A. 0. 389 — " as fast as the Steamer can deliver or the goods will belauded." The"Aene" - Div. Ct. [1904] P. 164 • — " Stock or shares of a company." Sellae v. Chaelbs Beight & Co. C. A. [1904] 2 E. B. 446 — " Stop-day." Glamobgan Coal Co. ■». ■ South Wales Minbes' Fbdeeation C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 546 — " new Street." Dbvonpoet Coepoeation v. Tozee C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 759 — " Structure." London County Council v. schewzik Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 695 London County Council ■». Hancock & James Div. Ct. [1907] 2 K. B. 46 — " Submission." Austeian Lloyd Steamship Co. v. Geesham Lipe Assueancb Society, Ld. - C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 249 • — " Sub-purchaser." Beookes v. Hansen Joyce J. [1906] 2 Ch. 129 — - " Subscribing." GODLONTON «. B'ULHAM AND HAMP- stead Pbopeety Co. Div. ct. [1906] 1 K. B. 431 — " Substituted expense." The "Minnbtonka" C. A. [1906] P. 206 WORDS— con«B«.e. Globsop Neville J. [1907] 2 Ch. 370 — " the then Value." London, Deptford and Greenwich Tramways Co. v. London County Council Bray J. [1906] 1 K. B. 316 — "Vend." Badische Anilin und Soda Fabeik ■ v. HiCKSON H. I. (E.) [1906] A. C. 419 — " Vessel." In re Maegetts and Ocean Accident AND GUAEANTEE CORPORATION, LD. Div. ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 792 The "Ceaighall" C. A. [1910] P. 207 ( 3039 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 3040 ) WOUJia—eontinued. — " ViU." CowES Ueban Council v. South- ampton, Isle of Wight, and South OF England Eoyal Mail Steam Packet Co. Kennedy J. [1906] 2 K. B. 287 — " Visitors." Thoenton v. Little Kekewich J. [1907] W. N. 68 — " Voyage policy." G-EEBNOCK Steamship Co. r. Mabi- TIME INSUEANCB Co. C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 657 — " Wages." The " Elmville " N(j. 2 Jeune Pres. [1904] P. 433 — " Wages or salary." In re Barle's Shipbuilding and Engineeeing Co. Joyce J. [1901] W. N. 78 — " Waiver clause." Watts v. Bucknall C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 766 — "Warehouse." GEBEN v. BEITTEN & GiLSON C. A. [1904] 1 K. B, 350 — "Weirs." Hanbuey 1}. Jenkins Buckley J. [1901] 2 Ch. 401 — "Wharf." See Master and Servant — Componsa- tion. 91, 102, 103. — "What is left." In re Willatts Farwell J. [1905] 1 Ch. 878 — " When." VILLAR v. GILBET Swinfen Eady J. [1905] 2 Oh. 296 — " Widow." In re Wagstapp C. A. [1908] 1 Ch. 162 — " Width of streets." Nisbet v. Hamilton H. L. (So.) [1907] A. C. 168 Caledonian Rt. Co. v. Glasgow coepoeation H. I. (Sc.) [1907] A. C. 160 — " Wife." Anderson «. Berkley Joyce J. [1902] 1 Ch. 936 In re Geifpiths' Policy Joyce J. [1903] 1 Ch. 739 In re Coley C. A. [1903] 2 Ch. 102 — " Wife and children." In re Beowne's Policy Kekewioh J. [1903] 1 Ch. 188 — " Wilful default." Bennett v. Stone C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 509 In re Weightson Warrington J. [1908] 1 Ch. 789 — " Wilful disobedience." Stancomb ®. Teowbeidgb Ueban Council _ _, ,„„ Warrington J. [1910] 2 Ch. 190 D.D. WORDS — contmued. — " without a Will and childless." In re Dixon Swinfen Eady J. [1903] 2 Ch. 468 — " Windows overlooking." Easton v. Isted C. A. [1903] 1 Ch. 406 — "I Wish." In re BuHLBY Joyce J. [1910] 1 Ch. 216 — "Without leaving any children." In re Edwards C. A. [1906] 1 Ch. 670 — " Without prejudice." Olivbe v. Nautilus Steam Shipping Co. - C. A. [1903] 2 K. B. 639 In re Weston and Thomas's Contract Swinfen Eady J. [1907] 1 Ch. 244 — " Workman." FiTZPATRiCK ■!). Evans cS: Co. C. A. [1902] 1 K. B. 505 Vamplew 1. Paekgate Iron and Steel Co. C. A. [1903] 1 K. B. 861 Simpson v. Ebbw Yale Steel, Ikon AND Coal Co. C. A. [1905] 1 K. B. 453 Squire v. Midland T/Ace Co. Div. Ct. [1905] 2 K. B. 448 Baonell v. Levinstein, Ld. C. A. [1907] 1 K. B. 631 DOTHIB V. MACANDREW & CO. C. A. [1908] 1 K. B. 803 Hill -v. Begg C. A. [1908] 2 K. B. 802 Marks v. Carne C. A. [1909] 2 K. B. 616 Coebett t. Peaeoe Div. ct. [1904] 2 K. B. 422 Walkee v. Crystal Palace Foot- ball Club, Ld. C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 87 Simmons v. Heath Laundry Co. C. A. [1910] 1 K. B. 643 Doggett v. Waterloo Taxi-Cab Co. C. A. [1910] 2 K. B. 336 — " Works." Att.-Gbn. v. Bournemouth Corpora- tion C. A. [1902] 2 Ch. 714 — " Workshop." Fullers, Ld. v. Squires Div. Ct. [1901] 2 K. B. 209 -r- " Year's wages." In re Eavensworth C. A. [1906] 2 Ch. 1 WORDS or INHERITANCE— Absence of. See Power op Appointment. 6. WORKHODSE. See under Poor Law. WORKING CIASSES— Housing of the. See under Housing op Working Classes. 6 B ( 3041 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1901—1910. ( 3042 ) WORKING CL&.BS^S— continued. — Dwellings for the — House duty — Exemption. See Eevbnue — House Duty. 8. WORKING CLASS DWELLINGS — " Charit- able uses "—Mortmain — Direction to purchase land and build dwelling- houses for the poor. See Chakitt. 34. — Housing of the working classes. See under Housing of Working Classes. — Housing of the working classes — Capital moneys. See Settled Land— Capital Moneys. 11- WORKMAN— Employer and. See under Master and Servant. — Conspiracy — Action, Cause of — Trade dispute . — Intent to injure. See Action. 1. WOILKJUATX— continued. — " Trade union." See under Trade Union. WORKSHOPS. See under FACTORIES AND Work- shops. — Factory and. See under MASTER AND Servant — Factory Acts. WRECK — Collision — ^Wreok raised by Thames Conservancy — ^Arrest by marshal — Damage lien-^Expenses of raising. See Shipping— Collision. 91. — Shipping. See under Shipping— Wreck. WRIT. See under Practice — Writ. WRIT OF EXTENT. See under Kevenhe — Writ of Extent. ( 3043 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 3044 ) "YEAR" — Compulsory powers — "Thiee years from the passing of this Act." See Lands Clauses' Acts. 26. YEOMANRY. See under Army and Navy. YEOMANRY, VOLUNTEERS, AND MILITIA— "Will — Construction. See Will — Territorial and Reserve I Torces. 1. YORE — Church discipline — Jurisdiction — Criminal suit by letters of request — Chancery Court of York — Objection to style of judge not sustained. See Ecclesiastical IiAW — Discipline. 4. YORK-ANTWERP RULES, 1890, r. 3. See Shipping— Average. 1. YORKSHIRE RE&ISTRIES ACT, 1884— Equit- able mortgages — Subsequent execution by mortgagor of deed of assignment — Registration — Priorities. See MOKTGAO-E— Priority. 3. YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS. See under Gbiminal Law— Youthful Offenders. ( 3045 ) DIGEST OF OASES, 1901—1910. ( 3046 ) z. ZANZIBAB — Lands f alien for jmblic ^'urjmses — Zanzibar Order in Council, 1884 — Indian Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s. 6 — Compensation — Inci- dents of land governed by the local law — Mahomedan law of compensation — Buildings erected by Government on the plaintiffs'' land withovt authority. The lands of the pita, in the island of Mombasa, part of the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar, were taken for a ry. by the British Government under s. 6 of the Indian Land Acquisition Act, 1893, which had been brought into force in Zanzibar by Order in Council. In a suit for compensation for the value of the lands so taken, and also of the buildings previously erected thereon by the said Govern- ment without authority : — Held, (1.) As regards the lands, the pits, are entitled under the said Act to the market value thereof at the date of service of notice, under B. 6, including such actual speculative advance I ZANZIBAR— coKiiKKfrf. therein as had already taken place in conse- quence of the ry. scheme ; but excluding any future speculative advance from the like cause. (2.) As regards the buildings, English law applied under the Order in Council of 1884 and the subsequent treaty of 1886. By that law, notwithstanding treaty rights of exterritoriality, the lex loci rei sitae governs the incidents of land, that is in this case Mahomedan law, of which law a Zanzibar judge has judicial cogni- zance. (3.) By Mahomedan law the houses did not become the pits.' property. The pits, are entitled to have them removed, and the value to them of the right to have them removed from lands which have ceased to be their property is the measure of the compensation due. Seokb- TAET OP State foe Fobbion Affairs v. Chakleswoeth, Filling- & Co. P. C. [1901] A. C. 373 BRADBURY AQHEW A CO, LS., PRINTEBS, LOmOH AKD TOHBRIDOi:.